Go read the entire interview and then go over to al-Bakri's al-Muhajiroun website where you will find "Saddam Arrest Part of the Crusade Against Islam." The ten point 'press release' is nothing more than an attempt to turn the crushing blow of Saddam's ignominious surrender into Islamist propaganda by resorting to conspiracy theories.
The left-leaning Guardian has the most detail on the conflicting claims and a possible explanation as to why the American version may turn out to be the "official" account of Saddam's capture. Says the Guardian:
Questions remained, though, on the subject of exactly who was responsible for the intelligence breakthrough that ultimately led US forces to Saddam. Gen Odierno's claim that the dictator's family had provided the key information was disputed by Dr Mahmoud Othman, a member of Iraq's governing council, who told the Guardian: "There was a Kurdish presence in Tikrit, around 50 peshmerga. They seemed to have assisted in operational matters and in intelligence gathering."
Ahmed Chalabi, the leader of the Iraqi National Congress and a governing council member close to Washington, appeared to confirm a Kurdish role when he said that one instrumental figure in Operation Red Dawn had been Kosrat Rassoul Ali, a leading figure known simply to Kurds as "the lion of Kurdistan".
Kurdish sources said he had been cultivating links with tribal leaders and sheikhs in areas of the "Sunni triangle", near the Kurdish autonomous zone. He is credited with masterminding the arrest of Taher Yassin Ramadan, the former vicepresident of Iraq, in Mosul in the summer. One Kurdish news agency even claimed that troops from the autonomous area had been involved in the seizure of Saddam, but Barham Salih, prime minister of the Kurdish regional government, was keeping a diplomatic silence yesterday. "Kurdish forces are partners in the coalition," he said. "And we will leave it to coalition command to explain the events surrounding Saddam's capture."
Rassoul Ali declined to comment on the operation that bagged Saddam.
What this blogger would very much like to know is why Jalal Talabani, who was in Tehran on Sunday, took it upon himself to inform IRNA of Saddam's capture thereby giving the Iranian agency undoubtedly the biggest scoop in its history?
Update: According to the New York Times, Talabani's announcement was part of a carefully crafted U.S. plan "devised over months and intended, according to those who worked on it, to dispel any doubt among Iraqis and a skeptical Arab world that he [Saddam] was in American hands."
No explanation however as to why IRNA got the scoop. Posted
12:31 PM
by Robert
| | |
I was about to go to sleep when this broke. I can't hold on any longer.
Congratulations to both the living and the dead of Iraq.
The many Saddams pulled down up to this point were only made of stone and steel.
This is the real thing.
The flesh and blood Saddam.
Another Update:Paul Holton snuck into Paul Bremer's press conference. Go and read it. A remarkable post.
Speaking of the press conference, here's the complete transcript. Questions by Arabic speaking journos are translated to English. I found the following particularly touching:
Reporter: [Through Interpreter -- could be different depending on interpreter] I would like to congratulate my people first and the Coalition forces and the brothers here in the name of Allah. [Inaudible] from [all sorts of] newspapers. I'm sorry for the shock which may be on this table. [ed. - Not a good translation. If I recall correctly this would be where the Iraqi journo apologizes for his exuberant response to the earlier images of Saddam in captivity] I would like to congratulate my people first and the Iraqi Council and all Iraqis. And also the brother Americans who will put Iraq on the right track. And I would like to congratulate the families of all the martyrs and those who have been tortured by the former government. We would like to ask the Iraqi Council for Saddam's trial, to be the Iraqis themselves, the people, to be the judge. Because Saddam is the first and the final criminal. And we will ask the Council to do so. We want the people to be the judge in this trial.
Thank you very much.
Pachachi: [Through Interpreter -- could be different depending on interpreter] As I said before, it will be a special trial. This trial it will be issued as all those people who did unhuman crimes, crimes against humans. But for sure it will be an Iraqi courthouse.
***
The Time Magazine exclusive which gave us our first glimpse of Saddam in custody has a very curious clue which may indicate that Saddam was being held prisoner before his capture by Coalition forces.
The raid on the farm in al-Dawr, a village 15 miles from his hometown of Tikrit, initially came up empty, the official said. There was no Saddam Hussein in sight. Then one man on the property, apparently realizing the game was up, pointed out a bricked-in wall inside the basement of a small house on the property. Saddam is in there, he told the special forces operators from Task Force 121, who took down the farm with the aid of soldiers from the 1st Brigade of the Fourth Infantry Division. Saddam was bricked into his hiding place, he added. “They couldn’t get him out at first and had to dig, from either side of the hole,” said the official. The soldiers finally made a large enough passageway to drag him out.
Debka says that Saddam was not in hiding. He was being held captive by his own people who were negotiating with Jalal Talabani over the reward money. It didn't work of course.
According to Debka:
After his last audiotaped message was delivered and aired over al Arabiya TV on Sunday November 16, on the occasion of Ramadan, Saddam was seized, possibly with the connivance of his own men, and held in that hole in Adwar for three weeks or more, which would have accounted for his appearance and condition. Meanwhile, his captors bargained for the $25 m prize the Americans promised for information leading to his capture alive or dead. The negotiations were mediated by Jalal Talabani’s Kurdish PUK militia.
These circumstances would explain the ex-ruler’s docility – described by Lt.Gen. Ricardo Sanchez as “resignation” – in the face of his capture by US forces. He must have regarded them as his rescuers and would have greeted them with relief.
From Gen. Sanchez’s evasive answers to questions on the $25m bounty, it may be inferred that the Americans and Kurds took advantage of the negotiations with Saddam’s abductors to move in close and capture him....
Dr. Walid Phares (hat tip:this commenter at John Galt's Deeds) on yesterday's demonstrations against terrorism in Iraq: "[A]lmost 20,000 men and women - twice the number reported by al-Jazeera - marched across central Baghdad, while others repeated the move in different cities of Mesopotamia yesterday. The demonstrators, from all walks of life and from all religions and ethnicities of Iraq, shouted one slogan in Arabic: "La' la' lil irhab. Na'am, na'am lil dimucratiya." That is: "No, no to terrorism. Yes, yes to Democracy!""
"Yesterday's demonstrations in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities were a benchmark: Iraq's resistance to terrorism has begun. Ironically, the first TV station to report such a revolutionary development was none other than al-Jazeera, the jihad channel across the Arab world. But the exclusive airing of such footages was not so innocent. The Qatar-based media understood much faster than Western networks the real dimensions of these marches. Therefore it decided to report it first, and, through condescending coverage, demean it in the eyes of Iraqi and Arab viewers, a traditional-yet-efficient subversive tactic. But whatever were the desperate attempts to pre-empt the unfolding realities, the latter rolled on."
"[T]hey were almost not reported in much of the Western media. Until late last night in Europe and the Western Hemisphere, news focused on the operations against Coalition forces. But the Iraqi people's genuine calls for democracy were not heard, not seen, and not factored in the game. The BBC and CNN downplayed the events, while al-Jazeera mislead the Arab world about them. The jihad network spent more editorial energy undermining the objectives and the credibility of the event than reporting it."
Sam the Hammorabi notes that there was at least one Arab media entity that provided unbiased coverage. Says Sam, the Saudi owned London-based daily "al-Sharq al-Awsat always keeps a good coverage from Iraq that I like because it is unbiased. It showed today a picture of Iraqi children holding a banner written on it in Arabic (NO for Terrorism and the killing of the people). They also hold a dummy of a donkey with 2 misshapen pictures of Saddam stuck to it and written over the top of the donkey (Saddam). Let the world specially the Arabs see these children who were born and lived brain washed with the worship of Saddam. By the end of the day only the good values stay irrespective of the magnitude of the brain wash."
"Ikhlas Khder a lady who joined the demonstration from the Union of Iraqi Women said that this is the first time for her to join such a demo. Farooq Al Shemari 63 years old man said (we are here to say that we will never allow the fascist to come back after we lived 40 years under their ugly shadow)."
And the demonstrations were not limited solely to Baghdad either.
Sam again: "Not only in Baghdad but in Najaf and Kerbala holy cities there were similar demonstration of thousands of people. In Najaf part of the banners were saying (Killing of children is not resistance) and another banner said (Saddam and Bin laden are two faces for one coin) in Arabic."
"In Alrumadi where many of the attacks coming from; there were a demonstration of about a hundred person with strict protection by the US forces. On the same time there was another demonstration in Alrumadi opposite to the first one with tens of people who throw stones on the US forces and the IP interfered and dispersed them. Demonstartions also reported in Baqoba and Irbeel."
As Sam mentions in the top of his post Zeyad has "some nice pictures about it," which is an understatement. They're grrrrrrreat!
Zeyad and other "in country" bloggers like Sam, Omar, Jason Van Steenwyk and Alaa are providing us with the images and accounts from yesterday that the international press should be.
Where was the international press? As Fayrouz remarks we have had to rely on "peoples journalism" or as Jeff Jarvis says, "citizens media." And a damned good job the people and citizens did too.
"The lingering threat was underscored by an unsuccessful assassination attempt last week on the third-highest official in the Interior Ministry, an attack that the Saudi government hasn't made public, U.S. officials said."
"Serious instability in Saudi Arabia could disrupt the kingdom's petroleum exports, drive up world oil prices and cripple the U.S. economy, which is beginning to recover from recession, as well as the economies of other countries."
Insider information? Saad al-Faqih, chief of the London-based Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia (MIRA), believes the terrorist offensive will soon shift its targets to the royals "and then the collapse will be imminent." Asked about points of disagreement with Osama bin Laden, Dr. Faqih claimed he saw no logic in the question.
Jihad in Texas: What the hell is going on here? The Washington Post reports that "an upcoming conference in Texas...will feature addresses broadcast from Riyadh by clerics who have praised holy war and Osama bin Laden."
"Keynote speakers at the three-day event in Houston, scheduled to begin Dec. 24, have espoused intolerance for Christians, Jews and Shiite Muslims. One of them, Sheikh Allamah Ibn Jibreen, has publicly urged young Saudis to join al Qaeda and fight U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the Saudi Institute."
A check of the Saudi Institute's news page reveals that Jibreen is the father-in-law of Issa bin Saad al-Oshan, one of the 26 jihadis wanted by the Saudi government.
A fact that the Saudi Gazette conveniently omits in a profile of al-Oshan (Issa Saad Mohammed Aushan).
Give them a mirror The Saudi Shoura Council has formed a special committee aimed at finding out the causes of terrorism.
Takfir recantation trifecta Shaykh Ahmed al-Khaldi has withdrawn his takfir fatwas, or religious edicts branding other Muslims as infidels. Al-Khaldi's recantation follows those of fellow Saudi shaykhs Nasser al-Fahd and Ali al-Khudair. No word yet whether the three ulama have withdrawn fatwas calling for the murder of Jews and Christians by the millions.
In case there's any misunderstanding The Ministry of Interior has banned the distribution of unauthorized leaflets in mosques. What kind of unauthorized leaflets you ask? The Interior ministry means the "seditious" leaflets of Islamists not Christian or Jewish leaflets or leaflets calling for reform in the Kingdom. Those are already banned.
Death to the modernism of the Crusader state, now where's the remote
The daily Okaz reports that Riyadh's Swedi district has become a favored hideout of terrorists. According to the Jeddah-based paper, the neighborhood is one of the first modern neighborhoods in Riyadh.
In a discussion entitled "Violence in the Country of the two Holy Mosques," broadcast from al-Arabiyah's Riyadh studios, al-Mishal counters the denial, whitewash and western-bashing of World Muslim League secretary-general Dr. Abdallah al-Turki and Saudi writer on Islamic affairs Dr. Muhammad al-Din with irrefutable fact, penetrating analysis and refreshing humility.
Asked by moderator Al-Khatib about the roots of...extremist ideas, Dr Al-Turki says that these ideas do not stem from the Wahhabi call, as rumored. On the contrary, he adds, the call by Muhammad Bin-Abd-al-Wahhab achieved security and stability, which the kingdom enjoyed for hundreds of years. "These ideas," he says, "came to us from outside, from a polluted culture through those who were in Afghanistan at a time of chaos, when there were no rules, ulema, or proper government. They also came through groups infected by the disease of violence and repudiation."
Asked his opinion, Dr Al-Mish'al says: "With all due respect to what Dr. Al-Turki said, we observe today that terrorism and acts of violence have spread everywhere, from the Arab Maghreb, where there was that horrendous incident in Morocco, a liberal Islamic country, to the Arab East, where there were tragic incidents in the past several weeks in Saudi Arabia, a conservative country. And, in western oriented Turkey, two horrific incidents occurred last week. So it is clear that terrorism has become a global phenomenon that transcends all borders. The issue is complicated and the causes of violence are international, regional, and also local, I believe."
Continuing, Dr. Al-Mish'al says: "While discussing this issue we must understand that it is not simple, but complex. Saudi Arabia, the country of security and peace, has been the scene of several terrorist acts. The first horrific incident occurred in 1980 with the occupation of Mecca Mosque. There was neither the influence of foreign ideas then, nor jihad in Afghanistan. Still, the incident occurred. Luckily, the society was able to overcome it.
"But, we did not at the time consider a deep discussion of the cause of violence. So it was repeated in the horrific incidents of Riyadh in 1995 and in Al-Khubar in 1996, in addition to a few other incidents. Now that matters have become very serious, I believe that we need to conduct a deeper study of the phenomenon, while being more open-minded in our search for the real causes behind the violence in our country. We are determined to protect our country from the specter of violence."
Dr. Al-Mish'al also says: "We must search for the causes in an objective manner, as we need to learn the truth. Take the elements that blew up the Al-Muhayya housing complex in the recent incident, for example. They have not made any statements. We do not know who they are or their demands and we do not have any firm information from the elements themselves or the security authorities. We need to conduct a deeper study in a rational, objective, and intellectual manner. I believe that the issue is not that simple."
[...]
Asked about the roots of violence, Dr Al-Turki says: "I believe that the basic causes are ideological faults, erroneous religious concepts, and youths who left their environs for other regions. Some of them might have been unemployed, which made them susceptible to foreign ideas. Others might have been deprived or were facing problems. But, if their religious background were sound, they would have endured all these problems." "Even if a person were oppressed under Islamic rule in an Islamic state," Dr Al-Turki says, "he should not have deviated. He should have remained patient and not have risen against the ruler, as this only leads to endless strife."
Asked if lack of freedom, political activity, unemployment, deprivation, and poverty could be factors encouraging acts of violence, Dr. Al-Mish'al says: "Poverty and unemployment could be some of the causes leading youths to such ideas, as Dr Al-Turki said, but the main question is: Where did these youths come from? Did they come from Mars or any other planet? These youths, who practiced violence in our society, are our own sons. So we must know their cultural, social, and political background. All these causes call upon us to think deeply as to how these youths set themselves up into groups and why they got to the point of implementing acts involving violence, death, and destruction.
[...]
Asked about Western stereotyping of Islam and Muslims, Dr Salah-al-Din says: This demonization seeks to incriminate the nation as a faith, religion, civilization, culture, and society. It seeks to present this nation as an incubator for violence and bloodshed, and its Islamic religion as a threat to human civilization and its gains. We cannot ignore this aim, as it is clear."
But, do we in the Arab and Islamic World also understand the West, the moderator asks. Commenting, Dr. Al-Mish'al says: "There is no doubt that it is our great responsibility to know the outside world. I may not be revealing a secret, but Muslim and Arab countries are backward politically, economically, socially, and technically. Western culture is far ahead of us. When the 11 September incidents took place and many cases were raised charging the Arab and Islamic world with terrorism, of which some was wrong and some right, had anyone tried to present a tolerant Islam, an open-minded Islam, an Islam that accepts the other? If we had the technologies and the political, social, and economic institutions, we could have faced the West with strong arguments and proof, and our situation would have been different. But, the fact is we are in a weaker position. Whenever a Western paper spoke against Islam and the Arabs, we could not defend ourselves, because we did not have the means--the scientific, political, and social institutions--to answer them. There is an obvious fault in our situation. We need to take stock of ourselves--peoples, governments, and cultures. The incidents that took place provide the nation with the opportunity to develop, change, and reconsider its situation. Is it ready to improve its situation in many aspects? We have an opportunity to become excellent and successful societies, spare ourselves,
as individuals and societies, the specter of violence and extremism, and catch up with the march of human civilization."
It is widely known that al-Turki's Muslim World League is the mother organization of the Islamic International Relief Organization. The IIRO has been a conduit for Saudi funds to al-Qa'ida in the Philippines, Russia, East Africa, Bosnia, and India.
But less known is the fact that al-Turki's teacher and mentor is the late Saudi ulema Sheikh Hamud bin Uqla al-Shuaibi who wrote on November 16, 2001, that he hoped Allah would bring further destruction upon the United States in his introduction to a book ("The Foundations of the Legality of the Destruction That Befell America") which justified the attacks of 9-11-2001.
Dore Gold notes in his "Saudi Arabia’s Dubious Denials of Involvement in International Terrorism" that al-Shuaibi appears on the Hamas website...as a religious source for suicide attacks. Attacks on U.S. soldiers in western Iraq by a Wahhabi group called al-Jama’a al-Salafiya were dedicated to his name and to the names of other Saudi clerics."
The backwardness of Islam and Saudi Arabia, represented by Dr. Abdallah al-Turki, is thus contrasted in a Riyadh studio with what could be the future of Islam and Saudi Arabia, represented by Dr. Abdul Aziz al-Mishal.
Somewhere in the Arab world a fatwa calling for the assassination of al-Mishal is being composed. Bet on it. Posted
2:34 AM
by Robert
| | |
Ladies and gentlemen, I am honored to present, via MidEast Web News Backgrounder, "A Punishment of the United States Act" proposed by Jihad al-Khazin, former Chief Editor of the Saudi-owned London daily Al-Hayah.
I propose "A Punishment of the United States Act."
Since we cannot find an Arab parliament to submit it to its government (ed. because there isn't one), I propose that the Arab League's Secretariat General submit this proposed act to the upcoming Arab summit.
I therefore propose:
Draft Act:
To prevent the United States from supporting Israeli terrorism with money and weapons, using the veto at the Security Council, and seizing Iraq's oil and to withdraw the US armed forces from Iraq and the entire Middle East.
First Part: Short title:
The act to be called "The US Accountability Act for the Year 2003."
Part Two: The discoveries:
1. The United States supports Israel with money and weapons and is responsible for all the killings and destruction in the Palestinian territories.
2. The US Government launched war on Iraq without a UN resolution allowing it to do so.
3. The US Government claimed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It has been proved that they did not exist and hence that Iraqi did not
threaten the security of the region and the world.
4. The US Government is holding detainees in Guantanamo Bay, thus violating every international law. Leading judges in allied Britain have declared that the treatment of the detainees there is terrible and barbaric.
5. The US Government refuses to join the international war crimes tribunal because it knows that US officers and soldiers will stand before it.
6. The US Government repealed the treaty banning ballistic missiles, is threatening Syria and Iran on the issue of missiles, and is encouraging Israel to possess and develop them.
Part Three: The Arab summit's stand is:
1. The Arab summit calls on the United States to stop supporting Israel with money and weapons immediately and unconditionally.
2. It calls on the United States to transfer the $4.25 billion in its annual military aid to Israel to the Palestinians so as to rebuild what Israel has
destroyed in their country with US weapons.
3. The Palestinians maintain the right to demand additional reparations from the United States in future for the losses in lives and possessions it has
caused them.
4. US military forces should withdraw from Iraq immediately while appreciating their role in bringing down Saddam Husayn.
5. All the Zionist Christian organizations that want the world to be destroyed over seven years before the arrival of their messiah should be dissolved,
their missionaries should be banned from propagating their extremist message on television, and their funds should confiscated.
6. A binding timetable for the US forces to withdraw from the entire region.
7. The Middle East should be declared a zone free from nuclear and all other weapons of mass destruction. The United States should undertake to disarm Israel of these weapons.
Part Four: Political Statement:
1, 2, 3, and 4 -- The United States has encouraged Israel to violate the UN resolutions and it violated the UN resolutions in its turn. It must change its stand immediately and unconditionally and send the sponsors of the two acts against Syria and Saudi Arabia and the neo-conservatives in and around the administration to Guantanamo Bay for trial on charges of treason against their country and entire humanity.
Part Five: Sanctions and Authorization:
1. US military presence in all the Arab countries should be terminated.
2. US companies, especially the oil ones, should be expelled from the Arab countries and all kinds of trade with the United States should be banned.
Finally, this is what I have to say about the United States. As to the summit, there is water or the waves of the Euphrates, Tigris, Nile, and Yarmuk Rivers in my mouth.
I don't quite know what al-Khazin means by "there is water or the waves of the Euphrates, Tigris, Nile, and Yarmuk Rivers in my mouth," but maybe it has something to do with the foot of Usama bin Ladin being planted firmly on his and Saudi Arabia's head.
More Saudi insanity (via MewBkd): Saudi authorities have identified the mastermind of the November 8, al-Muhayya bombings as Abd-al-Aziz Bin-Abd-al-Muhsin al-Miqrin. Al-Miqrin was originally on the list of the 19 members of the Riyadh al-Qa'ida cell announced days before the May 13 bombings.
What gave al-Miqrin the oppurtunity to commit his acts of jihad? Hold on to your breeches.
"Al-Miqrin spent around four years in prison after returning from Afghanistan. The authorities released him after serving half his sentence for memorizing the Holy Koran in full."
That's some legal system they've got in the Kingdom. Posted
7:07 AM
by Robert
| | |
The two transcripts represent just a fraction of the thousands of pages of wiretaps and satellite phone intercepts collected by Italian investigators starting in the spring of 2002.
The Italian investigation traces Ansar's flight from training camps in Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban to northeast Iraq and Chechnya, failed plots in Europe and the networks role in the Iraqi insurgency including last month's suicide bombings in Istanbul and the attack on the Baghdad hotel where Deputy U.S. Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz was staying.
According to an April report by Sebastian Rotella of the LA Times ("A Road to Ansar Began in Italy"), "[a]fter the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, members of a network commanded by Abu Musab Zarqawi, a top Al Qaeda figure, fled to the Russian republic of Chechnya and northeastern Iraq."
"Al Qaeda sought to transform Ansar's Iraqi stronghold into a substitute, on a smaller scale, for the Afghan camps to which the terrorist network had sent aspiring holy warriors before the U.S. defeated the Taliban in late 2001."
In late November, after Italian and German police arrested three suspected members the Ansar network, Rotella reported ("3 Terror Network Suspects Arrested") that, "[i]n the months leading up to the Iraq war, investigators say, Syria-based leaders of the group coordinated the recruitment and travel of extremists from Italy and Germany through Syria, Iran and Turkey to camps in northeastern Iraq run by Zarqawi's network and Ansar al Islam, an extremist group based in northern Iraq."
"Since the fall of Saddam Hussein, the Zarqawi-Ansar alliance has assumed a front-line role in launching suicide bombings against military, diplomatic and humanitarian targets in Iraq, European and U.S. officials say. Syria has come under pressure from Washington for its alleged role as a refuge and gateway for those intent on fighting U.S.-led forces in Iraq."
The two transcripts
The wiretap of the first transcript occurred on June 15, 2002. According to the Times' Rotella the "conversation laid out a blueprint of the network's evolution and survival despite law enforcement pressure. An unidentified visitor from Germany counseled the Egyptian imam of the Via Quaranta mosque in Milan to avoid communicating via the Internet, to speak in code with associates and to use messengers. Funding was still plentiful, the visitor said."
"'Don't ever worry about money, because Saudi Arabia's money is your money," the visitor said, speaking cultured Arabic with a North African accent."
"And he explained how the terrorist networks had regrouped after Muslim leaders in London and others had been arrested. "Sheiks" had held secret strategy meetings in Austria, Poland and other Central and Eastern European countries where there was less heat, according to the transcript."
"'Now Europe is controlled via air and land, but in Poland, Bulgaria and countries that aren't part of the European Community everything is easy," the visitor said. "First of all they are corrupt; you can buy them with dollars.... They are less-controlled countries, there aren't too many eyes.'"
"Police are still trying to identify the apparently high-ranking visitor. The Milan imam, Hassan Nasr, was a key suspect, but he disappeared in February. His friends and family accuse Egyptian and U.S. spies of kidnapping him. An investigation has turned up no trace of him."
"The Via Quaranta mosque and another on Milan's Viale Jenner have been bases for terrorist recruitment and logistics since the late 1990s, according to police."
The second wiretap transcript "took place April 1 [2003] between Cabdullah Ciise, a.k.a. Mohamed, and Radi Ayashi, a.k.a. Merai. Ciise, a 28-year-old Somali, was arrested while visiting from London, where he allegedly helped finance a terrorist cell involved in a car bomb attack on Israeli tourists in Kenya in November."
"After [their] arrests, detectives in an anti-terrorist police squad in Milan put [the] two suspected leaders of the Italian network in a holding cell equipped with a listening device."
Update:Dan Darling says, "[m]ost of this is completely new and previously unknown information." Dan has some comments on the transcripts here.
Another update:Fred Pruitt has some thoughts and analysis on the transcripts and Charles Johnson says, "[f]orget conspiracy theories; this is a very real, well-organized conspiracy, well-funded with Saudi money (as the wiretaps clearly show) with one purpose: to infiltrate and destroy the societies of the West."
Yet another updateDer Spiegel is reporting on Ansar recruiting in Germany, including info on Hamburg-based Ansar recruiter Abderrazak Mahdjoub.
Very telling is this: "M. has been in jail for more than a week. But only thanks to the Italian courts. They intend to prove that he was also recruiting for the holy war in Milan."
Well 'M.' was recruiting for jihad in Hamburg also. Why don't the Germans bag him themselves? Maybe the German authorities are handcuffed, so to speak, by the very same inane legal reasons that Der Spiegel is when it uses only the last initial of a now internationally known terrorist recruiter?
And another update:Wretchard points out that in the world of the Salafist jihadi, religion is eclipsed by conquest. No velvet jihad for these folks. Says Wretchard, "It is all about military training, the advisability of establishing safe houses in mosques, smuggling people across borders and money."
Those who deserve credit
Kudos to Il Nuovo for publishing these two transcripts and the Los Angeles Times for being the only American major daily, and the only American media entity for that matter, to follow this incredibly important investigation (in April of this year the Times published excerpts from the Ciise-Ayashi wiretap).
To Gianni Cipriani of Il Nuovo and Sebastian Rotella of the LA Times: Thank you, gentlemen, for your dedicated pursuit of this story. The two of you are models of what journalism and journalists should be. Two particular journalists from Le Monde and Paris Match have much to learn from both of you.
To the Italian investigative team: You are true allies. It is my wish that 60 years hence the Iraqis may be able to say the same about themselves.
And to M.P.: Thank you for your invaluable work, without which those of us who don't happen to speak Italian or French or Russian or Kurdish or Arabic or Chinese or Japanese or on and on and on would not have a clue as to what the world press is reporting on Iraq. Posted
11:53 AM
by Robert
| | |
Some figures mentioned by the anonymous narrator and images included in the videotape are: Shaykh Yusuf al-Ayiri (dead; newly annointed chief expounder of Qa'ida military policy in the Middle East; Turki al-Dandani (dead; in an oblique comparison to bin Ladin mentor Abdullah Azzam); the never before seen video of the 9-11 attacks; video of Qa'ida training camps in the Arabian Peninsula; new jihad poster boy Abd-al-Ilah al-Utaybi (Abdel al-Otaibi) and a dozen plus names of those killed along with Ayiri and Dandani by Saudi security forces over the last few months.
I'll let the analysts have at it on this one.
Questions: Has anyone seen the video portion? If you have, are there any visual clues that may indicate the location(s) of the next strike(s)? Does the translation of the audio portion offer any clues? Is this just a recruitment/propaganda tape?
Leila Fathi left her village in the mountains one day to pick wild flowers and never came home.
The 11-year old girl was raped and killed. Seven years later, her parents are still seeking justice and Iranian human rights activists say the case illustrates how the country's laws are fundamentally discriminatory against women.
Three men were accused of killing Fahti in the predominantly Kurdish region of Sarghez, northwest of the capital Tehran. One of the suspects confessed and later hung himself in prison. The other two suspects denied the charges but said they had helped bury the body. They were tried and found guilty.
After a series of appeals, the Supreme Court confirmed the guilty verdict. The case has been appealed yet again and proceedings are due to resume soon in the Kermanshah provincial court.
But what has attracted the attention of Iranian newspapers and human rights activists is the death penalty sentence handed down in previous rulings.
Under Iran's laws that determine compensation, a woman's life is worth half that of a man's life. As a result, the killers' lives are worth more in financial terms than the murdered girl. Bizarrely, Fahti's family was required to come up with thousands of dollars to pay the "blood money" for the execution of their daughter's killers.
And who exactly do they pay the "blood money" to? The killers' families. The executioner? The Iranian government? The mullahs?!!!
The concept of enforcing blood money provisions for criminal punishment appears to be unique to Iran, according to Islamic legal experts.
In other Islamic countries that use Sharia law as a basis for the legal code, blood money is carried out but only in compensation and inheritance cases and not for criminal sentences.
The family's lawyer is the winner of this year's Nobel Peace Prize, Shirin Ebadi, who has long argued for scrapping the blood-money law. She said in a recent interview with Women's eNews that the murdered girl's parents sold their house and most of their possessions to try to raise the necessary funds and had moved into a tent outside the local courthouse.
The victim's elderly father, a day laborer, tried to sell his one of his kidneys to raise a total of about $18,000. His doctor refused. Leyla's disabled brother also tried to sell a kidney, and the doctor refused again.
Appalled by the family's desperate situation, the doctor went to the judiciary to demand the state provide the remaining funds needed to pay for the execution of the victim's killers. Ebadi says the doctor threatened the judges that if they failed to take action, he would tell the French medical charity, Medecins Sans Frontieres--known in English as Doctors Without Borders--about the case.
Ebadi, a prominent advocate on women's issues, says she took on the case to illustrate the inherent injustice of blood money law.
"This case is a result of this terrible law. The victim's family is homeless now and the case is still not closed," Ebadi said. "They are decimated by all of this."
The judiciary decided earlier this year that the state would help pay one third of the sum required, an unprecedented ruling that came partly as a result of the media coverage devoted to the case.
But Ebadi said the ruling does not represent any victory because the law remains. She said she hopes the publicity will force the law to be changed, to make compensation equal for men and women.
[...]
Female legislators in the reformist parliament have had only limited success in pushing through changes to Iran's legal code. The parliament's initiatives have been repeatedly blocked by the ultra-conservative Guardian Council--an appointed body that includes hard-line clergy and jurists--that vets all legislation. The council has been particularly reluctant to approve proposed laws designed to improve women's status.
The Guardian Council recently vetoed the parliament's approval of the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, calling for equal legal treatment for women without exception.
Ebadi said that there are many other cases in which victims' families struggle to come up with the blood money to finance punishment of convicted murderers or rapists. The law also includes contradictory rules for the loss of limbs or other body parts.
The penal code defines blood money compensation for a man as one of the following: 100 camels, 200 cows, 1,000 sheep, 200 silk dresses, 1,000 gold coins and 10,000 silver coins. These older forms of valuation are not carried out in practice and the courts have opted for cash equivalents instead.
Ebadi said there is little public support for the blood money law or other provisions in Iran's penal code that impose an inferior status on women. With women entering university in groundbreaking numbers, there is increasing awareness of women's rights and the theocratic system's discriminatory ways, she said.
"People are mostly against these laws. They see the problems that are created," she said. "If you ask Iranian women 'are you satisfied with your legal situation' about 90 percent will say 'no.'"
A petition has been circulated demanding changes to the blood money law and students, lawyers and human rights activists are continuing to press for amendments.
"As an optimist, I believe the law will be changed but when, I don't know," Ebadi said. "Maybe in two months or in two years, but it will be changed."
For the sake of those 90% of Iranian women who say "no" to their legal situation and all the little Leila Fathis of Iran, "Faster please." Posted
8:23 AM
by Robert
| | |
I was reading Sam's Hammorabi yesterday when I came across a portion of a post from the same day (Dec. 1) that jumped out at me.
A Group of terrorist thugs loyal to the tyrant disposed regime poisoned the water supply in some parts of the city of Mosul. The contaminations have been confirmed by the local health authorities. What kind of poisonous insects these thugs? Chemical Ali has used them before to poison the Kurds and Shia.
I did a Google search on the terms Mosul, water, poisoned and it returned nothing (still nothing as of this posting either).
I asked Sam in his comments, "Sam, re: the poisoning of water in Mosul. Any fatalities or injuries? What kind of poison was used? Are there any newspapers over there reporting it?"
He replied, "The news is from Al-Sharq Alawsat arabic news paper of 30 Dec 03....The poisons used were mixtures of oil products and toxin which is not specified by the paper. Nothing mentioned about fatalities."
It just so happens that my fbis source* posted the same Awsat article that Sam is referring to.
Here it is in full:
Saddam Supporters Reportedly Contaminate Water Supplies in Mosul
London, UK: Al-Sharq al-Awsat in Arabic 01 Dec 03 P 2 [Report by Shirzad Abd-al-Rahman in Mosul: "Saddam Supporters Poison Water Supplies in Mosul"]
Mosul, Shirzad Abd-al-Rahman, Baghdad, Al-Sharq al-Awsat, Agencies -- In a new effort to instill fear among residents of the city of Mosul and to escalate violence, supporters of the ousted regime have contaminated water supplies in a number of low-income neighborhoods in the city by mixing poisonous substances and petroleum derivatives to the [water] supplies.
Muhammad Thanun from the drinking water corporation told Al-Sharq al-Awsat that this was announced in the media so people take care. The residents were warned not to drink water in the Al-Nu'maniyah, Al-Faysaliyah, and Al-Jaza'ir neighborhoods after a specialist committee declared that the water was contaminated. The committee pointed out that swift procedures have been adopted to remove the effects of the sabotage. [passage omitted citing US military sources and filed items]
I must point out that Saddam loyalists have made it clear that they target coalition forces and Iraqis that work with the coalition. According to the interviews with Saddam insurgents that I have read they do not target Iraqis who are not collaborating with the coalition.
A massive poisoning of the Al-Nu'maniyah, Al-Faysaliyah, and Al-Jaza'ir neighboorhoods by Saddam's guerillas in order to kill Shia or Kurds would have to be ruled out too, I believe, because Saddam in his audio messages has appealed to both directly to join the Sunnis in resisting the coalition.
Most likely what we are dealing with here is a jihadist 'operation'. The foreign Islamists have no compunction whatsoever when it comes to killing any single group of Iraqis if it will foment anger leading to anti-coalition sentiment among all Iraqis.
And if that is the case this 'operation' in Mosul deserves closer scrutiny because al-Qa'ida has threatened to poison water supplies in the US and Canada.
*A note about foreign broadcast information service (fbis) texts: To the best of my knowledge the posting of fbis texts here does not violate any national security statute. The items I post are unclassified. However, I have been asked by the individual who edits the report these fbis items are taken from to not post a direct link to the report. It is open source material but the editor of this particular report would rather stay low profile, so to speak. Posted
3:31 AM
by Robert
| | |
U.S. Rep. Ray LaHood held his thumb and forefinger slightly apart and said, "We're this close" to catching Saddam Hussein. Once that's accomplished, Iraqi resistance will fall apart....
...A member of The Pantagraph editorial board -- not really expecting an answer -- asked LaHood for more details, saying, "Do you know something we don't?"
"Yes I do," replied LaHood.
A bold claim for sure.
It's worth pointing out that Rep. LaHood serves on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, is the vice-chairman of the Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy and National Security and is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security.
On November 6 the UN General Assembly's Social, Humanitarian and Cultural committee approved an Egyptian sponsored draft resolution stressing "the urgent need for Palestinian children to live a normal life free from foreign occupation, destruction and fear in their own State, and demand that Israel respect relevant provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and relevant provisions of the Geneva Convention."
What about the need for Israeli children to live a normal life free from being blown to bits by Palestinian suicide bombers?
Sounds reasonable doesn't it?
Certain countries that sit on the UN's Social, Humanitarian and Cultural committee don't think so.
And once again it is the Egyptians leading the pack of hypocrites who accuse Israel of abusing Palestinian children but seem to think it's ok to blow Jewish kids to pieces.
At the United Nations, the lives of Israeli children are worth less than the lives of Palestinian children, Israel's ambassador to the UN Dan Gillerman said Wednesday after he was forced to withdraw a resolution calling for the protection of Israeli children from terrorism.
"The voice of the immoral majority was once again heard loud and clear," Gillerman told the UN General Assembly's Third (Humanitarian, Social and Cultural) Committee after failing to garner enough support from the organization's 191 members to proceed with a vote.
On Nov. 6, the same committee adopted a similar resolution calling for the protection of Palestinian children from Israeli aggression by a vote of 88 to 4 with 58 abstentions.
The Israeli draft, the Jewish state's first at the UN since 1976, was introduced earlier this month in response to numerous terrorist attacks that have targeted Israeli children, including a bombing at the Maxim restaurant in Haifa on Oct. 4 that killed 21 people, among them four children.
Gillerman withdrew the draft after a group of states from the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), led by Egypt, demanded the inclusion of amendments that, if adopted, would have turned the draft into an anti-Israel resolution.
The list of amendments, cosponsored by Bahrain, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen, included deleting of the phrase "Israeli children" from the text and replacing it with "Middle East children," and inserting references to Israeli "military assaults," "occupation" and ""excessive use of force" ahead of all mention of terrorism. Even the title of the draft was changed from "The situation of and assistance to Israeli children" to "The situation of and assistance to children in the Middle East region." (emphasis added)
"It's shameful that Egypt, which has a peace treaty with Israel, sabotaged this resolution," said Gillerman. Had Israel not withdrawn the resolution, inclusion of the amendments was virtually assured due to the NAM's majority status at the UN.
The international community's failure to come out in favor of the resolution "makes it very clear that the UN General Assembly is an unreliable and biased body with no international integrity. The message sent today by the UN Third Committee to Israeli children is that your lives are worth less than Palestinian children," said Gillerman.
Yep. You heard me right boys and girls. That would be the same Mohamad whose party handed out copies of Henry Ford's anti-Semitic book "The International Jew" to delegates at the annual United Malays National Organization (UMNO) conference in Kuala Lumpur back in June.
That would be the same Mohamad who, while addressing the opening session of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) summit in October, opined "the Europeans killed six million Jews out of 12 million. But today the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them. 1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews." (two Mohamad articles archived at Marten Barck's watch.)
Unfortunately for Israel and the civilized world the 114 members of the Non-Aligned Movement represents the overwhelming majority of the 191 UN member-states.
The Star reports that the Saudi regime is considering the nuclear option because of "the sharp deterioration in Riyadh’s relationship with the United States since Sept. 11, 2001. Saudi Arabia’s ruling elite understands that it can no longer place any reliance on US protection."
And if Riyadh were to pursue the nuke option it would spark a Middle East nuclear arms race.
Riyadh denies it is mulling a nuclear option, but questions remain. On Oct. 8, the Saudi-owned newspaper Asharq al-Awsat, published in London, added to the conundrum with a report headlined: “Yes, we are afraid of Iranian uranium.” The article said: “It would be a mistake to defend our neighbor Iran because of its ignorance and because of the excuse that its actions are meant to deter Israel.
“The Iranian nuclear danger threatens us more than the Israeli and Americans our duty is to seek the dismantling of Israel’s nuclear weapons but we cannot deceive ourselves that Iran is arming itself with nuclear weapons as a response to Israel. We have used conventional weapons against each other more than against Israel and the situation won’t change if we add a nuclear bomb to our arsenal.”
According to US analysts Kenneth Weisbode of the Atlantic Council and James Goodby of the Brookings Institution: “If Iran joins Israel as a de facto nuclear-weapon state, with three other nuclear-weapon states nearby Russia, India and Pakistan it is very unlikely that other nations in the vicinity will be able to resist launching or accelerating their own nuclear weapons programs.
“It is not at all inconceivable,” they wrote in an October analysis, “that a Middle East with four, five or six nuclear-weapon states, including Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, will be the reality of the early 21st century.”
There has been much speculation that Riyadh is seeking either nuclear technology or actual weapons from Pakistan, a nuclear power with whom it has had close ties for many years. Riyadh and Islamabad deny they have a nuclear pact, or are working toward one. The US State Department says that it has “not seen any information to substantiate” reports that the Saudis are trying to acquire nuclear weapons.
Yet a State Department study published in August 2002 reported that senior Saudi officials had discussed the prospect of nuclear arms cooperation with Pakistan. And in November 2002, a former US Defense Intelligence Agency official, Thomas Woodrow, said that Riyadh had been financing Islamabad’s nuclear and missile purchases from China.
Woodrow, a senior China analyst, wrote in a research paper that “Saudi Arabia has been involved in funding Pakistan’s missile and nuclear program purchases from China, which has resulted in Pakistan becoming a nuclear weapon-producing and proliferating state.” He went on to note that Riyadh was “buying nuclear capability from China through a proxy state, with Pakistan serving as the cut-out.”
The indications of sharper Saudi interest in nuclear arms has touched raw nerves in Washington, particularly at a time when the US is challenging Iran and North Korea over their nuclear capabilities and their links to terrorism. The last thing the US wants is another nuclear power in the highly volatile Middle East-South Asia region. A Saudi decision to go nuclear would wreck whatever remains of the Saudi-US relationship, and that may be inhibiting Riyadh.
President George W. Bush and senior officials in his administration are reported to have confronted Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf about them. It is not known whether he was able to reassure the Americans, who rely heavily on Musharraf’s government in the war against the Taleban and Al-Qaeda.
Suspicions that the Saudis were funding Pakistan’s nuclear arms program have been around for years. Both governments have denied it, but the Saudis have had exceptional access to Pakistan’s maximum-security nuclear facilities for years. In 1999, Saudi Arabia’s powerful defense minister, Prince Sultan, was admitted to the uranium-enrichment plant and ballistic missile production facilities at Kahuta, near Islamabad shortly after Pakistan conducted nuclear tests. Woodrow said Sultan “may also have been present in Pakistan” during the test-launch that year of the nuclear-capable Ghauri missile.
Crown Prince Abdullah visited Pakistan on Oct. 18-19 amid considerable speculation that nuclear arms was high on his agenda.
Simon Henderson, a specialist on Saudi Arabia, noted in a recent paper for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, that “given recent revelations about the progress of Iran’s nuclear program, Crown Prince Abdullah may well believe that now is the time for Islamabad to repay Riyadh for its support.”
For either Riyadh or Islamabad to enter into a nuclear arms agreement at this time would seriously antagonize the US and complicate Bush’s expanding war against global terrorism. But perhaps the Saudis found it timely to make such an approach since India’s rapidly growing military and possibly nuclear ties with Israel are causing considerable unease in Islamabad. Pakistan, outgunned by India in the nuclear field, wants to find what the Americans call “equalizers” to deter India, and having nuclear weapons in Saudi Arabia, outside India’s targeting reach, could offer that possibility ? and might also check Iran.
It is ironic that it was Pakistan, which is believed to have helped Iran develop its nuclear program along with China, Russia and possibly North Korea which has given apparent impetus to Riyadh’s efforts to counter the threat from Tehran.
While the details of Abdullah’s discussions in Islamabad during his 26-hour visit have not been disclosed, the British newspaper The Guardian reported on Sept. 18 that the Saudis, alarmed at Iran’s accelerating nuclear program and their development of Shehab intermediate-range ballistic missiles, were considering a strategy review at the highest level that contained three options: acquiring a nuclear capability as a deterrent, allying with a nuclear power that would offer protection, or pursuing a regional agreement for a nuclear-free Middle East.
The Saudis vehemently denied any effort to acquire nuclear arms. However, according to Henderson, the basis for the Guardian report was a meeting held a few days earlier during a three-day international symposium on Saudi Arabia, Britain and the Wider World at Oxford University. The meeting was organized by the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies, whose chairman of the trustees is also the deputy leader of Saudi Arabia’s consultative council, a body with no executive powers which advises the monarchy.
Among the invitees were three Saudi princes, including Prince Turki al-Faisal, who had headed the kingdom’s intelligence service for 25 years until his surprise resignation in July 2001, shortly before the suicide attacks on the United States. He was later appointed ambassador to Britain. A Saudi Cabinet minister and two members of the consultative council were also in attendance. The substance of the Guardian report has been confirmed by senior Saudis, according to Henderson.
The Israeli take on these developments was that Riyadh was signaling Washington to act decisively to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power because they fear that if that happens, the region will face a nuclear arms race that in the end can only threaten the Jewish state.
Ariel Sharon warned last month that Libya was “diligently attempting to acquire nuclear know-how with help from North Korea and Pakistan not help in buying a bomb, but help in acquiring technology and expertise to build a bomb.” Whether that was simply more scare-mongering to justify Israel’s hard-line position and its own nuclear armory is not clear, although some US commentators have deduced that Israel had obtained hard intelligence that Libya was pursuing nuclear technology.
If the Saudis are moving toward acquiring nuclear weapons, or the technology, they already have some of the required infrastructure 50-60 CSS-2 Dong Feng 3A ballistic missiles secretly bought from China in the mid-1980s.
All this, it would seem, is part of the sweeping geopolitical realignment unfolding in the Middle East and its environs, particularly in South and Central Asia, triggered by Sept. 11, and by the US response to that catalytic event, particularly the conquest of Iraq. While the Americans see themselves establishing a new military base from which to dominate the region in effect substituting Iraq for Saudi Arabia they must also face the possibility that, proliferation concerns apart, the regional regimes they have propped up for so long, particularly Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and even Pakistan, could be overthrown by Islamic radicals somewhere down the line. And that gives the prospect of Saudi Arabia acquiring nuclear weapons, however amorphous that may be at this time, a more menacing aspect.
The key to making certain this scenario doesn't come to pass is Tehran's nuclear aspirations.
The mullah's must not be allowed to go nuke. Preventing this, of course, is where Israel enters the picture. Posted
12:04 AM
by Robert
| | |
I won't claim to be an expert on Arab/Muslim/Iraqi culture, but my understanding is that status and perceived stature matter in that corner of the world. If so, there has to be an impact when Saddam's current status (dressing as a woman and sleeping in barns) is compared with President Bush, who can waltz right into the Sunni Triangle. Don't you think? If what I'm reading about Arab/Muslim culture is accurate, Bush's trip could be a significant blow in the psych war over the future of Iraq.
Exactly. And on the other side of that coin is Usama bin Ladin.
Recall, everyone, the opening moments of the war on the Taliban and al-Qa'ida in Afghanistan. UBL scored a major publicity coup when al-Jazeera aired his video statement.
George Bush, with his visit to Baghdad - the center of the caliphate for some 500 years, finally has a media victory over the one who would be caliph.
We would rather have Usama, but we will take this. For now.
***
Of all the reactions by Iraqis to the President's visit, this one is by far my favorite.
Omar Kanaan Al-Obeidi, a 29-year-old civil engineer, called Bush is "chicken" for not leaving the airport, but he joked that it wasn't so important for the president to see Iraq. "Maybe we wish to see America instead," he said.
Omar gets it.
Best reaction by a GOPer: Jonah Goldberg, editor-at-large, National Review Online
"This wasn't lying about an 18-minute gap on a tape or lying under oath. If they had announced the trip and there were attacks and people had died, everyone would be screaming bloody murder about how Bush put people in harm's way. I'm sure the press corps has their dresses over their head about it, but I sincerely doubt anyone in the real America will have any concern about it whatsoever."
"Electoral raid on Baghdad" read the caustic headline in the left-wing Paris daily Liberation which summed up European newspaper editorial reaction to President George W Bush's Thanksgiving Day visit to US troops in Iraq.
Dennis Prager has an open letter to the men and women of our armed services that is appropriate today.
Though you may already know everything I am about to say, I need to say it for those of you who, after seeing fellow soldiers blown up or severely injured, may sometimes wonder whether these sacrifices are worth it.
So, first, let me set the record straight. Not since World War II have the stakes been this great. This is a war for the future of civilization every bit as much as the war against German Nazism and Japanese Fascism was. If we had lost that war, the world would have devolved into barbarism.
If we lose this one, the same will happen.
It was a war for civilization then; the war against Islamic Fascism is such a war today.
When the rumours about her conversion began to emerge, prematurely as it happens, she received a telephone call from Abu Hamza, the London-based Islamic extremist whose shrill defence of the September 11 hijackers - he announced that they should be hailed as "martyrs" - earnt him hate-figure status in the sort of tabloids for which Ridley once worked. (Indeed, Ridley herself reported just a year ago that "according to CIA and FBI documents seen by the Sunday Express, Abu Hamza is described as the spiritual leader for al-Qaida in Europe".)
Today, she refuses to denounce the cleric, to whom she had spoken many times as a reporter. "As a Muslim, I don't think it's constructive to criticise other Muslims." And she talks fondly of his approach to her. "He said, 'Sister Yvonne! I'm so happy.' I said, 'That's really kind of you to call. However, it's a wee bit premature. I haven't [converted] yet.' He said, 'You'll get all the care and support you'll need from the Muslim community and any time you need any help you just give me a call.' He was so nice. That was a very sweet thing to do."
She adds: "I don't have a problem with him. I think the media has created this monster and the Muslim community go along with it. In fact I've criticized various Muslim leaders for criticising him. I've said just ignore him, he's hardly representative of British Muslims."
Just a day after the Nov. 20 Istanbul bombings which targeted the British embassy and a British bank the "sweet thing" Hamza warned there would be car bomb attacks in Britain, Istanbul style, if the country continued to back America. He also called Britain a "sitting duck" for suicide bombers.
Which isn't so sweet now is it Yvonne?
This isn't the first case of a Ridley link to a nutjob Islamist militant. James Taranto and H. D. Miller recently noted a Ridley al-Jazeera piece that quoted one Yasser Ansiri, director of the so called human rights organization Islamic Observation Centre.
Says Taranto of Ridley's Jazeera story, which features a photograph of an American soldier frisking an Afghan boy along with Ansiri's reaction of outrage to the image:
As we read the al-Jazeera story, we were struck by the familiarity of some of the names. "Ansiri, spokesman for the centre which is a human rights organization"? That would be Yasser Ansiri, director of the London-based Islamic Observation Centre. As we noted in October 2001, Ansiri--whose name is also transliterated al-Siri or al-Sirri--has been described as "the mouthpiece of al Qaeda in Britain." He sought asylum in Britain after fleeing Egypt, where he had been convicted and sentenced to death for a bomb attack that killed a 12-year-old girl. Scotland Yard arrested him in October 2001 on suspicion of involvement in the Sept. 9 assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood, a Northern Alliance leader, but a judge ordered his release in May 2002.
Then there is the second Ridley piece, her last before her sacking by Jazeera. It features an image of an Iraqi girl about to be tied up by an American soldier
Ridley once again quotes the indignant Islamic Observation Centre. This time, however, the quote is attributed to an unnamed IOC spokesman.
Miller sums up Ridley's duplicity and Ansiri's stomach turning hypocrisy thusly:
Apparently, according to Mr. Anonymous Spokesman, tying children up is repulsive, but blowing them up is A Okay.
Ridley's habit of deception is not missed by Natalie Solent either.
Ridley, you recall, was captured by Taliban forces in Afghanistan in a foolish and ill conceived attempt (she was disguised by a burkha, but her camera gave her away) to scoop the world press only days before the bombs started raining on Taliban forces and Qaida training camps. She was released, by order of Mullah Omar, the day after the pummelling of the medieval mullah began when she promised her captors to study the teachings of Islam. The eight western relief workers she was detained with, including Americans Heather Mercer and Dayna Curry, weren't rescued until Kabul fell.
Anyway, in an August 2002 Islam Online interview Ridley is asked by her interviewer, "did you have any knowledge about Islam before your encounter with the Taliban"?
To which she replies, "nothing more factual than would fill the back of a postage stamp. Of course I'd subscribed to all the myths about women being subjugated and how it was an evil and violent religion full of fanatics."
But as Solent points out, this is a canard.
It it surprising to hear from IslamOnline that she knew very little of Islam before her encounter with the Taliban. Don't they look in their own files? According to this earlier IslamOnline article she was married [for five years] to a Palestinian, Daud Zaarur a.k.a. Abul Hakam (also sometimes transcribed as Dawood Zaarora and Abu Al Hakam ), who is "a former military commander of the Palestinian Fatah movement in Lebanon."
Of course he may for all I know have been secular in his personal beliefs, but didn't he ever even talk about Islam? Surely during her marriage she would have met his family and his friends, or in some other way have learnt more than a postage stamp-worth's about the religion of most Palestinians.
Nonetheless, Yvonne Ridley's pose as a simple Sunday School teacher who first met Islam as a naive journalist-adventurer surprised by the humanity of her captors is frankly incredible.
And equally incredible is her claim that "the war in Afghanistan was a humanitarian disaster" that "achieved nothing."
To which Fred Pruitt responds, "when was the last time they cut somebody's head off"?
Seems like Yvonne Ridley has lost hers.
"Yvonne Ridley – In The Line Of Fire" airs Dec 6 on BBC4. Posted
5:54 AM
by Robert
| | |
"The freedom to think, to criticize, to subject the most holy of ideologies to a review were behind the self-criticism undertaken by Christianity itself of many of its theological concepts. This is what we, Muslims, need nowadays."
Nogaidan's liberal and reformist views have caused him considerable problems with Saudi government and religious authorities. The World Tribune noted in September that al-Nogaidan "has been sanctioned by the government for several years. He was fired from his previous job as columnist at the al-Watan daily. The Interior Ministry has refused to allow Al Nogaidan to travel since 2001."
Also in September the Saudi Information Agency reported that the Saudi grand mufti banned Nogaidan from writing for al-Riyadh newspaper after an article Nogaidan wrote was published in al-Riyadh on the second anniversary of the September 11 attacks.
In that article, "September 11, Our True Image" al-Nogaidan "attacked the bin Laden ideology and local support for it in the Wahhabi religious establishment. He also praised Saudi Shia for their patriotism and patience despite prolonged oppression by other Saudis."
In his article "al-Nogaidan criticized the late official acknowledgment that 15 of the September 11 hikackers were Saudis and called on the government to curtail intellectual terrorism by the Wahhabi religious establishment against liberals, Shia and Sufis. He called for a reexamination of Wahhabi religious teachings, and the 'culture of death' taught in Saudi schools and mosques."
According to the World Tribune report, Nogaidan's ban was "endorsed by Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah who sought to placate the clerics while cracking down on Al Qaida insurgency cells."
Obviously, this policy of appeasement has failed as evidenced by the Muhaya bombings earlier this month, the bombings of three western residential compounds in May and continued gun battles between Saudi security forces and al-Qa'ida.
House Saud, headed for the fork in the road for months now has finally reached it. Al-Qa'ida will not be smashed in the kingdom unless the Saudi regime addresses its cultivation and export of the homegrown radical Salafist ideology, turns it back on it and embraces liberal Saudi reformers such as Monsour Nogaidan.
According to the Saudi Information Agency "border guards working in the Saudi-Iraqi borders told SIA news Saudi fighters are still heading to Iraq, with little scrutiny by Saudi authorities."
A Saudi border guard from the Rafha section of the Saudi side of the Iraqi border who, understandably, wished to remain anonymous said that "dozens of Saudi fighters are still crossing easily."
The border guard complained to SIA of "equipment and manpower shortage" and that he "requested from the interior ministry more" of both "but didn't receive any."
The officer adds that the "only actions his guards take is to fire warning shots when they encounter Saudi infiltrators."
This border guard has not only proved Nayef's denial of the infiltration of the Iraqi border by Saudi "fighters" patently false but also has shown Nayef's interior ministry as negligent in securing the border.
Our second account comes from Expatica.com which reports that "Iraqi police have reportedly thwarted plans to attack Dutch peacekeeping soldiers after arresting a suspected Al Qaeda terrorist" who "entered Iraq from Saudi Arabia in September" and "tried to obtain weapons, explosives and recruits to assist him in carrying out various attacks."
"Iraqi authorities said the man was arrested at the start of October in a hotel in the southern Iraqi city of As Samawah, where the Dutch troops are stationed."
"One of the people the Al Qaeda suspect allegedly tried to recruit was a police officer. The man also allegedly told three people that he was planning a bomb attack against oil pipelines in Basra and that he then planned to carry out an attack against Dutch soldiers in As Samawah."
Nayef had better pay attention to the porous border situation if for no other reason than his own regime's survival since U.S. officials have told Newsweek that "some of the weapons seized by Saudi security forces from Al Qaeda terrorists in recent weeks—including caches of AK-47 semiautomatic rifles and RPGs—appear to be coming from the remnants of Saddam Hussein’s enormous arsenal."
"With Iraq awash in weapons, AK-47s are selling for as little as $5 or $6 apiece in that country, creating a flourishing trade across the lightly patrolled Iraq-Saudi border." Posted
5:22 AM
by Robert
| | |
As it turns out, it was the first interview granted to the Arab press since he assumed the Oval Office.
The journalist putting the questions to Mr. Bush was Abd-al-Rahman al-Rashid, chief editor of the London based, Saudi daily Al-Sharq al-Awsat.
Below is an fbis translation, as it appeared in Awsat, of Mr. al-Rashid's introductory comments to his interview of the President.
Then follows, in the left column, an fbis translation of the interview itself.
In the right column you will find the State Department's transcript of the interview.
Compare the two transcripts closely. Believe me, it is worth the time and effort.
(A note to Mr al-Rashid: Next time you interview the prez of the US of A, and there most likely won't be one, make sure you listen to the speech that preceeds your interview, you knucklehead you.)
[Begin introductory passage] Ambassador Mark Hambley, who is one of the most knowledgeable US diplomats about our region, told me that this will be the only press interview that the President will give while in London, and it will be with you. Al-Sharq Al-Awsat has been selected as the only newspaper that he will talk to during his 3-day official visit. As such, it will be the only interview to be given to the Arab press since he became President. Even the British press was not included on the President's schedule. The President gave an interview to a pool of British reporters in Washington before the start of the visit.
Here, I will try to give an idea about the general atmosphere, which is as important as the interview itself. London seemed to me stranger than anytime that I have seen it before. It looked like a war zone. Policemen were at every corner. Snipers were positioned on rooftops. The exit points of a large neighborhood have been closed. In the streets of the capital, police forces extensively stopped and searched people and checked their identity cards. I left my car behind and preferred to take the train headed downtown to save time and avoid the closed roads. The car that I was in was full of youths who carried hostile signs and leaflets inciting demonstrations. Almost all of them had the name Iraq written on them. Although the British capital is used to demonstrations opposed to the Iraq war, rumors and fears of terrorist operations have led to the deployment of thousands of police personnel to protect the guest. The guest, Bush, is the first US President to be invited by the Queen on a "state visit" and to stay at Buckingham Palace.
At the checkpoints, my name was not found on the lists. The fact that I was in the company of the Ambassador was enough to let me go through the multiple guards. My appointment was set inside the US Embassy at Grosvenor Square. The President's aides prepared a small, windowless room with simple furniture for the interview. In the room, I found the President sitting on one of four chairs carefully arranged by his assistant for the interview. The National Security Advisor sat in the back. The President stood up to shake my hand and apologized that he is getting old. I said: Me too. Then he bombarded me with questions about myself. When did you graduate and from which university? Worried, I started looking at my watch since I did not want to lose time. I said: Mr. President: I believe I came to ask the questions. He laughed and said that he would like to ask the questions, this time at least. The discussion was smooth and direct. The President asked me: Do you know Condoleezza Rice? I said: Who doesn't? I added: But I must complain to you about her. She is yet to approve my request for an interview with her. She laughed and said quickly: I will, believe me.
Naturally, the interview was dominated by the Iraqi issue, which is the crucial issue for the region and the one issue that perhaps will determine the future of the President himself. It has become almost the only issue that has divided the world into two camps.
The general impression that I came up with from the interview is that President Bush seems to be a better person to deal and interact with without the cameras that count his breaths, which I believe is true of many politicians, who seem natural and easy to talk to. He was confident in his replies and turned to his National Security Advisor only once. In his replies, he was eager to emphasize his friendship and sincere feelings toward Arabs and Muslims. He also wished to be perceived as an ordinary and friendly person who asked about details and who joked at the start and the end of the interview. When his aides stood up, thus signaling the end of the interview, he asked me as he was leaving if I was married. I said no. Why not, he asked? I said, without hesitation: My boss at work is to blame for this. He keeps us busy with many assignments. He put his hand on my shoulder and said to the White House photographer: Let us take another picture. [End of the introductory passage]
London, UK: Al-Sharq al-Awsat in Arabic 21 Nov 03 P 5 [Interview with US President George Bush by Chief Editor Abd-al-Rahman al-Rashid in London]
Interview of President Bush by AL-SHARQ AL-AWSAT, The American Embassy, London, England, THE WHITE HOUSE, Office of the Press Secretary
[Al-Rashid] Thank you for your time. I know that you are a busy man in London.
[Bush] Thank you for coming. I appreciate your interest and I am honored that you are here.
[Al-Rashid] Mr. President: I believe that the first question that I should ask relates to the transfer of powers from the Coalition to the Governing Council, sometime in the summer. What exactly is your timeline for this?
[Bush] Actually it depends on the governing coalition. They expressed a desire for a transfer of authority in June. There are some things that need to be achieved. But let me give you a broad assessment. As you know, Ambassador Bremer came to the United States, I believe a week or 10 days ago. We sat down together and reached a rational decision to listen to the voices in the Governing Council that are interested in accelerating the process of the transfer of authority. We decided, if this is their wish, that we need to assess whether or not this is possible. The assessment was positive. Therefore, Bremer returned to the Governing Council and they laid down a timeframe that they feel comfortable with. This is extremely important.
As you know, the thinking at the beginning was to draft the constitution, hold elections, and then transfer sovereignty. It would have taken sometime to draft a constitution because there is a desire by the people for the need to hold elections for a constituent assembly. But because of the outbreak of some incidents, the transfer of authority seems more realistic at this point than it was at the beginning. I could refer to some of this in a few minutes. So, the idea was to draft a statute by which the Iraqi people could operate, transfer authority, and then draft a constitution. As you know--you asked me about the timeframe--one of the decisions that the Governing Council needs to make is to decide on the nature of the local elections that will determine the initial representative body. This is their decision. It is important for me to emphasize that this is "their decision" because we believe, and continue to believe, that the Iraqi people are capable of running their country's affairs as a free state.
[Al-Rashid] But who will the powers be transferred to? Let us say, for instance, that the process will start in the summer. When we say the summer, is there a precise definition?
[Bush] Yes, I believe so. This is precisely what we are after.
[Al-Rashid] Who will the authority be transferred to without a constitution?
[Bush] Actually there will be some kind of a statute that the Governing Council will agree on in advance so that the people realize that their rights will not be tampered with. The minorities will have a voice in the future government. In other words, there must be something other than the constitution because a constitution, it seems, will take a long time to finalize. But there will be something to guarantee the basic rights; a document that will precede what will become a constitution. This is part of what the Governing Council has agreed to.
[Al-Rashid] But in your opinion, do you believe that this will lead to the selection of a president or a collective regime?
[Bush] My view does not matter. This is something important for you and your readers to know. What matters is the opinion of the Iraqi people. I said in my speeches that I believe in democracy, but I realize that democracy takes a number of shapes and that democracies do not have to necessarily be similar to the US democracy. There are several ways to achieve a system in which the rights of minorities are represented, the rule of law is applied, and all the shapes included in a democratic framework--and as you know there are several shapes, particularly in the Middle East or across the Arab world--are made available. In my speech today, and I don't know if you listened to it or not?
[Al-Rashid] Not yet.
[Bush] You must listen to it, please.
[Al-Rashid] I will.
[Bush] It is important for you to listen to it because I believe it will give you some ideas about my thinking regarding the Arab and Islamic peoples. I said in my speech that one of the things that the Western world should do is to change its way of thinking about the Islamic world or the Arab world. That is all. Some will say that these people cannot run their own affairs or rule themselves, but I completely disagree with this. One of the points that I mentioned is that half the Muslims live in democratic societies and contribute to the community. These societies have different ways of handling democracy. The Iraqi democracy will materialize in a distinctive Iraqi way, which is what I am trying to say.
[Al-Rashid] So you don't know if a president or a governing council will be elected in Iraq?
[Bush] Absolutely. Because the system is taking shape, which is important. But the Iraqi Governing Council and the Iraqi people will make the decision.
[Al-Rashid] Do you mean that this will be followed by the withdrawal of the US troops from Iraq?
[Bush] No. These are two different tracks. Sorry for interrupting you. I jumped head of your question because of the time.
[Al-Rashid] That was my question.
[Bush] We are talking about two different tracks. The political track is evolving in a good way because certain things did not happen. First, there has not been a huge influx of refugees. Second, there has not been sectarian violence. You remember that these were some of the speculations. I don't mean that these were your speculations, but some other people made speculations about a sectarian violence. Do you remember these speculations, the influx of refugees, famine, the food shortages all over the country? Nothing of this happened. But what is clear is that what is happening is violence that we are all dealing with, which is a security issue. But the political issue is moving and civil servants are being employed in the ministries. There are many indications that the regime is making progress toward a democratic shift, which the Governing Council has acknowledged and supported. The other track, naturally, is the security track, which does not supersede the previous track but is part of our involvement. We will stay until an Iraq, as a free society, is allowed to emerge, and we know that this is going to happen.
Let me give you an example about the strategy. I said in my speech today that the Iraqi people will not turn down freedom, and I mean it. Among the methods of safeguarding their freedoms is to develop the necessary forces, domestically, to work with the coalition forces and to deal with the minority that is trying to undermine the hopes of the majority. I believe that there are 130,000 Iraqis now who are wearing this or that official uniform, who are your border guard, people who guard your facilities, and the police. We also have an army battalion and we are increasing the army size.
I believe that some quarters believe that the figure will be an Iraqi army made up of 30,000 personnel by the end of the year. Naturally, the first task of this Iraqi army will be to get rid of the murderers who the Iraqi people wish to destroy. I had an interesting meeting. I believe you read about the 17 Iraqi women who visited the White House. It was an interesting and encouraging meeting. This delegation was made up of capable women who are interested in the establishment of a free society in Iraq. One of the delegation members said to me: We lost some of your citizens, but the Iraqi people, as she said, lost a lot. She also said that the Iraqi people are suffering because they are facing death as a result of the killing and horror that they are experiencing, but she stressed that the Iraqi people reject all this because they look forward to freedom, the same way that other peoples aspire to freedom.
[Al-Rashid] Mr. President: Do you mean that you will not pull out any military troops by the end of the summer?
[Bush] No. We will have forces on the ground based on the security requirements.
[Al-Rashid] But you are not talking about an additional or reduced military presence?
[Bush] I said that I will listen to the Generals, what they have to say about the situation, their needs, and whether there is a need for a greater number, a smaller number, or if the existing number is required and appropriate. The mission of these people focuses on securing the conditions and working with the Iraqis to uproot the terrorists. There are Ba'thist terrorists and extremist Islamic elements. There are also Al-Qa'ida and Ansar Al-Islam elements. The task of the US troops focuses on assisting the Iraqis to secure the situation in their country. The military commanders are constantly assessing the situation and relaying their need for the appropriate number. This is a decision that they make. I set the goal and they determine the tactics. If you want to know the force and the size of the troops in June you must look for General Abizaid. He will tell you what you want.
[Al-Rashid] Do you mean that you have opted for an early transfer of power to the Iraqis, contrary to earlier plans and timetables, because of pressure and casualties? The French and everybody are against this.
[Bush] No, no, no. The reason is what I just told you. The Iraqi Governing Council; the conditions and the situation in Iraq and the progress made by the Governing Council are the reason that led us to believe that the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis could take place in a realistic and encouraging way.
[Al-Rashid] You expected the violence that took place. Do you believe that the magnitude of the loss of lives will determine how you will run your process?
[Bush] Certainly not. We will not leave Iraq before we finish our task there.
[Al-Rashid] But how long will that take and how are you going to do it?
[Bush] This is like asking me before the attack on Baghdad about the time the operation would take. If you asked me that question then I would have said to you: As long as it takes. You are asking me to set dates and timetables for things. This is the second time that you ask me about dates and timetables.
[Al-Rashid] Some draw a comparison between Iraq and Vietnam. Do you see any similarity?
[Bush] I realize that the Iraqis were looking forward to freedom and to getting rid of Saddam Husayn. The Iraqis felt relieved when Saddam's sons were killed. Saddam Husayn has tortured and done horrible things to an entire people. The situation in different.
[Al-Rashid] But I have not heard the word Vietnam in your answer to my question?
[Bush] No, because I answered your question. You asked me if there is a similarity and I said that the situation is different. Do you see the difference here? The people.
[Al-Rashid] Yes.
[Bush] Good. Then you know what I am talking about here. The Iraqi people were happy to get rid of Saddam.
[Al-Rashid] Mr. President: Is it accurate to say that the US military has done a good job and won the war in a very short period of time, surprisingly, yet on the civilian track your officials failed to run Iraq in an appropriate way?
[Bush] I believe that it is safer to say that the initial stage of the war proceeded as required while the second stage of the war is proceeding as expected. Because of the Ba'thists, there are still some people who refuse to give up because they were part of the ruling elite in the past. We are making strong progress in many areas. If we take the Iraqi currency, for instance, I believe that a glance at the history of changing currencies and issuing a new currency will clearly demonstrate that this is not an easy thing to do. However, Saddam's picture is no longer on the new currency because the Iraqis now have a new currency, which is a difficult job. However, we are making steady and regular progress toward replacing the Iraqi currency. The oil revenues are also an interesting issue. Once again, if you remember well at the end of the deadline there were speculations about the destruction to be incurred in the oil sector because of the war and the possibility that restoring the sector to its earlier levels would take years. All this did not happen. The Iraqi oil production now stands at 1.2 million barrels per day, and all this is in the interest of the Iraqi people. In other words, we managed to make the concerned ministry stand on its feet quickly, and it is working efficiently now. If we look at the educational system, there are 1,500 Iraqi schools currently working with new schoolbooks and supplies. What I would like to say here is that there are many examples in the civil society where we have made good progress. It is clear that the problem now lies in the terrorists who are killing. They are killing Iraqis and workers in the international relief organizations. They are killing in order to shake our resolve, but they will not succeed in this. They will not succeed in shaking our resolve.
[Al-Rashid] Will you visit Baghdad?
[Bush] I don't know yet. Will I visit Baghdad sometime? I certainly hope so.
[Al-Rashid] Before or after the elections?
[Bush, laughing] I don't know. I am trying to finish my visit here to England.
[Al-Rashid] What about the road map? This is your plan, but nothing has happened.
[Bush] No, it is not our plan (alone).
[Al-Rashid] But nothing happened so far?
[Bush] Well. This is not exactly true. I mean, the road map still exists. Let me tell you that this involved the United States, the EU, the UN, and Russia. So, it is some kind of an international strategy toward telling the parties: Assume you responsibilities and be responsible for your citizens. On 24 June 2002 I gave a speech at the White House Rose Garden, and you can find it on the Internet. It will acquaint you with my position. I am not trying to refer you to my speeches, but this will give you an idea, which I reiterate today. I dedicated a certain time in my speech today to the issue of the Arab-Israeli conflict and invited all parties to assume their responsibilities. I said that the best way is the one that goes through the establishment of a Palestinian state, which I believe the Palestinians deserve. In reality, I am the first US President who stands up and calls for this, and I believe in it and mean it. But the state must be democratic in order to survive and must have institutions that can stand the test of time. It needs a leadership that does not plunder the money, deal with terrorists, and continuously let down the hopes of the Palestinian people. I found that leader in Abu-Mazin, I think. I stood beside him in Al-Aqabah in Jordan. You certainly remember this. Israel was assuming its responsibility, and the Arab states were assuming their responsibility, in terms of ending the settlements, not surrounding the states with walls in the final negotiations, and ending the daily humiliation of the Palestinians. This was clear. Today's announcement, incidentally, is in the public square [as published].
Anyway, I was with Abu-Mazin, who convinced me that he believes in the aspirations of the Palestinians and that he wants to work on the security issue and fight the terrorist organizations that destroy every chance for peace. Now look what happened to him. He was removed. I believe it was an interesting lesson. We hope that the new Prime Minister will do the right thing; that is, disband the terrorist organizations and allow the institutions to take its course. These are the institutions that will stand the test of time so that Palestine may emerge as a democratic, secure, and viable state. At any rate, this is the road map that exists. It requires joint and mutual responsibilities. I have set the defining line at the end of the road, and this is what I believe in.
[Al-Rashid] Can I ask you a full question about the current situation?
[Bush] You already asked me about five questions of this type (laughter).
[Al-Rashid] It is about three countries. I would like to hear how you are going to deal with ending their crisis. One of them is Iran. How are you going to deal with it?
[Bush] Well. This depends on Iran's decision.
[Al-Rashid] The second country is Syria, and finally your friends in Saudi Arabia.
[Bush] Let us start first with Saudi Arabia. Crown Prince Abdallah is a straightforward man. He is a friend of mine. I like him and respect him. He informed me that we are unifying our efforts to combat the terrorist organizations that threaten the kingdom, and he is delivering what he has promised. He also informed me that he will work to introduce reforms, and I trust him.
As for Iran, the choice is theirs. They must comply with the Nonproliferation Treaty that they agreed to. They must be transparent, frank, and sincere with the world about their aspirations. It seems that we are making some progress. The Secretary of State met yesterday, as you know, with the EU ministers. The message is that we all need to speak with one unified voice to tell the Iranians to get rid of their aspirations in the field of nuclear weapons. Hopefully, working with the International Atomic Energy Agency will lead to a transparent and open system with the Iranians.
As regards Syria, the choice, again, is that of the Syrian leader. The most important thing that he can do [changes thought. Well, I will go back to the Iranians. There is another thing that I would like to tell you. They are harboring Al-Qa'ida elements. We hope that those who belong to Al-Qa'ida will return to their original countries.
[Al-Rashid] From Iran?
[Bush] Yes, in Iran. Regarding Syria, we talked to them before. We still feel strongly that they need to close Hizballah offices in their country.
[Al-Rashid] You mean the Jihad?
[Bush] Hizballah, the Islamic Jihad, and certainly HAMAS, if there are offices there. They must do a better job on their border to stop any infiltration from Syria to Iraq in terms of weapons, terrorists, and jihadists. A secure Iraq is in the interest of Syria. A secure and free Iraq is in the interest of the neighbors. We hope that Syria will adopt a stance of cooperation in establishing a free and secure Iraq and will not overlook any infiltration operations that take place from its territories and into Iraq.
[Al-Rashid] Regarding Syria, are there negotiations currently under way?
[Bush] Well, there are negotiations, but not much. What do you mean by negotiations?
[Al-Rashid] Discussion.
[Bush] It is difficult to negotiate. Let them stop the terrorism. You either stop terrorism or you don't. It is not like that. They know our position and know how we feel.
[Al-Rashid] How do they know it? Is there a mediator?
[Bush] Well, they know it because first they will read about it here. Since I am talking to you directly, without a mediator, they will hear about it. Second, Secretary of State Powell talked to President Al-Asad in the summer, I believe, and he delivered some of this message. This happened in the past. I say some of it because this was before. Well, he delivered the whole message to them, if I am not mistaken. I mean, in other words, if one asks: Did President Al-Asad hear this from my government? The answer is yes. The Secretary of State had a good discussion with him.
[Al-Rashid] Did you make any promise to Blair about the road map? There are reports published yesterday about such a promise?
[Bush] What do you mean by promising him something?
[Al-Rashid] Prime Minister Blair and the road map. There was a story in the press yesterday about activating the road map.
[Bush] We did not talk about the road map. I mean we talked about the Middle East all the time, but he did not say...[Changes thought] I am not clearly sure what you are referring to. It seems that many things are published in the press here. I don't mean in your newspaper (laughter.
[Al-Rashid] Thank you for the interview.
[Bush] Thank you. What you need is to return and live in the United States once again.
Q I know you are the busiest person --
THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for coming by. I appreciate your interest. I'm honored you'd come by.
Q Mr. President, I think the question, number one, I have to ask is, now you're talking about transferring the power from the coalition now to the Governing Council sometime in the summer. What is exactly your timetable for that?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it really depends upon the Governing Coalition. They've expressed a desire for the transfer of authority in June. There are certain benchmarks that must be achieved. But let me just give you a kind of a broader assessment.
We -- Ambassador Bremer came to the United States, as you know, gosh, I think it must have been a week ago or 10 days ago. And we sat down and made a conscious decision to listen to the voices on the Governing Council that were interested in accelerating the transfer of sovereignty, and we decided to -- obviously if that's what they're interested in, that we needed to assess whether or not it was possible. The assessment was positive. And therefore, Jerry Bremer went back to the Governing Council and worked out a timetable that they're comfortable with. And that's very important.
As you know, one of the -- initially the thought was to have a constitution written, then elections, then sovereignty. It was going to take a while to write the constitution, because there was a sentiment amongst the people that there needed to be elections to a constitutional assembly. And yet, because certain things had happened, the transfer of sovereignty seemed more realistic at this point in time than it did initially. And I could cite some of those in a minute. And so the idea was to have kind of a standard law under which the Iraqi people would operate, transfer of sovereignty, and then a constitution be written.
And as you know, the Governing Council is now in the process of -- you asked the timetable -- one of the decisions they must make is what will be the form of the kind of the local elections or caucuses that will then determine the makeup of the initial kind of representative body. That's their decision. And it's important for me to emphasize "their" decision, because we believe -- and still believe -- believed and believe that the Iraqi people are plenty capable of running their own country, a free country.
Q But who are we going to hand it over to -- let's say, if you start in the summer, are we saying the summer is accurate?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I think so. That's exactly what we're aiming for now.
Q Who is going to go for without, of course, the constitution, without a --
THE PRESIDENT: Well, there's going to be kind of a general law that will be agreed upon before by the Governing Council so that people know that their rights will not be trampled, that there will be -- that the minority populations will have a voice in the future government. In other words, there has to be something other than a constitution because the constitution it looked like was going to take a long time to write -- but something that would have basic rights guaranteed, a preceding document to what eventually will be the constitution. And so that's part of what the Governing Council agreed to do.
Q But your vision, you think it's going to be one person, a president would be --
THE PRESIDENT: My vision doesn't matter. That's important for you and your readers to know. What matters is the vision of the Iraqi people.
And I've said in my speeches that I believe in democracy, but I recognize that democracy can come in different forms and democracies will not look like America's democracy necessarily. So there's ways to get to a system in which minority rights are represented, a rule of law prevails, all the systems inherent in democratic form. And they come in different ways, as you know. In particular in the Middle East, or throughout the Arab world. In my speech today, which I don't know if you heard it or not --
Q Not yet.
THE PRESIDENT: You've got to hear it -- please.
Q I will, indeed.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay, because it's important for you to hear because I think it gives you some insights into my thinking in my heart about the Arab people and the Muslim people. I said in my speech, there are -- I said one of the things that the Western world has to do is change its way of thinking about the Muslim world, or the Arab world. And that is that -- some will say, oh, these kind of people can't manage, can't govern themselves. I completely disagree. And one of the points I point out is that half the Muslims live under democratic societies and they're contributing citizens. And those societies have got different ways of dealing with democracy. And Iraq's democracy will emerge in a uniquely Iraqi fashion. And that's what I'm trying to say.
Q So we don't know in the summer it's one president or a governing council, elected --
THE PRESIDENT: And that's fine. Because a system is emerging. And that's what's important to know. But the Iraqi Governing Council, the Iraqi people will make that decision.
Q Are we saying -- will that follow by withdrawing troops, American troops from --
THE PRESIDENT: No -- two separate courses. I'm sorry to interrupt you, I'm anticipating your questions, in the name of time.
Q No, that's the question --
THE PRESIDENT: We're talking two separate tracks. The political track is developing and it's developing well, because certain things didn't happen. One, there was no great huge refugee flows. Two, there wasn't the sectarian violence. Remember, these were all -- some of the predictions. I'm not suggesting you were making these predictions, but others might have been making predictions about sectarian violence. You remember that prediction. Or refugee flows. Or hunger -- food shortages throughout the country. And none of that happened.
But, obviously, what is happening is violence that we're dealing with, and that's a security issue. But the political process is moving forward. And the ministries are now being staffed. There is a local region -- local governments up and running. There's a variety of indicators that the system is moving toward this democratic transition, which the Governing Council recognizes and supports. So that's happening.
The other track, of course, is the security track. They're not mutually exclusive, of course. But in terms of our participation, we will stay until Iraq is allowed to emerge as a free society, which we know will happen.
Let me give you kind of the strategy. See, I said in my speech today, the Iraqi people will not reject freedom, and I believe that. And one way that they will protect their freedoms is to develop the forces necessary, internally, to work with coalition forces to deal with the few that are trying to destroy the hopes of the many. And I think we have over 130,000 now, Iraqis, in one kind of uniform or another. That would be your border guards, your facilities protection services, the police. And we've got a battalion in the army, and we're growing the army. I think they think it will be up around 30,000 by the end of next year, a trained, capable Iraqi army. And the first task, of course, for these uniformed Iraqi personnel is to rout out the killers, people willing to destroy.
I had a very interesting meeting -- I'm sure you read about the 17 Iraqi women who came, that came to the White House. It was really, really interesting; a hopeful meeting, very capable women, anxious for a free society to emerge. And one lady made it clear to me that, yes, you've lost people, but we've lost a lot. And the Iraqi people are suffering and are dying, because people are trying to terrorize their society by killing them. And the Iraqi people will reject this because they yearn for freedom, just like you yearn for freedom and I yearn for freedom.
Q Mr. President, am I getting this right, you will not have any withdrawal of any troops by the summer?
THE PRESIDENT: No. We will have troops on the ground that will match the security needs, is the best way to put that.
Q So you're not saying more or less?
THE PRESIDENT: I'm saying I'm going to listen to the generals who say, Mr. President, we've got -- we need more, we need less, we've got exactly the right number. They will tell me the number. Their job is to secure -- is to work with the Iraqis to deal with the terrorists. And there are the Baathist terrorists, there Jihadists, there are al Qaeda-types, Ansar Islam-types. And their job is to help the Iraqis secure their country, and they assess all the time, the commanders, and they say, we need this number here, we need that number here. And it's their decision to make. I set the goal; they decide the tactics.
So General Abizaid -- if you want to know what the troop strength will look like in June, go find General Abizaid and he'll tell you.
Q Are we saying that you are doing the transfer of power earlier than planned because the pressure, because of the loss of life, the French, everybody --
THE PRESIDENT: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Because what I told you, that the Governing Council -- the circumstances -- the situation in Iraq and the Governing Council's progress led us to believe that this transfer of sovereignty could take place in a realistic and helpful way.
Q So do you expect the violence -- do you have a number, like, of loss of life will determine how you will run your --
THE PRESIDENT: Of course not. We're not leaving until we get the job done.
Q How long is that and how --
THE PRESIDENT: That's like if you were interviewing me before the attack on Baghdad, you would have said, how long is it going to take? And I would have said, however long, you know -- I mean, you're asking me to put calendars on things -- this is the second calendar question you've asked me.
Q Some people make a parallel between Iraq and Vietnam. Do you see it?
THE PRESIDENT: I know that people are anxious to be free. They were glad to get rid of Saddam Hussein. They were pleased when his sons met their demise. This person tortured, brutalized an entire population. And it's a different situation.
Q I didn't hear the word "Vietnam" in your answer.
THE PRESIDENT: No, because -- I gave you the answer, you asked the question. You asked me if there's parallel. I said it's a different situation. You understand the difference here, the people --
Q Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay. You know what I'm talking about, the people are pleased to get rid of Saddam.
Q Mr. President, is it accurate to say that your military did a good job and they won the war in a very quite short and surprising matter, but your civilian managers did not manage the country very well?
THE PRESIDENT: I think what's safe to say is that the initial phase of the war went well, and the second phase of the war is going as expected, because Baathists -- there are some people who refuse to give up and yield to freedom because they were the ruling elite. And we're making, in many phases, very strong progress.
For example, the currency. I think if you were to go back and look at the history of currency replacements or issuing new currencies, that's not an easy task. And, yet --
Q -- President Saddam, his face on the currency --
THE PRESIDENT: No, they've got new currencies. And that's hard to do. And, yet, we're making good, steady progress in replacing the currency. The oil revenue is an interesting question. Again, this was an issue, if you remember, before the -- when the ultimatum was reached, there was a lot of speculation that if we went to war, the Iraqi -- the main asset of the Iraqi people would be destroyed and it would take years to bring the oil production back up. But, in fact, the oil is flowing, up to about 2.1 million barrels a day, to the benefit of the Iraqi people.
In other words -- and we got that ministry stood up very quickly and it's functioning well. The school system -- I think there's 1,500 elementary schools up and running with new textbooks and supplies. The hospitals -- I mean, there's example after example on the civil society side where we've made good progress.
Obviously, what is -- what's tough are the terrorists who kill. And they kill Iraqis. They kill international aid workers. They kill because they're trying to shake our will. And they're not going to shake -- they're not going to shake our will.
Q Are you going to visit Baghdad?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't know yet. Will I at some point in time? I certainly hope so.
Q Before election or --
THE PRESIDENT: (Laughter.) I don't know. I'm just trying to finish my trip here to England.
Q What about the road map? It's your project, but nothing has --
THE PRESIDENT: No, it's our project.
Q Nothing has happened so far.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that's not exactly correct. I mean, it's -- first of all, the road map exists -- let me tell you, this was U.S., EU, U.N. and Russia. So it's kind of an international strategy toward saying to parties, take responsibility, be responsible citizens.
I gave a speech on June 24th, '02, in the Rose Garden, which -- get on the web page and look at it, because it will give you my sense of -- I hate to keep directing you to my speeches -- but it will give you a sense for -- and I reiterated that today. I spent quite a bit of time in the speech today on the Arab-Israeli issue. And I called on all parties to adhere to responsibility.
I said, the best way for -- see, I believe that the Palestinians deserve a state. As a matter of fact, I'm the first United States President to stand up and call for that. And I believe it, and I mean it.
But that state must be democratic in order for it to survive, with institutions that will survive the test of time. And it needs leadership that will not steal money, that will not deal with terrorists, that will not continually dash the hopes of the Palestinian people.
And I found such a leader, I thought, in Abu Mazen. And I stood with him in Aqaba, Jordan, and as you might recall -- and Israel has gotresponsibilities, and the Arab states have got responsibilities. And I delineated Israel's responsibilities -- end the settlements, and not prejudice final negotiations on states with walls, to end the daily humiliation of the Palestinians. This was all clearly enunciated today, by the way, in the public arena.
Anyway, I was with Abu Mazen. He convinced me that he believes in the aspirations of the Palestinians, and he wanted to work on the security issue. He wanted to dismantle the security -- these terrorist organizations, which are destroying any chance for peace. And guess what happens to him -- he gets shoved aside. And I thought it was an interesting lesson.
We hope this new Prime Minister will stand up and do what is right, which is to work to dismantle the terrorist organizations, and put the institutions in place that are larger than the people -- institutions which will survive the test of time, so Palestine can emerge as a peaceful, viable, democratic state.
Anyway, so therefore -- that's it, the road map -- there is a road map. The road map calls for mutual responsibilities. I just laid the division at the end of the road, which I believe in.
Q Can I ask about now, a loaded question, which is, I know it's --
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you've already asked about five loaded questions. (Laughter.)
Q It's about three countries. I'd like to hear your -- exactly how you're going to treat the end of this crisis. One is Iran, how you're going to --
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it depends on Iran's decision --
Q -- on Syria, and finally your friends in Saudi Arabia.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, first of all, let's start with Saudi Arabia. Crown Prince Abdullah is an honest man. And he is a friend of mine. I like him and respect him. And he has told me that we are joined at fighting off the terrorist organizations which threatened the Kingdom and they threaten the United States, and he's delivering. He also has told me that he's going to work on reform, and I believe him.
Iran: The choice is theirs. They must adhere to the non-proliferation treaty that they agreed to. And they must be transparent and open and honest with the world about their ambitions. It looks like we're making some progress. The Secretary of State, as you know, yesterday met with ministers from European countries with this message; that we all need to speak with a unified voice that says to the Iranians, get rid of your nuclear weapons ambitions. And hopefully the -- not hopefully -- and work with the IAEA to develop a open and transparent regime with the Iranians.
Syria: Again, it's the leader of Syria's choice to make. The most important thing that he can do -- oh, by the way, on the Iranians, one other point I want to make to you is that they hold al Qaeda operatives.
And we would hope that those al Qaeda operatives were sent back to their countries of origin.
Q From Iran.
THE PRESIDENT: In Iran, yes.
Syria: We have talked to Syria before and we still feel very strongly about the same thing, that they need to shut down the Hezbollah offices in their country, Syria.
Q -- Jihad --
THE PRESIDENT: Hezbollah. And JI, absolutely. Hamas, if there are such offices there. And they need to do a better job on their border to stop any infiltration going from Syria into Iraq with weapons and terrorists and Jihadists. A peaceful Iraq is in Syria's interest. A free and peaceful Iraq is in the interest of the neighborhood. And we would hope that Syria would be cooperative in the development of a free and peaceful Iraq, and not turn away from any infiltrations that might be taking place -- that are taking place -- from Syria into Iraq.
Q Does that mean you will -- on Syria, is there negotiation now taking place?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, there's -- there's not much negotiation. How do you mean, negotiations?
Q Discussions.
THE PRESIDENT: It's hard to negotiate -- stop terror. You either stop terror or you don't stop terror. It's not -- oh, yes, they understand, they know our feelings, they do, yes.
Q They know it by -- there is someone in between?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, they know it because they -- first, they're going to read their story, and since I'm speaking directly to you and there's nobody in between, they will hear that. Secondly, that Secretary of State Powell talked to President Assad last -- early last summer, I think it was, and delivered some of this message. This is before -- I say, some of it, because this is before the -- well, I think he delivered all the message, if I'm not mistaken. I mean, he is -- in other words, if you're saying, has anybody -- has President Assad heard from my government?
Yes, Secretary of State Powell had a good talk with him.
Q Did you promise Blair anything about the road map? Because there's a story yesterday about it.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you mean, promise him anything?
Q Prime Minister Blair, about the road map. There was a story yesterday that came out -- to be activated or some --
THE PRESIDENT: We haven't talked about the road map. I mean, we talk about the Middle East all the time, but he hasn't said -- I'm not sure what you're referring to. It seems like a lot of things are printed in the newspapers here. (Laughter.) Not yours.
Q Can I just have your signature here, please?
THE PRESIDENT: I'd love to. Thank you. Thanks for the interview.
Q Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: And what you need to do is get stationed in America again. (Laughter.)
