SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: zonder who wrote (1985)1/9/2003 6:10:09 PM
From: lorne  Respond to of 15987
 
Hamas urges Iraq
to form 'suicide army'
Wants 'thousands of squads of martyrs' to 'cause great damage'
January 9, 2003

A spokesman for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas is urging Iraq to establish a "suicide army" of jihad warriors to ward off an impending attack by the United States.

"The defeat of the crusaders [U.S.] in Iraq will stop their advance towards the rest of the Muslim lands," said spokesman Dr. Abd Al-Aziz Al-Rantisi in an article posted on the Hamas movement's website and translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute in Washington.

The Hamas leader said the way to victory is "to establish thousands of squads of martyrs, in a secret apparatus, who, from now, have at their disposal the capability, as well as thousands of sophisticated explosive belts, with powerful explosive [capacity] to cause great damage."

Al-Rantisi said the martyrs must be trained in "belief," which is possible only by studying the Koran.

"The Koran is the most energizing [book] for heroism and honor, and there is no room in it for weakness and laxness," he said.

He quoted Koran 9:14: "Fight them; Allah will punish them at your hands, and will humiliate them, and will heal the hearts of the believers."

"Those knowledgeable in the Koran can, by Allah's will, as is happening in Palestine, shock the foundations of the enemy, whatever its strength," Al-Rantisi said. "They can, with Allah's help, defeat it, however cruel it is. How great is the difference between those who seek martyrdom and those who seek [the life of] this world!"

'Give the jihad warriors a chance'

Al-Rantisi urged Iraq to open its "gates to the jihad warriors, the sons of this Islamic nation, so that you will be able to carry out your mission by defending the land of the Muslims."

"Give the jihad warriors a chance to stop this oppressive aggression," he said. "The jihad warriors must advance from everywhere to defend the land of Iraq. Had we not been in battle against the [Israelis] in Palestine, our people in Palestine would be the first to come to the aid of our people in Iraq."

The Hamas leader said that "the enemies of Allah and the enemies of this people are cowards. They crave life, while the Muslims crave martyrdom."

"In order to defend the homeland from the terrorist crusader attack, there is a need for people who yearn for Paradise, and the shortest way to Paradise is death for [the sake of] Allah," he said.

"Some of us should see the joyful and satisfied faces of the mothers in Iraq when they part from the fruit of their loins, who go off to the realms of honor, the realms of martyrdom," Al-Rantisi continued. "This is so that the enemy of the nation knows that safeguarding honor and the homeland is dearer than life, and that our mothers in Iraq, like our mothers in Palestine, [are willing] to sacrifice the fruit of their loins – but not their honor."

Martyrdom operations "that shock," he said, "can ensure that horror is sowed in the [enemies'] hearts, and horror is one of the causes of defeat."

'Depend on Allah'

Al-Rantisi said the "crusaders," the U.S., "aspire to cross the borders of Iraq and Palestine, and are not satisfied with controlling the land and natural resources. Even if this is one of their goals, after the conquest of the land and the plundering of its natural resources they will target the faith of this nation."

He quoted Koran 2:217, which says: "They will not stop fighting you until they turn you back from your faith, if they can."

The Hamas leader said he did not believe war was inevitable "and that in the shadow of the venom of the blind crusader hatred disseminated by Bush, all options are [still] open."

He asserted, however, that if war comes, a victory for the U.S. is not certain.

"I think that the West's arrogance will lead it to its sure end if it is determined to act with aggression and terror against the Islamic nation, and that its first defeat will be in Iraq," he said.

Al-Rantisi emphasized that "in order for Iraq to win, it must depend on Allah."

Iraq cannot rely on the Arabs because they are "helpless right now," he maintained, quoting from Koran 7:197, which says, "Those whom you call besides him have no power to help you, nor can they help themselves."

Russia, France and China, also cannot be relied on for help, he insisted.

"These countries, in addition to those that cannot help Iraq, prefer their national interests to Iraq's interest," he claimed. "Had it not been in their interests that Iraq not be attacked, they would not [even] make the embarrassing moves [that they have]. We know that the aggression against Iraq is aggression against the interests of these countries. But they cannot save Iraq, and therefore Iraq must be helped by Allah."

By relying on Allah, he said, "no force on earth can defeat it, whatever its strength."

Al-Rantisi said that the conflict with the U.S. is ultimately a "battle of wills."

"The first stage of defeat is disappointment, despair, and pessimism," he said. "I maintain that Allah has freed the Iraqi people of these dangerous ills."

worldnetdaily.com



To: zonder who wrote (1985)1/9/2003 9:45:18 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 15987
 
They really "Shot themselves in the foot" with this report, zonder. They did not cite one fact. Just a smear against Bjorn Lomborg, in an attempt to silence him. They charged him with "Scientific Dishonesty." Here is a key excerpt from the NYT.

>>>> The report did not cite specific examples, but asserted that the book, although presented in the style of a scientific treatise, with copious footnotes and diagrams, was actually "a provocative debate-generating paper."<<<<<
nytimes.com



To: zonder who wrote (1985)1/10/2003 3:10:31 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 15987
 
Here is an article from the "Economist" on this controversy.

Thought control
Jan 9th 2003
From The Economist print edition

The scourge of the greens is accused of dishonesty

THE Bjorn Lomborg saga took a decidedly Orwellian turn this week. Readers will recall that Mr Lomborg, a statistician and director of Denmark's Environmental Assessment Institute, is the author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist", which attacks the environmental lobby for systematically exaggerated pessimism. Environmentalists have risen as one in furious condemnation of Mr Lomborg's presumption in challenging their claims, partly no doubt because he did it so tellingly. This week, to the delight of greens everywhere, Denmark's Committees on Scientific Dishonesty ruled on the book as follows: "Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty."

How odd. Why, in the first place, is a panel with a name such as this investigating complaints against a book which makes no claim to be a scientific treatise? "The Skeptical Environmentalist" is explicitly not concerned with conducting scientific research. Rather, it measures the "litany" of environmental alarm that is constantly fed to the public against a range of largely uncontested data about the state of the planet. The litany comes off very badly from the comparison. The environmental movement was right to find the book a severe embarrassment. But since the book was not conducting scientific research, what business is it of a panel concerned with scientific dishonesty?

One might expect to find the answer to this question in the arguments and data supporting the ruling, but there aren't any. The material assembled by the panel consists almost entirely of a synopsis of four articles published by Scientific American last year. (We criticised those articles and the editorial that ran with them in our issue of February 2nd 2002.) The panel seems to regard these pieces as disinterested science, rather than counter-advocacy from committed environmentalists. Incredibly, the complaints of these self-interested parties are blandly accepted at face value. Mr Lomborg's line-by-line replies to the criticisms (see www.lomborg.com ) are not reported. On its own behalf, the panel offers not one instance of inaccuracy or distortion in Mr Lomborg's book: not its job, it says. On this basis it finds Mr Lomborg guilty of dishonesty.

The panel's ruling, objectively speaking, is incompetent and shameful.
economist.com