A FAIR VERDICT???
Finally, the world is free from the rule of a bloody tyrant, who did not care for the humanity and only believed in consolidating his own position, and now Mr. George W Bush is free and without any opposition to take over the throne. In response to the execution of Saddam Hussain , Mr. Bush said ” Today Saddam Hussein was executed after receiving a fair trial - the kind of justice he denied the victims of his brutal régime.” A fair trial??
Let us have a look at the proceedings of the fair trial point by point.
1.The Chief Judge trying the Dujali case was forced to resign midway,just because he made a casual observation that Saddam was a capable ruler.
2.Saddam’s lawyers were not allowed to present witness. And those appearing for defence were systematically harassed and three of them were assassinated.
3.The television link of the trial, provided by the US Company edited out the sound of Saddam and the others.
4.Following the accusation by the Shia and Kurdish leaders of lenience towards Saddam, a more acquiescent official was found to play the role of HANGING JUDGE.
5.Prosecuting lawyers were allowed to introduce new evidence without the court allowing the defence to preview it.
6.The presiding judge also had a habit of not allowing the defence to complete its arguments and abruptly ending its proceeding.
7. The United States largely funded Hussein's trial, and U.S. officials close to the trial said Sunday's outcome vindicated the policy of having courts in individual nations try cases involving war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Bush administration has been a leading opponent of international tribunals, fearing that U.S. soldiers could be tried before them for political reasons.
Saddam’s defence team said in a statement that, the “US Liberation Forces” provided millions of dollars to prosecution lawyers to unearth evidence against Saddam , while the defence lawyers were” assassinated, threatened , insulted and displaced out of the country”
All the evidence certainly points to a free, fair and impartial trial. Isn’t it? We do not need to have the brains of a rocket scientist to see that the so-called Iraqi High Tribunal court set up, to try Saddam Hussain for CRIMES AGAINT HUMANITY and all that crap, was all the doing of Uncle Sam. Even the more obvious fact, which the world chooses to dismiss, is that it was the United States and its poodle United Kingdom, which conducted a supreme Crime against Humanity, by invading a sovereign country, going against the United Nation and the entire world itself. Saddam Hussain was sentenced to death for the killings of 148 citizens
of Dujail in a failed assassination attempt on Saddam Hussain. So now, we must wonder
what punishment Mr. Bush and associates would get if they were tried for Supreme and Unimaginable crimes against humanity because reports estimate that 655,000 people have died in Iraq as a result of the 2003 invasion “. Even worse than that, are the horrors perpetrated by Mr. Bush at the prison in Abu Gharib and Guantanamo bay.
Here is an indicative list of the various methods of tortures employed by the US government to break physically and mentally the prisoners of the so-called war on terror. It is natural to want to disbelieve accounts of torture. It is sickening to discover the depths of cruelty our fellow men can sink to. We cannot stop the torture if you lie to yourself that it does not exist. It is real. There are even criminal convictions.
• Killing wounded prisoners
• Murder
• Kicking prisoners to death
• Sodomy with a broomstick and chemical light.
• Water-boarding where a suspect is strapped to a board, turned upside down, and immersed in a wet towel to simulate the feeling of drowning until he loses consciousness.
• Throwing off bridge into river and drowning
• Near suffocation
• Parents forced to watch son being tortured.
• Government documents show soldiers were ordered to “beat the fuck out of” prisoners.
• Chaining to the ceilings of cells for days at a time.
• Common personae strike aimed at a point just below the knee and intended to disable. Pulpifying the legs so they look as though they had though they had been run over by a bus.
• Starvation
• Sleep and sensory deprivation: Covering the eyes, ears, wrapping the body in bubble wrap. After a few hours of this, hallucinations set in then eventually permanent insanity.
• Claustrophobic technique: stuffing POWs into a sleeping bag and winding them with an electrical cord.
• Water pit in which detainees have to stand on tiptoe to keep from drowning.
• Breaking a teen's jaw, then wiring it shut.
• Hanging by arms from hooks, Palestinian Hanging.
• Permitting serious dog bites
• Bending back fingers
• Taping naked prisoner to board so that cannot move and leaving them there for weeks until they go insane.
• Intense isolation for more than 3 months
• Slamming the head into a wall until it bleeds.
• Stacking of naked prisoners in pyramids.
P.S. This is just an indicative list
The torture was not just a few bad apples. It goes right to the top. Both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International USA say there is prima facie evidence against Rumsfeld for war crimes and torture. Moreover, Amnesty International USA says there is also prima facie evidence against Bush for war crimes and torture.
Coming to the reaction of the execution, India has meekly described the execution of saddam Hussain as an unfortunate event and hoped it would not affect the ongoing peace process (a car bomb killed 77 people just hours after the execution), while the need for the hour was a strong and independent response to the hanging. India hopes to gain US friendship in return of its feeble response to the killing, but it should not forget that the mujaheedins in Afghanistan and the Dark Lord of terror Osama Bin Laden was an American creation and even Saddam was one time friend of America.
When George HW Bush was vice president, Saddam Hussein was still seen as a potential partner thanks to his status as the enemy of America's enemy, Iran. It was in 1983 that Donald Rumsfeld was dispatched to Baghdad as a friend of the Reagan administration to shake the hand of Saddam Hussein and offer America's help against the ayatollahs during the Iran Iraq War. Alliance finally turned into animosity when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and President Bush cobbled together an international alliance of Western and Arab states to remove him from Kuwait but not from power. When the purpose of Osama and Saddam was served, the US did not hesitate to drop them like a hot potato. Therefore, we should exercise a word of caution, while dealing with the noble and righteous United States of America.
Here I take the liberty of modifying Martin Niemöller’s famous lines, which are applicable for the world in general and India in particular
First, they came for the North Koreans, and I did not speak out
because I was not a North Korean;
Then they came for the Vietnamese, and I did not speak out
because I was not a Vietnamee;
Then they came for the Afghans, and I did not speak out
because I was not an Afghan;
Then they came for the Iraqis, and I did not speak out
because I was not an Iraqi;
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
The world is indeed a dangerous place; but courtesy Bush and allies it is becoming even more dangerous.
21 comments:
Good job Adwait.These tortures are well known.But people only point out at the tortures in the prisons in Saddam's governance.
Just 3 days back,100 prisoners were released by the red cross and human rights members.They were being 'inhumanly' tortured they said.And we all know who is ruling the prisons of Iraq now.
Now true conscience will come and tell you
1.you are not going into the depths and just superficially viewing at the topic.
2.These tortures are harsh but when you look in a broad view they are good.
3.I am happy that you are 21 and are interested in world politics.I am 32 and i know better listen ...
This is THE Best write up of urs and man u have ended the year 2006 in the best way possible. Its quite ironical tht u are ending it on quite high note by writing bout the execution conducted by the gerrymandered kangaroo court and the whole world is quite distraught in the way this year is ending. It is not only the iraqis who are facing the brunt. The death toll of US troops has crossed that of the victims of 9/11.. john kerry was very right when he said tht if a US child does not study well, he will surely be part of the troops in iraq.. Its high time that bush sheds his ego.. Lets hope that ban ki moon infuses some sanity into him.. Will he ?? Thats the big question which is rankling my mind and making me look forward to 2007..
Mr. Adwait,
I guess I don’t have to speak more on the torture. I think I have said it very clearly. Put yourself in the commander’s shoes and review your responsibility and people’s trust on you.
In a war, torture is a way of extracting life-saving information from tough defying enemies. It is absurd to ban tortures.
I know that tortures are hard to justify. That’s why I too don’t like wars. I hope it never happens in my country.
But perhaps more important is that I won’t tolerate people like Saddam in my country. I prefer war than living in fear under such a cruel dictator who treated his country like his mafia territory.
Now, I never once use my age as an edge in an argument unless dealing with impossible people like R1 - so impervious to reasons.
The last time I mentioned age with Mr. Adwait was to express my pleasant observation that Indian youth is heavily politicized despite their young age.
I also said to Mr. Adwait that the real reason for our differing opinions was perhaps our different social circle and political exposures.
I also invited Mr. Adwait to fill in for me if he finds my views full of holes.
Never once had I said to Mr. Adwait,”You sit down and listen to me because I am older than you.”
R1, you just reveal your true self – a plain crook who twisted my words.
Twisting words? Am just trying to learn that from you (not completely though).You mentioned my age (which you dont know) and trying to explain something about people of my age.
You said you would use age for impossible people like me.So Adwait is possible.possible for brain washing I suppose.
You might be 32 or 62 age doesnt matter for me.Wisedom is more important.
If torturing is justifiable then Saddam torturing the traitors of his govenment is also justifiable.
You wont allow a person like Saddam in your country.Good.But he was not in your country nor the people of that country called you to bomb their homes to bring down Saddam.
Mr. Adwait,
I do not wish to deviate from the newest article you just posted “Fairest Verdict” and fill the comment box with unrelated useless nonsense.
When I labeled “impossible” on the character of R1, I meant he was impossible to reason with. His points are repetitive and always in denial.
R1 even accused me of trying to brainwash you! Can I present an alternative and honest view without being accused of trying to brainwash someone? Can I present something that I hypothesize to be, what perhaps, the thinking on the other side?
If this blog is supposed to be a one-way street, then it shall be. I shall resign.
Like I said in the previous topic’s comment box, international politics is never easy. Often, it is not a choice of what is morally right and wrong. In most times, like I always insist, it is a matter of which is a lesser evil for a greater good.
I am not proud of war and only support it on a case basis.
I would like to put my view on your “Fairest Verdict” but R1’s repetitive ranting has made it almost impossible to focus on. I also don’t want your comment list to be filled with unrelated posts.
I wish to move on and request for your intervention in R1’s continuous ramblings. I have exposed his lies and you shall be the fairest judge.
Benny Kwok
Benny grow up man.You can complain to block me.You called me mannerless,stupidious,guy with no guts etc etc.I did not use any of such words.I just said your comments are ignorant nothing else.
You cant handle the discussion and start personal insults and you want that I should be blocked just to make things easy for you?
Man grow up.I cant believe that you are 32
can we stop fighting on my blog
may be that can be a new year resolution
ahppy new year to all
Good one..
and hey.. dont stop the argument..
i loved reading both sides..
and hey..
the poem its great touch..
way to go adwait...!!!
I know whatever happened to Saddam Hussaien is truly a bad patch on the World. But don't U think so it was obvious for the most powerful state to react like this. (ahhh..)
I was quite sure that they wld not leave Saddam Husien for anything...
execellent...just don have words to praise your topic...a def. journo that's for sure...
Mr. Adwait,
It is a good choice of article I must say. While the iron is still hot, let’s discuss the issue. There could be no better timing then now.
Again I should say that what you are posting is a good satire.
About the torture, I have given you my viewpoint. I am NOT going to justify the tortures as morally GOOD. In fact, I am even willing to be labeled as a “murderer” of my enemies for supporting it.
But I am not born to be a traitor to my country; to also betray the trust of my men and their families for safety. I believe this is what is in the mind of a good field commander when he is on duty to execute a war. The national interest and his men shall be his first priority.
About the court proceedings in the trial of Saddam Hussein, I would like to refute all the 7 observations by the author of the article; point by point.
-----------------------------------------------------
1. The Chief Judge trying the Dujali case was forced to resign midway, just because he made a casual observation that Saddam was a capable ruler.
Mr. Adwait, I am not a lawyer, but as far as I know, a judge should be impartial. He should be balanced in hearing and deciding. His opinion and remark should be based on whatever proceeds on the floor. That is why we see most judges stay silent in court; they are listening and observing attentively.
A judge is NOT allowed to have a biased opinion BEFORE the court proceeds.
Imagine a murder case proceeding. The defense attorneys would try to get the criminal released based on insanity claim, when he was absolutely not. You, as the prosecutor, would try to argue your way that the criminal was not insane at all.
Wouldn’t you be alarmed if the proceeding judge (out of nowhere) “casually” remarks “Well, he seems to me like insane.” The judge has made up his mind even before you argue.
Wouldn’t you ask for a replacement judge?
Who also decides “casual”? A judge should watch what he speaks. No remark by a judge should be deemed as “casual”.
With a judge who said Saddam was a capable ruler, Saddam needed not a defense attorney.
Another point is that remark “Saddam was a capable ruler” is totally irrelevant to the case being tried – the massacre of Dujali. It clearly showed that the Judge had a biased prejudgment in favor of Saddam.
-----------------------------------------------------
2. Saddam’s lawyers were not allowed to present witness. And those appearing for defense were systematically harassed and three of them were assassinated.
I don’t quite understand this part. If the defense attorneys are NOT allowed to present witness, then WHO was appearing for defense?
Also, there was nothing that indicates the Americans doing the assassination of those appearing for defense. There could be a possibility that Saddam loyalists, not the Americans, did the killings.
-----------------------------------------------------
3. The television link of the trial, provided by the US Company edited out the sound of Saddam and the others.
Editing is normal in any video and the author of this article did not mention the effect of the editing. So I am not sure what the author is implying. He left an open question; editing for the better or worse?
Anyway, the television was not the only media allowed to cover Saddam’s trial. There are Arab newspapers that routinely run the stories of the trial. These are headed by Arab editors, some are Sunnis, and other are Shiites. I am sure that they provided more balanced facts.
As far as I know, the Americans do not censor those.
-----------------------------------------------------
4. Following the accusation by the Shia and Kurdish leaders of lenience towards Saddam, a more acquiescent official was found to play the role of HANGING JUDGE.
It is normal in any court proceeding, be it criminal or commercial, for both prosecutor and defense attorney to review and question the judge’s impartiality.
I cannot see how this right should be excused in Saddam’s case.
-----------------------------------------------------
5. Prosecuting lawyers were allowed to introduce new evidence without the court allowing the defense to preview it.
It is the practice of a judge to provide a reason for not allowing the defense to preview. The court should have a record of this.
I have tried to look up on the internet for this particular allegation but found nothing. Perhaps you could assist.
-----------------------------------------------------
6. The presiding judge also had a habit of not allowing the defense to complete its arguments and abruptly ending its proceeding.
Who to judge? In many court cases in which the crime is already obvious, it is a known fact that defense attorneys would use a wearing-down (by prolonging arguments) tactic to confuse the judge and jury.
They would talk for hours, sometimes, even irrelevantly just to create unreasonable doubts in both judge and jury.
Slobodan Milosevic did exactly this.
An experienced judge reserves the right to end it.
-----------------------------------------------------
7. The United States largely funded Hussein's trial, and U.S. officials close to the trial said Sunday's outcome vindicated the policy of having courts in individual nations try cases involving war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Bush administration has been a leading opponent of international tribunals, fearing that U.S. soldiers could be tried before them for political reasons.
Who else is going to fund? Iraq was in disarray. Yes, sometimes international tribunals can be ridiculous. If anybody can be sued for starting a war without looking into reasons, then the bad guys can always do damage first because the good guys cannot pre-empt.
I don’t believe in a standard when it comes to international politics. International politics policy should be viewed on per case basis.
-----------------------------------------------------
What the opening article failed to mention was that Saddam also proved to be a difficult man to deal with in the court. He was not co-operative.
The wikipedia source (type Trial of Saddam Hussein) said he repeatedly undermined the authority of the court, threw his violent tantrums, ranting about irrelevant things and insulting the Kuwaitis (calling them two-penny whores and dogs among others), the Iraqis, and the Americans.
Instead of focusing on his defense, Saddam chose to ignore the court, challenge the Judges and turn the court into a political arena by making hardly relevant political statements.
Mr. Adwait. it took an equally tough judge to deal with Saddam. You can hardly blame any judge for passing a death sentence on such a man. Nothing he did brought others’ sympathy on himself.
Nevertheless, I have to admit that the trial was undeniably sped up (for good reasons, I would argue this later). It took 29 months to finally reach a verdict for Saddam. Had a normal trial been allowed to proceed, it would have taken years to reach a conclusion.
And it is also hard to deny that the Americans were not involved in it.
But despite whatever happened, can we say this is an unfair trial? What then could be a fairer verdict for Saddam? A ten-year sentence at a Thai massage parlour?
Mr. Adwait, I also admit that it is already taken for granted that Saddam would ultimately face the gallows for his countless crimes. We all were 100% sure that Saddam would face the capital punishment no matter how the court would proceed.
Let’s say a normal trial is accorded to Saddam, given the exceptional expertise of some very good crooked attorneys, Saddam perhaps could find a legal way to escape the charges on Dujali massacre.
Mr. Adwait, the legal system is NOT without its holes.
But then, the persecutor would just file another different charge against Saddam. It would be easy; Saddam had too numerous.
If charges after charges would have to be filed, then I believe a hundred years would NOT be enough for the trials of Saddam.
If these lengthy trials are allowed to continue and as long as Saddam was alive, he would become a potential divisive factor among Iraqis.
There can be no moving forward or nation-building for ordinary Iraqis because they would all be distracted by Saddam’s trials. Some would take his side and the others would oppose. There can never be unity.
Iraqis must put Saddam behind them to move forward. They need a closure as fast as it possibly can.
-----------------------------------------------------
Recently an ex-president of USA Gerald Ford had also passed away. I read many testimonies on him on the net. One of his major presidential actions was to pardon Nixon for the Watergate scandal. It was the one thing that cost him dearly in his subsequent running for another term as president.
But he did not regret making that decision.
Now, the nation understands why he did it. He did not want the Watergate scandal to drag the nation for years. It could turn ugly. Nixon was not an ordinary man. He too had his die-hard supporters. And to impeach Nixon, it would involve major public institutions such as Congress and the Supreme Court. Useless debates would follow and the process could be endless.
Ford realized that the Americans needed a closure, and he gave it to them – by pardoning Nixon and putting the Watergate Scandal behind.
-----------------------------------------------------
One thing for sure, Saddam should NOT escape the capital punishment. Hanging is best suited for him. And there is no better place than where it was.
Saddam deserved to stand on the very platform where he used to hang his innocent enemies in the past.
Mr. Adwait,
HAPPY NEW YEAR 2007.
I hope this year would be a better year for all of us. God Bless you and your family.
Though I must admit that in the wider world, I am rather pessimistic. The weather changes are becoming too bizzare. We could have more and strong viruses coming out because of that. And looks like Middle East is not showing any sign of peace.
Benny Kwok
PS: Correction on my post
I wrote:("And it is also hard to deny that the Americans were not involved in it.)"
I meant to say that I believe that throughout the trial, the Americans were involved in it. But while the Americans were in it, it does not mean the trial has issued an unfair verdict. The verdict was GOOD.
Also when I wrote:("We all were 100% sure that Saddam would face the capital punishment no matter how the court would proceed.")
I believe that whatever happened, the Americans and the Iraqis would ensure a capital punishment for Saddam. Undoubtedly there was a pre-determined verdict.
(But Saddam has also been given many chances to defend himself. In every of such occasions, he chose to let out his grumble instead)
The verdict could not be more just.
In fact, anything lighter than that would be injustice.
Mr Benny
u say that it is hard to justify torture . then how can u justify the entire war on terror itself.
and for what is this torture occurring.??Saddam hussain is dead , his baath part broken and dispersed. So what more information do u want from the ordinary Iraqi people.The point is , in the name of extracting information , the americans are committing crimes against humanity which are even more heinous than which saddam committed .and what bout the secret CIA flights of detainees to the east european countries and their own secret torture chambers. the so called civilised world is stooping to a level lower than saddam hussain and company to get their work done.
there is something called Humanity in this world isnt it.
now bout the trial i said that saddam was not allowed to present his witness in the trial.it is true ,because when even those who dared to appear and testify were harassed an tortured.
u say that the chief judge is not allowed to have a biased opinion before a trial, then on the same lines u also say that ""We all were 100% sure that Saddam would face the capital punishment no matter how the court would proceed."" how do u know that . we have not been to iraq. we have not heard his story . then how can u conclude on that.
""Nothing he did brought others’ sympathy on himself."" if what u say is true , then why dont we try george bush and company for the death of over 50000 iraqis(source iraqbodycount). i knowthat u prefer to take the cause of lesser evil. but the thing to ponder over is what happens when greater evil swoops down on the lesser evil, for its own benefit.
Mr. Adwait
I wish to retract my statement “We all were 100% sure that Saddam would face the capital punishment no matter how the court would proceed.”
There was never a guarantee that such an assurance ever existed.
That statement is just based on my guts feeling. It has no fact to back it up. I used to think that the US would try all dictators to death, but it turned out that, after further reading, NOT all wars started by the US ended up with a dictator’s death.
In Panama Invasion, Manuel Noriega was given a prison term, first 40 years and which was later reduced to 30 years. In fact, he is due for release in this year, 9 September 2007.
Also, I begin to think that the verdict is very much Iraqi’s. The wikipedia source told that the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki who immediately signed the execution order is Saddam’s political enemy. He belongs to a major Shiite Dawa Party whose members were often murdered by Saddam during his rule.
I say Saddam was given a Shiite justice. I believe, even without the Americans’ assistance, Saddam’s Shiite political enemies (many are currently sitting in the government) would still make sure that he would get the hanging.
The much criticized American’s alleged involvement in court proceedings is in fact, I think, a bit overblown. If I were an American, I would not bother to dirty my hands, seeing how eager the Shiites are on revenge.
As for the torture in Guantanamo, at this time, I think there is not much to be gained anyway. It is time for the US to stop the unnecessary tortures.
I can understand tortures in wartime but, I agree with you, it does not have to continue anymore under current circumstances. And you are quite right when mentioning that Baath party is already destroyed. Saddam Hussein is already dead. There is little or no point of torturing.
And those officers who still commit those tortures for no apparent reasons should be brought to justice. By this I mean, careful investigations have to be made to expose the chain of command that leads to senseless tortures.
But not necessarily Bush, I don’t think he is directly involved in the military. You must understand that in a big organization such as the US military, somewhere in the middle command chain, something could go wrong. And the head of state should not be made accountable for such misadventures.
Bush is NOT like Saddam. Saddam was directly involved in the tortures. He even signed the death warrants himself. I don’t think Bush signed torture orders.
I have no idea who and what the Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib prisoners are. My best guess is that they are probably Baathist, military, or Saddam loyalist middle ranked officers. Perhaps they are the names that the intelligence gave to the military to sweep. I also think that these people are most probably Sunnis in majority, Saddam’s followers.
Nevertheless, I don’t think Bush should let the Guantanamo prisoners free under current situation. When Iraq is still in a mess like we see today, releasing the Guantanamo prisoners would make the situation worse. In time of transition like this, the prisoners would go back and start taking sides, making reconciliatory measures harder to implement in Iraq.
These people should only be released when Iraq is peaceful. I know a lot of Asian governments do this to the imprisoned communists. When the communists are set free into a peaceful and prosperous society, they tend to follow the trend and are less likely to cause any trouble. The Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib prisoners have been tortured for so long that, if released today, they would become angrier seeing a messed-up Iraq.
We all must strive for a peaceful Iraq; identify the real crooks that stall the peace process. It could be foreign Arab agents from neighboring countries. I believe that the Americans are genuine in making a peaceful Iraq. They have grown tired of the war and the war has exhausted their resources much. The faster that peace comes, the sooner those prisoners get released.
It really does not help that a top leading much revered Sunni Saudi Cleric issued a fatwa by calling the Shiites infidels on 29 December 2006 (what a way to close a year). To me, it sounds like calling them enemies of Islam. It is almost like calling for an open war.
I don’t think the Americans would expect to see this fatwa. I don’t think you would either.
Things are definitely not looking good.
Mr. Adwait,
Bush and Blair cannot be put on trial. The effect of such an action will be – I could only describe it as – DISASTROUS.
If we try Bush for “war crimes” in Iraq, we are doing the terrorists the BIGGEST favor. All the while, the terrorists run their programs with two-pronged approach.
First, they spread terror on their targeted population. Second, they arouse the sympathy of the naïve population against any retaliatory attacks from the countries that are against them.
If Bush is silenced through an international tribunal, then the world shall enter its darkest age. The real terrorists are going to have a free reign in the world.
The terrorists fear the US. It is the only country currently capable of striking the terrorist base anywhere in the world. Right now, only the US has the experience and resources to move massive troops and military hardware across the oceans - anywhere around the world.
During the Kuwait-Iraq war, the US moved approximately 500.000 troops on a short notice along with its hardware – across the Atlantic and Europe! That’s a tremendous feat.
No country has ever done that – NOT Russia, China and even India.
The current terrorists are very intelligent people – and patient too. They have been attracting independent followers not with a personality cult, but rather by promoting a radical exclusive puritan Islam. They have been selling dreams of heaven and the glory of jihad, luring innocent naïve people with their religious sentiments.
Along the way, they have also encouraged those people to form independent terror cells, sometimes sleeping for years before the real actions begin.
Also, These Al Qaeda have been building and training their own elite forces in their chosen country. They prefer a weak potentially divisive country where the majority of people are Muslims. This will make it possible for their programs to continue uninterrupted by the native government and also, they could easily blend into the local Muslim population and at the same time, recruit. Their choice is Afghanistan.
These Al Qaeda brainwash its followers with their distinct indoctrination – intolerant and violent. They send the brainwashed agents to usurp their respective native society to radicalize and create chaos. In time, they will divide the targeted country and bring it to its knees.
These are their plans.
But of course, these plans have weaknesses as well. The Al Qaeda fears democracy, freedom of information and teaching on tolerance and humanity. Democracy and free flow of information encourage people to criticize and to ask questions, thereby weakening the brainwash effects. Teachings on tolerance and humanity towards other faiths soften the dedication towards violence.
Bush pre-empted the Al Qaeda by attacking Afghanistan. Bush destroyed their terrorist base; bases for brainwash and terrorist training. Bush sent those people in disarray. The Americans have captured many of the terrorist leaders and blocked their financial funding.
When Al Qaeda was under attacked, they were forced to fast forward their terror plans. The sleeper agents were revived and exploded bombs. But these premature actions revealed their network. With every bomb exploded, the Americans get more and more clues into their workings and network.
Bush’ pre-emptive attacks on Al Qaeda also forced the Muslims to recognize that there are two brands of Islam – one is elitist and violent, the other is the tolerant one. Bush’s war forced the Muslims to take side, and denounce the other.
Terrorists are further exposed.
More and more Muslims begin criticizing Al Qaeda and distancing themselves from such groups. Moderate Muslims are now emphasizing on the teachings of tolerance.
This inevitably frustrated the terrorists. They can no longer teach violence once moderate Muslims decide to denounce their violent brand of Islam.
Bush had done a lot without us realizing the significance of his work. Imagine if he did NOT start the current war on terrorism.
Afghanistan would still be a perfect breeding ground for terrorist cells that, I believe, might one day end up back in India. These radicalized Muslim Indians inserted by Al Qaeda would undoubtedly sow the seeds of intolerance and violence. India would definitely be divisive.
Worse still, India would be forced to shed blood on its own soil. Al Qaeda ultimately wants democracy to be brought down by making the government look incompetent in managing a divisive and explosive society. Study has showed (Hitler’s Germany was a famous example) that if democracy has been deemed as failure by the people, the people would be inclined to pick a strongman – a potential dictator.
I would rather support Bush to make war in their land rather than mine - the sooner, the better.
If Bush and Blair are to be tried and punished for the war, then this will set a precedent for other world leaders. The rest of leaders would be less inclined to deal with the terrorist problem sooner. They would rather wait at home than to start a war that would end in their hangings.
This is what the Al Qaeda wants!
We would all be sitting ducks, waiting to fight the war at our home ground. Sooner or later, these Al Qaeda would come to us, whether we like it or not. Soon chaos ensued. Indians will fight fellow radicalized Indians on Indian soil, Chinese VS Chinese in China, etc.
Worse still, we would all be baffled why we all end up fight among ourselves.
Also if Bush and Blair fall, there would never be another coalition against terrorism. If one day Taj Mahal were to be attacked by suicide planes, India would have to deal with the terror alone. China would not come to help. Its leaders would be more concerned with the possibility of international tribunals on them. The same goes if the Great Wall were to be under attacks. No Indians would come to help. Everyone would be concerned with their own butts.
This is a simple divide and conquer tactic. That’s why Al Qaeda has been using its terrorist cells around the world to incite people to demonstrate on the streets to push the world to put Bush and Blair into international tribunals.
We shall not fall into their traps.
Mr. Adwait, we are not dealing with a simple enemy.
These Al Qaeda want to trap us with our own laws. We cannot go onto a boxing ring with both hands handcuffed while the Al Qaeda has free hands.
We would definitely lose.
THIS IS PROOF The U.S. IS SENSITIVE AND RESPECTS ISLAM.
(unlike what the terrorists would like to portray as the power that bends on destroying Islam)
Also, this is further proof that the Shiites are much more influential in determining Saddam's fate than the Americans.
Taken from Sydney Morning Herald, January 3, 2007
"Another Iraqi official said earlier that the US ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, had tried to persuade Mr Maliki, not to rush into hanging the former dictator just four days after his appeal had been turned down, urging the Government to wait another two weeks. It appeared the US was concerned the execution should not be carried out with unseemly haste."
The following also proves that the US was helping the current Iraqi government to establish laws and order.
"There has been no significant repeat of the car bombings that killed more than 70 people in Shiite areas on Saturday within hours of the dawn execution, but the Government and US forces are on the alert for the kind of sectarian violence that has pitched Iraq towards civil war."
Mr. Adwait,
Criticism is always too easy.
But have we all asked ourselves what the world can do without Bush and friends?
Let's say Bush and his coalition partners are in prison for the war.
And also, let's say the UN send a strong message to all world leaders "DON'T START A WAR, OR YOU WILL END UP BEING CHARGED WITH WAR CRIMES!"
Terrorists need NOT cow world's leaders, the UN has done it on their behalf.
How do then we fight Al Qaeda?
Al Qaeda has grown to be an international organisation, too big for individual nations to fight alone.
Almost every extremist group around the world has a link to Al Qaeda. Either they approach Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda approach them.
The world is under threat!
What many have failed to realize is that DEAR FRIENDS, WE ARE ALREADY AT WAR. THE WHOLE WORLD IS.
And the only reason that we are feeling safe right now is that because, all along, the Americans have been fighting the war covertly or openly FOR us.
They have been pouring so much money on intelligence.
A year ago, 10 planes were about to be exploded in mid air in Southeast Asia. Hundreds of lives could have vanished into thin air.
Who prevented those? Indian intelligence? Chinese?
No! it was the western intelligence. They have been working around the clock to keep us all feeling safe.
The only thing that Al Qaeda want is for the US to back down. But it will be the worst thing that could happen to us.
Think it over.
And please be honourable people, be grateful.
hey adwait
excellent piece of work, yes but it has its flaws, beautiful critical analysis by "true conscience" didnt catch the name sorry,he covered so many points which co-incidentally struck me while reading it,its been a pleasure reading the blog and its comments...
quote all your sources of info, and also complete info like what parts of video were edited and for what purpose (atleast the purpose that comes to your mind)
can personal wars be reduced on the blog, feels bit weird, nevertheless good to read
more to pen later
Sriram
Mr. Sriram,
I did not usually go for personal war. In R1’s case, he was repetitive and too ignorant of facts to the point of fantasy.
He bought the idea of the US economy collapsing like a wall of cards. If we look at history, no economy had died and never got up. Russia is recovering from the collapse of Soviet Union. China was once in dire straits, but now is an economic powerhouse.
For me, the idea of a destroyed US economy is only good for a laugh.
Think for a second, how can an economy with the best lawyers, best doctors, best accountants, best engineers and best scientists along with the best leading innovative businesses collapse?
Think of a family. Can such a family be bankrupt? With quality sons like those, however much the debts of a father is, it will still be payable. Better still, with the best quality, the sons are calling the prices of their services.
R1 also talked about Bush going to war for revenge. That’s the craziest excuse! The US is not a fascist state that could go to war at the leader’s will. It is a democracy with proper channels to go through especially for a decision as important as a war.
I believe Iraq was intended to be the starting point of democracy in Middle East. Once Iraq becomes a successful role model, the people in the region would naturally start to democratize too. And, with an exception of a few failed democracies such as Nazi Germany, we could say almost all democracies end up with political moderation in societies.
Democracy is still perhaps the only weapon so far against a nuclear lunacy in the hand of a dictator.
As for Mr. Adwait’s opening article, I am satisfied with the points he made about the trials. I have checked on the internet about those allegations; such judicial irregularities did happen in Saddam’s trial.
But what Mr. Adwait did NOT do was to provide an alternative view about why those things could have happened. What happened in Saddam’s trial is NOT new and also very much a common practice in the courtroom.
There are a lot of cases in which judges were replaced, judges cut short the defense’s arguments, public trials were edited due to time-slot constraint, etc.
It was just that the case we were having was SADDAM HUSSEIN. The criminal being charged was the ONE making the difference.
I believe there were understandable reasons for those 7 points Mr. Adwait brought up; they can be political or perhaps they were the judge’s way to make sure the conduct of the court remain relevant.
If Mr. Adwait regards this trial as a political one, to be fair, he will need to tell the US and the current Iraqi government’s side of the story.
He did not do it.
But again, it has been a good satirical work. And a satirical work is as always a one-sided opinion. He is excusable.
If Mr. Adwait had intended to write an analytical paper, he would have to be more balanced. For a satire, he needs not.
Mr. Adwait
I found a very interesting article that could explain why the war in the Middle East must be fought on and should not be given up.
Blair has analysed it accurately and now, it is up to us to understand the gravity of the problem.
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/01/12/blair.military/index.html
TERROR WAR WILL BE LONG
LONDON, England (CNN) -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair says it will take a generation to defeat what has emerged as a global movement of fundamentalist Muslim terrorists, a movement he described as "something more akin to revolutionary communism in its early and most militant phase."
Blair -- who made the remarks in a lecture on Friday about the role of the United Kingdom's armed forces in the 21st century -- said "the battle will be long. It has taken a generation for the enemy to grow. It will, in all probability, take a generation to defeat."
The wide-ranging lecture emphasized that Britain should remain a fighting, as well as a peacekeeping, nation. British troops currently have significant deployments in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
Blair said radical Islam's "belief system may be, indeed is, utterly reactionary. But its methods are terrifyingly modern." And he said, "the enemy" regards its "strategic advantages as terrorism and time." Blair said such militants aren't a "conventional army" and can't be "defeated by conventional means.
"It has realized two things: the power of terrorism to cause chaos, hinder and displace political progress especially through suicide missions; and the reluctance of Western opinion to countenance long campaigns, especially when the account it receives is via a modern media driven by the impact of pictures."
Blair said the deadly attacks against soldiers many times produce a skepticism about why British troops are deployed in a particular region, a fact that militants understand.
"Yet to retreat in the face of this threat would be a catastrophe. It would strengthen this global terrorism; proliferate it; expand its circle of sympathizers. Given the nature of it and how its roots developed, long before any of the recent controversies of foreign policy, such retreat would be futile. It would postpone but not prevent the confrontation."
Blair, emphasizing the unique aspect of the present-day security threat, said conditions require Britain to be primed for battle.
"There are two types of nations similar to ours today. Those who do war fighting and peacekeeping and those who have, effectively, except in the most exceptional circumstances, retreated to the peacekeeping alone. Britain does both. We should stay that way."
Post a Comment