Author: Mick Hartley

After his little chat with Bashar, Galloway meets the Syrian press. From Arabic News:

Member of the British House of Commons, George Galloway, said the Syrian people are able to overcome all difficulties and pressures being exerted on them from the outside because of their political stand.

In an open dialogue with journalists organized by the Syrian Association for General Relations on Monday, Galloway underlined that what is being circulated about freedom and democracy is just a pretext to hide what is being planned for the region, in a way that would secure the great powers’ hegemony, through partitioning the region and creating conflicts in it.

He underlined that occupying Iraq served the Israeli interests due to Israel’s great influence in the American administration, pointing out that the Israeli Mossad is working actively in Iraq, and is training American forces (on Israel’s experience with the Palestinians) to demolish Iraqi homes.

Update: and (via Harry), on ANB TV:

Most of the children, most of the schools, most of the buses, were bombed by the United States. Let’s keep this clearly in perspective: Most of the children who died in Iraq were killed by George Bush, not by Zarqawi. Most of the schools that were wrecked, buses that were bombed, hospitals that were destroyed, lives that were taken, were taken by George Bush, not by Zarqawi. Number two: Most of the resistance in Iraq is not Zarqawi, It’s not foreign, whatever “foreign” means when Iraq is occupied by 250,000 foreign armies. Most of their resistance are Iraqis resisting the foreign occupation of their country. Most of the operations which they carry out are against the occupying forces and their collaborators, and this is normal in every liberation struggle.

When North Korea finally implodes/explodes/collapses/disintegrates, there’ll be a Korean-News-sized hole in our lives:

All party members and other working people should more dynamically accelerate the on-going general march of Songun revolution with ardent patriotism and thus fully demonstrate the strong desire and firm will of the Korean people to eternally glorify the country as Kim Il Sung’s Korea in the run-up to the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the country. Rodong Sinmun Monday says this in an editorial calling on them to display ardent patriotism and glorify the great exploits performed by President Kim Il Sung in achieving the liberation of the country. They should devote themselves to making their socialist homeland to which Kim Il Sung dedicated his whole life, richer and more powerful. This is the true way for them to eternally glorify his immortal exploits performed for national liberation and the nation-building and do their bit as his soldiers and students. Whoever has inherited this great patriotic tradition of Kim Il Sung’s nation and is fully equipped with the spirit of socialist patriotism should turn out in the crucible of the on-going worthwhile struggle to perform new miracles and feats in the indomitable revolutionary spirit and self-sacrificing spirit.

An exercise in literary collaboration (via Solomonia).

No record as to whether Galloway saluted “your strength, your courage, your indefatigability”, but Mohammed at Iraq the Model wonders if history may be repeating itself.

Here’s another Arab tyrant under siege, feeling isolated and desperate for any political or moral support from any Western figure….

Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the need to question the example of Mohammed:

Those who love freedom know that the open society relies on a few key shared concepts. They believe that all humans are born free, are endowed with reason and have inalienable rights. Governments are checked by the rule of law, so that civil liberties are protected. They ensure freedom of conscience and of expression, and ensure that men and women, homosexuals and heterosexuals, are treated equally under the law. People can trade freely, and may spend their recreational time as they wish.

The terrorists, and the Shari’a-based societies to which they aspire, have an entirely different philosophy. Humans are born to serve Allah through a series of obligations that are prescribed in an ancient body of writings. These edicts vary from rituals of birth and funeral rites to the most intimate details of human life; they descend to the point of absurdity in matters such as how to blow your nose, and with what foot to step into a toilet. Muslims, according to this philosophy, must kill those among them who leave the faith, and are required to be hostile to people of other religions and ways of life. This hostility requires them to murder innocent people and makes no distinction between civilians and the military. In Shari’a societies, women are made subordinate to men. They must be confined to their houses, beaten if found disobedient, forced into marriage and hidden behind the veil. The hands of thieves are cut off and capital punishment is performed in crowded public squares in front of cheering crowds. The terrorists seek to impose this way of life not only on Islamic countries, but, as Blair said, on western societies too.

At the core of this fundamental challenge to the west lies a pre-medieval figure to whom the London terrorists—along with all faithful Muslims in our modern world—look for guidance: Muhammad. All faithful Muslims believe that they must emulate this man, in principle and practical matters, under all circumstances. When trying to understand Islamic terrorism, most politicians and other commentators have avoided the core issue, which is Muhammad’s example. The west, before embarking on a battle of ideas, must attempt to understand this figure, and his presence in the daily lives and homes of faithful Muslims today.

It is apparent on reading the Koran and the traditional writings that Muhammad’s life not only provides rules for the daily lives of Muslims; it also demonstrates the means by which his values can be imposed. Muhammad himself constructed the House of Islam using military tactics that included mass killing, torture, targeted assassination, lying and the indiscriminate destruction of productive goods. This may be embarrassing to moderate Muslims, but the propaganda produced by modern terrorists constantly quotes Muhammad’s deeds and edicts to justify their actions and to call on other Muslims to support their cause.

Fine…but the question arises – for those on the outside and for Muslims – if you’re going to start questioning Muhammed, and dropping all the stuff which clashes with modern Western sensibilities (like, um, the mass killings and the torture) what have you got left? Why still be a Muslim?

vilian fatalities Iraq Body Count records took place prior to May 1, 2003, when U.S. troops were actively engaged in the invasion and in subduing remnants of Saddam’s army. During that military campaign, large numbers of Saddam Fedayeen and other irregular forces fought back from the cover of civilian dress, a violation of the laws and customs of warfare. Those who died were inevitably declared civilians by their loved ones. And such forces in most places represented the bulk of the resistance against the invasion; the uniformed Iraqi military for the most part deserted and fled. And Saddam’s forces, both uniformed and not, systematically took refuge in schools, mosques, hospitals, and civilian neighborhoods, using those places as firebases—a guarantee that civilians would be killed in the process. In many places, coalition troops held their fire and slowed their advance for fear of causing greater civilian loss of life. In all, 6,616 civilian fatalities are listed by the report. Even if you make the dubious assumption that all of them were truly civilians, it is not surprising that so many died. Given the tactics of the enemy, it’s surprising that so few did.

After 9/11 there was much talk of people who got it, and people who didn’t, “it” being that this wasn’t just another, albeit larger, terrorist attack in the same old IRA, ETA style, but signalled that the Islamic fundamentalists of organisations like Al Qaeda really meant what they said: they wanted to destroy us. This was a war of ideologies just as much as the anti-fascist Second World War, though a very different type of struggle.

The latest bombings in London serve to emphasise that same point, but it’s depressing to see how many of those who didn’t get 9/11, and thought that in some ways the US had it coming, or that the terrorists supposed demands – US troops out of Saudi Arabia, for instance – were not unreasonable even if their methods were, well, a little de trop, still cling to the fantasy that these are political protests, about the war in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Palestine.

As Anthony Browne points out in his article on Britain’s useful idiots, the Islamists echo the Nazis in the way they cultivate support by nurturing grievances. It’s all about the perceived injustices suffered by Muslims. Impossible to imagine Muslim radicals wasting an ounce of their indignation against, say, Robert Mugabe: equally impossible to imagine them condemning the murderous activities of the Janjaweed in Darfur, against fellow Muslims. Hizb ut-Tahrir’s only interest in Sudanese affairs was to denounce as un-Islamic the recent accord with the Christian rebels in the South.

Sadly this mind-set is reinforced here in Britain by sections of the Left, who are, similarly, only aroused to anger by the actions of the West, specifically the US. Yes, they’re concerned about Mugabe, or about Darfur, but – as anyone will know who’s ever been involved in arguments with them, or indeed read the comments and letters pages of the Guardian or the Independent, only the crimes of Bush and Blair get the juices flowing. What it all boils down to one way or the other: it’s our fault. Whether it’s for helping depose one of the most vile dictators the world has yet seen, or for our racism and Islamophobia, or for being too tolerant and decadent, somehow it’s got to be down to us. Why else would these people hate us so much? Why else would they blow themselves and others to smithereens?

What can you say? They still don’t get it.

dent, former rebel leader John Garang.

The BBC’s Jonah Fisher in Khartoum says gangs of youths from southern Sudan, like Mr Garang, are battling the security forces and looting cars.

Mr Garang died in a helicopter crash as he was returning from Uganda.

He signed a deal to end 21 years of civil war in January and was sworn in as vice-president three weeks ago.

The protesters are throwing stones and smashing office windows. Gunfire can be heard and the security forces are trying to seal off the city centre, our correspondent says.

There are also reports of unrest elsewhere in Sudan.

Our correspondent says many of the 4m southern Sudanese living in Khartoum hoped Mr Garang would change their lives and end discrimination in favour of Arabs and they are now venting their frustration at his death.

Well, this is persuasive:

The lawyer representing Hussain Osman, the London bomb suspect, said that he had denied that the failed attacks on July 21 had anything to do with the bombings a fortnight earlier.
Antonietta Sonnessa said last night: “My client says his action was purely demonstrative. In fact, all four attempts did not result in any injury or damage at all. Moreover, he maintains that he was nothing to do with the events of July 7.

“He has justified his actions as a form of protest against the fact that civilians are suffering in wars at the present time. He has taken part in many peace marches and has never had any contact whatsoever with any terrorist organisation,” she continued.

“He is not at all a violent person and made sure he would not cause any damage, injuries or deaths. There wasn’t a very clearly defined plan, the whole thing was set the day before, in a meeting with this group of friends.”

Just a demonstration against British involvement in Iraq: the method can be questioned – young people, you know, they get carried away with their idealism – but the motives….well, they’ve got a point, haven’t they? Strange how many of yesterday’s papers trumpeted the claim that, yes, it was really all about Iraq. That Hussain Osman admitted as much. Almost as though they wanted it to be true.

s from Leeds to Basra to Islamabad notice that, should we be surprised?

There are many observations to be made about why different approaches might be justified, and about whether Blair was right to deal with Sinn Fein – though the fact that the IRA have just now renounced armed struggle, having effectively achieved none of their stated aims, suggests that his approach may at least have had something to recommend it – but to boil it all down to racism…..