Let's go beyond the surface and examine the issues that will make a difference in eternity.  John 15:5  Jesus said:  I am the vine; you are the branches.  If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.  (NIV) No matter what good we do, or how good we do it, if isn't done in Jesus's name it will not count for anything in eternity.   Romans 3:10  There is no one righteous, not even one.  (NIV)  If you are not ignoring your conscience, the truth of the Word of God will hit your heart.

We think of our lives as being very important; but here is what God says in James 4:14  What is your life? you are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes.  (NIV)  John 17:3  Now this is eternal life, that they may know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ[Yeshua HaMashiach] whom you have sent.  (NIV)
Our lives pass so quickly, do you want to make the most foolish gamble and put  off thinking about eternity until it is too late?

We all know people who are liars, but who does the Bible say a liar is?  1John2:22
Who is the liar?  It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ [Mashiach]
Who is the only truth?  we will find this answer in the following verse in the Bible.
John 14:6  Jesus said:  I am the way and the truth and the life.  No one comes to the father except through me.

One day we will have to give an account for our lives.  Hebrews 4:13-14  Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight.  Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.  (NIV)

So many do not understand the mercy and love the Father has for us.  The fact that you are still breathing is a sign of his love for you.  Your very breath is in His control.  If He wasn't merciful and compassionate, you would have died long ago.  2nd Peter3:9
He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance[teshuvah] (NIV)

You may not understand God's ways, but that is why he is God, and you are not.  Isaiah55:8-9  For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord[HASHEM].   His grace has appeared to you, but you just don't know it.  Titus 2:11-14  For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.  It teaches us to say no to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ [Yeshua HaMashiach] who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good. (NIV)

We are called to be worshippers of God, but most of us do not live our lives this way.
We focus our time and energy on things that do not please the Father.  The Bible says in Romans 1:25  They exchanged the truth of God for a  lie, and worshiped and served created things , rather than the Creator---who is forever praised.  Amen.  (NIV)

We have a choice to receive Jesus [Yeshua] in his mercy now, or experience him in his wrath in the judgement to come.   Revelation 6:15-17  Then the kings of the earth. the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty and every slave and every free man hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains.  They called to the mountains and rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb!  For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?"  (NIV)  There will be no excuses in that day.  Romans 1:18-20  The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.  For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature---have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.  (NIV)

The biggest x-ray machine for our heart is what comes out of our mouths.  Matthew 15:18-19  But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.'  For out of the heart comes evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.  These are what make a man unclean.  (NIV)  Matthew 12:36  Jesus[Yeshua] said:  But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgement for every careless word they have spoken.  For by your words you will be acquitted and by your words you will be condemned.  (NIV) 

If you know you are not right with God, confess your sins with Godly sorrow and ask Jesus [Yeshua] to come into your heart and fill you with His Holy Spirit.  Attend a Church that believes that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.  Get baptized.  Read your Bible daily and follow the teachings of Jesus  Walk in His Love to all you come in contact with.

                                           Shalom in Jesus [Yeshua]

Wow! Another major flip flop by Johnny McTeleprompter! He knows not what he says because he knows not (and can't remember!) what he says.

Johnny & Joe Lieberman appeared on Meet the Press back in 2001 (around the time the anthrax attacks were happening) and gave a very intriguing interview. Here's what Johnny 'McCain' McTeleprompter said that day on Meet the Press about Afghanistan (emphasis mine):

RUSSERT: Would you have any problem expanding President Bush's orders to the CIA to go after Osama bin Laden to include Saddam Hussein?

LIEBERMAN: Well, I leave that to the president. But as a matter of principle and morality, of course not.

RUSSERT: Senator McCain?

MCCAIN: I think Joe's right.

And I would just like to add one additional point. I believe that we will succeed. We will endure in Afghanistan. We will take out bin Laden, and we will take out the Taliban. And then we've got a major challenge of a stable government, but...

RUSSERT: How long will that take?

MCCAIN: I think the longer we give the impression that we're there for, the shorter it'll be. Because, as you quoted from articles earlier, they think they can outlast us. I don't think they can this time.

RUSSERT: Do you believe the American people will continue to stay with that campaign?

MCCAIN: Absolutely, and I think the president is doing a great job in leading America and making us aware of the challenge we face.

But I think the real crunch is going to come after Afghanistan is settled and then we have to address the other countries, including Iraq. That's where the coalition may not be so strong. That's where people like the Saudis and the French and many others may have real reservations.

Seems to me ole Johnny McTeleprompter had a clear head back then. He realized Afghanistan had to be settled (kill Osama, stabilize Afghanistan) before even thinking of going after Saddam Hussein in Iraq. What happened? Oh that's right. Mr. Flip Flop signed on to illegally invading Iraq and all the reasons given to invade Iraq were lies coming out of the White House. Ole Johnny trusted the liars...and still does.

What else is so interesting about this interview is both McTeleprompter & Lieberman agree that the Saudis are the protecters of the Muslims and pose a threat to our country. Geeeeeee....ya think? What's going on right now? Who is benefiting from 9/11 along with the Bush Regime? Oh that's right....the Saudi royals are! We should have sent the CIA in there to take out the royals, but as we all know, George Bush, his family, and friends are all good buddies with the Saudi royals! Spit.

(We should have stayed focused on Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia as far as I'm concerned.)

McTeleprompter & Lieberman's discussion on the anthrax attacks was also interesting. I personally believe the weapons-grade anthrax that was sent out to DEMOCRATS & LIBERALS of America was sent from the military under George Bush. Yep, I believe our own government attacked our citizens to give the impression to the knuckleheads in America that the "terrorists" are attacking us because of the dems & libs of our country. Just a bunch of homegrown fear! Spit. Assholes. Anyways...

Here's Johnny & Joe kind of ducking around the issue of where the anthrax is coming from (again, emphasis mine):

Senator McCain, is our government leveling with us as to the potency and the origination of the anthrax that is sweeping our country?

MCCAIN: I know that Tom Ridge is one of the most honest men that I have ever known, and I believe that he's telling the truth as he knows it. He would never deceive the American people.

You're going to have a guest on here pretty soon that's going to be much more knowledgeable than I am. But there is one point here, and I don't know exactly what grade it is, but it is 100 percent treatable. Everyone agrees on that. It is 100 percent treatable. And I'm afraid that a lot of Americans are not really aware of that.

Recently, in Rio, I believe, an envelope was received, which gives me the idea that perhaps this is an international organization and not one within the United States of America.

RUSSERT: Shouldn't we be told exactly how serious this threat is and where it's coming from?

LIEBERMAN: Yes, absolutely, Tim. There was some confusion this week, and it wasn't just you who are being given confusing or inconsistent information. It was members of Congress.

I think there's just a multiplicity of voices here. And the most important thing that can happen quickly is that we centralize who's speaking, and I think it ought to be Tom Ridge. There have been too many voices. Tom Ridge has been appointed to head the Office of Homeland Security. As you know, I think he ought to be given more powers than the president has given him yet, so he can tell people exactly what to do and not have to argue with bureaucrats. But...

RUSSERT: Are you being told what kind of quality it is?

LIEBERMAN: I've gotten mixed reports, but I'll tell you what I've concluded. And this is consistent with every report I've been given. The stuff that is being sent out, most of it, including the stuff that went to Tom Daschle's office, is significantly refined anthrax. In other words, when we hear the stories that there is anthrax in labs all over this country, that's basically bacteria in a lab tube. Dr. Fauci can tell you more detail on that.

To take it from that, to make it into the stuff that's being sent in envelopes, that requires a real effort and, frankly, more than a couple of guys in somebody's kitchen stirring things up.

So it says to me that there's either a significant amount of money behind this, or this is state-sponsored, or this is stuff that was stolen from the former Soviet program.

And it's, you know, thank God, as John says, this is treatable. It takes a lot of it to be infected. And we've controlled it. But it should remind all of us that these opponents of ours are serious and they've got some stuff behind them.

RUSSERT: In fact, Senator McCain, Dick Cheney at the Al Smith Dinner in New York said there will be more attacks, and we should be aware that we will probably suffer more casualties here at home than our troops overseas.

Yep. Dick Cheney said there would be more attacks and Johnny & Joey didn't pick up on that! Cheney had his neocons in the military send out the anthrax. The truth was right there in front of Johnny & Joey and neither one of them got it. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by this because both of them are jackboot lickers to the Bush Regime now. They believe the liars while the rest of our country continues not to.

Why am I scared of Joe Lieberman & Johnny McTeleprompter? Is it because they're warmongering liars as George Bush & Dick Cheney are? Yep.

(hat tip to Clif for sending me the link to this 2001 interview) ;-)

Op-Ed Columnist - The Real-Life ‘24’ of Summer 2008 - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com
After 9/11, our government emphasized “interrogation over due process,” Ms. Mayer writes, “to pre-empt future attacks before they materialized.” But in reality torture may well be enabling future attacks. This is not just because Abu Ghraib snapshots have been used as recruitment tools by jihadists. No less destructive are the false confessions inevitably elicited from tortured detainees. The avalanche of misinformation since 9/11 has compromised prosecutions, allowed other culprits to escape and sent the American military on wild-goose chases. The coerced “confession” to the murder of the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to take one horrific example, may have been invented to protect the real murderer.

The biggest torture-fueled wild-goose chase, of course, is the war in Iraq. Exhibit A, revisited in “The Dark Side,” is Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an accused Qaeda commander whose torture was outsourced by the C.I.A. to Egypt. His fabricated tales of Saddam’s biological and chemical W.M.D. — and of nonexistent links between Iraq and Al Qaeda — were cited by President Bush in his fateful Oct. 7, 2002, Cincinnati speech ginning up the war and by Mr. Powell in his subsequent United Nations presentation on Iraqi weaponry. Two F.B.I. officials told Ms. Mayer that Mr. al-Libi later explained his lies by saying: “They were killing me. I had to tell them something.”

Oh my God, that makes me want to cry. Torture is unspeakably bad; that's established. It's just amazing exactly how counterproductive it's been for us, resulting in justice delayed, justice denied, terrorists running free, and the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocents.

Even when you put the paramount humanitarian concerns, of who we are as a nation (and if there's anything left to defend) aside, torture is a staggeringly unwise military move that prevents us from prosecuting crimes against humanity, silences victims, protects perpetrators, and leads us astray right when we are at our most vulnerable. Torture delivers bad intelligence, torture ruins our credibility, torture turns public sentiment (vital in a war like Iraq) against us, torture ferments lingering resentment that makes it difficult to secure victory, torture radicalizes the wavering, torture makes it harder for us to fight terrorism, and torture puts our own soldiers, and those of our allies, in terrible danger. With all that, torture is unquestionably atrocious and worthless as military strategy. Once you reintroduce the humanitarian concern, of our basic beliefs as American citizens, it becomes an unqualified abomination.

I look forward to the day when we can say once again, as Americans, we do not torture, none of us, anywhere, for any reason. For now, I remain wholly dissatisfied with our leadership as a country.

So now pointing out facts which dispel Mr. Dienhart's lies are considered "personal attacks" and "diatribes" and "lies" in and of themselves...

No wonder Sen. Obama's suggestion that we Americans ought to ignore these distractions and instead focus on actually solving the weighty matters before us has led him to a consistent and evermore substantial lead over Sen. McCain since the Democratic nomination process ended.

And little wonder too that Mr. Dienhart's own updates and comments have devolved into the very things he and his supporters claim of my fact-based presentations: diatribes full of personal attacks on my integrity and lies about both what I've written and what Sen. Obama has said.

This entire debate centers on what Mr. Dienhart falsely claims are "flips" in Sen. Obama's solutions for Iraq (as a sidenote, Mr. Dienhart is aided and abetted by a lazy press which is mistaking detailed plans as "flips" in their effort to create a news story where there is none as they hope to attract more 'eyeballs').

As I've repeatedly pointed out, but Mr. Dienhart and his comrades stubbornly refuse to acknowledge, there have been no Obama flips on Iraq when one examines the facts that are readily available to everyone (including Mr. Dienhart).

Perhaps Mr. Dienhart's exercise in futility is really just his attempt to ignore the fact that a majority of Americans believe we ought to take the training wheels off the Iraqis' bicycle and let that nation stand on its own. Perhaps he's trying to ignore the fact that even the Iraqi Prime Minister agrees with Sen. Obama in principle that there ought to be a timetable for strategic redeployment. Perhaps Mr. Dienhart is simply trying to promote Sen. John McCain's presidential bid by trying anything and everything (literally) to tear down Sen. Barack Obama.

Perhaps all of the above.

--

Fact 1

Mr. Dienhart began this week by claiming that Sen. Obama had flipped on his timing for pulling troops out of Iraq. His first post decried the fact that in January of 2008 (at a Democratic debate in Las Vegas) Sen. Obama said his plan for Iraq would bring troops home by 2009 from that point in time but that his recent op-ed column (which was presuming a January 2009 start date, ie, the presidential inauguration) would bring them home by 2010.

In response, I pointed out that Sen. Obama has been utterly and completely consistent about his 16 month Plan for Iraq. I wrote:

Obama’s Plan for Iraq is the same 16 month strategy he first proposed as binding legisl[a]tion in the Senate in January 2007.

• January 2007 (when it was first introduced) + Obama’s 16 Month Strategic Redeployment = March 2008
• January 2008 (when Obama again mentioned it in a Dem debate) + Obama’s 16 Month Strategic Redeployment = March 2009
• January 2009 (when the next president is sworn in) + Obama’s 16 Month Strategic Redeployment (should it be Obama who is elected) = March 2010

…In other words, the Obama Plan for Iraq is exactly the same. The only thing changing is the timing and the obstructionist Republicans — from the filibustering Senate GOP to the veto-ready Republican president — are the ones causing the delays in implementation.

I don't know how to make it more clear for Mr. Dienhart and his comrades such that they'll understand this. The Obama Plan for Iraq -- bringing 1 to 2 combat brigades home each month -- is, was and always has been a 16 month plan. I understand Mr. Dienhart may enjoy using fuzzy math, but really, 16 is 16.

--

Fact 2

Despite the fact his first post, "Flip!", centered around Mr. Dienhart's contrived issue of 2009 versus 2010 Mr. Dienhart then posted a new, even more whiney post decrying the fact I pointed out Sen. Obama's 16 month plan has been the same since he first introduced it in January 2007.

In that second post, Mr. Dienhart then claimed that what he clearly wrote as an afterthought (he even used the words, "Oh, and..." to discuss this point in his original essay) was instead the main point of his first essay, neverminding that the bulk of his first essay quoted and belabored Mr. Dienhart's problems understanding 2009 vs 2010.

That afterthought dealt with Sen. Obama saying he would leave behind residual forces and this was somehow also a "Flip!" on Sen. Obama's part.

I then pointed out that the Obama Plan for Iraq has been saying all along -- since he first introduced the concept in January of 2007 -- that he would leave training forces in Iraq to continue to train the Iraqis as they replace our redeployed combat brigades, among other, smaller numbers of GIs even after our combat troops had been either brought home or redeployed. (As another aside, even Sen. McCain now agrees with Sen. Obama that we ought to redeploy some of our stalwart guys and gals in uniform from Iraq to fight al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan, a theater our current commander-in-chief has clearly ignored for too long. This, unfortunately for McCain supporters such as Mr. Dienhart, reflects an actual flip-flop for Sen. McCain who originally lambasted the notion of sending more troops into Afghanistan.

--

Fact 3

And here's where Mr. Dienhart starts getting truly bizarre. Despite my using facts (facts still are facts in this day and age, right?) to burst Mr. Dienhart's balloons by illustrating how Sen. Obama's Plan for Iraq has been utterly and completely consistent since first introduced in 2007, he continued to belabor his assertion that Sen. Obama has somehow flipped those consistent positions by updating his second essay. He threw in a few attacks on my integrity for no reason other than apparently the ol' "good measure".

In that update he quotes my clear and concise points about the 16 month plan being the same 16 month plan whether it begins in January 2007, January 2008 or January 2009 (see my own quoted bullet points above) and then compares that apple to his orange with a talking point directly from the Republican National Committee on Sen. Obama discussing troop withdrawals. To be clear, Mr. Dienhart quotes me discussing dates and then falsely claims I wasn't discussing redeployment (when, in fact, I had also discussed strategic redeployment in that same post).

While it would be more logical on Mr. Dienhart's part if he would stick to one issue (either his difficulty understanding calendars or his problem reading Obama's solution for Iraq) when trying to make his hollow points, since both his points are equally invalid (as I've demonstrated ad inifinitum) it's not difficult to debunk either one even if he hops around.

--

In Conclusion

It seems Mr. Dienhart's entire problem really boils down to Sen. Obama using shorter quotes during debates, speeches and interviews instead of reading off his entire Iraq War strategic redeployment solution every single time the point comes up.

As I noted in an earlier post, even if Sen. Obama really did bore everybody by reading every single line of every single policy proposal every single time such a discussion comes up just to placate the nattering nabobs like Mr. Dienhart partisans like Mr. Dienhart would then start to complain that he's boring and over-analytical and pretentious and elitist and on and on.

This is the classic partisan Catch-22 gambit. In Mr. Dienhart's eyes, and because of his clear dislike for Sen. Obama's values and principles, there is nothing Sen. Obama can do on this front that would please him.

So be it.

It would be more honest of Mr. Dienhart if he got to the meat of the issue -- Sen. McCain's plan for Iraq versus Sen. Obama's solution for the Iraq War

Now, Sen. McCain's plan calls for an infinite, ill-defined deployment to continue to act as an Iraqi national police force based on numbers of US troops that simply don't exist to be followed by permanent bases which would only serve to attract an unending supply of terrorists as we saw in Saudi Arabia when we did the same thing after the Gulf War.

That is a clear contrast to Sen. Obama's solution for the Iraq War which includes strategic redeployment of combat troops in order to engage the Iraqis toward standing up on their own with a much smaller remaining, but not permanent, training force.

Instead, for some reason, he chooses to try floating lead balloons about 2009 versus 2010 and false claims that Sen. Obama is "flipping" about combat versus training regiments when in reality Sen. Obama has very clearly and very publicly been consistent since he first introduced his overall strategy in 2007.

If his problem is with Sen. Obama's actual plan Mr. Dienhart should simply say so instead of making up things about non-existent "flips"...

Then we can talk about real issues instead of these needless distractions.

I have no doubt Mr. Dienhart is an honorable man. He served our nation faithfully and bravely as a Marin.

We may not agree on solutions to these very real issues, but at least he may come to realize our goals are the same even if our approaches differ: the security of our great nation; the safety of our amazing military men and women; training the Iraqi security forces so that bruised but bright nation can stand on its own; and destroying the real culprits behind 9/11 and our real enemies in the war against al Qaida and the Taliban 1400 miles away in Afghanistan.

Til then, at least he has admitted in the past his posts at Illinois Review are jokes...

Update: Mr. Dienhart issues a challenge to his fellow cons and readers "need to keep holding people like Rob Nesvacil accountable. Not just here at IR, but also at the polls."

Likewise, friend, likewise. That's the beauty of America -- partisans such as Mr. Dienhart can take things out of context and ignore facts and folks such as myself can point it out.

And that is a pretty funny screen grab. ;)

Update 2: Fellow Ill Review contributor Matt Gauntt chimes in on Mr. Dienhart's challenge by quoting Buzz Lightyear to tell me "You are a strange, sad little man!"

Disney/Pixar fans will note that this quote is from a scene in Toy Story when Buzz is still wrapped up in his alternate reality thinking he's real and not a toy...

Since this entire debate was initiated because Mr. Dienhart refuses to acknowledge the reality that Sen. Obama's Iraq plan has been the same since January 2007 the quote is more appropriate than Mr. Gauntt may realize. Of course, unlike Woody, I haven't called anyone a "loony" -- though Gauntt's and Dienhart's fellow Ill Reviewers have thrown that epithet my way more than once. All in good fun, I'm sure.

Update 3: Minor point, and it could just be an Internet glitch, but it seems that the folks who claim to be open to debate have now taken to blocking even basic trackbacks to their posts. (Trackbacks are simple links between blogs. If they are blocked or deleted, readers at one blog won't necessarily know another blog is discussing the post.)

Note to Mr. Dienhart: it seems you like to extrapolate simple observations into "complaints". This is really just an observation and, as I said, a minor one at that since it could just be a snafu on Ill Review's server.

Must just be a glitch in those Internet tubes... The trackback seems to be trickling in.

• De sources fiables, Echorouk a appris que Houari Abderrahmane et Mustapha Hamelil sont arrivés en Algérie le 2 juillet dernier après avoir été libérés le 30 juin.Mustapha est arrivé à son domicile familial hier après-midi à bord d’une ambulance puisque son état de santé est critique selon les  affirmations des membres de sa famille. Notre source indique que Mustapha Hamelil est âgé de 49 ans et qu’ilavait rejoint le Pakistan en 1986 dans une mission d’études d’après sa sœur. Les américains l’avaient arrêté en 2002 sous prétexte de son appartenance à l’organisation d’Al Qaida et l’ont incarcéré à la prison de Guantanamo. Depuis, on n’avait plus eu de ses nouvelles jusqu’au début du mois de juillet lorsque la Croix Rouge Internationale a pris attache avec sa famille la prévenant que le Pentagone avait libéré  Mustapha Hamelil. Houari Abderrahmane, lui, a 28 ans. Il avait également rejoint le Pakistan en 2002 avant d’être emprisonné à Guantanamo avec comme motif son appartenance aux membres des Talibans relevant d’Al Qaida.
• Source: echoroukonline

Les Dagsavisens utenriksredaktør Erik Sagflaat glimrende artikkel av 17.07 2008.

Filmopptaket fra avhøret på Guantánamo går nå verden rundt, og fyrer ytterligere opp under avskyen for det rettsløse samfunn president George W. Bush og hans folk har skapt i fangeleiren på Guantánamo. Forut for avhøret skal den da 16-år gamle Omar Khadr ha blitt myket opp ved å bli nektet søvn. Han sier også at han ble torturert ved den amerikanske flybasen Bagram utenfor Kabul. Khadr var 15 år da han ble arrestert. Nå er han 21, og sitter fortsatt på Guantánamo.

Omar Khadr er tiltalt for å ha deltatt i kamp mot de amerikanske invasjonsstyrkene i Afghanistan i 2001. Angivelig skal han også ha kastet en granat som drepte en amerikansk soldat. Men er dette terror? Det stiller vel snarere i klasse med de angrep som norsk motstandsbevegelse i sin tid rettet mot tyske okkupanter.

Samtidig forber edes nå det første militærtribunalet ved Guantánamo. Første tiltalte er Osama bin Ladens angivelige sjåfør, Salmi Ahmed Hamdan. Også han har vært utsatt for de såkalte «forsterkede avhørsmetodene». Blant annet ble han nektet normal søvn gjennom hele 50 døgn. Nå krever hans forsvarer, kommandørløytnant Brian Mizere, at hele saken må avvises fordi tilståelsene har framkommet under tvang. «Dette er omtrent så fjernt fra en rettferdig prosess som du kan komme», sier Michael Berrigan, som er nestleder for den militære forsvarergruppen.

Det står respekt av innsatsen til de militære forsvarerne. Det møtte ikke mye tillit da det ble kjent at forsvarerne ved de planlagte tribunalene på Guantánamo skulle være militære og oppnevnes av Pentagon. Men forsvarerne har tatt sin oppgave meget alvorlig, noe som slett ikke har vært populært hos deres arbeidsgiver. Forsvarerne er fast bestemt på å gi sine klienter det best mulige forsvar. Det gir håp for USA som rettsstat, når bare den gjengen som de siste snart åtte år har satt seg selv over både lov og grunnlov, er ute.

President George W. Bush nedla så sent som i mars i år veto mot en lov som forbyr all bruk av tortur. Bush hevder at en slik lov vil sette amerikanske liv i fare. Det forholder seg stikk motsatt. Ved bruk av tortur får man ikke sannheten, men de svar ofrene tror torturistene vil høre. Det åpner for feiltolkninger og gale beslutninger, som virkelig setter amerikanske liv i fare. Verste eksempel på det, er krigen i Irak, som til nå har kostet mer enn 4.100 amerikanske soldater livet.

Forut for invasjonen i Irak kom det et skred av desinformasjon fra torturofre. Sterkeste eksempel er den angivelige Al-Qaida-lederen Ibn al-Shaykh al Libi, som ble arrestert og fraktet til Egypt for avhør med egyptiske torturister. Han fabrikkerte påstander om biologiske og kjemiske masseødeleggelsesvåpen i Irak. Han hevdet også at det var nær forbindelse mellom Irak og Al-Qaida.

Opplysningene ble brukt for alt de var verdt i den krigshissende talen Bush holdt i Cincinnati i oktober 2002. De var også et viktig grunnlag for de påståtte «bevisene» daværende utenriksminister Colin Powell la fram i FN i februar 2003, og som siden har kostet ham hans gode navn og rykte. «De holdt på å drepe meg, noe måtte jeg si», sa al-Libi da han senere fortalte om avhørene han var blitt utsatt for.

Sentrale personer i Bush-administrasjonen utformet politikken som åpnet for bruk av tortur. For det er tortur, selv om det kalles «forsterkede avhørsmetoder». Visepresident Dick Cheneys stabssjef David Addington, forsvarsdepartementets Douglas Feith, justisdepartementets Alberto Gonzales og John Yoo var sentrale. Sistnevnte utformet et memorandum der han hevdet at det ikke var tortur såfremt offeret ikke døde eller ble påført varig skade. Alle var enige om at den utøvende makt, i siste instans presidenten, måtte ha helt frie hender som landets øverstkommanderende i krig.

Simulert drukning, ekstrem varme og ekstrem kulde, uutholdelig støy, lenking i smertefulle stillinger og fravær av søvn er blant metodene som kan brukes for å tvinge fram tilståelser. Hvis da ikke ofrene skysses av CIA til enda mer lovløst land for enda mer «forsterkede» avhør.

Tortur har ikke gjort USA tryggere. Tvert om har steder som Guantánamo og Abu Ghraib vært regelrette gavepakker til al-Qaidas og Talibans rekrutteringsoffiserer. Tortur har undergravd respekten for vestlige demokratier og har knust USAs troverdighet når det gjelder å stå opp for menneskerettighetene andre steder i verden. Tortur er rett og slett en umulighet for et land som ønsker å kalle seg sivilisert.

Does Mr. Dienhart not know how to read the entire proposal Sen. Obama originally put forth in January of 2007? Does he not understand that taking only a few bullet points out of my own posts (post 1 and post 2)  debunking his junk while ignoring the conclusions thereof doesn't make his fibs any more true than before?

Sadly for his readers, this appears to be the case.

Perhaps Mr. Dienhart will bother to actually link to these posts and quotes of which he whines instead of cherry-picking a few lines from them as he fabricates his misinformation.

Only then would his readers be able to judge for themselves who is referring to fact-based info -- such as the actual contents of Obama's plan from 2007 which included references to the residual forces Mr. Dienhart now lies about being a "flip" -- and who is, quite frankly, acting like an irritable troll by clipping quotes in convenient places.

Then again, in his partisan fog, perhaps Mr. Dienhart really thinks that Obama is somehow flipping his consistent positions simply because he's not repeating every single line item of every single policy proposal every single time he mentions said proposals during 30 second debate points and soundbyte interviews... (Of course if he did do that then partisan Obama-haters would start complaining that Obama is overanalytical and elitist... Oh, wait, they're saying that too. Hard to believe, I know.)

That said, the hypocritical Mr. Dienhart may want to discontinue crying about "partisan talking points". Everything I've linked to was pre-existing information which I simply (and all too easily) referred to shine the light of truth on Mr. Dienhart's lies.

On the other hand, several points Mr. Dienhart makes come straight from GOP talking points. Here's but one example... Mr. Dienhart quotes something from what he calls a "Democrat" National Committee meeting (not sure what that is since the actual meeting on that day was the Democratic National Committee).

So right off the bat we know he's using a unique misspelling. A quick Google search including that typo reveals that Mr. Dienhart pulled "his" talking point from an equally half-witted July 5th Republican talking point memo PDF hosted at GOP.com. GOP.com is, of course, the website of the Republican National Committee (or is it the "Republic" National Committee?).

Readers should know Mr. Deinhart is so enamored with me he once called my office just to check on my whereabouts. I suppose he probably made the trip from beautiful Bull Valley one day and knows all about my ugly green kitchen countertops (a la conservative stalker extraordinaire Michelle Malkin) and he probably even looked up my DMV records and knows all about that junky old green Mazda Protege I got rid of years ago (my first new car, ah memories).

--

First, the Dienhart parsing...

Here's what he originally wrote:

[...] The latest flip was on the war. It seems that Obama will not pull the troops out . Liberals can now collectively whine about how this isn’t a flip. All done now? Here is the quote from Sen. Obama.

“I have put forward a plan that will get our troops out by the end of 2009. We already saw today reports that the Iraqi minister suggests that we're going to be in there at least until 2018, a decade-long commitment. Currently, we are spending $9 to $10 billion a month. The notion is that we are going to sustain that at the same time as we're neglecting what we see happening in Afghanistan right now, where you have a luxury hotel in Kabul blown up by militants and the situation continues to worsen.”

Notice that first sentence? “I have put forward a plan that will get our troops out by the end of 2009.” What did Sen. Obama say in his recent Op/Ed piece in the New York Times? “'We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 - two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces.”

I’ll leave the bizarre, yet historically correct reference to Mesopotamia alone for the moment. Let’s call this what it is- a flip. Oh, and lets just be honest about what he is proposing- the same “residual force” that John McCain was crucified on earlier in the campaign. [...]

(emphasis added for clarity)

Now, my post called Dienhart out on the "Notice that first sentence" bit... not the "Oh, and" bit which took up a much smaller portion of his post.

Again, there is no "flip" here.

Obama's Plan for Iraq is the same 16 month strategy he first proposed as binding legisltion in the Senate in January 2007.

• January 2007 (when it was first introduced) + Obama's 16 Month Strategic Redeployment = March 2008
• January 2008 (when Obama again mentioned it in a Dem debate) + Obama's 16 Month Strategic Redeployment = March 2009
• January 2009 (when the next president is sworn in) + Obama's 16 Month Strategic Redeployment (should it be Obama who is elected) = March 2010

...In other words, the Obama Plan for Iraq is exactly the same. The only thing changing is the timing and the obstructionist Republicans -- from the filibustering Senate GOP to the veto-ready Republican president -- are the ones causing the delays in implementation.

Heck, even the Iraqi leadership is now essentially agreeing with Obama on the concept of a strategic timetable.

But, Dienhart's second post goes on and on about how he wasn't really talking about the timing (despite what he wrote about 2009 vs 2010). No, instead he now says he was really emphasizing the last few sentences so ignore all the other stuff. To wit, he now writes:

"Ahh, that’s not what the piece was addressed. Quite clearly, I stated that the flip occurred when Obama went from advocating a total pullout from Iraq to leaving behind sixty thousand troops as a “reaction force”."

As I demonstrated above, Mr. Dienhart wrote about the 2009 vs 2010 timing for the majority of that first diatribe and didn't really get into discussing the point about residual forces until after he says "Oh, and..."

Bizarre, but it leads to...

--

Second, the Dienhart baloney...

Mr. Dienhart originally wrote, "It seems that Obama will not pull the troops out" and "Oh, and lets just be honest about what he is proposing- the same “residual force” that John McCain was crucified on earlier in the campaign." (Again, emphasis added.)

This too is not a flip, despite Mr. Dienhart's deepest partisan wishes.

You see, from the get-go Sen. Obama has said the same thing about having a limited number of troops in country after the strategic redeployment of the combat brigades. Surely Mr. Dienhart, as a military man himself, knows the difference in forces. Obama has never said he would pull out every single GI (our embassies are guarded by Marines after all, would Mr. Dienhart complain about that too?) but that we do need to focus on redeploying the bulk of our battle forces, a point on which the majority of Americans agree with him.

Recall that Sen. Obama first introduced his plan to the Senate in January of 2007. From his Senate website, dated January 30, 2007:

"The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism, and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. If the Iraqis are successful in meeting the thirteen benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have been met and that the suspension is in the national security interest of the United States."

In other words, there is no "flip" and Dienhart flops again.

Perhaps it is Mr. Dienhart who needs that reading lesson. Or, perhaps he'd like that thinking lesson instead since both his first and second post merely mimic the bogus and hollow yelps of "Flip!" from other partisan conservatives.

--

And some miscellany...

By the by, Dienhart complains that the trackback on the original posts appeared twice. Horrors.

I hadn't realized the trackback popped up twice on the original Dienhart screed. I'm not sure why that would've happened other than I was thinking about posting an update about other cons writing about non-flips so I stopped in on that post's edit feature later in the day (I ended up not doing the update). I suppose those darn Internets may have taken that as a double-post.

If I could fix the quirk to soothe Mr. Dienhart's poor feelings I would but really it's nothing he should worry his pretty little head about though.

As for why I write about Illinois Review contributors... they keep posting malarkey and rational folks like me will keep debunking it. If the Reviewers don't like that, it's well within their means to stop writing their spurious essays and start writing honestly. (It's funny how the non-Ill Review peeps I debunk have the same complaints, as if I'm hurting their egos instead of pointing out facts. Go figure.)

I get that Mr. Dienhart apparently loathes what Sen. Obama has proposed and all the values for which he stands. But does he really need to continue to make up such claptrap? Apparently doing so, just like calling random people just to check in on them, fulfills some sort of desire for him.

To each their own.

PS: Mr. Dienhart may consider the 63% of Americans who say the Iraq War was not worth it as "anti-war" (ABC News Poll, 7/10-13, 2008). But, really, most of us rational Americans are simply anti-lying our way into war and, more importantly, anti-bungled war. Same goes for Democrats or Republicans who worm their way into needless wars -- they both tend to get clobbered at the ballot box.

[dailymotion id=x653g4]

«Tuez-moi, tuez-moi» : c'est par cette complainte que l'extrait de la première vidéo d'un interrogatoire «secret» effectué à Guantanamo s'achève. Mardi, les avocats d'un jeune détenu canadien de Guantanamo, Omar Khadr le seul ressortissant d'un pays occidental encore détenu sur la base américaine ont rendu public ce document inédit de plus de sept heures, tourné à Guantanamo à l'insu du jeune homme.

Cet interrogatoire diffusé depuis par bribes par les télévisions a été enregistré en février 2003, alors qu'Omar Khadr n'avait encore que 16 ans. Arrêté à l'été 2002 en Afghanistan pour le meurtre présumé d'un soldat américain, il recevait alors pendant quatre jours des agents des services canadiens du renseignement, qu'il croyait venus l'aider pour retourner à la maison.

Cependant, comme en témoigne la vidéo, leur visite tourne à l'interrogatoire en règle. Le film ne montre pas d'abus physiques. Mais il témoigne de l'état de détresse de cet adolescent qui espérait rentrer chez lui, et non être interrogé sur sa connaissance d'al-Qaida et sur sa foi.

]]> http://nunoftheabove.wordpress.com/?p=538 Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:02:50 +0000 nunoftheabove http://nunoftheabove.wordpress.com/?p=538 The during the war against the Russian army in Afghanistan, the young militants that were the backbone of the Taliban fought successfully resulting in the much larger, better armed force to finally withdraw in defeat.  In the years that have followed, the Jihadist cause has been globalized, and the leaders have grown into middle age.  Have those who fought so fiercely in the face of insurmountable odds began to question their own cause and the leaders that spread the dogma of Islamic hate?

Der Spiegel examines this question beginning its focus with one such Islamic fighter, Noman Benotman a 41 year-old Libyan, in

Turning their Backs on Jihad

Benotman has just returned [to London] from Libya, where he is working on behalf of the Gadhafi regime, the same regime he hoped to oust only a decade ago. He has been assigned a very delicate task. His job is to convince imprisoned members of his former terrorist group to sign a peace treaty of sorts. He has traveled to Libya 25 times in the last 16 months, and his efforts are paying off. Now, he says, the document that will allow his former comrades to be reintegrated into society is as good as written -- and on the verge of being signed.

Under the agreement the terrorists, most of them in prison for many years, will renounce violence and the murder of civilians. It will also include a denial of recent al-Qaida claims that the LIFG has joined forces with the international terrorist organization. This is untrue, says Benotman, explaining that the Libyans distanced themselves from al-Qaida long ago. His new mission is anything but secretive. Arab television broadcaster Al-Jazeera recently reported on his trips to Libya -- a story about a former jihadist's attempt to bring about peace, after all, is nothing short of spectacular.

An Islamic fundamentalist working to integrate terrorists into the government they once vowed to topple is a stunning turn around but not limited specifically to Libya or Benotman.

In late May, India's influential Deoband religious movement issued a fatwa against terrorism. In a joint proclamation at a meeting in New Delhi attended by representatives of the country's leading Islamic organizations, the groups stated: "It is the goal and purpose of Islam to extinguish all forms of terrorism and to disseminate the message of global peace. Those who use the Koran and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad to justify terror are merely upholding a lie."

Former militants who have renounced jihad often begin to proselytize among their former comrades-in-arms. In late April, a handful of former members of the militant Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, which was founded in Jordan in 1953 and eventually spread to about 40 countries, established a foundation to combat fundamentalism among Muslims in Europe.

Like Benotman, Maajid Nawaz, 31, has left the radical faction of Islam to form the Quilliam Foundation.  Choosing western clothing over tradition Muslim attire, Nawaz speaks frankly about his reason for rejecting the cause which caused him to spend 5 years in an Egyptian prison.

"I turned away from Islamism," he said, "because I recognized it as the curse of Islam."

In the ten years after bin Laden and his second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri  founded the "International Islamic Front for Jihad against Jews and Crusaders," and seven years after the attacks of Sept. 11, terrorism experts are beginning to see divisiveness within the ranks.  The first major defector was Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, an Egyptian doctor, and who competed with Zawahiri for bin Laden's favor. Sharif is better known under his nom de guerre, Dr. Fadl and is also known as the "al-Qaida's chief ideologue,"

He wrote that jihadism is reprehensible and that it violates the precepts of Islam and Shariah law. Killing people solely on the basis of their nationality is not in keeping with the Koran, he wrote, especially since the victims of such acts are often "innocent Muslims and non-Muslims." "Fight, on God's behalf, against those who fight you, but do not exceed the limits," the converted Dr. Fadl wrote.

The defection of Fadl set the course for others to follow.

Paul Cruickshank of New York University and terrorism expert Peter Bergen spent six months investigating the turmoil within al-Qaida. The two were the first to interview Noman Benotman, and they also spoke with other critics of the terror organization -- including Sheikh Salman al-Oudah.

Cruickshank believes that the Iraq War actually caused the fractures of Al-Qaida to be delayed because the presence of American soldiers on Islamic soil was a solidifying factor in the continuation of the hostilities against the West.  But the movement away from the radicalization of Islam continues to be seen.

This shift in the general mood that experts like Bergen believe is happening in Europe is clearly in evidence at London's Al-Tawhid Mosque. Two of the presumed attackers who planned, and failed, to commit attacks in London and Glasgow in late June 2007 were frequent visitors to the mosque. "But now people have had enough of Islam constantly being equated with terrorism," says Usama Hasan, the mosque's 36-year-old imam.

These days Hasan wears a suit when leading Friday prayers. "I am a Muslim living in the West, and I want everyone to see it." Hasan, himself a former fighter in Afghanistan and member of a fundamentalist group, now preaches the renunciation of violence and condemns terrorism.

Perhaps the greatest enemy of Al-Qaida is not the military of the west, but that force that shapes the souls of many men:  time and experience.

In his too-cute-by-half post "Flip!" George Dienhart squeals that Sen. Obama has somehow "flipped" on strategic withdrawal from Iraq. The problem for George is that he pulls a quote from January 2008 and removes all context of time from it.

Why does the timing matter? Because Sen. Obama said at the January 15, 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas: “I have put forward a plan that will get our troops out by the end of 2009." (The full quote, which to his credit George picked up directly, is half-way through this debate transcript.)

The Obama Plan on Iraq is based on redeploying one to two brigades out of Iraq every month, which would take about 16 months to get the bulk of our forces out...

Makes sense: 16 months from January 2008 would be in 2009.

George now whines that Obama has flipped because he is -- get this -- still saying his plan would take about 16 months.

Where's the flip?

George has to make it up by gurgling that Obama is now stating the redeployment wouldn't be complete until 2010. That year, 2010, is of course 16 months after Obama would be sworn into the Presidency if he is elected. In fact, his actual plan was introduced to the Senate in early 2007 -- with 16 months actually falling in March of 2008 at that point -- and was unfortunately DOA given the obstructionist Senate Republicans' 24/7 filibustering. I wonder why George didn't get the brilliant idea to make up baloney about that date.

Sen. Obama's 16 month strategy is still a 16 month strategy -- the Republicans' obstinance keeps pushing the actual implementation date further away.

Why is the Obama Plan on Iraq important and just what is so "strategic" about it? Just read the news reports about Afghanistan and what Obama has to say about concentrating on the real war on terror (in Afghanistan against the Taliban) and focusing on the real culprits behind 9/11 (Osama bin Forgotten and al Qaida).

Now consider that George's cherry-picked essay is designed to denigrate Obama's common sense foreign policy and, more importantly, military policy while also essentially promoting John McCain's presidential ambitions and his desire to stay in Iraq for 100 years or more. (And yes, McCain did say he'd like our troops to stay for 50... 100... 1,000... even a million years after peace has broken out -- as if the Taliban and al Qaida did not exist and we had endless numbers of GIs.)

Is this sort of cherry-picked partisan proselytizing what John McCain's economic adviser (and architect of the current mortgage crisis with his Gramm Act) Phil Gramm had in mind when he complained Americans are whiners? Did he mean to reference criers like George who have to cherry-pick facts and ignore context in order to promote their alternate realities?

Sadly for George his post "Flip!" is nothing but a flop.

Ein umstrittener iranischer Raketentest sorgte für zusätzliches Aufsehen, als man entdeckte, dass ein von Sepah News stammendes und von AFP verbreitetes Foto manipuliert worden war:

Um Sepah News ein wenig genauer unter die Lupe zu nehmen hat BackSpin-Redakteur Pesach Benson mit Meir Javedanfur (Abbildung) gesprochen, einem Analytiker des Nahen und Mittleren Ostens. Javedanfur ist auch Direktor von Meepas.com (Middle East Economic and Political Analysis).

Was (Wer) ist Sepah News?

Es ist ein Arm der Revolutionsgarden. Eine von vielen Nachrichtenagenturen im Iran, die über Standpunkte und Aktivitäten der Revolutionsgarden berichtet. Ihr Publikum ist die iranische Öffentlichkeit, aktive und ehemalige Mitglieder der Garden und ausländische Leser weltweit.

Wie sieht die Beziehung zum iranischen Regime aus?

Zunächst einmal ist es das Medienunternehmen, ein sehr wichtiger Bestandteil der islamischen Regierung in Teheran. Sie will damit der Welt die Denkweisen und Aktivitäten der Revolutionsgarden näher bringen. Den Garden dient es dazu, in den Medien die Muskeln spielen zu lassen. Viele Menschen im Iran denken, dass die Sichtweise der Garden in den iranischen und ausländischen Medien unterrepräsentiert ist. Nicht alle iranischen Medien sind vorwiegend an Themen interessiert, die sich um die Revolutionsgarden drehen.

Kann Sepah als legitimer Nachrichtenservice betrachtet werden?

Ja. Es ist eine Quelle im Iran. Wenn Sie alles über die Revolutionsgarden wissen wollen ist Sepah News die richtige Webseite. Wenn Sie Allgemeines über den Iran erfahren wollen gibt es weit bessere Seiten.

Warum könnte Sepah News das Foto manipuliert haben?

Vielleicht um den Fehlstart zu vertuschen und das Leistungsvermögen des Iran überhöht darzustellen. Sie haben Angst vor einem möglichen Angriff des Westens und wollen nicht, dass der Westen seine militärische Power dazu nutzt, sie zu zwingen, westliche Bedingungen bezüglich das Nuklearprogramms zu akzeptieren.

Gibt es bei Sepah eine Tradition der Nachrichtenmanipulation oder kann diese retuschierte Abbildung des Raketentests als isolierter Vorgang bewertet werden?

Ich wüsste nicht, dass Sepah dies schon einmal versucht hat.

Wie sind die Beziehungen zwischen Sepah und westlichen Nachrichtenmedien?

Sepah hofft, dass so viel wie möglich Farsi sprechende Menschen im Westen ihren Inhalt lesen. Mehr kann man dazu nicht sagen. Sie hat keine wirkliche Beziehung zu westlichen Medien. AFP hatte geglaubt, die Bilder stammten von einer legitimen Quelle. Die ausländische Presse wurde beim Raketentest nicht eingeladen. Und wenn man Fotos will, dann ist Sepah die Adresse, an die man sich wenden muss. Als sie [AFP] erkannt hatten, dass das Foto manipuliert worden war, haben sie es wieder zurückgenommen.

Inwiefern unterscheidet sich die Beziehung von Sepah zu den Revolutionsgarden von denen der Hisbollah zu Al-Manar oder Al-Qaida zu As-Sahab?

Da gibt es kaum einen Unterschied. Sie ist der Medienarm der Revolutionsgarden. Wobei Al-Manar finanziell wohl stärker unterstützt wird. Sie haben ihren eigenen Fernsehsender, Sepah nicht.

Das amerikanische Außenministerium hat die Revolutionsgarden bereits als Terrororganisation eingestuft. Sollte man mit Sepah ebenso verfahren?

Nein. Sie versprüht keinen Hass. Sie berichtet im Grunde nur darüber, an was die Garden glauben. Eher armselig, wenn man die Analyse iranischer Nachrichten heranzieht. Sicher zielt sie auch auf die westlichen Nachrichtenagenturen als Publikum ab. Ich denke, dass die Revolutionsgarden Sepah einsetzen, um Stärke und Ideologie zu demonstrieren, darüber hinaus vielleicht noch aus Gründen der psychologischen Kriegsführung.

ShareThis

Ska bara kolla om FRA gör sitt jobb....

Après douze années un haut fonctionnaire occidental dévoile la vérité : « Un hélicoptère de l'armée algérienne mitrailla le bivouac où ils étaient retenus»

«Les sept moines Français sequestrés dans la nuit entre le 26 et le 27 mars 1996 a Tibhirine par un groupe islamique infiltré par la sécurité militaire (ndt DRS), furent tués depuis un hélicoptère de l'armée algérienne. L'engin aérien survolait la zone des reliefs montagneux de l'Altlas Tellien autour de Médéa en compagnie d'un autre hélicoptère. C'était la mi mai, après le crépuscule. L'équipage avait repéré le feu d'un campement et le chef d'escadrille en personne, un colonel, avait tiré sur le bivouac. Depuis quelques temps déjà, les forces régulières ne s'aventuraient plus sur le terrain dans cette zone impraticable, faiblement peuplée et controlée par les intégristes : elles se limitaient à faire des reconnaissances aériennes et à combattre avec l'aviation. Après l'attaque, les engins aériens atterrirent près du bivouac. Les hommes à bord comprirent vite qu'ils avaient frappée la cible erronée. Le chef d'escadrille appela le commandement de la base d'hélicoptères détaché à Blida et dit clairement : "Nous avons commis une idiotie, nous avons tués les moines". Ce fût ainsi que se conclut le sequestre».

La personnalité qui racconte cet événement parle pendant trois heures, durant deux rencontres séparées et sans la médiation d'aucun interprète. Elle se trouve provisoirement en Finlande. C'est un haut fonctionnaire d'un gouvernement occidental qui durant ces années là travaillait à Alger, avait des relations personnelles avec des personnages locaux très importants, et qui n'avait pas de contacts avec le monde opaque des services. Elle tient à le souligner avec une fermeté éduquée. C'est une personne qui peut sans ambiguité, écrire clairement sa profession sur sa carte de visite. «Je connais certe les intrigues profondes entre la nomenklature d'Alger, entre les clans, les hauts officiers, les fonctionnaires de la toute puissante compagnie pétrolifère Sonatrach et les pays étrangers intéressés aux ressources énergétiques de cette ex-colonie (ndt française). Intéressés par conséquent à sa stabilité interne. Mais je crois que la politique ne peut descendre en deçà d'un niveau minimum de moralité. Je suis personellement obligé de respecter le secret d'Etat que chaque gouvernement impose à ses fonctionnaires. Mais de cette manière le mensonge d'Etat se perpétue, avec lequel il n'est pas facile de coexister, surtout quand il se prolonge dans le temps. Il y a quelques années, la famille du Père Lebreton, une des victimes, avait déposé une plainte afin que soit instruite une enquête en France. Je croyais sincèremement que pour elles et les autres victimes allait finalement arriver une reconstruction claire et autentique des faits. Au lieu de cela, rien n'a changé».

Cela fait douze années que la mort de ces religieux reste enveloppée dans la réticence des institutions et dans l'indolence de la justice. C'est en décembre 2002 que Abdelkader Tigha, un jeune sous-officier du Centre de Recherche et d'information de Blida (1) qui avait déjà abandonné le DRS (2) et qui s'était réfugié à l'étranger, déclara publiquement que les moines avaient été conduits la nuit même du sequestre dans sa caserne avec deux véhicules militaires. Dans l'opération les islamistes les terroristes, représentaient seulement la main d'oeuvre. Les vrais stratèges étaient des militaires «deviés». Ce fût le premier démenti précis et partiel du mensonge d'Etat. Mais sur la conclusion tragique de l'événement le mur de gomme a résisté jusqu'à aujourd'hui.

«L'hélicoptère était un MI 24, un engin aérien de fabrication soviétique, doté comme on le sait d'armements utilisés avec une grande fréquence durant la guerra en Afghanistan. C'était une machine de guerre blindée très différente des hélicoptères légers que les Français avaient vendus aux algériens et qui était dotés de rayons infrarouges et d'autres systèmes électroniques de reconnaissance. Les corps des moines étaient criblés de balles. C'est pour cela, qu'au moment des funérailles il n'y avait que les têtes qui furent déposées dans les cercueils. Les autorités algériennes quant à elles s'empressèrent de parler de "dépouilles découvertes". Et elles auraient continué à utiliser cette formule rituelle et trompeuse si un moine, le Père Armand Veilleux, à cette époque Procureur de l'ordre des Cisterciens, n'avait insisté afin de donner l'ultime Adieu à ses confrères afin d'obtenir l'ouverture des cercueils. Avant lui, le médecin légal des français avait visité les corps, il était au courant que les dépouilles étaient imprésentables et en avait référé à ses supérieurs. Ces cadavres massacrés auraient révélés au monde entier qui avait tiré sur sept cibles sans défense. Parce que ces projectiles là ne pouvaient appartenir qu'à un arsenal d'une armée régulière et n'étaient guère en dotation aux guerriers islamiques, qui, souvent lors de leurs incursions sanguinaires recouraient à l'arme blanche, organisaient des faux barrages en utilisant les uniformes de la gendarmerie et garaient des voitures piégées dans les rues les plus fréquentées».

Après le massacre, pendant quelques journées fébriles et confuses, une version officielle des faits fut construite. Au fil des années elle a montré des failles et des contradictions. Ce sequestre au monastère avait été planifié afin de montrer le danger que représentait la déferlante islamique de manière à provoquer l'indignation internationale durant le sequestre des sept cibles humaines désarmées et qui devait se terminer avec leur libération et démontrer ainsi la fiabilité et l'efficience des autorités locales. Ce devait être la répétition à plus grande échelle, plus retentissante du faux sequestre réalisé en 1993 quand trois fonctionnaires du consulat français avaient été capturés et libérés après 72 heures sans qu'ils aient subis la moindre égratignure.

«Une semaine après l'attaque de l'hélicoptère, le communiqué numero 44 diffusé par le Gia (3), annonça que les moines avaient été tués le 21 mai. Dix jours après, les autorités colmataient le retard en déclarant que les "dépouilles" avaient étés retrouvées. Quiconque aurait analysé le message attribué aux fondamentalistes, en se consultant avec des spécialistes de l'Islam - même sans savoir ce qui s'était passé 7 jours avant autour du feu de camp du bivouac - aurait pu facilement déduire que c'était un faux document maladroitement construit par des mains militaires. Le communiqué précédent, le numéro 43 s'était révélé encore plus faux avec des citations erronées de versets coraniques. Il fût réexpédié après avoir été corrigé par les séquestreurs et transmis à la radio de Tanger (4).

Il était signé par l'émir Djamal Zitouni, un vendeur de poulets notoirement inculte, infiltré par le DRS au sein des milieux islamistes, rapidement promu aux sommets de la hiérarchie intégriste et aussitôt brusquement éliminé. Le communiqué 44 devait aux yeux des autorités algériennes dissimuler l'attaque de l'hélicoptère afin de prouver la responsabilité des islamistes. Les autorités algériennes avaient annoncé la découverte des corps le 31 mai, exactement un mois après la mort survenue pour causes naturelles du Cardinal Duval un personnage légendaire dans ce pays. C'était une coincidence manifestement suspecte. Dans leurs calculs, l'émotion suscitée par la disparition sereine et "douce" de Duval devait en quelque sorte atténuer, contenir et neutraliser l'émoi mondial suscité par l'assassinat des moines de Tiberihine et leur brutale décapitation réalisée une fois de plus à l'arme blanche. Les funérailles de fait furent célébrées à Notre Dame d'Afrique unissant en une unique cérémonie Duval et les Trappistes de l'Atlas».

De cette manière l'affaire du sequestre se concluait neuf semaines après son début avec l'exhaltation des septs martyrs chrétiens tués officiellement par les intégristes dans un pays islamique et enterrés aux contreforts de la montagne dans laquelle pendant des années ils avaient vécu, comme dans une deuxième patrie, bien intégrés avec les habitants des lieux, travaillant ensemble la terre du monastère.

Les autorités locales bénéficiaient d'au moins un soutien externe influent en la personne de l'archevêque d'Alger Mgr Henri Tessier qui cautionnait leur version des faits. Grand connaisseur du monde islamique, il avait dès le début du sequestre adopté une ligne très circonspecte et prudente sur Tibhirine. Il n'était pas d'accord sur l'ouverture des cercueils et sur la sépulture des moines dans le monastère. Il ne voulait pas détériorer les rapports construits durant tant d'années de dur et patient travail entre l'église catholique et le gouvernement algérien alors que sévissait la guerre civile qui avait éclaté en 1992. Même aux moments où le terrorisme apparaissait plus violent et acharné, sa résidence dans la colline avait toujours gardé la grille d'entrée ouverte et il n'y avait pas de militaires en uniforme à monter la garde. Pour lui, la vérité officielle ne montrait guère d'ombres allarmantes, bien au contraire, elle pouvait être acceptée sans perplexité. D'une certaine manière il était soutenu dans sa ligne de conduite par le général Rondot qui avait longtemps occupé les sommets de la hiérachie des services de sécurité français et qui durant le printemps de l'année 1996 travaillait en tant que consultant au ministère de la défense à Paris. Il avait débarqué à Alger immédiatement après le sequestre et avait assuré à l'archevêque que l'affaire serait conclue très rapidement d'une manière positive. Dès son arrivée, Rondot se rendait régulièrement chaque jour au bureau du général Smaïl Lamari, vice du DRS et ami personnel de longue date. On peut dire que l'église et l'armée partageaient publiquement le même point de vue».

Avant la tragique conclusion de cet événement, il y avait une négociation en cours pour la libération qui avait pour support une cassette qui montrait les moines encore en vie filmés à l'intérieur d'une caserne avec un journal imprimé à une date récente.
«Le 30 avril un émissaire des séquestreurs s'était présenté à l'ambassade française. Il s'était fondu dans la chaîne des Algériens qui chaque jour se présentaient pour la demande de visa. Ses preuves en tant qu'envoyé de l'émir Zitouni étaient très floues : il n'avait jamais révélé son nom et démontrait une attitude plutôt suspecte, comme s'il craignait un piège. Les Français l'avaient pris au sérieux. Il demanda, selon le scenario habituel, un échange de prisonniers, de l'argent et des papiers pour s'expatrier. Afin de le protéger les Français l'avaient fait sortir de l'ambassade dans un de leur véhicule en lui donnant quelques numéros de téléphone en guise de contact mais depuis ce jour là ils n'eurent plus de nouvelles. Ils furent vite convaincus qu'il avait été éliminé ».

A cette date précise, les militaires «déviés» ne savaient plus où se trouvaient les moines. Le faux séquestre avait déraillé. Certains officiers des services étaient convaincus depuis un certain temps, que les religieux de Tibhirine étaient restés au monastère non seulement pour continuer leur vie faite de prières et d'humble travail agricole mais surtout dans le but de fournir de temps à autre des informations aux Français sur les mouvements de la guerilla et des soldats de l'armée régulière opérant dans la zone. En somme, ces soutanes protégeraient des informateurs occasionnels. C'est une des nombreuses légendes, sans fondement en ces douze années de fuite de la vérité.

«En revanche, une autre chose est vraie : Un groupe formé d'autorités locales dont le plus actif était le préfet de Médéa était convaincu que les moines, avec leur neutralité et de par les soins prodigués à tous par le père Luc, le médecin, constituaient une présence inadéquate et dérangeante dans cette zone. Il fallait leur flanquer la peur à ces religieux étrangers et les convaincre à abandonner les lieux. Le préfet avait lourdement insisté afin qu'ils partent. L'archevêque d'Alger quand à lui non avait exercé aucune pression sur eux, cependant il leur avait offert en guise d'endroit alternatif un couvent de soeurs clarisses situé dans une autre région. Le faux séquestre afin d'effrayer les têtus religieux n'avait pas été programmé au quartier général d'Alger aux sommets de l'appareil des services mais en périphérie. Même le CTRI de Blida soutenait cette opération. Et ce n'était pas le fruit du hasard que les véhicules qui avaient prélevé les moines provenaient de ce centre et que c'était à ce même endroit qu'ils étaient revenus en tant que prisonniers le 27 mars. Pendant ce temps là à Alger, l'armée régulière - pas les services déviés - cherchaient avec vigueur les sequestrés. Quiconque passait durant les jours successifs sous le bureau du général responsable du centre opérationnnel voyait la lumière des lampes allumées : il avait donné l'assurance qu'il aurait cherché les moines avec tous les moyens et qu'il n'aurait jamais donné l'ordre de tirer».

Cette histoire est une confirmation ultérieure de la présence de deux âmes dans l'armée algérienne divisée entre la composante patriotique, nationaliste et la composante des services déviés, des généraux affairistes, liés à une gestion tortueuse du pouvoir. En 1956, l'Algérie n'était pas encore un pays indépendant, mais Abane Ramdane, l'idéologue du Front National, dénonçait déjà les chefs de la naissante armée de libération d'incompétents et d'arrivistes. Il sera assassiné un an après. Tout comme le président Boudiaf, figure historique et respectée de la guerre de libération, nommé depuis peu aux commandes du pays. De cet attentat rien ne fût jamais révélé. Trois ans plus tard, un des fondateurs du Front Islamique en exil en France, Abdelbaki Sahraoui, fût assassiné dans une mosquée de Paris. La chronique de l'Algérie indépendante est pleine d'homicides excellents, commis dans la patrie et au delà des frontières. Comme celui de Monseigneur Claverie, l'évêque d'Oran.

« Cette mort doit être considérée comme un prolongement de Tibhirine. Deux mois après les funérailles des moines, le ministre des affaires étrangères Hervé de Charette s'était rendu en Algérie. Il avait insisté pour se rendre au monastère où les moines avaient été enterrés. Les Algériens étaient furieux de cette requête renouvellée avec obstination par le ministre qu'ils considéraient une démonstration typique d'arrogance de la part des ex-colonisateurs. Ils l'avaient déclaré en public, à voix haute et sans réticence. Ce sequestre représentait encore un nerf à vif, un chapitre embarrassant dans les relations bilatérales. A la fin, ils cédèrent.

'était le premier aoüt 1996. A cette occasion, le ministre rencontrait aussi l'évêque d'Oran Monseigneur Claverie, une personnalité ouverte, éloignée des méthodes feutrées et solennelles. Le religieux lui avait déclaré : nous connaissons les responsables de la mort des moines. Peu après Monseigneur Claverie prit un vol de ligne anticipant son départ fixé pour le jour suivant. Très peu de personnes étaient au courant de ce changement de programme à la dernière minute à part les personnes chargées du protocole, un fonctionnnaire d'Air Algérie qui avait brutalement jeté à terre un passager et les plus proches collaborateurs. A son entrée à l'évéché une bombe l'attendait lui et son chauffeur. Contre toute loi de la physique, la porte fut éjectée par le souffle de l'explosion en direction opposée à celle indiquée dans le rapport des enquêteurs locaux. Dans l'affaire de moines, l'évêque d'Oran peut être considéré comme la huitième victime».

Source : Algéria-Watch

Proponents of network-centric warfare (NCW) envision the future war as fought by small, geographically dispersed and highly deployable forces operating offensively, in parallel and simultaneously, and on a noncontiguous battlefield. They assert that a robustly networked force improves information sharing, which enhances quality of information and shared situational awareness. Shared situational awareness enables collaboration and self-synchronization and enhances sustainability and speed of command; these, in turn, dramatically increase mission effectiveness. NCW advocates contend that in the future war one’s force level will be precisely determined. There will be no need for reserves or reinforcements. Likewise, logistical support and sustainment will be precisely calibrated to reduce or eliminate redundancies. Supplies will be delivered “just in time.” The focus will be not on objectives to be accomplished, but on effects to be attained.

Effects-based operations are touted as the main method for combat force employment. The concept of center of gravity has been watered down and essentially made useless by the adoption of the so-called system-of-systems approach in analyzing the situation. Likewise, NCW proponents apparently believe the Clausewitzian concept of point of culmination is obsolete.

Like all technocrats, NCW enthusiasts equate management with leadership. Interference from the top in purely tactical elements of the situation is increasingly considered a virtue, not a vice to be avoided. Technology is considered not an aid to war fighters but the very heart of warfare. Everything else is subordinated to the “systems.” Hence, it is not surprising that humans are reduced to a “human-centric system.”

SPECTRUM OF CONFLICT

Initially, NCW advocates were unable or unwilling to define what their new concept really was. However, after the concept was adopted as one of the pillars of the Defense Department transformation process, network-centric enthusiasts began to assert that NCW could be successfully applied not only in the combat phase of a campaign but also in low-intensity conflict. NCW proponents also assert that in the new theory of war, new sources of power can be brought to bear across the spectrum of military competition, from peacekeeping, deterrence and dissuasion to violent clashes and high-intensity conflict. NCW can also be applied not only to force building and countering traditional threats but also to countering irregular, catastrophic and disruptive threats.

However, the empirical evidence so far shows only that NCW is effective in fighting weak and passive opponents, such as the Taliban regime in Afghanistan or the incompetent military in Iraq. It might also be effective when nonmilitary (i.e. political, diplomatic or psychological) aspects of a strategic objective predominate, as in the Kosovo conflict of 1999. There is no proof, at least not yet, that NCW would be effective in quickly and decisively defeating stronger and much more skillful opponents than the ones the U.S. forces faced in Afghanistan and Iraq. NCW also appears not to provide much of an advantage in fighting an insurgency in the post-hostilities phase of a campaign, as the current situations in Afghanistan and Iraq illustrate. In fact, the ongoing insurgency in Iraq is a powerful proof, if any is needed, of how little practical value networking one’s forces has in obtaining accurate, timely and relevant information on the enemy.

There is probably no conflict in which U.S. forces have fought in such ignorance of the enemy’s purpose, strength and leadership.

Even more dubious are ideas that somehow NCW can be effective in fighting and defeating international terrorists such as al-Qaida.

NCW enthusiasts insist that, in the new theory of war, the destruction of the enemy’s army is not as important as it was in the past. In their view, what matters most is to obtain control of the enemy’s territory. Yet since the French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars, wars have ended only after the enemy’s army has been destroyed or forced to surrender on the battlefield. The reason is pretty simple and obvious: Once the enemy’s army is defeated, control of the enemy’s territory is ensured. Otherwise, the process of consolidating and exploiting one’s strategic or operational objectives will be long and painful.

Experience in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) contradicts the key tenets of NCW advocates. The coalition forces’ focus on seizing Iraq’s territory while bypassing or not engaging Iraqi forces on the ground resulted in too many Iraqi troops simply vanishing and merging into the general populace. Failure to destroy the Iraqi ground forces in the major combat phase of OIF is one of the main reasons for the spread of insurgency and continuing difficulties in Iraq today.

NCW enthusiasts’ views on future warfare are similar to the failed theories of the late-18th-century “mathematical (or geographical) school” of warfare. Then, wars were conducted with smaller, expensive, mercenary armies operating in a large space. The art of war was not based on bloody battles but on skillful avoidance of “checkmate”-setting maneuvers through geometrically calculated marches and movements around the opponent.

NCW proponents’ views on the future war are also strikingly similar to those of generals Giulio Douhet and Hugh Trenchard and other early air-power enthusiasts. Similar views also arose in the interwar years among the most prominent proponents of army motorization — British Maj. Gen. J.F.C. Fuller, for example. In the 1920s, Fuller alleged that the physical epoch (in warfare) had ended and the moral epoch was dawning. It was no longer necessary to literally destroy the enemy’s armies in the field, as the Allies had tried to do during the war. Aircraft using gas would disable, demoralize and paralyze unarmored troops, surface ships and civilian populations and infrastructure alike. Armored forces would paralyze, demoralize and cause the disintegration of armies by striking at their rear communications and command system in the same manner. Politically, with slaughter and destruction reduced, war would become both more humane and more rational.

To destroy a nation is to destroy the very objective of peace; consequently, the less destruction, the more complete to the winner is the victory.

Linear vs. Nonlinear Warfare

NCW advocates view warfare in predominantly physical and tactical terms. They falsely claim that wars in the past were linear while NCW is supposedly nonlinear. True enough, in purely physical terms, wars fought until the end of the 18th century were linear. The French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars were the first wars with noncontiguous fronts. However, many wars fought in the industrial era — for example, the Russo-Japanese War and the war on the western front in World War I — were also fought along more or less fixed front lines, employing vast numbers of troops on each side. Most wars in the modern era were nonlinear, that is, operations were conducted in several dimensions and distributed throughout the width and depth of the battlefield.

NCW enthusiasts assert that the future war will be fought without traditional lines drawn on the map, such as the forward line of one’s own troops. One’s forces should be able to disperse when they need to and come together when they must, by substituting information for mass and through the use of information systems. NCW advocates wrongly insist that OIF illustrated the emergence of the noncontiguous battlefield — the battlefield without a front — and that this was possible only because of networking. However, the Iraqis chose not to concentrate their ground forces in large numbers along their borders with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. They also did not have many forces deployed in the proximity of the borders with Jordan and Syria. In other words, war on land without a contiguous front can occur because of vast space or because of insufficient forces on both sides. On the eastern front and in the Balkans, World War I was fought without a continuous front. Likewise, the Russian Civil War (1918-21) was conducted over the vast steppes of southern Russia without fronts. The highly successful German campaigns in Poland, Norway and the west in 1939-40 were also examples of wars with noncontiguous fronts. The linearity of warfare as exemplified by such elements as base of operations, lines of operations, line of communications and the concept of decisive points is not meaningless or out-of-date in the information age, as the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have demonstrated

The nonlinearity of war is not just a matter of geography or technology but is the product of many other factors, most of them intangible. They include, but are not limited to, the inherently chaotic nature of war, the perennial and insolvable factor of friction, chance, personalities of the commanders, and the unpredictability, and often irrationality, of human nature. War’s psychological aspects make it inherently nonlinear, as Clausewitz aptly observed some 170 years ago. Traditionally, nonlinearity in warfare was associated with insurgency and counterinsurgency. In modern conventional operations it pertains to one’s ability to move forces, collect information, transmit orders, acquire targets and strike at widely dispersed points within the battle space. However, there are potentially serious problems in protecting the flanks of one’s forces when those forces are dispersed beyond a mutually supporting distance. There is also a problem of logistical support and sustainment if speed of movement is combined with dispersal of one’s combat forces.

SMALL VS. LARGE FORCES

Perhaps one of the principal beliefs of NCW proponents is that, in the future, one’s forces will be much lighter and smaller than they are today. The logic behind this is based on NCW advocates’ belief that dramatic advances in th