Bring On The Horse Manure, It's Time For Another SOTU

The annual State Of The Union speech is due Tuesday night, so guess what we had in the news on Monday?

Al-Qaeda No. 2 mocks new U.S. strategy for Iraq in new tape

Al-Qaeda's deputy leader mocked President Bush's plan to send 21,000 more troops to Iraq, challenging him to send "the entire army" and vowing insurgents will defeat them, according to details from a new al-Qaeda videotape released Monday by a U.S. group that tracks terror messages.

Do you hear that? That's the detector ticking...

Excerpts from the video were distributed by the Washington-based SITE Institute, which said it had intercepted the footage of Ayman al-Zawahri. The tape had not yet been posted on Islamic militant websites, where his messages are usually placed.

Do you see that? That's the detector's red light flashing!

The SITE Institute, by the way, is The Search for International Terrorist Entities [!] and they say their transcripts and videos are available to their intel agency clients only. So sad, no? They'll tell you what he said, but they won't let you see him say it. Quite convincing, I'd say. Wouldn't you?

SITE did not elaborate on how it received the video and it wasn't immediately possible to confirm its authenticity.

Whoop-Whoop-Whoop!!! Unconfirmed, but rushed to release! Whoop-Whoop-Whoop!!

And guess what else? Can't you just smell it?

Al-Qaeda's deputy leader has mocked US President George W Bush's plans to deploy more troops in Iraq.

In a video posted on a website, Ayman al-Zawahri challenges Mr Bush to send his entire army to the country.

Over 20,000 more US soldiers are being sent to help the Iraqi government improve security.

"Why send 20,000 only? Why not send 50 or 100,000? Aren't you aware that the dogs of Iraq are pining for your troops' dead bodies?" Zawahri said.

The dogs of Iraq, pining for the troops' dead bodies. Isn't that just about perfect? And just in time, too. Hmmmm.

In Al-Qaeda deputy mocks Bush, Britain's ITV gives us a few details that USA Today wasn't interested in conveying:

Zawahri said peace would be impossible if Americans continued to follow the policies of Mr Bush and his administration.

"If we are secure, you might be secure, and if we are safe, you might be safe," the website quoted Zawahri as saying.

Ain't it peculiar how the phony terror video has the phony terror guy saying the same things that Bush's most intelligent domestic opponents would love to say? This makes it harder for such things to be said, of course, because anyone who makes ridiculous comments like "if we stop attacking them maybe they'll leave us alone" can be called a terrorist-sympathizer ... and as we all know, that's just one step away from a cage at Gitmo where in between your daily helpings of lemon chicken and two desserts you can hang from the ceiling by your wrists while the guards break your legs with baseball bats just for the fun of it.

Oops! I wasn't supposed to say that, was I? Oh well, never mind...

For an even more detailed account of the video, we turn to ... drum roll, please ... CNN via Kazakhstan!

Al Qaeda deputy to U.S.: If we are killed, you will be killed

In a video released Monday, al Qaeda's second in command ridicules President Bush's plan to send more U.S. troops to Iraq and predicts a fate "worse than anything you have yet seen."

"Security is a shared destiny," says Ayman al-Zawahiri [a.k.a. Zawahri] [...] "If we are secure, you might be secure, and if we are safe, you might be safe. And if we are struck and killed, you will definitely -- with Allah's permission -- be struck and killed."
...
He rejected Bush's contention that U.S. forces have deprived al Qaeda of safe haven in Afghanistan, calling the claim a "naked, barefaced lie."

In remarks intended for the American people, he said, "If you want to live in security, you must accept the facts of what is happening on the ground, and reject the fantasies with which Bush tries to deceive you.

"You must honestly try to reach a mutual understanding with the Muslims, for then and only then you might enjoy security. If, however, you continue with the policy of Bush and his gang, you will never even dream of peace."

He further warned, "What awaits you should you press on is much worse than anything you have yet seen."

Seems plain enough to me. They hate us because of our freedoms! Argggh!

Meanwhile, over by the barn some decaying equine fecal matter gets thrown into the mix. It's hard not to think that they've been saving this one for quite a while, letting it ripen, so to speak:

Details emerge about possible terror threat

Mimicking the hijackers who executed the Sept. 11 attacks, insurgents reportedly tied to al Qaeda in Iraq considered using student visas to slip terrorists into the United States to orchestrate a new attack on American soil.

Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, recently testified that documents captured by coalition forces during a raid of a safe house believed to house Iraqi members of al Qaeda six months ago "revealed [AQI] was planning terrorist operations in the U.S."

Who cares if the suspected terror plot was "more aspirational than operational"? Who cares if the progression of the plot was "so early" the group was "years away from pulling it off"? Just ramp up the fear for another SOTU! Just give this cruel and stupid little man one more chance to talk about hitting his 9/11 trifecta.

Two More Years! Two More Years!!

Are you ready for the SOTU yet? Or would you like a little warmongering propaganda to go along with what we've already got? Larisa Alexandrovna caught Reuters and the Associated Press serving up a steaming one, as we discussed here yesterday. Sweet!

So maybe we should talk about the progress we're making in Iraq, where fewer than 150 people were killed in the capital city Baghdad on Monday. The Iraqi people owe us a great debt of gratitude, according to the so-called president. And we might even hear him voice that insane sentiment again on Tuesday night. Wouldn't it be loverly?

Does all this get you in the mood for a rousing SOTU? I hope not.

Over at the Niagara Falls Reporter, Bill Gallagher has it just about right:

SORRY STATE OF THE UNION WON'T BE ADDRESSED IN BUSH'S STUPID SPEECH

The state of the union is sad and shattered. After six years, the man who peddled himself as a "uniter" has torn our nation apart and ripped us away from the international community.

President George W. Bush has systematically alienated most of the world and inflamed unprecedented hostility toward the United States, both from traditional friends and from an increasing number of angry people in the nations Bush has invaded, insulted, isolated and ignored.

This is a rockin' op-ed that covers a lot of ground and I can't do it justice with a quote or even a series of quotes so I urge you to go read the whole column.

But the State of the Union is even sorrier than Bill Gallagher writes it, because al-Q'aeda claims it shot down an American helicopter yesterday in Iraq; a dozen or more Americans died, and some others were hurt (the numbers depend on who you read).

So that's even more bad news.

And even though the Pentagon said it didn't know what had happened to the helicopter, the press went nuts with the old "al-Q'aeda, al-Q'aeda, al-Q'aeda" chant, because of something that was "posted on a militant Islamic website".

And the story got some traction, spread like wildfire, and soon appeared all over the world (as such stories always do). The only little problem with this, of course, is that if it goes on long enough, people might tend to forget that al-Q'aeda Doesn't Exist.

Are we having cognitive dissonance yet? No! because once you come to terms with the fact that al-Q'aeda is a hoax (just like the official story of 9/11 was a hoax), it gets easier to understand reports such as this one from Media Without Conscience, which says responsibility for the downed helicopter has also been claimed by another group:

Al-Qaeda in Iraq claimed on Monday that it had shot down the helicopter but a group called Jaish al-Mujaihadeen has also said it carried out the attack.

My prediction: Don't expect to hear anything about Jaish al-Mujaihadeen (a.k.a. Jaish al-Mujahadeen) in the SOTU. But please remember all this while the so-called president fumbles his way through the speech, and try not to gag on any of it; you might suffocate and we can't have that. We're gonna need you again on Wednesday.

Becky Akers on Entrapped "Terrorist" Shahawar Matin Siraj

Becky Akers, a regular contributor at Lew Rockwell dot com, chatted with Scott Horton on AntiWar Radio yesterday, about her recent column, "When The Devil Creates A Devil". In that column, Akers details the entrapment and conviction of Shahawar Matin Siraj, who last week was sentenced to 30 years in prison after being found guilty of plotting terrorist attacks against NYC. She also discussed the fate of the Siraj family -- on the day after his sentence was announced, his parents and sister were arrested and they are still being held.

I urge you to read all of "When The Devil Creates A Devil", and I'll entice you with a few excerpts in a moment.

I think you should listen to Becky Akers with Scott Horton as well; it's only a half-hour and it goes by fast, so be prepared to pay attention.

I wish to remind you that this case is not just about Shahawar Matin Siraj, not just about the Siraj family, not even about an elaborate and expensive ploy by which the NYPD and the FBI make themselves look good against "terrorism" by setting elaborate traps and springing them on people who are barely functional, let alone dangerous.

It also generates the sort of headlines that can be (and often are) used for very ugly propaganda; it feeds the War Against Muslims; and it lends unwarranted legitimacy to the Phony War on Phony Terror. All these are used to "justify" the continuing dismemberment of your Constitutional rights. And -- guess what? Congratulations! It's all paid for by your tax dollars.

This is some protection racket we're up against!

Excerpts from Becky Akers:

Siraj was a 22-year-old Pakistani working in Brooklyn, NY at an Islamic bookstore – located, ominously enough, next to a mosque. Both Siraj’s family and his attorneys have described him as "witless and impressionable." His uncle admitted, "He’s my nephew, but he’s not too bright.... He’s not dangerous, he just talks."

Siraj’s hours in the bookstore and the mosque, where he prayed, as well as his lack of sophistication recommended him to 50-year-old Osama Eldawoody. An Egyptian immigrant who became a US citizen, Eldawoody is also a "paid police informant." For several years after 9/11, he and an undercover cop prowled both bookstore and mosque. Eldawoody collected $100,000 of our taxes for chatting up "radical young Moslem men," a.k.a. customers at the bookstore, and for reporting the license-plate numbers of cars parked at the mosque.
...
James Elshafay is just 21; his short life has been nasty and brutish. His Irish mother and Egyptian father separated when he was a toddler. He suffers from schizophrenia and depression, as do other members of his family, and takes drugs of which Leviathan approves to counter these ills. He took drugs Leviathan doesn’t approve as a teen, perhaps because a "male relative" molested him. He drank to excess, sniffed glue, and dropped out of the ninth grade in his school on Staten Island. He volunteered for the Army, but he was so damaged even those body-snatchers wouldn’t have him.

In short, Elshafay and his friend Siraj sound more like threats to themselves than to the American Way of Life.
...
Enter Eldawoody, the NYPD, the FBI, and the whole apparatus of prosecutors, judges, and other criminals fighting a largely invented but highly useful "War on Terror."

Eldawoody showed Siraj and Elshafay pictures of their fellow Moslems’ torture at Abu Ghraib and told them US soldiers were raping Iraqi girls. He claimed he belonged to a terrorist organization – well, OK, he does collaborate with the Feds – and could supply explosives. According to Siraj, Eldawoody suggested "blowing up the buildings and blowing up the Wall Street places." Unfortunately for Siraj and Elshafay, the man pretending to be their friend and Moslem mentor, the one who told them his imam had declared a fatwa for killing Americans, was wearing a wire. When Siraj exclaimed, "That [US soldiers’ raping Iraqi girls] was enough for me. I'm ready to do anything. I don't care about my life," Eldawoody’s tape caught it. Trying to impress the older man, Siraj also mentioned blowing up the 34th Street subway stop, which links to New York’s Penn Station. He and Elshafay allegedly possessed crude drawings of the station when they were arrested.

For this, Siraj goes away for 30 years? And on top of this they've arrested his whole family??

Didn't that go out of style with the Dark Ages? What sort of state do we live in, anyway?

Like torture, punishing a "criminal’s" family is an ancient horror that modern, supposedly enlightened societies shun. And like torture, Bush’s Amerika has revived it. This is especially infuriating since the Bible Bush claims to follow specifically condemns such injustice: "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." (Deut. 24:16; see also Jer. 31:30 and Ezek. 18:1–13.)

A dubious immigration battle cloaks the State’s vindictiveness against the Siraj family. These folks follow a form of Islam so secular their neighbors in Pakistan beat and burned Mr. Siraj. He sought asylum here. Our merciful bureaucrats rejected the application, so the family appealed. That apparently makes them "fair" game for Leviathan. But will the State bother with such an excuse the next time? When the rest of us are arrested for smoking pot, or for refusing to show ID, or for protesting the war, will our families be locked up, too?

The passage in Deuteronomy continues almost eerily, "Do not deprive the alien or the fatherless of justice..." Let us tremble with Jefferson when we reflect that God is indeed just and that His justice cannot sleep forever.

Three cheers for Becky Akers. Now listen to her on AntiWar Radio.

And here's one more thing to think about: Siraj was arrested on August 27th, 2004, just before the Republican National Convention, which started August 30th. Reports of the arrest built up sympathy and support for "the city's finest", who were just about to do battle against hundreds -- or thousands -- of unarmed anti-war, anti-Bush protesters.

As if that were not enough, these reports also changed the pre-Convention news cycle, bringing in the fear-mongering headline "Muslim Terrorist Wanted To Disrupt GOP Convention" and obliterating an entirely different story which had slowly but steadily been gathering momentum: "NYC to GOP: How Dare You Party In The City You [Allowed To Be] Attacked?"

The road to tyranny is paved with stones of many shapes and sizes; I can't shake the feeling that we're looking at one of the bigger ones right here.

===

third in a series

Olmert Accidentally Tells The Truth

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert accidentally told the truth about something Israeli politicians and others have been lying about for decades, and the fallout from his "slip of the tongue" is gathering a bit of momentum.

From the Jerusalem Post: Loose lips and nuclear warships

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's visit to Berlin Tuesday - at least in the eyes of the Israeli press - was overshadowed by one sentence he said in a German television interview on Monday regarding Israel's alleged nuclear capabilities.

"Iran openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map, can you say this is the same level when you are aspiring to have nuclear weapons as America, France, Israel, Russia?" the prime minister told German television network SAT 1, setting off a storm of protest in Israel.

Some of the reasons for that "storm of protest" are enumerated in another Jerusalem Post article: 'Olmert's comments may prove harmful'

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's apparent inclusion of Israel in the nuclear club and confirmation that the country has nuclear weapons could prove disastrous to Israel's strategic standing, senior defense officials said Tuesday.

According to the officials - responsible for planning Israel's long-term defense strategy - Olmert's comment could eventually lead to renewed pressure to open up the country's nuclear installations to international inspections. Egypt has repeatedly called for International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections of the Dimona nuclear facility as well as Israel's signature on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Olmert's comment was even more surprising considering that in recent weeks he held two four-hour long meetings with former minister Dan Meridor - author of Israel's newly-formulated defense doctrine - during which he was briefed on the main principles, which include maintaining Israel's long-standing policy of nuclear ambiguity.

Of course, by "nuclear ambiguity", the author, Yaakov Kaatz, means that Israel has never officially acknowledged that it has nuclear weapons.

Further details from the same article:

A high-level adviser to Olmert on defense and diplomatic issues told the Post recently that Israel needed to maintain nuclear ambiguity "at all costs."

"This policy scares our adversaries," the high-ranking official said. "Even if they think they know, they don't really know and that scares them."

According to the official, Israel's policy has paid off by preventing IAEA inspection of its nuclear sites. The policy has also allowed the United States to rebuff calls - like those from the Egyptians - for international inspections of Israel's facilities. In addition, the policy has so far warded off attempts by other Middle Eastern countries - except for Iran - to begin developing their own nuclear programs using the excuse that Israel has a nuclear capability.

I love the use of the word "excuse" in this context ... in an ironic way, of course. Why "excuse"? Why not "reason"? Because a "reason" seems to imply a valid motivation, whereas "excuse" implies an ulterior motive, or otherwise implies that the action in question is somehow less "ok".

I've never understood why it's ok for Israel to have nuclear weapons but it's not ok for Israel's neighbors to have any weapons at all. But then, maybe I'm just a little bit thick.

Aljazeera English has some more interesting commentary on this ...

The Israeli prime minister spent Tuesday trying to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle after an apparent slip-of-the-tongue.
...
Israeli official spokespersons also denied that his remark was an admission.
...
Olmert said in the interview that was shown on Israeli television: "The most that we tried to get for ourselves is to be able to live without terror."

Ha ha ha! He's a regular comedian, this guy.

Speaking in Germany on Tuesday, Olmert denied he had "outed" Israel's nuclear programme.

"Israel has said many times, and I also said this to German television in an interview, that we will not be the first country that introduces nuclear weapons to the Middle East," he said after meeting Angela Merkel, the German chancellor.

That's a good one, too! Olmert is such a good liar, it's no wonder all of Israel gets its knickers in a knot when he accidentally tells the truth.

Tony Blair Is A Disaster Whether He Admits It Or Not

Depending on whom you choose to believe, British Prime Minister Tony Blair has either confirmed or denied that the war in Iraq is "a disaster".

The PM's frank admission -- or slip of the tongue -- came during an interview with Sir David Frost on Al Jazeera English television.

Al Jazeera provides a transcript of the interview, the following snippet of which has caused all the controversy:

Frost: In terms of Iraq, prime minister, in the light of the latest figures from the Iraqi health ministry, that the number of Iraqis who have died is between 100,000 and 150,000 and so on, with those scale of figures, if you had known that that was the scale of bloodshed, would you have still gone to war?

Blair: Well the alternative was leaving Saddam in charge of Iraq, where hundreds of thousands of people died, there were a million casualties in the Iran/Iraq war, Kuwait was invaded and four million people went into exile.

So the idea that Iraqis should be faced with the situation where they either have a brutal dictator in Saddam or alternatively a sectarian religious conflict, why can't they have in Iraq what their people want? Which is a non-sectarian government, a government that is elected by the people and the same opportunities and the same rights that we enjoy in countries such as this.

Frost: But, but so far its been ... you know, pretty much of a disaster ...

Blair: It has, but you see what I say to people is "why is it difficult in Iraq?" It's not difficult because of some accident in planning, it's difficult because there is a deliberate strategy, al-Qaeda with Sunni insurgents on the one hand, Iranian-backed elements with Shia militia on the other to create a situation in which the will of the majority of Iraqis, which is for peace, is displaced by the will of the minority for war.

The current controversy swirls around the question of what Blair meant when he said "It has".

According to the BBC,

Liberal Democrats said Mr Blair had finally accepted the enormity of his decision to go to war in Iraq.

But Downing Street insisted his views had been misrepresented and that he had not made "some kind of admission".

The BBC article goes on to explain the opposing positions:

Commenting on the al-Jazeera broadcast, Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell said: "At long last the enormity of the decision to take military action against Iraq is being accepted by the prime minister.

"It could hardly be otherwise, as the failure of strategy becomes so clear."

However,

Downing Street insisted it was not Mr Blair's view that the violence in Iraq had been a disaster.

A spokeswoman said: "He was simply acknowledging the question in a polite way before going on to explain his view.

"To portray it as some kind of admission is completely disingenuous."

I find delicious irony in the fact that Blair's spokeswoman actually said it was disingenuous to believe that what he actually said was what he actually meant. Of course it is! It is completely disingenuous and dangerously irresponsible to think that anything he says has any connection with or bearing on any aspect of reality.

But that's beside the point.

For me, the main point in this whole sorry saga is being overlooked -- perhaps deliberately -- by all the media accounts, whether they praise this glib and cocky warmongering liar, or whether they condemn him.

The sad but inevitable, and amply documented, fact is that Iraq is a disaster on an unimaginable scale. Whether Blair confirms or denies this fact is of little consequence.

What I find most disingenuous is the way Blair attempts to blame the victims for the disaster which he played such a huge part in bringing about.

The alternative, as Blair correctly stated, was leaving Saddam Hussein in power. Would this have been a disaster on a comparable scale? Hardly.

The casualties of the Iran/Iraq war were irrelevant, as that war had ended many years before. Similarly, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was already a matter of ancient history. Furthermore, the infamous "gassing of the Kurds", for which Saddam Hussein has been roundly blamed, was almost certainly done by the Iranians. And all the other reasons -- such as the alleged people-shredder -- which were used to justify the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq have similarly turned out to have been false.

Saddam's regime was indeed brutal, and it may well have killed hundreds of thousands of people. It took him decades to do it. How many have been killed in the past three and a half years? Hundreds of thousands? Ahhh... Now I see the difference!!

Blair attributes the current situation to

a deliberate strategy ... to create a situation in which the will of the majority of Iraqis, which is for peace, is displaced by the will of the minority for war.

But he neglects to mention that this "deliberate strategy" was conceived and implemented by his friends in the Pentagon, who created, trained, funded and motivated the death squads which now roam freely in Iraq.

Yes, it's a disaster. Yes, he bears a large share of the responsibility. Yes, he was amply warned. And no, he will never admit any of this.

Next question?

Knock It Off? YOU Knock It Off!!

Here's the newest on the outbreak of political assasination in Lebanon (as previously noted here), from the BBC: US urges Lebanon murder inquiry

The US has called for a full investigation into the killing of a veteran Lebanese politician, who had recently become critical of Syria.

Yes! You bet! Full investigation!! You betcha!!

I'll give you five dollars if this isn't another instance of Truth By Inversion. You know how it goes: once somebody gets a reputation for lying, you can always assume the opposite of what they say! I'm suspicious because none of the American or British stories seem to mention that the late "Lebanese politician, who had recently become critical of Syria", was even more critical of the United States. Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it?

And as for the present tactic, it's been going on for centuries. Arthur Conan Doyle used it more than once. Whoever screams for a full investigation is always a worthwhile suspect. Innocent people usually assume that the investigation will be thorough and they ask how they can cooperate with it. It truly is an arrogant thief who shouts: "You gotta catch whoever did this!"

So ... you have to be suspicious but you can't get carried away with it, because even the most inveterate liars will sometimes turn around and look you straight in the eye and tell you the truth. Thus

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the murder was part of a pattern of targeted political assassinations to intimidate the Lebanese people.

and it makes you wonder: How does he know that??

Well I'll tell you who does know something. Chris Floyd. Read his most recent post on the matter here: Splintered Cedars: The Real Low-Down on Lebanon and be sure to click on through for some great links. Thanks again, Chris.

Meanwhile,

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said earlier on Tuesday she did not know who was behind the attack.

which probably means she does know, wouldn't you think?

But Ms Rice said that Damascus was contributing to "an atmosphere of instability" in Lebanon and should, as she put it, "knock it off".

Of course! First you throw your own books! Then you point at the kid sitting next to you and you start yelling:

Hey! He threw my books! Hey, buddy!! Why'd you throw my books? You better knock it off, kid! What are you thinking, throwing my books like that?? Don't you know it reflects on your parents when you throw somebody's books??

What can the poor kid do? He sits there and shrugs and says "Hey! it wasn't me!". Doesn't he?

Round up the usual suspects!

Aljazeera has the latest on that:

Arrests follow Beirut assassination

A number of Syrian workers have been arraigned for questioning in connection with the assassination of the former secretary-general of the Lebanese Communist Party, George Hawi.
....
opposition forces repeated their demand for the resignation of President Emile Lahoud, blaming him for the assassination of Hawi in his capacity as head of the security system.

Sammy Cahn said it better than I ever could.

It seems to me I've heard that song before
It's from an old familiar score
I know it well, that melody

But meanwhile, Aljazeera reports a very intriguing detail:

Many civil defence and security force officers arrived at the scene and cordoned off the area. A team of FBI investigators also went to the site, Aljazeera learned

Oh really? I never knew the FBI had jurisdiction in Lebanon!

Or maybe they're there in an unofficial capacity.

Oh, don't mind us, we're just passing through, happened to be in the area and we thought we'd stop by ... hey look over there! what's that! ...

Could be anything! But we're back to Aljazeera for a few more interesting bits:

Nasir Qandil, a former member of parliament, told Aljazeera that Hawi had an important role in organising resistance against Israel and that was the reason for his slaying.
...
But former Lebanese president Amin Jmayil gave Aljazeera a different view, saying Hawi paid for his involvement in protests that led Syria to withdraw its troops and intelligence services from Lebanon.

It's the former president who draws my attention as a potential disinfo-specialist. Can't put my finger on it, can you?

"Hawi's assassination also aims to cause instability in the country. It has nothing to do with the elections and their results," he added.

Oh. Yeah, right!

Listen, let me tell you something: The public assassination of a politician never has anything to do with politics in any way shape or form, not to mention elections and their results! Not in Lebanon, nowhere!

And you can trust me on that. [wink, wink. nudge, nudge.]

Here's Sammy Cahn:

It seems to me I've heard that song before
It's from an old familiar score
I know it well, that melody

It's funny how a theme
Recalls a favorite dream
A dream that brought you so close to me

I know each word, because I've heard that song before
The lyrics said: "for evermore"
For evermore's a memory

Please have them play it again
And (Then) I'll remember just when
I heard that lovely song before

Targeted Assassination In Beirut

Who is stirring the Lebanese pot?



From the BBC: Blast kills Lebanese politician

A veteran Lebanese politician has been killed in a bomb blast in the capital Beirut, police say.

George Hawi - former Communist Party leader and an opponent of Syria - died when his car blew up as he drove through the Wata Musaitbi district.
...
Prime Minister Najib Mikati expressed shock at Mr Hawi's death.

"We are stunned," he told reporters. "With every achievement by the Lebanese state, we see that there are those who want to target security and send messages of this sort."

Another senior opponent of Syria, Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, said the people would have to pay a heavy price for taking the country into their own hands.

"The life of anybody who wants a democratic Lebanon is in danger," he told BBC World TV.

From Aljazeera [with links added]: Beirut bomb kills ex-communist chief

An anti-Syrian politician has been killed after a bomb ripped through his car in Beirut, witnesses and security sources say.

They said George Hawi, former leader of the Lebanese Communist Party, died instantly in the blast on Tuesday morning in the Wata Musaitbi neighbourhood of Beirut.

Ghassan bin Jiddo, director of Aljazeera's office in Lebanon, said the car exploded in front of Hawi's house.

Witness Rami Abu Dargham told Reuters: "The car kept going and we then saw the driver screaming and he jumped out of the window. We rushed to the car and saw Hawi in the passenger seat with his guts out."

The bomb was apparently placed under the passenger seat of Hawi's Mercedes car and was detonated by remote-control, security sources said.
...
An opposition figure, Walid Jumblatt, said the killing of Hawi, whom he described as a nationalist leader, sent a message to all Lebanese.

"Some sides want to cause a state of instability in Lebanon by foiling the success of the elections in northern Lebanon," said Jumblatt, the leader of the Progressive Socialist Party.
...
It was the second killing of an anti-Syrian figure in Beirut this month.

Newspaper columnist Samir Kassir was killed on 2 June when a similar explosion destroyed his car.

Hawi's killing comes two days after the end of Lebanon's parliamentary elections which were won by an anti-Syrian alliance led by Saad al-Hariri, son of former prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri, who was also assassinated, on 14 February.

And the killings continue. Big bombs. Big attacks. The people who did this were making sure they didn't miss. It's just a hunch, no more. But to me, these assassinations look like the work of highly experienced professional killers. Terrorists of international reach, so to speak. If you get my drift.

Maybe the following is relevant; then again maybe not. It's from Chris Floyd in the Moscow Times of January 25th, and I wouldn't be a bit surprised ... Darkness Visible: The Pentagon Plan to Foment Terrorism is Now in Operation

More than two years ago, we wrote here of a secret Pentagon plan to foment terrorism: sending covert agents to infiltrate terrorist groups and goad them into action – i.e., committing acts of murder and destruction. The purpose was two-fold: first, to bring the terrorist groups into the open, where they could be counterattacked; and second, to justify U.S. military attacks on the countries where the terrorists were operating – attacks which, in the Pentagon's words, would put those nations' "sovereignty at risk." It was a plan that countenanced – indeed, encouraged – the deliberate murder of innocent people and the imposition of U.S. military rule anywhere in the world that American leaders desired.

This plan is now being activated.

There's more from Chris Floyd here. And there's more on the Lebanese political situation at Aljazeera: Al-Hariri woos vanquished rivals.

Scott Ritter: The War On Iran Has Started

Scott Ritter's most recent essay is published at Aljazeera and it's a strange one. It's about the upcoming -- or, as Ritter would say, ongoing -- attack by the USA against Iran, but first half or two thirds talk about the war in Iraq. It's tough to say exactly when that war actually started, but it's quite clear, especially in light of a recently released British memo, that the war was going long before bush started taking responsibility for it. In public, anyway.

I suppose all the preamble is necessary for those readers who won't believe we're at war with Iraq until bush tells them we are. Or until they see pictures of Tehran -- flattened. But according to Ritter,

The reality is that the US war with Iran has already begun. As we speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities.

The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence-gathering phase.

President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran.

The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations.

It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labelled as a terrorist organisation, a group trained in the art of explosive assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.

Perhaps the adage of "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" has finally been embraced by the White House, exposing as utter hypocrisy the entire underlying notions governing the ongoing global war on terror.

But the CIA-backed campaign of MEK terror bombings in Iran are not the only action ongoing against Iran.

To the north, in neighbouring Azerbaijan, the US military is preparing a base of operations for a massive military presence that will foretell a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran.

Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld's interest in Azerbaijan may have escaped the blinkered Western media, but Russia and the Caucasus nations understand only too well that the die has been cast regarding Azerbaijan's role in the upcoming war with Iran.

And there's a lot more, too. But, as I've been saying, you have to scroll quite a ways to get to it.

Talk about burying the lead! Seriously, Scott!

But on the other hand, is this a surprise?




The BBC reported last week: Iran rocked by series of blasts

Six bombs have exploded in Iran, killing at least 10 people, days before the presidential election.

Four blasts targeted public buildings in the south-western city of Ahwaz, killing at least eight people and wounding more than 70 others.

Hours later, a bomb exploded in the capital Tehran, killing two people. Three other bombs were defused.

Hmmm. Bombs exploding in Iran. I haven't heard of such a thing in a long time.

Bombings have been rare in Iran since the war with Iraq ended in 1988.

Well then ...

No group has claimed responsibility.

Ahem.

Speaking Of "Reprehensible"...

Yesterday CNN ran a story headlined White House: Durbin's remarks 'reprehensible'. Here's the meat of it:

[Dick] Durbin, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, made the comparison during a speech on the Senate floor Tuesday after reading an FBI agent's report describing detainees at the Naval base in Guantanamo Bay as being chained to the floor without food or water in extreme temperatures.

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings," Durbin said.

Said McClellan: "I think the senator's remarks are reprehensible. It's a real disservice to our men and women in uniform who adhere to high standards and uphold our values and our laws."

Sorry, Scottie. You're lying again and everyone knows it. We've seen the photos, you know. Your bullshit doesn't fly anymore, unless the "high standards" include stripping people naked and smearing shit all over them. [Funny! That's kind of like what happens in White House press conferences, except that all the people are dressed -- and of course in press conferences the shit is slung rather than smeared.]

Listen, Scottie: The policy is reprehensible, not the Senator's remarks. There is no good reason to chain anyone to the floor of a cage with no food or water, regardless of the weather. And especially if the person in chains is there because he was sold into captivity.

Those who lie to protect torturers are reprehensible too. This includes you, Scottie.

But that's not news. We knew that about you already.

Aljazeera also ran a story about Senator Durbin, his comments, the flak they drew and his courageous decision to stand by his remarks. Ironically, considering that it comes from an alleged propaganda outlet, the article in Aljazeera is very similar to that which ran on CNN. Not surprisingly to those of us who have been following both sources, the Aljazeera piece is more detailed. Read it yourself if you don't believe me.

As usual, Aljazeera provides context not provided by CNN, for instance:

Since the camp was set up after the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US, 167 detainees have been freed and 67 others released to the custody of their home governments.

About 520 detainees from about 40 countries remain at Guantanamo. Only 12 have been handed over to military commissions for investigation of possible war crimes and four have been charged.
...
Some lawmakers want the facility closed, saying it has become a liability that inflames Muslims against the United States.

"Guantanamo is an international embarrassment to our nation, to our ideals and it remains a festering threat to our security," Senator Patrick Leahy, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said.
...
A Pew Research Centre poll, taken over the weekend, indicated most Americans agree that reports of abuse at Guantanamo are isolated incidents, and 39% think the news media is paying too much attention to the issue.

Clearly the American people have not slaked their thirst for government bullshit. At least not all of them. And that's too bad. But at least there's a Senator who can still see clearly:

"This administration should apologise to the American people for abandoning the Geneva Conventions and authorising torture techniques that put our troops at risk and make Americans less secure."

Right on, Senator! This administration has a great deal to "apologise to the American people for", but "abandoning the Geneva Conventions" would be a great place to start.

Well Then ... Let's Call Them 'French Freedom Fries'

I'm quoting from Aljazeera's Freedom fries senator in Iraq U-turn [and the emphasis is mine]

A lawmaker who prompted cafeterias in the US Congress to change the name of their French fries to freedom fries in anger over France's opposition to the Iraq war, has turned against the conflict demanding a schedule on the withdrawal of US troops.

Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican, has written more than 1300 letters of condolence to the families of soldiers killed in Iraq and will introduce legislation this week calling for a firm timetable on the withdrawal of US troops, ABC's This Week said on Sunday.
...
President George Bush's administration has refused to set a timetable on withdrawing its forces from the war-torn country.

Of course not. They want to stay in Iraq forever.

There's more to Aljazeera's story and it's here.

Bolivia Has A New President

New Bolivian president sworn in

Former supreme court head Eduardo Rodriguez has been sworn in as Bolivia's new president, after Congress convened to accept Carlos Mesa's resignation, amid violent street protests that claimed one life.

Rodriguez was sworn in on Thursday by head of Congress Hormando Vaca Diez, who himself declined to assume the country's presidency.

In his inauguration speech, shortly after midnight, Rodriguez made his commitment to a new vote: "One of my functions will be to convene the electoral process to renew the representatives of the people."

He did not set a date for the polls, but the constitution stipulates that under such circumstances, new elections must be held within the next six months.

I've been quoting BBC on Bolivia recently, but considering how heavily I have raided the BBC archives on behalf of Ethiopia, and in view of my reputation for good diplomatic skills, it seemed prudent to look at Bolivia from an AlJazeerian viewpoint, at least for a while.

Bolivia has been in the news previously at Aljazeera:

Bolivian protester shot dead

Bolivian troops have shot and killed a miner after protesters swept into the city to demand the nationalisation of the country's natural gas resources.

Soldiers fired on a bus with miners heading to demonstrations in Sucre on Thursday, Interior Minister Saul Lara told reporters. Two more miners were wounded, Lara added.

The death was the first in nearly four weeks of protests by an impoverished indigenous Indian majority that have triggered the worst turmoil in Carlos Mesa's 19 months in government.

Police also fired tear gas at peasants and students who set off sticks of dynamite and fireworks in the streets to protest against Mesa's possible replacement, Senate President Hormando Vaca Diez.

Look at that! A possible vice-presidential replacement, stymied by fireworks and dynamite! Now there's something you don't see every day!!

Bolivian president offers to quit

Bolivia's Congress is expected to decide who should succeed President Carlos Mesa after he announced he was stepping down amid angry protests demanding nationalisation of the country's gas industry.

"It is my responsibility to say that this is as far as I can go," Mesa said on national television late on Monday, holding back tears.

"For that reason my decision is to offer my resignation from my post as president of the republic," he added, asking protesters to allow Congress to debate his successor.

"The solution to our problems must be based on the interests of all," he said.

Wow! Did you catch that? "The solution to our problems must be based on the interests of all." Good one! I haven't heard anything like that for a long time!

Bolivian protesters clash with police

Bolivian riot police in the capital La Paz have fired tear gas to repel dynamite-throwing protesters demanding nationalisation of the energy sector.

Despite President Carlos Mesa's guarantee of safety for a key session of Congress later on Tuesday, only a quarter of the country's lawmakers ventured into the city's narrow colonial streets and past heavily guarded police barriers.

The main opposition and indigenous leader Evo Morales tried to strike a note of harmony in Congress by saying he "hoped it will be a historical session to unite Bolivia".

But outside, protesters from the indigenous city of El Alto, many of them university students, launched dynamite at police with slingshots. In the rarefied air of the world's highest capital, protesters and office workers scurried to escape clouds of tear gas.

"The World's Highest Capital" takes on extra meaning, as all four or five of my regular readers already know.

And of course the inevitable profile.

Country profile: Bolivia

With a history of nearly 200 coups and counter-coups since its independence from Spain in 1825, Bolivia has been left a legacy of deep-seated poverty, social unrest and corruption along with an underground illegal drug economy.

Bolivia is landlocked between Peru, Paraguay, Argentina, Brazil and Chile in central South America. The west of Bolivia is situated in the Andes mountain range and the majority of the population live in the centre of the country on a highland plateau.

Biden To ABC: "Shut Down Gitmo"

a propaganda tool for recruiting terrorists

US senator: Shut down Guantanamo

A leading Senate Democrat has said the United States needs to move toward shutting down the military prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
...
A Pentagon report released Friday detailed incidents in which US guards at Guantanamo desecrated the Quran. Last month, Amnesty International called the detention center for alleged terrorists "the gulag of our time," a charge Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld dismissed as "reprehensible".
....
"This has become the greatest propaganda tool that exists for recruiting of terrorists around the world. And it is unnecessary to be in that position," said Senator Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat.
...
Biden, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, proposed that an independent commission take a look at Guantanamo and make recommendations.

"But the end result is, I think we should end up shutting it down, moving those prisoners," he told ABC's "This Week" television programme.

"Those that we have reason to keep, keep. And those we don't, let go."

moving one of those prisoners

In other words, Biden wants to close one prison rather than deal with the fact that the entire policy is reprehensible. Is this:

[a] the first step in a plan that could end the absurd and offensive policies of the current administration,

[b] a "limited hang-out", a small concession to all of humanity intended to divert our attention from the much larger problem, or

[c] mere grandstanding by an idiot who thinks he can get re-elected by appealing to the twisted sympathies of those who don't realize that torturing innocent human beings is a worthy endeavor which shows quite clearly that bush is, as he says, spreading freedom to the world?

Some would say that if the answer isn't [a] then this news won't help anything, since there's no sense taking down one island if you leave the rest of the archipelago intact.

Others would say the mere mention of Guantanamo, in less than glowing terms, on national television, is a moral victory.

Which shows how far we have fallen!

Amnesty Hits Back! NY Times Hits Too!!

You probably won't see much more of this story in the American media, but Aljazeera is on the case: Amnesty attacks US over secret jails

The US government is running a string of prisons around the world, many of them secret camps through which people disappear, a top Amnesty International official says.

Amnesty International (AI) Executive Director William Schulz criticised on Sunday the administration of US President George Bush for holding alleged opponents in indefinite incommunicado detention without access to lawyers.

The rights group representative was pressed to substantiate Amnesty's claim that the prison camp at the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where hundreds of suspects are being held indefinitely, represents the "gulag of our times".

The gulag claim, referring to the notorious prison camps of the former Soviet Union, has been fiercely criticised by Bush, who called the claim absurd, Vice-President Dick Cheney, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other top US officials.

Schulz said the reference was not "an exact or a literal analogy".

"But there are some similarities. The United States is maintaining an archipelago of prisons around the world, many of them secret prisons into which people are being literally disappeared, held in indefinite incommunicado detention without access to lawyers," he said.

And there's more bad news for this absurd and offensive administration, including this tidbit:

The New York Times newspaper said on Sunday that the Guantanamo Bay prison should be closed by the Bush administration, saying it had become a national shame and a propaganda gift to America's enemies.

Click here to read the whole thing.

America Looks Inward -- And CNN Helps

It's time for another brief and informal study in "Comparative Media". Just before 4PM your lowly and nearly frozen blogger made the rounds, visiting the five media sources from five countries. What's new? I suppose that depends on who you ask. Here are the most prominent new headlines from each of the five.

Radio Netherlands:

Voting over in Dutch referendum : exit polls forecast 63 percent No vote

Voting on the EU Constitution in relative ignorance : A 'No' vote in the Netherlands looks almost certain, but are those opposed to the EU constitution voting on the basis of knowledge or are they being steered by emotions or issues that have nothing at all to do with the new treaty?

CBC:

Dutch voters reject EU constitution : Dutch voters have rejected a proposed European Union constitution by a margin of 63 to 37 per cent, according to exit polls Wednesday.

U.S. offered to return Arar to Canada, inquiry hears

Zimbabwe arrests thousands in slum crackdown

BBC:

Dutch voters 'reject EU treaty' : A key exit poll in the Netherlands suggests voters have firmly rejected the proposed EU constitution in a referendum.

'Suicide bomb' at Afghan mosque : At least 20 people are killed by a suspected suicide bomber at a mosque in the Afghan city of Kandahar.

Young Russians face health crisis : Ill-health, drug addiction and illiteracy mean Russia's young are as unhealthy as in 1945, a senior minister admits.

Aljazeera:

Dutch voters reject EU constitution : Dutch voters have rejected the European Union's first constitution Wednesday by an overwhelming 63% to 37%, according to an exit poll broadcast by Dutch NOS television.

Polls: Dutch 'no' likely in EU vote

French vote emboldens Dutch no camp

Many killed in Afghan mosque blast

CNN:

FBI exhumes body in shocking murder of teen: Half a century after Emmett Till's mutilated body was found, federal investigators exhumed his remains at a suburban Chicago cemetery Wednesday, hoping to find clues into the 1955 Mississippi slaying that became a key event in the civil rights movement. "For me, personally, the event signifies that even though the system of justice sometimes turns very slowly, it still turns," said an FBI assistant special agent.

Couple celebrate 80th anniversary

California landslide sends homes crashing

'Deep Throat' mystery solved

I tell my American friends: "If you want real news you have to read the foreigners."

And I tell my foriegn friends "You don't know how lucky you are!"

Speaking of which...

This one is credited to Lennon & McCartney but I think Paul wrote it:

Back In The U.S.S.R.

Flew in from Miami Beach, B.O.A.C
didn't get to bed last night
All the way the paper bag was on my knee
man I had a dreadful flight

Back in the USSR,
You don't know how lucky you are, boy
Back in the USSR

Been away so long I hardly knew the place
Gee it's good to be back home
Leave it to tomorrow to unpack my case
Honey disconnect the phone

Back in the USSR,
You don't know how lucky you are, boy
Back in the USSR

Well the Ukraine girls really knock me out
They leave the west behind
And Moscow girls make me sing and shout
That Georgia's on my mind

Show me round your snow-peaked mountains way down south
Take me to your daddy's farm
Let me hear your balalaikas ringing out
Come and keep your comrade warm

Back in the USSR,
You don't know how lucky you are, boy
Back in the USSR

In Memoriam

Reports of the use of napalm in civilian areas are widespread, as are many other frightening allegations.




The attacks on the hospitals and medical facilities in Falluja are also in direct contravention of the Geneva Conventions.




"The accounts I heard ... will live with me forever. You may think you know what happened in Falluja, but the truth is worse than you could possibly have imagined"

-- Dr Salem Ismael, aid convoy leader




But as Richard Perle, a senior adviser to US President George Bush, said at the start of the Iraq war: "The greatest triumph of the Iraq war is the destruction of the evil of international law."




These photos are links. Captions courtesy of this article.

Beware the Wolf Brigade

Dahr Jamail's latest piece on Iraq Dispatches is called "Sketchy Details" and begins like this:

Yesterday Iraq’s Minister of Defense, Sadoun al-Dulaimi, announced that starting Saturday 40,000 Iraqi troops will seal Baghdad and begin to “hunt down insurgents and their weapons.” Baghdad will be divided into two main sections, east and west, and within each section there will be smaller areas of control.

There will be at least 675 checkpoints and al-Dulaimi said this is the first phase of a security crackdown that will eventually cover all of Iraq.

Keep in mind that most of Iraq has remained in a “state of emergency” since the beginning of the siege of Fallujah, on November 8th.

“We will also impose a concrete blockade around Baghdad, like a bracelet around an arm, God willing, and God be with us in our crackdown on the terrorists’ infrastructure.”

Also at the press conference was Bayan Jabor, the Minister of Interior who added, “These operations will aim at turning the government's role from defensive to offensive.”

This is really, really bad news.

Wow! Is it ever! Read it again, slowly, if you will. Every sentence is loaded with horror. As if things needed to get any worse.

Then, this passage quoting a Baghdad doctor:

“Iraqi forces now have what they call “liwaa al deeb,” which means the Wolf Brigade. This is a very American name, and is an ugly name which gives the impression of violence. In the past the Iraqi troops held names of some famous Muslim and Arabic symbols which were more accepted. Anyway, the name wouldn’t matter if their behavior was straight….they now practice a kind of state sponsored terrorism.”

He went on to give an example of their not-so-straight behavior…

“Eyewitnesses in Al-Saydia area to the south of Baghdad told me that recently when a car bomb detonated and destroyed the area nearby, people were astonished to see the so-called police looting a destroyed mobile phone store that was nearby! The police now are a bunch of thieves. Many of then are already criminals who were released from Abu Ghraib prison before the war.”

What is this Wolf Brigade? Is this the Iraq version of the infamous Salvadoran death squads?

It's not so far-fetched a question. Some of the people who have been involved in Iraq were involved in the creation of the terrorist death squads in El Salvador two decades ago. And some of those same people were running the terrorist "Operation Phoenix" in Vietnam ten or fifteen years before that.

The Pentagon mentioned a while ago that they might do something similar in Iraq. They even called it "The Salvador Option". Some people thought it was a trial balloon which wouldn't fly; others [more credibly, in my opinion] said that if they were talking openly about it as a possibility this meant they were already doing it.

Even if the Wolf Brigade is not a third-generation incarnation of Operation Phoenix, it still bears close scrutiny. As does this recent plan. What surrounds Baghdad, cuts it in half, then breaks it into little pieces? And what happens then?

You can read Dahr Jamail's entire post here. And you should set a bookmark on Iraqi Dispatches.

May we never again be victims of mass deception. And may the Iraqi people be free of American military intervention as soon as possible.

Isn't That A Bit Harsh?

Abu Ghraib abuser gets jail sentence

A US military policewoman behind some of the most ghastly photographs from Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison has been sentenced...

Sabrina Harman, who was convicted of:

four charges of maltreatment of detainees, one charge of conspiracy to maltreat detainees and dereliction of duty

has been sentenced to six months in jail!

Harman is credited with setting up one of the most infamous pictures from Abu Ghraib - that of a hooded inmate in rags standing on a box with electrical wires attached to his hands.

International publication of those photographs led to widespread condemnation of US practices in Iraq at a time when US forces were trying to bring the country under control after the 2003 invasion.

She also posed grinning behind a pyramid of naked Iraqi prisoners, giving a thumbs-up in front of a corpse wrapped in plastic, and wrote the misspelled word "rapeist" on the leg on one of the inmates.

Six months for all this? Isn't that a bit harsh?

Am I kidding? Of course I'm kidding! Sabrina Harman was following orders, wasn't she?

When is the trial of those who gave the orders?

And The Horrors Continue...

What a surprise! Amnesty: Torture continuing in Iraq

Amnesty International has said there were signs of fresh torture and sexual abuse in Iraq by prison authorities.

The human rights group on Thursday also blasted the United States for failing to launch an independent probe into the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, a year after images of abused detainees first shocked the world.

"People around the world will be recalling the horrific images they saw a year ago and wondering what happened to those prisoners," Amnesty secretary-general Irene Khan said, pointing out that only a handful of low-ranking US soldiers had been prosecuted or disciplined over the outrage.

"But what was the role of those higher up, including for example, the US secretary of defence?" she demanded, referring to Donald Rumsfeld.

Why stop there? Let's get to the good questions: What was the role of the so-called president? What was the role of the new Attorney General? What was the role of the vice-president? Do you think they were unaware of what was going on? Do you think something like this could happen without their approval? Of course not!

Amnesty called for the anniversary of the publication of the photographs from Abu Ghraib "to be marked by the strongest condemnation of all forms of torture by the US and Iraqi governments".

I don't think anyone at Amnesty International should hold their breath waiting for that.

But how about "the strongest condemnation of all forms of torture" by a lowly and nearly frozen blogger? Would that help?

I didn't think so.

Disinformation Found In Tigris River

As regular readers of this space are no doubt aware, a large number of hostages may have been taken -- and killed -- in the Iraqi town of al-Madain. On the other hand, the entire story may be a giant hoax. As previously reported (first here and then here), the town was besieged late last week after unconfirmed reports of a mass hostage-taking. But when soldiers finally entered the town, they found no hostages.

Then reports started coming in about bodies being pulled from the Tigris. Were these the bodies of the 'hostages'? Iraqi president Jalal Talabani said they were, and that their presence proved the earlier reports to have been accurate. He was even quoted as having said:

[W]e have the full names of those who were killed and those criminals who committed these crimes.

Was Talabani telling the truth? Maybe not, said some, including one lowly and nearly frozen blogger, who couldn't quite understand how bodies pulled from the Tigris as early as February could belong to people who were allegedly taken hostage in mid-April.

Now it seems that local officials in al-Madain have been asking the same questions as the nearly frozen one. The following quotes are taken from a piece in Aljazeera entitled Iraq: Tigris corpses still a mystery.

Medical sources in the town of al-Madain have cast doubts that 60 bloated bodies recovered from a river in Iraq are those of civilians thought to have been taken hostage last week.

On Thursday morning, Iraqi medical sources said the tally of bodies recovered from the Tigris River had risen to 60.

Earlier, President Jalal Talabani said the discovery proved that armed Sunni fighters had seized up to 100 Shia last week in the town of al-Madain, 20km southeast of Baghdad.

But local officials said the bodies have been floating to the surface for weeks, and there is no way to tell where they came from.

And that's the crux of the issue, isn't it? If the local officials say "there is no way to tell where they came from", how can the president know "the full names of those who were killed and those criminals who committed these crimes"?

Dr Falah al-Permani, head of the Suwayrah health department, said families had identified just a few of the bodies, and it was impossible to tell where most were from.

"The extent of decomposition suggests all the slayings happened more than three weeks ago, while the crisis in al-Madain started less than one week ago," al-Permani said.

"So there is no way to link the two incidents."

One need hardly ask how this story will affect the credibility of president Talabani. Apparently, this marionette is no more credible than the people pulling his strings. And, really, how surprising is that?

Bodies Pulled From Tigris

One very confusing story, partially reported in a previous item (Hostage-Taking in Iraq, or Just Another Hoax?), has been clarified -- maybe. It now appears that hostages were taken, that they were killed and that their bodies were thrown into the River Tigris. And yet, as we all know [but too often forget], appearances can indeed be very deceiving.

From Aljazeera: Iraq leader: Hostages' bodies found

The bodies of 50 people, thought to be hostages held in a town near Baghdad recently, have reportedly been found in the Tigris river, while another 19 bodies have turned up in a football stadium in Haditha.

Aljazeera reports quoting Iraq President Jalal Talabani as saying on Wednesday that the 50 bodies found near al-Suwaira were those of people recently abducted from al-Madain town, south of Baghdad.

Agencies quoted him as telling reporters: "More than 50 bodies have been brought out from the Tigris and we have the full names of those who were killed and those criminals who committed these crimes.

"We will give you details in the coming days … terrorists committed crimes there. It is not true that there were no hostages. There were, but they were killed and they threw the bodies into the Tigris."

From the BBC: Iraq 'hostages dumped in river'

The bodies of more than 50 men, women and children have been recovered from the River Tigris in the town of Suwayra, south of Baghdad.

Many had been badly mutilated, Iraqi authorities said.

President Jalal Talabani said the bodies were those of people who had been taken hostage and then killed in the nearby town of Madain.

But the details of the grisly find still raise disturbing questions. For instance, there's this passage from BBC's article:

It is not clear when the killings took place, though police in the area told the BBC the bodies had been pulled from the river over a period since the end of February.

Some victims were said to have had their heads cut off and others were badly decomposed.

It remains to be explained how the bodies of hostages captured late last week could already be "badly decomposed". It's difficult to imagine how such bodies could have been quickly and positively identified. And yet the Iraqi president assures us

[W]e have the full names of those who were killed ...

Yeah, sure. Sure you do.

In the fog of war, nobody knows anything for certain. Is the Iraqi president an exception? Yeah, sure he is!

And that's not all. Iraq is now the only country on Earth which defies the laws of time. In Iraq, but only in Iraq, bodies can be pulled out of the river in February but not killed until April. Do you believe that? Yeah, sure. Sure you do.

Hostage-Taking in Iraq, or Just Another Hoax?

For my most patient readers, here comes a very confusing story from Iraq, as told in four installments:

Sunday morning: Bid to resolve Iraq hostage drama fails

Peaceful efforts to secure the release of up to 60 Shia Muslim hostages allegedly threatened with death in a town near Baghdad have failed, and Iraqi authorities are considering military action.

"Attempts to win their freedom through negotiations have not led to any results," an official in a leading Shia party told Reuters on Saturday.

"The government is considering military intervention to end the standoff."

However, confusion surrounds the incident in the southern Iraqi town of al-Madain.

A spokesman for Muqtada al-Sadr, Shaikh Abd al-Hadi al-Daraji, denied that the incident had taken place and said no hostages had been taken.

Of course, the "military intervention to end the standoff" happened nonetheless. Note that this report mentions "up to 60" hostages.

Sunday evening: Iraqi troops call halt to al-Madain assault

Iraqi troops battling in a town near Baghdad to rescue Shia hostages held by Sunni fighters, have halted their offensive after meeting fierce resistance, government officials said.

They said the troops had failed to fight their way into the town centre and new efforts to resolve the matter peacefully were underway.

There were conflicting reports on the fate of the hostages, originally said to number about 80.

How many hostages? Now it's "originally said to number about 80".

The crisis began on Friday when armed men allegedly entered the town aboard pick-up trucks, seized a number of Shia and threatened to kill them unless other Shia left the town.

Government forces surrounded the town on Saturday.

On Sunday, government forces recaptured half the town and freed 10 to 15 families held hostage by the armed men, the Defence Ministry official said, adding that the clashes were continuing.

However national security adviser Qasim al-Daud denied later in parliament that any hostages had been found.

"Three posts where hostages were suspected to have been detained have been raided, but unfortunately we have not found any trace of the detainees", he told Iraq's National Assembly.

Who are you going to believe? The "Defence Ministry official" or the "national security adviser"? Or perhaps it would be better to sit back and await further developments?

Monday morning: Iraq hostage-taking claim questioned

Amid increasing indications that the al-Madain hostage-taking incident has been grossly exaggerated, Iraqi security forces and US troops have continued to keep the town surrounded after reports of the kidnapping of up to 100 Shia residents.

Now it's "up to 100" hostages, but there are "increasing indications that the [...] incident has been grossly exaggerated".

An AP photographer and a television cameraman who were in or near al-Madain on Sunday said large numbers of Iraqi troops had sealed off the town, supported by US forces who were keeping a low profile farther from the edge of town.

The cameraman said he toured the town on Sunday morning. People were going about their business normally, shops were open and tea houses were full.

Residents contacted by telephone also said everything was normal in al-Madain.

How surreal! This is a very strange story, is it not?

Even so, National Security Minister Qasim Dawud told parliament on Sunday that three battalions of Iraqi soldiers, police and US forces had been sent to al-Madain.

He said the Iraqi military was planning a large-scale assault.

What's the best thing to do when you get wildly conflicting reports? Plan "a large-scale assault", of course!

Speaking to Aljazeera by phone from Baghdad, general-secretary of the Iraqi Islamic Party (IIP), Tariq al-Hashimi, said the situation was dangerous and could spark wider sectarian tensions.

Urging security forces to exercise caution, he said: "Whatever the reasons - so far mostly they seem fabricated and exaggerated - we completely reject the latest escalation in the form of the siege of the town with a view to raiding it."

Al-Hashimi said a "new Falluja" could arise, with the US and Iraqi forces raising the banner of "fighting terrorism".

Nevertheless, he called on both Sunni and Shia residents of al-Madain not to confront the Iraqi police and soldiers, and to let them carry out their mission to search for hostage-takers if there were really any present.

"If there were really any present"! Well, if they're there, and the town is sealed off, then a raid should be able to locate them, wouldn't you think? So let's cut to the final chapter:

Monday evening: Raid finds no hostages in Iraqi town

The Iraqi army has found no hostages in the besieged town of al-Madain, where fighters had reportedly been holding Shia residents hostage.

A 1500-strong Iraqi force has moved into al-Madain - known also as Salman Pak - 30km southeast of Baghdad, according to an AFP correspondent embedded with the US military.

"The whole city is under control. We've secured houses where people said there were hostages. We could not find any. I don't think we'll find any," Iraqi Brigadier-General Muhammad Sabri Latif said on Monday.

Click on the links and read the entire articles, if you wish. You will find even more questions and even fewer answers.

The lowly and nearly frozen Winter Patriot may still be wondering what to make of it all, but the same cannot be said of Shaikh Abd al-Salam al-Kubaisi, of the Association of Muslim Scholars (as quoted here), to whom I will leave this evening's final word:

"This news is completely untrue."