All Muslims Are Not Terrorists, But All Terrorists Are Muslims

[Robert]

Originally Posted by Baller1

Robert, you still don't get it. You hold a minority of hostile, dumb and aggressive muslims accountable for every action in relations to war. Just in case you stupid redneck might have forgotten this, the USA invaded a souvereign country in 2003, without ANY reasonable proof. And muslims here are a minority, according to your own account. I can see your point to some extend, but you are stereotyping, and thats definitely NOT the right way to approach the issue. I thing you are a very good US citizen, but sometimes to get your point accross you go a bit overboard. Is it really the whole country of Afghanistan who is against the US? No its not, its the Taliban and its supporters, which were partially funded by Bush Sr. Have I ever heard you complaining about it? No of course no since you are a bit narrow minded. I would love to met you in person since you seem to be somewhat smart, I just can't stand narrow minded people with a certain mindset without any willingness to adjust. Send me a private message if you want to discuss, I am game for that:)

50 killed in Iraq suicide bombing By SINAN SALAHEDDIN, Associated Press Writer


BAGHDAD - A suicide bomber struck the funeral of two anti-al-Qaida Sunni tribesmen in a town north of Baghdad on Thursday, killing at least 50 people, police said.



The blast was the latest attack in Iraq's Sunni areas after a period of relative calm that was broken this week, raising concerns that Sunni insurgents are reorganizing.

Over the past months, violence has dropped with the increase in U.S. troops and the growth of so-called Awakening Councils, groups of Sunni tribesmen who joined American forces in fighting al-Qaida-linked militants.

Thursday's attack took place in the town of Albu Mohammed, 90 miles north of Baghdad, during the funeral of two brothers who belonged to the local Awakening Council. The brothers were slain a day earlier, police said.

The suicide bomber walked into a tent crowded with mourners in the village and detonated explosives strapped to his body, police in the nearby city of Kirkuk said.

One witness, Sheik Omar al-Azawi, was just pulling up at the tent in his car when the blast went off.

"I first heard a thunderous explosion and when I turned my eyes to the tent I saw fire and smoke coming out," al-Azawi, 51, told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.

"Panicked people were jumping and running in all sides and then we started to evacuate those who were killed and wounded in our private cars until police and medical teams arrived," he said.

At least 50 people were killed and 20 in the blast, the police officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to talk to the media. The blast was the single deadliest attack since March 6, when a bombing in central Baghdad killed 68.

Thursday's attack came on the heels of a string of suicide attacks on Tuesday that killed 60 people in four major cities in central and northern Iraq.

The U.S. military has touted the relative calm in Sunni areas as a major success of the troop surge and the strategy of encouraging Awakening Councils and other Sunnis — some former insurgents — to turn against al-Qaida.

The new Sunni violence comes as fighting has increased between U.S.-Iraqi forces and Shiite militiamen, particularly members of anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.

On Wednesday, fresh clashes broke out in the Baghdad Mahdi Army stronghold of Sadr City between U.S.-backed Iraqi troops and Shiite militiamen, leaving two men dead and 18 people wounded, police said.

In the southern city of Basra, a U.S. drone killed four militants when it fired rockets at militiamen who attacked an Iraqi army patrol.

An offensive launched on March 25 by Iraqi forces against Shiite militants in Basra touched off an uprising by Shiite militias across southern Iraq and in Sadr City.

U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner said Wednesday that despite this week's violence, the overall situation in Iraq has markedly improved over the past year.

"We have said all along that there will be variants in which we will see al-Qaida and other groups seek to reassert themselves," Bergner said.

On Wednesday, the Iraqi government said it was replacing two senior military commanders overseeing operations in Basra, Iraq's second-largest city.

Officials insisted the two — security army commander Lt. Gen. Mohan al-Fireji and police chief Maj. Gen. Abdul-Jalil Khalaf — had not been fired but were being reassigned to positions in Baghdad after their assignments ended.

[32AATopIPEandDub]

Let me guess Robert, you believe that Iraqis are just hateful and ungrateful terrorists that can't appreciate America for wanting to give them "freedom" and "democracy", right? You know very damn well that the U.S. is there for oil. I think the same propaganda slogan "it's better to fight 'them' on foreign soil rather than in the streets of [fill your city]" was used for Vietnam as well.

U.S. Soldiers Kill Unarmed Iraqis and Afghanis

By Robert Parry, Consortium News. Posted February 15, 2008.

George Bush winks at indiscriminate killings, further tarring the reputation of the U.S. military.

By forcing repeat combat assignments to Iraq and Afghanistan -- and by winking at torture and indiscriminate killings -- George W. Bush is degrading the reputation of the U.S. military, turning enlisted soldiers and intelligence officers into murderers and sadists.

For instance, on Feb. 10 at Camp Liberty in Iraq, Army Ranger Sgt. Evan Vela was sentenced by a U.S. military court to 10 years in prison for executing an unarmed Iraqi detainee who -- along with his son -- had stumbled into a U.S. sniper position last year.

After letting the 17-year-old son go, Vela's squad leader, Staff Sgt. Michael Hensley ordered Vela to use a 9-millimeter pistol to shoot the father, Genei Nesir Khudair al-Janabi, in the head, an order that Vela carried out. "It was murder, plain and simple," military prosecutor, Major Charles Kuhfahl, told the court.

Janabi's son, Mustafa, was allowed to make a statement, explaining how his father's death had devastated the family and how one of his four younger brothers now avoids their home because he can't stand the sight of his father's empty room.

"Please don't forget about us," Mustafa told the court.

But Vela's guilty verdict was a rare case of holding a U.S. soldier accountable in the killing or abusing of an Iraqi. Among the infrequent cases that have been brought, most end in acquittals or convictions only on minor charges.

Last November, for example, another military jury acquitted Hensley in the same murder of Janabi as well as in the killing of two other Iraqi men south of Baghdad in the early days of Bush's troop "surge." That jury ruled that Hensley was following the approved "rules of engagement," though it did convict him of planting an AK-47 on one victim.

Some of Vela's military comrades complained that it was unfair to single any of them out for punishment because these killings are so common in Iraq.

Vela's former platoon commander, Sgt. First Class Steven Kipling, said that if all U.S. combat soldiers in Iraq were subjected to the same scrutiny applied to Vela, "we would have thousands" of cases. [NYT, Feb. 11, 2008]

Indeed, the evidence does suggest that the handful of homicide cases from Iraq and Afghanistan that reach military trial represent only a small fraction of the unprovoked killings of locals at the hands of U.S. soldiers.

Press Attention

The murder and abuse cases that do result in trials often stem from incidents that get news media attention, like the mass killing of two dozen Iraqis in Haditha on Nov. 19, 2005, which Time magazine exposed.

Even more memorable was the case of the sexual and physical abuse of Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison, mistreatment that was documented with photographs that reached the U.S. news media in 2004.

President Bush, who then was seeking reelection, joined in denouncing the low-ranking soldiers who had dressed Iraqi men up in women's underwear or made them pose naked on leashes or in fake sexual positions.

Bush said he "shared a deep disgust that those prisoners were treated the way they were treated." Other senior administration officials called the Abu Ghraib guards -- mostly poorly trained reservists -- a "few bad apples."

Amid the furor, some Abu Ghraib guards claimed they were simply following guidance from intelligence interrogators on techniques to "soften up" detainees. But the Bush administration stuck to its story that the guards were an out-of-control night shift.

Army Sgt. Sam Provance was the only uniformed military intelligence officer at Abu Ghraib to support the guards' claim that the prisoner abuse was part of the "alternative interrogation techniques" that had made their way from Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib.

Provance, however, was punished for his candor and pushed out of the U.S. military. The Bush administration went ahead with plans to pin the blame on the MPs. [See Consortiumnews.com's "The Ghosts of Abu Ghraib."]

Only after Election 2004 did evidence surface revealing that the sexual abuse of the Abu Ghraib prisoners did fit with the broader policy -- approved by President Bush and other senior administration officials -- to break down prisoners for interrogation.

For instance, alleged 9/11 plotter Mohammed al-Qahtani, who was sent to Guantanamo in 2002, was subjected to treatment similar to what later occurred at Abu Ghraib. Qahtani was forced to wear a bra, had a thong placed on his head, was paraded naked in front of women and was led around on a leash like a dog, military investigators reported in 2005.

Nevertheless, at Abu Ghraib, only the guards got serious punishment. Eventually, 11 enlisted soldiers were convicted in courts martial.

Cpl. Charles Graner Jr. received the harshest sentence -- 10 years in prison -- while Lynndie England, a 22-year-old single mother who was photographed holding an Iraqi on a leash and pointing at a detainee's penis, was sentenced to three years in prison. Their superior officers either were cleared of wrongdoing or received mild reprimands.

Bush continued to treat the Abu Ghraib scandal like a freak incident that the media had blown out of proportion. At a press conference on May 25, 2006, he complained, "We've been paying for that for a long period of time."

Into the Gutter

Never has Bush acknowledged that the abusive treatment of detainees -- or the killing of unarmed Iraqis and Afghanis -- are a natural result of his aggressive war strategies, nor that he is the one primarily responsible for dragging the worldwide reputation of the U.S. military and intelligence services into the gutter.

In the "war on terror," Bush has asserted unlimited presidential authority that he claims lets him kill, imprison, spy on and torture anyone anywhere in the world, U.S. citizens and foreigners alike. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Bush 'Apex' of Unlimited Power" or the book, Neck Deep.]

A former senior administration official told the Washington Post in 2004 that Bush "felt very keenly that his primary responsibility was to do everything within his power to keep the country safe, and he was not concerned with appearances or politics or hiding behind lower-level officials." [Washington Post, June 9, 2004]

Bush, however, has hid behind lower-level people, especially the soldiers on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of whom have faced multiple assignments to the war zones with relatively brief periods of home leave.

As one member of Sgt. Vela's sniper team, Sgt. Anthony Murphy, said: "It's a terrible war out there. And you have to make tough decisions. This war doesn't provide that luxury to be perfect."

In an e-mail interview with the New York Times, Sgt. Hensley, who gave Vela the order to execute the Iraqi detainee Janabi, complained that he [Hensley] should not have even faced a court martial because he was following guidance from two superior officers who wanted him to boost the unit's kill count.

"Every last man we killed was a confirmed terrorist," Hensley wrote. "We were praised when bad guys died. We were upbraided when bad guys did not die." [NYT, Nov. 9, 2007]

In another incident near the town of Iskandariya, Iraq, on April 27, 2007, Army sniper Jorge G. Sandoval Jr. received an order from Sgt. Hensley to kill a man cutting grass with a rusty scythe because he was suspected of being an insurgent posing as a farmer.

Like Hensley, Sandoval was acquitted because the military jury accepted defense arguments that the killing was within the rules of engagement. (Sandoval was convicted of a lesser charge of planting a coil of copper wire on a slain Iraqi, and was sentenced to five months in prison.)

The Sandoval case also revealed a classified program in which the Pentagon's Asymmetric Warfare Group encouraged U.S. military snipers in Iraq to drop "bait" -- such as electrical cords and ammunition -- and then shoot Iraqis who pick up the items. [Washington Post, Sept. 24, 2007]

Afghani Shot

A similar case of authorized murder of an insurgent suspect surfaced at a military court hearing at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, in mid-September 2007. Two U.S. Special Forces soldiers took part in the execution of an Afghani who was a suspected leader of an insurgent group.

Special Forces Capt. Dave Staffel and Sgt. Troy Anderson were leading a team of Afghan soldiers when an informant told them where the suspected insurgent leader was hiding. The U.S.-led contingent found a man believed to be Nawab Buntangyar walking outside his compound near the village of Hasan Kheyl.

While the Americans kept their distance out of fear the suspect might be wearing a suicide vest, the man was questioned about his name and the Americans checked his description against a list from the Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force Afghanistan, known as "the kill-or-capture list."

Concluding that the man was Nawab Buntangyar, Staffel gave the order to shoot, and Anderson -- from a distance of about 100 yards away -- fired a bullet through the man's head, killing him instantly.
The soldiers viewed the killing as "a textbook example of a classified mission completed in accordance with the American rules of engagement," the International Herald Tribune reported. "The men said such rules allowed them to kill Buntangyar, whom the American military had designated a terrorist cell leader, once they positively identified him."

Staffel's civilian lawyer Mark Waple said the Army's Criminal Investigation Command concluded in April that the shooting was "justifiable homicide," but a two-star general in Afghanistan instigated a murder charge against the two men. That case, however, foundered over accusations that the charge was improperly filed. [IHT, Sept. 17, 2007]

According to evidence at the Fort Bragg proceedings, the earlier Army investigation had cleared the two soldiers because they had been operating under rules of engagement that empowered them to kill individuals who have been designated "enemy combatants," even if the targets were unarmed and presented no visible threat.

In late September 2007, a U.S. military judge dismissed all charges against the two soldiers, ruling it was conceivable that the detained Afghani was wearing a suicide explosive belt, though there was no evidence that he was.

Loose Rules

The U.S. counterinsurgency and security operations in Iraq and Afghanistan also have been augmented by heavily armed mercenaries, such as the Blackwater "security contractors" who operate outside the law and were accused by Iraqi authorities of killing 17 Iraqi civilians in a shooting incident on Sept. 16, 2007.

Though most media criticism has focused on trigger-happy Blackwater "security contractors," Bush's military strategy has employed its own indiscriminate firepower -- from the loose rules of engagement for U.S. troops, to helicopter gun ships firing on crowds, to jet air strikes, to missiles launched from Predator drones.

For instance, the U.S. military acknowledged on Oct. 23, 2007, that an American helicopter killed 11 people, including women and children, after someone allegedly shot at the helicopter as it flew over the village of Mukaisheefa, north of Baghdad.

Iraqi police and witnesses said 16 people died, apparently as some rushed to help a wounded man, the New York Times reported. The helicopter gunners presumed the wounded man to be an insurgent and thus opened fire on the locals who came to his aid, according to witnesses.

"The locals went to check if he was dead and gathered around him," said Mohanad Hamid Muhsin, a 14-year-old who was shot in the leg. "But the helicopter opened fire again and killed some of the locals and wounded others." When Iraqis carried the wounded into houses to administer first aid, the helicopter fired on the houses, killing and wounding more people, said Muhsin, who added that the dead included two of his brothers and a sister. A local police official said the 16 dead included six women and three children, while 14 other Iraqis were wounded.

The incident followed on the heels of an Oct. 21 gun battle in which 49 people died when U.S. forces attacked alleged Shiite militiamen in Sadr City, a crowded slum in eastern Baghdad. Local authorities said the dead included innocent bystanders. [NYT, Oct. 24, 2007]

Another account of the Oct. 23 incident in the Los Angeles Times quoted residents saying the men who were killed were farmers irrigating their fields in the pre-daylight hours.

Abdul Wahab Ahmed, a neighbor, said the U.S. attack also involved jets that conducted two bombing runs. The dead included two toddlers and four teenagers, he said. [Los Angeles Times, Oct. 24, 2007]

The U.S. military said one of those killed in the Oct. 23 attack was "a known member of an I.E.D. cell," referring to improvised explosive devices that Iraqi insurgents have made their weapon of choice in fighting the U.S. occupation.

The American statement added that four other "military-age males" were killed along with five women and one child. U.S. military spokesmen often justify killings in Iraq and Afghanistan by noting that the dead are military-age males (or MAMs), slain in the vicinity of a firefight.

Vietnam Echo

The shoot-to-kill strategy toward MAMs has a resonance back to the Vietnam War when U.S. helicopter-borne troops sometimes would spot a MAM working in a rice paddy, fire a shot near him and then interpret his running as an aggressive act justifying his killing.
This technique was described approvingly by retired Gen. Colin Powell in his widely praised autobiography, My American Journey.

"I recall a phrase we used in the field, MAM, for military-age male," Powell wrote. "If a helo spotted a peasant in black pajamas who looked remotely suspicious, a possible MAM, the pilot would circle and fire in front of him. If he moved, his movement was judged evidence of hostile intent, and the next burst was not in front, but at him.

"Brutal? Maybe so. But an able battalion commander with whom I had served at Gelnhausen [West Germany], Lt. Col. Walter Pritchard, was killed by enemy sniper fire while observing MAMs from a helicopter. And Pritchard was only one of many. The kill-or-be-killed nature of combat tends to dull fine perceptions of right and wrong."

While it's true that combat is brutal and judgments can be clouded by fear, the mowing down of unarmed civilians in cold blood doesn't constitute combat. Under the laws of war, it is regarded as murder and, indeed, a war crime.

Neither can the combat death of a fellow soldier be cited as an excuse to murder civilians. [For more on Powell's justification for war crimes, see Chapter 8 in Neck Deep.]

In effect, Bush's "global war on terror" has reestablished what looks like the Vietnam-era Operation Phoenix, a program that assassinated Vietcong cadre, including suspected communist political allies.

By early 2005, as the Iraqi insurgency grew, the Bush administration reportedly debated a "Salvador option" for Iraq, an apparent reference to the "death squad" operations that decimated the ranks of perceived leftists who were opposed to El Salvador's right-wing military junta in the early 1980s.

According to Newsweek magazine, President Bush was contemplating the adoption of that brutal "still-secret strategy" of the Reagan administration as a way to get a handle on the spiraling violence in Iraq.

"Many U.S. conservatives consider the policy [in El Salvador] to have been a success -- despite the deaths of innocent civilians," Newsweek wrote.

The magazine also noted that many of Bush's advisers were leading figures in the Central American operations of the 1980s, including Elliott Abrams, who is now an architect of Middle East policy on the National Security Council.

Wanton Death

In Guatemala, about 200,000 people perished, including what a truth commission later termed a genocide against Mayan Indians in the Guatemalan highlands. In El Salvador, about 70,000 died including massacres of whole villages, such as the slaughter committed by a U.S.-trained battalion against hundreds of men, women and children near the town of El Mozote in 1981.

The Reagan administration's "Salvador option" also had a domestic component, the so-called "perception management" operation that employed sophisticated propaganda to manipulate the fears of the American people while hiding the ugly reality of the wars. [See Robert Parry's Lost History.]

Bush has taken the position that he can override both international law and the U.S. Constitution in deciding who gets basic human rights and who doesn't. He sees himself as the final judge of whether people he deems "bad guys" should live or die, or face indefinite imprisonment and even torture.

The troubling picture is that the U.S. chain of command, presumably up to Bush, has authorized loose "rules of engagement" that allow targeted killings -- as well as other objectionable tactics including arbitrary arrests, "enhanced interrogations," kidnappings in third countries with "extraordinary renditions" to countries that torture, secret CIA prisons, and detentions without trial.

This anything-goes approach has been conveyed down to soldiers in the field who believe they have wide discretion to kill Iraqis and Afghanis on the slightest suspicion. With rare exceptions -- like the conviction of Sgt. Vela -- the U.S. military has become a law onto itself, an extension of President Bush's megalomania.

[Robert]

1. WHAT THE QUR’AN SAYS. The familiar term jihad, often translated holy war, literally means struggle. Many Muslims emphasize that jihad is about struggling against evil desires and, if necessary, defending one’s homeland and religious heritage. "Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love the aggressors. Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is more grievous than bloodshed.... Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God’s religion reigns supreme." (Qur’an 2:190-192) [Note: Qur’anic quotes from N.J.Dawood’s English translation (The Koran, Penguin Books, UK, 1993)]. A favorite verse of moderate Muslims is 2:256 which says: "Let there be no compulsion in religion. True guidance is now distinct from error." Militant Muslims, however, will point you to numerous Qur’anic texts where Muhammad (as Allah’s spokesman) commands his followers to fight and subdue all who resist Islam. What leads young men to volunteer to die for the privilege of killing others "for the cause of Allah"? Could it have something to do with the fact that Islam offers no certain hope of heaven to any of its adherents, with one exception? Consider these few Qur’anic verses...

"As for those who are slain in the cause of God, He will not allow their works to perish. ... He will admit them to the Paradise He has made known to them." (47:4-6)

"Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of God; whether he dies or triumphs, We shall richly reward him. ... The true believers fight for the cause of God, but the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan ..." (4:74,76)

"The believers who stay at home––apart from those that suffer a grave impediment––are not the equals of those who fight for the cause of God with their goods and their persons. God has given those that fight with their goods and their persons a higher rank than those who stay at home ..." (4:95,96)

"Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. ... lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way ..." (9:5)

"Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land. They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter: except those that repent before you reduce them ..." (5:34,35)

"Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme" (8:39)

"Prophet, rouse the faithful to arms. If there are twenty steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish two hundred; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding." (8:65)

"Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given ... and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (9:29)
The Qur’an contains scores of similar verses.

Most Muslim Scholars see the world divided into two "houses"—the House of Peace (Dar Al-Salaam) and the House of War (Dar Al-Harb). The general idea is that Muslims belong to the House of Peace, while those who have not yet submitted to Islam belong to the House of War until they are "utterly subdued." However, even this distinction is often blurred since militant Muslims (who take the above verses at face value) also include moderate Muslims in the House of War. Consider further...




2. ISLAMIC NATIONS AROUND THE WORLD. The concept of jihad is rooted in another concept—Shari’a (Islamic law). Many of the world’s more than forty majority-Muslim countries have embraced Shari’a, and those that have not are under relentless pressure to do so. For example, over the past nine years in Algeria, some 100,000 Muslims have been slain by militant Muslims. The reason? These militant Muslims want political control of the nation. This is a growing trend in the Islamic world—even though it is a trend despised by most Muslims.

In the 94% Muslim country of Senegal (where freedom of religion is granted and Shari’a is refused), several Middle Eastern countries send over their Islamic teachers, build Islamic schools and finance more mosques in an effort to "purify" Senegal’s Islam. So what does "pure Islam" look like? Many Muslims will tell you that there is no country in the world that exemplifies true Islam. Yet Islam claims to be a religion that has the answers for society, a religion that offers peace and wholeness. So where should we look to get an example of what true Islam looks like? Iran? Afghanistan? Pakistan? Libya? Turkey? Indonesia? Egypt? How about Saudi Arabia?

While most Muslims decry the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as corrupt—it is nonetheless the "keeper of Islam" and the religious center toward which more than one billion Muslims face five times a day as they repeat their prayers in Arabic. In Saudi Arabia, freedom of religion is nonexistent. It is illegal to read a Bible or vocalize a non-Muslim prayer in the privacy of your own home. Under Islamic law, conversion to Christianity by a Saudi citizen is punishable by beheading. Saudi’s leaders do not support the idea that Islam "instructs people on how they may live together in peace and harmony regardless of race, class or beliefs." According to Amnesty International, the persecution of Christians in Saudi Arabia has "increased dramatically" since the Gulf War. More than a thousand cases have been documented in which Christian foreign workers have been arrested, imprisoned and/or beaten for participating in private worship meetings. Add to that the fact that numerous incidents go unreported, especially among Egyptians, Indians, Koreans, Filipinos and other Third World workers who fear further reprisals against them and their families.

A more moderate Islamic nation across the Red Sea from Saudi Arabia is Egypt. I recently met a family who has fled Egypt to seek asylum in the West. The reason? Constant harassment because of their religious beliefs. In Egypt, Christians can't even paint their walls or do minor repairs on their church buildings without a building permit—a permit that is virtually impossible to obtain. One particular woman had her identity papers confiscated and is being kept under house arrest—all because she left Islam to follow Christ. The charge of "denigrating Islam" is regularly leveled against Christians who are involved in leading a Muslim to Christ. Many Christians living in Upper Egypt have been pressured to pay "protection money" to Muslim racketeers. Those who refuse have been subjected to violent attacks. In October of 1995, Shehata Fawzi (a Christian farmer) was shot to death when he refused to pay 5000 Egyptian pounds to local Muslims. The Cairo-based center for Human Rights/Legal Aid reports the murder of dozens of Copts over the past several years. Last report, the government has failed to put a stop to it. Meanwhile, the militant Gama’a al-Ialamiya group wants to replace Egypt’s "moderate" government with a more strict Islamic state!

The harsh reality is that in every country where Shari’a is embraced, non-Muslims face restricted religious freedom and harassment—for nothing other than their religious beliefs. It should be said that there are times when governments, groups or individuals use Islam primarily as a pretext for carrying out their political-economic-cultural agenda. A horrifying example can be seen just south of Egypt—in central Sudan, where, since 1983, the Muslim government of Khartoum has exterminated more than two million Sudanese. Another five million have been displaced. Burning of villages and farms, slavery, rape, torture, forced Qur’anic indoctrination of children, and bombings of churches are regular events. Meanwhile, over in Indonesia, Laskar Jihad, a well-organized, well-funded, and well-armed Islamic militia has waged a campaign to annihilate the Christian population there. Over the past several years, thousands of Indonesians have been butchered for refusing to convert to Islam. If Islam is for "peace and harmony regardless of race, class or beliefs"—then where is the loud and clear, widespread outrage from the Muslim community over such carnage committed in the name of Allah?

Yes, accusations could be raised about horrible atrocities committed by many who have called themselves Christians (Crusades, Inquisition, slave trade, abortions, etc.). Yet, is there not a fundamental difference between the two? While the Bible clearly states that governments have a right to use the "sword" as "God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil" (Romans 13:4), the use of violence to further Christianity is in absolute opposition to the teaching and example of Jesus who prayed for those who crucified Him, "Father, forgive them..." (Luke 23:34). On the other hand, the use of aggression to further Islam is, at times, in apparent harmony with the teaching of the Qur’an (see above verses in the first point) and the example of Muhammad.

[Robert]

Originally Posted by Baller1

Robert, you still don't get it. You hold a minority of hostile, dumb and aggressive muslims accountable for every action in relations to war. Just in case you stupid redneck might have forgotten this, the USA invaded a souvereign country in 2003, without ANY reasonable proof. And muslims here are a minority, according to your own account. I can see your point to some extend, but you are stereotyping, and thats definitely NOT the right way to approach the issue. I thing you are a very good US citizen, but sometimes to get your point accross you go a bit overboard. Is it really the whole country of Afghanistan who is against the US? No its not, its the Taliban and its supporters, which were partially funded by Bush Sr. Have I ever heard you complaining about it? No of course no since you are a bit narrow minded. I would love to met you in person since you seem to be somewhat smart, I just can't stand narrow minded people with a certain mindset without any willingness to adjust. Send me a private message if you want to discuss, I am game for that:)

Thursday, April 17, 2008
Netherlands: Radical imam teachers to hate infidels
Islam teachers Suhayb Salam from Tilburg, taught his students to hate infidels, according ot journalist Patrick Pouw in his book "Salaam! Een jaar onder orthodoxe moslims" (Salam! A year among orthodox Muslims). Suhayb is the son of Tilburg imam Ahmed Salam, who had in the past refused to shake minister Verdonk's hand.

For a year Pouw learned by the ultra-orthodox Salafist Salam, manager of the Islamic Institute for Upbringing and Education. In this institute youth are taught to be preachers of the "only true faith, Islam".

Salam hammed in ever lesson on the duty to hate unbelievers. Pouw writes in his book: "We learned that all infidels were enemies of Allah, that everybody who didn't follow Islam is an enemy of Allah. We heard that sincere love for Allah means that we must hate his enemies, and must see them as our enemies. That was nothing less than an obligation."

Salam told his students that Muslims may not report each other to the police. "Since that would mean that a non-Muslim, an infidel, would judge a Muslim."

He also advised a student who had a bible in his house to burn it.

On TV program Netwerk, Pouw tells that the students had to speak to people on the street and admonish them, for example if a girl didn't wear a headscarf or wore a short skirt.

[Robert]

Originally Posted by Baller1

Dude you are such a douche, all you do is post articles from news around the world to paint a very narrow minded picture of Islam. Yes I give you that much, they are very violent, but its only the extremists. Have yet to see you aknowledge that fact yet. Overall muslims (at least the ones I know) are very friendly and not violent at all. But you must be a stupid redneck not looking at the whole pic. Dummkopf

November 4, 1979 Teran, Iran U.S. Embassy Taken Over

A group of Iranian students who were angry at the United States attacked and seized its embassy in Tehran, Iran. They were supported by the countries leader, Ayatollah Khomeini.

Details


1982 - 1991
Lebanon 18 Americans Kidnapped

David Dodge was the president of the American University in Beirut. He was kidnapped the first time while he was on his way home from work. He was released, but he was kidnapped again. This time he was killed. His murder was called the most gruesome abduction, torture, and killing of a United States citizen. The terrorists videotaped his torture and murder. A group called the Organization of the Oppressed on Earth claimed responsibility, but the real suspects are the Hezbollah guerillas.

Details

April 18, 1983
Beirut, Lebanon
Truck Bombing of U.S. Embassy

A large vehicle packed with explosives is driven quickly into the U.S. Embassy compound in Beirut. When it explodes it kills 63 people. A group of terrorists called the Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.

Details

October 23, 1983
Beirut, Lebanon Truck Bombing of U.S. Marine Barracks

A large truck bomb with 2,500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the U.S. Marine headquarters in Beirut. 241 U.S. servicement are killed when it expoldes. A French paratrooper base is blown up just a few minutes later and 58 French soldiers are killed. A terrorist group called the Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.

Details

December 12, 1983
Kuwait City, Kuwait U.S. Embassy Annex Attacked

A truck loaded with explosives crashed into the U.S. Embassy anex in Kuwait. Four people were killed and at least 62 were injured. A terrorist group called the Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.

Details


September 20, 1984
Beirut, Lebanon U.S. Embassy Compound Attacked

A van filled with explosives sped through several barriers and groups of U.S. soldiers and stopped about 30 feet in front of the embassy annex. The driver of the van and 12 soldiers and visitors to the annex were killed. A terrorist group called the Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.

Details


April 12, 1985
Madrid, Spain Restaurant Bombing

A bomb exploded in a restaurant where U.S. soldiers liked to eat. The explosion killed 18 Spaniard citizens and injured 82 other people. Only 15 of the Americans were injured, but none were killed.

Details


June 13, 1985
Beirut, Lebanon/
Algiers, Algeria TWA Flight 847

This airliner took off in Rome, Italy, but was hijacked and forced to fly to Beirut, Lebanon. Mohammed Hamadei from the terrorist group Hezbollah, Hassan Izz-al-Din from Lebanon, and Ali Atwa another terrorist hijacked the plane.

Details



August 8, 1985
Frankfurt, Germany

Rhein-Main Airbase Bombing

Two Americans and 20 others are injured when a Volkswagon car loaded with explosives blew up at the U.S. Rhein-Main air base in Frankfurt, Germany. Two terrorist groups, West German Red Army faction and the French Direct Action, claimed responsibility for the bombing.

Details


October 7, 1985
Port Said, Egypt The Ship Achille Lauro is Hijacked

Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacked by four Palistinian men who are members of the Palestine Liberation Organization. They murder a handicapped man from New York and throw his body overboard.

Details


November 23, 1985
Valeta, Malta Egyptair Flight 648 Hijacked

Three Arab men from the terrorist group Abu Nidal Organization hijacked this plane and forced it to land in Valletta, Malta. There was a 30 hour standoff between the hijackers and the Egyptian comandos.

Details

December 27, 1985
Rome, Italy and Vienna, Austria Grenades and Guns are used to Massacre Passengers at Rome and Vienna Airport

At the same time two groups of terrorists, one in Rome and one in Vienna, charge up to the counters of Israel's El Air airline. They throw grenades at the tourists getting ready to fly on the airline.


Details


April 02, 1986
Athens, Greece TWA Flight 840 Bombed

As the plane was beginning to land in Athens a plastic explosive bomb exploded under the seat of the passenger sitting in seat 10F. Four people were killed and nine others were wounded. The terrorist group called Ezzedine Kassam Unit of the Arab Revolutionary Cells claimed responsibility.Details






April 05, 1986
West Berlin
La Belle Disco in Berlin Bombed



The La Belle is a nightclub that was popular with the United States servicemen. Two United States soldiers and one Turkish woman were killed in the explosion



December 21, 1988
Lockerbie, Scotland
Pan Am Flight 103 Bombing

The bomb that blew up this flight was packed in a small radio case. It was left on the plane by a terrorist that got off of the plane at an earlier stop. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine terrorist group claimed responsibility. The bombing was carried out so that they could take revenge on America when one of its warships accidentally mistook a Palestinian passenger plane as a war plane and shot it down.

Details


January 25, 1993
Langley, Virginia
CIA Employees in Langley, VA are Shot

A Pakisini man, Mir Aimal Kasi, who lived in Virginia drove up to the CIA building in Langley, Virginia and shot two CIA agents. He was angry because he believed that the United States were mistreating Muslims who lived in the Middle East.

Details


February 26, 1993
New York, New York
1993 World Trade Center in New York Bombed


A group of Muslim terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives and driven into the World Trade Center's underground parking garage. Six people were killed and more than 1,000 are injured in this terrorist attack

Details


November 13, 1995
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
U.S. Military Complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia is Bombed

Seven people are killed when a powerful car bomb explodes in front of a military center run by the United States military. Three terrorist groups: Islamic Movement for Change, the Tigers of the Gulf, and the Combatant Partisans of God claim responsibility for the bombing of this military center.

Details


June 25, 1996
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia are Bombed

A fuel truck was parked 35 yards away from a United States military compound. When the truck blew up 19 American soldiers were killed and 500 more people were wounded. The Movement for Islamic Change claimed responsibility for the bombing.

Details


August 07, 1998
Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania are Bombed

These terrorist attacks happened almost at the same time. More than 5,000 people were injured and 224 were killed when the buildings that they were working in collapsed during the explosions.

Details


October 12, 2000
Aden, Yemen
USS Cole Bombed

The USS Cole was docked in Aden Yemen for refueling. A small craft pulled alongside the ship and two terrorists set off the bomb. The two terrorists were killed and so were 17 U.S. Navy seamen when the explosion blew a 20 by 40 foot hole in the side of the ship.

Details


September 11, 2001
New York City, Washington, D.C. World Trade Center is Destroyed and the Pentagon is Attacked

Terrorists hijack 4 domestic flights from Boston airport. Two of the planes slam in to the two World Trade Center towers, causing them to collapse. A third flight crashes into the Pentagon, and a fourth crashes in Pennsylvania.

Details

[Robert]

Hamas (حركة حماس; acronym: حركة المقاومة الاسلامية, or Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya or "Islamic Resistance Movement"[1]) is a Palestinian Sunni Islamist[2][3] militant organization and political party. It currently holds a majority of seats in the legislative council of the Palestinian Authority.[2]

Hamas was created in 1987 by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin of the Gaza wing of the Muslim Brotherhood at the beginning of the First Intifada. Best known for multiple suicide bombings and other attacks[4] directed against civilians and Israeli military and security forces targets, Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.[5] The organization is widely described as antisemitic.[6]

Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by Canada,[7] Israel,[8] Japan,[9] and the United States,[10] and is banned in Jordan.[11] Australia[12] and the United Kingdom[13] list only the militant wing of Hamas, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, as a terrorist organization. The European Union lists Hamas as a group 'involved in terrorist attacks' and has implemented restrictive measures against Hamas.[14]

Since the death of Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat, Hamas's political wing has entered and won many local elections in Gaza, Qalqilya, and Nablus. In January 2006, Hamas won a surprise victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections, taking 76 of the 132 seats in the chamber, while the ruling Fatah party took 43.[15] The Hamas charter states: "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad,"[16] and this stance has found a receptive audience among Palestinians; many perceived the preceding Fatah government as corrupt and ineffective, and Hamas's supporters see it as an "armed resistance"[17] movement defending Palestinians from the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories.[18] Hamas has further gained popularity by establishing hospitals, education systems, libraries and social services[19] throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip.[20] The Palestinian territories have experienced internal conflicts for many years; since Hamas's election victory, particularly sharp infighting has occurred between Hamas and Fatah, leading to many Palestinian deaths.[21][22]

After coming to power, Some of Hamas leaders have announced Hamas was giving up suicide attacks and "offered a 10-year truce [with Israel] in return for a complete Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories: the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem."[23][24][25] Hamas also declared a unilateral ceasefire with Israel which, after Israeli air strikes in response to Hamas smuggling weapons into Gaza, was formally renounced.[26] On March 2008 the Hamas Gaza leadership called on Arab summit to drop peace plan[1]

Following the Battle for Gaza in June 2007, when Hamas used force to take control of the Gaza Strip after Fatah refused to hand over control to the new government, elected Hamas officials were ousted from their positions in the Palestinian National Authority government in the West Bank and were replaced by rival Fatah members as well as independents.[27][28] On June 18, 2007, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Fatah) issued a decree outlawing the Hamas militia and executive force.[2][3]

According to the US State Department, the group is funded by Iran, Palestinian expatriates, and private benefactors in Saudi Arabia and other Arab states.[10]

[32AATopIPEandDub]

Robert, I'm certainly not going to defend the Koran. But being a former fundamentalist Christian theologian, I would suggest for us to not be hypocritical because the Bible certainly isn't any better, perhaps even worse. Today's so-called Christians nitpick the hippie liberal Jesus verses while they totally disregard the message of genocide, discrimination, non-existence of free will, and predestination. Basically, monotheism mentally enslaves people to commit atrocities justified by their God.

No one is going to read all of that, because all your doing is copying and pasting whatever titles that you find fitting to your severely biased view. You pick out any immoral acts and blame Middle Easterners as a whole and you do the same with Asian countries as well while justifying all of the atrocities of the U.S.. How do you expect to receive any credibility with from non-extremists with such blatant bias?

[Robert]

Originally Posted by 32AATopIPEandDub

Robert, I'm certainly not going to defend the Koran. But being a former fundamentalist Christian theologian, I would suggest for us to not be hypocritical because the Bible certainly isn't any better, perhaps even worse. Today's so-called Christians nitpick the hippie liberal Jesus verses while they totally disregard the message of genocide, discrimination, non-existence of free will, and predestination. Basically, monotheism mentally enslaves people to commit atrocities justified by their God.

No one is going to read all of that, because all your doing is copying and pasting whatever titles that you find fitting to your severely biased view. You pick out any immoral acts and blame Middle Easterners as a whole and you do the same with Asian countries as well while justifying all of the atrocities of the U.S.. How do you expect to receive any credibility with from non-extremists with such blatant bias?

The Abu Sayyaf Group (Arabic: جماعة أبو سياف; Jamāʿah Abū Sayyāf, ASG), also known as al-Harakat al-Islamiyya is one of several militant Islamist separatist groups based in and around the southern islands of the Philippines, in Bangsamoro (Jolo, Basilan, and Mindanao) where for almost 30 years various Muslim groups have been engaged in an insurgency for a state, independent of the predominantly Catholic Philippines. The name of the group is derived from the Arabic ابو, abu ("father of") and sayyaf ("Swordsmith[1]"). The group calls itself "Al-Harakat Al-Islamiyya" or the "Islamic Movement". The name Abu Sayyaf was derived from the kunya adopted by Abdurajak Janajalani when he named his oldest son Sayyaf, thereby becoming Abu Sayyaf or the father of Sayyaf. Abdurajak named his son after the Afghan mujahideen commander Rasul Sayyaf who ran the training camp he attended in Afghanistan.

Since its inception in the early 1990s, the group has carried out bombings, kidnappings, assassinations, rapes and extortion in what they describe as their fight for an independent Islamic state in western Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago with the stated goal of creating a pan-Islamic superstate across southeast Asia, spanning from east to west; the island of Mindanao, the Sulu Archipelago, the island of Borneo (Malaysia, Indonesia), the South China Sea, and the Malay Peninsula (Peninsular Malaysia, Thailand and Myanmar).[2] The Abu Sayyaf Group seeks a 13 province autonomous region, free from the predominately Catholic government of the Philippines.[3]

The U.S. Department of State has branded the group a terrorist entity by adding it to the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.[2]

[FailingEnterpriseAdmin]

Originally Posted by Robert

The Abu Sayyaf Group (Arabic: جماعة أبو سياف; Jamāʿah Abū Sayyāf, ASG), also known as al-Harakat al-Islamiyya is one of several militant Islamist separatist groups based in and around the southern islands of the Philippines, in Bangsamoro (Jolo, Basilan, and Mindanao) where for almost 30 years various Muslim groups have been engaged in an insurgency for a state, independent of the predominantly Catholic Philippines. The name of the group is derived from the Arabic ابو, abu ("father of") and sayyaf ("Swordsmith[1]"). The group calls itself "Al-Harakat Al-Islamiyya" or the "Islamic Movement". The name Abu Sayyaf was derived from the kunya adopted by Abdurajak Janajalani when he named his oldest son Sayyaf, thereby becoming Abu Sayyaf or the father of Sayyaf. Abdurajak named his son after the Afghan mujahideen commander Rasul Sayyaf who ran the training camp he attended in Afghanistan.

Since its inception in the early 1990s, the group has carried out bombings, kidnappings, assassinations, rapes and extortion in what they describe as their fight for an independent Islamic state in western Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago with the stated goal of creating a pan-Islamic superstate across southeast Asia, spanning from east to west; the island of Mindanao, the Sulu Archipelago, the island of Borneo (Malaysia, Indonesia), the South China Sea, and the Malay Peninsula (Peninsular Malaysia, Thailand and Myanmar).[2] The Abu Sayyaf Group seeks a 13 province autonomous region, free from the predominately Catholic government of the Philippines.[3]

The U.S. Department of State has branded the group a terrorist entity by adding it to the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.[2]

Wow, we've now got Arabic script on FailingEnterprise.com. Cool.

[Steve Williams]

Originally Posted by 32AATopIPEandDub

Let me guess Robert, you believe that Iraqis are just hateful and ungrateful terrorists that can't appreciate America for wanting to give them "freedom" and "democracy", right? You know very damn well that the U.S. is there for oil. I think the same propaganda slogan "it's better to fight 'them' on foreign soil rather than in the streets of [fill your city]" was used for Vietnam as well.

U.S. Soldiers Kill Unarmed Iraqis and Afghanis

By Robert Parry, Consortium News. Posted February 15, 2008.

George Bush winks at indiscriminate killings, further tarring the reputation of the U.S. military.

By forcing repeat combat assignments to Iraq and Afghanistan -- and by winking at torture and indiscriminate killings -- George W. Bush is degrading the reputation of the U.S. military, turning enlisted soldiers and intelligence officers into murderers and sadists.

For instance, on Feb. 10 at Camp Liberty in Iraq, Army Ranger Sgt. Evan Vela was sentenced by a U.S. military court to 10 years in prison for executing an unarmed Iraqi detainee who -- along with his son -- had stumbled into a U.S. sniper position last year.

After letting the 17-year-old son go, Vela's squad leader, Staff Sgt. Michael Hensley ordered Vela to use a 9-millimeter pistol to shoot the father, Genei Nesir Khudair al-Janabi, in the head, an order that Vela carried out. "It was murder, plain and simple," military prosecutor, Major Charles Kuhfahl, told the court.

Janabi's son, Mustafa, was allowed to make a statement, explaining how his father's death had devastated the family and how one of his four younger brothers now avoids their home because he can't stand the sight of his father's empty room.

"Please don't forget about us," Mustafa told the court.

But Vela's guilty verdict was a rare case of holding a U.S. soldier accountable in the killing or abusing of an Iraqi. Among the infrequent cases that have been brought, most end in acquittals or convictions only on minor charges.

Last November, for example, another military jury acquitted Hensley in the same murder of Janabi as well as in the killing of two other Iraqi men south of Baghdad in the early days of Bush's troop "surge." That jury ruled that Hensley was following the approved "rules of engagement," though it did convict him of planting an AK-47 on one victim.

Some of Vela's military comrades complained that it was unfair to single any of them out for punishment because these killings are so common in Iraq.

Vela's former platoon commander, Sgt. First Class Steven Kipling, said that if all U.S. combat soldiers in Iraq were subjected to the same scrutiny applied to Vela, "we would have thousands" of cases. [NYT, Feb. 11, 2008]

Indeed, the evidence does suggest that the handful of homicide cases from Iraq and Afghanistan that reach military trial represent only a small fraction of the unprovoked killings of locals at the hands of U.S. soldiers.

Press Attention

The murder and abuse cases that do result in trials often stem from incidents that get news media attention, like the mass killing of two dozen Iraqis in Haditha on Nov. 19, 2005, which Time magazine exposed.

Even more memorable was the case of the sexual and physical abuse of Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison, mistreatment that was documented with photographs that reached the U.S. news media in 2004.

President Bush, who then was seeking reelection, joined in denouncing the low-ranking soldiers who had dressed Iraqi men up in women's underwear or made them pose naked on leashes or in fake sexual positions.

Bush said he "shared a deep disgust that those prisoners were treated the way they were treated." Other senior administration officials called the Abu Ghraib guards -- mostly poorly trained reservists -- a "few bad apples."

Amid the furor, some Abu Ghraib guards claimed they were simply following guidance from intelligence interrogators on techniques to "soften up" detainees. But the Bush administration stuck to its story that the guards were an out-of-control night shift.

Army Sgt. Sam Provance was the only uniformed military intelligence officer at Abu Ghraib to support the guards' claim that the prisoner abuse was part of the "alternative interrogation techniques" that had made their way from Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib.

Provance, however, was punished for his candor and pushed out of the U.S. military. The Bush administration went ahead with plans to pin the blame on the MPs. [See Consortiumnews.com's "The Ghosts of Abu Ghraib."]

Only after Election 2004 did evidence surface revealing that the sexual abuse of the Abu Ghraib prisoners did fit with the broader policy -- approved by President Bush and other senior administration officials -- to break down prisoners for interrogation.

For instance, alleged 9/11 plotter Mohammed al-Qahtani, who was sent to Guantanamo in 2002, was subjected to treatment similar to what later occurred at Abu Ghraib. Qahtani was forced to wear a bra, had a thong placed on his head, was paraded naked in front of women and was led around on a leash like a dog, military investigators reported in 2005.

Nevertheless, at Abu Ghraib, only the guards got serious punishment. Eventually, 11 enlisted soldiers were convicted in courts martial.

Cpl. Charles Graner Jr. received the harshest sentence -- 10 years in prison -- while Lynndie England, a 22-year-old single mother who was photographed holding an Iraqi on a leash and pointing at a detainee's penis, was sentenced to three years in prison. Their superior officers either were cleared of wrongdoing or received mild reprimands.

Bush continued to treat the Abu Ghraib scandal like a freak incident that the media had blown out of proportion. At a press conference on May 25, 2006, he complained, "We've been paying for that for a long period of time."

Into the Gutter

Never has Bush acknowledged that the abusive treatment of detainees -- or the killing of unarmed Iraqis and Afghanis -- are a natural result of his aggressive war strategies, nor that he is the one primarily responsible for dragging the worldwide reputation of the U.S. military and intelligence services into the gutter.

In the "war on terror," Bush has asserted unlimited presidential authority that he claims lets him kill, imprison, spy on and torture anyone anywhere in the world, U.S. citizens and foreigners alike. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Bush 'Apex' of Unlimited Power" or the book, Neck Deep.]

A former senior administration official told the Washington Post in 2004 that Bush "felt very keenly that his primary responsibility was to do everything within his power to keep the country safe, and he was not concerned with appearances or politics or hiding behind lower-level officials." [Washington Post, June 9, 2004]

Bush, however, has hid behind lower-level people, especially the soldiers on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of whom have faced multiple assignments to the war zones with relatively brief periods of home leave.

As one member of Sgt. Vela's sniper team, Sgt. Anthony Murphy, said: "It's a terrible war out there. And you have to make tough decisions. This war doesn't provide that luxury to be perfect."

In an e-mail interview with the New York Times, Sgt. Hensley, who gave Vela the order to execute the Iraqi detainee Janabi, complained that he [Hensley] should not have even faced a court martial because he was following guidance from two superior officers who wanted him to boost the unit's kill count.

"Every last man we killed was a confirmed terrorist," Hensley wrote. "We were praised when bad guys died. We were upbraided when bad guys did not die." [NYT, Nov. 9, 2007]

In another incident near the town of Iskandariya, Iraq, on April 27, 2007, Army sniper Jorge G. Sandoval Jr. received an order from Sgt. Hensley to kill a man cutting grass with a rusty scythe because he was suspected of being an insurgent posing as a farmer.

Like Hensley, Sandoval was acquitted because the military jury accepted defense arguments that the killing was within the rules of engagement. (Sandoval was convicted of a lesser charge of planting a coil of copper wire on a slain Iraqi, and was sentenced to five months in prison.)

The Sandoval case also revealed a classified program in which the Pentagon's Asymmetric Warfare Group encouraged U.S. military snipers in Iraq to drop "bait" -- such as electrical cords and ammunition -- and then shoot Iraqis who pick up the items. [Washington Post, Sept. 24, 2007]

Afghani Shot

A similar case of authorized murder of an insurgent suspect surfaced at a military court hearing at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, in mid-September 2007. Two U.S. Special Forces soldiers took part in the execution of an Afghani who was a suspected leader of an insurgent group.

Special Forces Capt. Dave Staffel and Sgt. Troy Anderson were leading a team of Afghan soldiers when an informant told them where the suspected insurgent leader was hiding. The U.S.-led contingent found a man believed to be Nawab Buntangyar walking outside his compound near the village of Hasan Kheyl.

While the Americans kept their distance out of fear the suspect might be wearing a suicide vest, the man was questioned about his name and the Americans checked his description against a list from the Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force Afghanistan, known as "the kill-or-capture list."

Concluding that the man was Nawab Buntangyar, Staffel gave the order to shoot, and Anderson -- from a distance of about 100 yards away -- fired a bullet through the man's head, killing him instantly.
The soldiers viewed the killing as "a textbook example of a classified mission completed in accordance with the American rules of engagement," the International Herald Tribune reported. "The men said such rules allowed them to kill Buntangyar, whom the American military had designated a terrorist cell leader, once they positively identified him."

Staffel's civilian lawyer Mark Waple said the Army's Criminal Investigation Command concluded in April that the shooting was "justifiable homicide," but a two-star general in Afghanistan instigated a murder charge against the two men. That case, however, foundered over accusations that the charge was improperly filed. [IHT, Sept. 17, 2007]

According to evidence at the Fort Bragg proceedings, the earlier Army investigation had cleared the two soldiers because they had been operating under rules of engagement that empowered them to kill individuals who have been designated "enemy combatants," even if the targets were unarmed and presented no visible threat.

In late September 2007, a U.S. military judge dismissed all charges against the two soldiers, ruling it was conceivable that the detained Afghani was wearing a suicide explosive belt, though there was no evidence that he was.

Loose Rules

The U.S. counterinsurgency and security operations in Iraq and Afghanistan also have been augmented by heavily armed mercenaries, such as the Blackwater "security contractors" who operate outside the law and were accused by Iraqi authorities of killing 17 Iraqi civilians in a shooting incident on Sept. 16, 2007.

Though most media criticism has focused on trigger-happy Blackwater "security contractors," Bush's military strategy has employed its own indiscriminate firepower -- from the loose rules of engagement for U.S. troops, to helicopter gun ships firing on crowds, to jet air strikes, to missiles launched from Predator drones.

For instance, the U.S. military acknowledged on Oct. 23, 2007, that an American helicopter killed 11 people, including women and children, after someone allegedly shot at the helicopter as it flew over the village of Mukaisheefa, north of Baghdad.

Iraqi police and witnesses said 16 people died, apparently as some rushed to help a wounded man, the New York Times reported. The helicopter gunners presumed the wounded man to be an insurgent and thus opened fire on the locals who came to his aid, according to witnesses.

"The locals went to check if he was dead and gathered around him," said Mohanad Hamid Muhsin, a 14-year-old who was shot in the leg. "But the helicopter opened fire again and killed some of the locals and wounded others." When Iraqis carried the wounded into houses to administer first aid, the helicopter fired on the houses, killing and wounding more people, said Muhsin, who added that the dead included two of his brothers and a sister. A local police official said the 16 dead included six women and three children, while 14 other Iraqis were wounded.

The incident followed on the heels of an Oct. 21 gun battle in which 49 people died when U.S. forces attacked alleged Shiite militiamen in Sadr City, a crowded slum in eastern Baghdad. Local authorities said the dead included innocent bystanders. [NYT, Oct. 24, 2007]

Another account of the Oct. 23 incident in the Los Angeles Times quoted residents saying the men who were killed were farmers irrigating their fields in the pre-daylight hours.

Abdul Wahab Ahmed, a neighbor, said the U.S. attack also involved jets that conducted two bombing runs. The dead included two toddlers and four teenagers, he said. [Los Angeles Times, Oct. 24, 2007]

The U.S. military said one of those killed in the Oct. 23 attack was "a known member of an I.E.D. cell," referring to improvised explosive devices that Iraqi insurgents have made their weapon of choice in fighting the U.S. occupation.

The American statement added that four other "military-age males" were killed along with five women and one child. U.S. military spokesmen often justify killings in Iraq and Afghanistan by noting that the dead are military-age males (or MAMs), slain in the vicinity of a firefight.

Vietnam Echo

The shoot-to-kill strategy toward MAMs has a resonance back to the Vietnam War when U.S. helicopter-borne troops sometimes would spot a MAM working in a rice paddy, fire a shot near him and then interpret his running as an aggressive act justifying his killing.
This technique was described approvingly by retired Gen. Colin Powell in his widely praised autobiography, My American Journey.

"I recall a phrase we used in the field, MAM, for military-age male," Powell wrote. "If a helo spotted a peasant in black pajamas who looked remotely suspicious, a possible MAM, the pilot would circle and fire in front of him. If he moved, his movement was judged evidence of hostile intent, and the next burst was not in front, but at him.

"Brutal? Maybe so. But an able battalion commander with whom I had served at Gelnhausen [West Germany], Lt. Col. Walter Pritchard, was killed by enemy sniper fire while observing MAMs from a helicopter. And Pritchard was only one of many. The kill-or-be-killed nature of combat tends to dull fine perceptions of right and wrong."

While it's true that combat is brutal and judgments can be clouded by fear, the mowing down of unarmed civilians in cold blood doesn't constitute combat. Under the laws of war, it is regarded as murder and, indeed, a war crime.

Neither can the combat death of a fellow soldier be cited as an excuse to murder civilians. [For more on Powell's justification for war crimes, see Chapter 8 in Neck Deep.]

In effect, Bush's "global war on terror" has reestablished what looks like the Vietnam-era Operation Phoenix, a program that assassinated Vietcong cadre, including suspected communist political allies.

By early 2005, as the Iraqi insurgency grew, the Bush administration reportedly debated a "Salvador option" for Iraq, an apparent reference to the "death squad" operations that decimated the ranks of perceived leftists who were opposed to El Salvador's right-wing military junta in the early 1980s.

According to Newsweek magazine, President Bush was contemplating the adoption of that brutal "still-secret strategy" of the Reagan administration as a way to get a handle on the spiraling violence in Iraq.

"Many U.S. conservatives consider the policy [in El Salvador] to have been a success -- despite the deaths of innocent civilians," Newsweek wrote.

The magazine also noted that many of Bush's advisers were leading figures in the Central American operations of the 1980s, including Elliott Abrams, who is now an architect of Middle East policy on the National Security Council.

Wanton Death

In Guatemala, about 200,000 people perished, including what a truth commission later termed a genocide against Mayan Indians in the Guatemalan highlands. In El Salvador, about 70,000 died including massacres of whole villages, such as the slaughter committed by a U.S.-trained battalion against hundreds of men, women and children near the town of El Mozote in 1981.

The Reagan administration's "Salvador option" also had a domestic component, the so-called "perception management" operation that employed sophisticated propaganda to manipulate the fears of the American people while hiding the ugly reality of the wars. [See Robert Parry's Lost History.]

Bush has taken the position that he can override both international law and the U.S. Constitution in deciding who gets basic human rights and who doesn't. He sees himself as the final judge of whether people he deems "bad guys" should live or die, or face indefinite imprisonment and even torture.

The troubling picture is that the U.S. chain of command, presumably up to Bush, has authorized loose "rules of engagement" that allow targeted killings -- as well as other objectionable tactics including arbitrary arrests, "enhanced interrogations," kidnappings in third countries with "extraordinary renditions" to countries that torture, secret CIA prisons, and detentions without trial.

This anything-goes approach has been conveyed down to soldiers in the field who believe they have wide discretion to kill Iraqis and Afghanis on the slightest suspicion. With rare exceptions -- like the conviction of Sgt. Vela -- the U.S. military has become a law onto itself, an extension of President Bush's megalomania.

That's what this site has become? A place where prick's like this put down America and it's troops? Go back to washing cars rental monkey.