<nettime> ivogram [x6]

["Ivo Skoric" <ivo@reporters.net>]

"Ivo Skoric" <ivo@reporters.net>
     The new US
     Unfinest Hour
     Re: RS Prosecution Office completes war crimes indictment against              Izetbegovic
     Re: Fleeing Afghans gunned down
     Re: As U.N. Meets, bin Laden Tape Sets Off Alarms
     Re: Israel,U.S. set to boycott talks on territories

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Ivo Skoric" <ivo@reporters.net>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 19:46:55 -0500
Subject: The new US

Yesterday I had my first encounter on the homeland front of the US 
war on terrorism. I went to see a documentary by Eric van der 
Broek and Katarina Rejger about the Otpor movement that toppled 
Milosevic in Serbia. The film was showing at the Margaret Mead 
Film Festival at the Museum of Natural History on 77th street and 
Central Park West in New York city.

Naturally, I was expecting that I would just buy a ticked and go to 
the movies. Not so in the new America. All belongings had to be 
searched at the entrance to the museum. It was an international 
film festival. It was happening inside the landmark building in the 
New York city, a building that also served as a museum containing 
valuable exhibits. Naturally, under those circumstances, everybody 
should have expected to be searched.

But I forgot that detail and I had my backpack with me. And in 
backpack, of course, I had various things that I didn't expect I 
would have to show to anybody. A pair of quite smelly socks, still 
moist from sweat, since I was just hailing from the gym, for 
example. When I opened my backpack's accessories 
compartment one thing stood out on the top, which immediately 
caught an eye of the security guard and made the rest of this 
humorous ordeal possible: my orange box-cutter knife.

A Croat with a box-cutter knife coming to see a film about Serbia in 
the middle of New York? This is Trouble with capital T, isn't it? The 
security personnel explained me that I can't get in with the box-
cutter weapon. And I said that I understood that and that I was 
willing to leave the entire backpack in their care until the film was 
over. Here, however, the real problem became obvious: they did not 
have facilities to deal with unwelcome luggage. In other words, they 
told me - you cannot get in with this backpack AND you cannot 
leave this backpack here in our care.

What were my options at that point? To leave the theater 
alltogether. Or to go out and leave the backpack on the street and 
come back to see the movie. Well, it was absolutely sure that in 
the later case I would never see the backpack again, so I dropped 
that as an option. Instead, I argued that they should either:
a) let me in with the backpack, on a trust
b) take the backpack and keep it somewhere until I get out
c) give me my money back for the ticket I bought for the movie, in 
which case I would leave

There the three (all female) security guards divided in opinions on 
what to do with me. Two of them, both of the same rank, fell into a 
quarrel over my situation, and ended up both independently calling 
their supervisors for instructions, which were to some extent not 
really clear. One was for letting me in. Another was fiercely against 
letting me in. However, the supervisor, who happened to be (male) 
NYPD officer, decided to let me in, provided that I leave the box-
cutter weapon at the security desk, which was completely fine with 
me.

At that point the one security guard who was in favor of letting me 
in waved me in, but the another one started screaming - "come 
back! I did not finish the search of your backpack!" The cop (who 
was not feeling comfortable with the entire thing) did not took either 
position. But since the persistent guard who did not favor me, was 
the loudest in the pack, we all complied with her wishes. Of 
course, strictly security speaking, she was right: because I could 
volunteer the box-cutter, and have a hand grenade in the back-pack 
go unchecked with me to the film presentation.

I also had scissors in the backpack. And I had pepper spray. The 
zealous guard gleamed with her finds. And I complimented her on 
her sense of duty. She did miss the small folding Leatherman tool 
that also have a 2 inch long sharp knife inside, though. Which just 
shows how even a meticulous search can miss something. And if I 
was really a terrorist I might have a real weapon hidden inside my 
deodorant stick, for example. I could have given up all the 
suspicious stuff, and keep the stuff that looks harmless, but which 
could have been re-designed to keep a chemical or biological 
agents.

This just shows how the war on terrorism is a tricky issue. I lost 
half an hour at the entrance. And other people who came to the 
festival with bags also lost time. That means that we have to put up 
with the time consuming incovenience of searches. Also, there is 
considerable loss of privacy associated with this. I could have a 
bag of weed in my backpack. Which is not a weapon. But which is 
illegal, and if found, the NYPD officer would have to seize it, and 
maybe even book me.

On the other hand, despite the inconvenience and the loss of 
privacy, there is no absolute guarantee that such searches will 
prevent terrorism - because, as I explained, I still could have a real 
weapon hidden in some of the unsuspicious everyday items in my 
backpack. The only real "weapon" against the terrorism is 
eliminating the causes that may drive somebody to desperate 
violent acts. There should be other roads for the rage of 
dispossesed to address their grievances. They should not feel that 
their only answer is to follow the lead of those whose only desire is 
destruction and mayhem. That's the only cure for the current 
disease that plagues our planet.

ivo

ps - the 3 suspect items were kept at the security desk until the 
end of show and returned to me; I was let in and NOBODY even 
asked me for a ticket, or checked whether I was on the list (which I 
was). After all, who would dare to ask for money, from somebody 
who came so well armed? They just told me where my film is 
showing, and let me in....

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Ivo Skoric" <ivo@reporters.net>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 19:45:43 -0500
Subject: Unfinest Hour

British historian Brendan Simms wrote a book acusing British 
government of appeasement of Milosevic in Bosnia - here is Nick 
Cohen's review for Sunday's Observer and the Lord Hurd's reaction 
in The Scotsman:

Nick Cohen reviewed Brendan Simms' devastating new book, 
Unfinest Hour,
in Sunday's Observer.  An excerpt:

     Simms mints the phrase 'conservative pessimism' to describe
     the mentality of Hurd, Malcolm Rifkind and David Owen.
     They evaded Serb responsibility for the atrocities and vastly
     overestimated the difficulties of intervention.  Exhausted
     by Ireland and haunted by Suez and Vietnam, Conservative
     politicians and the 'experts' in the press and think-tanks
     maintained that ethnic cleansing was an unpleasant fact of life.

     The dominant ideology might have propelled Britain to sit out
     the Bosnian conflict.  But Hurd went further. Not only did Britain
     refuse to reverse Serb aggression, 'we' made damn sure no one else
     did either.  'Pessimism' doesn't quite capture the malice of
     British policy.  American attempts to lift the arms embargo
     on the Bosnian government were opposed by vehement mandarins.
     No-fly zones, relief for Bosnian enclaves, war-crimes tribunals
     and armed protection for humanitarian convoys were fought
     to the last ditches of the European Union and United Nations.
     'Any time there was a likelihood of effective action,' said
     Tadeusz Mazowiecki, the Polish Prime Minister, '(Hurd) 
     intervened to prevent it.'

Andras Riedlmayer
=================================================
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4291391,00.html
The Sunday Observer (London)
November 4, 2001

Observer Review Pages, Pg. 15

Books:  Betrayal in the Balkans:  Britain's refusal to act in the
former Yugoslavia left the Serbs free to butcher thousands of 
Bosnians:
Unfinest Hour: How Britain Helped to Destroy Bosnia by Brendan 
Simms

NICK COHEN

 Unfinest Hour: How Britain Helped to Destroy Bosnia by Brendan Simms
Allen Lane/ Penguin Press pounds 18.99, pp496

 'BOSNIA,' A COMMENTATOR noted as he watched the Foreign Secretary agonise
at the height of the Balkan wars, 'will be on Douglas Hurd's tombstone.'
Lord Hurd is still with us, but tens of thousands of Bosnians are dead.

The connection between the grave statesman and the graves of the
slaughtered is Brendan Simms's theme.  We may see better demolitions of the
last Tory government when the official records are released, but Simms's
attention to telling detail and cool, literate anger make Unfinest Hour the
best epitaph for the wretched years of the Major administration I've read
to date.  His argument, that what Britain did to Bosnia stands alongside
Munich and Suez as a great Conservative foreign policy disaster, is
irrefutable. The wars of the former Yugoslavia had one cause:  irredentist
Serbs, who combined nationalism and socialism in a faintly familiar
mixture.  They didn't merely want power, but to guarantee that only Serbs
lived in Serb-occupied territory. Thus, while the Bosnian government
retained Serb and Croat backing, every mosque in the lands Milosevic's
supporters held was levelled. For years, Britain led the chant that nothing
could be done. Yet in the assaults that forced Milosevic to sign the Dayton
Agreement of 1995 and in the Kosovo campaign, the determined application of
force compelled the supposedly mighty Serb armies to back off and
precipitated a democratic revolution in Belgrade.


   Simms mints the phrase 'conservative pessimism' to describe the
mentality of Hurd, Malcolm Rifkind and David Owen.  They evaded Serb
responsibility for the atrocities and vastly overestimated the difficulties
of intervention. Exhausted by Ireland and haunted by Suez and Vietnam,
Conservative politicians and the 'experts' in the press and think-tanks
maintained that ethnic cleansing was an unpleasant fact of life.

   The dominant ideology might have propelled Britain to sit out the
Bosnian conflict.  But Hurd went further.  Not only did Britain refuse to
reverse Serb aggression, 'we' made damn sure no one else did either.
'Pessimism' doesn't quite capture the malice of British policy.  American
attempts to lift the arms embargo on the Bosnian government were opposed by
vehement mandarins.  No-fly zones, relief for Bosnian enclaves, war-crimes
tribunals and armed protection for humanitarian convoys were fought to the
last ditches of the European Union and United Nations.  'Any time there was
a likelihood of effective action,' said Tadeusz Mazowiecki, the Polish
Prime Minister, '(Hurd) intervened to prevent it.' 

   Post-imperial weariness mixed with genuine imperial arrogance.  No one
would make Britain lose face by forcing the Foreign Office to think again,
particularly not the 'naive' Americans. Throughout the war, the British
conservatives were resentful Greeks to wide-eyed American Romans.  The
conviction that Britain had a superior knowledge of the futility of
reforming a wicked world pushed Whitehall into a kind of madness.  Only the
possession of an unhinged mind can explain how Malcolm Rifkind, a Defence
Secretary who had never seen combat, could bellow 'you Americans don't know
the horrors of war' at Senator Bob Dole, who lost an arm in World War II.
'Your guys were usually so refined,' an American diplomat said of the
Washington Embassy. 'But they were going crazy on this.'

   Rifkind's ravings - Senator John McCain came close to slapping him at
one meeting - will surprise readers in a Britain where snobbery gives an
unwarranted benefit of the doubt to patrician conservatives.  The
politicians who dealt with Bosnia were gentlemen of moderate temperament;
sophisticates with breeding and manners, who were a cut above the
rabble-rousing Thatcherites. Yet Hurd out-Thatchered Thatcher, who
honourably opposed Serb aggression, when he declared that 'there is no such
thing as the international community'. He then sank to a depth I can't
remember Thatch reaching when he effectively closed Britain's borders to
Bosnian refugees.  'The civilians have an effect on the combatants,' he
explained. 'Their interests put pressure on the warring factions to treat
for peace.'  You have to read this disgraceful passage several times before
you realise that Hurd was denying sanctuary to the victims of the Serbs
(and of his diplomacy) so he could use their misery to force Bosnia to cut
a deal with the ethnic cleansers.

   Corrupt language followed corrupting policies. Simms is very good on how
the distinction between aggressors and victims was blurred and everyone
became a member of a 'warring faction' filled with 'ancient hatreds'; on
how the secular Bosnian government was transformed into 'the Muslims'.  The
Bosnian war, he writes, 'became a strange beast: a perpetratorless crime in
which all were victims and all more or less equally guilty'.  The
debasement of the terms in which Britain could think about the Balkans
reached a nadir when Kirsty Wark described a Catholic Croat Bosnian
spokesman as a 'Muslim' on Newsnight and ignored his protestations that he
was nothing of the sort.

   Ah, but it takes you back.  David Owen Balkanising the Balkans.  Major
complaining about critics 'grandstanding from the safety of their
armchairs'. (Try it at home if you believe it is possible.) Douglas Hogg
screaming that it would take 500,000 troops to turn back the Serbs.  MI6
spinning that the Bosnians were massacring themselves.  And - how could we
forget? - the valiant General Sir Michael Rose, who, while refusing to
contemplate effective military action by the troops under his command,
opined that demands for intervention came from 'the powerful Jewish lobby
behind the Bosnian state' and wondered at a performance of Mozart's Requiem
in Sarajevo if Alija Izetbegovic, the cultured Bosnian president,
understood 'the Christian sentiment behind the words and music'.  Rose's
'ancient hatreds' coexisted with a grudging admiration for Serb officers.
Even the butcher of Srebrenica, General Ratko Mladic, wasn't all bad, in
his considered view, but a 'man who generally kept his word'.

   Unfinest Hour is more than a diplomatic history.  It is a grim cultural
study of the political, military and intellectual elites of the early
Nineties who watched suffering with a faux-realist relish and saw humane
treatment as more dangerous than the disease.  Formal differences between
Left and Right scarcely mattered. Hurd sounded like John Pilger when he
implied it was racist to intervene in Bosnia but not in Angola or Cambodia.
Pilger mimicked Hurd when he accused the Americans of wanting to
'recolonise' the Balkans.  For every Lord Carrington harrumphing that 'they
were all as bad as each other' there was a Misha Glenny saying that those
ancient 'irrational beliefs' drove all parties in the Balkans into cycles
of insane slaughter.

   Kosovo supplies Simms with a happy ending of sorts.  If he could find
the time, Tony Blair would enjoy this dissection of the experts who now
oppose the Afghan war.  But just as Northern Ireland blinded Hurd to what
was before his nose in the Balkans so, I fear, the success of Kosovo blinds
supporters of the campaign against bin Laden to its huge dangers.


/To order Unfinest Hour for pounds 16.99, plus p&p, call the 
Observer
Books Service on 0870 066 7989/


  D Hurd reviews B Simms' book and says it is biased.  There are many
reasons, that B Simms begins from an incorrect premise, hasn't had access
to gov't documents.

"But I assumed that certain ordinary rules of his profession would be
observed - that he would record the facts evenly, and that he would try to
enter the minds of those who formed and executed British policy before
declaring his own conclusions. No such luck.  >From beginning to end Simms
has written a polemic. He has had access to no new material apart from
interviews on familiar lines with those immediately concerned. The record,
as he tells it, is one-sided from the beginning; offensive epithets are
scattered over every page."


Daniel
(article not for cross posting)
-------------------------------------------------------------

The Scotsman    Nov 3, 2001
Edinburgh (UK)

Book review: Unfinest Hour: Britain and the Destruction of Bosnia:
The war we steered clear of
-------------------
By  Lord Douglas Hurd


   Unfinest Hour: Britain and the Destruction of Bosnia by Dr Brendan Simms

   Penguin Press, 18.99 pounds

   Being attacked in print by journalists under the impression that 
they are writing the first draft of history is nothing new to me. Being
attacked in print by a historian, however, is - and it is rather depressing
to find that objectivity when writing about the recent past is in just as
short supply as it is among journalists, who at least have the excuse that
they are chasing daily deadlines.

   When Dr Simms, author of this book about British foreign policy in
relation to the Bosnian civil war, came to see me at his request I could
tell from his manner and the loading of his questions that his work was
likely to be critical. But I assumed that certain ordinary rules of his
profession would be observed - that he would record the facts evenly, and
that he would try to enter the minds of those who formed and executed
British policy before declaring his own conclusions. No such luck.  >From
beginning to end Simms has written a polemic. He has had access to no new
material apart from interviews on familiar lines with those immediately
concerned. The record, as he tells it, is one-sided from the beginning;
offensive epithets are scattered over every page.

   The Bosnian war stirs strong emotions and to express them cannot be
wrong. But so extreme are Simms's denunciations that I tried to work out
his starting point. He seems to write on the assumption that in 1992 Bosnia
was a long-standing sovereign state, which suffered aggression from people
who called themselves Bosnian Serbs, but had no rights in the country where
they lived. His analysis is so extravagant that the range of people who are
denounced because they did not share it is very wide. Ministers, diplomats,
generals, peacemakers of course - but also the Labour Opposition, much of
the press and academia.  Even effective critics of government policy such
as Paddy Ashdown come under the lash.

   Simms greatly exaggerates the damage caused by Bosnia to Anglo-American
friendship. Certainly there were strains and disagreements in 1993- 1994.
But the comparison with Suez is absurd. I lived through that breakdown as a
young diplomat in 1956; for a few weeks it was total. No such collapse
occurred over Bosnia; we took care to prevent it.

   It is nonsense to talk, as Simms does, of Serbophilia in the Foreign
Office. I can think of no Foreign Office minister or official who spoke to
me approvingly of Serb conduct. There was nothing heroic or supportable in
the behaviour of the Bosnian Serbs, or of Milosevic.

   We often made the point that none of the three parties was free of
blame; but Simms's own quotations show that I placed the greater blame
where it belonged, on the Serbs. The only decision of mine of which Simms
approves is the one most often criticised, namely to join in the European
agreement in December 1991 to recognise Croatia and Slovenia. Simms
passionately opposes the arms embargo imposed by the UN on all parties in
the Balkan conflict at the time, but the UN Security Council Resolution
could only have changed by lifting it on everyone. Can Simms not enter into
the minds of almost all of us in Britain, the EU and the majority of the
Security Council who felt revulsion at the thought of trying to achieve
peace by flooding all sides in Bosnia with yet more arms? We were engaged
in a peace process, not an expansion of war.

   Some lessons of Bosnia are still a worrying question mark in my mind. I
am clear about the arms embargo. I am glad we did not commit British troops
to fight a ground war in Bosnia. I am glad we did not follow Simms's
alternative policies and fill Bosnia with yet more refugees and corpses.
Wisdom from an armchair can be particularly bloodthirsty.

   Though Simms exaggerates British resistance in principle to
airstrikes, with benefit of hindsight I am not so clear whether the
earlier and stronger use of airpower might have been effective.
Certainly the "dual key" b which, in order to protect the British
and other troops on the ground, the UN had a veto on airstrikes,
became untenable.

   Simms attacks the way the war ended. Even the US negotiator at Dayton,
Richard Holbrooke, is rebuked. Like the rest of us, Holbrooke worked for
peace by dealing with Milosevic. Simms uses the familiar argument that
Milosevic was the problem rather than the solution.  Precisely because he
was part of the problem he had to be part of the solution. He had to be
brought to desert and betray his Bosnian Serb allies. Eventually economic
sanctions, diplomatic and military pressure on Serbia did their job.
Milosevic dragged the Bosnian Serbs to Dayton and forced their signature on
the peace agreement. The war ended and sanctions against Serbia were partly
relaxed.

   This relaxation told Milosevic that he had a choice. He could have
begun to edge his country closer to the rest of Europe. But he could
not accept that this would involve stopping the persecution of the
Albanian majority in Kosovo, and restoring autonomy to them.
He made the wrong choice, with disastrous results for his country
and himself.


   Lord Hurd was British Foreign Secretary from 1989 to 1995.
   -----------------------------

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Ivo Skoric" <ivo@reporters.net>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 19:44:48 -0500
Subject: Re: RS Prosecution Office completes war crimes indictment against              Izetbegovic

Ah, isn't it so comforting to see that Republika Srpska is at last 
willing to show at least some level of cooperation with the ICTY? 
ivo

Bosnia's Serb entity may not be handing over indictees to the UN tribunal,
but it is handing over indictments.  This week, it is handing the ICTY an
indictment accusing former Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic of criminal
responsibility for war crimes against Serbs allegedly committed during the
1992-95 war.  Under the Rules of the Road agreement, once the ICTY reviews
the charges and the evidence submitted to it, it has a range of options:
of launching its own prosecution, of giving local authorities in Bosnia
the go-ahead to prosecute the case in a local court, or of quashing the
indictment.

Andras Riedlmayer
=====================================================================
Agence France-Presse
November 7, 2001

Izetbegovic's party attacks his indictment by Bosnian Serbs

   SARAJEVO, Nov 7 (AFP) -- Supporters of the former Bosnian Muslim
leader, Alija Izetbegovic, attacked Bosnian Serbs on Wednesday for
preparing an indictment alleging war crimes against Izetbegovic
for the UN war crimes tribunal.

   "This is an attempt to divert attention here and abroad from the
real criminal groups and individuals, who are (both) publicly and
secretly governing Republika Srpska," Izetbegovic's Party of Democratic
Action (SDA), said in a press release.  "He (Izetbegovic) did all he
could to prevent the war and after the war broke out he did all that
was in his power to prevent violence and crimes," the SDA said.

   Bosnian Serb authorities said on Friday that they would send documents
charging Izetbegovic with war crimes against Bosnian Serbs during the
1992-95 war, to the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia.

   Izetbegovic was Bosnia's president during the war.

   Once it receives the file, the ICTY will decide whether to charge
Izetbegovic, who stepped down from Bosnia's tripartite presidency in
October 2000, or to allow Bosnian Serb authorities to pursue the matter.

   Under an accord outlining procedures for the arrest of war criminals
and the handling of war crimes charges, the ICTY has to give its approval
before suspects can be indicted or arrested by local authorities.

   The SDA has repeatedly called for the arrest of Bosnian Serb wartime
leader Radovan Karadzic and his military commander Ratko Mladic.

   Both have been accused of genocide by the ICTY, and are still at large,
believed to be hiding in the RS.
________________________________________________________________________
OHR Media BiH Round-up
Nov. 5, 2001

RS Prosecution Office completes war crimes indictment against Izetbegovic

   Weekend edition of Jutarnje Novine reported that the Republika Srpska
Prosecution Office had completed an indictment against the Bosniak wartime
leader, Alija Izetbegovic, for war crimes committed against Serbs during
the war in BiH. According to the procedure defined by the entity law on
cooperation with the Hague Tribunal, the indictment will be forwarded to
the Tribunal early next week. The war crime charges against Izetbegovic
have been amended and contain both written and video evidences. It was
announced that more details of the charges would be revealed at a news
conference next week, a statement issued by the public relations office
of the RS government says. It adds that apart from representatives of the
RS office for liaison with the Hague tribunal, the news conference would
be addressed by Prime Minister Mladen Ivanic, Justice Minister Biljana
Maric and Public Prosecutor Vojislav Dimitrijevic.
________________________________________________________________________
Agence France-Presse
November 2, 2001

Bosnian Serbs to send Izetbegovic indictment to war crimes court

   BANJA LUKA, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Nov 2 (AFP) -- The Bosnian Serb public
prosecutor has completed a war crimes indictment against former Bosnian
Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic and will send it to the UN war crimes
court, the government announced Friday.

   Republika Srpska's (RS, Bosnian Serb entity) bureau for cooperation
with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
said the charge was an extended version of an indictment submitted in
1996.  The latest indictment contains "new proof" against Izetbegovic,
who is accused of war crimes committed against Serbs during the 1992-95
Bosnian war, during which some 200,000 people lost their lives.

   It is up to The Hague-based tribunal to decide whether to indict
Izetbegovic, who stepped down from Bosnia's tripartite presidency in
October 2000.

   The RS bureau said it would provide more details on the indictment
against Izetbegovic at a press conference next week.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Ivo Skoric" <ivo@reporters.net>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 21:25:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Fleeing Afghans gunned down

I wonder whether Taliban include Afghans, that they kill 
themselves, in the lists of civilian casualties that they attribute to 
the American bombing. I mean, could anybody ever prove them 
wrong if they do so? This would make Americans look really bad, 
while at the same time reduce the numbers of those Afghans who 
would dare to oppose Taliban. 
ivo

Makes me think there mihgt someday (unfortunately) be a ICT for central
Asia.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/0111/08/world/world1.html

from the Sydney Mornging Herald


 -    WORLD


Fleeing Afghans gunned down

By Gay Alcorn in Washington and Martin Perry of AFP

The Taliban are slaughtering Afghans who try to flee the country,
gunning them down in cold blood, refugees who have made it to Pakistan
say.

Of a dozen Afghans interviewed, all had tales of random killings, human
rights abuses and persecution. Some told of mass murders.

Ovr Mohd, 65, fled to the hills from Bamiyan to avoid the Taliban. When
he returned he found his three sons shot dead.

Mr Mohd said they were targeted because they were ethnic Hazaras, whose
sympathies lie with the Northern Alliance.

"When we decided to leave Afghanistan we saw the Taliban attacking
people who were fleeing. People were gathering on the road to leave and
they were shot. We have seen this," he said.

"I saw 50 people in front of me who were killed. They were women,
children and men," Mr Mohd added, claiming the killings happened a
month ago.

About 100,000 Afghans are believed to have crossed the border illegally
since the US began pounding Afghanistan.

They have no identity papers and officially do not exist in Pakistan.
They refuse to move into refugee camps for fear of deportation.
Consequently they receive no help from aid groups.

Saeed Zaman, 35, said he witnessed similar killings in Kabul.

"There is a chowk [roundabout] where the people go when they want to
leave," he said.

"The Taliban are attacking them there. I saw dozens killed [on Friday].
The people were pleading to leave but the Taliban shot them. They left
the bodies where they fell. The animals were eating them."

Faced with criticism from the Arab world and signs of unease in Europe,
President George Bush on Tuesday began a 10-day public offensive to
bolster support for his war in Afghanistan.

He presented a list of charges against the "mad global ambitions" of
the al-Qaeda terrorist network and the Taliban, and signalled that the
US was already looking beyond the military action to other nations that
support terrorists.

Previewing his speech to the United Nations General Assembly on
Saturday, Mr Bush said it was "time for action". Countries that had
expressed support for the war on terrorism would be held accountable,
he said.

"I will put every nation on notice that these duties [to oppose
terrorism] involve more than sympathy or words. No nation can be
neutral in this conflict, because no civilised nation can be secure in
a world threatened by terror."

For the first time, Mr Bush accused Osama bin Laden of seeking
chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, although the Administration
has no evidence that he has them.

He said: "If he doesn't have them, we will work hard to make sure he
doesn't [get them]. Given the means, our enemies would be a threat to
every nation and, eventually, to civilisation itself."

Mr Bush plans a whirlwind of meetings to maintain momentum in the war.
On Tuesday he met the Algerian President, Abdelaziz Boutelflika, and
French President, Jacques Chirac. He was to hold talks with the British
Prime Minister, Tony Blair, yesterday, and Pakistan's President, Pervez
Musharraf, in New York at the weekend.

Meanwhile, waves of US aircraft roared through the night over Kabul,
bombing front-line positions of the Taliban, but the Taliban say their
fighting ability has not been dented.

As the US bombardment continued, the Northern Alliance said it had
moved troops closer to the strategic provincial capital of
Mazar-e-Sharif, in a sign of a possible offensive.

The opposition also says forces loyal to the ethnic Uzbek warlord
General Abdul Rashid Dostum have moved towards Shurgar, a town 60
kilometres from Mazar-e-Sharif.

The anti-Taliban forces say they have also gained ground in Balkh
province bordering Uzbekistan. They claim that 400 Taliban have
defected to their forces.



 - James Newton

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Ivo Skoric" <ivo@reporters.net>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 14:57:22 -0500
Subject: Re: As U.N. Meets, bin Laden Tape Sets Off Alarms

Isn't that such a shame that the US viewer is deprived from seeing 
Osama Bin Laden's weekly TV address? It is indeed a curiosity 
that he is seen by everybody else except by those who are most 
directly involved in the current conflagration: Americans and 
Afghans. 

Americans because the US government doesn't want its citizens to 
see that Osama Bin Laden is alive and well and able to record and 
smuggle out of Afghanistan his weekly 'televangelist' message to 
Al Jazeera, despite a month of "coalition" air strikes that are harder 
and larger every day. In a typical post-modern American hypocrisy 
this reasonable governmental wish is rationalized by national 
security adviser Condoleeza Rice with the notion that Osama Bin 
Laden's taped speeches contained hidden secret messages. 
However, State Department and FBI reportedly did not find any 
hidden codes in his messages.

The overall effect of Ms. Rice's actions has been to get Mr. Bin 
Laden's statements off American television and off the front pages  
of most newspapers. [Clinton intelligence official Toby] Gati said 
this may be a mistake, since Americans needed to understand 
that they were dealing with an implacable enemy. Maybe, Bush's 
administration does not want Americans to know that they were 
dealing with an implacable enemy. 

Because that knowledge could potentially subvert citizens support 
of the war effort. Citizens need to believe that there is a way to win 
this war, and that the government knows what that way is. Even, if 
the government doesn't really know that way, which is so far clearly 
obvious through the regular appearance of Bin Laden's taped 
messages. And Afghans can't see the tapes because there is no 
TV network in Afghanistan, and the TV viewing itself is banned by 
the ruling Taliban.

But what he says about his enemies is: "It suffices me to seek 
God's help against them." There is nothing illegal or criminal in 
praying or wishing something bad to happen to people that one 
does not like. It is not nice to celebrate death of thousands of 
people who died in the World Trade Center dissaster, but there is 
nothing criminal in that. Of course, those who are grown-up enough 
to know that there is no Santa Claus who puts the gifts under the 
Christmas tree, would not buy into the story that the WTC simply 
collapsed as a consequence of some biblical, apocalyptic act of 
God.

"The people of Afghanistan had nothing to do with this matter." he 
says. And he is probably right. But he doesn't say anything about 
who, then has something 'with this matter' - and somebody must 
have something 'with this matter' since Allah, allmighty, did not 
drive those planes, but people with names and passports from 
Saudi Arabia did.

OBL might be hiding in a cave, but a cave with a satellite dish and 
internet access. He assessed well the US wish to avoid at all 
costs understanding of the present conflict as a clash of 
civilizations, and he uses all resources - insisting on repeating the 
word 'crusade' once uttered by George Bush - to present this 
conflict in exactly such framework: as a clash between the Islamic 
civilization and the rest of the world, casting Islamic civilization in a 
role of the perpetual underdog, who now has to rise and assert its 
greatness against the proverbial infidels.

The added attack on the U.N. is a logical follow-up on the previous 
discurse. The U.N. Security Council indeed passed most of its 
resolutions on sanctions and other punishing meassures against 
the predominantly Islamic countries. And until the inclusion of 
Syria in the post-September-11 apeasement period, it was 
generally a Christian-Confucian turf. And since the WTC disaster 
produced the grand coalition of the U.S. and Russia, with China 
being largely a silent accomplice, there was not much left for OBL 
but to issue a fatwah against the entire non-Islamic world, and to 
focus on the U.N. as the representative of that world, as his 
greatest enemy.

Again, he uses examples which have basis in truth: Kashmir, 
Palestine, Iraq, Bosnia, Chechnya, Indonesia, Somalia and Sudan. 
In all of those cases local Muslim population suffered (or still suffer) 
as a consequence of some political, diplomatic games by wealthy, 
powerful, old and new colonial powers of the non-Muslim world. 
And he aims to spread fear of potential terror attacks against UN 
objects and personnel - right before the (already postponed) 
session of the UN General Assembly in New York. Which is also 
the expected tactics.

Still, his self-assured, cocky, take-on the world address, strikes 
me as a desperate cry: "Fear God, O Muslims and rise to support 
your religion. Islam is calling on you: O Muslims, O Muslims, O 
Muslims. God bear witness that I have conveyed the message. 
God bear witness that I have conveyed the message.  God bear 
witness that I have conveyed the message." 3 times "O Muslims" 
and 4 times "God bear witness that I have conveyed the message" -
 this rhetoric may work only on those who live in the pre-modern 
times, where 'fear of God' still have some tangible implications. Or 
is it a code, Ms. Rice?

Let's then for a moment consider the third sentence of his 
message, particularly in a view held by Tobi Gati that he is an 
'implacable enemy': "A person who is guided by God will never be 
misguided by anyone and a person who is misguided by God can 
never be guided by anyone." He might believe that he is indeed 
guided by God and thus refuse to compromise with any human, yet 
he may in fact be delusional, or in his parlance 'misguided by God' 
and still, although for the opposite reason, be implacable. This 
sentence sounds like one of those Pythia's oracles - because it 
makes both those guided and those misguided by God implacable 
to humans. I wonder whether he is actually aware of his lunacy and 
gives us here a small hint about just how crazy he is. In which 
case, and this is an interesting legal issue, would his lawyers be 
able to get him off on the grounds of insanity, if he is ever brought 
to a trial for crimes against humanity?

ivo  

=============================================================================

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/09/international/09TERR.html

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company
The New York Times
Friday, November 9, 2001

MESSAGE
As U.N. Meets, bin Laden Tape Sets Off Alarms
By PATRICK E. TYLER and ELAINE SCIOLINO

WASHINGTON, Nov. 8 -- As scores of world leaders converge on New York this
week for the United Nations General Assembly, Osama bin Laden's latest
message to the world has provoked profound new security concerns for the
United Nations and its global work force.

How to respond to Mr. bin Laden's perceived threats is far from clear. In
his message, he singled out not only the United Nations, but various world
leaders -- either implicitly or by name, as was the case with President
Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. Analysts say that his oratory is further
proof of his shrewdness in assessing the mood of both the West and the
Muslim world, as well as his ability to take advantage of both.

In the videotaped message broadcast last weekend by the Arab language
television network Al Jazeera, Mr. bin Laden said, "The United Nations is
nothing but a tool of crime," and he called Secretary General Kofi Annan a
"criminal." Mr. bin Laden then listed a series of conflicts in which he
charged that the United Nations was siding with the "crusader" interests
of the West and against Muslims.

"The U.N. is now a target," said Toby T. Gati, the State Department's
senior intelligence official during the Clinton administration and someone
with long experience in United Nations issues. "That does not necessarily
mean that nice building in New York is the only target, it means U.N.
workers who are all over in every country -- they are really the people in
danger."

In Manhattan, United Nations officials are taking no chances as they
prepare the East River headquarters for a week of speeches and meetings in
which terrorism and Afghanistan will dominate the agenda. President Bush
will deliver an address on Saturday. "We are on high alert," said Shashi
Tharoor, a senior aide to Mr. Annan. "We are taking extremely advanced
security measures."

As the accused mastermind of the worst terrorist attack on the United
States, Mr. bin Laden continues to cast himself as a populist holy warrior
who has not only eluded the military campaign thus far, but has also kept
an open channel to his followers by smuggling videotapes that reach a
restive Muslim population around the world.

"President Bush contends that this is a war against terrorism and not
against Islam, and Osama bin Laden is taking the exact opposite approach
-- saying it is not a war against me, it is against Islam and he shows how
the `oppressors' are conducting their crusade," observed J. Stapleton Roy,
who also headed the State Department's intelligence bureau.

Some experts see Mr. bin Laden's denunciation of the United Nations and of
some world leaders, like Mr. Putin, as a warning to them, since both the
United Nations and Russia are emerging as crucial participants in the
political maneuvering intended to undermine the ruling Taliban and destroy
Mr. bin Laden along with his Al Qaeda network.

United Nations officials and other experts were struck by the vehemence
directed at the world body as it tries to play a vital role in forming a
new Afghan government to displace the Taliban. A senior United Nations
envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, was just returning from meetings with Afghan
leaders in Pakistan and elsewhere when Mr. bin Laden issued his attack
against the organization, causing some alarm about Mr. Brahimi's security.

"I think bin Laden wants to preempt the work of the United Nations and
undercut Brahimi's efforts," said Phyllis E. Oakley, a veteran diplomat
who also served as the State Department's intelligence chief.

In Bosnia, Mr. bin Laden charged, "our brothers have been killed, our
women have been raped and our children have been massacred in the safe
havens of the United Nations and with its knowledge and cooperation."

Notwithstanding reports that Mr. bin Laden is hiding in a cave with poor
communications, he seems keenly aware that the Bush administration is
working more closely with Russia to try to marshal an effective military
campaign on Afghanistan's northern flank. He railed at the "Russian bear"
for its war in Chechnya, where Mr.  Putin has asserted that he has been
fighting terrorists trained in Mr. bin Laden's camps and financed with Al
Qaeda money.

"Russians have annihilated the Chechen people in their entirety and forced
them to flee to the mountains where they were assaulted by the snow and
poverty and diseases," Mr. bin Laden said in the video.

Mr. bin Laden's videotaped message was largely ignored by many Western
media organizations, especially television networks that had been urged by
the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to handle such messages
with extreme care since they might be used to pass coded messages to
terrorists.

Since that warning, neither Ms. Rice, nor any other Bush administration
official, has made public any government assessment of whether any such
messages have been detected in Mr. bin Laden's statements. A White House
spokesman said tonight that he had no knowledge of any follow-up by Ms.
Rice. A State Department official said he was not aware of any analysis
that had been done by the government to determine whether Mr. bin Laden's
messages contained any coded signals.

The overall effect of Ms. Rice's actions has been to get Mr. bin Laden's
statements off American television and off the front pages of most
newspapers. Ms. Gati said this may be a mistake, since Americans needed to
understand that they were dealing with an implacable enemy.

"This is an important speech," she said of the 2,600-word statement. "It
tells you that you cannot bargain with someone like this, you cannot
reconcile. This reinforces my belief that we are doing the right thing in
bombing him because if we don't want this to be a war of civilizations, we
have really got to get rid of a person who is intent on making it that
way."

After several days of analysis, experts say they are struck that Mr. bin
Laden shows that he is well informed about the the military campaign that
seeks to destroy him. He is aware of opinion polls that show "more than 80
percent of Westerners" have been "saddened by the strikes that hit the
United States." And, he is equally certain, as he asserts, that "the vast
majority of the sons of the Islamic world were happy about these strikes"
because they "were in reaction to the huge criminality practiced by Israel
and the United States in Palestine and other Muslim countries."

As with his earlier messages, the core of Mr. bin Laden's evangelism is a
clash of religions -- not just Muslim against Christian, or Muslim against
Jew, but Muslims against everyone else, the "infidels."

In his first taped message of Oct. 7, Mr. bin Laden declared that "these
events have divided the world into two camps" -- Muslims and "infidels."
Now, he said, "The entire West, with the exception of a few countries,
supports this unfair, barbaric campaign, although there is no evidence of
the involvement of the people of Afghanistan in what happened in America."

Like President Bush and the Pentagon, Mr. bin Laden said he regretted the
death of civilians in Afghanistan, but expressed no sympathy for the
thousands of lives lost on Sept. 11. He called the attacks the "great
strikes that hit the United States in its most important locations.

"The people of Afghanistan had nothing to do with this matter," he said.
"The campaign, however, continues to unjustly annihilate the villagers and
civilians, children, women, and innocent people."

------

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/03/international/07TERR_TEXT.html

November 3, 2001

TEXT
Bin Laden's Statement

Following is the translated text of Osama
Bin Laden's latest statement, as posted on
the British Broadcasting Corporation's web
site.

We praise God, seek His help, and ask for His forgiveness.

We seek refuge in God from the evils of our souls and our bad deeds.

A person who is guided by God will never be misguided by anyone and a
person who is misguided by God can never be guided by anyone.

I bear witness that there is no God but Allah alone, Who has no partner.

Amid the huge developments and in the wake of the great strikes that hit
the United States in its most important locations in New York and
Washington, a huge media clamor has been raised.

This clamor is unprecedented. It conveyed the opinions of people on these
events.

People were divided into two parts. The first part supported these strikes
against US tyranny, while the second denounced them.

Afterward, when the United States launched the unjust campaign against the
Islamic Emirate in Afghanistan, people also split into two parties.

The first supported these campaigns, while the second denounced and
rejected them.

These tremendous incidents, which have split people into two parties, are
of great interest to the Muslims, since many of the rulings pertain to
them.

The polls showed that the vast majority of the sons of the Islamic world
were happy about these strikes.

These rulings are closely related to Islam and the acts that corrupt a
person's Islam.

Therefore, the Muslims must understand the nature and truth of this
conflict so that it will be easy for them to determine where they stand.

While talking about the truth of the conflict, opinion polls in the world
have shown that a little more than 80 per cent of Westerners, of
Christians in the United States and elsewhere, have been saddened by the
strikes that hit the United States.

The polls showed that the vast majority of the sons of the Islamic world
were happy about these strikes because they believe that the strikes were
in reaction to the huge criminality practiced by Israel and the United
States in Palestine and other Muslim countries.

After the strikes on Afghanistan began, these groups changed positions.

Those who were happy about striking the United States felt sad when
Afghanistan was hit, and those who felt sad when the United States was hit
were happy when Afghanistan was hit. These groups comprise millions of
people.

The entire West, with the exception of a few countries, supports this
unfair, barbaric campaign, although there is no evidence of the
involvement of the people of Afghanistan in what happened in America.

The people of Afghanistan had nothing to do with this matter. The
campaign, however, continues to unjustly annihilate the villagers and
civilians, children, women, and innocent people.

The entire West, with the exception of a few countries, supports this
unfair, barbaric campaign.

The positions of the two sides are very clear. Mass demonstrations have
spread from the farthest point in the eastern part of the Islamic world to
the farthest point in the western part of the Islamic world, and from
Indonesia, Philippines, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan to the Arab world and
Nigeria and Mauritania.

This clearly indicates the nature of this war. This war is fundamentally
religious. The people of the East are Muslims. They sympathized with
Muslims against the people of the West, who are the crusaders.

Those who try to cover this crystal clear fact, which the entire world has
admitted, are deceiving the Islamic nation.

They are trying to deflect the attention of the Islamic nation from the
truth of this conflict.

This fact is proven in the book of God Almighty and in the teachings of
our messenger, may God's peace and blessings be upon him.

Under no circumstances should we forget this enmity between us and the
infidels. For, the enmity is based on creed.

We must be loyal to the believers and those who believe that there is no
God but Allah.

We should also renounce the atheists and infidels. It suffices me to seek
God's help against them.

God says: "Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee
unless thou follow their form of religion."

It is a question of faith, not a war against terrorism, as Bush and Blair
try to depict it.

Many thieves belonging to this nation were captured in the past. But,
nobody moved.

It is a question of faith, not a war against terrorism, as Bush and Blair
try to depict it.

The masses which moved in the East and West have not done so for the sake
of Osama.

Rather, they moved for the sake of their religion. This is because they
know that they are right and that they resist the most ferocious, serious,
and violent Crusade campaign against Islam ever since the message was
revealed to Mohammad, may God's peace and blessings be upon.

After this has become clear, the Muslim must know and learn where he is
standing vis-a-vis this war.

After the US politicians spoke and after the US newspapers and television
channels became full of clear crusading hatred in this campaign that aims
at mobilizing the West against Islam and Muslims, Bush left no room for
doubts or the opinions of journalists, but he openly and clearly said that
this war is a crusader war. He said this before the whole world to
emphasize this fact.

Anyone who lines up behind Bush in this campaign has committed one of the
10 actions that sully one's Islam.

What can those who allege that this is a war against terrorism say? What
terrorism are they speaking about at a time when the Islamic nation has
been slaughtered for tens of years without hearing their voices and
without seeing any action by them?

But when the victim starts to take revenge for those innocent children in
Palestine, Iraq, southern Sudan, Somalia, Kashmir and the Philippines, the
rulers' ulema (Islamic leaders) and the hypocrites come to defend the
clear blasphemy. It suffices me to seek God's help against them.

The common people have understood the issue, but there are those who
continue to flatter those who colluded with the unbelievers to
anesthetized the Islamic nation to prevent it from carrying out the duty
of jihad so that the word of God will be above all words.

The unequivocal truth is that Bush has carried the cross and raised its
banner high and stood at the front of the queue.

Anyone who lines up behind Bush in this campaign has committed one of the
10 actions that sully one's Islam.

Muslim scholars are unanimous that allegiance to the infidels and support
for them against the believers is one of the major acts that sully Islam.

There is no power but in God. Let us investigate whether this war against
Afghanistan that broke out a few days ago is a single and unique one or if
it is a link to a long series of crusader wars against the Islamic world.

Following World War I, which ended more than 83 years ago, the whole
Islamic world fell under the crusader banner - under the British, French,
and Italian governments.

They divided the whole world, and Palestine was occupied by the British.

Since then, and for more than 83 years, our brothers, sons, and sisters in
Palestine have been badly tortured.

Hundreds of thousands of them have been killed, and hundreds of thousands
of them have been imprisoned or maimed.

Let us examine the recent developments. Take for example the Chechens.

They are a Muslim people who have been attacked by the Russian bear which
embraces the Christian Orthodox faith.

Russians have annihilated the Chechen people in their entirety and forced
them to flee to the mountains where they were assaulted by snow and
poverty and diseases.

Nonetheless, nobody moved to support them. There is no strength but in
God.

This was followed by a war of genocide in Bosnia in sight and hearing of
the entire world in the heart of Europe.

For several years our brothers have been killed, our women have been
raped, and our children have been massacred in the safe havens of the
United Nations and with its knowledge and cooperation.

Those who refer our tragedies today to the United Nations so that they can
be resolved are hypocrites who deceive God, His Prophet and the believers.

Are not our tragedies but caused by the United Nations? Who issued the
Partition Resolution on Palestine in 1947 and surrendered the land of
Muslims to the Jews? It was the United Nations in its resolution in 1947.

Those who claim that they are the leaders of the Arabs and continue to
appeal to the United Nations have disavowed what was revealed to Prophet
Mohammad, God's peace and blessings be upon him.

Those who refer things to the international legitimacy have disavowed the
legitimacy of the Holy Book and the tradition of Prophet Mohammad, God's
peace and blessings be upon him.

This is the United Nations from which we have suffered greatly. Under no
circumstances should any Muslim or sane person resort to the United
Nations. The United Nations is nothing but a tool of crime.

We are being massacred everyday, while the United Nations continues to sit
idly by.

Our brothers in Kashmir have been subjected to the worst forms of torture
for over 50 years. They have been massacred, killed, and raped. Their
blood has been shed and their houses have been trespassed upon.

Still, the United Nations continues to sit idly by.

Today, and without any evidence, the United Nations passes resolutions
supporting unjust and tyrannical America, which oppresses these helpless
people who have emerged from a merciless war at the hands of the Soviet
Union.

Let us look at the second war in Chechnya, which is still underway. The
entire Chechen people are being embattled once again by this Russian bear.

The humanitarian agencies, even the US ones, demanded that President
Clinton should stop supporting Russia.

However, Clinton said that stopping support for Russia did not serve US
interests.

A year ago, Putin demanded that the cross and the Jews should stand by
him.

He told them: You must support us and thank us because we are waging a war
against Muslim fundamentalism.

The enemies are speaking very clearly. While this is taking place, the
leaders of the region hide and are ashamed to support their brothers.

Let us examine the stand of the West and the United Nations in the
developments in Indonesia when they moved to divide the largest country in
the Islamic world in terms of population.

We should view events not as separate links, but as links in a long series
of conspiracies, a war of annihilation.

This criminal, Kofi Annan, was speaking publicly and putting pressure on
the Indonesian government, telling it:  You have 24 hours to divide and
separate East Timor from Indonesia.

Otherwise, we will be forced to send in military forces to separate it by
force.

The crusader Australian forces were on Indonesian shores, and in fact they
landed to separate East Timor, which is part of the Islamic world.

Therefore, we should view events not as separate links, but as links in a
long series of conspiracies, a war of annihilation in the true sense of
the word.

In Somalia, on the excuse of restoring hope, 13,000 of our brothers were
killed. In southern Sudan, hundreds of thousands were killed.

But when we move to Palestine and Iraq, there can be no bounds to what can
be said.

Over one million children were killed in Iraq. The killing is continuing.

As for what is taking place in Palestine these days, I can only say we
have no one but God to complain to.

What is taking place cannot be tolerated by any nation. I do not say from
the nations of the human race, but from other creatures, from the animals.

They would not tolerate what is taking place.

A confidant of mine told me that he saw a butcher slaughtering a camel in
front of another camel.

The other camel got agitated while seeing the blood coming out of the
other camel. Thus, it burst out with rage and bit the hand of the man and
broke it.

How can the weak mothers in Palestine endure the killing of their children
in front of their eyes by the unjust Jewish executioners with US support
and with US aircraft and tanks?

Those who distinguish between America and Israel are the real enemies of
the nation. They are traitors who betrayed God and His prophet, and who
betrayed their nation and the trust placed in them. They anesthetize the
nation.

These battles cannot be viewed in any case whatsoever as isolated battles,
but rather, as part of a chain of the long, fierce, and ugly crusader war.

Every Muslim must stand under the banner of There is no God but Allah and
Mohammad is God's Prophet.

I remind you of what our Prophet, may God's peace and blessings upon him,
told Ibn Abbas, may God be pleased with him.

He told him: Boy, I am going to teach you a few words. Obey God, He will
protect you. Obey Him, you will find Him on your side. If you ask for
something, ask God. If you seek help, seek the help of God.

You should know that if all people come together to help you, they will
only help you with something that God has already preordained for you.

And if they assemble to harm you, they will only harm you with something
that God has already preordained for you. God wrote man's fate and it will
never change.

I Tell the Muslims who did their utmost during these weeks: You must
continue along the same march.

Your support for us will make us stronger and will further support your
brothers in Afghanistan.

Exert more efforts in combating this unprecedented war crime.

Fear God, O Muslims and rise to support your religion. Islam is calling on
you: O Muslims, O Muslims, O Muslims.

God bear witness that I have conveyed the message. God bear witness that I
have conveyed the message.  God bear witness that I have conveyed the
message.

God's peace and blessings be upon you.


=========================================================================

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Ivo Skoric" <ivo@reporters.net>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 14:56:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Israel,U.S. set to boycott talks on territories

Does this mean we can expect another Al Qaeda attack 
sometimes before Christmass?
ivo

date sent:      	Fri, 9 Nov 2001 04:15:02 -0500
send reply to:  	International Justice Watch Discussion List
             	<JUSTWATCH-L@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU>
from:           	Daniel Tomasevich <danilo@MARTNET.COM>
subject:        	Israel,U.S. set to boycott talks on territories
to:             	JUSTWATCH-L@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU

An international conference on Palestine will be boycotted by
Israel and the U.S.

   Israel is expected to come under fire for alleged abuses in the
   occupied territories during the 13-month Intifada or uprising, in
   which at least 700 Palestinians and 185 Israelis have been killed. New
   Jewish settlements are likely to be slammed as illegal transfers of
   population, diplomats say.


Daniel
(article not for cross posting)
-------------------------------------------------------------

   Reuters Media
   Thursday November 8 11:20 AM ET

Israel, U.S. Set to Boycott Talks on Territories

   By Stephanie Nebehay

   GENEVA (Reuters) - Israel and its staunch ally the United States look
   set to boycott an international conference next month aimed at
   upholding rights of Palestinian civilians in the West Bank and Gaza
   Strip (news - web sites), diplomats said on Thursday.

   In a statement, Israel's diplomatic mission in Geneva rejected the
   meeting as a pretext to misuse humanitarian law as a ``blunt tool for
   political attacks'' against the Jewish state.

   The conference, which Switzerland has called for December 5 in Geneva,
   would also ``undermine'' Middle East peace efforts, according to
   Israel.

   Neutral Switzerland acts as depository of the 1949 Fourth Geneva
   Convention guaranteeing protection of civilians during war or military
   occupation, laying down rules on access to food, medical care, places
   of religious worship and education.

   The United States and Israel stayed away from a similar session in
   July 1999 which declared that the Convention, ratified by 189 states,
   applies to the territories, including Arab East Jerusalem.

   Israel is expected to come under fire for alleged abuses in the
   occupied territories during the 13-month Intifada or uprising, in
   which at least 700 Palestinians and 185 Israelis have been killed. New
   Jewish settlements are likely to be slammed as illegal transfers of
   population, diplomats say.

   ``The U.S. has said all along it doesn't support the idea of a
   meeting. As far as I know there is not a final decision on whether to
   participate but it is probably unlikely,'' Bruce Armstrong, spokesman
   at the U.S. embassy in Berne, told Reuters.

   ISRAEL DISPUTES LEGALITY

   Israel says it observes the humanitarian provisions of the Convention
   but disputes that it legally applies to the West Bank, East Jerusalem
   and Gaza Strip which it says were under no legitimate rule when they
   were captured in the 1967 war.

   Tuvia Israeli, deputy head of Israel's diplomatic mission in Geneva,
   told Reuters: ``We will not participate.

   ``We take the Fourth Geneva Convention very seriously. In a practical
   way we do apply it,'' he said.

   The Geneva talks come amid speculation that Palestinian President
   Yasser Arafat (news - web sites) may declare an independent
   Palestinian state following statements by several countries, including
   the United States, backing the state in principle.

   Nabil Ramlawi, the Palestinian envoy to the United Nations (news - web
   sites) in Geneva, said he hoped the conference would reaffirm that
   humanitarian law applies to the territories occupied by Israel.

   ``All actions, not only settlements, but deliberate killings in cold
   blood, destruction of houses, injuring people -- its existence in
   Palestinian territory is a crime,'' he told Reuters.

   ``The result will confirm the applicability of the Fourth Geneva
   Convention to the occupied Palestinian territories including Jerusalem
   which is very important to be said in the critical political
   circumstances,'' Ramlawi added.

     _________________________________________________________________

   Copyright © 2001 Reuters Limited.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net