Eurabian News

Sobre la transformación de Europa en Eurabia y la Tercera Yijad

Archive for 18/12/05

Más noticias desde Palestina

Posted by Spanish Eowyn en 18/diciembre/2005

Según Le Figaro, Mahmoud Abbas ha quedado debilitado por el posible éxito de Hamas en las próximas elecciones. Una facción disidente de Fatah, liderada por Barghouti, “el muy popular dirigente de Fatah, en prisión en Israel por muertes [o sea, asesinatos], se presentará a las elecciones legislativas próximas. Hamas, se ha impuesto de manera clara el jueves en muchas de las grandes ciudades de Cisjordania, consideradas como bastiones de Fatah. El movimiento islamista ha obtenido la mayoría de los asientos en los consejos municipales de Naplús, Jenin, y El-Bireh, mientras que Fatah y una coalición de independientes tienen la mayoría en Ramala. Según los resultados preliminares, Hamas habrá crecido el 73% en Naplús. La ciudad, gangrenada por la corrupción y las derivas mafiosas de ciertos grupos armados, se ha convertido en uno de los símbolos de la mala gestión de Al-Fatah y allí, Hamas ha ofrecido una visión más pragmática. Después sigue haciendo un elogio de Barghouti.

(NOTA: es de señalar que el “pragmático” de Hamas lo primero que ha hecho ha sido señalar que la tregua con Israel no será renovada cuando venza a final de año).

En palabras de Ayalon, antiguo jefe de los servicios de seguridad intteriores de ISrael y que se perfila como próximo Ministro de defensa de la candidatura laborista si finalmente llega al poder, la culpa de la actual situación es de Sharon, porque entiende que “no debería haberse producido la retirada de Gaza. Que desde luego no se debe producir la de Cisjordania, porque una gran mayoría de palestinos entiende que no se deben a las negociaciones de fatah, si no a la violencia”.

(NOTA: es curioso: primero, Sharon era muy malo porque no daba Gaza. Ahora que la ha dado, es malo por haberla dado y por tanto, contribuir al aumento de influencia de Hamas).

Y el malo, malísimo de la película, esto es, Sharon, ha sido internado después de haber perdido la consciencia debido a un infarto. Según Le Figaro, ha sido internado en el Hadassah Ein Kerem. Según el comunicado lacónico oficial “el Primer Ministro ha llegado al hospital a las 20H05 (18H05 GMT). Está perfectamente consicente. Va a ser sometido a diversos tests durante la noche. Os mantendremos informados”. Según la BBC, su médico personal, Boleslav Goldman, ha negado que perdiera el conocimiento.

Por último, según una reciente encuesta, el 49% de los israelíes estarían de acuerdo en compartir Jerusalén si se llegase a un acuerdo de paz. Dicho de otra manera, aceptarían ver un día que los palestinos tomaran el control de los barrios y de los suburbios árabes, mientras que Israel mantuviera la soberanía de los barrios judíos y el muro de las Lamentaciones.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comentarios desactivados

News about 7/7 bombongs in London

Posted by Spanish Eowyn en 18/diciembre/2005

THERE will not be a public inquiry into the July 7 London bombings, the Home Secretary Charles Clarke has decided.
Instead, a senior civil servant will compile a narrative on the attacks from evidence already collected by the police, the security services and two House of Commons select committees.
Mr Clarke believes an independent inquiry would also duplicate much work that has been carried out by MPs. Ministers also felt that it would divert attention and resources away from more pressing security and community issues.
A Home Office spokesman said last night: “The Government is not proposing to hold a public inquiry into the events of July 7. The Home Secretary is currently considering what materials he might be able to make available to support the parliamentary inquiries which are under way into the various aspects of the July 7 atrocities.
“We hope to announce details of this in due course.” MI5 is understood to have compiled a detailed picture of the influences thought to have been exerted on the bombers, and their motivations.
The security services have also tracked the group’s overseas travel in minute detail, particularly their trips to Pakistan between 2003 and the bombings in July this year. Mr Clarke is understood to have consulted Scotland Yard on the implications of issuing the file to the public, possibly edited.
But the public inquiry decision was not welcomed by Sir Iqbal Sacranie of the Muslim Council of Britain, who repeated demands for a full investigation. “It has to be a fully comprehensive public inquiry that will provide us the information we need as to what actually happened, how it happened and why it happened so that we will be better prepared to prevent such tragedy happening again,” he said last night.
Saba Mozakka, whose mother Behnaz died in the Piccadilly Line blast, said that it was “unacceptable” not to hold a public inquiry.
“This is not acceptable to us and the families will be campaigning for there to be a full public inquiry,” she said. “A narrative of events will not satisfy anybody. This is not something we will go away on.”
Graham Russell, whose son, Philip, died in the wreckage of the Tavistock Square bus, said he would wait before judging the decision. “If the facts come out anyway then it’s all well and good. If they don’t then they have failed the people who died.”
Patrick Mercer, the Shadow Homeland Security Minister, said that a narrative was not enough: “We need to know what the links were with the various individuals, whether they had links abroad. And also why the Government reduced the level of warning a mere five weeks before the attack.”
Fifty-two people died and nearly 700 people were injured when four suicide bombers attacked the London transport system on the morning of July 7. Intelligence has been compiled on bombers Shehzad Tanweer, Jermaine Lindsay, Mohammad Sidique Khan and Hasib Hussain.

The Home Secretary today quietly dropped his controversial plans to give police the power to shut down mosques being used by extremists.
The proposal was originally part of Tony Blair’s 12-point plan to combat terror after the July 7 London bombings, but a consultation produced a negative reaction from top police officers and the Muslim community.
Charles Clarke said in a written statement to MPs today: “I will not seek to legislate on this issue at the present time, although we will keep the matter under review.”
Mr Clarke published detailed plans in October, proposing that police should have powers to temporarily close down places of worship – such as mosques – which were being used by extremists.
The trustee or registered owner of a place of worship would be issued with an order – obtained from a court by the police – requiring them to take steps to stop such behaviour, the document said. Failing to do so would be a criminal offence.
If the activity persisted, police could apply to the court for a “restriction of use order” which could temporarily close all or part of the premises.
The consultation paper said the new powers would be a “last resort” and police would attempt to solve problems at any place of worship with members of the community.
But earlier this month the Association of Chief Police Officers said the proposed measures risked alienating ordinary Muslims and driving extremism underground.
And in November, a group of Islamic experts appointed by Mr Clarke in the wake of July 7 said the measures could be arbitrary and open to “possible misuse”.
In a report they said: “The proposal on closing certain mosques rather than simply prosecuting the criminality in those mosques could deprive a whole congregation from benefiting from a provision they may have heavily invested in because of a few fanatics misusing their facilities.”
A Home Office spokesman said 66 people and organisations responded to the consultation and the majority were negative.
Assistant Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Rob Beckley, an Acpo spokesman on counter-terrorism, said in his response: “Acpo does not support the enactment of legislation of the type proposed.
“In the opinion of Acpo, there would need to be significant changes to the intentions and wording of the legislation for it to be either desirable or enforceable.”
The Rev Graham Sparkes of the Baptist Union of Great Britain commented: “Over the centuries, many Baptists experienced persecution, discrimination and imprisonment at the hands of the state, in order to secure control over what was preached, where it could be preached, and who could preach.
“We would be very sensitive towards any proposals that put these hard won freedoms under threat.”
General secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain, Sir Iqbal Sacranie, said in his submission: “We … feel that mosques are being misidentified and stereotyped as incubators of violent extremism, while the social reality is that they serve as centres of moderation.
“The bombers were indoctrinated by a subculture outside the mosque. The notion of influential ‘back-door’ mosques is a figment of the imagination.”
He added: “Our belief is that a major factor in the rise and spread of the current tide of terrorism is rooted in our foreign policy and in the double standards of our Government in its dealings in the Middle East in partnership with the government of the US. We urge you to accept this fact.”
“We ask you to take urgent remedial action so that our citizens, here as well as in the rest of the world, do not become targets of criminals and murderers who parade as political activists but who surely are nothing other than terrorists.”Morag Mylne, convenor of the Church and Society Council of the Church in Scotland, said: “The power suggested seems to us to amount to a desire to ‘get someone, anyone’.
“We think there is no point trying to adjust or amend the proposal. We believe it should be abandoned forthwith.”

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Church fire follows beach riot

Posted by Spanish Eowyn en 18/diciembre/2005

A CHURCH HALL was set ablaze and shots were fired near a primary school in Sydney yesterday, fuelling fears of an escalation in violence between ethnic Arabs and whites.
Hundreds of officers were sent to potential trouble spots after Sunday’s race riots on a beach popular with white Australians and men of Arab descent. Gangs of Lebanese men retaliated by rampaging through suburban streets and attacking cars and buildings.
Morris Iemma, the premier of New South Wales, said that police would pay special attention to places of worship and schools. “We have to be on guard for this. These hooligans will not destroy the fabric of our society,” he said.
Mr Iemma said that a 500-strong riot squad would be deployed to deal with racially inspired violence. He introduced new laws giving police special powers to lock down parts of Sydney and search and confiscate vehicles, a move aimed at ending “smash and bash” raids involving carloads of youths of Middle Eastern origin.
Yesterday’s fire in a church hall next to an Islamic centre in the suburb of Macquarie Fields, and an incident at a primary school in Auburn where parents were abused at a carol concert and shots fired into cars, represents a dangerous escalation of this week’s unrest. Police could not confirm if the fire was linked to the violence.
Peace talks were held between representatives of Middle Eastern communities and surf groups in the beachside suburb of Cronulla, where last weekend’s running battles began. They issued a joint declaration calling for an end to the clashes. Sources insisted that there were no ringleaders organising the violence and said that text messages were being sent urging an end to it.
Brad Whittaker, a local surfer, apologised for the behaviour of some white Australians last Sunday. “The day began as a show of solidarity against behaviour of ethnic gangs that have been harassing the public on our beaches over a period of seven years,” he explained. “It escalated out of control under the influence of right-wing racists from outside this community and alcohol.”
Representatives of the wider Arab community called for a weekend curfew to stop further racial violence. Parents were urged to keep their children at home after 9pm on Friday and Saturday and all day Sunday.
Elie Nassif, of the Lebanese Community Council, said that the measures would help to ease tensions. “We have to protect Australia no matter whether you’re born here or you come from overseas.”

My comment: It’s curious, note that nothing is said about the state in which the Church is anow, who burned it, or was suspected of having burned it. I wonder what would have happened if the white racists would have stormed into a mosque and burned it. Ooh, and very curious what this “representant” of the Lebanes Comunity says: one should ask what Asutralia they want to protect. I do not think I would like Australia to become a place where someone could ask you, if you’re a woman/girl, “are you a virgin?”, just because being in bathing costume…. And that surfer has summed up very well the situation: they have been harrasing the population for ¡¡¡SEVEN YEARS!!! My goodness. And then the police said they were not detaining this people, to prevent them to begin riots.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

Withdrawal Pains

Posted by Spanish Eowyn en 18/diciembre/2005

The current discussion about drawing down American troops in Iraq–whether “immediately,” “rapidly” or “as soon as possible”–would be amusing were it not so dangerously divorced from reality. There could be no greater mistake than drawing down the U.S. force now, at a moment when there is real hope for success if the United States perseveres.
But Democrats calling for these reductions are not the only ones to blame for giving the impression, however mistaken, that the United States is growing short of breath in Iraq just as the situation appears to be improving. The Bush administration has been talking about reducing forces in Iraq ever since the invasion ended in 2003. Indeed, the history of the administration’s endless promises to reduce the size of the force in Iraq puts the current discussion in perspective.
On May 3, 2003, the New York Times reported administration plans to “withdraw most United States combat forces from Iraq over the next several months,” reducing the number of troops from 130,000 to 30,000 by the fall of 2003. According to officials, the administration did “not want substantial numbers of American forces to be tied down in Iraq” and was “eager to avoid the specter of American occupation.”
That didn’t quite pan out. After the invasion, the U.S. force in Iraq turned out to be too small to bring order to the country. The calculation of Pentagon officials such as Paul Wolfowitz, who claimed that the force necessary to bring peace and stability to Iraq need not be larger than the force necessary to invade it, proved mistaken. And so, a year after the invasion, 135,000 troops still were in Iraq, too many to avoid “the specter of American occupation” but too few to make that occupation effective in bringing order and preventing the rise of an armed opposition.
Nevertheless, the Bush administration continued looking for reductions. Pentagon officials told Congress that the numbers would begin to decline significantly by the summer of 2004. But as summer approached, they began asking for more money to maintain troop levels, and some 20,000 troops scheduled for return home had to be kept in the field. In early 2004 administration officials again talked about drawing down forces significantly, perhaps in time for the November elections. That turned out to be wrong, too. By December 2004 troop strength was at 150,000.
Last April, when 142,000 American troops were in Iraq, senior military officials were talking about possibly reducing the force to a little over 100,000 by early 2006. But by August, according to The Post, Pentagon plans called for an increase of 10,000 troops in the fall, with a possible decrease to around 120,000 by the spring of 2006 and further reductions by the end of 2006 to around 100,000. Last month about 150,000 troops were deployed, and, according to the Pentagon, the “current thinking” was that the number could fall to 138,000 after the coming Iraqi elections and then to below 100,000 by late 2006.
President Bush himself repeatedly insisted that he had no intention of withdrawing from Iraq or even reducing the force short of victory. But apparently the president has little control over what his own officials say and do. So there has been a steady drumbeat of anticipated reductions ever since the spring of 2003, with each promise and plan inevitably broken or undone by persistent military realities in Iraq.
Is it any wonder that Democrats uncomfortable defending the war they once supported now feel comfortable talking about withdrawal? Their arguments come directly from administration talking points. Some top military and Pentagon officials have, from the beginning, asserted that the presence of large numbers of U.S. troops is a big reason for the rise of the insurgency and that a “small footprint” was the key ingredient to success. This has proved erroneous. But how much should we blame Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha and John Kerry for making the very same argument and suggesting that Iraq can be made stable and secure only by a steady reduction of forces? Has any senior military officer or top Pentagon official really explained why this is not the case?
They had better begin doing so, even though it might mean owning up to their miscalculation at the end of the war in 2003. The U.S. force was too small at the beginning and remained too small for most of the past two years. As a result, it did not play the role that an occupying force must play in bringing stability to the country, the prerequisites to producing a secure Iraq capable of standing on its own feet. Instead of worrying about an overly large American “footprint,” administration and military officials should have been worrying about stopping armed opposition from spreading and about the moral and practical responsibility of providing security to the people whose country we had invaded.
Now that indigenous Iraqi forces are starting to fight more effectively and in greater numbers, we may be getting to the point where the current U.S. force of more than 150,000 troops is adequate to start providing Iraqis the necessary security and stability. We may be today where we should have been two years ago. If American force levels hold steady while Iraqi force levels increase, that gradually shifts the balance in the conflict in our favor. But we will almost certainly have to maintain something like these levels for another two years, and possibly longer.
Talk of reductions and withdrawal is as unhelpful as it almost certainly is ephemeral. For 2 1/2 years, despite the endless promise of reductions, despite election battles, scandals and shifting political fortunes, the United States has maintained a steady force of 130,000 to 150,000 troops in Iraq. You can bet that the numbers will not be dramatically smaller a year from now or even two years from now. Wouldn’t we be better off, wouldn’t our prospects for success be greater, if we just admitted it? Better still, the administration could explain why it is so important to keep these troops in place so that the public understands the long road ahead. It could start taking steps to increase the overall size of the U.S. military so that the sustained deployment doesn’t “break” the Army. And it could stop making false promises of reductions that cannot and should not occur until Iraq is indeed secure and stable.
Robert Kagan is a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund. This column originally appeared in the Washington Post.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comentarios desactivados

Vladimir Putin y un poco de historia acerca del Pacto Stalin-Hitler

Posted by Spanish Eowyn en 18/diciembre/2005

¿Puede ser esta la razón de que los rusos se alíen contra Occidente y a favor de los musulmanes?

Vladimir Putin, en su esfuerzo por restaurar el legado estalinista de Moscú, se excede a sí mismo como defensor del pasado genocida y totalitario de Rusia. A consecuencia de la gira del Presidente George W. Bush por las nuevas democracias post-soviéticas, Putin ha intentado revisar la historia.
Primero, comencemos con una revisión de la historia aceptada: los países bálticos, Estonia, Latvia y Lituania, así como Georgia, no son de cultura eslava. No tienen conexión étnica con Rusia en absoluto. Fueron tomados por los rusos zaristas en los siglos XVIII y XIX.
En 1918, todos ellos declararon su independencia. Los georgianos fueron reconquistados por los bolcheviques en 1921. Los pueblos bálticos lucharon tanto contra las fuerzas alemanas como contra la rusas, así como contra la usura diplomática, para continuar siendo libres, y mantuvieron su independencia hasta 1939. Pero entonces, Stalin, tras siete años de vacilar ante los preparativos Nazis de una nueva guerra mundial, tomó una medida decisiva. Se alió con Hitler en favor de la redivisión de la frontera occidental de Rusia. Los ejércitos alemán y ruso se repartieron Polonia, liquidando la independencia que ese país logró en 1918.
Los estados bálticos fueron absorbidos por Moscú y sovietizados, y sobrevinieron las tentativas de genocidio real — la destrucción de naciones enteras. Miles de ciudadanos del Báltico, incluyendo a la élite intelectual de los tres países, fueron deportados a Siberia y al Asia Central soviética. La política estalinista de “limpieza étnica” -ese desgraciado eufemismo se inventó 50 años-inspiró a Hitler y a su corte, haciéndoles creer que mudar a gente “indeseable” y masacrar a gran cantidad de ellos podía hacerse con impunidad.
Además, los soviéticos rebanaron partes de Rumania, que es por lo que existe un país separado llamado Moldova – un huérfano desesperadamente empobrecido de la alianza Stalin-Hitler.
El pacto de Hitler y Stalin dejó alucinada a la opinión liberal de todo el mundo — hasta sorprendió a los comunistas occidentales y a los ciudadanos soviéticos ordinarios. Durante los cuatro años previos, desde 1935, los soviéticos habían resonado diciendo que nadie les sobrepasaría en resistencia a los Nazis. Pero desde el otoño de 1939 hasta el verano de 1941, Stalin proyectó asistir a Hitler en la conquista completa de Europa, con el argumento de que sería una derrota de los capitalistas internacionales.
En 1941, Hitler decidió que la mascarada había terminado, e invadió Rusia. Los soviéticos no estaban preparados para este giro, y dado que Stalin había purgado y masacrado a la mayoría de los cuerpos de oficiales soviéticos, el ejército ruso era incapaz de evitar la captura Nazi de los estados del Báltico y de la mayor parte de la Rusia europea y Ucrania. (En el último ejemplo, los nacionalistas ucranianos organizaron movimientos que lucharon tanto contra los Nazis como contra los estalinistas).
Cuando los estados fronterizos fueron reconquistados por lo rusos en 1944-45, como se nos recordó recientemente por el Presidente Bush, continuaron sufriendo la opresión nacional. La independencia que habían logrado después de la Primera Guerra Mundial, o fue completamente extinguida (los estados bálticos fueron reincorporados a la Unión Soviética) o fue objeto de dominación soviética con soberanía nacional limitada (Polonia).
Los Estados Unidos rechazaron oficialmente la absorción soviética de los estados del Báltico, y permitieron que Estonia, Latvia, y Lituania mantuvieran la representación diplomática en Washington hasta 1991, cuando el derrumbamiento del imperio soviético permitió su vuelta a la libertad. Los pueblos del Báltico no tenían nada que celebrar del triunfo soviético en Europa Oriental. Estonia y Lituania, por ejemplo, rechazaron enviar delegados a la reciente publicidad extravagante en Moscú para conmemorar el final de la Segunda Guerra Mundial.
Putin intenta hoy reafirmar los “derechos” imperialistas rusos en los países fronterizos — conocidos en Rusia como “el cercano exterior”. Está enfurecido con la admisión sin evasivas por parte del Presidente Bush de que el Acuerdo de Yalta, que dividió Europa entre las democracias y Stalin, fue un trágico error; también está rabioso por la solidaridad del Presidente con los estados del Báltico y con los georgianos, y la condena norteamericana a la dictadura de Aleksandr Lukashenko en Bielorrusia.
Un reflejo de la ira del Kremlin llegó el 12 de mayo, cuando el jefe de la policía secreta rusa, Alexander Patrushev, denunció a Estados Unidos y a Gran Bretaña, junto con Kuwait y Arabia Saudí, por espionaje contra Rusia. En otras palabras, Bush y Blair son, en la mentalidad rusa, el equivalente moral de los agentes del terror wahabí que llegan de Riyad o de los reclutadores de radicales para la Hermandad Musulmana de sede en Kuwait. Antes de 1935, Stalin argumentó de modo similar que las democracias y las potencias fascistas eran lo mismo; el único cambio es que el islamofacismo [de hoy] ha reemplazado a los fascistas del pasado.
Patrushev también repitió la queja rusa hoy común contra la implicación extranjera en la democratización de las repúblicas exsoviéticas. Pero Putin ha abierto el camino a la estalinización del debate acerca del futuro de Rusia y de sus vecinos.
Según el presidente ruso, que se autoproclama veterano orgulloso de la policía secreta soviética, los estados del Báltico nunca fueron independientes, y nunca fueron invadidos u ocupados por los soviéticos. Como cita Vladimir Socor, de la Jamestown Foundation de Washington, el líder ruso declaró, “Rusia entregó algunos de sus territorios a Alemania”, incluyendo los territorios que se convirtieron en estados bálticos. “En 1939, Alemania nos los devolvió, y estos territorios se unieron a la Unión Soviética (‘sostav v voshli’)”. Socor también destaca la declaración del Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores ruso del 5 de mayo, que, de modo similar, afirma que la Unión Soviética “no podría haber ocupado de ninguna manera lo que poseía ya”.
Hace un siglo y medio, el liberal ruso Alexander Herzen escribía, “la revolución de Pedro el Grande reemplazó la obsoleta clase de propietarios de Rusia — con una burocracia europea; todo lo que se pudo copiar de las leyes suecas y alemanas, todo lo que se pudo tomar de los municipios libres de Holanda en nuestro país medio comunista y medio absolutista, se tomó. Pero lo que no está escrito, la supervisión moral del poder, el reconocimiento instintivo de los derechos del hombre, del derecho de pensamiento, a la verdad, no pudieron ser y no fueron importados”. En Rusia, puede que algunas cosas nunca cambien.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comentarios desactivados

Necesitan nuestra firmeza

Posted by Spanish Eowyn en 18/diciembre/2005

Mientras Al Fatah asume el liderazgo de los islamistas de Hamas en Gaza, su futuro se hace cada vez más incierto ante las fuertes divisiones internas. Desde su celda en Israel Mauran Barguti, máximo dirigente de las Brigadas de Al Aksa, acusa al Presidente de la Autoridad Palestina y de Al Fatah, Abú Mazem, de corrupción, lo que le inhabilitaría para seguir al frente del partido. Un terrorista denuncia a un ladrón, convencido de que sus crímenes no pueden ser obstáculo para sucederle en el poder. Más tarde o más temprano la vieja guardia de Túnez tendrá que dar paso a los más jóvenes, formados en las dos intifadas. Si nadie lo remedia podemos encontrarnos con terroristas palestinos, en sus versiones nacionalista e islamista, al frente de las formaciones más importantes, lo que sería un grave obstáculo tanto para el proceso de paz como para la democratización de Palestina.
Como comentábamos en el artículo de ayer la Unión Europea comienza a dar signos de debilidad en su tratamiento a Hamas. No es capaz de asumir que su cometido, como ejemplo de naciones democráticas, es mantener una posición de firmeza frente a aquellos que rechazan este sistema. Porque, guste o no en Bruselas, Hamas impugna tanto la existencia del estado de Israel como la democracia parlamentaria.Aunque están dispuestos a utilizar esta última para conseguir la desaparición de sus vecinos y, finalmente, instaurar la sharia al oeste del Jordán.
El presidente iraní ha hecho una nueva e ilustrativa declaración sobre Israel, la tercera. Además de seguir dudando sobre la realidad del Holocausto y de negar el derecho a existir al estado judío, ha señalado algo que no conviene pasar por alto: los occidentales apoyan a Israel porque saben que su desaparición supondría un cambio mayor en la región. Ahmadineyah tiene razón en la importancia del cambio, pero no en que los occidentales lo sepan. Si lo supieran, si fueran conscientes de que la existencia de Israel es mucho más que la pervivencia de un estado judío, si comprendieran que, sobre todo, es una democracia que se encuentra en la primera línea de la guerra contra el radicalismo islámico, entonces no caerían en el error de legitimar a Hamas.
Nuestra falta de valores, nuestra incapacidad para mantener una actitud firme, nos hace previsiblemente débiles. Ellos lo saben, lo proclaman y actúan en consecuencia. Europa sólo está dispuesta a actuar diplomáticamente y a enviar cuanto dinero sea necesario. Es nuestra forma de estar a bien con nuestra conciencia. Si sus dirigentes son islamistas y/o terroristas, ¿con quién vamos a negociar el envío de nuestra ayuda? No podremos seguir engañándonos mucho más tiempo. La ayuda no lo es todo. Más aún, la mejor ayuda es dejarles claro cuál es el camino que deben seguir, que no puede ser otro que el imperio de la ley.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comentarios desactivados

Intifada saharaui y “fortaleza” de España

Posted by Spanish Eowyn en 18/diciembre/2005

El asesinato a palos en El Aiún del joven Hamdi Lambarki tras una manifestación proreferéndum; el secuestro y tortura de activistas de los derechos humanos como Alí Salem Tamek o la candidata al premio Sajarov, Aminetu Haidar; las humillaciones con las que los esbirros de Mohamed VI castigan el entorno familiar de presos y desaparecidos –la violación de la esposa de Alí Salem Tamek en presencia de su hija de tres años es sólo uno de muchos casos­-, evocan en el Sáhara ocupado por Marruecos los fantasmas de las siniestras dictaduras de Pinochet y las juntas militares en Argentina. Pero contra toda evidencia, el presidente José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero y el ministro Moratinos, en lugar de situarse del lado de los oprimidos y de los derechos humanos, siguen empecinados en seguir la farsa con la que intentan maquillar a un tirano feudal de noble paladín de la causa democrática, aún a costa de que las mentiras que esta abnegación les exige hagan cundir entre sus electores una inquietante duda: ¿por qué el Gobierno socialista arriesga así su credibilidad?
En el escenario internacional, el silencio alevoso con el que España falta a sus compromisos de potencia administradora del Sáhara y, en lugar de defender los intereses de los saharauis, se convierte en cómplice de sus verdugos, ofrece una dudosa muestra de la ética política con la que Zapatero pretende construir su Alianza de Civilizaciones.
La cortesía protocolaria de los efusivos abrazos y apretones de manos le consiente a Zapatero ocultar el descrédito que a todos los españoles nos cuesta su denodado empeño por favorecer al rey de Marruecos y dar alas a esa misma fantasía manipuladora con la que ha pretendido hacer pasar sus chascarrillos antiamericanos por una muestra de independencia política. Pero si el Wall Street Journal tuvo que iluminarnos sobre el estremecimiento que las bromas antiamericanas de Zapatero causan incluso a los socios alemanes y franceses que aparentemente tanto le ríen las gracias, no es necesario que nos explique también por qué España no podrá convertirse en punto de referencia, y menos en materia pacificadora, mientras no cumpla con sus deberes básicos ante el derecho internacional en el único conflicto del mundo en el que tiene responsabilidad directa.
La brutal represión con la que las fuerzas de ocupación marroquíes en el Sáhara Occidental están intentando silenciar la intifada que sacude el territorio de la colonia española, han detonado las grandes mentiras que sirven de fachada a esa amistad hispano-marroquí que el presidente Zapatero y Moratinos exhiben como uno de los grandes éxitos de su gobierno y, por mucho que la opinión pública lo intente, ya no tiene con qué creerse la supuesta fiabilidad de un vecino que deja mal incluso a quienes tanto se ponen en evidencia por hacer buena su imagen. Y es que Mohamed VI no colabora demasiado con sus grandes amigos españoles: basta que ellos alaben la colaboración marroquí en la crisis de la Marcha Negra en Ceuta y Melilla para que haya tiros y muertos en las vallas fronterizas; y si en el palacio de Santa Cruz intentan ensalzar el avance en transparencia informativa que supone que los invasores hayan permitido la entrada de reporteros españoles en El Aiún, al día siguiente se produce la detención de periodistas en una siniestra comisaría de esta ciudad donde se les amedrenta y confisca su material.
A pesar de la falta de prudencia de Mohamed VI, algunas de las mentiras con las que se protegen sus intereses pueden diluirse en la avalancha informativa del día a día y arroparse con declaraciones solemnes que aseguran que “la autodeterminación del Sáhara es un tema clave para la política española”. Basta con omitir que la prioridad que, efectivamente, ha tomado este asunto para la diplomacia de Moratinos ha desembocado en una acción febril que tiene como objetivo la segunda edición, pero bien rematada, de los Acuerdos Tripartitos con los que la dictadura de Francisco Franco entregó el Sáhara al rey Hassán.
Zapatero cuenta para ello con la eficacia de un ministro de Exteriores que sabe lo mucho que sus electores agradecen que se les de un pretexto para no inquietarse también en ese frente y que hace todo lo que está en su mano con tal de hacerles felices prometiéndoles que la promarroquinidad del Gobierno Zapatero sólo es un cuento cizañero de los crispadores fachas. Y, mientras, con igual meticulosidad, sus diplomáticos intentan convencer a EEUU para que se una a las tesis anexionistas de Francia que ellos sirven sin otra contrapartida que la de no contrariar al único aliado de envergadura que les queda. O en Estrasburgo, por poner otro ejemplo, el socialista Josep Borrell aprovecha su posición de presidente del Parlamento Europeo para impedir que Marruecos reciba allí un nuevo revés diplomático bajo forma de una resolución condenatoria.
Afortunadamente para los saharauis, el prestigio y pujanza de la España de Zapatero ante la comunidad internacional sigue sin dar para que tanto esfuerzo prospere. No todo el mundo está dispuesto a salir a terreno descubierto para saciar la voracidad insaciable de Mohamed VI que no se contenta con que la Unión Europea le haya hecho el gran favor de transigir con la negociación de unos acuerdos que consagran la explotación ilegal de los recursos pesqueros saharauis. Así que al final, la aprobación por unanimidad de la resolución con la que recientemente se le ha exigido a Marruecos el respeto de los “derechos fundamentales” de la población saharaui y la liberación de los encarcelados ha concluido con una gran indignación en Rabat por la ineficacia de sus amigos españoles, y la “gran sorpresa” de los correligionarios europeos de Borrell ante las maniobras insólitas e inéditas en el procedimiento de esta institución con las que su presidente intentó un aplazamiento indefinido de la votación de la condena.
Es fácil amortiguar ante la mayor parte de la opinión pública española los ecos delatores para Zapatero de esta parte de la batalla por el Sáhara que libra Marruecos. Pero, lo que ya no hay forma de camuflar son las poderosas razones que impiden al Gobierno socialista español pronunciarse, incluso ahora que cuentan con el escudo de una resolución europea, sobre el cruel martirio al que las fuerzas militares marroquíes están sometiendo a hombres, mujeres, niños y ancianos para que renuncien a la celebración del referéndum de autodeterminación prometido por la ONU.
Los lobbies promarroquíes que desde la época de la dictadura franquista lograron imponer el silencio informativo sobre lo que ocurre en el Sáhara, ya no tienen nada que hacer ante la eficacia democrática con que Internet hace circular las imágenes que documentan las heridas, magulladuras y quemaduras con las que los carceleros marroquíes arrancan testimonios y confesiones con las que condenar en juicios arbitrarios a los que en las calles de El Aiún exigen a la ONU que cumpla con sus responsabilidades. En los medios tradicionales la atención sigue estando acaparada por las fotos de los malos tratos sufridos por los presos iraquíes y talibanes (ellos tienen la ventaja del morbo antiamericano) y la cuestión del Sáhara queda en segundo plano incluso frente a los reportajes exclusivos que ilustran sobre la fea situación de las cárceles en Ecuador. Pero, quien quiere, puede acceder fácilmente a la espeluznante información sobre las inmundas condiciones de las celdas de la Cárcel Negra de El Aiún y otras mazmorras, donde se pudren los presos políticos saharauis, incluidos los menores, sometidos a los abusos que generan los carceleros y el hacinamiento con delincuentes comunes. Son imágenes muy peligrosas para Zapatero: quien las ve no necesita saber lo que pasa en Washington o Estrasburgo para tener la terrible sospecha de que el presidente y su ministro mienten en todo lo que tenga que ver con Marruecos.
El régimen marroquí ha intentado sacar del apuro a Zapatero (su debilidad le conviene pero no en exceso) asegurando que esas fotos y vídeos en poder de las asociaciones de derechos humanos son fruto de un montaje orquestado por la pérfida Argelia y el Polisario. Lo malo para su credibilidad, es que también se apresuró a tachar de burdas maquinaciones de sus vecinos las denuncias sobre el auténtico destino de los inmigrantes africanos deportados de Ceuta y Melilla y, seguidamente, se produjo una catarata informativa sobre los sin papeles localizados por las ONG y el Frente Polisario vagando por el desierto del Sáhara, sin agua ni comida, que no dejaba equívocos sobre cómo se las gastan en Rabat a la hora de erradicar problemas y cumplir con sus compromisos internacionales. Y todavía estaba fresco el choque emocional de los televidentes españoles con este asunto, que ocurrió el asesinato Lambarki y, de nuevo, los portavoces marroquíes se empeñaron en decir que era mentira, que el joven había muerto de una pedrada accidental lanzada por los propios manifestantes saharauis. Y resultó que, una vez más, no había más mentira que la forjada en Rabat y de tal calibre que ni siquiera allí la han podido seguir sosteniendo y han acabado por reconocer que Lambarki fue víctima de un crimen policial.
Las mentiras de la dinastía alauita vienen de lejos porque, como en toda dictadura, el maquillaje es clave para su continuidad. Pero los asesores de Mohamed VI tienen para ello una vena especialmente creativa, con golpes de efecto brillantes para lavar la imagen del trono tales como el reconocer la existencia de fosas comunes con los restos de decenas de prisioneros políticos desaparecidos en centros de detención secreta, en los años setenta y ochenta. Gracias a ello, los que en España defendieron hasta ayer los logros de la apertura democrática del rey Hassán II y se guardaron muy mucho de hacerse eco de los informes de Amnistía Internacional o Human Rights Watch, ahora no tienen más que hacer como que ellos ya habían advertido al público de los horrores de los años de plomo y subrayar que el gesto de Mohamed VI viene a demostrar que él sí se está empeñando a fondo para acabar con los malos hábitos del régimen de su padre. Una hábil pirueta cuya carga triunfalista no puede resistir el efecto devastador que tiene la mentira cuando estalla y tiene una onda expansiva tan grande como para dejar hecha añicos la solvencia de la política exterior española, más allá del Estrecho.
La intifada saharaui ha convertido así en un ejercicio patético el vano intento de Zapatero por recuperar la fe de los electores poniendo mucho énfasis en que con él votaron la fortaleza, independencia y solidaridad que España había perdido en el encuentro de las Azores. Si tan fuertes, independientes y solidarios somos ahora, ¿por qué no utilizar nuestra influencia y prestigio internacional para interceder a favor de los saharauis ante el descendiente del Profeta? Si tan boyante es la amistad hispano-marroquí, ¿por qué Zapatero no utiliza su ascendente para que el príncipe de los Creyentes libere a los saharauis que siguen desapareciendo o llenando las cárceles?
La debilidad de la posición de España es tan evidente que hasta el propio régimen marroquí ha vuelto a las tradicionales estrategias de extorsión y chantaje con las que fue atornillando a los sucesivos Gobiernos posfranquistas de la UCD, PSOE y PP para que no cambiasen el rumbo dado al asunto del Sáhara a su favor con la firma de los Acuerdos Tripartitos y que consiste en forzar la benevolente neutralidad española, tan dañina para los saharauis, con alguna jugarreta en otro escenario, aparentemente distinto, como es el apresamiento de barcos pesqueros o el hostigamiento a Ceuta y Melilla.
No es una casualidad que las avalanchas de los inmigrantes africanos se hayan lanzado contra las ciudades autónomas justo en la víspera de un encuentro hispano-marroquí y cuando estaba a punto de discutirse en la ONU la continuidad de la misión de los cascos azules en el Sáhara. En un estado policial como es el de Mohamed VI es impensable que un ejército de africanos haya logrado organizarse y movilizarse sin que las fuerzas de seguridad lo supiesen y decidiesen como mínimo, dejar hacer. De hecho, si tan imparable era el flujo de los miles y miles de inmigrantes dispuestos a marchar por su territorio hacia Europa, ¿cómo se explica su súbita desaparición?
El misterio se carga de sospecha con los beneficios con los que Mohamed VI ha rentabilizado esta crisis. Las ayudas económicas logradas desde Bruselas para convertirse en guardián de la frontera sur de la Unión Europea, son sólo los más visibles. Menos obvios, aunque igualmente valiosos, han sido los buenos resultados en el campo político. Y es que el propio régimen marroquí es consciente de que la intifada en los territorios que ocupa ilegalmente dinamita la ficción de la supuesta amistad hispano-marroquí con la que el PSOE está intentando hacer digerible para su electorado la culminación de la política entreguista del último Gobierno de Franco. La avalancha africana ha contribuido a recordarle a esa parte del PSOE, que por honestidad o por simple cálculo electoral, podrían rebelarse a la sumisión de Zapatero y Moratinos ante Mohamed VI, que la amistad de Rabat les conviene muy mucho si no quieren tener invasiones incontroladas que no son del gusto de los votantes. Además, ha desviado con éxito la atención del escabroso tema, para Rabat y Madrid, de los derechos humanos en el Sáhara (varias organizaciones habían anunciado manifestaciones de solidaridad coincidiendo con el encuentro de Sevilla).
De paso, la experiencia le ha servido al rey Mohamed para comprobar que la espada de Damocles que cualquier crisis en Ceuta y Melilla inevitablemente logra tender sobre el futuro de las dos ciudades autónomas, sigue siendo un eficiente silenciador también entre la derecha española donde abundan las víctimas de esa trampa que se cierra con el sacrificio de la honra en el Sáhara a cambio de evitar un mal mayor, la pérdida de Ceuta y Melilla. Se trata de una vieja trampa que ya el rey Hassán II supo manejar con gran habilidad y que ahora cobra fuerza con la debilidad en la que han sumido a España los daños colaterales en política exterior del 11-M.
El recuerdo del intento de Perejil y la traición francesa alientan estos temores hasta lograr que los afectados, entre ellos muchos partidarios del referéndum de la ONU para el Sáhara, pierdan de vista que al rey Mohamed, por el momento, no le interesa que estas dos ciudades dejen de ser españolas porque así puede esgrimir esta proximidad territorial como argumento para vencer la ventaja que le pueden sacar vecinos como Argelia en la carrera por la candidatura de primer socio europeo del Magreb. Logrado ese objetivo, y si nada ha logrado frenar hasta entonces el apetito por ese espacio vital con el que los alauitas subliman los problemas de la miseria crónica que padece su pueblo, ya habrá nuevas oportunidades para exigir los enclaves y las islas Canarias que también consideran suyas.
La importancia económica y diplomática que para Marruecos tiene esta candidatura europea, especialmente ahora que el apoyo africano al Frente Polisario lo ha dejado aislado en su escenario natural, no es ajena a la entusiasta declaración con la que el ministro Moratinos, en plena tormenta por el cruel abandono de los expulsados africanos en el Sáhara, se haya proclamado partidario de un acuerdo de la Unión Europea con Marruecos como el que con tanto esfuerzo se ha ganado Turquía.
La opinión pública española ha comprendido que Zapatero, al seguir los consejos de Felipe González y apostar tan fuerte por explicar la “confrontación” del Gobierno de Aznar con Marruecos en clave de intolerancia xenofóbica e ideológica, no puede permitirse la más mínima crisis con Marruecos. Pero significarse de este modo, en plena tormenta, carece del instinto de supervivencia política que hubiese tenido lanzar una propuesta similar a favor de la Suráfrica del apartheid cuando acababan de hacerse públicas las fotos del cadáver de Steve Biko machacado por sus carceleros asesinos.
Moratinos habrá actuado por la imperiosa necesidad de calmar las iras del rey Mohamed pero, de cara al electorado, especialmente a ese del estrecho margen al que su partido le debe la victoria del 14-M, su descarada complicidad con una tiranía fascista perfila la inquietante duda sobre cuál es el alcance de la mentira que tanto le permite tirar de la cuerda al chantajista. Porque sólo esa lógica de la mentira que genera más mentira puede explicar el poder con el que Marruecos impone a Zapatero condiciones tan humillantes a su amistad como son asumir la culpa de los muertos africanos en la valla o exigir acortar la estancia de un equipo de televisión española en los campamentos del Frente Polisario para que sus reportajes sobre los inmigrantes africanos salvados por los independentistas no provoquen un grave incidente diplomático.
La espiral de mentiras que ha puesto en marcha la intifada saharaui ha atrapado con tal fuerza a Zapatero y disparado tanto el precio de las buenas relaciones con Mohamed VI, que el presidente ya no se basta por sí solo para pagarlo y tiene que recurrir al rey Juan Carlos para que las aguas vuelvan a su cauce con el vecino. Según Trinidad Jiménez todavía tenemos que dar gracias porque no estuviese el PP en el Gobierno durante la crisis de la Marcha Negra (vete a saber lo que hubiese ocurrido con ellos, dice) como si la ciudadanía no tuviese memoria histórica para darse cuenta de lo desesperada que debía de ser la situación que ha obligado a una intervención que remueve recuerdos turbios de los días en que el franquismo agonizaba con su dictador, nada saludables para la institución monárquica.
Zapatero y Moratinos no tienen escrúpulos sobre este tipo de secuelas, como ya se demostró durante la visita que los Reyes de España realizaron a Marruecos en la que no tuvieron reparos en salpicar a la corona con esa condecoración a altos cargos militares y civiles entre los que se encontraba el general Hamidu Laanigri, actual jefe de la seguridad Nacional marroquí señalado por varias organizaciones de derechos humanos por su implicación en el rapto, tortura y violaciones de centenares de detenidos saharauis.
Lo que ninguno de los dos puede evitar es que el exceso de mentira acaba haciendo brillar la verdad con la que los españoles van percibiendo que el 11-M sustituyó la foto junto a Bush, Blair y Barroso en las Azores por otra en Rabat, en la que el presidente del Gobierno español es la sumisa comparsa del gobierno de derechas de Chirac en su imperial defensa a un sultán absoluto y medieval que usa la amistad española para que haga bulto junto a sus mejores apoyos internacionales, el presidente de Madagascar y el de Senegal.
Ese retrato en las celebraciones del 50 aniversario de la independencia de Marruecos, esas declaraciones de Zapatero elogiando los logros democráticos de Mohamed VI, esa infatigable defensa de unos intereses que se anteponen a los del interés general español con un espíritu de sacrificio que sólo está a la altura del precio que el PSOE abona al tripartito catalán, ya no se pueden explicar sólo por el miedo a una nueva y mayor crisis marroquí. Los españoles tiemblan ante la proximidad de una nueva catástrofe porque ese tipo de entrega sólo se tiene por culpita de un gran querer o por el lastre de otro negocio inconfesable.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comentarios desactivados

Jamás con Hamas

Posted by Spanish Eowyn en 18/diciembre/2005

(Este es el título de un artículo aparecido en GEES 13/12/2005)

La Unión Europea, con el beneplácito de mister PESC, acaba de autorizar los contactos diplomáticos con la organización terrorista Hamas. Dos son las razones que parecen haber impulsado este cambio de postura. Por un lado, un ataque de pragmatismo, al reconocer que los representantes de Hamas serán los ganadores claros de las elecciones en Gaza y que, por tanto, como poder ya no fáctico, sino institucional, habrá que dialogar con ellos; por otro, la creencia de que cuando una organización terrorista acepta jugar en el terreno político y llega a tener responsabilidades de gobierno, se vuelve automáticamente moderada. No hay prueba de ello, no obstante.
La UE está cometiendo un grave error de consecuencias incalculables. Hamas no sólo es una organización terrorista cuyo mérito, entre otros, es estar detrás de la mayoría de ataques suicidas contra ciudadanos de Israel, sino que es una organización fundamentalista cuyo objetivo declarado no es hacerse con el poder en Gaza y otros territorios palestinos, sino acabar con el estado de Israel e imponer en los países árabes vecinos un régimen islámico a imagen y semejanza de su gran patrocinador, la República Islámica de Irán.
Es más, la UE se está negando la capacidad para contar con su principal aliado en la zona que es Israel aunque no le guste reconocerlo. Hoy la guerra contra el terrorismo islamista tiene su frente central en Irak, pues la evolución de ese país hacia formas democráticas o hacia el caos marcará la capacidad de aguante de nuestra civilización o la victoria del islamismo extremista. Pero eso no puede cegar el hecho de que la retaguardia inmediata de ese islamismo militante es, precisamente, Israel, la única democracia y sistema cultural semejante al nuestro en toda la región.
En un informe de FAES presentado recientemente por su presidente José María Aznar, NATO: An Aliance for freedom, se defiende la entrada de Israel en la OTAN sobre la base de lo que podría aportar a la lucha contra el terrorismo islamista. Pero hay más: si la OTAN aceptara a Israel como miembro se estaría dando un claro mensaje a los ayatolás iraníes de que la comunidad occidental no aceptará jamás su programa nuclear y que todos estamos juntos para adoptar las medidas necesarias para que Teherán no disponga de una bomba atómica. Los iraníes o temen a los europeos, perdidos en un proceso diplomático que no conduce a ninguna parte; tienen dudas sobre la administración americana, en la medida en que la piensan hundida en Irak; pero saben que Tel Aviv no puede convivir con la bomba islámica iraní. Aunque sólo fuera por eso, por un Israel punta de lanza de nuestra defensa colectiva, no sólo habría que invitarles a unirse a nuestros clubs, sino tratarles con el respeto y la decencia que se merecen por luchar contra nuestros propios enemigos. En este caso concreto, los terroristas de Hamas. La UE jamás debería entrar en conversaciones con los terroristas, por mucho que Rodríguez Zapatero les diga lo contrario. Nuestro caso nacional es buen a prueba de adónde conduce ese dejación de nuestros principios.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comentarios desactivados

Iraq troop pull-out to begin in months

Posted by Spanish Eowyn en 18/diciembre/2005

BRITAIN and America are planning a phased withdrawal of their forces from Iraq as soon as a permanent government is installed in Baghdad after this week’s elections.

In a move that has caused alarm in the outgoing Iraqi administration, American and British officials have made clear that they regard the end of Iraq’s two-and-a-half-year transitional period as the green light to begin withdrawing some of their combined force of around 170,000 troops as early as March.

A senior Western diplomat in Baghdad said yesterday: “One of the first things we will talk about (with the new Iraqi government) is the phased transfer of security, particularly in cities and provinces. It will happen progressively over the next year.”

America has more than 160,000 troops in central and northern Iraq, and Britain about 8,000 based in four southern provinces. Contingency plans are already in place for the small British contingents in the two provinces of Dhiqar and Muthana to go as early as the spring.

The third to go will be Misan province, a far more restive region. A senior British officer said that Iraqi security forces might be able to “keep a lid on the violence” by the end of this year.

The Americans have increased their troop levels to help to bolster security for the elections on Thursday. But they are planning to pull out 30,000 by the new year and may reduce their presence below 100,000 in the coming months. US forces have already handed over security in Najaf and Karbala provinces and in city centres such as Tikrit, Saddam Hussein’s home town.

The moves appear to run contrary to statements by President Bush and John Reid, the Defence Secretary, who insist that coalition forces will not “cut and run” and will stay until the mission in Iraq is complete.

Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, told The Times yesterday that a hasty exit risked plunging the country into a new bout of violence.

“Those who advocate an early withdrawal do not know what is at stake. The huge investment in blood and money sacrificed by the US could be squandered.

“There would be regional interventions by neighbouring countries and others. The fate of this country and the whole region could be endangered,” he said.

The move to hand over security to the 225,000 Iraqi soldiers and police who have now been trained for active duty comes in the face of mounting public pressure in both Britain and the US to disengage from Iraq, amid the rising death toll and spiralling costs.

An opinion poll conducted for the BBC in Iraq found that only 10 per cent regarded the removal of US troops from the country as the priority for the new government. The public has doubts about the ability of the Iraqi security forces, in particular the police, which is riddled with militia, and the army, which lacks equipment, training and leadership.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comentarios desactivados

To marry an islamist?

Posted by Spanish Eowyn en 18/diciembre/2005

The Card. Ruini for a long time is found to being mattatore cultural unwillingly in Italy: it recalls the most general principles of behavior, it exposes universal moral norms, currency bills, marks it dangers in the application of civic norms etc. The scappa to even make the parish priest, that perhaps it is the trade that prefers. Days ago, without to join all the Muslims nearly were all lestofanti, dictators and intolleranti, have exhorted – you notice yourself: it has not commant – the Italian girls to be in guard from possible weddings with Muslims.
Not a garnishment of the Church, but nearly a council of a papà . Null that can make to think next to crashs of civilization or generic sentences of fondamentalismo. Only an warning in order to put in guard. The reasons? If they feel some of all the colors from part of who has said matrimoniale its yes to a maomettano. If then the girl moves in a country Muslim, must dress one risen of uniform, put the chador, tacere, obey and work without too much to expect the collaboration.

An example? The most recent E’: a girl Bengali of twelve years – second average – discovers itself married with a also Bengali boy of fourteen years. And this without that it moves from Vicenza where lives from eight years with the family of immigrates to you muslim, and without that the boy makes a step towards Italy. They have thought next to all the parents of he and she. Now, but, the dodicenne it cannot participate to the festivities of the friends, to attend school companions, to approach boys and girls of other religions and other countries, it must sobbarcarsi the house jobs, must digiunare when glielo they impose even if not of it can more from the hunger, is forced to make the tasks to late evening in the month of ramadam the etc. In the point that, reached the esasperazione, with a forbicina in a toilette of the school tries the suicide cutting itself the veins to the wrists since more do not succeed sopportare the separation and the solitudine. One does not forget that to school – where it is between best – it cannot design, because the Islam not chip ax the figures. Ahead in the years it will be able also to discover far away of being one between the mogli of its husband quattordicenne.
Thanks, Mr. Ruini parish priest. And the Italian girls lascino not to infatuare itself from the faces and the exotic customs of the Muslims. Perhaps the saying is excessive “moglie and buoi of the countries yours”. But a truth spirit contains it.

This is an automatic traslation from italian done by Bablefish (sorry, I understand Italian but really cannot translate it, although I think everyone can understand it)

Posted in Uncategorized | Comentarios desactivados

He scared us for decades, now all I see is a skinny old man in a cage

Posted by Spanish Eowyn en 18/diciembre/2005

I WAS told I would be only 30ft from Saddam Hussein, the closest I have ever been to the dictator who owned my life for three decades. But in the event, all I can see across the courtroom is a skinny old man sitting in a cage.

Next to me two other Iraqi translators are sweating and looking very nervous. It’s five minutes before the trial begins, and the three of us are about to start a simultaneous translation on day three of Saddam Hussein’s trial, but not one of us has yet stepped up to the microphone.

Looking into their eyes I realise my colleagues aren’t going to do it, so I go and sit at the microphone, thinking that they may have been among Saddam’s victims, and that’s why they are so nervous.

But who wasn’t one of his victims? Isn’t this the man who caused all that suffering to me and my people? Isn’t it the man who banned me three years ago from travelling to see my father in his last days, when he was dying abroad? Wasn’t he the man behind the Iraq-Iran War, during which my uncle was killed?

Wasn’t he the source of all the fear we lived in for decades, forcing many of my relatives, including my brother, to leave the country?

So why am I not feeling like my colleagues?

After five minutes I realised that this old man sitting in the defendants’ cage in front of me was not the person I used to hate. He is another person. The man I see looks completely different from that man who used to appear on TV in his army uniform, holding a pistol and shooting in the air as if he were aiming at creatures on another planet because he had got bored of killing Iraqis.

This man in the courtroom has to wait for his turn to talk, otherwise his mike will be turned off. Saddam never had to wait for his turn because it was his turn for decades, and there was no time for anyone else to say anything.

It may look to outsiders as if he has taken control, shouting at the judge. But up close you can see desperation in his eyes.

At one stage the judge called for witnesses. I couldn’t understand which witnesses they were talking about. Any of us could be a key witness against Saddam.

Listening to the first witness become very emotional describing his suffering under Saddam made my colleagues in the booth start to cry. But I didn’t. I know I looked heartless; I wished I could turn off the microphone and explain why I wasn’t crying: to say that people usually cry when the sad end comes but, in this case, the end hasn’t yet come. It is too early for catharsis.

The witness was talking about people getting tortured and killed collectively, talking about losing brothers and loved ones, but that is still going on. Iraqis are still getting killed and tortured, still losing their loved ones. Nothing has changed yet.

Iraq’s main problem wasn’t simple enough to be about one man called Saddam. It wasn’t just about this old man sitting in his cage. It was about an entire regime, an international community turning a blind eye to things that fit with its strategies. It was about children dying of hunger during the years of sanctions, whether because of Saddam or not. It is about innocent people losing their lives through weapons, national and multinational.

It is about a very dangerous gamble on the fate of a country by the West that isn’t yet “mission accomplished”, as President Bush once claimed.

You can continue reading here.

A little comment: with all my respect, without the intervention this man would still be torturing, killing, maiming, raping, etc, etc, your parents. The fact that now he has to wait for “for his turn to talk, otherwise his mike will be turned off”, is simply a consequence of that intervention. It’s true that people are dying just now, BUT the difference is that people who die now are killed by people who are not in power, who are just criminals and can be driven to court the momment they are detained by the police. Saddam IS also a criminal, but he was in power, so he could make what he wanted into law.

Lastly, would the situation have changed if all public opinions in Europe, for example, would have supporting the intervention against a dictator and not the poor Saddam? I think this is quite the most important question we have to ask ourselves now.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comentarios desactivados

Torture ruling could let terror suspects go free

Posted by Spanish Eowyn en 18/diciembre/2005

THIRTY terrorist suspects fighting deportation could be freed after Britain’s highest court yesterday outlawed the use of torture evidence.
The landmark decision by seven law lords unanimously dealt a fresh blow to the Government’s fight against terrorism. After the July 7 bombings, the Prime Minister had pledged that the “rules of the game” on dealing with terrorists had changed.
Last night investigators and prosecuting authorities were preparing to re-examine at least 30 pending cases before a secret immigration court to see whether evidence has been extracted by torture.
Defence lawyers have seized on the ruling to question the sources of allegation against defendants facing criminal charges in a series of prosecutions.
One man accused of involvement in a plan to carry out a lorry bomb attack alleges that he was tortured during ten months in custody in Pakistan. He is one of several defendants in a terrorist trial scheduled to begin in the new year.
Security services must now establish that evidence used before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) is not obtained by torture, the law lords ruled. If courts think “on a balance of probabilities” that it was, they must rule it out.
The law lords’ decision was hailed by human rights organisations as a landmark for justice throughout the democratic world. But Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, said that it would not affect the fight against terrorism or the 25 people in jail facing deportation on grounds of national security and a further five terrorism suspects held under a form of house arrest.
“The Government has always made clear that we do not condone torture in any way, nor would we carry out this completely unacceptable behaviour or encourage others to do so,” he said.
“We have always made clear that we do not intend to rely on or present evidence in SIAC which we know or believe to have been obtained by torture.”
Gareth Peirce, the lawyer for eight detainees affected by the ruling, said: “We lost our way morally and legally with the claim by the Home Secretary that he would use torture evidence in this country and with the Court of Appeal judgment that endorsed that.”
Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, which intervened in the appeal with 12 other organisations, said: “If we continue to peel away the layers of protection against torture, we will find a gaping void where our democratic values used to be.”
Lords Bingham of Cornhill, Nicholls of Birkenhead, Hoffmann, Hope of Craighead, Rodger of Earlsferry, Carswell and Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood allowed the appeals of the eight detainees held without charge against a majority Court of Appeal ruling.
The law lords made abundantly clear that English principles should not be sacrificed in the fight against terrorism.
The historic ruling comes almost exactly a year after the law lords delivered a similar blow to the Government’s anti-terrorist strategy, ruling that detention of suspects without charge or trial was unlawful.
In unusually strong criticism of his junior judicial colleagues, Lord Bingham said: “The English common law has regarded torture and its fruits with abhorrence for over 500 years and that abhorrence is now shared by over 140 countries which have acceded to the torture convention”.
You can continue reading here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comentarios desactivados

Terror suspect pleads from jail for British hostage’s life

Posted by Spanish Eowyn en 18/diciembre/2005

A HIGH-PROFILE terror suspect has made a television appeal from prison in England for the release of a British hostage being held in Iraq.
Abu Qatada was allowed to film his plea as part of an unprecedented effort to secure the lives of Norman Kember, 74, and three other Western peace activists.

Officials admitted that it was a unique broadcast but, with the kidnappers threatening to kill their captives within the next few days, they were prepared to take the desperate measures.

Their hope is that the intervention of such a prominent Islamic militant may succeed in persuading the kidnappers from the Swords of Truth group after efforts by more than 20 Muslim groups have so far failed.

Last night the kidnappers extended the deadline for killing their hostages by 48 hours to Saturday night and released new footage of Mr Kember pleading for Britain to pull out troops from Iraq and for help to free him.

British diplomats are reported to have used more intermediaries than they did during the failed attempt to save Kenneth Bigley and Margaret Hassan. But few could have expected that ministers would turn to a man described by judges as “a truly dangerous individual”. Officials insist that they have offered no leniency to Abu Qatada in return for his role.

They claim that it was he who approached prison staff with an offer to intervene. Both the Home and Foreign secretaries gave permission after first checking with diplomats in Baghdad that Abu Qatada’s plea would not jeopardise undercover efforts to save Mr Kember from Pinner, northwest London, two Canadians and an American. The Prime Minister was also informed.

Abu Qatada was permitted to write his own address, but it was carefully vetted to ensure that there were no coded messages or any “inflammatory sentiments”. He was filmed at the top-security prison at Full Sutton, near York.

Dressed in a flowing white robe and looking notably thinner than at his arrest in August, Abu Qatada, speaking in Arabic, told the kidnappers: “I am your brother Abu Qatada, Omar bin Mahmud Abu Omar, who is imprisoned in Britain.
“I urge my brothers, the Brigades of the Swords of Right in Iraq, to release the hostages in line with the principle of mercy of our religion. “Our prophet said mercy should be shown unless there is a reason in Sharia [Islamic law] that prevents it.”

He did not condemn kidnapping and was careful to emphasise that the appeal was on behalf of the four Christian peace activists only and did not include other Western hostages. (wow, how peaceful, ein???, We have to think why…)

The appeal was filmed on Tuesday and his lawyers handed the tape yesterday to the Arabic satellite channels al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya.

Last night, new television footage on al-Jazeera showed two of the prisoners, Mr Kember and Tom Fox, 54, an American peace activist, dressed in orange outfits similar to those worn by prisoners at the US-run Guantanamo Bay detention centre. Previous Iraqi hostages have been pictured wearing orange jumpsuits, including Briton Ken Bigley who was beheaded by his captors last year.

In the tape the activists made statements condemning the US and British presence in Iraq.

(Looks like they are extremely happy about this piece of news. I am not. He is not pleading for the lives of all the innocent hostages they have taken. He is only pleading for the lives of the ones who are coallborating directly or indirectly with theis own campaign…)

Posted in Uncategorized | Comentarios desactivados

Iraq’s a lost cause? Ask the real experts

Posted by Spanish Eowyn en 18/diciembre/2005

Max Boot November 23, 2005

WHEN IT COMES to the future of Iraq, there is a deep disconnect between those who have firsthand knowledge of the situation — Iraqis and U.S. soldiers serving in Iraq — and those whose impressions are shaped by doomsday press coverage and the imperatives of domestic politics.

A large majority of the American public is convinced that the liberation of Iraq was a mistake, while a smaller but growing number thinks that we are losing and that we need to pull out soon. Those sentiments are echoed by finger-in-the-wind politicians, including many — such as John Kerry, Harry Reid, John Edwards, John Murtha and Bill Clinton — who supported the invasion.

Yet in a survey last month from the U.S.-based International Republican Institute, 47% of Iraqis polled said their country was headed in the right direction, as opposed to 37% who said they thought that it was going in the wrong direction. And 56% thought things would be better in six months. Only 16% thought they would be worse. American soldiers are also much more optimistic than American civilians. The Pew Research Center and the Council on Foreign Relations just released a survey of American elites that found that 64% of military officers are confident that we will succeed in establishing a stable democracy in Iraq. The comparable figures for journalists and academics are 33% and 27%, respectively. Even more impressive than the Pew poll is the evidence of how our service members are voting with their feet. Although both the Army and the Marine Corps are having trouble attracting fresh recruits — no surprise, given the state of public opinion regarding Iraq — reenlistment rates continue to exceed expectations. Veterans are expressing their confidence in the war effort by signing up to continue fighting.

Now, it could be that the Iraqi public and the U.S. armed forces are delusional. Maybe things really are on an irreversible downward slope. But before reaching such an apocalyptic conclusion, stop to consider why so many with firsthand experience have more hope than those without any.

FOR STARTERS, one can point to two successful elections this year, on Jan. 30 and Oct. 15, in which the majority of Iraqis braved insurgent threats to vote. The constitutional referendum in October was particularly significant because it marked the first wholesale engagement of Sunnis in the political process. Since then, Sunni political parties have made clear their determination to also participate in the Dec. 15 parliamentary election. This is big news. The most disaffected group in Iraq is starting to realize that it must achieve its objectives through ballots, not bullets.

There are also positive economic indicators that receive little or no coverage in the Western media. For all the insurgents’ attempts to sabotage the Iraqi economy, the Brookings Institution reports that per capita income has doubled since 2003 and is now 30% higher than it was before the war. Thanks primarily to the increase in oil prices, the Iraqi economy is projected to grow at a whopping 16.8% next year. According to Brookings’ Iraq index, there are five times more cars on the streets than in Saddam Hussein’s day, five times more telephone subscribers and 32 times more Internet users.

The growth of the independent media — a prerequisite of liberal democracy — is even more inspiring. Before 2003 there was not a single independent media outlet in Iraq. Today, Brookings reports, there are 44 commercial TV stations, 72 radio stations and more than 100 newspapers.

But aren’t bombs still going off at an alarming rate? Of course. It’s almost impossible to stop a few thousand fanatics who are willing to commit suicide to slaughter others.

Yet there is hope on the security front. Since the Jan. 30 election, not a single Iraqi unit has crumbled in battle, according to Army Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, who until September was in charge of their training. Iraqi soldiers are showing impressive determination in fighting the terrorists, notwithstanding the terrible casualties they have taken. Their increasing success is evident on “Route Irish,” from Baghdad International Airport. Once the most dangerous road in Iraq, it is now one of the safest. The last coalition fatality there that was a result of enemy action occurred in March.

This is not meant to suggest that everything is wonderful in Iraq. The situation remains grim in many respects. But the most disheartening indicator of all is simply the American public’s loss of confidence in the war effort. Abu Musab Zarqawi may be losing on the Arab street (his own family has disowned him), but he’s winning on Main Street. And, as the Vietnam War showed, defeatism on the home front can become self-fulfilling.

Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times

Posted in Uncategorized | Comentarios desactivados

No hay guerra indolora

Posted by Spanish Eowyn en 18/diciembre/2005

(Artículo aparecido en GEES, 5/12/2005)

El agua es incolora, inodora e insípida, pero la guerra no. Es roja de sangre, amarga como el acíbar y hiede a cadáver. Y sobre todo no es indolora. Irak es el desengaño, el choque con la realidad. La guerra aséptica, la intervención quirúrgica de alta precisión y bajo trauma puede ser a lo sumo una fase y sólo para una de las partes. Luego pueden venir los Artefactos Explosivos Improvisados y los fanáticos dinamiteros suicidas, que hacen inmensamente ardua una prometedora reconstrucción y convierten a un entero país en un asilo que hay que gestionar.
Las Fuerzas Armadas americanas aprenden asumiendo esas misiones en su nueva doctrina como propias y apropiadas para el futuro. Quizás una vez más los generales se dispongan a librar la próxima guerra como de haber sabido hubieran combatido la anterior, guerra que, por lo demás, como les está resultando demasiado costosa, no querrán repetir bajo ningún concepto. Puede que se estén preparando espléndidamente para la guerra que por encima de todo tratarán de evitar, detrayendo atención y recursos de la que realmente les aguarda. Todo un mundo de contradicciones y paradojas que nada tiene de ajeno a la historia del conflicto y los ejércitos.
La más importante lección es la trillada, obvia y tan absurdamente olvidada de que el futuro se deja muy malamente predecir, y que lo mejor es prepararse para todo, pero puesto que “todo” es inalcanzable, resulta vital disponer de los instrumentos que nos proporcionen la flexibilidad para adaptarnos rápidamente a lo que venga. Algunas constantes nos sirven de referencia. Si dejamos que a nuestra guerra se pueda ir andando desde la puerta del cuartel, ya la hemos jibado, tía María. Hay que librarla lo más lejos posible. La capacidad de proyección lo es todo, es la única manera de pesar militarmente en el mundo en que vivimos. Y el peso militar es una de las métricas con la que se evalúa y jerarquiza a los países.
La tecnología avanzada cuenta y pude atenuar algunas otras deficiencias, como la falta de estómago para asumir bajas, incluso ajenas, o la absoluta preferencia por las mejoras materiales inmediatas sobre el coste de una defensa robusta que no sólo nos proporcione seguridad física momentánea sino la mucho más importante que se deriva del triunfo de la libertad y la democracia sobre sus siniestros y empecinados enemigos.
Ya casi nadie en el mundo occidental está dispuesto a pagar ese precio. La gran cuestión es si América todavía lo está. Si dos mil bajas en dos años y medio de guerra y el 4% del PNB es el límite, la respuesta es más bien que no. Sólo nos queda cruzar los dedos y rezar lo que sepamos.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comentarios desactivados

Maimed soldiers retraining to serve in another foreign field

Posted by Spanish Eowyn en 18/diciembre/2005

JOEY BOZIK had no right to survive the blast that blew off both his legs and his right arm.

The landmine that maimed the young US Army sergeant made him one of the hidden statistics of the Iraq war — one of 400 amputees among nearly 16,000 US troops wounded since the invasion. Yet, despite his horrific injuries, Sergeant Bozik has joined the growing ranks of disabled veterans who are determined to fight for their country again.

Only this time the medals they dream of are gold.

The unprecedented number of troops who are returning from Iraq with missing limbs has given the US Paralympic Team an unexpected recruitment boost and the chance to become “unbeatable” at the next Games in Beijing in 2008. More than 60 potential recruits have already been identified in sports as varied as powerlifting, archery and table tennis.

John Register, a veteran of the Gulf War in 1990, who manages the US Paralympic Academy, said: “This has been a shot in the arm of the Paralympic movement and an immediate boost. The Paralympics is a huge motivating factor for injured service members. It exponentially increases the individual’s idea of what is possible.”

One name to watch is Kortney Clemons. The 25-year-old combat medic played football, basketball and baseball back in Mississippi. His right leg was blown off above the knee in a Baghdad backstreet in February while he was carrying a wounded comrade. Mr Clemons is aiming for the podium in powerlifting. “Sport allows us to know we might have bad days, just like anybody else, but we can continue to move on in life and still compete,” he said. “

You can’t get stuck in that rut, start feeling pity for yourself and let life pass you by.”

Ramon Guitard, 22, was trying to protect civilians on a Baghdad bus when his vehicle was hit by several explosives. He lost his right leg above the knee, had his left leg fused with a titanium rod, and a stroke later left him partially paralysed on his left side. He is a medal hopeful after recording 2 hrs 21 min in this year’s New York marathon. “It is all about continuing to find freedom outside of my injury,” he said.

Mr Register, 40, knows what it takes to make it as a Paralympian. As a track and field athlete he had Olympic trials for 1988 and 1992, but thought his career had ended two years later. “I suffered a crippling injury when I overextended my leg hurdling and severed my artery. Gangrene set in and I ended up having an amputation. But I was able to get back through sport.”

He won silver at the Sydney Paralympics in the long jump.

“I have been through all these questions: Who am I? What are my parents going to think of me? All this gives me insight into what’s happening with these young servicemen and women from Iraq.”

Mr Register has contacted almost 200 of the Iraq amputees and identified 61 with the potential for the Paralympic squad. He has run two training events in California so that veterans can try out sports, and another is planned next month in Georgia. None of his funding comes from the Pentagon but he refuses to be critical of the Government. He says that he prefers his Paralympic military training programme to be independent and paid for by the US Olympic Committee.

His next battle is to ensure that military Paralympians can join able-bodied Olympic hopefuls in the US Army World Class Athlete Programme. This will enable them to stay on as fully paid members of the military rather than have to retire on benefits. The necessary legislative change has been attached to a Bill going through Congress.

For the US Paralympic movement, the influx of Iraq veterans brings it full circle from its foundations after the Second World War when many young troops returned home disabled. Subsequent wars have brought new recruits but not in anything like the numbers of Iraq, where more amputees are surviving thanks to better body armour and improved medical care. Advances in prosthetics technology make taking part in sport easier.

Perhaps the most remarkable story is that of Sergeant Bozik, 27, who took the full force of a landmine while a passenger in a Humvee in October last year. Every limb was broken and he ended up a triple amputee. His fiancée, Jayme, stuck by him and they married on December 31, the day after he stood for the first time on prosthetic legs. Within months the ex-soldier from North Carolina was waterskiing again and he has tried out several Paralympic sports, including swimming, archery and volleyball.

Mr Register said: “I think he could well be a Paralympian. I was not sure how much he could do as a triple amputee (in volleyball) but he was batting the ball with two hands, his artificial limb and regular arm. He is beginning to realise, ‘I could be on that trip to Beijing’.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comentarios desactivados

The girl who went from baker’s assistant to Baghdad bomber

Posted by Spanish Eowyn en 18/diciembre/2005

SHE came from an ordinary family in an industrial Belgian town. She used to sell baguettes in a bakery, and worked as a waitress in a café. She showed the rebelliousness of a typical teenager, but even in their worst dreams her parents never imagined that Muriel Degauque would end her life by blowing herself up in a suicide bomb attack against American troops in Iraq.
The story of the 38-year-old Belgian’s journey from baker’s assistant to Baghdad bomber, making her the first Western woman suicide bomber, emerged in shocking detail yesterday as her parents tried to make sense of her life.
Jean and Liliane Degauque, a former crane operator and a medical secretary, said that they had watched their daughter’s gradual transition from Christian to Islamic zealot, and feared the worst when they saw the TV news on Tuesday.
“For about a month we had been trying to call her and just kept getting her voice mail. When we heard on Tuesday evening on the television that a Belgian woman had blown herself up in Iraq, we thought it was Muriel,” her mother said. A visit from the Belgian police the next morning confirmed those fears, and by yesterday morning Muriel’s friendly, pretty, face was smiling from the front of a Belgian national paper. “Here is the Belgian kamikaze, killed in Iraq,” proclaimed the headline.
Muriel was born in Charleroi, grew up in her brick home at 33 Rue de l’Europe — a quiet street in the shadow of a coal tip — and was educated at the local high school. “She was absolutely normal as a kid,” Jeannine Samain, a neighbour, said. She was never easy. “When she broke a vase in the sitting room, she said that Jean-Paul (her older brother) had done it even though he had been upstairs doing his homework ,” her mother told La Dernière Heure.
As an adolescent, she dabbled in drugs, smoked, drank heavily and sometimes ran away from home. “One time I had to go 170km to get her back from the Ardennes,” M Degauque said. She was more interested in boyfriends than studies. “I don’t know how many of them she had.” She found jobs as a waitress and a baker’s assistant, but was accused of stealing from the till. Tragedy then struck the family when Jean-Paul was killed in a road accident.
Muriel moved from Charleroi to Brussels, which has a large Islamic community. She married and divorced a Turkish man, and had a long relationship with an Algerian, who converted her to Islam in 2001. Three years ago she married Issam Goris, who was born in Belgium to Moroccan parents, and followed him to Morocco.
“They told us that they had a house in Morocco and some horses, and a Mercedes and three motorbikes. We never found out whether it was true,” said her mother, who blames Goris for brainwashing her daughter. When Muriel returned to Belgium, her mother no longer recognised her. She had become “more Muslim than Muslim”, she said. “The religion was totally ingrained in her. She only lived for that.”
Initially, she wore a hijab, or Islamic veil, but soon started wearing the head-to-toe chador that leaves the face visible. Finally she wore a burka. She became ever more estranged from her parents. “When we saw them, they imposed their rules. We were at home, but my husband had to eat in the kitchen with Issam while the women ate together in the sitting room. There was no question of putting on the TV or opening a beer,” M Degauque said.
“My husband got so fed up that he said the next time they came round we should leave them by themselves.”
Muriel and her husband lived in a small two-room flat in Saint Gilles, one of the poorest and most racially mixed areas of Brussels, paying €375 (£255) a month rent.
In mid-September they left, telling their landlord they were going to Kenya to try to find Goris’s father. “They had stayed in the flat for two years. I never had any problem with them. They did not leave any forwarding address, saying they might come back in six months to a year,” her landlord told The Times. “She wore a burka all the time. I never saw her face, only her eyes,” he added.
But Kenya was not their real destination. The two radical Muslims instead drove by car across Turkey and Syria into Iraq, determined to kill themselves and as many Americans as possible.
According to conflicting reports, Muriel killed either only herself, or six people. On the same day, in a separate incident, Goris was shot dead by American troops before he could detonate his belt-bomb.
A LIFE LESS ORDINARY
MURIEL DEGAGUES
Born July 19, 1967 in Charleroi, Belgium
Attended Athene Royal de Fontaine-l’Eveque school Jobs
Worked in a cafe and baker
Moved to Brussels. Married and divorced Belgian-Turkish man
2001 converted to Islam
2002 Married Belgian-Moroccan Issam Goris and lived briefly in Morocco September
2005 Left Brussels and drove to Iraq with Issam Goris
November 9, 2005 blew herself up in suicide attack near Baghdad

Posted in Uncategorized | Comentarios desactivados

Excuse Les Rioters

Posted by Spanish Eowyn en 18/diciembre/2005

(Article appeared in GEES 12/1/2005)

Wasn’t it only yesterday the media were telling us that the French are so wise in choosing diplomacy over the use of force, and so clever at handling relations with Third World people – in other words, so unlike the trigger-happy unilateralists on this side of the Atlantic?

Well, guess what? After three weeks of rioting in Parisian suburbs, those sophisticated, worldly French have been transformed into a nation of re-pressive, racist pigs, in the eyes of the U.S. press. All it took was a few thou-sand burning Citroens to illuminate the situation. For the mainstream media (inveterate root-causers), riots invariably are the result of injustice, discrimination, hopelessness, poverty, lack of eco-nomic opportunity and unemploy-ment.

I don’t know about you, but when-ever I’m out of work, I firebomb a few cars.

“Rage of French Youth Is a Fight for Recognition,” read the headline in a Washington Post story. The New York Times’ Craig Smith informed readers that in France “a significant portion of the population has yet to accept the increasingly multiethnic makeup of the nation. Put simply, being French, for many people, remains a baguette-and-beret affair.” No, don’t tell me the French actually expect these immi-grant families to assimilate? Incroy-able!

Smith argues that le rampage is roo-ted in “growing inequalities,” “dis-crimination” and an “overly aggres-sive police presence in the country’s immigrant-heavy housing projects” — which, of course, is why immigrant rioters have torched those symbols of inequality and discrimination, syna-gogues and churches, to shouts of “Allahu akbar!” (God is great!) .
We are told the rioting was sparked by the deaths of two immigrant teens, who were electrocuted in a power station while eluding the gendarmes.

In a hilarious malapropism, CNN’s Carol Lin referred to the deceased as “African-American teenagers.” While the lads were of African origin (name-ly, Tunisian), I don’t believe Parisian suburbs have been annexed by the United States. Or – perhaps Lin was making the youth honorary African-Americans, in tribute to their victim-hood.

But it was a USA Today story (“La be-lle France: A Country of equality and exclusion”) that scaled the heights of political correctness.

Writers Steven Komarow and Rick Hampson began by wondering if the mayhem would “mark the beginning of social change, as the U.S. urban riots did four decades ago?” Read: Things began getting better for black Americans when they started burning down their neighborhoods.

The article approvingly quotes the assistant mayor of a town north of Paris, who insists the vandals “are asking for dignity. They don’t want make-work jobs. They want real op-portunities – jobs, education and re-spect.” The riots are a proverbial cry for help. By firebombing 40 schools, the disenfranchised were pleading for better educational opportunities. And how can one not respect thugs who emulate storm troopers in going after synagogues?
A lady who runs a community play-house (probably not a National Front-voter) says the current turmoil “is just the beginning. I work with people who don’t even have socks and live 10 people in a room.” But they do have petrol for Molotov cocktails, not to mention the cell phones and com-puters used to coordinate attacks.

In case you missed the point, after being bludgeoned with it for several hundred words, USA Today summarized its case: “The same com-plaints that fueled the fires in inner-city Detroit and Los Angeles – unem-ployment, discrimination, despair – are behind the arson and rioting in suburban France.”

The media’s it’s-South Central-on-the-Seine analysis helps them avoid cer-tain unpleasant realities. On those rare occasions when they managed to use the I-word, it was to assure us that Islam played no role (absolutely, positively none) in the violence.
Just as it played no part in the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, the 2004 Madrid train-bombing, the July bus and train-bombings in Lon-don (52 dead), or the wave of anti-Semitism that’s swept the Continent in recent years.
Columnist Mark Steyn (“Wake Up, Europe, You’ve A War On Your Hands“) calls it the “Eurabian civil war.” Steyn notes, “For half a decade, French Arabs have been carrying on a low-level intifada against syna-gogues, kosher butchers, Jewish day schools, etc.”

The rioters in Clichy-Sur-Bois are immigrants alright, immigrants (or the children of immigrants) from North Africa – Moslem immigrants driven by the same burning hatred of the West (democracy, tolerance, sani-tation, in-door plumbing) seen in the streets of Tehran, Ramallah, Jakarta and Islamabad.

In the past 50 years, the Muslim po-pulation of Western Europe has gone from less than 250,000 to upwards of 20 million (10 percent of France is Muslim). This is the result of a deadly troika – demographic winter (Euro-pean secularists have chosen extinc-tion by childlessness), lax immigra-tion policies and brain-dead multicul-turalism. The Center for Security Pol-icy warns that by 2050, Europe will lose one-third of its native population.

Enter the Muslims, whose high birth-rates are subsidized by European wel-farism. Some doubtless want to as-similate into their host societies. More want to live in Europe while identify-ing with a culture that’s warred with the West for more than a millennium.

The Madrid train bombers (body count, 191), mentioned the loss of Grenada in 1492 among their griev-ances. Perhaps the immigrant youth of Stains are protesting the defeat of the Moorish army at Tours in 732 A.D.

One of the few journalists who gets it is Olso-based Bruce Bawer. Writing in the Christian Science Monitor on No-vember 17 (“Not all Muslims want to integrate”), Bawer observes: “Europe’s Muslim communities are powder kegs, brimming with an alienation born both of assiduously inculcated antagonism toward infidel society and an infidel society whose integra-tion policies – which should actually be called segregation policies – have perversely encouraged this ire.”

“Naively, they imagined they could preserve their nations’ cultural ho-mogeneity while letting in millions of foreigners and smiling on their pres-ervation and perpetuation of values drastically different from their own.”

Bawer cautions: “What they’ve rea-ped, alas, is a generation of Muslims, many of whom view their neighbor-hoods as colonies amid enemy terri-tory – and who demand this auton-omy be recognized. In Britain, imams have pressed the government to des-ignate part of Bradford as being un-der Muslim law. In Belgium, Muslims in the Brussels neighborhood of Sint-Jans-Molenbeek consider it under Islamic jurisdiction. In Denmark, Muslim leaders have sought similar control over parts of Copenhagen.”

The French problem began, Bawer maintains, not when the youth were accidentally electrocuted, but when police “invaded” Dar al-Islam (the house of Islam) – heavily Muslim su-burban towns. Muslims have always operated on the premise: “What’s mi-ne is mine. And what’s yours will eventually be mine.” Thus, wherever they settle, the delightful civilization they’ve created in the Middle East follows them.

In her insightful book The Rage And The Pride, journalist Oriana Fallaci wonders if Muslim immigration to Europe might be part of a grand de-sign: “Something else, then, I don’t understand: if they (Muslim immi-grants) are as poor as their abettors and protectors claim, who gives them the money to come? Where do they find the five or ten thousand dollars per head that pay for the trip? Might it be that this money is supplied by some Osama bin Laden for the mere purpose of establishing the ReverseCrusade’s settlements and better or-ganizing Islamic terrorism?”

But – not to worry, New York Times — among the European elite, such views are shunned. It appears that France will answer the latest outbreak of immigrant violence with hope and handouts.

Last week, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin announced a $35 billion program to provide employment, scholarships and other unspecified “opportunities” for the rioters and their kin, along with the creation of an agency for “social cohesion” to ad-dress all of the oppression and dis-crimination in the land of Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite.

Even Nicholas Sarkozy, the French interior minister who calls the rioters “scum,” favors a Gallic form of Af-firmative Action.

In the face of this appeasement, the immigrants will keep coming and keep procreating. The have-nots (who have not a work ethic or a desire to live peaceably with others) will con-tinue to resent the haves. Their imams will continue to preach hatred of the infidels. Al-Qaeda and its clones will continue to recruit. And French fami-lies will continue to have fewer chil-dren, or no children, aiding the proc-ess of Islama-cide.

In place of La Marseillaise, perhaps the French will adopt as their new national anthem the theme song from “M.A.S.H.” – “That suicide is painless (well, almost). It brings on many changes, and I can take or leave it if I please….”

Don Feder is a former Boston Herald writer who is now a political/communications consultant.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comentarios desactivados

Excusar a Les Rioters

Posted by Spanish Eowyn en 18/diciembre/2005

Artículo muy interesante aparecido en GEES (1/12/2005)

¿No era apenas ayer cuando los medios nos decían que los franceses eran tan inteligentes por elegir la diplomacia en lugar del uso de la fuerza, y tan listos gestionando las relaciones con pueblos del Tercer Mundo – en otras palabras, tan distintos a los unilateralistas de gatillo fácil de este lado del Atlántico?
Bien, ¿adivina qué? Tras tres semanas de disturbios en suburbios parisinos, esos sofisticados y pedantes franceses se han transformado en una nación de cerdos racistas represivos a los ojos de la prensa americana. Todo lo que se necesitó para iluminar la situación fueron unos cuantos Citröen en llamas.
Para los principales medios (empecinados en las causas raíz), los disturbios son el resultado de la injusticia, la discriminación, la desesperación, la pobreza, la ausencia de oportunidades económicas y el desempleo.
Yo no sé usted, pero cuando me quedo en el paro, incendio unos cuantos coches.
“La ira de los jóvenes franceses es una lucha por el reconocimiento”, reza el titular de la noticia del Washington Post. Craig Smith, del New York Times, informaba a los lectores de que en Francia “una parte significativa de la población tiene que aceptar aún la presencia cada vez más multiétnica de la nación. Por decirlo simplemente, para mucha gente, ser francés continúa siendo un tema de baguette y boina”. No, no me digas que los franceses esperaban simplemente que estas familias inmigrantes se asimilasen. ¡Incroyable!
Smith argumenta que le disturbio es producto de “las crecientes desigualdades”, “la discriminación” y “una presencia policial excesivamente agresiva en los proyectos de vivienda del país con fuerte presencia inmigrante” — que, por supuesto, es el motivo por el que los alborotadores inmigrantes han incendiado esos símbolos de desigualdad y discriminación, sinagogas e iglesias, al grito de “Aláhu ajbar” (¡Alá es grande!)
Nos dicen que los disturbios fueron provocados por las muertes de dos inmigrantes adolescentes, que se electrocutaron en un alternador mientras huían de los gendarmes.
En un barbarismo hilarante, Carol Lin, de CNN, se refirió a los difuntos como “adolescentes afroamericanos”. Mientras que los chavales eran de origen africano (tunecino en la práctica), no creo que los suburbios parisinos hayan sido anexionados por Estados Unidos. O – quizá Lin rendía honores a los jóvenes afroamericanos, en tributo a su caída.
Pero fue la noticia de USA Today (“La belle France: Un país de igualdad y exclusión”) la que elevó las cotas de la corrección política.
Los escritores Steven Komarow y Rick Hampson comenzaron preguntándose si la vorágine “marcaría el principio de un cambio social, al igual que los disturbios urbanos norteamericanos hace cuatro décadas”. Traducción: las cosas comenzaron a ir mejor a los negros americanos cuando empezaron a incendiar sus vecindarios.
El artículo cita con aprobación al asistente del alcalde de una ciudad al norte de París, que insiste en que los vándalos “piden dignidad. No quieren empleos duros. Quieren oportunidades reales – puestos de trabajo, educación y respeto”. Los disturbios son un grito de ayuda proverbial. Al incendiar 40 escuelas, los desencantados suplicaban mejores oportunidades educativas. Y, ¿cómo puede uno no respetar a gamberros que emulan a tropas de asalto yendo tras las sinagogas?
Una señora que gestiona un centro infantil comunitario (probablemente no votante del Frente Nacional) dice que la agitación actual “es apenas el principio. Trabajo con gente que ni siquiera tiene calcetines y viven diez personas en una habitación”. Pero tienen gasolina para los cócteles Molotov, por no mencionar los teléfonos móviles y los ordenadores para coordinar los ataques.
En caso de que haya pasado la idea por alto, tras ser asaltado machaconamente durante varios cientos de palabras, USA Today resume su alegato: “Las mismas quejas que prendieron los incendios urbanos de Detroit y Los Ángeles – desempleo, desesperación, discriminación – están detrás de los incendios y los disturbios de la Francia suburbana”.
El análisis de es-South-Central-on-the-Seine de los medios les ayuda a evitar ciertas realidades desagradables. En esas raras ocasiones en las que logran utilizar la palabra con i, se nos asegura que el Islam no desempeñó ningún papel (absoluta, positivamente ninguno) en la violencia.
Igual que no tuvo que ver en el asesinato del cineasta holandés Theo van Gogh, el atentado de los trenes de Madrid, las explosiones de bus y metro de julio en Londres (52 muertos), o la oleada de antisemitismo que ha barrido el Continente en los últimos años.
El columnista Mark Steyn (“Despierta, Europa, tienes una guerra entre manos”) la llama “guerra civil de Eurabia”. Steyn destaca, “Los árabes franceses llevan media década librando una intifada a bajo nivel contra sinagogas, carniceros kosher, escuelas judías, etc.”
Los alborotadores de Clichy-sous-Bois son inmigrantes, bien, inmigrantes (o hijos de inmigrantes) procedentes del norte de África – inmigrantes musulmanes guiados por el mismo odio a Occidente (democracia, tolerancia, alcantarillado, fontanería bajo techo) que se ve en las calles de Teherán, Ramala, Jakarta e Islamabad.
En los últimos 50 años, la población musulmana de Europa occidental ha pasado de menos de 250.000 a más de 20 millones (el 10 por ciento de Francia son musulmanes). Éste es el producto de una troika mortal – invierno demográfico (los seculares europeos han elegido la extinción mediante la infertilidad), laxas políticas de inmigración, y multiculturalismo sin pensar. El Center for Security Policy advierte de que hacia el año 2050, Europa perderá un tercio de su población nativa.
Entran los musulmanes, cuya tasa de natalidad es subvencionada por el bienestar social europeo. Sin duda, algunos quieren asimilarse en sus poblaciones anfitrionas. Más quieren vivir en Europa a la vez que se identifican con una cultura en guerra contra Occidente durante más de un milenio.
Los atentados ferroviarios de Madrid (recuento de cadáveres, 191), mencionaban la pérdida de Granada en 1492 entre sus agravios. Quizá los jóvenes inmigrantes de Stains protesten por la derrota del ejército moro en Tours en el 732 D.C.
Uno de los pocos periodistas que lo entienden es Bruce Bawer, radicado en Oslo. Escribiendo en el Christian Science Monitor el 17 de noviembre (“No todos los musulmanes quieren integrarse”), Bawer observa: “Las comunidades musulmanas de Europa son polvorines, hirviendo de alienación nacida tanto del antagonismo asiduamente inculcado hacia la sociedad infiel como de una sociedad infiel cuyas políticas de integración – que deberían llamarse en realidad políticas de segregación – han alentado perversamente esta ira”.
“Inocentemente, imaginaron que podrían preservar la homogeneidad cultural de sus naciones, al tiempo que dejaban entrar a millones de extranjeros y sonreían sobre su preservación y la preservación de valores drásticamente diferentes de los propios”.
Bawer advierte: “Lo que han cosechado, muy al contrario, es una generación de musulmanes, muchos de los cuales ven sus vecindarios como colonias en mitad de territorio enemigo – y que exigen que se reconozca esta autonomía. En Gran Bretaña, los imanes han presionado al gobierno para que designe parte de Bradford bajo la ley musulmana. En Bélgica, los musulmanes del barrio de Sint-Jans-Molenbeek, en Bruselas, lo consideran jurisdicción islámica. En Dinamarca, los líderes musulmanes han intentado un control similar sobre diversas partes de Copenhague”.
El problema francés no comenzó, sostiene Bawer, cuando los jóvenes se electrocutaron accidentalmente, sino cuando la policía “invadió” Dar al-Islam (la Casa del Islam) – suburbios fuertemente musulmanes. Los musulmanes siempre han operado según la premisa: “Lo que es mío, es mío, y lo que es tuyo, con el tiempo será mío”. Así, dondequiera que se asienten, la encantadora civilización que han creado en Oriente Medio les sigue.
En su profundo libro La rabia y el orgullo, la periodista Oriana Fallaci se pregunta si la emigración musulmana hacia Europa no será parte de un gran plan: “Algo más, pues, no entiendo: si ellos (los inmigrantes musulmanes) son tan pobres como afirman sus cómplices y sus protectores, ¿quién les da el dinero para venir? ¿Dónde encuentran los cinco o 10.000 dólares por cabeza que pagan el viaje? ¿Podría este dinero ser suministrado por algún Osama bin Laden con el simple propósito de establecer los asentamientos de las Cruzadas Inversas y organizar mejor el terrorismo islámico?”
Pero – no te preocupes, New York Times – entre la élite europea, tales opiniones son evitadas. Parece que Francia responderá al estallido más reciente de violencia inmigrante con esperanzas y entregas.
La semana pasada, el primer ministro Dominique de Villepin anunciaba un programa de 35 billones de dólares para proporcionar empleo, educación y otras “oportunidades” sin especificar a los alborotadores y sus parientes, junto con la creación de una agencia “de cohesión social” para tratar toda la opresión y la discriminación en la tierra de la Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite.
Incluso Nicholas Sarkozy, el ministro francés del interior, que llama “escoria” a los alborotadores, se decanta en favor de la forma gala de Acción Afirmativa.
Frente a este apaciguamiento, los inmigrantes continuarán llegando y continuarán procreando. Los pobres (que carecen de ética de trabajo o de deseo de vivir pacíficamente con otros) continuarán llenando las arcas. Sus imanes continuarán predicando el odio a los infieles. Al-Qaeda y sus clones continuarán el reclutamiento. Y las familias francesas continuarán teniendo menos hijos, o ningún hijo, ayudando al proceso de islamo-cidio.
En lugar de La Marseillaise, quizá los franceses adoptarán el tema de “M.A.S.H.” como su nuevo himno nacional – “Ese suicidio es indoloro (bueno, casi). Acarrea muchos cambios, y puedo cogerlo o dejarlo si me apetece….”

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

 
Seguir

Recibe cada nueva publicación en tu buzón de correo electrónico.

Únete a otros 36 seguidores