The American establishment press has reacted to the human rights report issued by Amnesty International with a combination of indignation and verbal mudslinging. The editorial boards of the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post have taken particular offense at the statement by Amnesty International’s secretary general calling the US-run prison camp in Guantánamo Bay “the gulag of our times.”
The editorial boards of these two newspapers—one the mouthpiece of the extreme right and the other its “liberal” counterpart—have swallowed whole every lie and pro-war pretext dispensed by the Bush administration. They have done their best to promote a criminal war in Iraq and a policy of militarism and provocation throughout the world. But when an organization dares to speak with a certain degree of bluntness about the real substance of the US “war on terror” and Washington’s supposed crusade for democracy, they fairly froth at the mouth.
The Journal’s editorial, entitled “Amnesty’s ‘Gulag,’” begins by declaring that Amnesty International’s use of the term “gulag” is “one more sign of the moral degradation” of the organization. The Journal takes particular exception to the statement by the executive director of Amnesty’s US branch, William Schulz, that the US is a “leading purveyor and practitioner” of torture, as well as his suggestion that top American officials should think twice about vacationing outside the US, lest they “find themselves under arrest as Augusto Pinochet famously did in London in 1998.”
For the editors of the Wall Street Journal to accuse Amnesty International of “moral degradation” is a particularly brazen instance of projecting one’s own sins on one’s opponents. This is a newspaper that has championed every right-wing conspiracy against the democratic rights of the American people—from the scandal-mongering and attempted political coup against Clinton to the theft of the 2000 election. It has enthusiastically supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and justified the most criminal policies associated with these wars, including the torture of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan and the indefinite detention without charges of prisoners at Guantánamo.
Those who run the Wall Street Journal’s editorial pages, using half-truths, distortions and lies as their basic modus operandi, have earned for themselves an international reputation as journalistic thugs.
In supposed refutation of Schulz’s suggestion that US officials are guilty of war crimes, the editors of the Journal point to the “multiple probes and courts martial [that] have found no evidence that the US condones or encourages torture.”
No evidence? What about the infamous photos from Abu Ghraib? Or the stream of documents detailing prisoner abuse in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantánamo? Or the US government memoranda that set out to provide a pseudo-legal rationale for torture, the documented orders from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the former top military official in Iraq Ricardo Sanchez approving policies that grossly violate the Geneva Conventions?
The Journal concludes, characteristically, with a verbal incitement against the leaders of Amnesty International, declaring, “These latest accusations amount to pro-al Qaeda propaganda.” According to the Bush doctrine—“You’re either with us or with the terrorists”—this makes these individuals fair game for virtually any form of retribution.
The Washington Post in an editorial published the same day voices a similar viewpoint. The editors note that in the past, the newspaper has raised criticisms of US detention policies. “But we draw the line,” they write, “at the use of the word ‘gulag’ or at the implication that the United States has somehow become the modern equivalent of Stalin’s Soviet Union.” The real modern equivalent, the Post writes, “is not Guantánamo Bay, but the prisons of Cuba...the labor camps of North Korea...our, until recently, the prisons of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.”
Allow us to remind the Post that Guantánamo Bay is part of Cuba. US possession of this section of the island dates from Uncle Sam’s first imperialist venture—the Spanish-American war of 1898—and remains to this day a symbol of American imperialist oppression of Central and Latin America.
“Worrying about the use of a word [‘gulag’] may seem like mere semantics,” the newspaper concludes, “but it is not. Turning a report on prisoner detention into another excuse for Bush-bashing or America-bashing undermines Amnesty’s legitimate criticisms of US policies and weakens the force of its investigations of prison systems in closed societies.”
What hypocrisy! The Post has itself has published numerous editorials and articles documenting violations of international law and criticizing high-level US officials for sanctioning torture and the rendition of prisoners to be tortured in other countries. It has published editorials linking top administration officials to the abuse of detainees. One editorial, published December 23, 2004 and headlined “War Crimes,” singled out Donald Rumsfeld by name.
Why, then, are the editors of the Post so incensed at Amnesty International’s use of the term “gulag?” For one thing, the application of the term to the US triggers the virulent anti-communism that runs throughout the US establishment. To refer to an American prison as the “gulag of our times” is to implicitly challenge the myth of the US as the “leader of the free world” assiduously promulgated during the Cold War and maintained today in the form of the “war on terror” and Washington’s supposed crusade for democracy.
The attitude taken by the Post highlights the hypocritical and unprincipled character of its criticisms of the Bush administration. What has the newspaper proposed in response to the US war crimes it itself has documented? Nothing. What conclusions has it drawn as to the character of the wars with which these crimes are linked? None.
The [I]Washington Post [I]continues to support the war in Iraq and the other military adventures of the United States, promoting the big lie that the US is working to democratize the world. Any criticisms the Post makes of the Bush administration are entirely of a tactical, not principled, character. They are motivated by concerns that the Bush administration’s reckless and unilateralist tactics are endangering the long-term interests of American imperialism. Their criticisms are aimed are facilitating Washington’s drive for global hegemony, not opposing it.
The statements made by Amnesty International are, in fact, only mild expressions of the deep-seated feelings of hundreds of millions of people around the world, including many millions within the United States. The position taken by the US media in response to Amnesty’s charges will only further discredit an institution that already stands condemned in the eyes of the world. The US media is waist deep in blood, filth and lies. It has been instrumental in promoting and defending the policies of the most reactionary government in American history and is irreversibly implicated in its crimes.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/may2005/amne-m28.shtml

It is ironically notice that supporter extreme right wings concentrated their attention to a word “gulags”. These right wing people are chant supporter of American imperialism, hegemony, preemptive war, occupation, unjust war based on lie etc. They are the spokesmen of American warlords, corporate interest.

Continue to spread ... your agenda shams. It is your right, just like Schulz (ain't that the german guy on hogans heros ... I see nothing! :p )

In supposed refutation of Schulz’s suggestion that US officials are guilty of war crimes, the editors of the Journal point to the “multiple probes and courts martial [that] have found no evidence that the US condones or encourages torture.”

Wallace: “Now, Secretary Rumsfeld did, we believe, approve putting prisoners in stress positions for prolonged periods of time, stripping them naked and even using dogs to frighten them. Mr. Schulz, do you have any evidence whatsoever that he ever approved beating of prisoners, ever approved starving of prisoners, the kind of things we normally [sic!] think of as torture?”
Schulz: “It would be fascinating to find out. I have no idea...”

Translation ... Mr Schulz (the guy that gave the maximum amout to John Kerry campaign) Says in the world of free speech I can make a charge and without any evidence.

He has no idea shams ... his words ... just like yours :rolleyes:

Translation ... Mr Schulz (the guy that gave the maximum amout to John Kerry campaign) Says in the world of free speech I can make a charge and without any evidence.

So far I remember you worked for Mr. Kerry too.
Don't try to make us fool in the name of free speech.
Free speech does not mean to lie.

Don't try to make us fool in the name of free speech.
Free speech does not mean to lie.I don't have to Schultz did that himself. About the lieing ... It sure does mean that for some ... :rolleyes:

Wallace: “Now, Secretary Rumsfeld did, we believe, approve putting prisoners in stress positions for prolonged periods of time, stripping them naked and even using dogs to frighten them. Mr. Schulz, do you have any evidence whatsoever that he ever approved beating of prisoners, ever approved starving of prisoners, the kind of things we normally [sic!] think of as torture?”

Schulz: “It would be fascinating to find out. I have no idea...” Kind of like straw ... yes they did ... I have no idea ... wait a minute let me check what I said last week! (http://www.englishsabla.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31189)

Edited..
Edited..

Hey (shammy).

Read up on what the hell the Gulag actually was and then try to compare it to Gitmo. Your agenda is weak, ignorant, and tiresome.

Hey (shammy).

Read up on what the hell the Gulag actually was and then try to compare it to Gitmo. Your agenda is weak, ignorant, and tiresome.

Respected MoonShine ( I don’t know you are Mr or Madam)
Noticed your focus on the word Gulag. AI decorated it “Gulag of our time”. I think it is worst than Soviet Gulag.
Under the rule of the leadership of proletariat, human man rights were not practiced. It was a regimented political system backed with certain philosophical ideology that contravene with the concept of democracy. So, that surely be different and we are not talking here about socialism or communism.
Well, this article is not from any socialist site. A professor of politics, Stephen Zunes, has described the facts in length. You will have the opportunity to look your past.
Stephen Zunes, Middle East editor for Foreign Policy in Focus, is a professor of Politics at the University of San Francisco and the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003).

Bush Administration Attacks on Amnesty International:
Old Wine, New Bottles.
In what appears to be a concerted effort to discredit independent human rights advocates, the Bush administration and its allies in the media have been engaging in a series of attacks against Amnesty International, the world’s largest human rights organization and winner of the 1977 Nobel Peace Prize.
Amnesty International has received support from literally millions of individuals around the world because of its steadfast defense of civil and political rights against repressive governments regardless of a given regime’s ideology, economic system, or strategic alliances. Avoiding politics, Amnesty provides regular reports of the human rights situation in every country in the world based upon certain objective criteria, and focuses its advocacy work on letter-writing campaigns to free individual prisoners.
Such consistent and credible reporting and advocacy to advance the cause of human rights does not sit well with the U.S. government, however, long the world’s number one military and financial backer of autocratic regimes and whose armed forces in recent years have engaged in widespread torture, extrajudicial killings, and other violations of international humanitarian law.
Following publication of a report on May 26 criticizing the abuse of prisoners by the U.S. military in detention facilities in Iraq and elsewhere, Vice President **** Cheney blithely dismissed Amnesty International’s well-documented findings, saying “I frankly just don’t take them seriously.” White House spokesman Scott McClellan claimed that the detailed accounting of U.S. human rights violations was “ridiculous and unsupported by the facts,” while Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declared that Amnesty’s report was “absurd.”
President George W. Bush, in a press conference May 31, similarly referred to it as “an absurd report” and implied that the 44-year-old human rights organization was being used by terrorists and those “who hate America.”
Ironically, at the time of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, top Bush administration officials were regularly citing Amnesty International’s human rights reports as evidence of the perfidy of Saddam Hussein’s regime. For example, in reference to the Iraqi government, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumseld asserted that “We know that it’s a repressive regime” as a result of reports by Amnesty International and other human rights organizations “about how the regime of Saddam Hussein treats his people.” Rumsfeld added that a “careful reading” of Amnesty International’s reports document “the viciousness of that regime.”
It is one thing to criticize human rights abuses by foreign governments the Bush administration seeks to overthrow, and it is quite another thing to criticize human rights abuses by the United States itself.
A number of prominent American publications, such as the Wall Street Journal, have joined in the attack, calling Amnesty International a “highly politicized pressure group” whose allegations regarding human rights abuses by U.S. forces “amount to pro-al Qaeda propaganda.”
This is not the first time the U.S. government has tried to discredit Amensty International, however.
For example, in 1982, Amnesty International reported how the Guatemalan army under dictator Efrain Rios Montt was engaged the slaughter of thousands of Indian villagers in what Amnesty described as a “genocidal policy.” In response, the U.S. embassy in Guatemala City insisted that Amnesty International had been duped by Communists. In Washington, President Ronald Reagan insisted that Rios Montt, who had seized power in a military coup a few months earlier, was “totally dedicated to democracy” and that the general had been given “a bum rap.” U.S. government documents subsequently released reveal that the CIA and other U.S. agencies were actually confirming the reports of widespread massacres by the Guatemala armed forces.
During that same period, Amnesty International reported that in neighboring El Salvador, the junta’s armed forces and special security units were engaged in the torture, disappearance and murder of thousands of civilians, the majority of whom were nonviolent activists affiliated with peasant leagues, labor unions, religious organizations, human rights groups, and opposition political parties. However, Reagan administration officials denied such human rights abuses were taking place and Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Enders attacked Amnesty International for being one-sided and acting as apologists for “terrorists.” Subsequent investigations by the United Nations’ Truth Commission have confirmed the accuracy of Amnesty’s findings.
Also during the 1980s, the validity of Amnesty International’s reports regarding the widespread killings of Nicaraguan civilians by irregular forces based in Honduras and of Honduran civilians by security forces of their own government were repeatedly challenged by then-U.S. ambassador John Negroponte. Yet again, the U.S. government’s cover-ups were ultimately unsuccessful and Amnesty’s reports have since been acknowledged as accurate. Negroponte has since served as President Bush’s ambassador to the United Nations, followed by a stint as the “ambassador” to Iraq (while still under U.S. occupation), and currently as the first Director of National Intelligence.
Despite Amnesty International’s frank reporting of human rights abuses in Nicaragua, Cuba, and other leftist governments, media outlets supportive of U.S. Central America policy rushed to the Reagan administration’s defense, with the Wall Street Journal falsely accusing Amnesty of applying “a gentler standard to U.S. adversaries in Central America than to U.S. friends” and using “ad hominem attacks” on “those offering conflicting evidence.”
A key figure in the Reagan administration’s efforts to discredit Amnesty International’s reporting on Central America was Elliot Abrams, who succeeded Enders as Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America. Despite being convicted of perjury in 1991 for lying to Congress under oath, President Bush during his first term appointed Abrams as the Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs. Abrams currently serves as his deputy national security adviser--ironically in charge of promoting democracy abroad.
Efforts to discredit Amnesty International when it challenged the human rights abuses of U.S. allies continued into the 1990s as well. In 1996, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and President Bill Clinton dismissed Amnesty International’s reports regarding the Israeli massacre of over 100 Lebanese refugees at a United Nations compound near Lebanese village of Qana, insisting--despite the failure to present any evidence to the contrary--that the killings were accidental.
In 1999, during a visit to Turkey not long after Amnesty International released a report documenting ongoing human rights abuses by the Turkish government, including the use of torture on an administrative basis, President Clinton praised what he described as a “renewed and clear determination of the Turkish government to take a stand against torture and to generally increase protection of human rights.” Despite the report noting structural impediments to any imminent lessening of ongoing abuses, the visiting American president declared “the human rights issue is moving in the right direction in this nation.”
Under the Bush administration, congressional Democrats have supported Republican efforts to discredit Amnesty International when it criticizes American allies. For example, in April of 2002, Amnesty International published a detailed and well-documented report regarding the Israeli military offensive in the occupied West Bank, noting how “the IDF [Israeli Defense Forces] acted as though the main aim was to punish all Palestinians. Actions were taken by the IDF which had no clear or obvious military necessity.” The report went on to document unlawful killings, destruction of civilian property, arbitrary detention, torture, assaults on medical personnel and journalists, as well as random shooting at people in the streets and houses. In response, a bipartisan resolution was introduced in the House of Representatives challenged Amnesty’s findings, claiming that “Israel’s military operations are an effort to defend itself ... and are aimed only at dismantling the terrorist infrastructure in the Palestinian areas.” Though the chief sponsor was right-wing Republican leader Tom DeLay, the resolution was supported by such prominent congressional Democrats as Tom Lantos, Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, Mark Udall, John Lewis, Lane Evans, Barney Frank, Edward Markey, Major Owens, David Price, Steny Hoyer, **** Gephardt, Jim McGovern, and Patrick Kennedy, among others. Indeed, there were only 21 dissenting votes against the resolution in the 435-member body.
With the Democrats demonstrating their willingness to team up with Republicans to try to discredit Amnesty International when it criticizes human rights abuses by the armed forces of key U.S. allies, it is not surprising that the Bush administration and its supporters now feel like they can get away with such brazen attacks against the Nobel Peace Prize-winning organization when it criticizes U.S. forces.
Yet the influence that Amnesty International has been able to wield over the years in advancing the cause of human rights has never come from the backing of governments or political parties, but from the support of concerned individuals from around the world. It is therefore up to the American people to challenge any and all elected officials who seek to discredit this noble organization in order to cover up human rights abuses by the United States and its allies.
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2005/0506amnesty.html

You are concentrating on the word Gulag but ignoring the fact.
Let us see what Mr Matthew Rothschild comments, Editor of The Progressive, leading voice for peace and social justice in America. Not any socialist spokesman.

In Defense of Amnesty International .
I'm sick of the attacks on Amnesty International, one of the noblest and most effective organizations in the world.
For the last four decades, it has bravely exposed the most horrific acts of repressive governments across the globe. And it has successfully campaigned to free many political prisoners.

For its work, day in and day out, it deserves our thanks.

And I applaud it now for having the courage to blow the whistle on the Bush Administration.

But the Bush Administration can't stand criticism. And so it is attacking the messenger, as it has in the past with Richard Clarke or Paul O'Neill.

The Administration wheeled out its three biggest guns: Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush himself.

Each of them seized on the word "gulag," which Amnesty International had used to describe the U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo Bay.

Cheney said he was "offended" by it. Isn't he offended by the reports of torture there?

Rumsfeld said it was "reprehensible" and "cannot be excused." But what is really reprehensible and inexcusable is Rumsfeld's memo that gave the green light to specific torture techniques. (See "Stripping Rumsfeld and Bush of Impunity.")

Bush said it's "absurd," but the absurdity is Bush's claim that his Administration has not exported detainees for torture.

Now you can quibble with the word "gulag," and William Schulz, head of Amnesty International USA, has acknowledged that the Bush policies are not nearly on the scale of Stalin's.

But it's no great accomplishment to say that Bush's Guantanamo is better than Stalin's Siberia.

Can't we aim a little higher than that?

Amnesty International, along with Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, the ACLU, and the Center for Constitutional Rights, has been performing a vital service in drawing attention to the illegality of the Bush Administration policies: the indefinite detention of tens of thousands of people without charge; the grotesque torture of some of them at Abu Ghraib, Bagram Air Force Base, Guantanamo, and elsewhere; and the murder—yes, murder—of more than two dozen detainees at the hands of U.S. soldiers, guards, or interrogators.

And Amnesty International, along with these other groups, is to be commended as well for demanding that the architects of these illegal policies be held accountable.

It's quite obvious the Pentagon can't police itself.

Its latest report says that by some magical drift of wind and some peculiar arc of urine, a U.S. soldier accidentally desecrated a detainee's Koran.

The Pentagon also wants us to believe that another detainee may have defaced his own Koran with a two-word obscenity. "It is possible," the military said, according to The New York Times, "that a guard committed this act; it is equally possible that the detainee wrote in his own Koran."

"Equally possible"?

I doubt it.

This is just another whitewash by the Pentagon, one of many.

And Amnesty International won't stand for these whitewashes.

Neither should we.

And we should join Amnesty International, and other human rights groups, in demanding accountability.

America should not be a land of impunity.


http://www.progressive.org/webex05/wx060705.php

Interesting.

So you compare concentration camps for millions of political prisoners where millions died with a detention center for illegial combatants just because the US is a democracy and the USSR was not ?

You will never cease to amaze me.

If the US was to declare the sky is blue tomorrow you would begin swearing it was green just to disagree with them !

Again same delirium.
Under the rule of the leadership of proletariat, different view and ideology were treated in a different manner.
None of us are praising Soviet gulag.
As a preacher of international human rights, what America is dining, that is the question of our time?
Have you any say?

Again same delirium.
Under the rule of the leadership of proletariat, different view and ideology were treated in a different manner.
None of us are praising Soviet gulag.
As a preacher of international human rights, what America is dining, that is the question of our time?
Have you any say?Adolf Hitler - About 9 million dead
Soviet gulags - About 2.7 million dead
Pol Pot - About 1.7 million dead
Gitmo - zero dead
Gitmo - five instances of Koran abuse by prison guards
Gitmo-15 instances of Koran abuse by prisoners.

So gitmo is right up there with these?

I am not surprized that your economy and your society is not doing very well.

You guys are still concentrating on the gulag accusation, instead of tackling the rest of the facts :)

As a preacher of international human rights, what America is doing, that is the question of our time?
How do you justify?
This is “Gulag of our time”.

As a preacher of international human rights, what America is doing, that is the question of our time?
How do you justify?
This is “Gulag of our time”.This is the "Gulag of our time" (http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2005/06/pain-is-etched-in-her-face.html)

You guys are still concentrating on the gulag accusation, instead of tackling the rest of the facts :)

sorry, if you compare GB to a gulag, then there are no facts to discuss.

Irene Zubaida Khan is secretary general of Amnesty International, in London.

Irene Khan was born in Dhaka (now capital of Bangladesh, but then in East Pakistan) in 1957, into a relatively wealthy family — her father was a doctor and her grandfather was a lawyer who had gone to England at the age of 14 and studied law at Cambridge University before returning to what was then British India.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Irene_Zubaida_Khan

What a surprise.

Irene Zubaida Khan, who Amnesty International bills as, "...the first woman, the first Asian and the first Muslim..." to head the alleged international human rights organization, likened the US terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to a "gulag". Even for those inured to the hyperbolic anti-Western propaganda that flows regularly from AI this was going too far. President Bush quickly called Khan's charge "absurd".

A "gulag" was a Soviet-era labor/death camp for criminals and political dissidents. Guantanamo detainees are not required to perform labor. They receive medical treatment and are even given meals tailored to their religious beliefs. Perhaps Khan's ignorant statement will serve to point out the outrageous hypocrisy and anti-Western subversion at the core of Amnesty International.

Let's examine some claims from AI's description of their 2004 report.

During 2004, the human rights of ordinary men, women and children were disregarded or grossly abused in every corner of the globe. Economic interests, political hypocrisy and socially orchestrated discrimination continued to fan the flames of conflict around the world.

Actually, Muslim terrorist and terrorist sympathizer organizations "continued to fan the flames". Thousands were deliberately murdered by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's al Qaeda in Iraq. But Irene Khan and her crew are quick to turn a blind eye to human rights violations from representatives of the "religion of peace."

The "war on terror" appeared more effective in eroding international human rights principles than in countering international "terrorism".

A baseless, asinine statement, unsupported by fact, but revealing in its blatant anti-Americanism. Perhaps Khan's real problem with the war on terror is that it has brought the battleground home to many of the Muslim countries where jihadist terror has been bred, instead of Manhattan.

The millions of women who suffered gender-based violence in the home, in the community or in war zones were largely ignored. The economic, social and cultural rights of marginalized communities were almost entirely neglected.

Absolute nonsense, as evidenced by the massive and unprecedented outpouring of aid in the wake of the Indian Ocean tsunami. By the way, where are Khan and her organization when women and children are being deliberately targeted in terror attacks in Iraq? Oh yes, dithering over whether or not a Quran was flushed down a Gitmo toilet.

This Amnesty International Report, which covers 149 countries, highlights the failure of national governments and international organizations to deal with human rights violations, and calls for greater international accountability.

But AI only wants accountability from non-Muslim, western countries (plus Israel, of course). It's time that AI provided a little accountability of its own. Specifically, why is AI so anxious to coddle terrorists who have been caught in the act of abusing their fellow humans' rights? Why, with a Muslim at the helm, are they trying to derail the war on terror?

The report also acknowledges the opportunities for positive change that emerged in 2004, often spearheaded by human rights activists and civil society groups. Calls to reform the UN human rights machinery grew in strength, and there were vibrant campaigns to make corporations more accountable, strengthen international justice, control the arms trade and stop violence against women.

Yes, "human rights activists" were responsible for liberating the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq from brutal, inhuman totalitarian regimes. Please. How many deaths have been caused by "human rights activists" draining away resources in war zones that could be better used bringing the conflicts to a quicker resolution? How many "human rights activists" are actually more concerned with human rights than they are with demeaning the West in general and the United States in particular? How many "human rights activists" represent a fifth column of jihadis embedded within organizations like Amnesty International?

Whether in a high profile conflict or a forgotten crisis, Amnesty International campaigns for justice and freedom for all and seeks to galvanize public support to build a better world.

Right. That's why Amnesty International soldiers are on the front lines in the war against terror.

At least the grossly biased Irene Khan has inadvertently performed a valuable service. Her ignorant, over-the-top statements have served to convince more people than ever that Amnesty International is a corrupt organization that enables tyrants and terrorists worldwide, while pretending to be concerned with human rights.

http://dreadpundit.blogspot.com/2005/06/amnesty-internationals-irene-zubaida.html

This is the "Gulag of our time" (http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2005/06/pain-is-etched-in-her-face.html)
Mr.Jack,
Thank you for your link.

We are in a new phase of a very old war.

You are doing nothing for Iraqi, Afgan and other Muslim.
I am happy that lastly you have exposed yourself.
Let other click on the link.
It is lesson for them.

Mr.Jack,
Thank you for your link.

We are in a new phase of a very old war.

You are doing nothing for Iraqi, Afgan and other Muslim.
I am happy that lastly you have exposed yourself.
Let other click on the link.
It is lesson for them.The Jihadist impulse, and the hostility inculcated against Infidels, does not go away, and does not depend on the wealth or poverty of the Believers. It depends only on the strength and power with which the texts of Islam are received, distributed, believed. That's it. (http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2005/04/jihad-is-forever.html)

sorry shamy ... what has been exposed is that "jihad is forever". Get your quran and do some reading shamy ... you seemed to have skipped that chapter.

It does not say you can stop the "jihad" when part of the world is under the umbrella of Islam. (http://209.151.72.86/forum/showthread.php?t=31192)
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.-Qur'an, 9:29