Reuters reported that International Criminal Court judges had elected to indict Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir for war crimes allegedly committed in Darfur. They also confirmed that there was a warrant issued for his arrest, which they later amended to say that the judges were still considering the warrant.
Though allegations of genocide in Sudan keep cropping up in the media, what is not receiving nearly as much attention is the fragile peace deal reached between North and South Sudan in 2005. That arrangement, while far from ideal and constantly being infringed, is far better than the all-out civil war that preceded it. Moreover there is the real fear that should Bashir be arrested the deal might well collapse. As a result the African Union and Arab League are expected to try invoke Article 16 of the Rome Statute which provides that a year’s suspension of the charges can be entertained where the peace process may be jeopardised thereby.
Though I am all in favour of regimes accused of genocide being brought to book and put before the courts, there are a couple of issues that need to be considered:
Firstly if the warrant to arrest Bashir is executed and this leads to an outbreak of war — with enormous casualties — then the ICC courts are leaning too heavily towards being courts of law and not nearly enough towards being courts of equity. In essence, if by insisting upon the strict enforcement of international law, without regard to the consequences of that action, you occasion mass slaughter, then that system is too rigid and causes more harm than it does good.
Secondly the biggest war crime currently on the planet’s books, namely the invasion of Iraq, has for some obscure reason never quite made it to the ICC. Is that perhaps because it’s just not cricket? (Maybe they’re confusing the two ICCs).
As things currently stand there is a heated and ongoing debate regarding whether the invasion of Iraq was launched with or without the explicit authorisation of the United Nations and in accordance with international law. In terms thereof, both camps have been pointing out resolutions passed by inter alia the world body, which half claim as confirmation the war was sanctioned by the UN and which the other half claim constitute proof that there were still issues that had to be addressed before proceeding to invade. Issues which they say had not been dealt with before the invasion was launched.
Seems simple enough to me.
In every criminal case that I have gone to trial with, there has been a prima facie case which if proved against my client would result in his or her conviction. In terms of the ICC case this translates as marking the prosecution down to the team which alleges that there was no legal basis for going to war in Iraq. If that is proved to be true then there are several hundred thousand dead bodies that need to be answered for. The defence to that charge is of course proving that the war was in fact authorised by the UN (mark that down to the team claiming that).
Where is the problem? Bring the charges and let the court decide.
As things stand the body count in Iraq and surrounds is far in excess of anything that Bashir is accused of and yet somehow those charges are hardly receiving anything like the same attention. Why is that? Is there one law for the heads of powerful nations and one for the rest of humanity? What makes the purportedly illegal invasion of Iraq by a superpower and friends more palatable than that of an alleged internal genocide? If anything the fact that the US under Bush was going to invade Iraq regardless of whoever or whatever is far scarier than any conflict confined to national borders. It means pull the tail of the wrong tiger and they will reach out and touch you regardless of whether that attack is justified and sanctioned or not.
Of course the cost of this conflict in terms of human lives and the world economy must not be overlooked either. Where Darfur is localised, Iraq has effected the entire planet and continues to heighten global tension even now. So in real terms we should be examining a court roll headed by one George W Bush and Anthony Blair with Bashir a bit further down the page.
It is this kind of double standard that gets up the noses of many countries around the world. Here we have Bashir whose arrest could set off a powder keg which may now be imminent while Bush and Blair carry on regardless.
If you want countries to take the UN and the ICC seriously you have to start showing that nobody is above the law nor beyond its reach.
Related Posts
None
This entry was posted
on Thursday, February 12th, 2009 at 3:06 pm and is filed under News & Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
107 Responses to “Bashir indicted for war crimes, what about Bush, Blair?”
Quite true. A war crime is a war crime. And so is a “crime against humanity” (if these unicorns exist).
So, whether it’s Bush, Bashir, Blair, Ahmedinejad, Howard, Mugabe or Mengistu — haul them ALL before an even-handed tribunal.
siyabonga ntshingila on February 13th, 2009 at 2:13 am
Traps
On a point of definition - war by one country against another is not genocide. Genocide is when you are killing your own subjects.
And the war in Iraq was over in about 3 weeks with a few thousand dead.
What then started was a civil war - Muslim angainst Muslim, Sunni against Shia, Iranian against Syrian backed groups, for control of “The Muslim World”, the Middle East, and the oil.
In my view the war vs Iraq was legal. But if you want to go down that route, lets look at the war in the former Yugoslavia which was definitely illegal by the criteria used by the anti-Iraq crowd (and yes I use the term specifically because not to go to war in Iraq would have left saddam in power against the long term interests of the Iraqi people). If that is the case, Bill Clinton and the leadership in every Nato country (France, Germany, Denmark etc) must go to trial as well as must their militaries.
Your article goes to the heart of the pretensions of ‘equality before the law’ nonsense. Ofcourse we are not equal before the law. I and my neighbours in Rosebank have the resources to can access legal personnel for when we in trouble with the law. The people in Alexandra township don’t have access to our resources and consequently to the best legal people. They are instead dependant on the overworked, underpaid and dispondant public defendants. So when the so not debonair Julius Malema, proposed a political solution for the Zuma debacle, that was a crude but real acknowledgement that we infact are not equal before the law.
The rich and powerful do so much harm in the world, but they constitute a negligable percentage of the incacerated. That is because the justice can be bought.
Bush, Blair, the Israeli government, De Klerk, Mugabe will never be punished for their crimes against humanity because they have power. Occassional examples are made. But these are never motivated by justice but rather politics!
No justifications, Bashir screwed that country…he deserves it.
As for Bush, Blair, Sharon, Mad Bob, and that president (I know you attempted to pronounce his name) who allowed more than 300k HIV+ citizens of his country to die because of his arrogant…their day is coming, on judgment day.
Let’s face it, Bush and Blair were always a very odd couple. I could never figure out how Blair could morph from intelligent, articulate, politically middle of the road (for a Labour gov’t.) PM to the equivocating ‘poodle’ once Bush came to power. Unless…
The world now knows that Bush stole both elections through a combination of vote rigging, destroyed ballots, gerrymandering and outright fraud. But suppose MI5 knew all about it in 2000-as it was happening. If they did, they would also have known that Bush and Cheney arrived at the White House with an agenda that Cheney had been nursing since the ’80s: to use the US military to impose a ‘new world order’ that centred on control of oil.
They couldn’t take over Saudi Arabia so they sold them weapons to the Saudis to ‘keep them onside’. Jordan had an American born Queen and the King was already an ally. That left Syria, Lebanon, Iran and Iraq. The first two were not worth taking. Iran was in the hands of the looney mullahs. Which left Iraq. (Kuwait and the UAE were strong trading partners and could be left alone pro tem. )
When Iraq invaded Kuwait during the Bush 1 term, an opportunity presented itself. Had Bush not bowed to the Saudis and other neighbours and let the US and UK take Baghdad, the entire dynamic of the region would have been changed but the US would have turned allies into enemies. Bush 1 backed down–and was well paid by the Saudis.
Bush 2 was made of dumber stuff and blundered in after first alienating both the UN and NATO. Bush 2 had a serious personality disorder: he was convinced he was John Wayne.
Should Bush face the ICC? Definitely. And Blair? Probably. But it was apparent that Blair was reluctant from the get-go. It was his initial resistance that resulted in the faked intelligence reports that Colin Powell used at the UN. Once it seemed that there was some–however improbable–evidence of WMD in Iraq, the game was on and the UK as the US’s primary ally had to acquiesce or risk an unthinkable rift with the US. Bush had Blair in a corner.
Blair’s ‘conversion’ to Catholicism almost immediately after leaving office makes more sense in this context. Carrying an overwhelming burden of guilt for being an ‘enabler’ to Bush’s addiction to power would be a strong incentive to seek ‘absolution’ from the only source that had more clout than the ICC: the Church which had a nearly two thousand year old canon of ‘the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with God’.
Then, too, if he were called to appear before the ICC, religious conversion might be a protective shield against conviction…
Thanks for the good articles, however what you are suggesting will never happen. Remember who is funding all this so called world bodies, USA and its allies. The Americans are the only country in the world that hold a wordl athletic world series without inviting even their neighbours Canada. They consider themselves as the whole world and no one else. George Bush before he became a President did not even have a passport cause he never thought that he needed to travel anywhere else. As for Blair, he is a Bush puppy as you know
Is it your contention then that Sadam should
have been allowed to go scot free after causing
havoc in the Middle East and sending thousands
of Kurds to an untimely death by means of Chemical
warfare and brutally suppressing them?
If my memory serves me right, than the US has never signed the international treaty that recognises the ICC in The Hague. The US army is equally an untouchable for this court.
I do not know the position of the UK in this matter. However, I can see Blair -if ever called up- ducking and diving behind the untouchable Bush. This could make the case impossible. Hence they do not even try.
On top of that, we all know about selective justice. We see that in SA many a time.
That is the hypocrisy of the International political system. The superpowers are the messiahs so they cannot commit crime but only Africans leaders. They have the right to kill and violate human rights. On the other hand they have a right to impose their own rule upon others. This is worst than the Orwelian Animal Farm.
Lyndall - not all war crimes are genocide. I never said Bush and Blair must be tried for genocide.
JP Morgan - Without exception. If conduct is prima facie a war crime/crime against humanity etc - wherever - put the guys on trial. But don’t apply double standards and leave the big guys out.
The Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him), unlike Jesus Christ, but like the Jewish leaders David and Solomon, was a temporal AND spiritual leader.
He left no instruction for who was to succeed him in the temporal sphere, and only daughters. Which is where the split between Sunni and Shia started - over a thousand years ago.
This civil war was inevitable. Bush was a fool enough to invite it in, not by taking out a dictator and his elite, but by also taking out the whole army, police and civil service of Iraq - leaving a power vacuum.
Cool Down - I’m not suggesting that Saddam should have gone free I’m suggesting that some of the biggest offenders walk scot free because of their position as heads of superpowers.
So while everyone is jumping up and down to see Bashir hang I’m asking why it’s so quiet on Dubya and the Poodle.
You clearly can’t compare Bush & Blair to Bashir; the latter is a mass murderer whereas the other 2 acted in the interest of the free world however misguided. And by the way; their own democratic systems has them removed. Now compare that to the regimes of their critics in the Middle East, Africa, etc.
If you side with those who support Bashir then your support for the Jewish cause is indeed farcical.
Spot on. The ICC is run, housed and funded by the big untouchables and as such is a joke. All the ICC does is give a semblance of legitimacy to large nations bashing smaller ones, abducting and locking away their powerless leaders. The place is full of ‘criminals’ from countries that were bombed into submission by the guys who set the whole thing up. When an American or British or Israeli general gets sentenced in that place it might start to mean something. For now it is a sham, hiding behind a noble principle.
What American, British or Israeli General is acting without orders in a war? Which of them is a personal dictator of their country? Which of them is committing genocide against their own citizens?
How many died during the reign of Saddam Hussein? www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/ajan/27_saddam.html
gives the following:-
people killed by Saddam’s executioners: as many as 200 000
killed during US bombing in 1991 Gulf War : 100 000 (Iraqi figure, possibly exaggerated)
war casualties in 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war: Official Iraqi total 500 000
(Iran estimates figure is over 300 000)
Adding these up, we get an upper limit of 800 000 deaths caused by Saddam Hussein.
I’m leaving out the deaths of half a million children due to sanctions against Iraq imposed by the US after 1991. (whom do we blame for these: Saddam, USA?)
While reading up on Genocide, and the very definition and interpretation of this term (no consensus), I came across the Irish Potato Famine.
Some term the great loss of life - around 1 million or more died of starvation - a genocide. The reason being that food was being produced AND exported from Ireland during the famine. During earlier famines, the Irish shut their ports, to prevent food exports, and this limited starvation. During the Great Famine, the British forcibly prevented the ports being shut, so that food could be exported.
A century later, the British were involved in an even bigger famine. In early 1940s, around 3 million British subjects starved to death in Bengal, India. The Brits could have prevented this, but they did not care.
Less than 2 decades later another country exported food while its people starved to death - China, during the “Great Leap Forward”. The worst famine in history.
The use of facts appears to be a bit too thin in this discussion.
MT, Benzol is quite correct in saying that Bush falls outside of the ICC’s jurisdiction, because the US is not a signatory to the ICC. Blair, however, is eligible for prosecution by the ICC, because the UK has signed up.
Also, much as I would personally consider Bush and Blair culpable for the deaths of hundreds of thousands (along with those who elected them), there is a considerable difference between deaths that result indirectly from a conflict and deaths pursued as part of that conflict. The US has not gone out of its way to kill Iraqi civilians, it’s “just” created the circumstances in which hundreds of thousands of them have died. Bashir, on the other hand, has led a deliberate campaign of massacres/genocide targeted specifically at civilians.
Given this, and since figures for deaths in Darfur start at 70 000, it’s a bit early to say that what Bush/Blair have done is “way in excess” of the crimes of Bashir.
So, Bush/Blair definitely guilty in my books at least of the war crime of aggression. But Bashir probably guilty of crimes against humanity. Though with these numbers of deaths, it does rather seem like splitting hairs …
You are concerned that the “strict enforcement” of international law might have the consequence of causing “mass slaughter”; can you name another instance in which it has had this effect? Surely suspending such prosecutions in the name of pursuing peace negotiations just opens the way to tyrants manipulating and extending such negotiations. (As we currently observe not too far to the north of us, even without the threat of prosecution.)
My opinion is that much as I would like to see both of them prosecuted, criticising the ICC for failing to indict at least Blair is not particularly helpful for the court as this time. It is a young and fragile institution, in a world where international law is staggering, and the political attacks that might ensure were it to pursue the likes of Blair might be more than it would survive.
If one is to criticise the ICC, then one should be at least as stern with the new US president. Obama has resisted calls for investigations into the US’s pursuit of the war in Iraq, with weasel words to the effect that folks should be looking forward and not backwards. So much for “lest we forget”. People who like to be nice can be every bit as dangerous as those who care nothing for being nice.
@ Lyndall Beddy. The distinction you draw in respect of genocide is an unusual one. Most definitions do not define a genocide on the basis of who is doing the killing; it is enough that a large group of people is being killed, and that the basis for their being targeted is membership of that group.
@ Grant Wallliser. You are completely incorrect in saying “the ICC is run, housed and funded by the big untouchables”; neither the US, Russia, China nor India, the biggest and most powerful countries in the world, are parties. Israel, like the US, “un-signed” the treaty in 2002.
Siobhan - loved your piece! Didn’t know Blair became a Catholic. Makes sense why. He needs serious and regular confession. Grant Walliser - spot on. I wish you would blog more.
“Let’s face it, Bush and Blair were always a very odd couple. I could never figure out how Blair could morph from intelligent, articulate, politically middle of the road (for a Labour gov’t.) PM to the equivocating ‘poodle’ once Bush came to power. ” Siobhan
I fully agree with Traps on this one.
Siobhan Bush had an epiphany- a sudden, intuitive perception of or insight into the reality or essential meaning of something, usually initiated by some simple, homely, or commonplace occurrence or experience, in this case it was Bush and Laura in Texas and it was a religious epiphany.
“I knew it was the right thing” a quick chat with him upstairs and Blair was right there ready to fight, legal or not. Now that Blair has gone you can start filling in the missing link in this case it was definitely Jesus. Blair was an extremely religious man, keeping his devotion well hidden from his country. Their healthy cynicism would’ve never allowed him to become their Prime Minister.
On getting to know Bush better Blair found himself.
Due to readers complaints regarding their comments not seeing daylight I have been checking “comments awaiting moderation”.
I note that some comments are not making it through because they seem a bit unkind or unflattering.
While I appreciate that abuse and filth must be rejected I would ask that strongly worded comments be assessed for merit as well before rejection.
One example in particular yesterday by Alisdair Budd who took me to task because the ICC is a court of last resort and if anything I should have been asking why their countries were unwilling to prosecute them first.
Alisdair is in fact correct and the robust manner in which she made her point - in my very humble opinion your editorship - should not be the reason for excluding it.
The moderation of comments is done by the editors within set guidelines. I fully appreciate the balancing act and the work put in guys.
I would on behalf of readers ask that the more robust comments be allowed if they have merit and are not simply abusive.
and why not Putin for the crimes against Chechnya?
(see Anna Politkovskaya, the Russian journalist who reported on human rights abuses in Chechnya, and who was found shot dead in Moscow on Vladimir Putin’s birthday)
Unfortunately that is the hypocrisy of the International political system, more concerned with the EU interests!
And I’m not saying that Bashir do not deserves it. I’m just asking fair play !
Great post MT, and great words to the editors.
Blogs are not newspapers, and editors should err on the side of NOT censoring. It’s largely big people who write here, and we can look after ourselves quite adequately.
Filth and non-logical abuse being filtered out is appreciated (it’s tedious) - BUT the whole post should not necessarily be chucked out with the (dirty) bath water. Maybe insert stars where you cut out filth so (in effect) the writer is named and shamed.
By the Way, Alisdair is a male name and I am a he.
The name is Scots in origin and has various spellings.
I also detect a certain denial in the censorship, along the lines that the more ludicrous racial statements by Black people are allowed, based apon Black Africa always being the victims and White people always being the oppressors.
Most importantly ignoring the Arabic/ Semetic/ Eastern colonisation of Africa (cf Zanzibar), the role of African politicians in oppressing their people’s with oligarchies (CF Gaddaffi and his role in Idi Amin’s Uganda, let alone Mugabe or Mobuto) and the refusal to acknowledge that both Asians and White people can be slaves.
Which is interesting in light or the poor of England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland being transported in chains as slave labour (penal servitude) throughout the colonies, and Asians being moved around as bonded labourers (slaves in all but name) when Slavery was formally abolished by the British.
It seems that even today, the modern African, of whatever colour, doesn’t want to admit that some Whites and Asians can trace their ancestory to imported slaves (penal servitude, bonded labour) and Black/ Arabic Politicians dont want the peasants questioning their role in keeping Africa poor and ignorant.
Most notably, for the present discussion, that it has been confirmed that in Sudan and Darfur, Arabic northerners have been ethnically cleansing Black Africans, enslaving them as sex slaves for soldiers and others and exporting them to Khartoum, and enslaving the men as labourers on farms given too immigrant Muslims, some from as far afield as Nigeria and Cameroon.
Whilst Bashir has been playing an inverted race card to hide his own involvement and Black African leaders are slagging off those feeding the refugees and protecting someone who is starting the slaved trade again, because he is Arabic.
If you dont like the ICC then try using the African Court of Human Rights in Tanzania which is waiting for its first case in ten years since it was decided to form, and preferably not assisted by a Western NGO, who are the only ones who seem to care about the rights of peasants in Africa rather than attempts to keep politicians in champagne as president for life, no matter how corrupt and racist they are:
I understand the editing out of hate speech, incitement to violence,personal abuse,slander and defamation - but sometime it is opinions and historical facts being edited out. What is the editorial policy there?
And what if the comment is just long winded and boring?
The Americans are not killing Muslims. They are killing each other. It is a civil war and a religious war about their different religious interpretations of Islam - which is the worst kind of war.
Siobhan and Trevor
Muslims are fighting each other about who controls the Middle East and the oil.
Bush and Blair were fighting as “Christians” against “terrorists”. Both of the saw themselves and entering a defensive, not an offensive, war to protect “Christian values” against “Muslim extremism”.
Bush is probably going to go down in history as the stupidist president of the USA. It is very difficult to follow his thought processes and how he reasons from premises to conclusions, but it is obvious from what he said, that he saw this war as retaliation for 9/11 and a Christian “crusade”.
David
Your definition is accurate, but I think you will find that genocides almost always are when a civilian population is targeted by their own authorites - like Ayran Germans against Jewish Germans. Even the examples that Oldfox gives. And in Iraq - Shia are targeting Sunni and vice versa.
In Mbeki mythology the Arab Slave trade never happened, and only whites took slaves.
Partly this is the influence of Afro American mythology as well. I listened to an American historian talking on SAFM. She said when black Americans studying history found out that it was mainly the blacks that enslaved other blacks - they often burst into tears and had to have trauma councelling!
Meanwhile we have on Special Assignment this week a session on the “African” records of Timbuktu which Mbeki is so lovingly preserving. Timbuktu only existed as a caravan stop on the slave route. All the records are in Arabic script. If there were black scholars and tradesmen - they would have been slaves.
Bush should have been impeached; he left the people living in the Gulf Coast hanging when hurricane Katrina devastated the area. He also screwed up the domestic economy and destroyed our relationship with foreign countries. Obama’s has a huge job ahead of him. I hope Americans will be patient and give him a chance but already the Repulicans (my party) have shown no bipartisan spirit. Todd Kidd, New Orleans
JR - My point is that all leaders should be accountable. Whether it is related to Genocide or negligence. All I think people are asking is that the big guys be held to account not just the little guys.
Obviously in the case of Mbeki it would not be a war crime or related thereto. That said if there is culpability he must be answerable.
As we’ve seen in the comments above : Todd - Bush again, Gentil on Putin the guys want to see a fair approach to prosecution.
David Le Page - Completely incorrect? Ummm, the European Union? They are pretty big aren’t they?
The thing is housed in Europe which is the stronghold of NATO which is funded and backed by the US. That is simply a smart way for the US and others (who have signed the treaty which has certain obligations attached) to use Europe to arrest and try members of states stupid enough to ratify the thing whilst staying immune to prosecution themselves. Prissy Europe gets to do the dirty work and they get the results.
Russia, the US and Israel are all signatories, implying that they will abide by the general spirit of the treaty yet will not allow their citizens to be prosecuted as it represents a breach of sovereignty to them.
The whole idea fairly obviously falls down since there needs to be an ultimate authority whose decision all nations, big and small, must accept. Since no nation is without agenda, who do you get to be impartial here? Aliens? The end result is that a powerful member state must run the court and only ‘transgressors’ from puny states will be charged and tried. A sham, sham, sham.
“Justice” seems to be an instrument of the powerful against the powerless. So yes Bashir should be indicted for the carnage in Darfur; but so should Ehud Olmert and his cohorts for war crimes in Gaza; so should Bush and Blair for Iraq and Afghanistan where large numbers of civilians have been killed. Going after Bashir and leaving the other criminals untouched is unadultrated hyprocrisy. For Joel: if Saddam was so bad why did the USA support him for years and more particularly in the war against Iraq. They even turned a blind eye to his crime against the Kurds and Shias. It has nothing to do with Saddam, its about US political and economic interests. Haven’t you figured that out yet - that getting rid of Saddam was just a smoke-screen as were the WMD
And over 1000 years some of the Black slaves would have earned their freedom and moved up the social scale. As well as mixed race from Black Harim slaves.
Plus the Mali empire was basically Black African, so it was Black Muslim Africans enslaving Black Africans and exporting them to Arabic nations.
Most notably from 800- 1500 AD when there was no Atlantic slave trade, since America hadn’t been discovered and the Europeans had not got past the Equator.
There’s records of a Malian king going on a Hajj, loaded with gold, and buying White slaves from the Ottomans/ Mamaluks in Egypt who got them from Russia and Greece.
And if you really want to nark off someone going on about “reparations” for Slavery, you can mention the English Slaves that were captured from Devon, Corwall and Somerset by Barbary Pirates from Elizabethan times onwards. (Who went as far as a recorded slave raid on Iceland)
And who are estimated to have enslaved about 1-1.5 Million Europeans from mainly Spain, Portugal France and Italy from 1600-1900.
So how much is Morrocco supposed to pay the UK in reparations for Slavery and piracy then?
(The most famous and easily available book about it in English is that written by Pellow and his memoirs of his service to the son of the extremely bloodthirsty Sultan Ismail:
That lot of facts gets right up most politically correct Africans noses, since its Arabic Slavers of Europeans, and it also implies to anyone its mentioned to that they are ignorant of African History and that of the Exploitation of Africa by Europeans, Black Africans and Arabic Africans.
Since if you do know about it you can at least use it to taunt the English.)
The interaction between Arabic, Middle Eastern, European, Muslim and non Muslim Black Africans is a lot more complicated than most Arabic Politicians want you to know about, basically because it makes Arabic Africa look a lot worse than the European Colonisation.
A case in point being Bashir and his attempts to restart the Slave Trade in Sudan, and replace Black Christian/ Muslim/ Animist African Tribes with Arabic/ Semetic/ Muslim colonialists on farmland cleansed by violence of its original native inhabitants.
Whilst playing the good old inverted Race card against the “West” so beloved of Ghaddaffi, Mobuto, Idi Amin, Mugabe, the Taliban, Al-Queda etc. etc.
Lyndall Beddy, ever since I started commenting on a few blogs over 2 weeks ago, I find your comments to be racist. You are pro-Israel, pro-Zionist, pro-Bush, pro-Blair and above all anti-Muslim.
You even have a problem with Timbuktu. I challenge you to present facts about the slave trade being the only activity on this route.
“Timbuktu only existed as a caravan stop on the slave route”.
Propagating your disinformation again!
True, slaves were an important part of the trade.
According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, “merchants…gathered there to buy gold and slaves in exchange for the Saharan salt of Taghaza and for North African cloth and horses.”
It was, however, most definitely a city/town of scholars and learning. Encyclopaedia Britannica again: “The city’s scholars, many of whom had studied in Mecca or Egypt, attracted students from a wide area.”
Not all traders from the North were Arabs, some were Arabic speaking Jews, and some of these Jews lived in Timbuktu.
Records are NOT only in Arabic script. Some are in Fulani. Some documents date to pre-Islamic times, and some are even from ancient Greece. Many manuscripts were written in Timbuktu.
Following two quotations from Wkikipedia:
“The profit made by buying and selling of books was only second to the gold-salt trade”
“At one time there were 120 libraries with manuscripts in Timbuktu and surrounding areas. There are more than one million objects preserved in Mali with an additional 20 million in other parts of Africa, the largest concentration of which is in Sokoto, Nigeria, although the full extent of the manuscripts is unknown. During the colonial era efforts were made to conceal the documents after a number of entire libraries were taken to Paris, London and other parts of Europe. Some manuscripts were buried underground, while others were hidden in the desert or in caves. Many are still hidden today. The United States Library of Congress microfilmed a sampling of the manuscripts during an exhibition there in June 2003. In February 2006 a joint South African/Malian effort began investigating the Timbuktu manuscripts to assess the level of scientific knowledge in Timbuktu and in the other regions of West Africa.”
Alisdair Budd of Scotland, on February 14th, 2009 at 11:29 am …
“I also detect a certain denial in the censorship, along the lines that the more ludicrous racial statements by Black people are allowed, based apon (sic) Black Africa always being the victims and White people always being the oppressors.”
I appreciate the texture you attempt to bring to the debate, but why generalise? I’ve observed the ‘acceptance’ of racist comments from all quarters on this site.
Further, a lot of us (PC) Africans are quite aware of our history beyond your broadstroked & selective account above…
You don’t understand my point - probably because you are not subjected to our state media and to the Mbeki myths of the “African Renaissance”, done through half truths and through ommissions of history.
Slavery in Africa was only European. Black slavery or Muslim slavery never existed at all ( lying by ommission). Timbuktu proves that Africa was not “the dark continent” and there was “African culture” (meaning evolved in Africa not evolved from another colonial culture), Timbuktu is “the oldest city in Africa” (leaving out all the Mediterranean coast) etc etc
Also the promotion, on the public broadcaster, of one non-existant “African” religion which was wiped out by Christian missionaries and existed ALL over the WHOLE of Africa!
On Heritage Day when this spiritual guru ( a politician and member of the ANC NEC in his other life ) told everyone that this was the harvest festival day for ALL of Africa - I sent an sms asking how comw the harvest festival was the same in ALL of Africa when autumn was spring in the Northern Hemisphere? Even the presenter had to stiffle a giggle when he read it out! Just before Christmas he told everyone that Christmas was the corruption of a pagan festival of mid- SUMMER? December is mid-WINTER in the Northern Hemisphere!
Maybe they are hoping, somehow, to eliminate both Christianity and Islam with this myth?
Also “slavery” comes into many of his speeches. Actually no indigeneous San or black settler was ever legally enslaved in SA. Nor were the blacks (settlers themselves and non-indigeneous) suppressed for 350 years. Van Riebeeck might have landed in 1652 but black and white only met in the 1770s.
Mbeki himself is descended from slaves - the Mfengu tribe who were slaves of the Xhosa tribe and freed from slavery by the whites. Maybe that is why he harps on slavery all the time?
How is it that Mugabe hasnt been arrested? He regularly travells to Europe and Asia. Or is it because the court cannot build a case based upon newspaper reports?
Not all ‘crimes against humanity’ are ‘war crimes’.
‘Crimes against humanity’ are those actions taken by a political leader or an entire government that causes physical, mental, and emotional suffering that lead to large number of deaths in any ‘target’ population. Saddam’s massacre of Kurds with chemical weapons is an example.
Mugabe’s genocide (murder of large numbers of people who have a common ethnic origin) is more accurately a ‘crime against humanity’ since there was no declared war against the Ndebele.
The pogroms that ravaged the Jews of Europe for centuries were likewise ‘crimes against humanity’. Genocide is the most frequent motivation ( attempt to eliminate of an entire racial, religious, or ethnic group) for such crimes against humanity.
What constitutes a crime against humanity is the callous disregard for the suffering inflicted on usually powerless people. The use of rape, torture, and random killing (including children) to instill terror in a ‘target’ population constitutes crimes against humanity.
The capture and abuse of people as slaves or ‘as guinea pigs’ for biological experimentation or for the ‘testing’ of chemical weapons are also crimes against humanity, acts so gratuitously cruel as to be repugnant to any human being regardless of culture.
Psychopathology is a universal problem in human societies. The absence–or abandonment–of a conscience marks the individual psychopath. The mass absence or abandonment or suppression of guilt that should arise from the infliction of pain and suffering, degradation, or systematic starvation on any group of humans on another group of humans is a crime against humanity. Whether the perpetrators are wearing uniforms or battle gear, or business suits, the lack of a conscience is what makes a criminal.
The concept of ‘war crimes’ is based on the ’social contract’ that even in a war there should be some limits on what one human being can do to another. Torture, murder of non-combatants, killing of prisoners of war–all of these excesses are supposed to be ‘out of bounds’ in a war. Those who order or carry out such actions can be tried for war crimes.
In some cases a person could be guilty of both a war crime and a crime against humanity as is the case in Darfur where a phony war was used as justification for genocide–the killing of one racial, ethnic, or religious group by another.
@Trevor; Lyndall
As for Bush, his intellectual laziness and lack of personal integrity combined with narcissism (inflated ego) were a deadly combination. I do not for one minute believe that Bush’s religiosity or his ‘patriotism’ are sincere. Religion replaced alcohol as a justification for his irrational behaviour. His complete (narcissistic) disrespect for the rule of law in shredding the US Constitution by stealing two presidential elections, disqualifies him as a patriot and makes him instead an ‘enemy of the state’.
Using religion as a ’shield’ is a grand way to duck responsibility. Bush did not invade Iraq to ’save’ the Christian world. He did not do it to discourage terrorism.
Consider this:
> FIFTEEN OF THE NINETEEN 9/11 TERRORISTS WERE SAUDI ARABIANS, TWO WERE FROM UAE, I FROM LEBANON, I FROM EGYPT.
> NONE WAS IRAQI.
> OSAMA BIN LADEN WAS ON RECORD AS CONDEMNING SADDAM FOR NOT BEING A GOOD MUSLIM!
> THERE WAS NO AL QAEDA PRESENCE IN IRAQ PRIOR TO THE BUSH INVASION.
> THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ.
Religion and patriotism–the twin sacred cows of American politics– were pretexts for extending US hegemony in the world.
Bush should have been impeached and he should face the ICC. But there will be ice lollies in hell first.
In 1998 South Africa invaded Lesotho to restore democracy. The invasion was conducted without UN approval. Are you suggesting Nelson Mandela be charged with war crimes? Probably not. I think you should re-think this one.
Lyndall Beddy is right about the defnition of genocide, but the fact is that Bush & Blair attacked Iraq for their oil and without authorisation of the invasion by the biased UN.
And Islamic Jihad is an OK religion? Intimidating all opposition to Hamas by throwing them off buildings and ,if they survive, shooting them in hospital beds? And by the way it is STILL happening - Amnesty International issued a condemnation of Hamas’ continual executions a few days ago. Hamas “won” the election in Gaza just like Mugabe “won” the election in Zimbabwe.
And you forget that Saddam Hussain paid 25,000 dollars to the family of each Palestinian suicide bomber. A fortune for a poor family.
“@ Grant Wallliser. You are completely incorrect in saying “the ICC is run, housed and funded by the big untouchables”; neither the US, Russia, China nor India, the biggest and most powerful countries in the world, are parties. Israel, like the US, “un-signed” the treaty in 2002.”
Mr Le Page, it is you who is wrong. While the countries you mention have not ratified the treaty, so too does Sudan. The reason Sudan is caught in the ICC web and countries like Russia, USA and Israel are not, is that the ICC, “has jurisdiction over situations in any State where the situation is referred by the United Nations (UN) Security Council,” as the court’s web site explains. In order words, the ICC is given jurisdiction by the UN Security Council; the permanent members can order the ICC to investigate any country while at the same time rejecting the Court’s authority over their own states or citizens.
There have been wars continually all over the globe since the Second World War. I don’t know of one that has been sanctioned by the UN - so why single out Iraq?
I think that many of you have a very skewered idea of the influence of oil. Oil has inflenced policy - mostly by the west tending to turn blind eyes to authoritarian regimes.
But the biggest influence of oil has been the petro dollars in the hands of the Arabs which have been used for propaganda against Israel, whose right to exist extremist Muslims have resisted since 1948 (while happily accepting Pakistan’s right to exist at the same time).
The main use of those petro dollars has been to spread Jihad. For 30 years Saudi Arabia has built mosques all over the world with their petro dollars, and staffed them with imams from their extremist puritanical Wahhabi sect of Islam. This sect has morphed into a even more extreme ideology which no longer relates to most interpretations of Islam at all. They have declared Jihad on Jews, Christians, the West, AND secular Muslim States ( eg Turkey, Egypt and even Saudi Arabia itself).
Do try and face the real situation, otherwise how can you solve the problem.
Yes Saddam Hussain was bad, but was he as evil as Bush? No…
How many died under him? About 200000?
How many under died Bush father and son with poodle Blair? 1,5 million and more…
The same goes for Omar Hassan Al-Bashir. Is he anywhere near what Bush was? No…
Does he have questions to answer on Darfur? Yes…
Why? Darfur is part of Sudan and he is the President of Sudan…
George W Bush, with an IQ less than a bird brain, who bought his MBA at Harvard (because he couldn’t have earned that degree), who stole 2 elections from the American people, who along with Dick Cheney abused their power as President and Vice President to further the agenda of their business empires, used 911 as the launchpad to create havoc in the world so that people like you, myself and ordinary people of all religions race and colours, will allow them to surrender our civil liberties all in the name of “protecting us for the terrorists, especially Al-Qaeda,” whilst they killed, raped and plundered the poor and innocent.
What they have done to Iraq is not excusable. The very fact that the WMDs were never found or never existed proves the lies and deceit of Bush and Blair. Then you have the gall to claim that the war was over in 3 weeks. Why? Because Bush said it? You then blame the loss of Iraqi lives on the Sunni Shia violence. This could’ve been averted had Bush and Blair’s troops refrained from playing the role of the 3rd force instigator. Why you choose to ignore the public statements from both the Sunni and Shia factions who wanted all foreign troops out of Iraq? And please don’t give the applausible predictable response of “control of the Muslim World” or “Oil” or they weren’t capable of governing themselves.
I am a Muslim. I along with majority of the 1,5 Billion Muslims of the world, are against terrorism in all forms, whether perpetrated by Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Zionists, Atheists, etc. Why? God teaches us in the Holy Quran to love our fellow human beings and respect them for who they are irrespective of their religion and culture. As a person who claims to be knowledgeable of Islam and at the same time believe everything she hears from the mass media, Bush, Blair, the Zionists, etc, should actually sit down and study the Holy Quran with an open mind. For I won’t be surprised if tomorrow you foolishly claim that “Allah” is a Muslim God. If that happens, then please go visit your local shrink immediately. For Allah is an Arabic word meaning God and is used by all Arabic speaking Jews, Christians and Muslims. Up until today, I have yet to find one credible Islamic scholar who can tell me that Al-Qaeda exists as an organisation or terrorist network.
I want to quote former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook who says: “The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al-Qaeda. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive the TV watcher to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US.” Cook has previously written: “Al-Qaeda, literally “the database” was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.” Cook is merely confirming what others have said. Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brezezinski told the Senate that the war on terror is “a mythical historical narrative.”
The point is that the world we live in today has been made a miserable place for all peace loving people, because of selfish men like George W Bush (and his evil father), Dick Cheney, Tony Blair, Ehud Olmert, John Howard (the coward of Australia), and company who have used the Al-Qaeda hype in issuing numerous fake terror alerts to scare people, especially their own citizens. Ehud Olmert used the “Hamas hype” of firing of rockets to get his people’s support to massacre Gaza.
Yes Bush and Blair must be charged, along with Cheney, Olmert and others of their league of war hawkes. Let’s be honest. Who in the world was happy with Bush, Cheney and Blair? Only the Zionist Israeli establishment, Silvio Berlusconi, John Howard, Hamid Karzai and Arab despotic regimes like Mahmoud Abbas, Hosni Mubarak, King Abdullah, Omar Boutaflika, Ben Ali, Nuri Al-Maliki, Sheikh Maktoum, etc, and nobody else. The people of America and Britain were the most vocal against them for eventually they saw through the lies they spoke.
There is a word for intentionally creating fear in order to manipulate opinion for political ends and personal greed, it’s called: “TERRORISM.”
Stop worrying about how the west’s dependency on oil has made it ignore Islamic Dictatorships, and worry about what those dictators are doing with their petrol dollars:
Suddein Hussain paying for suicide bombers
Gadaffi invading or interfering with his neighbours.
The Sauds spreading mosques and Jihad around the world.
Iran buliding weapons to wipe out Israel.
Blame the west for allowing oil companies to suppress the electric car and biofuels! They should have been regulated as well as the banks!
50 years ago in SA we sold Union Spirits - a by product of sugarcane, which was suppressed when the oil companies were allowed to own all the service stations and form monopolies.
And the ANC sold SASOL! The Nats had more sense than the USA!
Why you all rabbiting on about the ICC. International politics is all about power.ICC, UN etc. will always be a farce. Any nation that does not maximise it’s power in the international arena wouldn’t survive long.
Sometimes they will use force to further their interests, and sometimes, if they are too weak militarily, they will use dipolomacy.
The problem with democracies is that they never truly use maximum force, because they have to waste time justifying themselves to their electorates.
If either Bushes had used maximum force Iraq wouldn’t have lasted for 5 minutes.
The notion of “illegal wars” is totally ridiculous. It’s a figment of weak countries imaginations if they think such nonsense can be enforced by international institutions.
@ Lyndall
“Why is murder in the name of Islam OK?”
Good grief, Lyndall, where did you get that impression from my post? I did not say–nor did I intend imply–that ‘Jihad’ is ‘OK’.
My point was that Iraq was not the obvious target IF Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were SINCERE about their motives for invading Iraq.
Again: NONE OF THE 9/11 TERRORISTS WERE IRAQI BUT 15 OF THE 19 WERE SAUDIS! AND WHO IS THE CLOSEST ALLY OF THE US IN THE ARAB/MUSLIM WORLD? SAUDI ARABIA.
The logical thing to do would have been to threaten Saudi Arabia with a complete boycott, starting with American arms. Instead of which, some 300 members of–and hangers on of–the Saudi Royal family were secretly flown out of the US on the first three days after 9/11. Some of them were members of Bin Laden’s obscenely ‘extended’ family!
As for Hamas and Hizbollah–I never mentioned them in my post. One of the 9/11 terrorists was Lebanese, a fact of nature –not a bias on my part.
But just for the record, I have written numerous posts condemning the Wahabists, various ‘Islamist’ factions, the Taliban, and al Qaeda.
I have also criticised Israel for its ‘bait and switch’ tactics in dealing with the Palestinians and for the shameful war of genocidal attrition Israel is perpetrating against the Palestinian people–the majority of whom have been systematically oppressed by Israel since 1948. (I should also say that as a ‘baby boomer’ I grew up being knee-jerk SUPPORTER OF ISRAEL.
However, that support has been tempered by the recognition that Israel has become what it fought against: a bully state. I would also like to add that in the annals of ‘freedom struggles’ some form of ‘terrorism’ usually rears it ugly head but that as a people who had suffered the deprivation of human and civil rights throughout their history, Israelis had a moral stature at the end of the Second World War that has been lost in the past 50 or so years.
I am neither pro-Muslim nor pro-Israeli and I am certainly not pro-terrorist, especially since members of my own ‘tribe’ have been guilty of terrorism in their ’struggle’ for liberation.
I am Pro-human rights and as a supporter of Amnesty for 40 years I have written more letters than I care to count on behalf of people who have been tortured, imprisoned, and treated as abominably as it is possible for humans to treat each other.
That having been said, I also cannot condone ‘extraordinary rendition’, torture, or any other abuse of human rights by the US in the name of ‘anti-terrorism’. One does not defeat terrorism by becoming one of them.
I am pro-freedom of religion but anti-fundamentalist. I am staunchly in favour of the separation of church and state for obvious historical reasons as well as personal ones.
I am in favour of social-democracy as–in my opinion– the most sensible way to balance competing interests in society.
I have enormous respect for Islamic culture as it existed PRIOR to the militant factionalism that marred the civilising aspects of its practices and institutionalised the subjugation of women female children.
I am an agnostic and as such recognise everyone’s right to her/his beliefs but condemn the imposition of any system of belief.
I doubt that I can make myself any clearer than that so I hope I have corrected any inadvertant impression that my earlier post today seems to have created.
Michael, spoke to someone who knows. I’m pretty sure it’s not a normative but logistical/legal question.
The court has far less than adequate capacity to go after everyone it would like to, even as a court of last resort. There have been all of 3 convictions I think? Further, it’s very tough to get a conviction, huge burdens of proof etc. Did George Bush order that soldier to order that soldier to shoot that child? Tough to show. (Israel in particular hides its chains of command, making even ITS soldiers difficult to hold to account! Sorry, had to slip it in
The prosecutor has complete discretion as to who they go after, and he seems like a really nice, no nonsense guy; I think he does his best. French, so not particularly pro-iraq-war even if we MUST go by stereotypes (you know who you are!).
His mandate is most grievous cases first, and those which he thinks he can win, within the confines of treaties. As a court of last resort they go after the head honchos, not the grunts, which they then can’t get.
SO, the ICC is not going to save the world, but nor is it a political tool. Somehow. Even though it’s in Amsterdam. Lol…
I guess it’s great for our conscience as long as we don’t pay too much attention.
Not mentioning something is not necessarily “lying by omission” as you put it.
There are many things which many around the world prefer not to talk about, but which are well known. The rape of up to 2 million German women by Russian soldiers, from 1945-1949. Farm killings in SA.
Of course Mbeki knew about Arab slavery in Africa.
At the SA-Mali Project Fundraising Dinner, Cape Town International Convention Centre, Cape Town: 8 April 2005, he mentioned slavery - just once though - in the context of writings at Timbuktu. www.dfa.gov.za/docs/speeches/2005/mbek0413.htm
Mbeki would typically only mention HIV/Aids in one sentence, in his speeches on the State of the Nation.
Correction. It was not only the Russians who took part in this orgy (rape of up to 2 million German women).
An American sergeant wrote:
“Our own Army and the British Army … have done their share of looting and raping … This offensive attitude among our troops is not at all general, but the percentage is large enough to have given our Army a pretty black name, and we too are considered an army of rapists.”
sadly, a world where everyone is on an equal playing field does not exit, and will never exits. All this equality bull… is just a ploy to keep the plebs from burning the place down. The have always and will always be double standards! that is the truth of the matter. he who pays the piper…. Sadly.
You don’t realise it but you are saying the same thing - the Quraan says you must not kill. I know that. So does the Bible.
What you have is a Christian Fundamentalism versus Muslim Fundamentalism. Both are wrong - and OPEN YOUR EYES - moderates are coming to the fore, but the two of you have it so wrong that you are hindering not helping.
The fact that WMD were not found in fact proves Bush and Blair’s honesty. How difficult would it have been for the CIA to fake? EASY as hell!
Mustafa - it is more than Sunni versus Shia, which is an extreme simplification. You know that there are as many interpretations and versions of Islam as there are of Christianity.
The people of America are the most vocal BECAUSE they are a democracy. Do you think disagreement with the state is allowed in Libya, Sudan, Nigeria?
15 of the 19 suicide bombers of the World Trade Centre were Saudis BECAUSE they have declared Jihad on Saudi Arabia as well! One was Lebanese BECAUSE the Jihad is against Christians as well and they don’t want to share Lebanon with the Christians - they want a Muslim State in Lebanon - hence the existence of Hizbollah.
That there is no one army is correct - there are many of them, all under different leaders, all different gangs. Which is WHY no-one can control Hamas.
Israel has been under attack since 1948 by these extremists who do NOT recognise ANY rights for Jews.
Israel is the Bantustan given to protect the Jews in 1948, like Pakistan was the bantustan given to the Muslims. Look at a map - Syria, Iraq, Jordan were ALL given to the Arabs. They had to share Lebanon with Christians (which they don’t like either). None of these countries had ever existed before. The population had all been vassals of other empires for 2000 years, since the Roman Empire defeated Judea (the LAST autonymous JEWISH state in the area).
Gaza is not a bantustan - it is a refugee camp, which has existed for 60 years because the Arabs were penned up there by their fellow Muslims as a weapon to destroy Israel, who would not accept them as refugees.
In Afghanistan the warlords got together to fight the Russians ( and the Americans gave them arms). They hated the Russians. Not much Geneva convention there - if they caught a Russian they made a slit in his stomach, penned him to the ground, watched his guts boil ouy in the sun, and enjoyed the spectacle. The Geneva convention works if BOTH sides keep it!
When the Russians withdrew, the warlords broke up and started terrorising - which is when one Imam and a few soldiers rose up and killed such a group. And that was the beginning of the Taliban.
One of the best signs recently is the King of Saudi Arabi has set up a council of ALL the interpretations of Sunni faith (weakening the Wahabi), appointed a woman to Cabinet, and fired 2 religious fanatics.
The Quraan does NOT say it OK to kill - ONLY in a defensive war is Jihad allowed, not an offensive war, which is what this is. Which is why soft hearted and soft headed people like Mustafa and Siohban make the situation worse not better!
As long as they can say the west is the offendor they can continue to kill!
Lying by ommission is one of Mbeki’s favourite tactics.
It is worse than direct lying - because the half truth is more difficult to disprove than the direct lie. Only very manipulative people use this tactic. (Reference: Scott M Peck “People of The Lie”.)
@ Lyndall: “15 of the 19 suicide bombers of the World Trade Centre were Saudis BECAUSE they have declared Jihad on Saudi Arabia as well! ”
Who are we talking about here, Lyndall? The SAUDI terroritsts were Jihadists themselves. The Wahabists are militantly anti-US, anti-West in general, and they control Saudi life– especially the extremely circumscribed lives of Saudi women and female children. Wahabism controls its subjects through psychological terror and the Wahabist agenda is the elmination of all religions except their bent and twisted version of Islam.
I am NOT pro-Islamist. I was–and remain–very much anti-Fascist, including the brand peddled by Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rove-Perl, et al. The history of the BUSH-SAUDI relationship makes a complete nonsense of the reasons given for the invasion of Iraq. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I AM SORRY SADAM IS GONE. HE DESERVED WORSE THAN HE GOT! LIKEWISE HIS SONS AND ALL OF THEIR BATHIST HENCHMEN.
Bush LIED about the WMD threat in Iraq; the ‘evidence’ was manufactured belatedly when the media and the millions of protestors around the world made it clear that Bush’s “word” was not a good enough justification for invading Iraq. So, no, he does not points for being forced to admit that the WMD did not exist. He knew–as did several of his highest ranking generals at the Pentagon who opposed the invasion–that they were never there.
That does not make Saddam the ‘good guy’; he–and his spawn– was as odious as it was possible to be. But remember that he, too, received support from the US during the war with Iran in the 80s. The US knew all about Saddam’s brutal dictatorship but he was a convenient surrogate to fight the Iranians.
Again, nearly 300 Saudis were flown out of the US in the first three days after 9/11–at a time when international flights were NOT available to US citizens. Even before all of the terrorists aboard the planes had been PUBLICLY indentified by nationality, the Saudis were spirited away from the US. That is a strange thing to do BEFORE you conduct a full investigation of possible links between the Saudis in the US–including members of Bin Laden’s family!–and the terrorists.
I DO recognise the right of Israel to exist as a nation. And I recognise that they are surrounded by hostile neighbours. I do not support right wing government anywhere and Israel has been moving farther to the right for some time now. One can support the existence of a nation-state whilst disapproving of its current government policies.
The depredations of the Bush administration have brought the world economy to its knees. The damage he and his cronies did will last long after they are gone. And the Middle East may yet drag the world into Armageddon. If so, Bush will carry the burden of responsibility for it.
Lyndall,
You are wrong. There are verses in the Koran which instruct, or at least justify, the killing of Jews and infidels i.e. non-muslims.
This notion that Jihad is only justified as a defensive war is a myth. As is the notion that it is an internal spiritual battle for the soul.
Muslim terrorists, justify practically anything they disagree with as an attack on Islam and use it as an excuse for “Jihad”. eg.Bin Laden’s excuse for his calls for jihad are often based on the fact that there are western “infidels” in the “Land of the Prophet”. He sees Western liberalism as a threat to Islam, and he is far from being alone in this.
It is a tenet of Islam that infidels are a lower caste of people than muslims, and either they must convert, or they may be killed as blasphemers. This is in the Koran.
Ring a bell with the Nazi idea of the “Untermensch”?
Oh, sorry Lyndall,
Infidels, to avoid the convert or die choice may also elect to pay a special tax, so that they may be spared the choice of death or conversion.
It would be just great being a non-muslim in a muslim state. Remember they are for all intents and purposes Theocracies, where Sharia rules. And that’s really advanced idea of justice and human rights.
Bin Laden declared Jihad against the Sauds a long time ago - presisely because they trade with the west. Also Jihad against all Muslim secular states, including Turkey and Egypt, for having secular, not Shia law. Jihadists are suspected of being behind the assassination of Bhutto in Pakistan as well.
As I keep pointing out - Gaza has two borders. Why always call on Israel to open theirs? Why not ask Egypt to let throught the aid? Egypt does not want its borders open for the suicide bombers either.
As you say the Wahabi are virulantly anti-west, AND against Muslims who trade with the west. ONLY their extreme version of Islam must be allowed - all other versions, which they regard as perversions of the faith, must be stamped out.
If you want to look for Bush hypocracy look closer to home. Aware of the risk of a coup against the Sauds in Saudi Arabia, Bush has been actively courting Nigerian oil.
Nigeria’s oil reserves should make it the richest country in Africa, not one of the poorest (thanks to corruption).
Bush does nothing for the Christian South (including Biafra) who are being both suppressed and exploited by the Muslim North.
Bush and Blair made the same mistake in their “war on terror” as the Brits made in the Anglo Boer War. They tried to fight guerilla forces with conventional armies.
The Boer Commandos, like the Taliban and Hamas, were seperate groups all under their own Leader/Commander.
“Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it”
Bush Blair Bashir and Trapido! Word association. How about Stalin the Hussein Trio, Mao, Hitler, the pinapple of Panama, the critical dudes from Bosnia, a bit of chop chop in Rwanda - the west of course is to blame - Pol Pot, freightend newspapers, journalists recently dead in Russia, Mexico, ad nausium, an now bush blair al-bashir. Personally Bush Jr. is known by all as a moron…America killed a lot of people in the world wars, and a lot of Vietminese. No one likes it. Compare it to millions deliberately starved in the Soviet Union and North Korea for political reasons, tens of millions more killed in work camps, and even though I find Bush comtemptable in his use of american strength, to compare it to open genocide of Arab/African conflict in the Sudan iplies ignorance of the essential African condition, and even takes advantage of it.
Bush, the last Republican President, wasn’t eloquent.
His vocabulary evidently needed improvement.
Unlike Obama, he wasn’t nuanced, far too simplistic
For American academics who voted Democratic.
Post 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan,
The terrorists were dubbed evil and inhuman
“Best to kill them” said the Neo Conservatives
We must attack those Islamic fundamentalists.
Barack does not see things quite so black and white.
His views are sophisticated, not nearly so trite.
We must not balk at talking to Mullahs in Iran
Diplomatic intervention is the road to Tehran.
So.. “nuanced” policy, without the Texan’s idiocy
Will soon bring this fractured world to sanity?
During at least one period in history, non Jews were pressurized to convert to Judaism. Herod 1, aka Herod the Great (74BC - 4BC) who rebuilt the temple in Jerusalem, was a descent of people who were not Jews, but had to convert to Judaism, or else leave Judea.
Charlemagne is recognised as one of Europe’s greatest rulers, and has been called the Father of Europe. Although there is no archeological evidence (like mass graves), it is widely believed that Charlemagne ordered the beheading of 4500 Saxons in one day at the massacre of Verden in 782 AD. Their crime - they were found worshipping pagan gods.
Fact is fact that the pro-war cabal of the USA and the UK are responsible for all the havoc in the world today. If they learn to mind their own business, disassociate themselves with the despotic dictatorial regimes of the world, life will be better for all of us.
The American and British people themselves are fed up of being tainted with the activities of Bush and Blair.
So are we then all wrong? As for the violence in Iraq, pull out the foreign troops and you will see life will return to normal.
Answer this with an honest intention about the renditions. If Bush, Blair, the Zionists, were such honourable, righteous and truthful people, what was the need for renditions, Guantanamo Bay, secret detentions facilities all over the world and torture tactics like waterboarding, electrocuting, etc?
If they had even a shred of evidence about any of the detainees, then there’s no need to operate in such clandestine secrecy like the Mafia. If truth was on their side, all people of all religions including myself and fellow Muslims would’ve supported them.
What’s interesting to know that respectable film stars like Martin Sheen and Charlie Sheen don’t believe the “official” version of 911. I have seen them on TV publicly stating that America was being held to ransom because of 911.
I have also read a book by a former Mossad agent titled: By Way of Deception - Victor Ostrovsky.
Perhaps you should do the same.
Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. The War Hawkes and the Zionists game plan is built on the foundation of deception. Surely these people cannot all be wrong in exposing the truth because they have a conscience and are peace loving. But then I forgot, you may just label them as being Neo-Nazi.
Mustafa,
After the muslim attack on 9/11 the USA decided the gloves were off. Not a moment too soon. When you are fighting a war against terrorists, any means are justified. Warfare has nothing to do with fighting according to some vague “just laws”. Only idiots would fight on those terms. War is about maximising your destructive power.
Muslims started the war on terror with their attack on 9/11. They must bear the consequences.
The Koran and the ahadith are full of justification for deceit against infidels, so don’t blame the West if they use it as a tool themselves. Mohammed, your “prophet”, was one of the worst in using deception as a tool in warfare.
Muslims fight among themselves all over the world. Face up to it and don’t blame the West.
If your idea of what life in Iraq was like was normal under Saddam, then Iraquis will be in for a lovely time when USA withdraws and it returns to “normal”: one form of Islam lording it over another form.
As for “Truth”, that’s just another myth for the weak to try and smear the strong. There’s no truth in war. War is about maximising your power to defeat your enemy. Unfortunately, democracies never do that when they are fighting a war. If they did, the war in Iraq wouldn’t have lasted 30 minutes. Iraq and it’s inhabitants would have been blasted into oblivion.
Anyone who believes the idiot conspiracy theories about 9/11 has lost their grip on reality. We all saw it with our own eyes.
Lyndall,
I am not confusing the koran with the adhadith and sunna.
Just google koran verses justifying killing of jews and infidels.
Mohammed attacked numerous peoples with little or no justification and was murderous in battle.
For muslims as you must know. The koran is the unchanging word of allah; despite there being numerous contradictions in it. As you would expect as the conditions under which Mohammed and his followers changed as the “revelation” were given to Mohammed.
The koran is much intolerant of other religions (infidels) in the later verses as the strength of islam grew vis a vis other tribes and religions. These later verses are regarded as having greater force over the earlier verses which are more tolerant as islam was then weaker.
Stick around - Jeff still has to come up with those verses from the Quraan, which you will have to interprete.
Democracies are full of nutcases and conspiracy theories, but that is preferable to religious state control (Christian or Muslim).
Whether the Americans leave Iraq or not - how can they get back to “normal”? Do you mean back to a replacement dictator for Hussein? What would be “normal”? And would “normal” be a democracy or a dictatorship?
Oldfox,
I’m not really concerned about what happened 2500 years ago. No doubt all religions would have liked everyone to convert. Even today I get idiots coming to my door to “convert” me to their brand of Christianity. I carry no flag for Judaism as a religion, but it certainly appears to me to be the most “peaceful” of the Abrahamic religions.
In Islam it is forbidden to convert from Islam. The penalty is death. This takes place frequently in Islamic countries.
Of course muslims will tell you that this is a misinterpretation of Islam. Unfortunately everyone translates the koran in any way that will suit their purpose.
The koran was never written down by Mohammed it was compiled as a written work later, just like the bible.
Hi Lyndall
Sorry, you will have to google the koranic verses about killing Jews and infidels. I’m not great with a computer, so do not know how to get them onto here directly.
Secondly the ahadith and sunna are not the direct word of god, however they are regarded as holy and almost as binding as the koran to muslims.
Muslims also claim that translations of the koran into other languages is not the direct word of god.
The only correct version is the one “revealed” in recitation to Mohammed. Now he was illiterate as you know. It was also revealed in an ancient form of the Quraysh dialect Arabic, which has evolved over the centuries into modern Arabic.
Given that these revelations were compiled years later into the koran, by human followers of Mohammed, what are the chances of the koran being the exact words that Mohammed “heard” being the direct words of god.Even assuming that one believes such nonsense as the story of the original “revelations” in the first place. Just too much room for human error.
Even the “Satanic verses” were originally in the koran and were later removed. It’s all a load of hooey.
It is no use asking a muslim, or anyone else for that matter, to give you a translation. No-one today can speak the original Quraysh dialect of the revelations. “Translations” are numerous, some regarded as more true to the original than others. No-one can verify them with any accuracy.
Personally I think all holy books are works of fiction insofar as they are supposed to be the words of some sort of deity.
Can you answer Jeff please. There are some of us getting fed up with one section of the Muslim world saying that Islam does not permit killing; and the other lot saying any “infidel” or non-believer may be killed.
Hi Lyndall
I think I’m becoming a nerd. Here are some verses from the koran, advocating violence towards, and killing of infidels.
There is also a verse about trees telling muslims to come and kill the Jews hiding behind the trees. It’s quite a well-known verse.
Of course there is plenty of violence in the bible too, bur no-one really goes around today killing in the name of Judaism or Christianity and proclaiming that all must be forced into their faith.
There are also verses in the koran saying eg “There is no compulsion in religion”. As I have pointed out these are early verses, when Mohammed needed other religions to recognise Islam. Later verses, when Islam was much stronger become very intolerant of infidels, who must submit to Allah.
• “Therefore cut off their heads, and strike off all the ends of the fingers. This shall they suffer because they have opposed Allah and His Prophet, and whosoever shall oppose Allah and His Prophet, verily Allah will be severe in punishing them” (8.13)
• “moreover, as for the non-believers, I will punish them with grievous punishments in this world, and in the world is to come” (3.56)
• “they shall suffer a grievous punishment” (3.77).
• “They (believers) shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain” (9:111).”
1. Allah himself urges Muslims to ‘strike terror into the heart of the infidels’ [8:12]. Why do you disagree with Allah? Who knows better? You or Allah?
2. Likewise, Prophet Muhammad also said: “I have been victorious with terror.”
3. After Mohammad’s death, his followers continued to follow all his injunctions recorded in the Koran and Hadith: kill the unbelievers who refuse to submit [Quran 9:5,29 etc.]. Since then, Islam has been murdering its way across the planet earth, on a vengeful mission to change the course of humanity, into full submission to Islam.
This notion of a world-wide Caliphate where everyone must submit to Allah, is of course the idea of the Jihad.
Muslims will say that jihad is an internal spiritual struggle. Unforunately there a too many “internal spiritual strugglers” blowing up themselves and innocents in the name of Allah.
Unlike you, I believe the Holy Books have much wisdom - all of them.
In the Quraan it says God sent his prophets to every nation and nations would be judged by how they obeyed their own prophets not other people’s. That seems wise to me - but then they forcibly convert!
I have sympathy with the opinion that the Quraan does not translate and should be read in Arabic. Translations are difficult always as words do not have the same meanings in all languages. Arabic is also a subtle language. Where a word can have more than one meaning in English, a sentence usually only one, and even with word play only two. Arabic sentences can have many meanings. Plus the Quraan was in verse form, yet has to be “literaly” translated as it is the Word of God which can not be changed. Poetry can never be literally translated - ask any linguist.
Are you certain about the writing down of the Quraan? I understood it to have been written down by scribes over a period of 23 years as it was recited by The Prophet, not later.
And there is a very big difference, for EDUCATED Muslims, between the Quraan and the Hadith and the Sunna.
The Quraan is the actual prophecies as DICTATED by the Angel Gabriel and recited by the Prophet word for word.
The Hadith is the Prophet speaking as a man and not as a prophet - and therefore capable of human error.
The Sunna is compiled by Muslim scholars, also human and fallible.
What is an “unbeliever” when the Quraan itself says that Allah sent prophets to every nation and they will be judged on how they followed THEIR OWN PROPHETS?
Hi Lyndall,
“Islamic scholars” have all been educated in the madrassahs. They are the most brainwashed of all muslims.
Also as in any religion, these scholars punt the bits that they are most in tune with. There a bits in any holy book to justify any damn thing you care to. That’s one of the evils of religion. People read this stuff and act on it. To them, it’s the “Truth”. The given word of their god.
I merely pointd out that there is plenty to justify violence in the koran and in the ahadith.
Islam is not a religion of peace, it’s what the followers care do with the teachings that matter.
Hi Lyndall,
There’s wisdom in lots of books. Certainly in many that were written hundreds, if not thousands, of years before the koran got “recited”.The works of many Greek philosophers being ones example.
To me, one of the wisest men ever, and a much better example of a human being than Mohammed, is Socrates. At least he realised that he was wise because he knew so little about the world.
I’m not denying there may be some wisdom in the koran.
What I am saying is there is also a lot of violence in it. I also think it laughable that people believe that “God” or “Allah” recited this drivel, full of contradictions.
For the record, I don’t think the bible is any different. These are all ancient myths of primitive people trying to understand the world around them. They are extensions of other myths that existed among the semites of the region at that time. I would expect there to be violence in them. The life of nomadic semitic tribes at that time was violent. They had to be violent for the tribe to survive the depradations of other tribes.
Remember to that for all intents and purposes Mohammed and his life and words are as revered by muslims as is their god. They take him as their example as how life should be lived, and he was a flawed character, just like the rest of us.
Hi Lyndall,
From an apostate of islam. He would be killed in an islamic country for writing this, and that killing would be justified by sharia (The law of allah).
“It is unlikely that Mohammed could have included errors in the Quran deliberate. The Quran was revealed over a long period of time, about 23 years. This, on its own, can explain many of the contradictions and repetitions. It is possible that Mohammed (or Allah?) simply forgot the exact wording of the earlier verses. It is also possible that some of the verses were added or changed at a later stage. The Quran was written on primitive material using primitive Arabic script, where many letters have similar appearance, which also can provide an explanation to this confusion. We also must keep in mind the possibility that the Quran had multiple authors.
The Quran was not an important part of the Arabic culture during the first half of Mohammed’s career as a prophet”.
This man studied islam intensely before he gave it up. He was troubled by the contradictions of the koran and the violence advocated and carried out by Mohammed.
Your “Christian Cultural” background shows, even if you are an atheist. For you a “Man of God” must be non-violent, like Christ.
Muslims regards Christ as inferior to Mohammed because they think he did not have the power to overthrow the Romans, not that he had the power but did not use it.
Mohammed was both a temporal and a spiritual leader - and it is the temporal part that causes all the disputes between the Islamic groups.
Christianity is NOT supposed to be a temporal power - but exactly what was the Roman Catholic Church up to then in the Crusades and during the Inquisition?
The Holy Books are good - the people that twist them for political or religious power are not.
Mohammed is not supposed to be divine, only a prophet and a man. He is regarded in the same light as David and Solomon to the Jews - a temporal and spiritual leader.
In the Madrasses they only study the Koran and the Hadith, and hand pick the parts that suit them. They are NOT scholars. They do not read any of the many Islamic writings. They are supposed to be on Jihad to establish the original Caliphates. If they ever read any of the poetry or literature of the period they are supposed to be going back to - they would have heart failure. People had poetry, and music, and gardens and fun - and is was actually normal for women to enjoy sex (no FGM)!
Lyndall,
You asked for verses about violence in the koran. I gave you some. The words about violence in my last post were from a muslim who left the faith because of the violence and contradictions in the koran and in Mohammed’s life.
I don’t think religious “prophets” or any religious leaders are any less prone to violence than the rest of us. I think that they merely justify their violence with appeals to “holy scriptures”.
I have almost as little respect for christianity as I do for islam; the roman catholic church and it’s teachings and history in particular.
I gave up religion when I was 11 years old because I figured that Jesus was violent in his own way. I never thought much of him as a person. I realised that god was either evil, useless or couldn’t give a hoot for anybody or anything. Consequently I have had no use for such nonsense of any kind. The best I thought you could say about Jesus is that he was a wuss, a real dweep.
I have no respect for anybody’s religious beliefs. I have debated and argued this with people of a number of faiths. I think some may be a bit better than others, but basically they’re all a lot of wishful thinking. I happen to believe that islam is much the worst of a bad bunch.
The world has been run for too long by men. Even you are doing the male thing “stheist” is “better” than religious. Men must always compete!
Despite that, you have pesisted in this debate, despite even feeling embarrassed (like a “nerd”), which means you are concerned.
However we can’t get further than we have without some imput on Islam from an expert.
The psychiatrist, analyst, former atheist and present mystic, Scott M Peck, wrote that atheists are more spiritual than fundamentalists, because they are questioning and arguing and concerned, not just accepting.
Lyndall,
The “nerd” comment was only to inform you I had found out how to paste the verses from the koran into my blog. A little light-hearted repartee. Embarrassment don’t enter the picture. I’ve always felt that guilt or embarrassment to be futile emotions.
Also, to psychoanalyse me on a few comments on a blog is a little presumptuous I would have thought. Anyway it gave me a chuckle. I always look forward to your posts by the way, not just on this topic.
I’ve never really thought of atheism being better than religion. I’ve never understood why people believe in this Abrahamic god that’s supposed to be so wonderful. I’ve never felt the need for it since I was a child. The whole idea seems to me to be ridiculous. One look at the world should convince anyone that this supposed “god” probably is incapable of tying his own shoelaces if he exists.
I’m an islamophobe because I see islam as an incredibly violent religion or form of mind-control. It’s a politico-religious movement that is dangerous for free-speech and free-thought. Islamic countries are intolerant theocracies. Try having a blog like this in an islamic country.
Rev John Olivier, Chairman of the Cape Town Interfaith Initiative, quoted the following verse from the Quraan in a letter to the Cape Times on 24 February:
“If Allah so willed, He would have made you one believing community, (but He has not), as a test to uou in what He has given you, so strive with each other in good actions”
Lyndall,
As explained previously:
There are verses in the koran that preach religious tolerance. These are in the “Mecca verses” when Mohammed and his religion were still rather weak an sought tolerance from other, more established religions. Later on as islam gained ascendency after the flight to Medina(on his “winged white horse?) so the verses the “Medina verses” became highly intolerant of other religions i.e. infidels. The spread of islam became the objective and it was carried out in a violent manner. It cared nothing for other people and their religion, either they converted or they were killed, or they payed the jizya and agreed to be second class citizens subservient to islam and its adherents(muslims)
@Lyndall,
The point I am trying to make, is that muslims today use some verses in the koran and sayings in the hadith to justify killing “infidels”. The slightest “insult” is justifying ridiculous over-reaction from muslims worldwide.
There is plenty of violence in the bible. However I don’t see christians using such verses to justify killing those who are not christians.
One could argue about whether god gave Israel to the Jews till the cows come home. Personally I feel that Israeli’s are merely protecting themselves from attempted anihilation muslims in the middle east, with the support of muslims world wide. This support is merely because they are all part of the ummah and islam declares this.
The Neo-Jihardists are like the Inquisition - only their interpretation of their religion is allowed. They are fanatics who twist the words of the Holy Books to suit their own ambitions.
Like The Reformation stopped the Catholic Church (who had to change itself to keep any congregants); so only Islamic scholars and moderate Muslims can stop the Jihad.
To get off Islam for a little. Want to explain to me where in the Bible, expecially in The New Testament, it says that birth control is prohibited, or priests/rabbis must be celibate?
Hi Lyndall,
If there is a god, then I really can’t see it being this almighty, good, all-seeing, thing that listens to and answers prayers. There are of course other versions of god, all of its followers having the one true god. Take your pick.
Maybe the god of the old testament; the jealous, “vengence is mine” one is a lot more accurate notion than the all-loving, all-caring one. It certainly seems that way to me.
If that’s the case I wouldn’t waste my time believing. I don’t understand why you look at the world and think there is a god at all, let alone one worth worshipping. The place seems a pretty random mess to me.
The older I get, and the more I read and try to learn, the simpler and less complicated my beliefs.
When I look at The Empire State Building or London Bridge, I don’t think they built themselves. When I read Shakespeare I don’t think the book wrote itself.
When I look at a flower, or a tree, or a cheetah, or the stars - I think the same.
I do believe in a Creator God - and think His/Her wisdom can be found in many places.
The verse from the Quraan that I quoted above is one of those insights.
God did not want one people, one nation, or one religion. One religious system would be too small and restrictive. And the religion of the atheists is one of those religions as well. Some of the major scientific breakthroughs could only have been made by atheists.
Lyndall,
My point exactly. People will take the bits of the holy scriptures that suit them and say this is the one true way. These scriptures are all full if contradictions that can be exploited by power-hungry people. It is often easy then to convince enoug of your co-religionist to go along with your version.
I had a conversation with a Tunisian muslim recently where he denied that there was any violence in the koran. I showed him some violent verses and he still denied it. This man, like so many religious people, has been brainwashed from birth. The first words spoken to a muslim child when it is born are: There is no god but allah, into one ear; and Mohammed is his prophet into the other. From that moment he is brought up in his home, mosque and madrassah to believe this. His whole cultural environment militates against him questioning this. He would be ostracised by his family, friends and community for questioning it.
So as the Jesuits knew: Give me a child until he is seven and he is mine for life.
There is no chance of a reformation in islam.
@Lyndall
Islamic scholars are there basically as apologists and marketers of islam. Just as biblical scholars promote Judeo/Christianity. They are studying fairy tales. As Richard Dawkins as been at pains to explain, theology as the study of god and god’s so-called word is not any subject at all. One might as well be a scholar in fairy tales as an islamic scholar.
I don’t get your point about the celibacy and birth control bits being, or not being, in the bible. There’s nothing about rock music in the bible either to the best of my knowledge, but some christians see it as satanic (whatever that may mean).
I happen to think people should make up their own minds about birth-control based on their own cicumastances. That is if all women/men are given a fair choice.
As for celibacy that should also be one’s own choice. Not a way I’d go myself. Then I’ve always mistrusted the words of religious spokesmen.
Incidentally I have almost as much disrespect for roman catholicism as I do for islam. They are also a bunch of fascists in my view.
It looks like only you and I; the rest have left - even Mustafa.
I suggest we say thanks to Traps for the use of his space, and move this to my blog. Once you comment there, I have your e-mail address, and we can communicate direct (without moderation).
To get to my blog, you click on my name(in red) below this comment. Scroll down till you find my post “Faith-to Faith: Homosexuality”, which relates to what we are discussing here.
All comments must be approved by our editors, click here to read the editorial guidelines for comments. Please allow some time for our editors to approve your comment after posting.
By trade a criminal attorney he is now a politcal commentator and journalist full time.
"Traps Report" on the Richmark Sentinel is probably the largest news aggregator in the world. That includes Google, Huffington Post and Drudge.
If you click on the links of the Traps Report you should be up to date on all the latest news worldwide as well as local.
He is a director of the firm Turnbull and Associates.
He was born in Johannesburg and attended HA Jack and Highlands North High Schools. He married Robyn in 1984 (Mrs Traps, aka "the government") and has three sons (who all look suspiciously like her ex-boss).
He was a counsellor on the JCCI for a year around 1992.
Soweto is still reeling from the news that four high school pupils were killed when an alleged race between two Mini Coopers went horrifically wrong. ...
The news on Monday that the ANC and alliance partner Cosatu are set for urgent talks over disagreements that threaten the unity of the tripartite alli...
South African President Jacob Zuma was given a warm welcome by Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, upon his state visit to Britain on Wednesday, with a H...
As a result of the growing media pressure surrounding ANC Youth League president Julius Malema's lifestyle audit a press conference was scheduled for ...
Due to what appears to be a desire to bridge (which in itself means never having to shake hands -- English translation) the communications gap some of...
Loading ...
Quite true. A war crime is a war crime. And so is a “crime against humanity” (if these unicorns exist).
So, whether it’s Bush, Bashir, Blair, Ahmedinejad, Howard, Mugabe or Mengistu — haul them ALL before an even-handed tribunal.
An even-handed tribunal, mind you.
(Report abuse)