US President Barack Obama's revamped policy on Afghanistan will be a strategy for success in a bloody conflict characterised by worsening Taliban violence and a controversial presidential election result.
At his first media conference yesterday, new US Ambassador Jeffrey Bleich spoke of his confidence that the new Obama blue print would check worsening insecurity in the troubled country.
Speaking after presenting his credentials to Governor General Quentin Bryce, Mr Bleich, a close friend of President Obama for more than 20 years - said Washington had no greater friend than Australia.
On the vexed issue of climate change Mr Bleich said Washington fully acknowledged Canberra's position as a "world leader'' in the lead up to the Copenhagen conference.
The Obama White House was highly appreciative of Australia's military contribution to the Afghanistan conflict, he said.
"We recognise Australia is the largest troop contributor outside of NATO (countries).
"I believe whatever decisions the president announces next week will reflect that consultation, cooperation and recognition of our mutual interests,'' he said.
Mr Bleich said the new Afghan strategy involved "some difficult choices'' and "hard decisions.''
"He (Obama) is now prepared as he said to announce a way forward.
"His idea is that we can restore stability to that area (Afghanisan and Pakistan) and make sure its not a breeding ground for terrorists.''
Its understood President Obama will announce his revamped strategy next Tuesday which endorses a plan to reinforce the flagging campaign with an extra 20-40,000 troops on top of the 68,000 US force already deployed.
In related developments yesterday, Defence Minister John Faulkner said, Australia's current troop commitment of 1550 personnel to be "about right.''
But significantly, he foreshadowed a possible change in the composition of the force.
"This is not to say that Australia cannot reshape our contribution if appropriate in light of any revised strategy.
"In line with NATO's identified priority areas, Australia is examining what we might do in terms of focusing on training, civilian assistance and capacity building.
"I have asked the Chief of the Defence ForceAir Chief Marshal Angus Houston to review the composition of our current contribution,'' Mr Faulkner said.
While welcoming the re-election of President Hamid Karzai, Mr Faulkner said Australia and other NATO-troop contributing nations expected action to be taken by his new government to tackle worsening corruption and narcotics trafficking.
After the recent slaughter at Fort Hood , Texas , commentators and politicians have asked whether political correctness or fear of being criticized as Islamophobic discouraged his colleagues in the military from thoroughly examining the extremist beliefs of Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the accused killer in the military-base massacre.
Some of the non-Muslims who knew him have said, probably correctly – and unfortunately – that they did not know enough about Islam, especially in its radical forms, to assess Hasan’s views. But the weak outcome of a 2003 Senatorial appeal for an inquiry into Islamist financing in America – along with other curious lapses of attention – show that the military is not alone in cringing at the task of investigating Muslim radicals.
At the end of 2003, the U.S. Senate Finance Committee sent a letter to the Internal Revenue Service, signed by the committee’s then-chairman, Senator Chuck Grassley, Republican of Iowa, and its then-ranking Democrat, Senator Max Baucus of Montana. (Baucus is now the committee’s chairman.)
The Senate Committee called on the IRS to collect financial information on 24 Islamist groups operating in the U.S.:
Al-Haramain Foundation Alavi Foundation Benevolence International Foundation Global Relief Foundation Help the Needy Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development Human Appeal International Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences in America International Islamic Relief Organization or Internal Relief Organization Islamic African Relief Society and/or Islamic American Relief Agency Islamic Assembly of North America Islamic Association for Palestine Islamic Circle of North America Islamic Foundation of America Islamic Society of North America Kind Hearts Muslim Arab Youth Association Muslim Student Association Muslim World League Rabita Trust SAAR Foundation and all members and related entities Solidarity International and/or Solidarity USA United Association for Studies and Research World Assembly of Muslim Youth
Most of these organizations are obscure for ordinary, non-Muslim Americans even today. But with the exception of the Iran-directed Alavi Foundation, which was the object of an assets seizure proceeding this month, and leaving aside the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim American Society (MAS), and a few other absent players, the list provides a map of the “Wahhabi lobby” of radical Muslim proponents in American.
These organizations are financed by, and in some cases act as direct agencies of, powerful institutions in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, in tandem with their allies in the Muslim Brotherhood.
Late in 2005, however, Senator Grassley first announced that investigation of the 24 groups had ended inconclusively, with no evidence of anything “alarming” beyond the capacity for ordinary response by law enforcement; he then reversed his posture and said that his committee would continue collecting information on them. But the Senate Finance Committee produced nothing new after that.
It is always refreshing to hear Geert Wilders restate the obvious in a world gone Islamic. Turkey is an interesting case history, as they experimented with "secular" Islam.
They tried to separate politics from Islam, and it appears to be failing miserably. It tells you a lot about the impossibility of the separation of mosque and state in Islam (like a body with no bones).
The Turkish government fears a scheduled visit by Dutch anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders, saying it could dent Turkish relations with the Netherlands and Europe. But many secular and religious Turks say they would welcome a debate with the polemic politician.
A planned visit to Turkey by Dutch members of parliament is up in the air after the Turkish Foreign Ministry on Tuesday said the delegation would not be welcome if it included Geert Wilders, the controversial leader of the populist Dutch party Party for Freedom (PVV). Wilders, known for his anti-Islam film "Fitna" and for comparing the Koran to Hitler's "Mein Kampf," strongly opposes Turkey's accession to the European Union.(Spiegel)
“If this is the point of view of the Turkish government – Turkey, I should say –the Turkish government has no respect for freedom of speech or democracy, and is [itself] a totalitarian government,” he said.
After the government’s harsh reaction to a prospective visit by controversial Dutch politician Geert Wilders, a vocal critic of Islam, the European Affairs Committee of the Dutch parliament is expected to review its plans. ‘I only use democratic means, I am sorry; I have nothing to do with racism or fascism,’ Wilders tells the Hürriyet Daily News
Far-right Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders, a vocal critic of Islam who was declared “unwelcome” by Turkey, said the reaction of the government to his scheduled visit was “stupid.”
“I think it is a very stupid reaction because I am not a racist, I am not a fascist. I am a democratically elected politician representing now one of the most popular parties in Holland,” he told the Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review in a telephone interview Thursday.
Wilders, who leads the Party for Freedom, has plans to join a group of lawmakers from the European Affairs Committee of the Dutch parliament set to visit Turkey on Jan. 4.
Turkey said the Dutch politician is unwelcome. “We reject the views of the person in question. We consider them racist and unacceptable,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Burak Özügergin said this week.
“I only use democratic means, I am sorry; I have nothing to do with racism or fascism. I despise everything that has to do with these kinds of ideologies,” Wilders told the Daily News.
“If this is the point of view of the Turkish government – Turkey, I should say –the Turkish government has no respect for freedom of speech or democracy, and is [itself] a totalitarian government,” he said.
After Turkey’s harsh reaction to Wilder’s prospective visit, which is said to overshadow Turkish-Dutch relations because of the media attention expected to focus on the controversial politician, the Dutch committee is expected to review its plans.
“If the Turkish government will keep its opinion that I am not welcome, I don’t know. I still hope they allow me to enter and also make sure that I will be safe,” said Wilders.
He argued that his problem is with Islamic ideology.
RELATIVES of the 52 people killed in the 7/7 London bombings reacted with anger yesterday after they were told the inquests will also include the legal examination of the deaths of the four suicide bombers who killed them.
Lady Justice Hallett, the specially appointed coroner, said that the long delayed hearings would also cover the deaths of Mohammad Sidique Khan and his accomplices.
Graham Foulkes, whose son David, 22, died in the attacks, told The Times: "She told us that the inquests will have to include the bombers because it was the same event. I'm absolutely gutted about that. I hadn't expected that at all."
The families were also upset to learn that the inquests, to be held next year, could take place in partial secrecy under controversial new legislation and that they were not necessarily entitled to legal aid to appoint lawyers.
Representatives of some of the families were called to a meeting with Lady Hallett, an Appeal Court judge, in London and they emerged with concerns that she had been unable to answer many questions. The families have campaigned unsuccessfully for a public inquiry into the bombings to answer questions about what security services knew of Khan and his fellow terrorists.
The Government has repeatedly rejected their request and the relatives believed that the inquests might be their last chance to ask why Khan, who was caught up in a MI5 surveillance operation on another terrorist cell, was able to remain free to kill their loved ones.
But under the Coroners and Justice Act, which became law earlier this month, the Government can request secret hearings on the ground of national security. One relative asked the judge if that meant the inquests were going to be a "whitewash".
Mr Foulkes said: "She was very keen to impress on us that she was a senior judge, that she was her own woman and would not be told how to conduct the inquest. But she was forced to admit she had never conducted an inquest before and, when asked about the new law, told us she had not read the legislation."
Ministers have insisted that secret inquests will happen only in a "tiny number" of cases and that the interests of the families concerned will be protected. A last-minute concession, giving the Lord Chief Justice a veto on secrecy, was introduced to ensure the Bill's passage through the House of Lords.
Mr Foulkes said the news that the inquests into the deaths of the bombers - Khan, Shezhad Tanweer, Hasib Hussain and Jermaine Lindsay - would take place in the same forum as the victims' inquests was a "bolt from the blue". He added: "The temperature dropped in the room. There was just shock. People were very close to tears."
Grahame Russell, whose son Philip died in the Tavistock Square bus bomb, said: "I'm aggrieved that the inquest on my son is being shared with the man who murdered him. That hurts."
BY the real-world standard of how lawyers act, Attorney General Eric Holder's professed certainty about his decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his co-defendants in federal court is strictly (pardon the expression) "bush."
It's an old adage among litigators that you're not a real trial lawyer until you've won an unwinnable case and lost an unloseable one.
Lawyers in private practice know -- and make sure their clients know -- that litigation is a chancy business. That, of course, is a major reason why private disputes are overwhelmingly settled before (or during) trial and why most criminal cases are also "settled" by plea agreement.
Holder insisted in his Senate testimony that "failure is not an option" -- that a conviction in the federal court trial of KSM and his co-defendants is assured. No responsible lawyer in private practice would ever make that kind of statement to a paying client.
Murphy's Law applies as fully to trials as to any other human endeavor -- maybe more so. To start with, there's the little requirement that a jury be unanimous -- and in a capital trial, that it be unanimous twice.
Does any lawyer worth his salt ever guarantee to a client that the 12 members of a jury will surely all vote the same way -- much less that they'll do so twice? When Holder was a partner in the white-shoe Washington firm of Covington & Burling, did he give his fancy private clients that kind of advice? Don't bet on it.
Then there's the unpredictability of what evidence will be found admissible. There has never been a trial of the sort Holder has committed the government to: against foreign fighters captured in foreign countries, detained and questioned when the country seemed in imminent jeopardy of attack from them and their ilk -- and whose counsel in the last eight years have succeeded in creating a narrative that the previous administration treated them brutally and otherwise unlawfully.
What possible basis could Holder have for his claimed certainty about just what kind, and how much, of the evidence against KSM and his co-defendants will be deemed "untainted" in this entirely unprecedented circumstance? No lawyer advising a private client -- much less a $1,000-an-hour Covington & Burling partner -- would give such an assurance in a million years, even about a run-of-the-mill trial of a run-of-the-mill case.
Holder's certainty that a federal-court trial is more likely to be favorable to the government than if the defendants were tried before a military commission is also baseless.
Put aside the simple fact that Holder turned down the offer (made even before he took office) from KSM and his co-defendants to plead guilty in a commission proceeding -- so there was a 100 percent "chance" of conviction there.
Even if that hadn't happened, how could a conscientious lawyer ever be certain -- to the point of giving sworn testimony before Congress -- that the outcome in one entirely unprecedented proceeding will be better than the outcome in another entirely unprecedented proceeding?
Again, you can be sure that's not the way Holder expressed himself when he was making the big bucks at Covington.
The truth is that there are no unloseable cases and so no basis for Holder's assurances. The only two things any experienced lawyer would know for sure are that a federal trial will give KSM & Co. the widest possible latitude in presenting their defense, and that their counsel are bound to use that latitude to put the Bush administration on trial.
Is it just a coincidence that this means that, when Holder's present client seeks re-election, the media coverage of this trial will enable him to run against his predecessor yet again?
There's another old adage: Politics makes strange bedfellows.
Lebanon's new cabinet has agreed on a policy statement that acknowledges Hezbollah's right to use its weapons against Israel, despite disagreement by some members of the ruling majority.
Information Minister Tarek Mitri said late Wednesday after a cabinet committee set up to draft the statement met for the ninth time that an agreement had been reached.
He said the new statement will retain the same clause approved by the previous cabinet as concerns the arsenal of Hezbollah, which fought a devastating war with Israel in 2006 and is considered a terrorist organization by Washington.
The clause states the right of "Lebanon, its government, its people, its army and its resistance" to liberate all Lebanese territory.
Hezbollah is commonly referred to as the resistance in Lebanon.
Mitri said that reservations concerning the clause by members of the Western-backed majority would be noted in the government program.
Christian members of the majority, including the Phalange Party and Lebanese Forces, argue that Hezbollah's arsenal undermines state authority and runs counter to UN resolutions.
However, the Shiite party, which has two ministers in the 30-member unity cabinet, has made it clear that its weapons are not open to discussion.
The party argues its arms are necessary to protect the country against any future aggression by Israel, which withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000 after a 22-year occupation.
Lebanon's new cabinet is headed by Prime Minister Saad Hariri, whose US and Western-backed alliance defeated a Hezbollah-led opposition supported by Syria and Iran in a June vote.
IRAN has confiscated the Nobel peace medal and diploma of Shirin Ebadi, the human rights lawyer who is one of the hardline regime's most outspoken critics. Her bank account has also been frozen on the pretext that she owes almost £250,000 in tax.
The seizure of the award, unprecedented in its 108-year history, caused outrage in Olso, where the Nobel Peace Committee is based.
The Norwegian Government summoned the Iranian envoy to protest, and the committee said that it would make a formal complaint.
"Such an act leaves us feeling shock and disbelief," said Jonas Gahr Store, the Norwegian Foreign Minister.
Geir Lundestad, secretary of the committee, said that Iran's action was unacceptable. "A laureate has never been treated like that. Even political dissidents such as [Andrei] Sakharov and [Lech] Walesa were better treated in their countries," he added, referring to the Russian dissident and the Polish trade union leader, both of whom won the prize while living in the Soviet bloc.
In 2003 Dr Ebadi became the first Iranian and first Muslim woman to win the peace prize, which was awarded for her campaign for democracy and human rights.
She was abroad during President Ahmadinejad's disputed re-election in June and has spent the past five months travelling the world to draw attention to the regime's alleged electoral fraud and suppression of the opposition. "I am effectively in exile," she said recently.
She revealed the loss of her Nobel medal in an interview on Radio Farda, a US-backed Persian language station. She said the regime had frozen her bank accounts and pension, as well as those of her husband, who is still in Tehran. She continued: "Even my Nobel and Legion d'honneur medals, my Freedom of Speech ring and other prizes, which were in my husband's safe, have been confiscated."
Norwegian officials said that the medal had been taken from a bank deposit box.
Dr Ebadi, 62, told another interviewer: "They say I owe them dollars 410,000 in back taxes because of the Nobel. It's a complete lie, given that the Iranian fiscal law says that prizes are excluded." The prize money was dollars 1.4 million.
She said that she was trying to recover her property through legal means, but "so far, no judge has dared to review our complaint".
Dr Ebadi's lawyer in Tehran, Nasrin Sotoudeh, said that the medal was seized on the order of a judge at Tehran's Revolutionary Court.
The confiscation of Dr Ebadi's prizes is only part of the regime's campaign to silence her. It has closed her Centre for the Defence of Human Rights in Tehran and locked up three of her colleagues. She has been denounced in the state-controlled media and charged in absentia with conspiring against the state. Her husband was badly beaten this autumn and her apartment is said to have been seized.
In an interview with The Times in September Dr Ebadi said that the intelligence ministry had repeatedly interrogated her husband and brother, ordered them to shut her up and told them that it could track her down anywhere in the world. "In effect they have threatened me with death," she said.
She insisted that she would continue to denounce the regime's brutality - the shooting of innocent protesters, imprisonment, beating and torture of opponents - and the use of show trials and forced confessions. "Naturally the Iranian Government doesn't want the world to know what's happening in Iran, so it's my duty to inform as many people as possible."
Dr Ebadi has been lobbying world leaders, urging them not to ignore Iran's human rights abuses in their desire to engage the regime over its nuclear programme.
A DEFAULT by Dubai will put the world of Islamic finance to the test at a time when hard questions are being asked by bankers and lawyers about the protection afforded by financial instruments that are Shariah compliant.
The bond that lies at the heart of the threat of default and financial ignominy for Dubai is a sukuk, an instrument invented by bankers and Islamic scholars to comply with a Shariah (Islamic law) prohibition against the payment of interest on money.
Islamic finance has five pillars: a ban on interest, a ban on speculation, a ban on haram (forbidden) investments, such as pork or gambling, the requirement of partnership or sharing of profit and loss and the requirement of asset backing. Getting round the ban on interest is the problem and opportunity of Islamic finance.
A bond that doesn't (in theory) pay interest sounds unattractive but in the Gulf and Malaysia, Islamic finance has flourished over the past decade.
Typically, interest is expressed as a share in a profit, such as the rent paid for use of a property or asset. According to estimates by HSBC Amanah, the Islamic arm of the British bank, outstanding Islamic finance debt is worth $US822 billion ($902 billion).
Even Western investors have been persuaded to dip their toes in the exotic financial tool, tempted by the deep pool of petrodollars available in the Gulf.
Only days before Dubai revealed its bombshell - a threat of possible default on Nakheel's $US4 billion sukuk - GE Capital, the American financial services group, issued the first sukuk by a Western company, raising $US500 million.
The underpinning of a sukuk with assets makes it attractive for use in property lending or asset leasing. The sukuk issued by GE this week was a loan for aircraft leasing.
GE's decision to use the Islamic finance market for funds reflected renewed confidence in a market that had almost collapsed after expansion in 2007 when the Gulf was awash with money fuelled by high oil prices.
Demand shrivelled after the collapse of Lehman Brothers with only $US16 billion issued last year. More importantly, fears surfaced that sukuk failed to provide the same legal protection as conventional bonds. To date, the legal structure of sukuk has never been tested in a court.
There have been high-profile defaults, including the Saudi Arabian Saad Group and Investment Dar, a Kuwaiti Islamic Investment Fund. Investment Dar owns half of Aston Martin, the luxury British car company, and the fund failed to make a payment in April on a $US100 million sukuk issue. In June, Golden Belt, a $US650 million issue by Saad Group, the investment house controlled by Maan al-Sanea, was downgraded to default status.
The concern is that sukuk creditors may not be protected. According to Neale Downes, a Bahrain-resident partner at Trowers & Hamlins, the law firm, it is not clear how creditors will rank in an insolvency.
In some cases, he said that investors have found themselves competing against other creditors, rather than being able to enforce their claim on the underlying asset supporting the sukuk.
But the repeated declarations of support by Dubai's ruler gave the market confidence that the sovereign would stand behind its debts. Only a month before the Nakheel shock, Dubai raised $US2 billion in sukuk issues.
Distrust and prejudice against Jews in Denmark doesn't thrive only in extremist groups. Up to 75% of immigrants from five different countries and 20% of ethnic Danes have anti-Jewish attitudes.
The data comes from a new study which appears in the book "Danmark og de fremmede: Om mødet med den arabisk-muslimske verden" (Denmark and the stranger: on the meeting with the Arab-Muslim world), which will be published Friday.
The study is based on interviews with 1503 immigrants from five different groups: Turks, Pakistanis, Somalis, Palestinians and ex-Yugoslavians - as well as 300 ethnic Danes.
All were asked three questions, which deal with their attitudes towards various groups in society and not just to Jews. But it's the Jews that the five groups are clearly most distrustful and prejudiced against.
65.8% of the five immigrant groups said that one "can't be careful enough in relation to Jews in Denmark." 75.2% don't want a family member to marry a Danish Jew. And 31.9% think that 'there are too many Jews in Denmark'.
"The study shows that the anti-Jewish attitudes are certainly not unique to extremist circles. The attitudes are far, far more widespread among the immigrants, then we usually think," says professor Peter Nannestad of the Institute for Political Science at Aarhus University, who made the study.
But ethnic Danes can't be said to be free of anti-Jewish attitudes. For example, 18.2% of them think that one 'can't be careful enough in relation to Jews in Denmark', and 14.7% don't want to see a family member marry a Danish Jew.
Peter Nannestad says that the figures aren't surprising, but are roughly in line with what is seen in other studies. He refers to an American study of antisemitism in Europe from 2006, which gave the same picture of Danish attitudes towards Jews.
Chief Rabbi Bent Lexner of the Mosaic Faith-society isn't surprised by the data. He says that it's probably Danish naivety which makes people think it isn't so. "Since the situation is so. It's not a coincidence that the government is working on an action plan on how to create better awareness of the Jewish community in Denmark in such groups."
The study shows, additionally, that anti-Jewish attitudes are strikingly more widespread among the immigrants who define themselves as Muslims than among Christian immigrants.
The spokesperson for theMuslim Joint Council, Zubair Butt Hussain, didn't want to comment on the study since he hasn't read it yet. But racism - regardless of whether it's in the form of antisemitism, racism against Danish Muslims or other groups - is completely and totally unacceptable, he says.
'Ambassadors' to fight against female genital mutilation were appointed by the deputy health minister Jet Bussemaker on Wednesday.
The ambassadors, who were appointed at an international conference to fight female genital mutilation in The Hague, are from African communities in the Netherlands.
They will pass on information on the dangers of female genital mutilation to parents who originally come from countries where the custom is practiced, such as Somalia, Ethiopia and Sudan.
In a TV interview on Tuesday, Bussemaker stressed that apart from causing terrible pain, female genital mutilation, also referred to as female circumcision or genital cutting, deprives women of their sexuality and carries grave lifelong health risks.
(..)
Bussemaker also used the conference as a platform to launch a scheme after a French model whereby parents from high-risk countries are invited to sign a contract in which they undertake not to subject their daughters to genital mutilation.
The scheme is aimed at helping parents resist pressure from relatives by showing them the signed contract. It states that female genital mutilation is illegal in the Netherlands, and the parents risk prosecution if they allow it to be performed on their daughters.
Dubai World’s surprise request for a freeze on debt payments provided the focus for world financial markets yesterday, hitting bank stocks and the price of oil, but lifting the dollar on a day when US and most Gulf markets were closed.
With the US on holiday for Thanksgiving, the region observing Eid al Adha, and trading on the London Stock Exchange temporarily closed for technical reasons, the environment was ripe for rumour and sensation as markets eschewed risk for gold and US dollars.
The day began with credit ratings agencies downgrading several government-related companies, such as DIFC Investments and Emaar, citing questions over Government support. Gold, a traditional refuge for investors in a storm, hit a record high of nearly US$1,200 before falling back.
Dubai then issued a statement to the market clarifying that DP World, the profitable ports division of Dubai World, would be spared from a restructuring that was announced along with the debt freeze request.
The announcement regarding DP World was welcomed by markets and within the company itself. “This makes perfect sense. We have very tradeable assets and a very attractive business,” a DP World executive said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Still, markets added a premium to the cost of borrowing for Gulf companies, and the price of insuring government debt against default also rose.
European stock markets had their biggest falls in three weeks, while the MSCI index of emerging stock markets declined by one per cent.
On Monday night Bill O’Reilly had a representative of the traitor class in his cross-hairs, an episode he re-visited Tuesday night.
The traitor class is easily defined as people who can’t identify a self-declared enemy of the United States even after he has killed 3,000 innocent people in an act of self-described holy war and is prepared to provide his talents and services gratis to help the enemy combatant attack this own country.
Scott Fenstermaker is an attorney for Covington Burling, a white shoe law firm which has provided millions of dollars in pro bono legal work to Gitmo terrorists.
A Covington partner is the brother of Weather terrorist Kathy Boudin, and the lawyer organizing the Gitmo pro bono defense team is family friend and political comrade Michael Ratner, head of the terrorist-supporting Center for Constitutional Rights, who has spent his life defending America’s enemies and serving anti-American causes.
If you can’t describe the 3000 innocent victims of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed as “murdered” and your first move is to describe your own government’s case as propaganda, and you are devising a case to “justify” the evil deed your client has committed and won’t say that you would be upset if your country were to lose the case, and also if you’re a Jew and don’t have any problem defending an Islamic Nazi who beheaded Daniel Pearl after forcing him to say “I’m a Jew, I’m a Jew” — there can be only one explanation.
You believe in the justification defense you are preparing, you think America and the Jews are guilty and deserve what they get, and you are a traitor.
And much worse — only words are inadequate to describe just how low on the human scale you have sunk.
Note: majority of users who have posting privileges on MASH blog are not MASH members.
Comments are slightly moderated. MASH does not necessarily endorse every opinion posted on this blog.
US President Barack Obama's revamped policy on Afghanistan will be a strategy for success in a bloody conflict characterised by worsening Taliban violence and a controversial presidential election result. 
Posts
