Editor’s comment – This seems pale compared to the event in Woolwich, yet it has bypassed the media almost undetected. An armed soldier killing children at point-blank range! Hopefully, now Mr Cameron and the British media would understand how people get radicalised, and it has nothing to do with Imams or preachers but events like this. Have you ever seen a devout Mujahid or an Al-Qaeda type operative kill children or women at point blank range? Or stories of raping women and sodomising children? There are no words to describe this savage atrocity committed by this blood thirsty and cowardly American, dressed as a soldier; indeed one should ask from where does such cruelty and fanaticism arises from? And this is not an isolated incident; we have seen this before in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere on a smaller scale. Many similar episodes go unreported or fail to hit the media headlines.
The bitter truth is: historically the US mindset has been one of a violent xenophobic nation, built on stealing lands, lynching Native Americans and blacks, later they excelled in killing foreigners on a large scale without a moral conscious. At present it is obsessed with guns, porno, alcohol, drugs, and thus leads the world in producing violent criminals, serial killers, and rapists alongside the good that it also produces. Laughably, many Americans point their fingers at the voiceless Muslim world as being violent whilst they claim to be advocators of peace; the same claim is recycled as they surround peaceful Iran, with their military bases on behalf of the militant Zionists, after being soaked with the blood of the Iraqis, Afghans and the Palestinians. With the aid of the mass media, they bark loud and behave with the childish mindset that history began with 9/11, and use terms like fascists, fanatics, terrorists, militants etc when the US depicts those traits on a far greater scale.
JOINT BASE LEWIS-MCCHORD, Wash. (AP) — The American soldier charged with killing 16 Afghan civilians during nighttime raids on two villages last year pleaded guilty Wednesday in a military courtroom to avoid the death penalty, setting the stage for him to recount details of the horrific slaughter. Staff Sgt. Robert Bales pleaded guilty to 16 counts of premeditated murder and other charges in the March 2012 attacks on two villages near the remote base in southern Afghanistan where he was posted.
Most of the victims were women and children, and some of the bodies were burned; relatives have told The Associated Press they are irate at the notion Bales will escape execution for one of the worst atrocities of the Afghanistan war. A military judge still must decide whether to accept his plea.
As the hearing began at Joint Base Lewis-McChord south of Seattle, the judge, Col. Jeffery Nance, explained Bales’ rights and asked if he understood them. Bales stood and answered: “Yes, sir, I do.” Defense attorney Emma Scanlan then entered Bales’ pleas on his behalf. She entered one not guilty plea, to a charge that he impeded the investigation by breaking his laptop after he was taken into custody.Bales, 39, has signed a lengthy stipulation of facts about his actions the night of the attacks.
Nance said Wednesday he will question the soldier about the details admitted in that document. Bales’ attorney John Henry Browne has said he expects his client to admit to “very specific facts” about the killings. Browne said last week that Bales, a father of two from Lake Tapps, was “crazed” and “broken” but not legally insane at the time of the attacks.
Although Wednesday’s proceedings will provide Bales’ account for the first time, survivors who testified by video link from Afghanistan during a hearing last fall vividly recalled the carnage. A young girl in a bright headscarf described hiding behind her father as he was shot to death. Boys told of hiding behind curtains as others scrambled and begged the soldier to spare them, yelling: “We are children! We are children!” A thick-bearded man told of being shot in the neck by a gunman “as close as this bottle,” gesturing to a water bottle on a table in front of him.
Prosecutors say that before dawn on March 11, 2012, Bales slipped away from Camp Belambay in Kandahar Province, armed with a 9 mm pistol and M-4 rifle outfitted with a grenade launcher. He first attacked one village of mud-walled compounds, Alkozai, then returned to the base, woke up a fellow soldier and told him about it. The soldier didn’t believe him and went back to sleep. Bales then left to attack a second village, Najiban.
The massacre prompted such angry protests that the U.S. temporarily halted combat operations in Afghanistan, and it was three weeks before Army investigators could reach the crime scene. Bales was serving his fourth combat deployment and had an otherwise good if undistinguished military record in a decade-long career. The Ohio native suffered from PTSD and a traumatic brain injury, his lawyers say, and he had been drinking contraband alcohol and snorting Valium — both provided by other soldiers — the night of the killings.
The case raised questions about the toll multiple deployments were taking on American troops. For that reason, many legal experts believed it was unlikely he would receive the death penalty, as Army prosecutors were seeking. The military justice system hasn’t executed anyone since 1961, but five men currently face death sentences. “Any time you can strike a deal that saves your client’s life, I would call that a win,” said Dan Conway, a civilian military defense lawyer who is not involved in the case. “This is the right result for both parties.”
After the recent beheading of a British soldier in Woolwich, the government announced its plan to combat radicalisation, yet the plan solely consisted of targeting the primary victims of radicalisation; the voiceless Muslim minority. As a peaceful British citizen, I am deeply concerned about the rising tide of radicalisation over the last decade; consequentially, violent actions have followed resulting in the deaths of many innocent people; this is coupled with a systematic demonization of a community by the acidic mass media. In recent times, the media propaganda has been accompanied with racial undertones that have emboldened the xenophobic far right groups, and there is little sign of this process coming to a halt, let alone being reversed.
“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" (Mahatma Ghandi)
Much has been said about the political dimension to this issue in terms of motive, and I will address that later, first I want to focus on the justification given behind the act, which may explain how these home-grown ‘terrorists’ arises in the first place, and help to bring forward a solution to the problem. Had this been debated ‘honestly’ post 7/7, this killing may well have been avoided.
As the US recovers from the devastation brought about by the unexpected Tornado, the religious and the secular factions will be out arguing the usual causes behind it. As for the political section, there is silence; this time there is no Al-Qaeda, no terrorists or the extreme far right to blame. Such events do bring about our philosophical thoughts to the surface; it gets us to think about the nature and the meaning of life and the universe. An event beyond our control causing so much devastation, killing indiscriminately, why does this happen? Some say it is a random event, the work of Mother Nature, and others say it is God sending down collective punishment. Depending on how you interpret the event, it can either bring a person to conviction in the existence of a Creator, or reaffirm his denial of a Creator, as is the current fad.
The seven convicted men in the Oxford grooming case were identified by their ethnicity. In contrast, similar cases involving white men are rarely scrutinised along the same line, provided the case is given any media coverage in the first place. This sends out a crude racist message: when white men rape white girls it’s bad, but when non-white Pakistani men do it, it is so bad that it becomes unbearable to remain politically correct, and their ethnicity is identified. What is the difference between the discrimination of racially segregated America in the 1800s and the attitude towards Pakistani men in the united kingdom of 2013? Naturally, the discussion that ensued from the media headlines is how the ethnic mindset is shaped by their religion and culture; the driving force behind the crime. Alternatively the media could have simply treated the case as it is, a group of criminal men acting on opportunities and exploiting vulnerable young girls. This is a clear example of how the main media is stoking Islamophobic culture as the norm which the far right amplifies using vulgar and crude language.
I always thought clothes were the mark of civilisation; one of the characteristics that distinguishes the human race from the animal kingdom. We conceal our private parts, engage in acts of intimacy with our spouse in privacy, and have ancient rules that guide and restrict with whom we can procreate with. These characteristics reflect the higher values of human societies. The early European colonisers with the Christian missionaries used to scorn the native Africans and others for appearing nude or semi-nude. Yet, the current trend is we see the clothes come off when the sun comes out; the diehard liberals see nudity as an expression of freedom and progression.
The final aspect of the method is the issue of Nusrah (help from those with ability to change the system), which is self-evident given the correct circumstances. However, to claim that Nusrah is part of the method in that binding for all situations is false; firstly because there is no corroborative evidence, secondly under certain situation seeking Nusrah may be virtually impossible. For example, a dictatorial hostile regime would place its loyal family members in key positions, and the regime may have a zero tolerance for dissidents. This is the case in many parts of the Islamic world, thus naturally the failure of Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HT) to attain Nusrah over the last 60 years.
The argument for re-establishing the Caliphate is compelling; the divine evidences commands the believers to give their oath of allegiance to a Caliph, in addition one can say the need for the institution is self-evident, because any society needs some form of political institution to function, otherwise anarchy prevails. There could not be any dispute over the initial establishment of the state headed by the Prophet (saw), as it formed part of the divine revelation. The Prophets by definition are leaders (Imams) in the spiritual and political sphere; their primary task is to deliver the divine message and guide society through the application of the divine message. Anyone disputing the authority of the Prophet would commit an act of treason (apostasy), unless the individual was a non-believer in the first place.
After the demise of the Prophet, and in the absence of clear instructions regarding the nature of the state and succession of the political leadership, differences naturally arose, hence the variation in the appointment of the first four Caliphs. With the passage of time, disputes and rivalry became more pronounced, civil wars broke out and the state started to disintegrate from the time of the fourth Caliph, only 30 years after the demise of the Prophet, this is an undisputable fact.