Sunday 21st of April 2024
Home » Blogs » John Richardson's blog

tha war on terra .....

tha war on terra .....

’The entire world was shocked beyond belief when the Twin Towers in New York and the Pentagon building were struck on 9/11 by US planes hijacked by Arab young men. There was sympathy for the victims and justifiable anger in America.

But the US response in invading the already devastated country of Afghanistan was excessive. More important, the USA did not obtain the endorsement of the UN Security Council and the invasion violated International Law. A military attack is permissible only in response to an invasion or imminent aggression. The Afghans did not invade the US nor were capable of doing so. That the 9/11 attacks had been planned and executed by Arab mujahideen in Afghanistan, did call for action, perhaps even punishment, but not the wanton bombing that resulted in the death of over 40,000 mostly of innocent non-combatants.

The invasion of Afghanistan set the stage for the “US war on terror” that is still going on. There is little point in quarrelling about this name which many consider misleading. What is important is that it is a new type of war, with new rules. When President Bush said, “You are either with us (the USA) or with the terrorist”, he propounded a new doctrine of war the chief features of which are: 1) strategic ‘pre-emption’ and 2) ‘unilateralism’. Both of these features constitute a violation of international law. America has assumed the right to invade or bomb any country which it accuses of providing refuge or assistance to terrorists. America makes demands to hand over to them persons it accuses of being terrorists. A country that refuses on the plea that it does not have an extradition treaty with America, or that legal procedures should be followed before extradition, or that they cannot hand over a person to be sent to a dubious jurisdiction like Guantanamo Bay, or that the accusation made by America does not constitute a crime in their country, earns the wrath of the USA. Most countries take the threats from America seriously and comply. Those countries that resist are demonised, isolated and sometimes even invaded. Three countries have been invaded since 9/11 - Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon – and thousands have been incarcerated in many countries without trial or handed over to America by their own governments because of dire American threats.’

US War On Terror & Muslim Response

BS from the US

West Point PR Why the Pentagon's Guantánamo Study is a Joke

By ANDY WORTHINGTON

In a belated attempt to win the PR battle over Guantánamo, a terrorism study center at West Point has produced a Pentagon-commissioned report, which attempts to refute the findings of a report published by the Seton Hall Law School in February 2006. Using the government's own documents--517 Unclassified Summaries of Evidence from the Combatant Status Review Tribunals--the team at Seton Hall, led by lawyers Mark and Josh Denbeaux, analyzed the Summaries and concluded that, according to the government's own assertions, 86 percent of the detainees were not captured on the battlefield by US forces, but were captured by the Northern Alliance or Pakistani forces, 55 percent were not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the US or its allies, and only 8 percent were alleged to have had any kind of affiliation with al-Qaeda. Even these assertions are doubtful. As I demonstrate in The Guantánamo Files (and as is apparent from numerous other sources, including, most recently, the "Guantánamo whistleblower" Stephen Abraham), claims made by the government in the Summaries of Evidence were not necessarily accurate, and the percentage of detainees who actually had any involvement with al-Qaeda or committed any kind of hostile act against the US or its allies is even less than claimed.

Nevertheless, the fine patriots at West Point, while admitting that their report is a propaganda exercise, designed "to affect public attitudes," and with conclusions that should "enhance our collective understanding of the threats facing the United States, its allies and its interests and how we respond to them," have looked at the same documents and have produced what the New York Times has unquestioningly described as "a chilling portrait of the Guantánamo detainees," claiming that 73 percent of them were a "demonstrated threat" to American or coalition forces, and that 95 percent were at least a "potential threat," and included detainees who had "played a supporting role in terrorist groups or had expressed a commitment to pursuing jihadist violence."

What nonsense.

Sure...

"There should be no mistake of our commitment to a successful democracy in Afghanistan"
Tony Snow
White House spokesman

-------------------- 

Gus: Very commendable ideal, sir... I could not approve more the concept contained in the words but cannot accept the methods of your US administration to achieve this goal — a goal which unfortunnately is tainted with some unexpressed dark business below the plimsoll line.

The lies that have underpinned the war in Iraq and the political/alliances that have turned former "allies" into "enemies" smell of rancid opportunism at every turn. By forceful action, the US has created a forceful reaction — demanding more force and resulting in more forceful reactions... The end is always far away in this process, and to say the least rarely easy, even after a "victory" or a "truce"... Giving weapons to dubious characters, including the Saudis and Israel at the moment, and in the past arming the Taliban to  fight "communism" is NOT a good idea.

"Communism" could have got rid of the Taliban, then Afghanistan would have evolved slowly into a better democratic society from within. But oh no, the US supported the Taliban gangsters... Fighting them front-on with the loss of civilians (taleban or not) is not a good look...

Yes, with the extremists having been supported and empowered by the US, the fight is so much harder to "destroy" them, or eliminate their influences. Good luck to you, Sir and your boss Bushit, but I won't support you in your "wars" and "battles"... A greater diplomatic effort is needed. But I won't tell you how... although I know a few processes that can cool things down quickly. Peace is possible. Democracy is possible but you are going at it the wrong way.