Talking to the Taliban About Life After Occupation Special report: In the last of his series from Afghanistan, Ghaith Abdul-Ahad asks Taliban leaders past and present what kind of regime they would run – and whether there is a chance of negotiated peace Part two: Five days inside a Taliban jail Part one: The London cab driver who fights for the Taliban By Ghaith Abdul-Ahad November 26,2010 "The Guardian" - In the south-eastern city of Khost, the everyday business of the Taliban administration carries on across the street from the fortified, government-run city court and police station. The head of the Haqqani network's civilian administration and his assistant hold their council in the grand mosque, which is also known as the Haqqani mosque because it was built with Taliban and Arab money. When I met them, the two men – a frail-looking 60-year-old and his younger sidekick – gave the impression of being haggard peasants seeking work in the city rather than members of one of the organisations most feared by Britain and America. Worshippers at the mosque greeted the Haqqani representatives with a mix of reverence and anxiety, some walking in a long circle to avoid them while others came forward and shook hands, pledging contributions for the movement. The mosque leader begged them to be his guests for the night. "The resistance is stronger and bolder today," the old man said. "A few years ago the Taliban could move only at night. "Now that our land has been liberated – thanks be to God – we walk around in the middle of the day and we fight in front of the people. We control our lands and our villages while [the Americans] can only come in by air." The administrator was laden with messages to deliver. Among his many roles as a senior member of the civilian administration, the most important is as a conduit to the higher Taliban authority of Sirajuddin Haqqani and his base in the border region between Khost and Pakistan. The old man carries edicts from the leadership in one direction and petitions and complaints in the other. When the Taliban ruled in Kabul in the 1990s they closed schools, stopped women working and exposed themselves to ridicule by banning trivial pursuits such as kite flying. Yes, the Taliban had made mistakes in the past, he admitted, and they were still making them. "Our men still do things that annoy the people, and that is part of my job, to convey the complaints," he said. "But the benefits of the Taliban outweigh the harm we do to the people. In our area there were thieves and bandits. It was chaos. "People needed someone to monitor and rule and punish. They needed us to impose order. "The government is besieged in its fortresses and can't come to the people, and corruption is paralysing it. One of the main reasons for our popularity is the failure of this government." In a striking parallel with what the Americans have been advocating as part of their counterinsurgency initiative, the Haqqanis have set up local shura (consultation) councils made up of village elders and clerics to run the affairs of villagers in the "liberated" areas and create local security. The old man's job is to supervise these councils. "I am a representative of the movement and I walk among the people and everyone knows me. I move between the people and the commanders, watching the commanders' behaviour. I listen to the people and convey the picture to the supreme leaders," he said. Had the Taliban changed? A future administration would be based on Islamic rule, which was what the Afghan people wanted, but it would be different in detail from the Taliban regime that had ruled in Kabul before. "We will not rule based on theory. The people want us to be more pragmatic." He quoted the Muslim poet Muhammad Iqbal. "When the painter works on the same old painting again, he will make it much better. "The Taliban that will return will not be like the old Taliban. We have learned from the old mistakes. We will accept others. We are not and cannot be all of Afghanistan, but we are an important part of it." The commander From Khost I travelled to nearby Ghazni province to meet a commander of the Quetta Taliban I had met two years before. Last time I saw Mawlawa Halimi he was scared and kept a watch at the doors and window of the small hotel where we had lunch. He had just been promoted to lead a small unit and he moved around incognito, fearing government agents and police checkpoints. In the intervening years he had become one of the most senior commanders in the province. He was a few pounds chubbier, his hair was longer and he had an air of authority. I waited for him in the bazaar. He arrived on a motorbike with an armed guard riding pillion and no one in the bazaar gave him a second glance. He drove ahead, leading us to a mud-walled compound. As we followed him, an American patrol passed along the main road a hundred metres distant, three huge armoured trucks wrapped with mesh fences to counter RPG attacks, each with two sets of armoured wheels in front to detect and detonate improvised explosive devices and landmines. The soldiers in their gun turrets trained their weapons left and right. "Last time we met, the atmosphere in this area was tense. The villages and markets you passed through were targeted by the Americans," Halimi said. "They used to come here a lot and life for people was difficult. Now, with Allah's grace, this is all ours. "The war has changed. I used to fear the government wherever I went. Now we move everywhere and carry our guns with us. Two years ago we were just trying to defend our areas. Now we control this area and we go to the main street to attack." He highlighted another major difference with the Taliban of two years ago. Then, the foot soldiers had all been trained in the madrasas. Now they were less ideological. "It's a mistake to call all of the fighters Taliban. The Taliban are madrasa students and I am a mullah, but most of my fighters are peasants and farmers and students who come from the government schools. "In winter we send them to Pakistan to get some religious training, but they are not Taliban," Halimi said. "When we sit and watch the news on TV we hear that the Taliban attacked here and there and destroyed tanks and killed soldiers. Then in the next news item you hear that the Americans are calling for negotiations and of course you understand that these two news items are related. The second news item is the result of the first, and the Americans want to negotiate because they are losing. "Why don't they just leave?" he said. "What are they waiting for?" The ambassador The fluffed-up sofas in the Kabul living room of Abdul Salam Zaeef, the former Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, have seated many high-ranking dignitaries in recent months as officials from the UN, the EU and Nato have come visiting. It is a dramatic change of affairs for a man who spent three years from 2002 in prison in Guantánamo and who, until July this year, was on the UN list of known terrorists. Zaeef is now a prolific writer and speaks five languages fluently. According to many Taliban insiders, if there are any negotiations between the Taliban and the Americans they will go through him. "The Americans came and sat here," he said, pointing at one of the big sofas. "They said they needed to talk to the Taliban but couldn't find them. They didn't know who the Taliban were. I said go and look, they are everywhere, the Taliban have shadow governors and administrators, why don't you go and talk to them?" The real reason the Americans didn't talk, he said, was that they had no respect for the Taliban. "I told the Americans to respect their enemy. You can't negotiate with the Taliban from a position of strength, so why would the Taliban come and talk to you? If you want talks you have to treat the Taliban as equals." In any negotiation, the Taliban would assert that as long as their land was under occupation they would struggle to liberate it. They would continue to fight until the foreigners left. Their argument was with the Americans, not the Afghan government. They did not want to bring down the government, they just wanted to renew it. "The Taliban have no problem with the Afghan government. We have no problem with Karzai or the Afghans. The problem lies with the Americans," he said. "Why would we negotiate with Karzai if he has no say in running his government? They are under occupation and all orders come from foreigners." The Americans, he said, had not talked to any senior Taliban to his knowledge. However, "the government and the Taliban have been talking for two years on local matters, health-related issues, prisoner exchange, education. "This is not a negotiation, this is a way to help and benefit our Afghan people and nation. Negotiations haven't started yet." The Americans had a right to know that Afghanistan would not be used as a base for attacks against them, he said, but that was all. "The Americans have one right only, and that is their right to be assured that Afghanistan will not be used against them and that is something the Taliban should give. "Apart from that they have no rights, they have no right to tell us about democracy and human rights. That's an Afghan issue and it will be decided by the Afghans. "The Americans behave with arrogance and if they don't want to be defeated in Afghanistan they should talk. "They don't belong here," he said. "They are foreigners, outsiders."

Ngonge saaxib Are you saying that our loyalty to Allah and our loyalty to a given Somali clan can never conflict? specially when the clan's immediate interests and the interest of Islam diverge? If they can conflict; Are you saying that as long as a person says "Laa ilaaha illa Allahu", that his/her loyalty (to a clan that is in contempt of Allah's law), doesn't affect his Aqeedah and Tawheed in Allah at all? Nur N.B. I wrote a piece on the Xeer many years ago on SOL Islam pages, InshaaAllah I will look for it, or rewrite it again.

Ayoub bro. You write: Is that position a somewhat religiously, politically or morally better for Somalis to put themselves in again? I don't get it, How can that happen again, do you mean that if the confrontation in the south continues that he South will be awarded to different care taker countries as protectorates? Lol @ turub, Somalis not only are quick learners, now they are roaming the planet beating the Indians in Kenya and South Africa in retail business, very entrepreneurial, just give them another 20 years, you will see wonders, who needs tiny Somalia, the whole world is up for grabs! Nur

Akhi Ngonge I appreciate your valuable input into this topic, when a topic like this one is raised, each and everyone sees it from their own perspective, interest and based on their information or lack of, on the given topic. Thus, when debating, like driving on a highway full of speeding cars, we focus on where we want to go from where we are, which creates a blind spot on the rest of the picture under discussion. So, the more participation in discussing this important topic, the more clarity we can all gain from reading others views thereby enriching the discussion, so I thank you once more for your elaborate response. Akhi, you write: "I assumed that it was faith related. However, ever since you revealed your sympathies with the Shabab doctrine, I am usually left with no choice but to judge your words along those lines and assume that you are forwarding yet another Shabab inspired argument. I merely mention all of this so that you are under no illusions as to my terms of reference when tackling this topic of yours. Akhi al kareem, Ali Ibnu Abi Talib said, "know men through their adherence to Xaq (What is right), Do not seek the Xaq, through men (that one is sympathetic to), I would appreciate if we can make the Xaq (Quraan and Sunnah) our reference point since Allah SWT said in Holy Quraan, " If you disagree on an issue, refer to Allah ( Quraan) and the Messenger ( Sunnah). You write: "I say that there is no connection whatsoever between Aqeedah, Tawheed and Clannisim/Patriotism (in the Somali case). Akhi, as you are well aware, Iman ( Aqeedah) is composed of six pillars, of which the belief in Allah SWT conflicts with Calannism/Patriotism, let me show you how: 1. Believe in Allah's Sovereignty ( SAMAD, No contestants in His Absolute Dominion over His creatures) 2. Belief in His Absolute Justice through His Devine Law. 3. Belief in His Allegiance. In Surah Ancaam, verse 14-15 Allah says: 14. Say (O Muhammad ): "Shall I take as a Wali (helper, protector, etc.) any other than Allah, the Creator of the heavens and the earth? And it is He Who feeds but is not fed." Say: "Verily, I am commanded to be the first of those who submit themselves to Allah ." And be not you (O Muhammad ) of the Mushrikun [polytheists, pagans, idolaters]. 15. Say: "I fear, if I disobey my Lord, the torment of a Mighty Day." Clannism/Patriotism bond between people is a temporal relationship, it ends with this current life, while Aqeedah / Tawheed bond is eternal, it binds people in this life and next, and unlike temporal Bonds (Clan, patriotism, Economic blocks, Political interest groups) that are material in nature and serve a temporary passing need, the AQeedah bond is a one stop shop for all of our aspirations present and future. on the other hand, Clan bonds are not always fair as it denies others what it entitles to itself, hence the flimsy nature of this bond. In the Somali case as you have noted, the leadership of the Clan has always been the guardian of the members of the clan's interest, which was in the past mostly resources (Water and pastures), and at present, power and representation in what is known as the "Parliament". Since the collapse of the Siad Barre regime, Somalis have taken refuge in their respective clans, as well as the West. I am sure that you can recall how brutal the inter-clan rivalry that ensued was and how much anarchy and lawlessness it created for the following 16 years until Islam appeared in the picture in the form of the short lived ICU uprising, and later the emergence of the Resistance groups of which the Shabab is the most organized faction. This unexpected change in the political landscape has created a Paradigm Shift ( Paradigm Shift in Somalia ), which altered the rules of engagement, so in a sense, your statement that the Clan aka Qabil/ has no connection with Aqeedah is true in the sense that they form a zero sum, allegiance to the clan, conflicts with allegiance to Allah SWT. The conflict of the allegiance to the (clan/nation) and our allegiance to Allah arises when the clan/nation claims Sovereignty ( Independence From Allah SWT) and as a consequence, the right to legislate what it sees fit to its clan members/nation. Allah SWT says in Surah Tawbah (Repentance) in Holy Quraan: 23. O you who believe! Take not for Awliya' (allies, friends, enter into mutual defense pacts) your fathers and your brothers if they prefer disbelief to Belief. And whoever of you does so, then he is one of the Zalimun (transgressors, etc.) 24. Say: If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your kindred, the wealth that you have gained, the commerce in which you fear a decline, and the dwellings in which you delight ... are dearer to you than Allah and His Messenger, and striving hard and fighting in His Cause , then wait until Allah brings about His Decision (torment). And Allah guides not the people who are Al-Fasiqun (the rebellious, disobedient to Allah). You write: " the Islamic Ummah is a fluid and abstract concept that is not governed by borders or bureaucratic rules (and so it shouldn't). The whole idea of Dacwa sees to that. The Islamic Ummah is fluid in the sense that at any given time some new people are embracing Islam, while at the same time some are opting out, however, the existence of the Ummah has been real as opposed to abstract (Theoretical, disassociated from reality). Its true though that today, its abstract in the sense that there is no real representation of the ideals that Islam stands for, and for which the Islamic revival is addressing and many "Muslims" find unease in the process of change, from abstract to Islam on the ground (approaching real Islam). You write: Of course, your musings above do beg the question about how one gets dealt with on the Day of Judgment. Will nations get punished in mass or is Xisaab & Ciqaab an individual thing? This is a brilliant observation akhi, it shows how one must be careful which cause and which grouping he pledges loyalty to, because, although in the day of judgment we will be judged on our individual actions, we will get a credit or a punishment for the contribution of our action on the clan level. We will carry our own burden in the day of judgment and, and the burden of those we mislead without knowledge. In the Holy Quraan ,Surah Al Naxl, Verse 25 : 25. They will bear their own burdens in full on the Day of Resurrection, and also of the burdens of those whom they misled without knowledge. Evil indeed is that which they shall bear! In Surah Ankaboot ( Spider): 13. And verily, they shall bear their own loads, and other loads besides their own, and verily, they shall be questioned on the Day of Resurrection about that which they used to fabricate.. Its also interesting to note that Surah Ankaboot is named after the flimsy and weak web dwelling of the spider as a metaphor for the weakness of any bond that is not in the sake of Allah SWT, the verses read: 41. The likeness of those who take Auliya' (protectors and helpers) other than Allah is as the likeness of a spider, who builds (for itself) a house, but verily, the frailest (weakest) of houses is the spider's house; if they but knew. You write: "Ya Sheikhuna, you are still a Somali no matter how many Ethiopian Muslim brothers you have. You are still a son of reer hebel in spite of pledging loyalty to any new Islamic grouping that may spring up. This is something that did not change when Qureesh had a nabi of their own or when some of them migrated to Medina to be known as Muhajroon and live amongst their Muslim brothers, Al Ansar. It did not change when Bani Ummayah created a Khilafa that spread Islam far and wide or when Bani Cabbas took over from them. Being a Muslim does not stop one from being anything else as is proven to this day when we refer to Bilaal Al Xabashi, Suleiman Al Farsi and Suhaib Al Romi (or as some of Al Shabab members are known as fulan Al Ameriki, etc). Genetically speaking, you are 100% correct. You write; You talk of Tawheed and give it a much deeper meaning than what it actually is (when one removes all the paraphernalia and philosophising). Man! you are so right, and I hope its all for the right reasons. You see paesano, initially Tawheed was very simple. The Prophet SAWS used to climb a hill in Makkah and shout, " Say No one is worth to be Ilaah other than Allah", a simple statement that created so much anger in the Prophet's tribe, Qureish, because they knew very well, the repercussions of this statement, a word that threatened the slave ownership of the clan, the financial advantage of the Clan's caravan, the justice that will rob them their special status, you see, it was so simple, but so scary, unfortunately, today, few understand what this word stands for, and that is why I spend so much time explaining this simple concept to an oblivious crowd. You Write: " Does a clannish mindset exist in Somalia today? I beg to disappoint you here and declare that it does not. " Just the other day a friend of mine who was invited in a clan meeting (not mine) was very concerned at the deep mistrust his clan had with others and how they planned to change things in their favor, he was expected to pay money for the clan cause, but was very concerned of he sin he will incur for the usage of such funds as some of the decision makers were not bound by any Islamic Law. I would humbly say yaa akhi, the clan mindset is alive and kicking, and the only place that there is some hope of containing it ( not eradicating it) is the Emirates of Shabbland. You Write: Somalis do not fight over whose horse is faster (ala Daaxis Wal qabra’a), they fight over resources, saaxib Akhi, as an example out of many localities, you just need to visit Galkacyo's Greenline that demarcates where a Nomad can ride his horse! You write: "Never mind all of that, tell me, does the Somali system for clan mediations differ much from the Islamic one? Will Al Shabab ever adhere to the rules? [big Grin]" Akhi, there is no Somali system at all, but there is a clan system, and each clan has its own system aka XEER, which is mostly not in line with the Sharia, thus, a form of shirk as it denies the Sovereignty of Allah by following His Xukum on any matter as Allah SWT says in Surah Al Shuraa , verse 10, is Holy Quraan: 10. And in whatsoever you differ, the decision thereof is with Allah (He is the ruling Judge). (And say O Muhammad to these polytheists:) Such is Allah, my Lord in Whom I put my trust, and to Him I turn in all of my affairs and in repentance. You write: Patriotism in itself is also not a problem. The love of one's land and the wish to improve such a land (and people) does not (and should not) have an effect on one's faith. True You Conclude: The world is still ok ya saaxibi. Don't get yourself (and others) all tangled up in these utopian ideas of yours. Nur

Malika sis MaashAllah, that was easy! wasn't it, you see, restructuring our loyalty along faith is what will save us in the day of judgment, at the cheap price of taking the risk of disowning our own clan or race who have broken Allah's covenant. An Ethiopian, European, Chinese or a Jewish Muslim should be closer to our hearts in affection than a hypocrite Somali warlord. Faith should define the new borders, not race, nor geographical colonial maps. In stark contrast, imagine redrawing world maps along faith affiliations, Christians Catholics, Protestants, Presbyterians, Morons, etc), Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Atheists! imagine if these are the new nations with their homelands as their borders? Akhi Abu Salman You write: "There is nothing blameworthy in loving your family, village, clan or community in a special way." Akhi, I agree with the first part, loving one's homeland is not contradicting with loyalty to our maker, however, loving the clan is conditional that our clan has pledged loyalty to Allah ALONE!, even dual loyalty is a form of shirk which we can analyze it further to see nature of the conflict and its dire impact both in this life and next. Akhi Ayoub Thank you for clarifying the role of the International Organizations, you are definitely right, like Switzerland or the US, one can pick and choose, but, we Somalis are just learning how to play cards (A Somali Clannish Joke, no offense to anyone!), and the more we learn how to play the cards game, the more they break their own rules. Our dilemma is reconciling our loyalties, is it for our clan or national leaders, our lands or our faith? and what are the exception to the rule if any? Nur

Ayoub Bro. You ask: "where does the verse that says "made you into nations and tribes" fit in all this, and what are its contexts. I'm asking because most Somalis used it to excuse everything good or bad". Very good observation, I would rather respond to this loaded question later to allow more thoughts by Nomads, however let me just say this: The conclusion of the verse says : "The most honorable among you ( Nations and Tribes) in Allahs's sight are those who are most observant of (Allah's Commandments)"[/b. Hence Tribal or national loyalty is intimately conditional to Allah's loyalty as the only recognized measure of honor, which guarantees that all nations and tribes become a single family when they all adhere to Allah;s commandments. Abu Salman bro. What if the Afar guy in Tojurrah is more in line with Islam than the Somali in Jigjiga or Djibouti? Will you still be closer to the Somali? Akhi, Patriotism can mean either the love of one's homeland, which is natural, even the Prophet SAWS used to Love Makkah more than any other place. But, the love of the clan or the race aka Nationalism is what this thread is all about. What kind of bond made Salman the Persian, Suhaib the Roman, Bilal, the Abyssinian (Ethiopian), and Mohammad SAWS the Arab so close? The question is who should we be more loyal to: A Devout Ethiopian Muslim or a Secular Somali? Nur

Result Of Islamophobia ?: Nearly 1 in 5 Americans had mental illness in 2009 REUTERS, Thursday, 18 Nov 2010 CHICAGO - More than 45 million Americans, or 20 percent of U.S. adults, had some form of mental illness last year, and 11 million had a serious illness, U.S. government researchers reported on Thursday. Young adults aged 18 to 25 had the highest level of mental illness at 30 percent, while those aged 50 and older had the lowest, with 13.7 percent, said the report by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration or SAMHSA. The rate, slightly higher than last year's 19.5 percent figure, reflected increasing depression, especially among the unemployed, SAMHSA, part of the National Institutes of Health, said. "Too many Americans are not getting the help they need and opportunities to prevent and intervene early are being missed," Pamela Hyde, SAMHSA's administrator, said in a statement. "The consequences for individuals, families and communities can be devastating. If left untreated mental illnesses can result in disability, substance abuse, suicides, lost productivity, and family discord." The 2009 mental health survey hints at the impact of record unemployment rates, which last year hit a 25-year high as struggling employers slashed jobs to cope with a weak economy. For many, lost employment meant loss of health insurance, leaving many of the nation's mentally ill unable to get treatment. According to the survey, 6.1 million adults last year had a mental health need that went untreated, and 42.5 percent said it was because they could not afford it. It found 14.8 million Americans had major depression last year, and 10 percent of the jobless did, compared with 7.5 of retired people or those not in the job force, 7.3 percent who worked part time and 5.4 percent who worked full time. Only 64 percent of adults aged 18 or older with major depression were treated last year, compared with 71 percent a year ago. Being jobless also increased the risk of suicide. Adults who were unemployed last year were twice as likely to have serious thoughts of suicide as people who were fully employed, with 6.6 percent of the unemployed considering suicide, compared with 3.1 percent of those who were working. The survey also found that 23.8 percent of women had some form of mental illness, compared with 15.6 percent of men. Copyright 2010 Reuters. Click for restrictions. Who Is Funding The Islamophobia Campaign In America That is Driving Americans Insane?

Nomads Wishing You All A happy Eid Season! Here is another eNuri provocative topic on current issues that in my eyes collide head-on with the principles of Tawheed (Allah's Sovereignty). This topic is wide open for all to participate, as we explore and analyze modern conventions in light of age old Islamic principles (Aqeedah), I suggest that we examine the validity of Clannish Loyalty, Patriotism, borders, Modern Unions ( United Nations, African Union, EU, ASEAN etc) in light of Islamic Law, Allah's Absolute Sovereignty, and unity of mankind. The Modern Nation-State is said to be Sovereign, meaning that its an entity vested with absolute reign over its borders and citizens, (please refer to past eNuri definitions of Sovereignty on SOL Islam pages) Some of questions in this regard that I'd like to raise are: 1. Isn't only the size that makes clannish loyalty different than Patriotism? if so, then why do some of us think negatively about clannish loyalty while being patriotic (Waddaninimo - Somali Patriotism)? 2. Does Patriotism aka Nationalism, compete with our loyalty with our Maker's Absolute Sovereignty? Does the flag and the National Anthem represent a modern Idol? I mean a form of false deity whose devotees hold it sacred above everything else? 3. Is grouping of peoples along colonial demarcated borders a legitimate right reserved for past Colonialists if Colonialism itself is deemed as an illegal crime committed by Nations who invaded peaceful nations, occupying their lands, stealing their resources, enslaving their peoples and then, as they cut their losses an ran away, hastily demarcated the lands they occupied as per their interests and not as per the wishes of the indigenous peoples? 4. What is the strongest cohesive force that unites different peoples of different races, colors and languages? 5. Are the United Nations and African Union entities that sanction morally binding and encompassing authority over member nations' Sovereignty? Do they reserve the right to recognize the representatives of the member nations based on: A. Principles of the Organization, B. Principles held by the Member Nation's People If it becomes different than the Organizations founding principles? C. Does the African Union, and the UN own its members or its the members who own the Organziation? Nur 2010 eNuri Political Islam Bridging Islamic Principles With Modern Governance

Oba Hiloolow Could you please explain who the Khawaarij are? many readers have no clue what the term means. Nur

Oba Hiloowllow Late Eid Mubaarak Waa dood faaido badan haddii si mowduuci ( Objective) ah oo cilmiyeysan looga wada doodo. Waxaan kaa codsanayaa in aad marka hore aad noo sheegtid "Dariiqa Toosan" calaamadihiisa, si markaas aan labada qolo ood sheegtay aan isu garab dhigno si aan u ogaanno qolada "Dariiqa Toosan" ku taagan. Nur

LazieG YOu write: Nur, how long ago did you create this thread? November 07, 2001 How much time has passed since the United States invasion of Afghanistan? I am sure you can find that out Why do you insist on recycling views of bloggers more so than your own? Insist? who objected to it? For example, the article above is entitled, "there is no alqaeda" etc etc, does that mean you agree with the views of its author? Some of the views. Do you believe that the Alqaeda branch of the arabian peninsula is nonexistence? A phantom of sort? Al Qaeda is a runaway trade mark, anyone can use it for any reason from intelligence organizations to anyone unhappy with the US foreign policy. Why is it that when you go out of your way to recycle sources, almost always there is one written by the gay blogger, glen greenwald? Never checked the authors sexual orientation, Qowmu Lut's story in Quraan has it that they have been destroyed in Sodom and Gomorrah. Sorry if I have posted someone you extremely hate for their sin. InshAllah I will try to be careful next time. If you post an article without a commentary or a follow up, an observer almost always reaches the conclusion that you are in full agreement with the points raised by an author on a particular subject, Almost always? any statistics to support this statement? Do you not read with critical eye whenever you come across a sensational piece that has you falling off your chair? I post topics that interest me, without agreeing with it 100%, and expect a response to start a discussion, but due to the totalitarian nature of the new world order, no one has responded to the thread, so, I took freedom to post more and more till I got your attention, which is very healthy no matter where you stand on the argument. Why not question the motives of the author, why not provide me(the reader of this thread) a commentary...give me more to work with, dont let me reach my own conclusions ya NUR. I would have done it if you throw in your two cents, you need two opposing views for criticism. Finally, this brings me back to the reason why I keep coming back to this thread, which is that I'm looking to read something of value, which will start a healthy discussion about afghanistan/iraq/alqaeda, It would help if you make your values known and respond to the content I posted, be specific sis. I can not tolerate reading recycled material from nugotary sources repeatedly, which is why I had to voice my concern over your selective reading. Never meant to torture you sis. In addition, I dont know if your remember, you and I got into 'it; a while ago over similar thread about a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who you very much respect and you were in support of his position about 9/11 theories, you found his arguement to be compelling. It was difficult to reason with you much less caution you aout questionable sources. Lazieg G, if you have an interest to debate the 911 story let me know, I will open a thread for it. Finally, what is interesting is not what a blogger says but how convincing he is in his art and my question to you is how much of the trash posted above do you buy into? You are not objective here sis, so far you have not objected to any statement with a sound counterpoint, whining is not a good way to air your opinion. Do you deny Alqaeda's existence? If the answer is yes, on what grounds? I have answered this above ...and on my last point, which is to say that we are not the tea party movement, we do know take things at face value. We do fact checks, we use logic and reason to reach our conclusions. We do not embrace views of others just because they mirror our very own biased. We have the right to be a skeptic, unless ofcourse, you are a tea bagger who reads a blog or two and reaches a decisive conclusion. Please post your opinion that reflects all of the above, if you can think clearly, you shouldn't have any problem composing a logical answer. sincerely, Nur

A Rare and Famous Speech By An American Law Maker With A Nose in Tact! Titled: Nur

UN/AU Continues Somali Slaughter By Thomas C. Mountain, Countercurrents.org 04 October, 2010 For over a year now the United Nations/African Union troops in Mogadishu, so called “peacekeepers”, have been regularly firing mortars and artillery into Somali neighborhoods in retaliation for attacks by the Somali resistance. “Peacekeepers” firing artillery into civilian neighborhoods? “Peacekeepers” killing untold thousands of innocent women and children whose only crime was being Somali and living within range of the UN/AU artillery? You have to wonder, are these Peace Keepers or Peace Killers? The Somali resistance, or what the western media prefers to call “Al Queda linked Al Shabab” regularly stages hit and run mortar attacks on the UN/AU “green zone”, the steadily shrinking area of Mogadishu still controlled by the over 6,000 AU troops,mainly from Uganda and Burundi. Occasionally manned bomb attacks successfully penetrate the defenses surrounding the UN/AU Green Zone and do some serious damage. Response from the UN/AU forces comes in the form of mortar and artillery fire, punishing the surrounding neighborhoods without regard for any actual presence of armed fighters. When the smoke and dust clears, with the Bakara market place seeming to be a favorite target, the dead are quickly buried, as in the Islamic tradition, and the bodies of those killed that lay unclaimed by family or friends end up in the local morgue. Estimates run for every one body turned into the morgue, an official death, 4 others are buried unreported. When a leading Somali web site reports “On December 20, 2009 UN[AU] indiscriminate shelling killed 14 civilians and wounded 33 at the Bakara Market” the real body count was more like 70 dead. The Somali site goes on, “October 28, 2009...4 civilians killed, October 26...5 civilians killed...October 22...17 civilians killed...September 29,,,12 civilians killed...”. The year since has seen a dramatic upswell of violence. The western media regularly reports body counts from Mogadishu as if these torn and broken bodies are the result of people being caught in some sort of crossfire. The reality is nearly all of these dead and wounded are innocent civilians killed by UN/AU “peacekeepers”. Those of us who live in the Horn of Africa can only shake our heads and wonder, once again, where is the justice in this world? Why is this is slaughter being allowed to continue? Is it because the world must continue it’s war on terror? Terror as in Al Queda and its local Somali wing Al Shabab? Al Shabab as an independent armed group didn't even exist until the USA and UN/AU sent the Ethiopian army to invade Somalia at the end of 2006 and destroy the first peace seen in Mogadishu in 15 years. Up until the US backed Ethiopian invasion in 2006 Al Shabab was the youth arm of the Union of Islamic Courts and helped establish law and order in Mogadishu. The Union of Islamic Courts, with Al Shababs support established the beginnings of a new government that Somalis all over the world had been praying for. When the western instigated Ethiopian invasion took place followed by the retreat into temporary exile of the Union of Islamic Courts if was left to the likes of Al Shabab to step up and lead the Somali resistance, something is has done all to well. Destoy the peace and create a new nightmare for US foreign policy in the form of “Al Queda linked Al Shabab”? What else should have been expected of the latest insanity by the worlds lone superpower when it comes to the Horn of Africa. Of course we shouldn't forget to mention that the UN/AU “peacekeepers” are in Mogadishu to protect “democracy”. This democracy is presently in its third version of the “Transitional Federal Government of Somalia” headed this incarnation by one Sheik Sharif. Sheik Sharif? Didn't he use to be part of the “Al Queda linked Union of Islamic Courts”? Wasn’t he the guy I used to raise my expresso to in the lobby of the former Imperial Hotel here in Asmara during the Somali unity conference and laugh about how I was sitting next to someone from “Al Queda”? Sheik Sharif? Is this the guy who went to bed one night being linked to Al Queda and woke up the next morning as a “democratically elected leader of the Somali Government”...? Democratically elected not in Somalia but in Djibouti, all the while surrounded by US and French military. The western press continues to report that the UN/AU troops are “peacekeepers” rather than a foreign occupation army. Readers of the corporate media are told that the “peacekeepers” are there to protect the world from terrorism and are not actually slaughtering thousands of innocent Somali civilians. We are told that Instead of ending this crime against humanity support for the ongoing slaughter in Mogadishu must be stepped up or god forbid, Somalia will become a haven for terrorists from around the globe. These “peacekeepers” hail from Uganda and Burundi, both countries with a long history of civil war and horrific massacres. Uganda is at war with the Lords Resistance Army, still continuing its decades long terror in the north. Worse, Uganda is once again facing ethnic unrest, and the next election could see ethnic cleansing break out, started by the largest tribe, the Bugandans. So why are Ugandan troops in Somalia? Uganda gets some 40% of its budget from foreign aid and until the long dreamed of petroleum bonanza comes rolling in it must dance to the masters tune. After the Ethiopians were routed by the Somali resistance the west needed a new enforcer, and President Musuveni was induced into filling the role. As for Burundi, as in Rwanda, the Hutu-Tutsi bloodletting has been erupting of and on since independence, and the capital of Burundi could well use the Burundi troops in Somalia to help keep the peace at home. Burundi is increasingly dependent on western dollars just to feed its people, and “peacekeepers” earn hard currency for their government. Unfortunately, the Ugandan and Burundian generals pocket much of their troops salaries and UN/AU “peacekeepers” end up selling their western weaponry for hard cash on the black market all to often to the very ones the UN/AU so loudly condemns, “Al Queda linked Al Shabab”. The facts of the matter are that the west does not want peace in Somalia. Almost two decades ago the USA did its best to massacre the leading voices for peace of the Somali indigenous, clan based leadership during its ill fated invasion. Fifteen years later, when peace finally broke out in Somalia, Ethiopia was given the dirty task of destroying it. With Ethiopia’s defeat, Ugandan and later Burundian troops filled the gap. Recently there has even been talk of Guinea sending troops. Just last year Guinea’s army was being roundly condemned by the west for its own massacres, yet are now being put forward as “peacekeepers” for Mogadishu? As has been said here before, truth is so often stranger than fiction, and when it comes to the Horn of Africa fiction is passed as fact. Peace Keepers or Peace Killers,in Mogadishu? Again, you be the judge. Thomas C. Mountain Asmara, Eritrea thomascmountain at yahoo dot com

Akhi Awakener InshAllah I will respond to your questions, till then, here is a fresh perspective of the situation in Somalia from a neutral Non- Somali An al Shabaab government could bring Somalia back to fold of world nations By Kisiangani Emmanuel, DAILY NATION, Tuesday, November 02, 2010 Somalia has, over the past two decades, deteriorated into one of the world’s worst security and humanitarian challenges. Characterised by insidious conflict, political fragmentation, and an informal economy, Somalia represents the archetypal failed state. Unfortunately, the international community, Kenya included, have in their policy strategies focused on Somalia mainly in terms of threats to their own security instead of acting decisively and in a non-partisan manner to help establish a government that is acceptable to most Somalis. The upshot is that more often than not, viable “Somali solutions” to the Somali problem have been ignored or overlooked. It is no wonder that the international community’s primary preoccupation with ideology and symptoms, including the war against terror and the piracy scourge, which though critical to international security, has removed the needs and aspirations of Somalis from the agenda. Consider the piracy problem, for instance. It has its roots in state failure, encroachment on Somali waters, and poor living conditions of the Somalis. They are aware that foreign countries are profiting from their country’s “misery” and this has served to increase the popularity of pirates as ransom payments are viewed by Somalis ashore as legitimate taxation. Yet, what does the international community do? It invests resources in deterrence at sea. In all likelihood, the international community would achieve better results if it were to devote the time and resources it is using on its naval forces and protecting its commercial interests to reconstructing Somalia. Indeed, the actions of the international community since the ouster of Siad Barre in 1991 have failed to rein in warlords and insurgent groups. It is time to change tack and accept to work with the government that emerges in Somalia, regardless of its ideological affiliation. It is important to realise that Somalia is more complex than just a “failed state”. Since 1991, what was formerly the Somali Democratic Republic has disintegrated into numerous factions. Somalia is, therefore, more of a “them” than an “it”. Somalia’s problems are a confluence of internal and external factors. Internally, clannism and clan cleavages have been exploited by different factions to gain political leverage and profiteer from the country’s informal economy. Externally, it is the international community’s current and previous policies on the war against terror and attempts to impose a government, that have served to reinforce the historic mistrust of the West and to buttress Somalia’s political weakness, including strengthening of religious extremism. While the problems in Somalia are too complex for a quick solution, without a government acceptable to the majority of Somalis, achieving lasting peace remains unlikely. While there are war profiteers who are keen to maintain the status quo, the misery and despair of the majority of Somalis will continue to push, especially young people into criminal activities. The only time in the past two decades when Somalia assumed a semblance of peace was in 2006 during the six months rule of the Islamic Courts Union (ICU). During this period, crime levels, including, piracy, subsided. The ICU was able to keep at bay warlords and militia groups because they enjoyed popular support and were seen as a legitimate authority. But they were considered by sections of the international community as having links with al Qaeda. The moderate Islamic Transitional Federal Government (TFG), that was seen as the best prospect for stability when it took over in early 2009, looks like a Western proxy imposed upon the people and has, thus, failed to assert its authority over Somalia’s territory. The international community should not fear the possibility of an al Shabaab government. It should, instead, accept an Islamist authority and work with it while discouraging extremist tendencies. Unless there is a decisive change in the international community’s involvement in Somalia, continued external meddling will only prolong and worsen the conflict and further radicalise the population.

AI wants Bush on trial over torture The London-based Amnesty International (AI) has called for a criminal investigation into former US President George W. Bush's admission of torture. The rights group's call comes after Bush confirmed in his recently released memoirs, Decision Points, that he authorized the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" against detainees held in secret US custody. Exactly six days after the September 11 attacks, Bush authorized the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to set up secret detention facilities outside the US. Amnesty claims multiple human rights violations were committed against detainees in the name of the so-called 'war on terror.' Additionally, in an 8 November 2010 interview with Matt Lauer on NBC, Bush stated that he had authorized the use of "water boarding" and other "enhanced interrogation techniques" against alleged "high-value detainees." During the interview, Bush focused on the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. "Would it be OK for a foreign country to waterboard an American citizen?" Lauer asked. "It's all I ask is that people read the book. And they can reach the same conclusion. If they'd have made the same decision I made or not," replied Bush. According to a report released by the CIA Inspector General, Mohammed was water-boarded 183 times. Mohammed had spent three and a half years in a solitary confinement in secret locations before being transferred to military custody in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he continues to languish without trial. Amnesty is calling for Bush and others involved in torture to be tried under the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which the US ratified in 1994. "Under international law, the former President's admission to having authorized acts that amount to torture are enough to trigger the USA's obligations to investigate his admissions and if substantiated, to prosecute him," AI said. "Failure to investigate and prosecute in circumstances where the requisite criteria are met is itself a violation of international law," it added.

Zero Based Terrorism By Philip Giraldi November 11, 2010 "CFL" -- Nov, 09, 2010-- There is every indication that the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives will support an open ended policy to "win" in Afghanistan, whatever that means, giving President Barack Obama a free pass to pursue any option he chooses, even if it entails an endless series of escalations. The Republicans would also support extending the war on terror to include the most recent bête noir Yemen and the perennial favorite Somalia. The only fly in the ointment is the presence of a substantial bloc of Tea Party Republicans in the new majority, a group that might be inclined to reflexively support American imperialism in all its glory but will almost certainly be opposed to paying for it through higher taxes and an expansion of the military to actually do the fighting. Before actually voting on any continuing resolution or new budget, it would behoove the Tea Partiers to do some loss versus gain budget analysis on the nine years of war on terror. The Obama Administration has recently revealed that it is budgeting $80 billion for intelligence programs for 2011. That figure is almost certainly too low, probably by at least 25%, as many programs are hidden in other budgets or secretly funded because of their sensitivity. And it is reasonable to assume that the intelligence budget has been at that elevated level since 9/11, meaning that something close to a trillion dollars has been spent. If one also includes part of the defense budget, which has doubled since 2001 based on the terrorist threat, the numbers are staggering, with Washington spending a minimum of two to three trillion dollars countering the terrorist menace, creating a massive governmental and private sector infrastructure ostensibly dedicated to keeping Americans safe. And now, in the wake of a series of letter bombs which did not explode and did no damage, the call is for increased security, almost certainly costing many more billions of dollars which will enrich former senior officials like Michael Chertoff. Chertoff, who headed the Department of Homeland Security under George W. Bush, now is a partner in a company that sells security equipment for airports. He has been on television frequently since the first letter bomb was discovered, recommending better and more intrusive security without revealing in any way his own ties to the industry that provides the necessary equipment. He is not alone. Security has become a vast and lucrative enterprise for those in position to cash in. If America's visible empire is its string of hundreds of bases and deployments worldwide, the hidden empire is the military industrial complex with tentacles into nearly every congressional district that supports the endeavor. And what about the terrorist threat itself? To note that it has been greatly exaggerated would be the understatement of the century. Most Americans would be surprised to learn that no US citizen has been killed in the United States since 9/11 by an actual member of any of the groups that the State Department defines as "terrorist." Recent attacks were carried out by "loners," individuals who wanted to get even for US attacks on Muslim civilians worldwide, not members of militant groups or motivated by any desire to convert the world to Islam. As Ron Paul has noted, they have attacked us because we are over there, in foreign lands killing civilians. If, as FOX news pundits frequently claim, terrorism is all part of a worldwide "Islamofascist" conspiracy to establish the Caliphate and kill unbelievers, it is all pretty lame. Underwear, SUV, and letter bombs have all failed to explode and experts are divided on whether they can work at all given the limitations of the technology. If I were a terrorist wannabe, I would be laughing all the way to the bank as the US and Europe prepare to pour more money into preventive measures in response to chemical bombs that are often mixed together in somebody's kitchen. Usama bin Laden once predicted that he would break the United States economically and it now appears that he understood very well that every American response to even the most minor threat would be a massive overreaction and overkill, eventually bankrupting the country. And the Tea Partiers should look at both sides of the balance sheet before casting their votes on a continuing resolution to continue the war on terror. Assuming that Washington has spent some trillions of dollars against terrorists, it is important to note what the actual threat is and to evaluate what has been accomplished. It is undeniably safer to fly today, but identifying other areas in which national security has been improved continues to be elusive in spite of the expenditure of vast amounts of money. The fact that both Democratic and Republican administrations have been able to repeatedly cite "terrorism" to justify nearly everything should suggest that either there are millions of terrorists running loose or that the policy to restrain them has failed. In spite of the most intensive manhunt in history, Usama bin Laden might or might not be still alive, but even if he is dead it has not been due to any effort by Washington to kill him. And the money poured down a vast pit called government has not exactly hit the target. The terrorist groups operating in 2001 are still around, possibly by design to justify spending still more money in a never ending cycle until the cash runs out. The Tea Partiers should be asking themselves what exactly all the money is buying and should begin to question the bipartisan national security policy that has the United States invading and occupying country after country in an attempt to fix other people's problems. They should begin to ask just what would happen if the American voters were to finally demand that the Pentagon close its seven hundred bases overseas and bring our people home as part of a policy of non-intervention as envisioned by the Founding Fathers. Would the so-called terrorists rally and follow our soldiers home to wreak havoc? Somehow, I just don't think it would work out that way. America might then become free to be a hegemon based not on military might but on values and good example. Just imagine what that would be like. Philip M. Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served 19 years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was Chief of Base in Barcelona from 1989 to 1992, was designated as senior Agency officer for support at the Olympic Games, and served as official liaison to the Spanish Security and Intelligence services. He has been designated by the General Accountability Office as an expert on the impact of illegal immigration on terrorism. Copyright © 2010 Campaign for Liberty Home Of The Free!

Millions of Pilgrims ( Hujjaaj) are convening in Makkah in these sacred days as a response to Allah's invitation to all of mankind our Patriarch Abraham in Surah Al Hajj: 28 And (remember) when We showed Ibrahim (Abraham) the site of the (Sacred) House (the Ka'bah at Makkah) (saying): "Associate not anything (in worship) with Me, [La ilaha ill-Allah (none has the right to be worshiped but Allah Islamic Monotheism], and sanctify My House for those who circumambulate it, and those who stand up for prayer, and those who bow (submit themselves with humility and obedience to Allah), and make prostration (in prayer, etc.);" 27 And proclaim to mankind the Hajj (pilgrimage). They will come to you on foot and on every lean camel, they will come from every deep and distant (wide) mountain highway (to perform Hajj). 28 That they may witness things that are of benefit to them (i.e. reward of Hajj in the Hereafter, and also some worldly gain from trade, etc.), and mention the Name of Allah on appointed days (i.e. 10th, 11th, 12th, and 13th day of Dhul-Hijjah), over the beast of cattle that He has provided for them (for sacrifice) (at the time of their slaughtering by saying: Bismillah, Wallahu-Akbar, Allahumma Minka wa Ilaik). Then eat thereof and feed therewith the poor who have a very hard time. 29 Then let them complete the prescribed duties (Manasik of Hajj) for them, and perform their vows, and circumambulate the Ancient House (the Ka'bah at Makkah). 30 That (Manasik prescribed duties of Hajj is the obligation that mankind owes to Allah), and whoever honours the sacred things of Allah, then that is better for him with his Lord. The cattle are lawful to you, except those (that will be) mentioned to you (as exceptions). So shun the abomination (worshiping) of idol, and shun lying speech (false statements) 31 Hunafa' Lillah (i.e. to worship none but Allah), not associating partners (in worship, etc.) unto Him and whoever assigns partners to Allah, it is as if he had fallen from the sky, and the birds had snatched him, or the wind had thrown him to a far off place. Nur

Nomads, another Dhil Hijjah, another opportunity for forgiveness and goodwill to mankind, let us pray for patience, perseverance and peace. Nur

A Society That Believes in NOTHING is Frightened by People Who Believe In Anything! Source

“What is Al Qaeda? The truth is there is no Al Qaeda,” Yemen’s Drive on Al Qaeda Faces Internal Skepticism By MONA EL-NAGGAR and ROBERT F. WORTH November 04, 2010 "NY Times" -- Nov, 03, 2010 -- SANA, Yemen — As Yemen intensifies its military campaign against Al Qaeda’s regional arm, it faces a serious obstacle: most Yemenis consider the group a myth, or a ploy by their president to squeeze the West for aid money and punish his domestic opponents. Those cynical attitudes — rooted in Yemen’s history of manipulative politics — complicate any effort to track down the perpetrators of the recent plot to send explosives by courier to the United States. They also make it harder to win public support for the fight against jihadist violence, whatever label one attaches to it. “What is Al Qaeda? The truth is there is no Al Qaeda,” said Lutfi Muhammad, a weary-looking unemployed 50-year-old walking through this city’s tumultuous Tahrir Square. Instead, he said, the violence is “because of the regime and the lack of stability and the internal struggles.” That view, echoed across Yemen, is only partly a conspiracy theory. The Yemeni government has used jihadists as proxy soldiers in the past, and sometimes conflates the Qaeda threat and the unrelated political insurgencies it has fought in northern and southern Yemen in recent years. In a country where political and tribal violence is endemic, it is often impossible to tell who is killing whom, and why. One thing is clear: Yemen’s president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, has stepped up his commitment to fighting Al Qaeda in the past year, with far more military raids and airstrikes, including some carried out by the American military. His government has paid a price. On Saturday, a day after the discovery of the air freight bomb plot, Mr. Saleh said during a news conference that Al Qaeda had killed 70 police officers and soldiers in the past four weeks. That is a sharp increase over previous years, and some analysts have taken it as proof that Al Qaeda’s Yemen-based branch is growing. But many Yemenis seem doubtful that Al Qaeda was guilty in all or even most of those killings, which took place in the same southern parts of the country where a secessionist movement has been growing for the past three years. “We cannot differentiate between what is propaganda and what is real,” said Abdullah al-Faqih, a professor of political science at Sana University. “It’s impossible to tell who is killing who; you have tribal feuds, Al Qaeda and the Southern Movement, and the state is doing a lot of manipulation.” In a sense, there are two narratives about Al Qaeda in Yemen. One of them, presented by both the Yemeni government and Al Qaeda’s Internet postings — and echoed in the West — portrays a black-and-white struggle between the groups. The other narrative is the view from the ground in Yemen: a confusing welter of attacks by armed groups with shifting loyalties, some fighting under political or religious banners, some merely looking for money. The Yemeni authorities have long paid tribal leaders to fight domestic enemies, or even other tribes that were causing trouble for the government. That policy has helped foster a culture of blackmail: some tribal figures promote violence, whether through jihadists or mere criminals, and then offer to quell it in exchange for cash. “Some of what looks like Al Qaeda is really terror as a business,” Mr. Faqih said. Yemen’s tribes are often cast as the chief obstacle in the fight against Al Qaeda, sheltering the militants because of tribal hospitality or even ideological kinship. In fact, few tribal leaders have any sympathy for the group, and some tribes have forced Qaeda members to leave their areas in the past year. In a statement released Tuesday, a group identifying itself as Al Qaeda members from the Awlaq tribe — one of Yemen’s largest — pleaded with their fellow tribesmen for support, noting that “we were deeply saddened to see the leaders, chiefs, and dignitaries of our community go personally to meet with the government envoy.” Instead, Al Qaeda seems to thrive where tribal authority has eroded, or in the southern areas where hatred of the government is most intense. In many of the recent attacks, it is difficult to draw a line between Al Qaeda and angry, impoverished young men who have easy access to weapons. This is particularly true of the secessionist movement in the south. “There are many unemployed young men and people with personal interests who rebelled against the state and against the movement itself,” said Saleh al-Hanashi, an adviser to the governor of Abyan, a southern province where the protest movement thrives and many of the recent killings have taken place. “They became these chaos-inciting groups. And these groups now in Abyan shoot at cars belonging to the state and do other destructive acts against the state.” This kind of vandalism is easily attributed to Al Qaeda, whether the group claims responsibility for it or not. The latest issue of the group’s English-language magazine, Inspire, features a banner headline on the front cover: “Photos From the Operations of Abyan.” Inside, there are gruesome pictures of burning Jeeps and dead Yemeni soldiers. Many southerners view Mr. Saleh’s government as an occupying force, and while the secessionist movement’s leaders say they reject violence, some of its members may be willing to make common cause with jihadists. North and south Yemen, once separate countries, unified in 1990, then fought a bitter civil war four years later. Many in the south say they have been treated unequally ever since. It is possible that the worsening carnage in southern Yemen, and Al Qaeda’s claims of responsibility for it, will eventually lead to a shift in perceptions and broader support for the government’s agenda. That is what happened in Saudi Arabia, where attitudes toward Al Qaeda were similar to those in Yemen until the group began carrying out bloody attacks in Saudi cities in 2003. Public opinion soon swung sharply against the jihadists, and by 2006 the Saudis had crushed the group. That is far less likely in Yemen, with its terrible poverty and weak central government. For now, most Yemenis seem to dismiss reports of Al Qaeda killings as a “masrah,” or drama, staged by the government and its American backers. The suspicion runs so deep that any action by the Yemeni government seems to confirm it: counterterrorist raids are often described as punitive measures against domestic foes, and the failure to act decisively is derided as collusion. “This latest episode with the packages is only making it worse,” said Mr. Faqih, the Sana University professor. “Many people think it was all about the elections in the U.S., or an excuse for American military intervention here.” Mona El-Naggar reported from Sana, and Robert F. Worth from Beirut, Lebanon. Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company

Chomsky: US-led Afghan War, Criminal By Press TV November 03,2010 "Press TV" -- Renowned Jewish-American scholar Noam Chomsky says US invasion of Afghanistan was illegal since to date there is no evidence that al-Qaeda has carried out the 9/11 attacks. "The explicit and declared motive of the [Afghanistan] war was to compel the Taliban to turn over to the United States, the people who they accused of having been involved in World Trade Center and Pentagon terrorist acts. The Taliban…they requested evidence…and the Bush administration refused to provide any," the 81-year-old senior academic made the remarks on Press TV's program a Simple Question. "We later discovered one of the reasons why they did not bring evidence: they did not have any." The political analyst also said that nonexistence of such evidence was confirmed by FBI eight months later. "The head of FBI, after the most intense international investigation in history, informed the press that the FBI believed that the plot may have been hatched in Afghanistan, but was probably implemented in the United Arab Emirates and Germany." Chomsky added that three weeks into the war, "a British officer announced that the US and Britain would continue bombing, until the people of Afghanistan overthrew the Taliban... That was later turned into the official justification for the war." "All of this was totally illegal. It was more, criminal," Chomsky said. The 2001 US-led invasion of Afghanistan was launched with the official objective of curbing militancy and bringing peace and stability to the country. Nine years on, however, the American and Afghan officials admit that the country remains unstable and civilians continue to pay the heaviest price.

The Obama Postmortem An Autopsy of a Political Suicide By Ted Rall November 04, 2010 "ICH" --It’s the day after the Republican sweep we all knew was coming. If Obama had any dignity, if he was honest with himself and with us, he would resign. It’s abundantly clear that he isn’t up to the job. But you don’t become president by being honest or dignified. So now it’s wound-licking time. The President and his cronies are comforting each other. “It’s not your fault the economy sucks,” a Yes Man reassures Obama, sinking his heels into the new Oval Office carpet. “It was like that when we got here.” Do they scratch him behind his ears? They should. It feels nice. “It was the poor economy—not the wisdom of the Republicans’ ideas or the brilliance of their tactics—that assured they would retake control of the House,” coos MarketWatch’s Rex Nutting. Which is true. And doesn’t matter. Democrats are taking solace in history. It’s the midterms! The party that holds the White House always loses seats in Congress. Look at Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. They suffered midterm defeats, then roared back to landslide reelection wins two years later. Not to worry! The voters will vote against the other party next time! Which is also true. And also doesn’t matter. In the broken-down shambles of the excuse for a political system we have in the United States, there’s only one stage of grief: denial. Barack Obama may well be reelected in 2012. Considering that the current GOP frontrunners are Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney, the odds favor him. But the Obama experiment is effectively dead. There will be no change, and so there is no hope. Remember what happened to Clinton after the “Republican Revolution” sweep of 1994? He spent 1995 locked in a bizarre “co-presidency” with House Speaker Newt Gingrich before figuring out that his “partner” was more interested in obstructionist sabotage than bipartisanship. Obama is heading down the same bloody path with John Boehner. But Clinton did get that second term. During which he accomplished many things, such as…um…well, he did get impeached. Does that count? I don’t understand why presidents want to get reelected. No president since FDR has gotten much done after his first term. Must be an ego thing. Either that, or it’s cool to have your own chef. If Obama was going to shine, it was going to be during 2009. Elected by a sizable margin with an undeniable, media-backed mandate for change during a severe economic crisis he could exploit to push through his agenda, Obama also enjoyed the rare luxury of a Democratic House of Representatives and a nearly filibuster-proof Democratic Senate. So what does he have to show for that marvelous gift? Three major items: One: a healthcare overhaul that increases premiums and insurance company profits, and doesn’t include the public option he and everyone else said was absolutely essential. The good news is, the Republicans will probably repeal or defund this monster before it takes effect. Two: a financial reform package no one knows about. Which is just as well, since it doesn’t crack down on the banksters. Three: more dead Afghans. They’re not much, but I hope Obama is proud of them. That’s as good as he’s going to get from now on. What killed the Obama presidency? Political suicide. There were several death blows: First and foremost, the economy. 60 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of Republicans told exit pollsters that the lack of jobs was their number-one issue. Obama never proposed a jobs program. He gave trillions of taxdollars to thieving banksters who ought to have been arrested instead, then tried to pass off this outrageous giveaway as economic stimulus. To make things worse, he stuck with an impossibly absurd argument: more people would have lost their jobs without it. Even if the phony stimulus stopped things from getting worse—and it didn’t—people don’t care. They want the 20 percent of Americans who already lost their jobs—their friends, spouses, children and parents—to find new ones. Obama never addressed that. He didn’t even try. Second, he alienated his base. He didn’t even know who his base was. Obama’s campaign was a potent mix of vague pabulum (“hope,” “change”) and, when he deigned to specify, center-right specifics (stop torture but expand the war against Afghanistan, bipartisan cooperation with the Republicans, no gay marriage, etc.). The problem was that the vagueness that helped him cobble together a winning coalition of leftist and independent voters made it impossible for him govern. Leftists got turned off when he doubled down in Afghanistan and refused to close Guantánamo; independents are notoriously fickle anyway. If Obama’s advisors had been smart, they would have recognized two truths, one old and one new. The old truth is that the safest time to deliver to your base is the first year of a presidency; the passage of time allows the anger of the moderates to cool in time for the next election. The new truth for Obama was that his base comprised liberals who actually disagreed with much of what he stood for but had paid more attention to the “hope” and “change” posters than to his platform. He didn’t understand that. Moreover, the world changed between September and November of 2008. Global capitalism collapsed. Millions of Americans lost their jobs and their homes during the next year. Wall Street, bankers, big business, the golden boys of the previous century, were discredited—but unpunished for their countless sins. By mid-2009 America had become a left-wing country, not in the media but among the citizenry, telling polls that their preferred economic system was socialism. Team Obama didn’t understand that. They still don’t. The inarticulate rage of the inchoate Tea Party caught the president by surprise. Neither Obama nor the political clones that form his center-right cabinet can see that in a binary political culture anger gravitates to the opposite pole. If Obama were Republican, the Tea Party would be identified with the left. The takeaway is anger, not ideology. People are pissed. They hate the bailouts, but the bailouts aren’t the main point. More than anything else, the American people are angry that their government doesn’t even pretend to give a damn about them. Ted Rall is the author of “The Anti-American Manifesto.” His website is www.tedrall.com

Imperialism, Islamophobia, and Torture By Adam Hudson November 03, 2010 "Stanford Progressive"-- During the Nuremberg Trials, the chief American prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, famously stated: “To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” America has a long history of war and its accumulated evils. It began as thirteen small colonies that sat along the Atlantic coast. In over a century, the United States expanded all the way to the Pacific Ocean – from sea to shining sea. The process was not pretty. It involved the genocide of the native Americans and the enslavement of millions of black Africans whose free labor was needed to fuel the American capitalist economy. At the dawn of the twentieth century, the United States began to colonize other lands, such as Hawaii, the Philippines and Cuba. Since then, it has occupied and intervened with military force in all regions of the globe[ii], such as Latin America, Southeast Asia, Africa, Europe and the Middle East. This is not to mention the democratically-elected leaders America overthrew in places like Chile and Iran. The United States currently occupies two countries – Iraq and Afghanistan – and has a network of over 700 military bases globally[iii]. As such, the United States is a de facto empire[iv]. One key element of American imperial history is its use of torture, which can be traced back to America’s treatment of African slaves. Such an analysis of torture, especially in the post-9/11 era, is very uncommon in mainstream political discourse. As such, before I proceed, it is important to dispel the current myths about torture propagated in the mainstream media. As is well known, the United States has tortured hundreds of detainees suspected of being involved in terrorism. It is hard not to notice when the former Vice President brags about personally authorizing the use of torture on national television[v]. These acts included water-boarding, physical beatings, stress positions, sleep deprivation, and, in some cases, murder[vi]. The primary justification is that torture is a necessary tool to extract information from people who might know about impending threats of terrorism. Politicians (both Republican and Democrat), intellectuals, pundits and other leaders argue that America faces a new kind of threat. America is up against extremist, religious fanatics who hate the United States and wish to kill innocent Americans. Current domestic and international laws and law enforcement tactics are not sufficient to subdue this threat. As Alberto Gonzalez said to former President George W. Bush, the Geneva Conventions are “obsolete” in this new war against terrorism.[vii] As a result, the United States must be willing to torture terrorist suspects in order to extract vital information that could prevent the next terrorist attack. This apocalyptic mindset has impacted the current American psyche and post-9/11 American foreign policy. Since the war is against a nebulous enemy, the war against terrorism is essentially a permanent war. Despite the compelling arguments used to justify torture, adopting an objective view of the facts rips them asunder. First, there is little to no evidence to prove that torture is a useful interrogation technique. In fact, the evidence that does exist proves the opposite – that torture is ineffective because the suspect will say anything, whether it’s true or not, in order to make the torture stop. Ali Soufan, an intelligence official who interrogated Guantanamo terror suspect Abu Zubaydah, stated[viii] that conventional interrogation techniques compelled Zubaydah to provide actionable intelligence. It was only after Zubaydah was waterboarded several times that he could not provide useful intelligence. Second, most of the people detained, usually indefinitely, in places like Guantanamo Bay and CIA-owned black sites are not diehard terrorists. The vast majority of them are innocent. Even President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and other high government officials may have been aware of this[ix]. Lawrence Wilkerson, a top aide to former Secretary of State Colin Powell said that Cheney “had absolutely no concern that the vast majority of Guantanamo detainees were innocent…If hundreds of innocent individuals had to suffer in order to detain a handful of hardcore terrorists, so be it.” The apocalyptic mindset of the broader War on Terror justified this tragedy. Third, torture and cruel or inhumane treatment is a violation of U.S. domestic law and international law. The Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment and the Torture Act prohibits the use of torture[x]. There are several international treaties that prohibit the use of torture. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions[xi], the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[xii], the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention Against Torture explicitly prohibit torture and cruel or inhuman treatment[xiii]. The Convention Against Torture even states that “no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.” Sending a person to a country where it is known they will be tortured – a practice known as extraordinary rendition – is also illegal under international law. However, the current Obama administration continues this practice. Torturing an individual violates that person’s fundamental human rights and their inherent dignity as a human being. Not only is torture illegal, it is also immoral and one of the many accumulated evils of war. Given the transparency of official justifications for torture, one question remains. Why does the United States continue to torture people, even though it is ineffective, illegal and immoral? Torture has historically been used by governments for four main reasons.[xiv] One reason is to extract a confession and establish guilt. Torture is commonly used in countries where the presumption of innocence does not exist in the legal system. The second reason is for power. Powerful rulers would torture people in order to instill fear in their citizenry and remind them of who has authority. The third reason is to curb political dissent. While all three of these reasons may be applicable to the United States, the fourth reason gets to the heart of why America tortures. The fourth historical reason for utilizing torture is to subjugate a group of people considered to be sub-human. An apt comparison to the American use of torture would be the French use of torture during the Algerian War of Independence.[xv] The French colonization of Algeria was based on the racist ideology of the French civilizing mission. In the eyes of the French colonial power, their culture was superior and more advanced than the cultures of racially-inferior “others”, in this case, the Algerians. The French saw it was their duty to “civilize” people who they viewed as primitive through colonialism. As such, the French annexed Algeria and established colonial settlements on Algerian land. When Algerian nationalists engaged in guerrilla warfare to oust the French, France felt it was up against a new kind of enemy – Maoist-inspired guerrillas. In order to defeat this enemy, the French believed it was necessary to engage in exceptional and unconventional means of warfare. This included denial of prisoner-of-war protections for captured combatants, trials in military tribunals, torture and execution. The French counter-insurgency strategy is very similar to American foreign policy post-9/11. It was motivated, in large part, by a belief in Algerian sub-humanity; in other words, racism. Racism is not just an individual problem of prejudice or hate. It is an ideology used to justify systems of hegemony and oppression. It creates a binary between the Self and the Other. The Self is ascribed all positive aspects of humanity, such as rationality, intelligence, high culture, and credit for creating the benefits of modern civilization. The Other is ascribed all negative aspects of humanity, such as irrationality, primitivity, criminality, and barbarity. By categorizing certain groups as inferior “others”, hegemonic powers rob those people of their humanity, thus, making it easier to commit acts of brutality against them for imperial interests. Racism, under the banner of “manifest destiny”, was used to justify the genocide committed against the Native Americans that made room for American territorial expansion. Racism was used to justify the enslavement of millions of black Africans whose free labor was exploited to work on plantations and build the American economy. Despite the advancements made during the civil rights movement, racism still exists in many areas of American life, such as the disproportionate number of African-Americans and Latinos in prison, de facto housing segregation, inequality in the education system, and police brutality committed against people of color. Some of the most recent cases of police brutality were the deaths of 22-year-old Oscar Grant in Oakland[xvi] and 7-year-old Aiyana Jones in Detroit[xvii] – both of whom were African-American. America’s wars against Afghanistan and Iraq serve to maintain American global hegemony and access to key resources such as oil. The racist dehumanization of Muslims, Arabs and South Asians is committed to justify America’s wars and acts of torture primarily against people from countries whose populations are predominantly Muslim and black and brown-skinned, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen. It is not difficult to witness the manifestations of Islamophobia and anti-Arab racism in American society. It exists within the media and underlies the sophistry of politicians and leading intellectuals. Muslims, Arabs and South Asians are always suspected of being terrorists, similar to how black and Latino people are suspected of being drug-dealers, gang members and criminals. Racism is the fundamental ideological motivation behind America’s wars and use of torture. The key task now is to end America’s use of torture and, more broadly, eliminate racism and imperialism; a daunting task but a necessary one, nevertheless. First, it is important for everyone, of all races, to see and treat every other person as a human being. Despite our cultural differences, we are part of one human family. Second, it is crucial that we hold our political leaders accountable for authorizing acts of torture and starting wars. At Stanford, we can start by pressuring our government to hold current Professor and former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and other government officials, accountable for authorizing torture and engaging in aggressive wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. Third, it is vital that we work to build institutions that foster peace instead of war and sustain humanity rather than destroy it. To build a better future for humanity is by no means an easy task. But a million-mile journey begins with one step. Let’s make that first step. References: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judnazi.asp#common [ii] http://sws.bu.edu/juliango/jgo-internationalsoc.pdf [iii] http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/bsr/BSR2009Baseline.pdf [iv] http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175091/chalmers_johnson_baseless_expenditures [v] http://www.truth-out.org/cheney-admits-war-crimes-media-yawns-obama-turns-other-cheek56924 [vi] http://www.nybooks.com/media/doc/2010/04/22/icrc-report.pdf [vii] http://news.lp.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/torture/gnzls12502mem2gwb.html [viii] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html [ix] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7092435.ece [x] http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am8 [xi] http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm [xii] http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ [xiii] http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm [xiv] http://ccw.modhist.ox.ac.uk/publications/foot_internationalrelations20_no2_june06.pdf [xv] http://www.josealamillo.com/torturealgiers.pdf [xvi] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Grant [xvii] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/17/aiyana-jones-7-year-old-s_n_578246.html

Nomads As predicted in my dream, two years ago, Obama's resignation is still a possibility due to his voter cheating. Americans have supported Bush and Obama to inherit the current Economy, now they want an economic solution that neither party can deliver. American Voters are not stuuupid Nur

Bring me the head of Silvino Herrera "Us versus them" and other "modern" myths of war and civilization By Daniel Patrick Welch Against the background of the leaking of the USA’s secret Iraq war crimes files by the whistleblower website WikiLeaks, Daniel Patrick Welch peers beneath the West's self-proclaimed cultural and moral superiority in the face of atrocities against innocent people all over the world. "When we peel away all the layers of burning flesh, all the carefully constructed fiction of human progress and benefits of science and technology, we must face a reality perhaps even more grim. There simply is no 'us versus them'. The side claiming to represent progress has done more and done worse, using as low-tech and brutal methods as any on either side of the technological and cultural divide." (Daniel Patrick Welch) October 30, 2010 "Redress" - -They behead – we do it with smart bombs. There is, of course, an ugly truth to this recently minted axiom: the horror of state terrorism is that the overwhelming machinery of death in the hands of all-powerful governments far outweighs individual atrocities by madmen, small groups and non-state entities. While, with their beheadings and murders of innocents, the heathen thugs and killers may indeed be barbarians, it is almost impossible to accomplish with their amateur methods the slaughter of half a million children, as did the Anglo-American/UN sanctions in Iraq. This is the same reasoning that puts the lie to the sanitized concept of war and destruction which makes the self-satisfied "West" so smug and confident of its moral superiority. There is an underlying, and often overt, racism which allows so-called "modern" warmakers and their electorates to tolerate the huge disparities in casualties that have come to define modern conflict. In virtually every case, the brutal repression of movements that strive for greater human freedom, workers' rights and a life worth living is ignored, while the "atrocities" of those trying to resist are seen as backward and evidence of cultural and moral inferiority. However, one problem is not just that the disparity in terror torpedoes the moral superiority argument. It is true that the 20th century was indeed a most horrific one, unbeknownst to most lay observers: at its dawn, 90 per cent of war dead were combatants and 10 per cent non-combatants. By its end, the ratio was reversed, making it the most deadly and, arguably, least "advanced" century in human history. True also, the machinery of war, with its amoral measurements in "kilomorts", its chemistry of napalm designed to stick to human skin and burn, its phosphorous and gas, its cluster munitions – not to mention the almost surreal evil of neutron bomb technology, which are meant to kill people while leaving buildings intact – shows that the actual brutality of burning flesh and exploding body parts is in no way less barbaric than other methods. The United States gets no props from the rest of the "civilized" world for instituting the pain-free technology of lethal injection to a practice most governments consider a barbarous anachronism. When we peel away all the layers of burning flesh, all the carefully-constructed fiction of human progress and benefits of science and technology, we must face a reality perhaps even more grim. It is not merely us standing cynically by, wringing our hands while they hack each other to death with machetes, as when almost a million Tutsis died in Rwanda. There simply is no "us versus them". The side claiming to represent progress, the "march of history" and the fulfilment of the human desire for freedom and self-rule, has done more and done worse, using as low-tech and brutal methods as any on either side of the technological and cultural divide. There is a famous photo, not of Nick Berg, not of John the Baptist, but of Silvino, one of the lieutenants in Augusto Sandino's resistance army. Rather, it is a photo of Sr Herrera's head held triumphantly aloft by a US Marine, a conquering hero of the few and the proud. It turns out we behead, too. US Marine Lt Remmington holding Silvino Herrera's head, 1930US Marine Lt Remmington holding Silvino Herrera's head, 1930 When I was in Nicaragua, I heard testimony of the victims of Somoza's National Guard, women with their breasts cut off, left alive and maimed on purpose to terrorize their families. Resistance fighters and their supporters and trade unionists killed with their genitals cut off and stuffed in their mouths. Victims forced at gunpoint to swallow a button on a string while laughing guardsmen kept trying to pull it up. Like all the henchmen throughout Latin America, these murderers, nun-rapists, "deplaners" (who simply pushed terror victims out of a moving plane to their unacknowledged deaths), clown-killers and assorted scum received training and backing from the CIA, the Pentagon and the dreaded School of the Americas. As Franklin D. Roosevelt, hero of the US mainstream left, once bragged: "Somoza may be a son of a *****, but he's our son of a-*****." It turns out we do all that other stuff, too. Likewise, I had mostly considered the shot of triumphant soldiers standing atop a pile of bones of the conquered dead to be mainly a cartoon representation. Wrong again – the only such true photo I have ever seen was of US soldiers in the Philippines at the turn of the 20th century, when over a half million Filipinos were slaughtered in the successful attempt to secure the islands for the American empire. The scene is repeated ad nauseum in US history, in murderous rampages across our own continent from sea to shining sea, through Central America, the Caribbean and the Pacific. Despite George Bush's audacity and isolation, there is absolutely nothing new about Iraq. Conquest, pacification, occupation and the transfer of "sovereignty" to a puppet government is the textbook modus operandi. The only phase yet to be completed is the few decades in which the world is supposed to forget the origins of the dictatorship, after which US forces return to suppress rebellion or resistance movements and install democracy, as if the cycle had no beginning. In this context, it is almost unbearable to hear the shallow, mind-deadening "debate" between Democrats and Republicans about "how to handle" Iraq, not to mention the infrastructure of organized theft that transfers trillions of dollars from South to North, from workers to capital, from poor to rich, from brown to white. To my mind, there are three crises – allowing for some consolidation and overlap – which surpass all else in their urgency today. They can be summarized as empire (by which we include Iraq, Israel-Palestine, Venezuela, Colombia and the rest), WalMart and the crushing of labour, with its attendant rape of the national treasury and the healthcare system, and the prison state, whereby incarceration is abetting and supplanting vote suppression, the Klan and slavery as the new racist ideology. These are, of course, big problems. They are, however, exploding problems, and ones which threaten the very existence of humankind (combined with the rapacious consumerism which holds the lot together). Just the kind of all-encompassing issues one might foolishly expect a national election campaign to address. This huge history, soaked with blood and death for the benefit of profit and oligarchy, is completely unconcerned with the party hacks nibbling at its corners, unthreatened by the sorry excuse for "ideology" and "values" espoused by the political and economic system it nurtured and generated. Self-delusional, feel-good bromides about the "greatness of America" and a wilful suppression and misrepresentation of our history will seal the deal, and we will plummet headlong into the looming environmental catastrophe that is waiting to engulf us all. As a young pupil celebrating America's bicentennial, I remember being paraded in a choral production called "Our Country 'tis of thee". One lyric still sticks in my mind and in my craw, sung by our chorus of mind-controlled, ignorant, chirpy sixth graders: There's a peaceful sky in my backyard
 Far away from fear and doubt
 But the whole wide world is my hometown
 And I've gotta help my neighbour out

 There's a peaceful sky in my backyard
 Far away from a far off land
 But the whole wide world is my hometown
 When freedom needs a helping hand Thinking about it today still makes my skin crawl with embarrassment and self-loathing, even though I was only 11 years old. Sort of like a post-traumatic lapse for a former cult member. Lack of self-doubt combined with ignorance of one's history is perhaps the most dangerous combination known to humankind. Torture at Abu Ghraib is not the tip of the iceberg; it is simply the latest link in the chain. Facing that history head on, with the disillusionment, fear and doubt that rationality and honesty implies, is the sobering task of those who would resist the current onslaught. It is the first step in a long, long road to sanity, and it is not a comfortable one. As Rosa Luxembourg famously remarked, "it will always be the most revolutionary act to say the truth out loud". Translations of this article are available in German, Portuguese, Spanish, and Turkish. © Daniel Patrick Welch. Reprint permission granted with credit and link to danielpwelch.com.