Saturday, April 04, 2009
President Karzai's Taleban-style laws for women put troop surge at risk, by Francis Chartrand
President Karzai of Afghanistan provoked international outrage yesterday with draconian Taleban-era restrictions on women and laws that explicitly sanction marital rape.
A leaked copy of the laws obtained by The Times details new strictures for Afghanistan’s Shia minority. Women are banned from leaving the home without permission. A wife has the absolute duty to provide sexual services to her husband, and child marriage is legalised.
Details of the legislation emerged as President Obama and other world leaders wrapped up the G20 summit to fly to a Nato summit marking 60 years of the alliance. Mr Obama is pushing for an increase in Nato troop numbers in Afghanistan, but many allies have already rebuffed his calls. The new laws may provide an excuse for remaining waverers to join them.
Canada, which is the third largest contributor of forces to the Nato mission in Afghanistan, has already warned that it may rethink its troop contribution if the law was not repealed.
Opponents of the Afghan President accused him of selling out basic human rights for women in return for the votes of hardline Shia conservatives for the presidential election in August. Although the Shia minority, which comprises 20 per cent of the population, is considered religiously moderate, their political leaders are conservative. Community leaders are relied on to deliver their people’s votes and women are presumed to vote in accordance with their husband.
International reaction has been slowed by secrecy surrounding the law, which was passed without a formal debate and signed off by President Karzai this week, but is yet to be made law.
Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, became aware of it only when it was raised by her Finnish counterpart at the Afghanistan conference in The Hague on Wednesday. She is said to have raised the issue with him but without the full text President Karzai was spared her opprobrium.
Stephen Harper, the Canadian Prime Minister, said he was troubled by the law and would lobby other leaders to support him in seeking to have it repealed. “This is antithetical to our mission in Afghanistan,” he said. Stockwell Day, the Canadian Trade Minister, who is chairman of the Cabinet committee on Afghanistan, warned that if Kabul did not back down Canadian support for the Government could be imperilled. “If there is any wavering on this point, this will create serious difficulties, serious problems for the Government of Canada,” he told reporters in Ottawa.
Canada has 2,800 troops fighting in southern Afghanistan and has suffered the highest relative number of casualties of any contingent with 116 of its soldiers dead. Britain, with 8,000 troops, has lost 152 in Afghanistan.
Mike Gapes, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, called the law deplorable. “We did not go into Afghanistan to remove the Taleban only to have Taleban-style policies reimplemented by the Government,” he said. “But this raises big question marks about the nature of the Afghan Government.”
The Afghan Government refused to comment until Saturday, which is after the Nato summit. Speaking yesterday both Mrs Clinton and General James Jones, Mr Obama’s national security adviser, denied that they had given up on getting more Nato soldiers for the fight against a Taleban insurgency in Afghanistan.
The legislation is based on the Shia family code first brought before Parliament two years ago, to the horror of women legislators who make up more than a quarter of the assembly.
Under the same constitution, each religious group is to have its own family law. Opponents said that it contravenes the founding charter in many ways — not least Article 22, which enshrines equality of the sexes before the law.
One of the most controversial articles stipulates that the wife “is bound to preen for her husband as and when he desires”.
Later it explicitly sanctions marital rape. “As long as the husband is not travelling, he has the right to have sexual intercourse with his wife every fourth night,”
Article 132 says. “Unless the wife is ill or has any kind of illness that intercourse could aggravate, the wife is bound to give a positive response to the sexual desires of her husband.”
Article 133 reintroduces the Taleban restrictions on women’s movements outside their homes, stating: “A wife cannot leave the house without the permission of the husband” unless in a medical or other emergency.
Article 27 endorses child marriage with girls legally able to marry once they begin to menstruate.
Sayed Hossain Alemi Balkhi, a Shia lawmaker involved in drafting the law, defended the legislation, saying that it gives more rights to women than even Britain or the US does.
Women MPs said that they had been powerless to challenge the passage of the Bill. “The majority of the men agreed to support the laws without any discussion,” said Azita Raffat, an MP from Badghis province. “The law says it is the right of men to have sex — even by force. You can’t complain because they are husband and wife and this is the duty of a wife. This is the belief of all Afghan men.”
Western leaders, including the former US President George Bush, have boasted frequently about the advances in women’s rights since the Taleban were overthrown in 2001. Although millions more girls have been able to go to school and women now sit in Parliament and work, there are fears that these gains may be eroded.
Afghan culture is conservative, with tribal custom mingling with religious law to produce one of the most oppressive social atmospheres for women anywhere in the world.
Women’s rights are a continuous source of tension between the country’s conservative establishment and more liberal members of society, with hardliners viewing them as a social toxin forced on them by Western backers.
The US warned that the law shows how human rights, and not just women’s rights, had worsened in Afghanistan.
Oppression
Taleban rule: 1996 to 2000
Women had to wear a burka and could not leave the house unless they were with a male relative
Girls were banned from school
Women were not allowed to work outside the home
The sentence for adultery was stoning
In 1997 hospitals were ordered to stop treating women and discharge all women employees.
This was partially overturned
Now
More than half of students enrolling for teacher training are women
Many Afghan women have their own businesses
A Department of Women and Reproductive Health was established
Women held 121 out of 420 provincial council seats in 2005
Of registered voters, 44 per cent are women
Source: US Bureau of Democracy, Rights and Labour, Amnesty International, UN Development Fund for Women, Times Archive
The laws
Article 27 The age of maturity (and thus marriage) is 15 for boys; for girls it is when they have their first period
Article 132 The couple should not commit acts that create hatred and bitterness. The wife is bound to preen for her husband, as and when he desires. The husband, except when travelling or ill, is bound to have intercourse with his wife every four nights. The wife is bound to give a positive response
Article 133 The husband can stop the wife from any unnecessary, un-Islamic act. The wife cannot leave the house without the permission of the husband
Article 177 The wife does not have the right to the provision of maintenance by the husband unless she agrees to have intercourse with him and he gets an opportunity for doing so
— Obedience, readiness for intercourse and not leaving the house without the permission of the husband are the duties of the wife, violation of every one of them will mean disobedience to the husband
— One provision of the law appears to protect the woman’s right to sex inside marriage, saying that the “man should not avoid having sexual relations with his wife longer than once every four months”
Link
Labels: Afghanistan, Canada, Francis Chartrand, Karzai
The Taliban who kidnapped a Canadian pro-jihad in Vancouver say they will run Sunday, by Marie-Êve Marineau
The Taliban militants holding the Canadian Khadija Abdul Qahaar in the tribal region of North Waziristan have distributed a flyer on Friday in which they threaten to kill them if ransom is not met tomorrow (Sunday).
The militants had given until March 31 for payment of a tell than 2 million. They then extended the deadline until April 3. Now they warn that the new deadline of April 5 is final.
Manuscript in a flyer distributed in parts of North Waziristan by an unknown "Gumnam Mujahideen-e-Islam" (anonymous fighters for Islam), activists allege that the Canadian is not a journalist but has been sent by the Government of Canada to spy on the Taliban, North Waziristan.
"We ask once again to the Governments of Pakistan and Canada to accept our demands by April 5, otherwise we will kill Khadija Abdul Qahaar because it is not a journalist. She came to Pakistan on a mission of spying for the Canadian government.
Under Islamic law, the penalty is death. So far, not a single official of Pakistan or Canada we have not approache. On 5 April is the deadline, "says the flyer made available to The News.
Link
Labels: Afghanistan, Marie-Êve Marineau, Pakistan, Religion and fanaticism
Taliban threaten to behead Canadian hostage, by Noémie Cournoyer
BANNU, PAKISTAN and TORONTO — A Canadian held hostage after she travelled to the lawless tribal belt of northern Pakistan says the Taliban will behead her by the end of the month if a ransom isn't paid.
In a new video provided to The Globe and Mail, Beverly Giesbrecht expresses fear for her life if her captors aren't paid.
“I have been advised and asked to make this video. We have very short time now and I am going to be killed, as you can see,” she says, gesturing at the dagger on the wall behind her, pointed at her head.
She alluded to Piotr Stanczak, a kidnapped Polish engineer who was executed by militants last month, the first killing of a Western hostage in Pakistan since U.S. journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002.
“I am going to be beheaded just like the Polish engineer, probably by the end of the month. The deadline is by the end of March, and that's basically, I don't know, 18 days or 16 days,” she says, closing her eyes.
“I'm not quite sure how long that is but the time is very short and my life is going to end,” she adds in a choked voice.
In the short video, Ms. Giesbrecht, 52, wearing a head scarf and sitting on a wooden chair, says that she is being held by the Taliban “near the Afghan border, either Pakistan or Afghanistan.”
The video opens with a voice reciting from the Koran. Abu Jindal, a moniker adopted by some jihadis, appears in Arabic and Urdu, superimposed over Ms. Giesbrecht's face.
Ms. Giesbrecht, who is also known as Khadija Abdul Qahaar, has been a captive for four months.
The West Vancouver resident converted to Islam after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and runs a website, Jihad Unspun, that says it provides information “devoid of the constraints of mainstream media.” Her visa application to Pakistan said she was a freelance journalist working on a documentary for the Al-Jazeera television network.
She was captured by gunmen last November, reportedly by the Taliban commander Gul Bahadur, who leads fighters in the volatile North Waziristan region.
“I need some kind, someone to help me, the Pakistani government and my own country and somebody must move now, because my life is going to be over. I want to go home. So, these people are serious. Please help me,” a wavering Ms. Giesbrecht says in her latest video.
North Waziristan residents said the Taliban kidnapped her because they are struggling financially.
“They are in dire need of money. We are sure she will be released as they get the ransom. The demand of the money should be accepted and it is not an expensive deal to save her life,” said Muhammad Noor, sitting in a medical store in North Waziristan's Miranshah hamlet.
Though the involvement of local residents could help secure her release, common people and tribal elders in the embattled zone do not dare approach the Taliban. In the last year, decapitations of locals accused of being “spies for U.S. forces” have surged.
Earlier this month, a Taliban fighter who would identify himself only by the name Qari told The Globe and Mail that the Taliban would free Ms. Giesbrecht for $375, 000 (U.S.).
Initial reports had the Taliban asking for cash and a prisoner exchange. But Qari had said money alone could now secure her release.
The Canadian government is aware of the latest video but has no other comments, Lisa Monette, a spokeswoman for the Department of Foreign Affairs, said yesterday.
Glen Cooper, a long-time friend of Ms. Giesbrecht, saw part of the video yesterday and worries about her health.
“My impression is that she's exhausted, tired and frightened. She was in poor health before this incident, and her pale complexion only confirms to me that the Taliban are holding a very fragile woman.”
In a previous video last month, Ms. Giesbrecht said her health was failing. “I am very sick,” she said. “I need a hospital right away. I'm missing teeth. I have pneumonia and I need this [release] to happen quickly.”
Ms. Giesbrecht was seized at gunpoint while travelling in the Bannu district, a gateway to the North Waziristan tribal belt.
Link
Labels: Afghanistan, Noémie Cournoyer, Pakistan, Religion and fanaticism
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Afghanistan: Canadian broadcaster’s two local employees freed, by Anne Humphreys
Reporters Without Borders welcomes today’s release of two local employees of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - brothers Shokoor Feroz, a fixer, and Qaem Feroz, a driver - who had been held by the National Directorate of Security, an intelligence agency, since CBC reporter Melissa Fung’s abduction on 12 October.
"We thank President Hamid Karzai and the many other Afghans and Canadians who interceded on behalf of the unjustly detained Feroz brothers," Reporters Without Borders said. "The protests by CBC’s journalists and management illustrated in an exemplary manner that the defence of the local employees of foreign media should be a priority. The Afghan authorities should compensate the two brothers for their six weeks in detention."
The Reporters Without Borders release of 21 November : http://www.rsf.org/article.php3 ?id_article=29368
Link
Labels: Afghanistan, Anne Humphreys, Reporters without borders
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Melissa Fung liberation
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Afghanistan: Civilian Deaths From Airstrikes, by Marie-Êve Marineau
Civilian deaths in Afghanistan from US and NATO airstrikes nearly tripled from 2006 to 2007, with recent deadly airstrikes exacerbating the problem and fuelling a public backlash, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today. The report also condemns the Taliban’s use of “human shields” in violation of the laws of war.
Though operational changes advocated by Human Rights Watch have reduced the rate of civilian casualties since they spiked in July 2007, continuing tragedies, such as the July 6, 2008 strike on a wedding party and the August 22, 2008 bombing in Azizabad, have greatly undermined local support for the efforts of international forces providing security in Afghanistan.
The 43-page report, “‘Troops in Contact’: Airstrikes and Civilian Deaths in Afghanistan,” analyzes the use of airstrikes by US and NATO forces and resulting civilian casualties, particularly when used to make up for the lack of ground troops and during emergency situations. Human Rights Watch found few civilian deaths resulted from planned airstrikes, while almost all deaths occurred in unplanned airstrikes.
“Rapid response airstrikes have meant higher civilian casualties, while every bomb dropped in populated areas amplifies the chance of a mistake,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Mistakes by the US and NATO have dramatically decreased public support for the Afghan government and the presence of international forces providing security to Afghans.”
The report documents how insurgent forces have contributed to the civilian toll from airstrikes by deploying their forces in populated villages, at times with the specific intent to shield their forces from counterattack, a serious violation of the laws of war. Human Rights Watch found several instances where Taliban forces purposefully used civilians as shields to deter US and NATO attacks.
In 2006, at least 929 Afghan civilians were killed in fighting related to the armed conflict. Of those, at least 699 died during Taliban attacks (including suicide bombings and other bombings unlawfully targeting civilians) and at least 230 died during US or NATO attacks. Of the latter, 116 were killed by US or NATO airstrikes. In 2007, at least 1,633 Afghan civilians were killed in fighting related to the armed conflict. Of those, some 950 died during attacks by the various insurgent forces, including the Taliban and al-Qaeda. At least 321 were killed by US or NATO airstrikes. Thus, civilian deaths from US and NATO airstrikes nearly tripled from 2006 to 2007.
In the first seven months of 2008, at least 540 Afghan civilians were killed in fighting related to the armed conflict. Of those, at least 367 died during attacks by the various insurgent forces and 173 died during US or NATO attacks. At least 119 were killed by US or NATO airstrikes. For all periods cited, Human Rights Watch uses the most conservative figures available.
Human Rights Watch criticized the poor response by US officials when civilian deaths occur. Prior to conducting investigations into airstrikes causing civilian loss, US officials often immediately deny responsibility for civilian deaths or place all blame on the Taliban. US investigations conducted have been unilateral, ponderous, and lacking in transparency, undercutting rather than improving relations with local populations and the Afghan government. A faulty condolence payment system has not provided timely and adequate compensation to assist civilians harmed by US actions.
“The US needs to end the mistakes that are killing so many civilians,” said Adams. “The US must also take responsibility, including by providing timely compensation, when its airstrikes kill Afghan civilians. While Taliban shielding is a factor in some civilian deaths, the US shouldn’t use this as an excuse when it could have taken better precautions. It is, after all, its bombs that are doing the killing.”
Human Rights Watch found that few civilians casualties occurred as the result of planned airstrikes on suspected Taliban targets. Instead, most cases of civilian deaths from airstrikes occurred during the fluid, rapid-response strikes mostly carried out in support of “troops in contact” – ground troops who are under insurgent attack. Such unplanned strikes included situations where US special forces units – normally small in number and lightly armed – came under insurgent attack; in US/NATO attacks in pursuit of insurgent forces who had retreated to populated villages; and in air attacks where US “anticipatory self-defense” rules of engagement applied.
The effects of airstrikes go beyond civilian deaths. For example, an investigation by the Afghan government found that two battles over a three-day period starting April 30, 2007 in Shindand district resulted in the destruction of numerous homes. In every case investigated by Human Rights Watch where airstrikes hit villages, many civilians had to leave the village because of damage to their homes and fear of further strikes. People from neighboring villages also sometimes fled in fear of future strikes on their villages. This has led to large numbers of internally displaced persons.
To respond to public concern and complaints from President Hamid Karzai, in July 2007 the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) announced several changes in targeting tactics. These changes include employing smaller munitions, delaying attacks where civilians might be harmed, and turning over house-to-house searches to the Afghan National Army. A review of available evidence suggests that the changes had some impact, as there was a significant drop in civilian casualties due to airstrikes in the last half of 2007, even as the overall tonnage of bombs dropped increased.
Human Rights Watch welcomed these changes in targeting, but remained concerned by continuing civilian casualties from airstrikes, particularly as the number of airstrikes has increased dramatically and the number of deaths and injuries has spiked this summer.
Human Rights Watch called for the US and NATO to address the rising civilian death toll from unplanned airstrikes, and to fix continuing problems with field collateral damage estimation and the inconsistent application of their Rules of Engagement.
“The recent airstrikes killing dozens of Afghans make clear that the system is still broken and that civilians continue to pay the ultimate price,” said Adams. “Civilian deaths from airstrikes act as a recruiting tool for the Taliban and risk fatally undermining the international effort to provide basic security to the people of Afghanistan.”
Labels: Afghanistan, Human Rights Watch, Marie-Êve Marineau
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Afghanistan: Civilian Deaths From Airstrikes, by Anne Humphreys
(New York, September 8, 2008) – Civilian deaths in Afghanistan from US and NATO airstrikes nearly tripled from 2006 to 2007, with recent deadly airstrikes exacerbating the problem and fuelling a public backlash, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today. The report also condemns the Taliban’s use of “human shields” in violation of the laws of war.
Though operational changes advocated by Human Rights Watch have reduced the rate of civilian casualties since they spiked in July 2007, continuing tragedies, such as the July 6, 2008 strike on a wedding party and the August 22, 2008 bombing in Azizabad, have greatly undermined local support for the efforts of international forces providing security in Afghanistan.
The 43-page report, “‘Troops in Contact’: Airstrikes and Civilian Deaths in Afghanistan,” analyzes the use of airstrikes by US and NATO forces and resulting civilian casualties, particularly when used to make up for the lack of ground troops and during emergency situations. Human Rights Watch found few civilian deaths resulted from planned airstrikes, while almost all deaths occurred in unplanned airstrikes.
“Rapid response airstrikes have meant higher civilian casualties, while every bomb dropped in populated areas amplifies the chance of a mistake,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Mistakes by the US and NATO have dramatically decreased public support for the Afghan government and the presence of international forces providing security to Afghans.”
The report documents how insurgent forces have contributed to the civilian toll from airstrikes by deploying their forces in populated villages, at times with the specific intent to shield their forces from counterattack, a serious violation of the laws of war. Human Rights Watch found several instances where Taliban forces purposefully used civilians as shields to deter US and NATO attacks.
In 2006, at least 929 Afghan civilians were killed in fighting related to the armed conflict. Of those, at least 699 died during Taliban attacks (including suicide bombings and other bombings unlawfully targeting civilians) and at least 230 died during US or NATO attacks. Of the latter, 116 were killed by US or NATO airstrikes. In 2007, at least 1,633 Afghan civilians were killed in fighting related to the armed conflict. Of those, some 950 died during attacks by the various insurgent forces, including the Taliban and al-Qaeda. At least 321 were killed by US or NATO airstrikes. Thus, civilian deaths from US and NATO airstrikes nearly tripled from 2006 to 2007.
In the first seven months of 2008, at least 540 Afghan civilians were killed in fighting related to the armed conflict. Of those, at least 367 died during attacks by the various insurgent forces and 173 died during US or NATO attacks. At least 119 were killed by US or NATO airstrikes. For all periods cited, Human Rights Watch uses the most conservative figures available.
Human Rights Watch criticized the poor response by US officials when civilian deaths occur. Prior to conducting investigations into airstrikes causing civilian loss, US officials often immediately deny responsibility for civilian deaths or place all blame on the Taliban. US investigations conducted have been unilateral, ponderous, and lacking in transparency, undercutting rather than improving relations with local populations and the Afghan government. A faulty condolence payment system has not provided timely and adequate compensation to assist civilians harmed by US actions.
“The US needs to end the mistakes that are killing so many civilians,” said Adams. “The US must also take responsibility, including by providing timely compensation, when its airstrikes kill Afghan civilians. While Taliban shielding is a factor in some civilian deaths, the US shouldn’t use this as an excuse when it could have taken better precautions. It is, after all, its bombs that are doing the killing.”
Human Rights Watch found that few civilians casualties occurred as the result of planned airstrikes on suspected Taliban targets. Instead, most cases of civilian deaths from airstrikes occurred during the fluid, rapid-response strikes mostly carried out in support of “troops in contact” – ground troops who are under insurgent attack. Such unplanned strikes included situations where US special forces units – normally small in number and lightly armed – came under insurgent attack; in US/NATO attacks in pursuit of insurgent forces who had retreated to populated villages; and in air attacks where US “anticipatory self-defense” rules of engagement applied.
The effects of airstrikes go beyond civilian deaths. For example, an investigation by the Afghan government found that two battles over a three-day period starting April 30, 2007 in Shindand district resulted in the destruction of numerous homes. In every case investigated by Human Rights Watch where airstrikes hit villages, many civilians had to leave the village because of damage to their homes and fear of further strikes. People from neighboring villages also sometimes fled in fear of future strikes on their villages. This has led to large numbers of internally displaced persons.
To respond to public concern and complaints from President Hamid Karzai, in July 2007 the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) announced several changes in targeting tactics. These changes include employing smaller munitions, delaying attacks where civilians might be harmed, and turning over house-to-house searches to the Afghan National Army. A review of available evidence suggests that the changes had some impact, as there was a significant drop in civilian casualties due to airstrikes in the last half of 2007, even as the overall tonnage of bombs dropped increased.
Human Rights Watch welcomed these changes in targeting, but remained concerned by continuing civilian casualties from airstrikes, particularly as the number of airstrikes has increased dramatically and the number of deaths and injuries has spiked this summer.
Human Rights Watch called for the US and NATO to address the rising civilian death toll from unplanned airstrikes, and to fix continuing problems with field collateral damage estimation and the inconsistent application of their Rules of Engagement.
“The recent airstrikes killing dozens of Afghans make clear that the system is still broken and that civilians continue to pay the ultimate price,” said Adams. “Civilian deaths from airstrikes act as a recruiting tool for the Taliban and risk fatally undermining the international effort to provide basic security to the people of Afghanistan.”
Labels: Afghanistan, Anne Humphreys, Human Rights Watch
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Omar Khadr dream of revenge, his brother dream of 72 virgins (English), by Iba Bouramine
Somewhat similar in effect even in the turban of mujahideen. And I think it would be a hand and a foot amputated that this young man exibe as booty of war. Nice trophy that child, the radiant smile of development, thanks to good education model jihadist mahométan we balance at your fingertips. Yes, his path seems all mapped out and passed on from father to son Junior Khadr Khadr .... AH ! Sharia ... How charming religious culture and a high sense of ethics. It should not be that this picture is circulating at school during the course on ethics and religious culture in full Islam 101 on the benefits of Shariah: Sura 5 verset42: v. 42 of the Koran:
"As for the thief and the thief, cut their hands both as a reward for what they have acquired [flying] is the punishment of Allah…." You also have another recipe Koranic equally ethical for repeat offenders: the amputation of the leg opposite hand cut off.
This verse has the merit of clarity. More explicit than that, you die!
Our politicians talk of Omar Khadr as a child soldier. They shall refrain from saying it was high and endoctrinné not to be a soldier but to declare the violent jihad against everything that is not Muslim. The endoctrinnement is such that his younger brother, even in a wheelchair dream to explode to reach 72 virgins which he is already receiving the heady perfume.
And our dear politicians want to repatriate such a bomb at us. They do not tell us whether they intend to monitor Omar Khadr after his eventual repatriation and how many millions of dollars this will cost monitoring the Canadian taxpayer.
And what will happen to Bob Rae and Gilles Duceppe if Omar Khadr s'avisait to put into practice the jihadism he absorbed with breast milk, being detonated somewhere in Canada or elsewhere, resulting in the death of innocent victims? Bob Rae will stop there to sleep and Gilles Duceppe would be pretty crazy to resign? Probably NOT, well-righteous are never wrong, even when they are responsible for disasters.
It does not slow to realize that the safety of innocent people is not the priority of our dear politicians, what concern is to be politically correct, their gestures to the media do to bring grist to the mill Islamists and alleged human rights defenders.
Besides all this beautiful world, including politicians, were strangely silent when they learn in the news that this or that ex-Guantanamo detainee, returned to his country and supposed to be monitored closely, blew himself up in Iraq causing the death of dozens of people, or has been killed in Afghanistan fighting against soldiers of the international force.
Whether here or elsewhere, I do not want revenge for revenge. After all, Omar Khadr is doubly victim: his father and his destructive religion. I do not think it represents a serious threat to Canada, since it will be closely monitored by the RCMP, which could even benefit to unmask future terrorists.
But at what cost? A country that has balls (certainly not Canada) would have even tried for high treason, since he fought against allies in a war endorsed by the UN which involved his own country (but without taking this into account that his own country is Islam - Canada does that when seed).
What is amusing in his case it is rather hard with which the politicians of the opposition are fighting for the repatriation, especially that this video "sensational" with the RCMP officers were shot while the Liberals were in power ! What a great heart that Stéphane Dion! As for Layton and Duceppe, it makes for a long time we know their monopoly "humanist" as a very progressive convinced candy pink.
What they would not to embarrass these evil of the U.S. administration, these "fundamentalist-extreme-right" even at great expense to repatriate a member of a family who openly spits on democracy Western and who do dream of slavery - with its Islamic model - the very people who defend. The most ridiculous is that I read somewhere that an Imam of a mosque would be ready to take charge in order to show him the "true Islam of peace" (he begins by showing it to his brother here )!
And in case seed with a vengeful Khadr, no problem: These same politicians then hasten to blame Harper, Afghanistan, politics and conservative offense that marginalizes Muslims, and so on.
The case Khadr soldier raises the following questions to our dear leftists premises:
Is it legitimate to shoot a child packed with explosives as it prepares to blow in a Shopping Centre as Israel? (It will be entitled to one pound of blah blah, but never the right answer).
How interested the fate of Khadr, if the latter was an extremist Christian accused of plotting to blow for an abortion clinic in the U.S.? (They would have the opposite advantage of its presence there to request a copy punishment in his case, given the sentences candy here)!
I want to see that Afghans are overwhelmed, I want to believe they want to defend themselves, but I am of the opinion that this young is sunk. At 15 years he knew what he was doing, he had the age of reason, it must therefore be held responsible for his actions, especially when he and his brother want to become martyrs.
What can I say more ... we bury our living with "tolerance shit" with all tits friends of the "rainbow" mu-mu-mu-multicultural, dancing O Canada in 420 languages to reassure all Canadians and the - Canadian ladies, that everyone loves, with their beautiful smile on their fucking hypocritical face.
We have seen, winter 2007, it was stand up standing in Quebec and vlan is broken legs in Hérouxville. There is even a species of "special squads to patrol or pro-diversity being the great multicultural propaganda coup of the Koran and Sharia" by "mullahs ass kissers' which are gogauches Plateau Mont-Royal, and This is the deepest trough of Témiscamingue, câlisse, just to fuck the people of Ville-Marie and Quyon, to be sure that another Hérouxville never happens and to understand the Quebecers' that multiculturalism is here to stay and that our folklore, we must fuck it in our own ass because it is contrary to the values of Jews and Boibriand Outremont and Islamists Park-Extension, Ville Saint-Laurent and Ville LaSalle."
Yes, now it is best seen, for the Council of the Status of Women in Quebec, wear the hijab or birka, that wearing a g-string or a straitjacket.
Let us be vigilant and continue to be blinded by stupid Rights of the Human and Faith of Bullshit. Our country deserves better and more: the preservation of our civilization and our civil protection.
Iba Bouramine,
21 years old
Born in Algiers, I have grown in Ahunstic
Labels: Afghanistan, Arab World, Iba Bouramine, Islam, Secularism, Youth
Friday, July 25, 2008
Karzai harshly criticized, by Anne Humphreys
The paper is signed by Thomas Schweich, who was charged with the embassy of USA in Kabul to fight against drug trafficking in Afghanistan from March 2006 to June 2008.
According to Mr. Schweich, narcocorruption have reached the summit of the Afghan government. It also alleges that members of the Karzai government would be involved in drug trafficking, but that the president closes his eyes.
The drug traffickers would buy the silence of police chiefs, judges and other officials. Moreover, when the traffickers are arrested and convicted, they corromperaient prison officers, so that their imprisonment is of short duration.
Afghanistan produces 90% of global heroin. In 2007, 880 tonnes of poppy, the source of manufacture of heroin, have been produced in the country. The regions of Helmand and Kandahar, where Canadian troops, are the two provinces most affected by opium production. According to figures put forward by the United Nations, the sale of heroin on the black market would have won $ 4 billion (U.S.) in 2007.
Thomas Schweich believes that the fight against drug trafficking in Afghanistan is a failure. He said poppy cultivation had increased by 17% in 2007 compared to 2006. Moreover, this year, eradication of poppy cultivation n'équivaudrait than one third of the 20 000 hectares destroyed in 2007, or about 6600 hectares.
The former diplomat does not blame only the Karzai government failure in the fight against drug trafficking. According to him, the Pentagon made a mistake until the end of the war in Afghanistan to stop the trafficking of drugs, because the money pocketed by the production of heroin maintains the Taliban insurgency.
Mr. Schweich also believes that NATO should become more involved in this fight.
A strange cabal of Europeans shy, media blind Afghans corrupt officers Pentagon simply, the Democrats political motivations and the Taliban has prevented the implementation of an effective anti-drug program.
- Thomas Schweich
Pled Karzai
The Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, Thursday refuted allegations by Thomas Schweich. Mr. Karzai believes that the explosion of drug trafficking in his country was not solely attributable to Afghanistan. "Without doubt some Afghans are drug traffickers, but the majority [traffickers] are part of the international mafia who does not live in Afghanistan," he said.
Radio-Canada.ca with Agence France Presse, Canadian Press and Site New York Times Magazine
Labels: Afghanistan, Anne Humphreys, Arab World, Islam, Karzai, United States
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Afghanistan - 2 women brutally murdered by the Taliban while AP filmed. And ethics?, by Noémie Cournoyer
On the evening of July 12, 2008, two unidentified Afghan women talk among themselves a few minutes before being executed by the Taliban in the province of Ghazni, Afghanistan
Sunday, July 13, the locals watch the two women killed by the Afghan Taliban (AP Photo/Rahmatullah Naikzad) (original here)
This page of the AP suggests that Rahmatullah Naikzad also shot a video of the killing of two women. [Update: Yes, he did. Video added to the end]
We wish to remind AP that the Taliban have invited a journalist in the assassination means that they wanted the news is disseminated. AP has clearly been used as a tool of propaganda by the Taliban.
Does this fact of the photographer or an accomplice only a witness to the crime? When you know that a crime is about to be committed, did not you a moral and ethical obligation to try to prevent this crime? Even if you are a journalist? Even if all you do is try to alert authorities - in this case, someone in the Afghan government or NATO?
A quick search of Rahmatullah Naikzad photos on Yahoo News seems to indicate that it is very friendly with the Taliban. Most of the photos show Taliban fighters posing for the AP photographer. Par exemple : For example:
(AP Photo/Rahmatullah Naikzad) (original here)
Naikzad seems to have been incorporated into the Taliban during the day, before the two women were murdered. The photo below, taken by Naikzad, this legend: 
Some Taliban militants face covered train before they have executed two women in the Afghan province of Ghazni, Afghanistan, Saturday, July 12, 2008 (original here)
You will notice by the caption under the photo first on top of this page that has clearly been taken at night a few minutes before the two women were murdered. The second photo above, showing the bodies of two women, was clearly taken the day after the murder of two women. This means that Rahmatullah Naikzad has spent at least 24 hours with the Taliban!
What did Rahmatullah Naikzad to prevent the murder of two women? Or, what does it now to help find the killers? I would be surprised if the answer is something other than nothing.
Again, AP provides assistance and encouragement to the enemy. This time, a group on the U.S. list of foreign terrorist organizations and to which several Security Council resolutions prohibit providing any assistance.
AP receive there a Pulitzer Prize this time?
Thanks to Phyllis Chessler for reporting the photo.
UPDATE: If you remember, AP had tried to excuse the photos that Bilal Hussein had taken two "insurgents" laying on the body of murdered hostage Salvatore Santoro claiming he had been forcibly taken by the terrorists who showed him the body after Santoro was killed. This time, AP has no such excuse.
If we accept the version of AP about the photos of Santoro by Bilal Hussein, then photos of Rahmatullah Naikzad are clearly worse than those of Hussein! He witnessed the murder of two women!
UPDATE II: It is getting worse. A video was produced by Naikzad (below). It's terrible. The two women were murdered overnight, then it's not visually graphic, but the sound is terrible. You can hear one of the women scream after the first bullets have been fired.
It's official: The AP has now replaced al Jazeera as official media to disseminate videos of terrorists.
UPDATE III: AllahP great case of violation by AP of its own ethical standards. Also note his views on the difference between the anti-Jihad websites showing these images and territory "neutral" by AP showed.
The essential point here is the context in which photos / videos are shown.
In the context of this blog, it is clear that the photos are intended to demonstrate this terrible evil that we are fighting. But when AP decides to use neutral terms to contextualize the photos, a limit is crossed to a moral relativism which is more than merely unpatriotic. It is downright disgusting!
Instead of calling the Taliban what they are - criminals of war and unlawful combatants primae faciea - they refer to simply as "militants". Worse, they allow the Taliban to choose words to describe the horrible murder of two women - an execution.
The more I think about it, this suggests that AP is worse than al-Jazeera. Remember when we were all outraged by Al-Jazeera showing videos produced by terrorists? The video was filmed terrorist by the AP.
UPDATE IV : Drew M : No word yet on whether AP will continue if the Taliban are using photos or extracts from its history on their sites to recruit jihadists.
UPDATE V : Pirate’s Cove raises the final question: Are all these feminist groups left that we never hear about the plight of women in Islam denounce what the AP did?
WARNING: AP explicit video showing the killing of two women by the Taliban
See online: The Jawa Report, by Dr. Rusty Shackleford, July 14, 2008
Labels: Afghanistan, Islam, Noémie Cournoyer, Secularism, Sharia
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]