URGENT UPDATE : Iraqi Female Writer/Blogger Hiba Al-Shamaree.
Layla Anwar
arabwomanblues.blogspot.com/2010/01/urgent-update-iraqi-female.html
January 31, 2010Following my previous post here, I just received this fresh information regarding Hiba Al-Shamaree this fellow Iraqi woman writer/blogger who has been kidnapped/arrested by the Iraqi forces on the 20th of January 2010 in the Sayyediya neighborhood in Baghdad.
Her sister has just updated her blog with the following :
Hiba Al-Shamaree is detained by Baghdad's security forces on the charges of supporting the Iraqi Resistance (through her writings), she will be presented to the Criminal/Penal Court...
I am now authorized by Hiba to reveal her true identity to you.
Her name : Hanan Ali Ahmad Al Mashadani
Age : 33 years old
Profession: Doctor in Ophtalmology
The charges pressed against her : Inciting to violence and supporting the Resistance and according to informed sources this is a charge that falls under the clause of Terrorism as per the Iraqi law.
Hiba lived in Amman with us, but she insisted on going to Baghdad on a humanitarian mission/assignment, for a project financed by an Indian NGO called HMOK and which dealt with deaf and mute Iraqi children. Hiba was working as a consultant for this Indian NGO.
They discovered her pen name Hiba Al Shamaree because when they arrested her she had her laptop with her which they confiscated and they saw the articles she has been posting on her blog.
Signed Huda Al Shamaree, sister of the doctor and writer Hiba Al Shamaree.
End of Message
PLEASE, THIS IS AN URGENT PLEA -- THEY WILL DESTROY HER. THEY WILL PUT HER THROUGH THE MOST HORRENDOUS OF TORTURES, including RAPE. I KNOW WHAT AM TALKING ABOUT. I KNOW. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE HELP.
CONTACT ANYONE YOU CAN. HIBA'S ONLY CRIME IS HOLDING A BLOG. THAT'S ALL.
SOMETHING MUST BE DONE. YOU CAN'T LET A 33 YEAR OLD WOMAN DOCTOR BE RAPED, TORTURED AND KILLED THAT WAY. BECAUSE KILLED SHE WILL BE .
YOU CAN LET HER DIE THAT WAY -- JUST BECAUSE OF A BLOG. SHE WAS IN BAGHDAD FOR THAT INDIAN NGO, ON A HUMANITARIAN ASSIGNMENT FOR DEAF AND MUTE IRAQI CHILDREN.
THIS IS NOT A TERRORIST/CRIMINAL ACT -- HELPING DEAF AND MUTE CHILDREN.
HER BLOG IS JUST A BLOG. SHE HOLDS NO GUNS, SHE HAS NO WEAPONS, SHE IS NOT AFFILIATED TO ANY TERRORIST GROUP. SHE JUST HAD HER PEN.
PLEASE HELP HER, PLEASE HELP US.
DISTRIBUTE THIS AS WIDELY AS POSSIBLE.-- HRW, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, THE RED CROSS, U.N, ANYONE AND EVERYONE...YOU OWE IT TO US, YOU BROUGHT "DEMOCRACY" TO IRAQ, YOU OWE IT TO US. YOU OWE IT TO SAVE THIS YOUNG IRAQI WOMAN'S LIFE.
dimanche 31 janvier 2010
samedi 30 janvier 2010
George Galloway: "Not only should Iraq not have been invaded, but there should have been no sanctions"
George Galloway MP
MP for the Respect party for Bethnal Green and Bow
http://stopwar.org.uk/content/view/1723/1/
It was pitiful the way he was allowed to dominate the room, to avoid questions being asked, and to mislead the public when challenged. The ghosts of the people killed in Iraq were not represented in the room either. He was allowed to report that Iraq was in breach of UN resolutions in general and 1441 in particular. But in fact, they weren't in breach of it. There were no weapons of mass destruction.
MP for the Respect party for Bethnal Green and Bow
http://stopwar.org.uk/content/view/1723/1/
It was pitiful the way he was allowed to dominate the room, to avoid questions being asked, and to mislead the public when challenged. The ghosts of the people killed in Iraq were not represented in the room either. He was allowed to report that Iraq was in breach of UN resolutions in general and 1441 in particular. But in fact, they weren't in breach of it. There were no weapons of mass destruction.
Not only should Iraq not have been invaded, but there should have been no sanctions. This was entirely absent from the discourse today.
He was allowed to go on and on about "Saddam's last chance to comply", but Iraq was not in breach and had not been since 1994. Blair was allowed to tell a blatant lie and the panel ignored it.
One of the reasons for the material breach, he said, was that Iraq had broken the terms of the resolution that called on them to allow weapons inspectors to interrogate army officials outside the country. In fact, the resolution authorised the arms inspectors to request army officials outside thecountry, but no such request was made.
So Iraq could not have refused and it could not have been in breach of 1441. Either the panel didn't know it or, if they did know, they didn't have the courage to confront him on it – and that's a whopper.
We have no closure. The campaign to hold these people to account continues and will, no doubt, continue into the general election.
Blood is His Argument: Tony Blair's Gentle Cuddling at Iraq "Inquiry"
Chris Floyd
www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1915-blood-is-his-ar gument-tony-blairs-gentle-cuddling-at-iraq-qinquiryq.html
January 29, 2010
On Friday, Tony Blair appeared before the "Chilcot Inquiry," the panel of hoary, lugubrious Establishment worthies set up to "examine" -- with extreme circumspection, exquisite politeness, and all due reverence to authority -- the "origins" of Britain's involvement in the mass-murder spree known as the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
The event could be summed up entirely in a single headline:
Tony Blair to a million dead Iraqis, and the grieving survivors of British soldiers: Fuck you.
Blair's appearance before the panel has occasioned some entirely misplaced and uninformed kudos from some in the American progressiverse, who laud the Brits for holding such a bold inquiry. "It's the kind of thing you would never see in the United States," they say, forgetting, if they ever knew, such minor matters as the Watergate hearings -- which actually had the power to send people to jail for lying, unlike the completely powerless Chilcot panel -- or the Watergate grand jury, which named a sitting president as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in a criminal case, or even the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton by the United States Senate, which I believe happened well within the adulthood of at least some of our leading progressives.
In any case, there was never any chance that the well-wadded Chilcot worthies were going to lay a glove on former PM turned corporate shill and Catholic saint-in-waiting. Blair was never going to do anything but repeat the bluster -- and outright lies -- he has regurgitated ad infinitum about his blood-soaked adventure with George W. Bush -- and the Chilcotniks were never going to call him on his bullshit. [Blair's knowing and deliberate lies are thoroughly detailed here.]And so it proved.
Blair strutted in -- through a back entrance, to avoid protestors -- and did the expected regurgitation. The war was legal, the war was righteous, the war was legal, and it was the right thing to do. After all, he claimed over and over, Iraq was clearly "in breach of UN sanctions ordering him to destroy all his weapons of mass destruction." Yet, as one observer noted in the Guardian, none of the Chilcot worthies deigned to point out to Blair that Iraq could not possibly been in breach of UN orders to disarm -- because it had no weapons of mass destruction. It was already disarmed -- a fact which the US and UK had known since 1995, and which could have been reconfirmed by the UN inspection teams in 2003 ... if Bush and Blair had not invaded before the inspections were over.
But Blair's illogical connections were never challenged by the panel, nor did he explain why he and Bush invaded before the inspections were completed. Instead, he simply evoke 9/11 over and over and over again -- and then blamed "the external elements of Iran and al Qaeda" for anything that went wrong after the invasion. Apparently, there was not a single Iraqi opposed to the destruction of their country; it was just a bunch of "outside agitators" causing trouble. Blair's absolute erasure of the Iraqi people in these passages is a perfect encapsulation of the whole mindset that drove the Anglo-American attack: the Iraqis are non-people, they are worthless chits in a geopolitical game, they are rags and automatons at the mercy of big-time players like the Western powers, Iran and al Qaeda.
Indeed, this was his main theme of the day: it was Iran's fault. In fact, Blair seemed to regard his appearance before Iraq War panel chiefly as an opportunity to foment war fever for a new "humanitarian intervention" against Iran.
As Jonathan Freedland notes:
Blair pushed further, apparently touting a new war in the Persian Gulf, this time against Iraq's neighbor, Iran. All day Blair used his platform to bring up Iran, even when it was only tangentially related to the topic in hand. The arguments that applied in 2002 – about WMD falling into terrorist hands – applied in spades to Iran in 2010, he said.
Blair took "responsibility" for the war -- but it was a responsibility he gladly shouldered, one he was proud of. As for all the people who have died because of this criminal folly, Blair had nothing nothing to say.
As Jonathan Freedland notes:
I thought Blair would have prepared a closing statement that would express, if not regret or apology, at least sorrow for the young British men and women in uniform who had lost their lives. There was, surely, a way for a communicator as gifted as Blair to do that without giving ground on the justness, as he still sees it, of the war. And yet, even when Sir John Chilcot asked him one last time if he had anything to add, Blair did not pay tribute to the dead – British or Iraqi. He simply said "no".
Just like the Hutton inquiry into the strange death of WMD whistleblower Daniel Kelly -- the results of which have recently been sealed up for the next 70 years in a "highly unusual move" by UK authorities -- the Chilcot panel was never going to bring any powerful miscreant to accountability. It was set up -- like the American 9/11 Commission -- to siphon off festering anger and suspicion with a show of official concern. By stirring up just enough murk to cover the small nuggets of truth that inevitably surface in such probes, the Chilcot inquiry, like Hutton, the 9/11 Commission, will be able to claim that while there may have been some regrettable "system" failures here and there on this and that, no actual powerful person should be held accountable for any inadvertent "mistakes" that were made.
And the scam is already working. One of the panel of Guardian commentators, writing alongside Freedland, the "moderate," Broder-like Martin Kettle, was already chewing up some conventional wisdom cud by the end of the day:
On the other side of the argument there were fewer interruptions than there might have been, fewer silly stunts, and actually fewer demonstrators than one might have expected. Though passions are still strong, it may be that a lot of the poison and pain is ebbing. In that sense, today was probably cathartic.
Yes, as good old Kevin Drum always used to say back in the old days, when splitting the difference between some atrocious Bush policy and the president's "far left" critics, "that sounds about right." That hits the comfortable middle spot: yes, it was all a bit unpleasant, but now the "pain is ebbing," and we can look forward to seeing fewer of those "silly stunts" that shrill extremists have used to draw attention to the mass murder of human beings in a war based on ostensible reasons which even the war's architects now happily admit were unfounded -- and, according to Blair, unimportant. So Saddam didn't have WMDs? So what? It was a good thing to kill all those people anyway.
Another of Kettle's fellow commentators has a different view, however, and we'll give the final word here to Seamus Milne:
The spectacle of official indulgence of a man many here and abroad regard as responsible for a devastating war crime has been sickening. John Chilcot said at one point that the lessons of occupation had been "expensive, but very necessary". Millions of Iraqis who have actually paid that price take a very different view.
www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1915-blood-is-his-ar gument-tony-blairs-gentle-cuddling-at-iraq-qinquiryq.html
January 29, 2010
On Friday, Tony Blair appeared before the "Chilcot Inquiry," the panel of hoary, lugubrious Establishment worthies set up to "examine" -- with extreme circumspection, exquisite politeness, and all due reverence to authority -- the "origins" of Britain's involvement in the mass-murder spree known as the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
The event could be summed up entirely in a single headline:
Tony Blair to a million dead Iraqis, and the grieving survivors of British soldiers: Fuck you.
Blair's appearance before the panel has occasioned some entirely misplaced and uninformed kudos from some in the American progressiverse, who laud the Brits for holding such a bold inquiry. "It's the kind of thing you would never see in the United States," they say, forgetting, if they ever knew, such minor matters as the Watergate hearings -- which actually had the power to send people to jail for lying, unlike the completely powerless Chilcot panel -- or the Watergate grand jury, which named a sitting president as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in a criminal case, or even the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton by the United States Senate, which I believe happened well within the adulthood of at least some of our leading progressives.
In any case, there was never any chance that the well-wadded Chilcot worthies were going to lay a glove on former PM turned corporate shill and Catholic saint-in-waiting. Blair was never going to do anything but repeat the bluster -- and outright lies -- he has regurgitated ad infinitum about his blood-soaked adventure with George W. Bush -- and the Chilcotniks were never going to call him on his bullshit. [Blair's knowing and deliberate lies are thoroughly detailed here.]And so it proved.
Blair strutted in -- through a back entrance, to avoid protestors -- and did the expected regurgitation. The war was legal, the war was righteous, the war was legal, and it was the right thing to do. After all, he claimed over and over, Iraq was clearly "in breach of UN sanctions ordering him to destroy all his weapons of mass destruction." Yet, as one observer noted in the Guardian, none of the Chilcot worthies deigned to point out to Blair that Iraq could not possibly been in breach of UN orders to disarm -- because it had no weapons of mass destruction. It was already disarmed -- a fact which the US and UK had known since 1995, and which could have been reconfirmed by the UN inspection teams in 2003 ... if Bush and Blair had not invaded before the inspections were over.
But Blair's illogical connections were never challenged by the panel, nor did he explain why he and Bush invaded before the inspections were completed. Instead, he simply evoke 9/11 over and over and over again -- and then blamed "the external elements of Iran and al Qaeda" for anything that went wrong after the invasion. Apparently, there was not a single Iraqi opposed to the destruction of their country; it was just a bunch of "outside agitators" causing trouble. Blair's absolute erasure of the Iraqi people in these passages is a perfect encapsulation of the whole mindset that drove the Anglo-American attack: the Iraqis are non-people, they are worthless chits in a geopolitical game, they are rags and automatons at the mercy of big-time players like the Western powers, Iran and al Qaeda.
Indeed, this was his main theme of the day: it was Iran's fault. In fact, Blair seemed to regard his appearance before Iraq War panel chiefly as an opportunity to foment war fever for a new "humanitarian intervention" against Iran.
As Jonathan Freedland notes:
Blair pushed further, apparently touting a new war in the Persian Gulf, this time against Iraq's neighbor, Iran. All day Blair used his platform to bring up Iran, even when it was only tangentially related to the topic in hand. The arguments that applied in 2002 – about WMD falling into terrorist hands – applied in spades to Iran in 2010, he said.
Blair took "responsibility" for the war -- but it was a responsibility he gladly shouldered, one he was proud of. As for all the people who have died because of this criminal folly, Blair had nothing nothing to say.
As Jonathan Freedland notes:
I thought Blair would have prepared a closing statement that would express, if not regret or apology, at least sorrow for the young British men and women in uniform who had lost their lives. There was, surely, a way for a communicator as gifted as Blair to do that without giving ground on the justness, as he still sees it, of the war. And yet, even when Sir John Chilcot asked him one last time if he had anything to add, Blair did not pay tribute to the dead – British or Iraqi. He simply said "no".
Just like the Hutton inquiry into the strange death of WMD whistleblower Daniel Kelly -- the results of which have recently been sealed up for the next 70 years in a "highly unusual move" by UK authorities -- the Chilcot panel was never going to bring any powerful miscreant to accountability. It was set up -- like the American 9/11 Commission -- to siphon off festering anger and suspicion with a show of official concern. By stirring up just enough murk to cover the small nuggets of truth that inevitably surface in such probes, the Chilcot inquiry, like Hutton, the 9/11 Commission, will be able to claim that while there may have been some regrettable "system" failures here and there on this and that, no actual powerful person should be held accountable for any inadvertent "mistakes" that were made.
And the scam is already working. One of the panel of Guardian commentators, writing alongside Freedland, the "moderate," Broder-like Martin Kettle, was already chewing up some conventional wisdom cud by the end of the day:
On the other side of the argument there were fewer interruptions than there might have been, fewer silly stunts, and actually fewer demonstrators than one might have expected. Though passions are still strong, it may be that a lot of the poison and pain is ebbing. In that sense, today was probably cathartic.
Yes, as good old Kevin Drum always used to say back in the old days, when splitting the difference between some atrocious Bush policy and the president's "far left" critics, "that sounds about right." That hits the comfortable middle spot: yes, it was all a bit unpleasant, but now the "pain is ebbing," and we can look forward to seeing fewer of those "silly stunts" that shrill extremists have used to draw attention to the mass murder of human beings in a war based on ostensible reasons which even the war's architects now happily admit were unfounded -- and, according to Blair, unimportant. So Saddam didn't have WMDs? So what? It was a good thing to kill all those people anyway.
Another of Kettle's fellow commentators has a different view, however, and we'll give the final word here to Seamus Milne:
The spectacle of official indulgence of a man many here and abroad regard as responsible for a devastating war crime has been sickening. John Chilcot said at one point that the lessons of occupation had been "expensive, but very necessary". Millions of Iraqis who have actually paid that price take a very different view.
IHEC will open eight polling stations in Jordan
Amman - Iraq's election watchdog, the Iraqi Independent High Electoral Commission (IHEC), has set up a representation office in Amman for arranging and supervising the voting process for about 500,000 Iraqis living in Jordan, government officials said Friday.
The systematic participation of Iraqis living in Jordan in the March general elections topped discussions conducted over the past couple of days by the visiting official spokesman of the Iraqi government Ali Dabbagh with Jordanian officials.
Dabbagh, who carried a message from Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to his Jordanian counterpart Samir Rifai, met on Thursday with Jordanian Interior Minister Nayef Qadi to discuss measures taken by the Jordanian authorities to ensure a smooth polling process for Iraqis in Jordan.
The two sides agreed to open eight polling stations in the cities of Amman, Zarqa and Irabid for Iraqis who are going to cast their votes on March 7, two days earlier than polling inside Iraq scheduled for March 9, an official said.
It is the second time that Jordan has allowed Iraqis residing in the Kingdom to vote in their country's general parliamentary elections
The systematic participation of Iraqis living in Jordan in the March general elections topped discussions conducted over the past couple of days by the visiting official spokesman of the Iraqi government Ali Dabbagh with Jordanian officials.
Dabbagh, who carried a message from Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to his Jordanian counterpart Samir Rifai, met on Thursday with Jordanian Interior Minister Nayef Qadi to discuss measures taken by the Jordanian authorities to ensure a smooth polling process for Iraqis in Jordan.
The two sides agreed to open eight polling stations in the cities of Amman, Zarqa and Irabid for Iraqis who are going to cast their votes on March 7, two days earlier than polling inside Iraq scheduled for March 9, an official said.
It is the second time that Jordan has allowed Iraqis residing in the Kingdom to vote in their country's general parliamentary elections
Barzani urges Turkey’s Kurds to support gov’t initiative
Reiterating his strong support for the democratization initiative launched by the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government last summer, Iraqi Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani has encouraged Kurdish people of Turkey for supporting the initiative which seeks to settle Turkey’s decades-long Kurdish problem by expanding the democratic rights of its Kurdish citizens.
Barzani, the head of the autonomous Kurdistan region in northern Iraq, held talks in Washington earlier this week. He held talks with both US President Barack Obama and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the visit which came ahead of key parliamentary elections to be held in Iraq in March.
His remarks on Turkey’s Kurdish issue came on Wednesday as he delivered a speech at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings Institute in Washington.
There is need to focus on the democratization policy assumed and efforts exerted by Turkey at the moment in order to resolve the Kurdish issue, Barzani firstly noted, when asked whether the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which also has bases in northern Iraq, continues its terrorist activities against Turkey and whether Turkey eventually continues its military operations against the PKK.
Barzani stated Iraqi Kurds’ strong support for the Turkish government’s efforts for resolving of the issue through peaceful means, adding: “We have all been convinced that military means or political pressures never bring solution, but if this option is preferred we will not be a part of it.”
The democratization process helps improvement of bilateral relations between Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan region as well, Barzani noted, arguing that Turkey no longer perceived the regional administration in northern Iraq as a threat against itself.
“We don’t find the Constitutional Court’s ruling appropriate,” Barzani was quoted as saying by the Anatolia news agency, referring to a December ruling by Turkey’s Constitutional court for shutting down the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP) on charges of ethnic separatism.
“We don’t believe that this [ruling] will serve for the peace process which has been launched. It is a decision against democracy,” Barzani went on saying. “My advice to my Kurdish siblings in Turkey is to assume a positive manner and make cooperation with the Turkish government so that, by this means, let’s not miss this opportunity, let’s follow up the peaceful process,” he, however, added.
Relations between Iraqi Kurds and Turkey deteriorated sharply following the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Turkey accused the Kurdish administration of harboring the PKK, which launched attacks on Turkish targets from its bases in northern Iraq, and threatened to declare war if the Kurds attempted to seize control of the disputed city of Kirkuk -- home to a sizable Turkmen population.
But tension is now being replaced by a dramatic rapprochement, and the government’s Kurdish initiative is further strengthening the positive trend in ties. In a speech delivered to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament in November, Barzani had welcomed the progress made in Turkey’s relations with the Kurdish administration and described Turkey’s initiative to solve its decades-long Kurdish issue as “Prime Minister Erdoğan’s brave Kurdish peace initiative.” Barzani further added that the Kurdish authorities will support Turkey in its efforts to end the conflict with the PKK.
29.01.2010
News
TODAY’S ZAMAN
Barzani, the head of the autonomous Kurdistan region in northern Iraq, held talks in Washington earlier this week. He held talks with both US President Barack Obama and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the visit which came ahead of key parliamentary elections to be held in Iraq in March.
His remarks on Turkey’s Kurdish issue came on Wednesday as he delivered a speech at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings Institute in Washington.
There is need to focus on the democratization policy assumed and efforts exerted by Turkey at the moment in order to resolve the Kurdish issue, Barzani firstly noted, when asked whether the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which also has bases in northern Iraq, continues its terrorist activities against Turkey and whether Turkey eventually continues its military operations against the PKK.
Barzani stated Iraqi Kurds’ strong support for the Turkish government’s efforts for resolving of the issue through peaceful means, adding: “We have all been convinced that military means or political pressures never bring solution, but if this option is preferred we will not be a part of it.”
The democratization process helps improvement of bilateral relations between Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan region as well, Barzani noted, arguing that Turkey no longer perceived the regional administration in northern Iraq as a threat against itself.
“We don’t find the Constitutional Court’s ruling appropriate,” Barzani was quoted as saying by the Anatolia news agency, referring to a December ruling by Turkey’s Constitutional court for shutting down the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP) on charges of ethnic separatism.
“We don’t believe that this [ruling] will serve for the peace process which has been launched. It is a decision against democracy,” Barzani went on saying. “My advice to my Kurdish siblings in Turkey is to assume a positive manner and make cooperation with the Turkish government so that, by this means, let’s not miss this opportunity, let’s follow up the peaceful process,” he, however, added.
Relations between Iraqi Kurds and Turkey deteriorated sharply following the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Turkey accused the Kurdish administration of harboring the PKK, which launched attacks on Turkish targets from its bases in northern Iraq, and threatened to declare war if the Kurds attempted to seize control of the disputed city of Kirkuk -- home to a sizable Turkmen population.
But tension is now being replaced by a dramatic rapprochement, and the government’s Kurdish initiative is further strengthening the positive trend in ties. In a speech delivered to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament in November, Barzani had welcomed the progress made in Turkey’s relations with the Kurdish administration and described Turkey’s initiative to solve its decades-long Kurdish issue as “Prime Minister Erdoğan’s brave Kurdish peace initiative.” Barzani further added that the Kurdish authorities will support Turkey in its efforts to end the conflict with the PKK.
29.01.2010
News
TODAY’S ZAMAN
vendredi 29 janvier 2010
Turkey seeks to assist Turkmens in Iraq – official
January 27, 2010 - 06:38:07
NINEWA / Aswat al-Iraq:
The Turkish consular in Mosul city said on Wednesday that his country seeks to help all Iraqis, but it gives priority to assisting Turkmens.
“Over the last years, the suffering of Turkmens in Iraq has been increasing,” the Turkish official said.
He said that Turkey will help Turkmens wherever they are in Iraq.
Mosul, the capital city of Ninewa province, lies 405 km north of Baghdad.
http://en.aswataliraq.info/?p=126015
NINEWA / Aswat al-Iraq:
The Turkish consular in Mosul city said on Wednesday that his country seeks to help all Iraqis, but it gives priority to assisting Turkmens.
“Over the last years, the suffering of Turkmens in Iraq has been increasing,” the Turkish official said.
He said that Turkey will help Turkmens wherever they are in Iraq.
Mosul, the capital city of Ninewa province, lies 405 km north of Baghdad.
http://en.aswataliraq.info/?p=126015
jeudi 28 janvier 2010
Haiti Earthquake Aid, or Army Occupation?
Al Jazeera TV Reports
US Army invades Haiti - Turns back Relief/Aid Flights from other nations
US Army invades Haiti - Turns back Relief/Aid Flights from other nations
mercredi 27 janvier 2010
Turkmens continue to be targeted in Iraq
The Iraqi authorities must take urgent steps to protect the Turkmen community in Iraq.
On Saturday 24th January 2010, Ibrahim Ahmed, a 24-year old Turkmen was assassinated in the Alhay Alaskary district of the city of Kerkuk.
The Iraqi Turkmen Front have called upon the Iraqi authorities to carry out an investigation into this assassination.
The Iraqi Turkmen Front has reiterated its demand to the Iraqi government to form local Turkmen defence groups which would be part of the official security forces.
These groups would ensure the security of the Turkmens in Kerkuk and Turkmeneli, the region inhabited by Turkmens in Iraq.
The Iraqi Turkmen Front has also reiterated its strong rejection for the deployment of peshmerga militias in Kerkuk.
On Saturday 24th January 2010, Ibrahim Ahmed, a 24-year old Turkmen was assassinated in the Alhay Alaskary district of the city of Kerkuk.
The Iraqi Turkmen Front have called upon the Iraqi authorities to carry out an investigation into this assassination.
The Iraqi Turkmen Front has reiterated its demand to the Iraqi government to form local Turkmen defence groups which would be part of the official security forces.
These groups would ensure the security of the Turkmens in Kerkuk and Turkmeneli, the region inhabited by Turkmens in Iraq.
The Iraqi Turkmen Front has also reiterated its strong rejection for the deployment of peshmerga militias in Kerkuk.
Horrible situation of Human Rights in Iraq
The Iraqi Human Rights Centre sent a letter to the UN general secretary detailing the horrible situation of human rights in Iraq. It mentions the irresponsible US action of handing 15,000 prisoners to the Iraqi government that does not guarantee the safety of prisoners and is contrary to international law. They knew well that most of those prisoners will either be assassinated, judged without charges, humiliated to the degree of annihilation or forced to leave the country.
It mentions, too, the case of 19,000 families in Najaf stripped of their rights and collectively punished. These poor people are obliged to leave their homes and city solely for being suspected of being against the local government. This reminds us of the sectarian killings that produced five million refugees and the displaced. It is the modern educated middle class that is targeted. This is the American liberation of Iraq and bringing democracy. Horrible!
Albayaty Abdul Ilah
It mentions, too, the case of 19,000 families in Najaf stripped of their rights and collectively punished. These poor people are obliged to leave their homes and city solely for being suspected of being against the local government. This reminds us of the sectarian killings that produced five million refugees and the displaced. It is the modern educated middle class that is targeted. This is the American liberation of Iraq and bringing democracy. Horrible!
Albayaty Abdul Ilah
Decentralisation Bonanza in the Iraqi Budget, by Reidar Visser
By Reidar Visser (www.historiae.org)
27 January 2010
“Pork barrel” may perhaps come across as supremely insensitive in the Iraqi context and yet this very American expression may be the best way of explaining the political compromise that facilitated the passage of the 2010 budget in the Iraqi parliament yesterday.
The key to understanding at least some of the underlying dynamic here is hidden in article 43 of the new budget law, which specifies special rates of added income for a number of Iraqi governorates according to their economic structure. The historical roots of this article goes back all the way to December 2007, when the Basra branch of the Fadila party exploited local regionalist sentiment to make an unprecedented demand for a one-dollar fee per locally-produced barrel of oil produced to be set aside for the governorate in a special fund. Basra holds maybe 60 to 70% of Iraq’s oil (currently producing more than 1,000,000 bpd) and yet has one of the lowest standards of living in the country. Accordingly, many Basrawis think they are specially entitled to the disproportionate share of oil revenue that is constitutionally mandated for under-developed regions, and have earlier flirted with the idea of territorial autonomy for improving their lot. The idea of using federalism to solve the problem received a blow in a failed referendum initiative in January 2009, but the demand for a share of the oil lingered – to the point where their logic was accepted by the Maliki government, which eventually indicated its preparedness to give Basra 50 cent per barrel of oil. When news about this broke last May, it was immediately followed by demands from Kirkuk, Iraq’s second biggest producer (maybe 600,000 bpd) for a similar half-dollar per barrel fee. Fast forward to article 43 of the budget passed yesterday where this kind of logic has been pushed to its logical maximum: Henceforth, one dollar will be paid to the relevant governorates for
1) each barrel of produced oil;
2) each barrel refined oil (the biggest refineries are in Bayji in Salahaddin province and Dura near Baghdad)
3) each 150 cubic metres of produced natural gas. Also, 20 dollars will be paid for each foreign visitor to the “holy sites” in the governorates! In practice, the latter will mean Karbala, Najaf, Samarra and Kazimayn in Baghdad. It seems like an inverse version of the taxation strategies of absolutist rulers in seventeenth-century Europe, when attempts were made to put a levy on...
To read the article in full click on:
http://historiae.org/budget.asp
27 January 2010
“Pork barrel” may perhaps come across as supremely insensitive in the Iraqi context and yet this very American expression may be the best way of explaining the political compromise that facilitated the passage of the 2010 budget in the Iraqi parliament yesterday.
The key to understanding at least some of the underlying dynamic here is hidden in article 43 of the new budget law, which specifies special rates of added income for a number of Iraqi governorates according to their economic structure. The historical roots of this article goes back all the way to December 2007, when the Basra branch of the Fadila party exploited local regionalist sentiment to make an unprecedented demand for a one-dollar fee per locally-produced barrel of oil produced to be set aside for the governorate in a special fund. Basra holds maybe 60 to 70% of Iraq’s oil (currently producing more than 1,000,000 bpd) and yet has one of the lowest standards of living in the country. Accordingly, many Basrawis think they are specially entitled to the disproportionate share of oil revenue that is constitutionally mandated for under-developed regions, and have earlier flirted with the idea of territorial autonomy for improving their lot. The idea of using federalism to solve the problem received a blow in a failed referendum initiative in January 2009, but the demand for a share of the oil lingered – to the point where their logic was accepted by the Maliki government, which eventually indicated its preparedness to give Basra 50 cent per barrel of oil. When news about this broke last May, it was immediately followed by demands from Kirkuk, Iraq’s second biggest producer (maybe 600,000 bpd) for a similar half-dollar per barrel fee. Fast forward to article 43 of the budget passed yesterday where this kind of logic has been pushed to its logical maximum: Henceforth, one dollar will be paid to the relevant governorates for
1) each barrel of produced oil;
2) each barrel refined oil (the biggest refineries are in Bayji in Salahaddin province and Dura near Baghdad)
3) each 150 cubic metres of produced natural gas. Also, 20 dollars will be paid for each foreign visitor to the “holy sites” in the governorates! In practice, the latter will mean Karbala, Najaf, Samarra and Kazimayn in Baghdad. It seems like an inverse version of the taxation strategies of absolutist rulers in seventeenth-century Europe, when attempts were made to put a levy on...
To read the article in full click on:
http://historiae.org/budget.asp
dimanche 24 janvier 2010
ADE-651 Magic Wand Bomb Detector is a Fraud, Probably killed hundreds
ADE-651 Magic Wand Bomb Detector Is a Fraud, Probably Killed Hundreds
Jim McCormick promised his ADE-651 wand could identify anything, including bombs, simply by waving it around with the right RFID card inside. Yeah, totally fake, and now he's in prison.
Too bad Iraq already spent £85 million on them.
Literally, the $40,000 (apiece) devices did absolutely nothing. Nada. Zilch. Experts think the insides contained nothing more than a dumb RFID card. Powered by nothing. Nope, not even a power supply. Just some snake oil, if that. $85 million!
Even worse, "inventor" McCormick was a firm, open believer in dowsing (as in, finding water with a stick), and that's what the device was based on. Dowsing!
The BBC ran an investigative report on the device, during which McCormick claimed, without breaking his stride, that the device could detect explosives up to one kilometer away. Video below (money shot at 7:30 when the insides are shown to be empty):
http://gizmodo.com/5455692/ade+651-magic-wand-bomb-detector-is-a-fraud-probably-killed-hundreds
Jim McCormick promised his ADE-651 wand could identify anything, including bombs, simply by waving it around with the right RFID card inside. Yeah, totally fake, and now he's in prison.
Too bad Iraq already spent £85 million on them.
Literally, the $40,000 (apiece) devices did absolutely nothing. Nada. Zilch. Experts think the insides contained nothing more than a dumb RFID card. Powered by nothing. Nope, not even a power supply. Just some snake oil, if that. $85 million!
Even worse, "inventor" McCormick was a firm, open believer in dowsing (as in, finding water with a stick), and that's what the device was based on. Dowsing!
The BBC ran an investigative report on the device, during which McCormick claimed, without breaking his stride, that the device could detect explosives up to one kilometer away. Video below (money shot at 7:30 when the insides are shown to be empty):
http://gizmodo.com/5455692/ade+651-magic-wand-bomb-detector-is-a-fraud-probably-killed-hundreds
Jack Straw's Biggest Lie
Craig Murray
I was a British Ambassador at the time of the events covered by the Iraq Inquiry. I know many of the witnesses and a great deal of the background. I can therefore see right through the smooth presentation. Jack Straw was the smoothest of all - but he told lie after lie.
Straw's biggest and most important lie goes right to the heart of the question of whether the war was legal. Did UN Security Council Resolution 1441 provide a legal basis for the invasion, or would a second resolution specifically authorising military action have been required? The UK certainly put a massive amount of diplomatic effort into obtaining a second resolution.
Here is Straw's argument that the invasion was legal without a second resolution:
Please click on the link below:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/jack_straws_big.html
I was a British Ambassador at the time of the events covered by the Iraq Inquiry. I know many of the witnesses and a great deal of the background. I can therefore see right through the smooth presentation. Jack Straw was the smoothest of all - but he told lie after lie.
Straw's biggest and most important lie goes right to the heart of the question of whether the war was legal. Did UN Security Council Resolution 1441 provide a legal basis for the invasion, or would a second resolution specifically authorising military action have been required? The UK certainly put a massive amount of diplomatic effort into obtaining a second resolution.
Here is Straw's argument that the invasion was legal without a second resolution:
Please click on the link below:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/jack_straws_big.html
vendredi 22 janvier 2010
'Hidden history' of Muslim science explored
'Hidden history' of Muslim science explored
By Nick Higham and Margaret Ryan BBC News
To watch the video please click on:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8472111.stm
An exhibition that has just opened at the Science Museum is celebrating 1,000 years of science from the Muslim world.
From about 700 to 1700, many of history's finest scientists and technologists were to be found in the Muslim world.
In Christian Europe the light of scientific inquiry had largely been extinguished with the collapse of the Roman empire. But it survived, and indeed blazed brightly, elsewhere.
From Moorish Spain across North Africa to Damascus, Baghdad, Persia and all the way to India, scientists in the Muslim world were at the forefront of developments in medicine, astronomy, engineering, hydraulics, mathematics, chemistry, map-making and exploration.
A new touring exhibition, hosted by the Science Museum in London, celebrates their achievements.
“ There is a whole area of science that is literally just lost in translation ” Dr Susan Mossman, Science Museum
Salim Al-Hassani, a former professor of engineering at Umist (University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology) is a moving force behind the exhibition, 1001 Inventions.
He calls it "edutainment": a series of displays devoted to different aspects of science meant to be both educational and entertaining.
"We hope to inspire the younger generation to take up a career in science and technology and to be interested in improving the quality of societies," he says.
Mix of cultures
Visitors to the exhibition will be greeted by a 20 ft high replica of a spectacular clock designed in 1206 by the inventor Al-Jazari.
It incorporates elements from many cultures, representing the different cultural and scientific traditions which combined and flowed through the Muslim world.
The clock's base is an elephant, representing India; inside the elephant the water-driven works of the clock derive from ancient Greece.
A Chinese dragon swings down from the top of the clock to mark the hours. At the top is a phoenix, representing ancient Egypt.
Sitting astride the elephant and inside the framework of the clock are automata, or puppets, wearing Arab turbans.
Elsewhere in the exhibition are displays devoted to water power, the spread of education (one of the world's first universities was founded by a Muslim woman, Fatima al-Fihri), Muslim architecture and its influence on the modern world and Muslim explorers and geographers.
There is a display of 10th Century surgeons' instruments, a lifesize model of a man called Abbas ibn Firnas, allegedly the first person to have flown with wings, and a model of the vast 100 yard-long junk commanded by the Muslim Chinese navigator, Zheng He.
Outside the main exhibition is a small display of exhibits drawn from the Science Museum's own collection.
They include a 10th Century alembic for distilling liquids, an astrolable for determining geographical position (and the direction of Mecca - important for Muslims uncertain which way to face when praying).
Also on display is an algebra textbook published in England in 1702, whose preface traces the development of algebra from its beginnings in India, through Persia, the Arab world and to Europe.
Dr Susan Mossman, project director at the museum, says: "There is a whole area of science that is literally just lost in translation.
"Arabic and Muslim culture particularly is a little-known story in Britain. This is a real opportunity to show that hidden story."
She says the hands-on exhibition suits the museum's style, which she describes as "heavy-duty scholarship produced in a user-friendly way and underpinned by academic research".
She adds: "We are opening people's eyes to a new area of knowledge - a cultural richness of science and technology that has perhaps been neglected in this country."
Intellectual climate
There is one big question the exhibition does not address: why, after so many centuries, did the Muslim world's scientific leadership falter? From the 16th Century onwards it was in Europe that modern science developed, and where scientific breakthroughs increasingly occurred.
Prof Al-Hassani has his own theory, though there are others. Science flourished in the Muslim world for so long, he believes, because it was seen as expanding knowledge in the interests of society as a whole.
But in the later Middle Ages, the Muslim world came under attack from Europeans (in the Crusades) and the Mongols (who sacked Baghdad in 1258) and the Ottoman Turks overran the remnants of the Byzantine empire, setting up a formidably centralised state.
The need for defence against external enemies combined with a strong centralised government which put less value on individuals' scientific endeavour resulted in an intellectual climate in which science simply failed to flourish, he says.
The free exhibition runs from 21 January to 25 April with a break between 25 February and 12 March.
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/8472111.stmPublished: 2010/01/21 16:53:26 GMT
By Nick Higham and Margaret Ryan BBC News
To watch the video please click on:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8472111.stm
An exhibition that has just opened at the Science Museum is celebrating 1,000 years of science from the Muslim world.
From about 700 to 1700, many of history's finest scientists and technologists were to be found in the Muslim world.
In Christian Europe the light of scientific inquiry had largely been extinguished with the collapse of the Roman empire. But it survived, and indeed blazed brightly, elsewhere.
From Moorish Spain across North Africa to Damascus, Baghdad, Persia and all the way to India, scientists in the Muslim world were at the forefront of developments in medicine, astronomy, engineering, hydraulics, mathematics, chemistry, map-making and exploration.
A new touring exhibition, hosted by the Science Museum in London, celebrates their achievements.
“ There is a whole area of science that is literally just lost in translation ” Dr Susan Mossman, Science Museum
Salim Al-Hassani, a former professor of engineering at Umist (University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology) is a moving force behind the exhibition, 1001 Inventions.
He calls it "edutainment": a series of displays devoted to different aspects of science meant to be both educational and entertaining.
"We hope to inspire the younger generation to take up a career in science and technology and to be interested in improving the quality of societies," he says.
Mix of cultures
Visitors to the exhibition will be greeted by a 20 ft high replica of a spectacular clock designed in 1206 by the inventor Al-Jazari.
It incorporates elements from many cultures, representing the different cultural and scientific traditions which combined and flowed through the Muslim world.
The clock's base is an elephant, representing India; inside the elephant the water-driven works of the clock derive from ancient Greece.
A Chinese dragon swings down from the top of the clock to mark the hours. At the top is a phoenix, representing ancient Egypt.
Sitting astride the elephant and inside the framework of the clock are automata, or puppets, wearing Arab turbans.
Elsewhere in the exhibition are displays devoted to water power, the spread of education (one of the world's first universities was founded by a Muslim woman, Fatima al-Fihri), Muslim architecture and its influence on the modern world and Muslim explorers and geographers.
There is a display of 10th Century surgeons' instruments, a lifesize model of a man called Abbas ibn Firnas, allegedly the first person to have flown with wings, and a model of the vast 100 yard-long junk commanded by the Muslim Chinese navigator, Zheng He.
Outside the main exhibition is a small display of exhibits drawn from the Science Museum's own collection.
They include a 10th Century alembic for distilling liquids, an astrolable for determining geographical position (and the direction of Mecca - important for Muslims uncertain which way to face when praying).
Also on display is an algebra textbook published in England in 1702, whose preface traces the development of algebra from its beginnings in India, through Persia, the Arab world and to Europe.
Dr Susan Mossman, project director at the museum, says: "There is a whole area of science that is literally just lost in translation.
"Arabic and Muslim culture particularly is a little-known story in Britain. This is a real opportunity to show that hidden story."
She says the hands-on exhibition suits the museum's style, which she describes as "heavy-duty scholarship produced in a user-friendly way and underpinned by academic research".
She adds: "We are opening people's eyes to a new area of knowledge - a cultural richness of science and technology that has perhaps been neglected in this country."
Intellectual climate
There is one big question the exhibition does not address: why, after so many centuries, did the Muslim world's scientific leadership falter? From the 16th Century onwards it was in Europe that modern science developed, and where scientific breakthroughs increasingly occurred.
Prof Al-Hassani has his own theory, though there are others. Science flourished in the Muslim world for so long, he believes, because it was seen as expanding knowledge in the interests of society as a whole.
But in the later Middle Ages, the Muslim world came under attack from Europeans (in the Crusades) and the Mongols (who sacked Baghdad in 1258) and the Ottoman Turks overran the remnants of the Byzantine empire, setting up a formidably centralised state.
The need for defence against external enemies combined with a strong centralised government which put less value on individuals' scientific endeavour resulted in an intellectual climate in which science simply failed to flourish, he says.
The free exhibition runs from 21 January to 25 April with a break between 25 February and 12 March.
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/8472111.stmPublished: 2010/01/21 16:53:26 GMT
jeudi 21 janvier 2010
Arab and Turkmens seek to dissolve joint forces in parliament
Kirkuk, Jan. 20 (AKnews) – After a joint force of Iraqi army, U.S. forces, and Kurdish Peshmarga forces was formed to maintain security in the disputed areas between Baghdad and Kurdistan Region, some Turkmens and Arabs of Kirkuk are seeking a parliament resolution to dissolve the forces.
A Turkmen councilor in Kirkuk, Ali Mahdi, of the Turkmeneli Party, believed the force was counter the people of Kirkuk, because the existence of the Kurdish forces in the area during the previous polls ended up negatively.
The Kurdish Peshmarga forces belong to the Kurdish parties, therefore their existence in the province affects the poll results, according to Mahdi."We consider the deployment of Peshmarga in Kirkuk contrary to the Iraqi constitution" he added.
The councilor said they would not agree to the deployment of "external forces" in Kirkuk, demanding a joint force from Kirkuk.
Mahdi called on the presidency of the Iraqi Parliament to dissolve the decision of forming the joint force.
However, Irfan Kirkuki, who heads the Turkmen People's Party, said his party would support the deployment of joint forces in the disputed areas, and in particular Kirkuk. "We believe the decision to form and deploy the joint force helps strengthen the security situation of the areas, which will benefit all the ethnic groups of the areas"
The Turkmen official rejected statements under the cover of Turkmen people taht reject the decision to form the force, emphasizing on their support for the force.
Some Arab parties also seem to be against the idea that joint forces which contain Kurdsih forces is deployed in Kirkuk and other disputed areas.
Ahmed Obeidi, leader of the Iraqi Kirkuk Front, which is an Arab entity, said most of the ethnic groups of Kirkuk were against the formation of the force; because "the Iraqi polls are nearing"
The Arab leader believed that Kurdish forces in Kirkuk would tamper with vote results.
"Iraqi army's 12th division has been stationed in Kirkuk, in addition to U.S. forces and thousands of policemen, therefore the joint force is not necessary" Obeidi added.
Buts Kurds support the joint force and believe it serves the welfare of all ethnic groups in the areas.
The oil-rich Kirkuk, 250 km northeast of the Iraqi capital Baghdad, is an ethnically diverse city of Kurds, Arabs, Turkmens, and Christians. The province is one of the major disputed areas by the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and the central government in Baghdad.
ry AKnews
A Turkmen councilor in Kirkuk, Ali Mahdi, of the Turkmeneli Party, believed the force was counter the people of Kirkuk, because the existence of the Kurdish forces in the area during the previous polls ended up negatively.
The Kurdish Peshmarga forces belong to the Kurdish parties, therefore their existence in the province affects the poll results, according to Mahdi."We consider the deployment of Peshmarga in Kirkuk contrary to the Iraqi constitution" he added.
The councilor said they would not agree to the deployment of "external forces" in Kirkuk, demanding a joint force from Kirkuk.
Mahdi called on the presidency of the Iraqi Parliament to dissolve the decision of forming the joint force.
However, Irfan Kirkuki, who heads the Turkmen People's Party, said his party would support the deployment of joint forces in the disputed areas, and in particular Kirkuk. "We believe the decision to form and deploy the joint force helps strengthen the security situation of the areas, which will benefit all the ethnic groups of the areas"
The Turkmen official rejected statements under the cover of Turkmen people taht reject the decision to form the force, emphasizing on their support for the force.
Some Arab parties also seem to be against the idea that joint forces which contain Kurdsih forces is deployed in Kirkuk and other disputed areas.
Ahmed Obeidi, leader of the Iraqi Kirkuk Front, which is an Arab entity, said most of the ethnic groups of Kirkuk were against the formation of the force; because "the Iraqi polls are nearing"
The Arab leader believed that Kurdish forces in Kirkuk would tamper with vote results.
"Iraqi army's 12th division has been stationed in Kirkuk, in addition to U.S. forces and thousands of policemen, therefore the joint force is not necessary" Obeidi added.
Buts Kurds support the joint force and believe it serves the welfare of all ethnic groups in the areas.
The oil-rich Kirkuk, 250 km northeast of the Iraqi capital Baghdad, is an ethnically diverse city of Kurds, Arabs, Turkmens, and Christians. The province is one of the major disputed areas by the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and the central government in Baghdad.
ry AKnews
samedi 16 janvier 2010
Basın Bildirisi
Türkmen liderlerimizin şehit edilişinin, 30. yılı münasebeti ile ITC TT bir basın bildirisi yayınladı.
Şehit Liderlerimizi Rahmetle Anıyoruz
Irak Türkmenleri bulunduğu coğrafyada bir çok acı olayla yaşamıştır. Yapılan haksızlıklar ve katliamların ardı arkası kesilmemiş, sistematik olarak uygulanmıştır.
Türkmenlerin yok edilmesini amaçlayan bu harekât; birçok masum Türkmen'i yakalatarak işkencelere tabi tutmuş, onlarca yıl hapse mahkûm ettirmiş ve bazılarını ölüm cezasına çarptırmıştır. 2003 sonrası biteceği düşünülen baskı ve katliamlar, ne yazık ki artarak devam etmiş, her yıl yüzlerce vatandaşımız kimlikleri yüzünden çoluk, çocuk, kadın yaşlı demeden şehit edilmiştir. Bütün bu yaşanan olumsuzluklara rağmen mücadelemiz devam etmektedir. Yolumuzda bize güç veren şey, daha önce halkımız için şehit olan ve bu emaneti bize bırakan şühedaların vasiyetidir.
Irak Türkmenlerinin verdiği mücadele tarihinde 16 Ocak 1980'in büyük bir yeri vardır. O tarihte Irak Türkmenlerinin önde gelen en büyük şahsiyetleri idam edilerek, Türkmen Toplumunu derin acılara boğan bir matem günü yaşatmıştır. Uzun yıllar Bağdat'taki Türkmen Kardaşlık Ocağı'nın başkanlığını yapan Emekli Albay Abdullah Abdurrahman, değerli bilim adamı olan ve yüzlerce öğrenci yetiştirerek, topluma büyük hizmette bulunan Doç. Dr. Necdet Koçak, toplum tarafından sevilen iş adamı Adil Şerif gibi önemli şahsiyetler, o tarihte idam edilmişlerdir.
Daha önce bunlarla beraber tutuklanmış olmasına rağmen, büyük bir ihtimalle insanlık dışı işkencelere dayanamayarak şehit olan değerli bilim adamı Dr. Rıza Demirci'nin ise vefat tarihini bilmiyoruz. Bu bakımdan aynı kaderi paylaşmış bu dört dava arkadaşını, aynı tarihte şahadet mertebesine erişmiş kabul ediyoruz.
Büyük Dava adamları ölüme yaklaşırken bile davasını düşünür, işte Necdet Koçak'ta böyle bir dava adamıydı. İdam edilmeden önce son söz olarak ailesi ve kendisini görmeye müsaade edilen, dava arkadaşlarına, dolayısıyla gelecek nesillere şunları nasihat ediyordu."Arkadaşlar, ağaç budandıkça yeşerir.
Sizden ricam davayı bırakmayın ve sürdürmeye devam edin. Ben şu anda her zamankinden daha huzurluyum. Allah'ımın huzuruna gönül rahatlığıyla çıkıyorum. Bayrağı size teslim ediyorum. Bu bayrağı şerefle taşıyacağınızdan eminim. Doğruluktan ve Allah'ın yolundan asla şaşmayın. Allah'a emanet olunuz."Milli davaların, o dava uğruna mücadele ederek, şehit olanları, o yolda can verenlerin kanları ile can kazanacağı unutulmamalıdır. "Toprak eğer uğrunda ölen varsa vatandır" sözünün, bu ideali en güzel biçimde ifade ettiğine inanıyoruz. Bu bakımdan, Millî Mücadele yolunda can veren dava adamlarını her zaman coşku ile anmak, bu yüce şahsiyetleri yeni kuşaklara anlatarak tanıtmak görevi, yine bu yolda mücadele eden dava adamlarına düşer.
Bu yüzden bizde bu konuda yüklendiğimiz misyona uygun olarak, değerli liderlerimizi rahmetle anıyoruz. Türkmen toplumu olarak, sevilen liderlerimizi hiç bir zaman unutmayacağız. Davamızın gücünü, mücadelemizin hızını onlardan alacağız.
Sadun Köprülü
Irak Türkmen Cephesi
Türkiye Temsilcisi
Şehit Liderlerimizi Rahmetle Anıyoruz
Irak Türkmenleri bulunduğu coğrafyada bir çok acı olayla yaşamıştır. Yapılan haksızlıklar ve katliamların ardı arkası kesilmemiş, sistematik olarak uygulanmıştır.
Türkmenlerin yok edilmesini amaçlayan bu harekât; birçok masum Türkmen'i yakalatarak işkencelere tabi tutmuş, onlarca yıl hapse mahkûm ettirmiş ve bazılarını ölüm cezasına çarptırmıştır. 2003 sonrası biteceği düşünülen baskı ve katliamlar, ne yazık ki artarak devam etmiş, her yıl yüzlerce vatandaşımız kimlikleri yüzünden çoluk, çocuk, kadın yaşlı demeden şehit edilmiştir. Bütün bu yaşanan olumsuzluklara rağmen mücadelemiz devam etmektedir. Yolumuzda bize güç veren şey, daha önce halkımız için şehit olan ve bu emaneti bize bırakan şühedaların vasiyetidir.
Irak Türkmenlerinin verdiği mücadele tarihinde 16 Ocak 1980'in büyük bir yeri vardır. O tarihte Irak Türkmenlerinin önde gelen en büyük şahsiyetleri idam edilerek, Türkmen Toplumunu derin acılara boğan bir matem günü yaşatmıştır. Uzun yıllar Bağdat'taki Türkmen Kardaşlık Ocağı'nın başkanlığını yapan Emekli Albay Abdullah Abdurrahman, değerli bilim adamı olan ve yüzlerce öğrenci yetiştirerek, topluma büyük hizmette bulunan Doç. Dr. Necdet Koçak, toplum tarafından sevilen iş adamı Adil Şerif gibi önemli şahsiyetler, o tarihte idam edilmişlerdir.
Daha önce bunlarla beraber tutuklanmış olmasına rağmen, büyük bir ihtimalle insanlık dışı işkencelere dayanamayarak şehit olan değerli bilim adamı Dr. Rıza Demirci'nin ise vefat tarihini bilmiyoruz. Bu bakımdan aynı kaderi paylaşmış bu dört dava arkadaşını, aynı tarihte şahadet mertebesine erişmiş kabul ediyoruz.
Büyük Dava adamları ölüme yaklaşırken bile davasını düşünür, işte Necdet Koçak'ta böyle bir dava adamıydı. İdam edilmeden önce son söz olarak ailesi ve kendisini görmeye müsaade edilen, dava arkadaşlarına, dolayısıyla gelecek nesillere şunları nasihat ediyordu."Arkadaşlar, ağaç budandıkça yeşerir.
Sizden ricam davayı bırakmayın ve sürdürmeye devam edin. Ben şu anda her zamankinden daha huzurluyum. Allah'ımın huzuruna gönül rahatlığıyla çıkıyorum. Bayrağı size teslim ediyorum. Bu bayrağı şerefle taşıyacağınızdan eminim. Doğruluktan ve Allah'ın yolundan asla şaşmayın. Allah'a emanet olunuz."Milli davaların, o dava uğruna mücadele ederek, şehit olanları, o yolda can verenlerin kanları ile can kazanacağı unutulmamalıdır. "Toprak eğer uğrunda ölen varsa vatandır" sözünün, bu ideali en güzel biçimde ifade ettiğine inanıyoruz. Bu bakımdan, Millî Mücadele yolunda can veren dava adamlarını her zaman coşku ile anmak, bu yüce şahsiyetleri yeni kuşaklara anlatarak tanıtmak görevi, yine bu yolda mücadele eden dava adamlarına düşer.
Bu yüzden bizde bu konuda yüklendiğimiz misyona uygun olarak, değerli liderlerimizi rahmetle anıyoruz. Türkmen toplumu olarak, sevilen liderlerimizi hiç bir zaman unutmayacağız. Davamızın gücünü, mücadelemizin hızını onlardan alacağız.
Sadun Köprülü
Irak Türkmen Cephesi
Türkiye Temsilcisi
vendredi 15 janvier 2010
Norman Finkelstein (Video) "I think it’s pretty audacious to play the holocaust with me"
Dr Norman Finkelstein, invited to give a speech at the University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, is posed a question from a Zionist.
Unfortunately for her, she attempts to invoke the Holocaust to criticise Dr Finkelstein, completely oblivious to Dr Finkelstein's own family history.
Whilst initially somewhat ambushed after the question, due to her fellow Zionist supporters shouting Dr Finkelstein down, he quickly takes control of the situation and leaves her with no comeback.
This is a short clip from American Radical.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AUjWzrGZXo&feature=player_embedded#
Unfortunately for her, she attempts to invoke the Holocaust to criticise Dr Finkelstein, completely oblivious to Dr Finkelstein's own family history.
Whilst initially somewhat ambushed after the question, due to her fellow Zionist supporters shouting Dr Finkelstein down, he quickly takes control of the situation and leaves her with no comeback.
This is a short clip from American Radical.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AUjWzrGZXo&feature=player_embedded#
U.S. forces committed to train Peshmerga – Talabani
U.S. forces committed to train Peshmerga – Talabani
Aswat al-Iraq
MH (P)/SH
http://en.aswataliraq.info/?p=125135
January 14, 2010 - 11:34:55
BAGHDAD / Aswat al-Iraq: Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said that U.S. forces have made a commitment to train Peshmerga (Kurdish) forces after unifying them. "Negotiations are underway with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to form two military divisions in Kurdistan," Talabani said on Wednesday from his hometown, Sulaimaniya.
He referred to the importance of upcoming parliamentary election in Iraq and what he described as "Kurdish leadership in Baghdad."
Aswat al-Iraq
MH (P)/SH
http://en.aswataliraq.info/?p=125135
January 14, 2010 - 11:34:55
BAGHDAD / Aswat al-Iraq: Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said that U.S. forces have made a commitment to train Peshmerga (Kurdish) forces after unifying them. "Negotiations are underway with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to form two military divisions in Kurdistan," Talabani said on Wednesday from his hometown, Sulaimaniya.
He referred to the importance of upcoming parliamentary election in Iraq and what he described as "Kurdish leadership in Baghdad."
IRAQ - System Failure: The Ban on Mutlak
http://gulfanalysis.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/system-failure-the-ban-on-mutlak/#comments
Posted by Reidar Visser on January 14, 2010
The Iraqi elections commission (IHEC) has reportedly upheld the decision by the accountability and justice board to bar around 500 candidates, including Salih al-Mutlak, from participating in the 7 March elections, based on allegations of Baathist sympathies. The banned candidates can appeal to a board of seven judges that came into existence only three days ago, and whose names still appear to remain a secret.
It is hard to describe this development as anything than other than complete system failure in the new democracy in Iraq. Almost inevitably, the atmosphere of the elections will now turn into a repeat of December 2005, with escalating rhetoric that can easily turn sectarian. Parliament had the obvious option of marginalising Ali al-Lami, the Iran-connected leader of the former de-Baathification committee; instead they went for the more convenient solution of approving seven judges that now have the delicate and enormous task of dealing with hundreds of appeals in a matter of weeks. Why did they not ask Ali al-Lami to step down instead? Why did not the “independent” IHEC offer any resistance? What are the forces the Iraqi parliament and the IHEC are so afraid of? Mutlak has played a constructive role in Iraqi politics since 2005; the sudden allegation of dangerous Baathist revival plans simply smacks of panic on the part of his political opponents and involvement by forces outside Iraq.
As for the external environment some reports say UNAMI (and possibly also the Americans) pleaded with the IHEC not to follow through on the ban on Mutlak. The recent top-level Arab League visit to Baghdad is widely seen to have had the same objective. Quite inexplicably, the newly-arrived British ambassador to Baghdad chose the hearing on the Iraq War in London to warn against the possibility of a coup in Baghdad, which can only have added fire to the flames. But other than that, only Iran is known to be supportive of the ban. To add insult to injury, the Iranian foreign minister visited Baghdad just days before parliament decided to let the accountability and justice committee have its way.
The future now depends on how swiftly the newly constituted appeals court handles the cases. If the appeals drag on for many weeks then inevitably this issue will continue to dominate the agenda and the elections can easily become a replay of 2005, probably to the satisfaction of the ISCI/Chalabi/Sadrist alliance (Hakim has spent the past two days in Kurdistan talking about a renewed Shiite-Kurdish alliance). Interestingly, however, Salih al-Mutlak this morning actually expressed confidence that the appeals court would deal justly with any appeal by him.
Posted by Reidar Visser on January 14, 2010
The Iraqi elections commission (IHEC) has reportedly upheld the decision by the accountability and justice board to bar around 500 candidates, including Salih al-Mutlak, from participating in the 7 March elections, based on allegations of Baathist sympathies. The banned candidates can appeal to a board of seven judges that came into existence only three days ago, and whose names still appear to remain a secret.
It is hard to describe this development as anything than other than complete system failure in the new democracy in Iraq. Almost inevitably, the atmosphere of the elections will now turn into a repeat of December 2005, with escalating rhetoric that can easily turn sectarian. Parliament had the obvious option of marginalising Ali al-Lami, the Iran-connected leader of the former de-Baathification committee; instead they went for the more convenient solution of approving seven judges that now have the delicate and enormous task of dealing with hundreds of appeals in a matter of weeks. Why did they not ask Ali al-Lami to step down instead? Why did not the “independent” IHEC offer any resistance? What are the forces the Iraqi parliament and the IHEC are so afraid of? Mutlak has played a constructive role in Iraqi politics since 2005; the sudden allegation of dangerous Baathist revival plans simply smacks of panic on the part of his political opponents and involvement by forces outside Iraq.
As for the external environment some reports say UNAMI (and possibly also the Americans) pleaded with the IHEC not to follow through on the ban on Mutlak. The recent top-level Arab League visit to Baghdad is widely seen to have had the same objective. Quite inexplicably, the newly-arrived British ambassador to Baghdad chose the hearing on the Iraq War in London to warn against the possibility of a coup in Baghdad, which can only have added fire to the flames. But other than that, only Iran is known to be supportive of the ban. To add insult to injury, the Iranian foreign minister visited Baghdad just days before parliament decided to let the accountability and justice committee have its way.
The future now depends on how swiftly the newly constituted appeals court handles the cases. If the appeals drag on for many weeks then inevitably this issue will continue to dominate the agenda and the elections can easily become a replay of 2005, probably to the satisfaction of the ISCI/Chalabi/Sadrist alliance (Hakim has spent the past two days in Kurdistan talking about a renewed Shiite-Kurdish alliance). Interestingly, however, Salih al-Mutlak this morning actually expressed confidence that the appeals court would deal justly with any appeal by him.
jeudi 14 janvier 2010
Once More, Peter Galbraith Fails to Clear His Name
Once More, Peter Galbraith Fails to Clear His Name
Posted by Reidar Visser on January 14, 2010
http://gulfanalysis.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/once-more-peter-galbraith-fails-to-clear-his-name/
The Iraqi parliament has already gone on holiday until next Tuesday so we might as well take a look at the most recent attempt by Peter Galbraith to explain to the world exactly what he was up to with his multiple roles in Kurdistan in the period 2004–2006. Whereas his latest contribution does not really contain any significant new information, it has been circulated by the author and his friends with such fervour that a refutation should be available for the record.
Galbraith’s latest version of events appears in the 14 January issue of The New York Review of Books under the headline “A Statement on My Activities in Kurdistan” – and as such cannot fail to generate expectations of a “full and final disclosure”. In that perspective, however, the piece is a rather disappointing affair. With the exception of two minor details there is no new information, just a rehash of the same old story, and the article certainly fails to effectively rebut the key point of criticism against Galbraith: That he continued to stay involved in the Iraqi constitutional process also after he acquired a business interest in the Norwegian oil company DNO and its Kurdistan operations in 2004. The only new pieces that are added to the puzzle are the fact that the Iraqi oil ministry must have known about Galbraith’s interest in DNO (since Galbraith represented the company on a joint committee), and also that the government of the United States was somehow informed.
Today, Galbraith wants us to read his “Kurdistan activities” between 2004 and 2006 roughly as follows. After having been interested in the Kurdish cause during the 1990s (partly on basis of his experience with Kurdish refugees after the 1991 uprising) he in 2004 “helped Kurdistan’s leaders draft a proposal for a self-governing Kurdistan that was submitted to the Coalition Provisional Authority on February 11, 2004, for inclusion in Iraq’s interim constitution”. Since the proposal also included provisions for regional control of the oil sector, Galbraith’s next step was to help the Kurds start building their oil sector in practice on the ground. Accordingly, he “helped bring DNO, a Norwegian oil company, into Kurdistan”.
As part of this process, he was “paid by DNO and entered into a financial arrangement with the company through a Delaware partnership, Porcupine LP.” Later, in 2005, he “advised” the Kurds on their negotiations for a permanent constitution; however Galbraith stresses that their negotiating position was more or less similar to the one “they” had defined in February 2004, “and they achieved virtually all of it”. Galbraith specifically denies having “pushed through” anything during the negotiations, thereby refuting a claim made by The New York Times concerning his overall level of influence on the Iraqi constitutional process.
Galbraith’s account is unsatisfactory for at least two reasons. Firstly, no matter how much he tries to dress things up by referring to the “Kurdish proposal of February 2004” there is no way he can erase what he himself wrote on this subject back in 2006, when he in considerable detail bragged about how almost every single word of that proposal had in fact been written by himself.
On p. 167 of The End of Iraq, Galbraith highlighted this fact by dramatically describing the sole change to his own proposal that was introduced by the Kurds: “Kosrat Rasul, the veteran PUK peshmerga who had served as Kurdistan’s second prime minister in 1994, wanted to clarify that deployments of the Iraqi Kurdistan national guard outside the region should not only be approved by the Kurdistan national assembly but should only occur at the request of the federal government in Baghdad.
His amendment underscored the Kurds’ reluctance to be involved in Iraq’s wars. With that change, the proposal was accepted.” Galbraith’s five-page proposal, that is, with the single-paragraph amendment by Rasul! In other words, every time Galbraith refers to “the Kurdish proposal of February 2004”, please substitute “the Galbraith proposal of February 2004”. This applies for example when Galbraith writes, “The Kurds…had set the agenda and they pushed through their own proposal”. It was largely Galbraith’s proposal they pushed through.
Secondly, with respect to the supposedly “informal” nature of Galbraith’s involvement with the constitution after he had acquired an “interest” in DNO in June 2004 (at which point the conflict of interests obviously got more pronounced), at least three smoking guns can be found just in the open sources. The first two are again of Galbraith’s own making, and once more can be found in The End of Iraq. On p. 199 in a footnote Galbraith cannot resist revealing how he personally intervened to dissuade a British official from opening a debate about the taxation power of the central government close to the deadline for the constitutional draft. Also, on p. 171 he depicts his own role in staging a semi-official referendum on Kurdish independence on the sidelines of the January 2005 elections.
The third significant reference is from his friend, Jonathan Morrow, who on p. 13 of a report entitled Iraq’s Constitutional Process II from 2005 describes how the “Kurdish parties were able to invite into the ad hoc meetings [where Kurdish and Shiite leaders designed the shape of the new constitution] experienced non-Iraqi international negotiators and constitutional lawyers, including former U.S. diplomat Peter Galbraith and University of Maryland Professor Karol Soltan, to advance the Kurdish case.” Again, what was he doing there, if he had a business interest in DNO? This truly is a “private citizen” extraordinaire, with access to all areas, and clearly so active that even open-source materials attest to his influential role.
One additional aspect that strangely has yet to receive much attention in the American debate is the question of possible disinformation of the US Congress by Galbraith in ways that could advance his own “business interests”. On 11 January 2006, Galbraith, who by that time was still involved with DNO, suggested several policy measures in a testimony to the US Senate called “Acknowledge Partition and Withdraw: A Reality Based Strategy for Iraq”. Among these measures was the idea of a general US withdrawal from Iraq, with the exception of a “small over the horizon force in Kurdistan”, explained with reference to the claim that “the Kurds are among the most pro-American people in the world and would welcome a US military presence, not the least because it would help protect them from Arab Iraqis who resent their close cooperation with the US during the 2003 War and thereafter.” Coincidentally, of course, that small American military force would also protect Galbraith’s “business interests” and the Tawke oilfield to which these interests relate. But Galbraith did not tell Congress that, did he?
Additionally, many of the conjectures by Galbraith in his congressional testimony are inaccurate or misleading. For example, the idea that other Iraqis would embark on some kind of systematic revenge operation to physically attack the Kurds for their cooperation with the Americans since 2003 seems a little exaggerated. (By 2006, vast number of non-Kurdish Iraqis had done exactly the same thing in terms of cooperation.) Galbraith also vastly overplays Shiite interest in federalism when he asserts that “Iraq’s Council of Representatives has already passed a law paving the way to the formation of a Shiite ‘super-region’ in fifteen months” and later goes on to talk about “a Shiite Region likely on its way”. In fact, three years later, few Iraqi Shiites seem to have any interest in a Shiite region whatsoever (even Ammar al-Hakim has left the specific idea of a nine-governorate “Shiite” region and now talks about federal regions more generally). Also, Galbraith failed to mention that the law to which he referred in fact enables several thousand other, non-sectarian scenarios of Iraqi governorates combining into federal regions (yes, that’s right, thousands, new regions can be everything from a single governorate to 14 governorates coming together and need not be territorially contiguous, so the reservoir of possible combinations of those existing governorates that are allowed to form multi-governorate regions, i.e. excepting Baghdad, is truly mind-boggling).
Towards the end of his attempt at rebuttal, Galbraith does a wonderful job of highlighting the general shakiness of his own position. He writes, “A separate issue arises over what I should have disclosed in connection with my articles in The New York Review of Books… I wrote several other articles in 2004 and 2005, some of which briefly discussed the oil issue, and did not mention my business arrangements. These arrangements were covered by confidentiality agreements, but I should have stated that I had business interests in Kurdistan. I regret not having done so and apologize to the editors and readers of The New York Review of Books. In my later articles, I did state that I was ‘a principal at the Windham Resources Group, a firm that negotiates on behalf of its clients in post-conflict societies, including in Iraq.’ ”
The big issue, of course, is that he did not mention Porcupine and DNO! But to Galbraith that distinction between a consultancy firm and an oil company appears to be unimportant, and he offers the reference to the Windham Resources Group in the hope that this may mollify NYRB readers after his failure to disclose inconvenient truths about Norwegian oil companies and multi-million stakes in the Kurdistan oil industry. As with so many other aspects of his “activities in Kurdistan”, Galbraith is either unable or unwilling to see the bigger picture and the strong linkages between his private-citizen “business interests” on the one hand and the Iraqi constitutional process and US policy debate on the other.
Posted by Reidar Visser on January 14, 2010
http://gulfanalysis.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/once-more-peter-galbraith-fails-to-clear-his-name/
The Iraqi parliament has already gone on holiday until next Tuesday so we might as well take a look at the most recent attempt by Peter Galbraith to explain to the world exactly what he was up to with his multiple roles in Kurdistan in the period 2004–2006. Whereas his latest contribution does not really contain any significant new information, it has been circulated by the author and his friends with such fervour that a refutation should be available for the record.
Galbraith’s latest version of events appears in the 14 January issue of The New York Review of Books under the headline “A Statement on My Activities in Kurdistan” – and as such cannot fail to generate expectations of a “full and final disclosure”. In that perspective, however, the piece is a rather disappointing affair. With the exception of two minor details there is no new information, just a rehash of the same old story, and the article certainly fails to effectively rebut the key point of criticism against Galbraith: That he continued to stay involved in the Iraqi constitutional process also after he acquired a business interest in the Norwegian oil company DNO and its Kurdistan operations in 2004. The only new pieces that are added to the puzzle are the fact that the Iraqi oil ministry must have known about Galbraith’s interest in DNO (since Galbraith represented the company on a joint committee), and also that the government of the United States was somehow informed.
Today, Galbraith wants us to read his “Kurdistan activities” between 2004 and 2006 roughly as follows. After having been interested in the Kurdish cause during the 1990s (partly on basis of his experience with Kurdish refugees after the 1991 uprising) he in 2004 “helped Kurdistan’s leaders draft a proposal for a self-governing Kurdistan that was submitted to the Coalition Provisional Authority on February 11, 2004, for inclusion in Iraq’s interim constitution”. Since the proposal also included provisions for regional control of the oil sector, Galbraith’s next step was to help the Kurds start building their oil sector in practice on the ground. Accordingly, he “helped bring DNO, a Norwegian oil company, into Kurdistan”.
As part of this process, he was “paid by DNO and entered into a financial arrangement with the company through a Delaware partnership, Porcupine LP.” Later, in 2005, he “advised” the Kurds on their negotiations for a permanent constitution; however Galbraith stresses that their negotiating position was more or less similar to the one “they” had defined in February 2004, “and they achieved virtually all of it”. Galbraith specifically denies having “pushed through” anything during the negotiations, thereby refuting a claim made by The New York Times concerning his overall level of influence on the Iraqi constitutional process.
Galbraith’s account is unsatisfactory for at least two reasons. Firstly, no matter how much he tries to dress things up by referring to the “Kurdish proposal of February 2004” there is no way he can erase what he himself wrote on this subject back in 2006, when he in considerable detail bragged about how almost every single word of that proposal had in fact been written by himself.
On p. 167 of The End of Iraq, Galbraith highlighted this fact by dramatically describing the sole change to his own proposal that was introduced by the Kurds: “Kosrat Rasul, the veteran PUK peshmerga who had served as Kurdistan’s second prime minister in 1994, wanted to clarify that deployments of the Iraqi Kurdistan national guard outside the region should not only be approved by the Kurdistan national assembly but should only occur at the request of the federal government in Baghdad.
His amendment underscored the Kurds’ reluctance to be involved in Iraq’s wars. With that change, the proposal was accepted.” Galbraith’s five-page proposal, that is, with the single-paragraph amendment by Rasul! In other words, every time Galbraith refers to “the Kurdish proposal of February 2004”, please substitute “the Galbraith proposal of February 2004”. This applies for example when Galbraith writes, “The Kurds…had set the agenda and they pushed through their own proposal”. It was largely Galbraith’s proposal they pushed through.
Secondly, with respect to the supposedly “informal” nature of Galbraith’s involvement with the constitution after he had acquired an “interest” in DNO in June 2004 (at which point the conflict of interests obviously got more pronounced), at least three smoking guns can be found just in the open sources. The first two are again of Galbraith’s own making, and once more can be found in The End of Iraq. On p. 199 in a footnote Galbraith cannot resist revealing how he personally intervened to dissuade a British official from opening a debate about the taxation power of the central government close to the deadline for the constitutional draft. Also, on p. 171 he depicts his own role in staging a semi-official referendum on Kurdish independence on the sidelines of the January 2005 elections.
The third significant reference is from his friend, Jonathan Morrow, who on p. 13 of a report entitled Iraq’s Constitutional Process II from 2005 describes how the “Kurdish parties were able to invite into the ad hoc meetings [where Kurdish and Shiite leaders designed the shape of the new constitution] experienced non-Iraqi international negotiators and constitutional lawyers, including former U.S. diplomat Peter Galbraith and University of Maryland Professor Karol Soltan, to advance the Kurdish case.” Again, what was he doing there, if he had a business interest in DNO? This truly is a “private citizen” extraordinaire, with access to all areas, and clearly so active that even open-source materials attest to his influential role.
One additional aspect that strangely has yet to receive much attention in the American debate is the question of possible disinformation of the US Congress by Galbraith in ways that could advance his own “business interests”. On 11 January 2006, Galbraith, who by that time was still involved with DNO, suggested several policy measures in a testimony to the US Senate called “Acknowledge Partition and Withdraw: A Reality Based Strategy for Iraq”. Among these measures was the idea of a general US withdrawal from Iraq, with the exception of a “small over the horizon force in Kurdistan”, explained with reference to the claim that “the Kurds are among the most pro-American people in the world and would welcome a US military presence, not the least because it would help protect them from Arab Iraqis who resent their close cooperation with the US during the 2003 War and thereafter.” Coincidentally, of course, that small American military force would also protect Galbraith’s “business interests” and the Tawke oilfield to which these interests relate. But Galbraith did not tell Congress that, did he?
Additionally, many of the conjectures by Galbraith in his congressional testimony are inaccurate or misleading. For example, the idea that other Iraqis would embark on some kind of systematic revenge operation to physically attack the Kurds for their cooperation with the Americans since 2003 seems a little exaggerated. (By 2006, vast number of non-Kurdish Iraqis had done exactly the same thing in terms of cooperation.) Galbraith also vastly overplays Shiite interest in federalism when he asserts that “Iraq’s Council of Representatives has already passed a law paving the way to the formation of a Shiite ‘super-region’ in fifteen months” and later goes on to talk about “a Shiite Region likely on its way”. In fact, three years later, few Iraqi Shiites seem to have any interest in a Shiite region whatsoever (even Ammar al-Hakim has left the specific idea of a nine-governorate “Shiite” region and now talks about federal regions more generally). Also, Galbraith failed to mention that the law to which he referred in fact enables several thousand other, non-sectarian scenarios of Iraqi governorates combining into federal regions (yes, that’s right, thousands, new regions can be everything from a single governorate to 14 governorates coming together and need not be territorially contiguous, so the reservoir of possible combinations of those existing governorates that are allowed to form multi-governorate regions, i.e. excepting Baghdad, is truly mind-boggling).
Towards the end of his attempt at rebuttal, Galbraith does a wonderful job of highlighting the general shakiness of his own position. He writes, “A separate issue arises over what I should have disclosed in connection with my articles in The New York Review of Books… I wrote several other articles in 2004 and 2005, some of which briefly discussed the oil issue, and did not mention my business arrangements. These arrangements were covered by confidentiality agreements, but I should have stated that I had business interests in Kurdistan. I regret not having done so and apologize to the editors and readers of The New York Review of Books. In my later articles, I did state that I was ‘a principal at the Windham Resources Group, a firm that negotiates on behalf of its clients in post-conflict societies, including in Iraq.’ ”
The big issue, of course, is that he did not mention Porcupine and DNO! But to Galbraith that distinction between a consultancy firm and an oil company appears to be unimportant, and he offers the reference to the Windham Resources Group in the hope that this may mollify NYRB readers after his failure to disclose inconvenient truths about Norwegian oil companies and multi-million stakes in the Kurdistan oil industry. As with so many other aspects of his “activities in Kurdistan”, Galbraith is either unable or unwilling to see the bigger picture and the strong linkages between his private-citizen “business interests” on the one hand and the Iraqi constitutional process and US policy debate on the other.
mercredi 13 janvier 2010
Why do you kill, Zaid? Warum tötest du, Zaid?
In German with English subtitles
A STORY OF A YOUNG IRAQI WHO BECAME ONE OF THE IRAQI RESISTANCE. THE STORY REFLECTS THE SUFFERING OF A NATION THAT RESISTS THE AMERICAN OCCUPATION FOR INDEPENDANCE & LIVING WITH DIGNITY.
DR. Juergen Todenhoefer, A GERMAN LITTERATEUR, WENT TO IRAQ TO SHED THE LIGHT ON THE SUFFERING OF IRAQI PEOPLE UNDER THE AMERICAN OCCUPATION AND MET WITH PEOPLE FROM THE IRAQI RESISTANCE. HE LIVED WITH THEM AND LEARNED ABOUT THEIR LIVES.
HE MET ZAID, THE YOUNG GUY WHO LOST MOST OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS, AND THEN HE DECIDED TO JOIN THE IRAQI RESISTANCE. THEY'RE MOSTLY SUNNI.
DR. Jurgen SHED THE LIGHT ON THE TRUTH OF WHAT'S HAPPENING IN IRAQ, HORRIBLE CRIMES ARE COMMITTED EVERYDAY BY THE US ARMY FORCES SO HE CAN CLARIFY TO THE WORLD HOW DIFFERENT THE WESTERN MEDIA IS FROM THE TRUTH.
DR. Juergen WANTS TO GIVE THE TRUTH A CHANCE AND WANTS JUSTICE FOR THE SUFFERING OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Oh1DDFx6Kk
A STORY OF A YOUNG IRAQI WHO BECAME ONE OF THE IRAQI RESISTANCE. THE STORY REFLECTS THE SUFFERING OF A NATION THAT RESISTS THE AMERICAN OCCUPATION FOR INDEPENDANCE & LIVING WITH DIGNITY.
DR. Juergen Todenhoefer, A GERMAN LITTERATEUR, WENT TO IRAQ TO SHED THE LIGHT ON THE SUFFERING OF IRAQI PEOPLE UNDER THE AMERICAN OCCUPATION AND MET WITH PEOPLE FROM THE IRAQI RESISTANCE. HE LIVED WITH THEM AND LEARNED ABOUT THEIR LIVES.
HE MET ZAID, THE YOUNG GUY WHO LOST MOST OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS, AND THEN HE DECIDED TO JOIN THE IRAQI RESISTANCE. THEY'RE MOSTLY SUNNI.
DR. Jurgen SHED THE LIGHT ON THE TRUTH OF WHAT'S HAPPENING IN IRAQ, HORRIBLE CRIMES ARE COMMITTED EVERYDAY BY THE US ARMY FORCES SO HE CAN CLARIFY TO THE WORLD HOW DIFFERENT THE WESTERN MEDIA IS FROM THE TRUTH.
DR. Juergen WANTS TO GIVE THE TRUTH A CHANCE AND WANTS JUSTICE FOR THE SUFFERING OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Oh1DDFx6Kk
mardi 12 janvier 2010
Salamun alaek ya IRAQ - Kadhim Al-Saher
Salamun alaek ya IRAQ
Peace upon you IRAQ
Kadhim Al-Saher - كاظم الساهر
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JoKECH8zdc&feature=related
Peace upon you IRAQ
Kadhim Al-Saher - كاظم الساهر
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JoKECH8zdc&feature=related
lundi 11 janvier 2010
The Real Face of America.
by Layla Anwar
January 10, 2010
We are born to hate says one...
Direct descendants of the cowboys, direct descendants of the Founding Fathers.
They all look white in this video, and their number is growing, along with their websites...
I wonder if the CIA, the FBI, are profiling them at all; are they scanning their intents, are they checking their place of birth, and do they have a data base with their thousands of names listed ?
I do not think so...
These white men in the video, are not only white...yes they are not only white., some of them are blacks, some latinos and some asians but they look exactly like those men in the video -- because what you see in this video, is EXACTLY THE TYPE of men and women that landed in Iraq and are still in Iraq - sponsored by US STATE TERRORISM.
These extremists, fundamentalists, terrorists are a sample of what Iraq has endured since 2003.
If you want to see the real face of terrorism, look inside yourselves, look inside America. This is where it all started...
arabwomanblues.blogspot.com/2010/01/real-face-of-america.html
January 10, 2010
We are born to hate says one...
Direct descendants of the cowboys, direct descendants of the Founding Fathers.
They all look white in this video, and their number is growing, along with their websites...
I wonder if the CIA, the FBI, are profiling them at all; are they scanning their intents, are they checking their place of birth, and do they have a data base with their thousands of names listed ?
I do not think so...
These white men in the video, are not only white...yes they are not only white., some of them are blacks, some latinos and some asians but they look exactly like those men in the video -- because what you see in this video, is EXACTLY THE TYPE of men and women that landed in Iraq and are still in Iraq - sponsored by US STATE TERRORISM.
These extremists, fundamentalists, terrorists are a sample of what Iraq has endured since 2003.
If you want to see the real face of terrorism, look inside yourselves, look inside America. This is where it all started...
arabwomanblues.blogspot.com/2010/01/real-face-of-america.html
dimanche 10 janvier 2010
Interview with Iraqi Turkmen Front Chairman Sadettin Ergec
Dr. Sadettin Ergeç, Iraqi Turkmen Front Chairman, Iraqi Parliament Kerkuk Deputy
http://www.orsam.org.tr/en/showArticle.aspx?ID=137
As Iraq is entering a critical phase, ORSAM held an interview with Iraqi Turkmen Front Chairman Saadettin Ergeç on December 25 at the ITF Turkish representative office about the future of the Turkmen society in Iraq. Ergeç shared his opinions regarding politics in Iraq, the electoral law, pre-electoral alliances, developments in Kerkuk, the situation of the Turkmens and relations between Turkey and Turkmens.
Full text
http://www.orsam.org.tr/en/showArticle.aspx?ID=137
As Iraq is entering a critical phase, ORSAM held an interview with Iraqi Turkmen Front Chairman Saadettin Ergeç on December 25 at the ITF Turkish representative office about the future of the Turkmen society in Iraq. Ergeç shared his opinions regarding politics in Iraq, the electoral law, pre-electoral alliances, developments in Kerkuk, the situation of the Turkmens and relations between Turkey and Turkmens.
Full text
vendredi 8 janvier 2010
Iraq 'bars politician from polls'
Al-Mutlaq has accused al-Maliki of being a pawn in the hands of neighbouring Iran [AFP]
Ali Faysal Allami, the executive director of the Accountability and Justice Committee, has been quoted in the Iraqi media as saying that his panel disqualified on Thursday Salah al-Mutlaq's party from running in the March 7 vote because he had allegedly promoted Saddam's Baath Party.
The Baath party is banned in Iraq.
But speaking to Al Jazeera on Friday, al-Mutlaq said there was no basis for this decision and that the reasons for it had not been communicated to him.
"How am I connected to the Baath party? Ali Faysal should be the one to be banned ... he was an officer in Saddam's army. I was not", he said.
"What kind of democracy is it that a political party can be removed from election lists just by throwing the name 'Baathist' at it without any evidence?".
Decision appeal
The committee, formerly referred to as the De-Baathification Committee, is responsible for vetting parliamentary candidates for the forthcoming election for ties to the former regime.
It was not immediately clear whether al-Mutlaq would be able to take part in the election since he does have the right to appeal the decision, though he told Al Jazeera he will take the issue to the United Nations.
Al-Mutlaq is one of the country's most popular Sunni politicians who fared well during the provincial elections a year ago.
He has repeatedly attacked Nuri al-Maliki's government, saying that they have targeted his party and followers in an attempt to keep the group from doing well during the vote.
Al-Mutlaq, who is from the predominantly Sunni city of Falluja in Iraq's Anbar province, has also accused the al-Maliki of being a pawn of neighbouring Iran.
This year many Sunni Muslim political parties are expected to take part in the vote.
But if al-Mutlaq is barred from the vote, it could lead to widespread Sunni unrest and disillusionment with the political process.
Source:
Al Jazeera and agencies
jeudi 7 janvier 2010
Cancer – The Deadly Legacy of the Invasion of Iraq
news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=80e260b3839daf2084fde b0965ad31ab
Cancer – The Deadly Legacy of the Invasion of Iraq
by Jalal Ghazi
January 7, 2010
Forget about oil, occupation, terrorism or even Al Qaeda. The real hazard for Iraqis these days is cancer. Cancer is spreading like wildfire in Iraq. Thousands of infants are being born with deformities. Doctors say they are struggling to cope with the rise of cancer and birth defects, especially in cities subjected to heavy American and British bombardment.
Here are a few examples. In Falluja, which was heavily bombarded by the US in 2004, as many as 25% of new- born infants have serious abnormalities, including congenital anomalies, brain tumors, and neural tube defects in the spinal cord.The cancer rate in the province of Babil, south of Baghdad has risen from 500 diagnosed cases in 2004 to 9,082 in 2009 according to Al Jazeera English.
In Basra there were 1885 diagnosed cases of cancer in 2005. According to Dr. Jawad al Ali, director of the Oncology Center, the number increased to 2,302 in 2006 and 3,071 in 2007. Dr. Ali told Al Jazeera English that about 1,250-1,500 patients visit the Oncology Center every month now.Not everyone is ready to draw a direct correlation between allied bombing of these areas and tumors, and the Pentagon has been skeptical of any attempts to link the two.
But Iraqi doctors and some Western scholars say the massive quantities of depleted uranium used in U.S. and British bombs, and the sharp increase in cancer rates are not unconnected. Dr Ahmad Hardan, who served as a special scientific adviser to the World Health Organization, the United Nations and the Iraqi Ministry of Health, says that there is scientific evidence linking depleted uranium to cancer and birth defects.
He told Al Jazeera English, "Children with congenital anomalies are subjected to karyotyping and chromosomal studies with complete genetic back-grounding and clinical assessment. Family and obstetrical histories are taken too. These international studies have produced ample evidence to show that depleted uranium has disastrous consequences."
Iraqi doctors say cancer cases increased after both the 1991 war and the 2003 invasion.
Abdulhaq Al-Ani, author of "Uranium in Iraq" told Al Jazeera English that the incubation period for depleted uranium is five to six years, which is consistent with the spike in cancer rates in 1996-1997 and 2008-2009.There are also similar patterns of birth defects among Iraqi and Afghan infants who were also born in areas that were subjected to depleted uranium bombardment.
Dr. Daud Miraki, director of the Afghan Depleted Uranium and Recovery Fund, told Al Jazeera English he found evidence of the effect of depleted uranium in infants in eastern and south- eastern Afghanistan. "Many children are born with no eyes, no limbs, or tumors protruding from their mouths and eyes," said Dr. Miraki.It’s not just Iraqis and Afghans. Babies born to American soldiers deployed in Iraq during the 1991 war are also showing similar defects.
In 2000, Iraqi biologist Huda saleh Mahadi pointed out that the hands of deformed American infants were directly linked to their shoulders, a deformity seen in Iraqi infants. Many US soldiers are now referring to Gulf War Syndrome #2 and alleging they have developed cancer because of exposure to depleted uranium in Iraq.
But soldiers can end their exposure to depleted uranium when their service in Iraq ends. Iraqi civilians have nowhere else to go. The water, soil and air in large areas of Iraq, including Baghdad, are contaminated with depleted uranium that has a radioactive half-life of 4.5 billion years.
Dr. Doug Rokke, former director of the U.S. Army’s Depleted Uranium Project during the first Gulf War, was in charge of a project of decontaminating American tanks. He told Al Jazeera English that "it took the U.S. Department of Defense in a multi-million dollar facility with trained physicists and engineers, three years to decontaminate the 24 tanks that I sent back to the U.S." And he added, "What can the average Iraqi do with thousands and thousands of trash and destroyed vehicles spread across the desert and other areas?"
According to Al Jazeera, the Pentagon used more than 300 tons of depleted uranium in 1991. In 2003, the United States used more than 1,000 tons.
Turks Protest Egypt’s Attack on Viva Palestina
Thousands of angry protesters in Turkey have staged a demonstration in the city of Istanbul to condemn the Egyptian police crackdown on a Gaza-bound aid convoy.
At least 55 people were injured in clashes that broke out between riot police and Viva Palestina activists at the Egyptian port of El-Arish on Tuesday, after Egypt said it would not allow 59 trucks for the relief convoy to enter the blockaded Gaza Strip.
Following the incident, Turkish protesters poured into streets and assembled in front of the Egyptian consulate in Istanbul on Wednesday.
They carried flags of Palestine and chanted slogans in condemnation of Cairo’s use of force against the human rights activists and Israel’s ongoing siege of the Palestinian coastal enclave.
Led by British politician George Galloway, Viva Palestina has over 200 vehicles laden with basic food items and medical supplies, and is set to break Israel’s months-long closure of the Gaza Strip.
Earlier, Cairo had said it would only permit 157 members of the convoy to drive to Gaza, but later agreed to allow the group’s 400 volunteers to enter the impoverished Palestinian territory.
The Egyptian government’s denial of entry for Viva Palestina trucks came despite talks in which a delegation of Turkish lawmakers sought to convince Cairo officials to open its border to Gaza for the aid convoy.
mercredi 6 janvier 2010
Iraqi doctors demand cancer probe
Aljazeera.net
english.aljazeera.net/programmes/insideiraq/2010/01/20101371048370420.html
Iraqi doctors believe depleted uranium from US military equipment used in the 2003 invasion is spreading cancer through the population.They are recording a shocking rise in the number of cancer victims south of Baghdad, they claim. Outraged, they have demanded an investigation be held into the matter.
Cancer rates in the province of Babil have risen almost tenfold in just three years.In 2004, 500 cases of cancer were diagnosed there. That figure rose to almost 1,000 two years later. By 2008, the number of cases had increased sevenfold to 7,000.
Many Iraqi doctors say radiation has caused this alarming increase in cancer rates and birth defects among Iraqi children.
Over 300 sites across Iraq are said to be contaminated by depleted uranium.
Inside Iraq is joined by Jawad Al-Ali, a consultant oncologist, and Christopher Busby, a radiation expert.
MP George Galloway in Egyptian Police Riot
9:14am UK, Wednesday January 06, 2010
Graham Fitzgerald, Sky News Online
MP George Galloway has been involved in scuffles with Egyptian police as he led a relief convoy trying to take aid to Palestinians in Gaza.
British members of the convoy were among dozens of people injured during the clashes, one of the activists said.
Around 520 people were travelling with 150 trucks full of supplies when clashes broke out at the port city of El Arish, near Gaza.
One of the members, Alexandra Lort-Phillips, 37, who works for Enfield Youth Offending Service in north London, said: "I have 42 people in my team.
"Out of those three Britons have been injured. There are head injuries, cuts.
"We started getting pelted with stones by people in plain clothes, then the police started moving in, using tear gas and batons. People were quite severely beaten."
Ms Lort-Phillips said seven or eight of the convoy members had to be treated in hospital. She blamed "heavy-handed" policing for their injuries.
Mr Galloway during anti-war protest
Protests reportedly began when Egyptian authorities at El Arish ordered some lorries to use an Israeli-controlled checkpoint.
The activists would prefer the goods to be transported via Egypt's Rafah crossing.
Mr Galloway, the MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, said Israel was likely to prevent convoy lorries entering Gaza.
He told Sky News: "It is completely unconscionable that 25% of our convoy should go to Israel and never arrive in Gaza."
Earlier this week convoy members staged noisy protests after Egyptian officialstook away their passports and delayed handing them back.
Graham Fitzgerald, Sky News Online
MP George Galloway has been involved in scuffles with Egyptian police as he led a relief convoy trying to take aid to Palestinians in Gaza.
British members of the convoy were among dozens of people injured during the clashes, one of the activists said.
Around 520 people were travelling with 150 trucks full of supplies when clashes broke out at the port city of El Arish, near Gaza.
One of the members, Alexandra Lort-Phillips, 37, who works for Enfield Youth Offending Service in north London, said: "I have 42 people in my team.
"Out of those three Britons have been injured. There are head injuries, cuts.
"We started getting pelted with stones by people in plain clothes, then the police started moving in, using tear gas and batons. People were quite severely beaten."
Ms Lort-Phillips said seven or eight of the convoy members had to be treated in hospital. She blamed "heavy-handed" policing for their injuries.
Mr Galloway during anti-war protest
Protests reportedly began when Egyptian authorities at El Arish ordered some lorries to use an Israeli-controlled checkpoint.
The activists would prefer the goods to be transported via Egypt's Rafah crossing.
Mr Galloway, the MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, said Israel was likely to prevent convoy lorries entering Gaza.
He told Sky News: "It is completely unconscionable that 25% of our convoy should go to Israel and never arrive in Gaza."
Earlier this week convoy members staged noisy protests after Egyptian officialstook away their passports and delayed handing them back.
Viva Palestina Convoy attacked in El-Arish (Videos on Turkish television)
Irish4Palestine
5 January 2010
#10 VIVA PALESTINA UPDATE, LAST ONE I HOPE
Many thanks to “D from Turkey” who gave us these links to videos of the pre-meditated attack tonight shown on Turkish television. The first link is a longer version, the second is a shorter version. Both are in Turkish, but no words are needed to see what happened, this is a disgrace!
Long version
Short version
We spent almost 3 hours in a blind panic unable to locate our people, only their phones were found on the ground and answered by strangers. Some people are STILL missing.
THIS is what it was like for us on this blog as it happened. God knows what tomorrow will bring after this attack. Hopefully the Egyptians have had enough fun and games and will now let them get on with their work of delivering the ambulances and aid to those who are in need of it.
via Irish4Palestine: #10 VIVA PALESTINA UPDATE, LAST ONE I HOPE.
***
Viva Palestina Convoy Attacked in El-Arish
readingpsc
January 05, 2010
Press TV, Tue 5 Jan 2010 @ 2200GMT: 4th interview with correspondent Hassan Ghani from El-Arish, Egypt where the Convoy is being attacked by the Egyptian riot police and negotiations stalled. Ghani is travelling with the Viva Palestina Convoy enroute to Gaza.
Get News & Follow the convoy: http://readingpsc.org.uk/convoy
The Viva Palestina aid convoy to Gaza which left London on December 6th has been blocked from entering Egypt then held at the Jordanian port of Aqaba. The convoy, which is made up of more than 200+ vehicles, planned to reach Rafah on December 27th.
more about “Viva Palestina Convoy Attacked in El-…“, posted with vodpod
***
Viva Palestina Convoy Attacked in El-Arish #2
more about “Viva Palestina Convoy Attacked in El-…“, posted with vodpod
Viva Palestina Convoy Attacked in El-Arish #3
more about “Viva Palestina Convoy Attacked in El-…“, posted with vodpod
More:
Viva Palestina Convoy Press TV Jan 5 Report from El-Arish
Viva Palestina Convoy Press TV Jan 5 Report from El-Arish #2
Israeli airstrike on Gaza kills two, injures thr
5 January 2010
#10 VIVA PALESTINA UPDATE, LAST ONE I HOPE
Many thanks to “D from Turkey” who gave us these links to videos of the pre-meditated attack tonight shown on Turkish television. The first link is a longer version, the second is a shorter version. Both are in Turkish, but no words are needed to see what happened, this is a disgrace!
Long version
Short version
We spent almost 3 hours in a blind panic unable to locate our people, only their phones were found on the ground and answered by strangers. Some people are STILL missing.
THIS is what it was like for us on this blog as it happened. God knows what tomorrow will bring after this attack. Hopefully the Egyptians have had enough fun and games and will now let them get on with their work of delivering the ambulances and aid to those who are in need of it.
via Irish4Palestine: #10 VIVA PALESTINA UPDATE, LAST ONE I HOPE.
***
Viva Palestina Convoy Attacked in El-Arish
readingpsc
January 05, 2010
Press TV, Tue 5 Jan 2010 @ 2200GMT: 4th interview with correspondent Hassan Ghani from El-Arish, Egypt where the Convoy is being attacked by the Egyptian riot police and negotiations stalled. Ghani is travelling with the Viva Palestina Convoy enroute to Gaza.
Get News & Follow the convoy: http://readingpsc.org.uk/convoy
The Viva Palestina aid convoy to Gaza which left London on December 6th has been blocked from entering Egypt then held at the Jordanian port of Aqaba. The convoy, which is made up of more than 200+ vehicles, planned to reach Rafah on December 27th.
more about “Viva Palestina Convoy Attacked in El-…“, posted with vodpod
***
Viva Palestina Convoy Attacked in El-Arish #2
more about “Viva Palestina Convoy Attacked in El-…“, posted with vodpod
Viva Palestina Convoy Attacked in El-Arish #3
more about “Viva Palestina Convoy Attacked in El-…“, posted with vodpod
More:
Viva Palestina Convoy Press TV Jan 5 Report from El-Arish
Viva Palestina Convoy Press TV Jan 5 Report from El-Arish #2
Israeli airstrike on Gaza kills two, injures thr
dimanche 3 janvier 2010
L’Héritage des steppes et les conquêtes turkmènes
Pour les diapositives cliquer sur:
cours 1 - L'héritage des steppes et les conquêtes turkmènes
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)
