Terrorists Cast Vote for Dems
Thursday, November 2, 2006 at 10:32PM "if the US army will withdraw, you will see more evil acts on the streets of IRAQ. we are praying for all who would help the Iraqis.."
Terror leaders of the Middle East are giving their two cents on the upcoming U.S. mid-term elections, and they’re siding with the Democrats. World Net Daily columnist Aaron L Klein interviewed several terror group leaders in the Middle East about their feelings on the elections.
Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, spoke to World Net Daily from exile in Ireland where he was sent as part of an internationally brokered deal that ended the church siege. He told WND,
“ Of course Americans should vote Democrat."
Jaara and leaders of the Islamic Jihad terror group said that an electoral win for the Democrats would prove to them Americans are "tired”. They rejected statements from some prominent Democrats in the U.S. that a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency, explaining that leaving Iraq would prove resistance works and would compel terrorists to continue fighting until America is destroyed.
Jaara continued:
“This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud. “
Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, said the Democrats' talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel "proud":
"As Arabs and Muslims we feel proud of this talk. Very proud from the great successes of the Iraqi resistance. This success that brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal."
Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas' military in the Gaza Strip, said the policy of withdrawal "proves the strategy of the resistance is the right strategy against the occupation."
"We warned the Americans that this will be their end in Iraq. They did not succeed in stealing Iraq's oil, at least not at a level that covers their huge expenses. They did not bring stability. Their agents in the [Iraqi] regime seem to have no chance to survive if the Americans withdraw."
Abu Ayman, an Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, said he is "emboldened" by those in America who compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam.
"[The mujahedeen fighters] brought the Americans to speak for the first time seriously and sincerely that Iraq is becoming a new Vietnam and that they should fix a schedule for their withdrawal from Iraq."
In this exclusive World Net Daily interview, Aaron L Klein read excerpts to the terror leaders from a recent CBS's "60 Minutes" interview with Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. In the interview, Pelosi stated,
"The jihadists (are) in Iraq. But that doesn't mean we stay there. They'll stay there as long as we're there."
Islamic Jihad's Saadi , laughing, stated,
"There is no chance that the resistance will stop. [An American withdrawal from Iraq would] prove the resistance is the most important tool and that this tool works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step in the history of the region and in the attitude regarding the United States."
Jihad Jaara said:
“It (an American withdrawal) would mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America). Therefore, a victory in Iraq would be a greater defeat for America than in Vietnam." It would also reinforce Palestinian resistance organizations, especially from the moral point of view. But we also learn from these (insurgency) movements militarily. We look and learn from them."
Hamas leader Abu Abdullah said in the interview with WND that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would "convince those among the Palestinians who still have doubts in the efficiency of the resistance."
"The victory of the resistance in Iraq would prove once more that when the will and the faith are applied victory is not only a slogan. We saw that in Lebanon (during Israel's confrontation against Hezbollah there in July and August); we saw it in Gaza (after Israel withdrew from the territory last summer) and we will see it everywhere there is occupation.”
Saadi stated,
"Unfortunately I think those who are speaking about a withdrawal will not do so when they are in power and these promises will remain electoral slogans. It is not enough to withdraw from Iraq. They must withdraw from Afghanistan and from every Arab and Muslim land they occupy or have bases."
Abu Abdullah said:
"If the Democrats are in power, the question is whether such a courageous leadership can [withdraw]. I am afraid that even after the American people will elect those who promise to leave Iraq, the U.S. will not do so. I tell the American people vote for withdrawal. Abandon Israel if you want to save America. Now will this Happen? I do not believe it."
Still Jihad Jaara said the alternative is better than Bush's party.
"Bush is a sick person, an alcoholic person that has no control of what is going on around him. He calls to send more troops but will very soon get to the conviction that the violence and terror that his war machine is using in Iraq will never impose policies and political regimes in the Arab world."
Do the Democrats have the heart to disappoint their terrorist friends? Stay tuned…… It sounds like the terrorists are reading “State of Denial” by Bob Woodward and listening to Howard Dean and the Democrats. It cannot be any more clear how important this election is.
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/754539
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (15)
Get out the VOTE!!!
AubreyJ.........
We need a strong leader in the White House.
Please everyone exercise your right and get out there and vote!
Great article, Amy. All of our lives depend on not giving over to the Democrats!
Do you mean to say that, given the administration's stance on not changing current strategy or strategists, Iraq will somehow improve, as evidence shows it countinuing to slide?
These are Palestinian terrorists you are quoting- what do they have to do with the U.S.?
Clearly they are a threat to Israel, but you must realize these elections concern the United States first and foremost.
As an American, I really don't care what a terrorist thinks about how the US should vote. The situation in the Middle East is worse since Iraq. Surely, we would all like to see it better, correct?
I'm voting to restrain further damage.
A recent private letter between senior al Qaeda leaders declared their "most important" goal was "prolonging the war" in Iraq. The letter, confiscated in the fatal June attack on the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and translated by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, argues that pinning the United States into an open-ended commitment in Iraq will strengthen jihadists around the world.
On that score, al Qaeda apparently agrees with the administration's famous National Intelligence Estimate, which concluded that the U.S. occupation of Iraq is a " 'cause celebre' for jihadists," inspiring new terrorist enemies around the world.
Iranian Pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad funds Hezbollah. Iran is the largest supplier of terrorists in Iraq. See the connection now? It's all one ball of wax and no different than what Osama said in the 2004 elections that John Kerry felt lost him the election.
You're totally wrong about the adminitrations stance on Iraq. Change is constant. The Iraqi government, for better or worse, is calling the shots at this point. I will quote from Sooni, the Iraqi blogger:
"Saddam was a dictator, a murderer, and a warmonger. He assumed power in 1979 since that day Iraq got only backward, and part of what we are going through today related to him and what’s left of his family and followers who are still spending Iraq stolen money on funding terrorism. Saddam ruled by killing a whole family for suspecting their son, if the current government would rule that way you will see a peaceful Iraq two months from now. Iraq situation is bad now and no one can deny that, but what do you expect a battlefield would look like?"
http://justsooni.blogspot.com/
As an American, you should care about what terrorists think. Remember 9/11?
Stryker, of course irag is a "cause celebre" for jihadists, because they fully expect us to run. .
Oh, puleeeze, Stryker. Look up "military occupation" in the dictionary.
- Here’s a few “truthiness’s” that it’s usefull to remind yourselves of, every time some soft-Marxist gadfly cracks stupid in a comment, and has you wanting to commit violence on his anti-American head….
- <strong>Numbers</strong>: The hard left “National Socialists”, you know the ones, their real leader’s, Marx, Stalin, and Hitler, have been dead for decades, comprise less than 5% of the population. They make up for the lack of numbers, by loud screeching, and obnoxious public displays, which the legacy Media flocks too dutifly, upholding the “sell-a-paper” meme of “if it bleeds, it leads”. They are as a few black ants among the hundreds of millions of red ants. Their main activities, day to day, is comprised of the “Big Lie”, demonizing the existing administration, and the President, whoever that might be, and generally spreading as much class/race warfare, and chaos as possible. If the biggest part of American Democratic voters understood what this malicious group of America haters is really up to, they would be appalled.
- <strong>Democratic Leadership</strong>: The mentally lazy, easy way to attain a majority, is to accept the support of any gaggle of misfits that comes their way. This because they don’t “believe” in the WOT, do not take it seriously, and therefore do not think any serious harm will occur if they follow the anti-American theme until they can regain power, and return to the “All negotiation, All the time”. Fundementally the same unworkable pacifist appeasement approaches of the past, ala Carter and Clinton, policies that have led to the steady growth of militancy all over the world since the days of the overthrow of the Shah in Iran. The real danger lies not so much in the Democrat’s retisence to act, but rather in their over reaction, once the appeasement policies have driven things past the point of no return. Something akin of the “Kennedy blunders” during the “Cuban/Turkey” missle crisus. In other words, too much too late, is the real failing of sitting on your hands, talking, and talking, and talking, while your enemies are busy plotting your destruction. Because of this tendency to react late, and over the top when they finally do, the chances of a nuclear conflageration is 10 times more likely under a Democratic administration. Add to that the historic reality that the electorate waffles on any change lo leadership during war time, and the Dem’s see it as a “no-choice” proposition. Any success by Bush in the WOT has them facing 10 more years of incumbant Republican leadership. They think they have to root against America.
- <strong>The future</strong>: This senario of a “late, heavy handed, making up for lost time” disaster, is the one greatest danger of allowing the small vociferous gang of Eurospineys to hi-jack American politics. And make no mistake, it will happen if pacifistic dogma rules once again in Washington. No president, regardless of his party, could standby without extreme reaction if either Israel or America were attacked on a deliberate devestating basis.
- <strong>The voice is there if we will just listen</strong>: The past is the greatest lesson-master of our future - <em>“The greatest enemy is the one that moves with stealth among you. The ones that preach to the methods, and means for your demise. You have no choice but to fight against that possibility with even greater urgency and resolve, or you don’t deserve the fruits of Liberty.”</em> - Winston Churchill speaking before the British Parliment on the eve of WWII - 1939
- <strong>Get out and vote on Nov. 7th like you and your families lives and future depend on it - because it does!</strong>
Every time the media - or a Democrat - uses the phrase "War in Iraq" they are promoting one of Karl Rove's most potent Republican Party frames.
There is no longer a war against Iraq.
It ended in May of 2003, when George W. Bush stood below a "Mission Accomplished" sign aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln and correctly declared that we had "victoriously" defeated the Iraqi army and overthrown their government.
Our military machine is tremendously good at fighting wars - blowing up infrastructure, killing opposing armies, and toppling governments. We did that successfully in Iraq, in a matter of a few weeks. We destroyed their army, wiped out their air defenses, devastated their Republican Guard, seized their capitol, arrested their leaders, and took control of their government. We won the war. It's over.
What we have now is an occupation of Iraq.
The occupation began when the war ended, and continues to this day. According to our own Pentagon estimates, at least ninety five percent of those attacking our soldiers are Iraqi civilians who view themselves as anti-occupation fighters. And last week both the Defense Minister and the Vice President of Iraq asked us for a specific date on which the occupation would end.
The distinction between "war" and "occupation" is politically critical for 2006 because wars can be won or lost, but occupations most honorably end by redeployments.
We won World War II and it carried Roosevelt to great political heights. We lost the Vietnam War and it politically destroyed Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Jerry Ford. And as we fought to a draw in Korea, it so wounded Harry S. Truman politically that he didn't have a strong enough base of support to run for re-election against Dwight D. Eisenhower.
American's don't like to lose or draw at a war. Even people who oppose wars find it uncomfortable, at some level, to lose, and Republican strategists are using this psychological reality for political gain. When wars are won - even when they're totally illegal and undeclared wars, like Reagan's adventure in Grenada - it tends to create a national good feeling.
On the other hand, when arguably just wars, or at least legally defensible "police action" wars, like Korea, are not won, they wound the national psyche. And losing a war - like the German loss of WWI - can be so devastating psychologically to a citizenry that it sets up a nation for strongman dictatorship to "restore the national honor."
On the other hand, an "occupation" is something that logically should one day end, and, if it's an expensive occupation in lives or money, will find popular support to end as soon as possible.
The various colonial powers of Europe ended their occupations of most of Africa, for example, and there was no national emotional pain associated with it. Churchill's withdrawal from Uganda increased his popularity with Brits.
While Americans hate to lose wars, we're generally pleased to wrap up occupations. We had no problem with ending our occupation of The Philippines, numerous South Pacific islands, and the redeployment of our troops stationed in nations conquered in World War II (Japan and Germany) from broad-based "occupation" to locally based "assistance." (Although we still have troops in Japan and Germany, neither country has been functionally "occupied" by us since the late 1940s and the "legal" occupation of both ended shortly thereafter. It should also be remembered that not a single American life was lost because of hostile fire in either brief post-war occupation.)
If Democrats can succeed over the next three months in making it clear to average Americans that the "War In Iraq" ended in 2003, and that we're now engaged in an "Occupation Of Iraq," then Democratic suggestions to end or greatly diminish the occupation will take on a resonance and cogency that will both help them in an election year, and help to bring our soldiers to safety and Iraq to stability.
On the other hand, if Democrats are perceived as pushing for America to "lose the war in Iraq," they will be vilified and damned by Republicans and many swing voters, and could thus lose big in 2006.
The "War" is over. The Occupation has now lasted 3 years and one month - far longer than necessary.
Here's a "for example" scenario - fictitious at this moment - of how Democrats should play it out:
[Tim Russert]: So, Senator Reid, what do you think of this most recent news from the War In Iraq?
[Senator Reid]: The war ended in May of 2003, Tim. Our military did their usual brilliant job, and we defeated Saddam's army. The Occupation Of Iraq, however, isn't going so well, in large part because the Bush Administration has totally botched the job, leading to the death of thousands of our soldiers, and dragging our nation into disrepute around the world. I'd like to see us greatly scale down the current Occupation of Iraq, redeploy our Occupation Forces to nearby nations in case we're needed by the new Iraqi government, and get our brave young men and women out of harm's way. Occupations have a nasty way of fomenting civil wars, you know, and we don't want this one to go any further than it has.
[Tim Russert]: But isn't the War In Iraq part of the Global War On Terror?
[Senator Reid]: Our Occupation Of Iraq is encouraging more Muslims around the world to eye us suspiciously. Some may even be inspired by our Occupation of this Islamic nation to take up arms or unconventional weapons against us, perhaps even here at home, just as Osama Bin Laden said he hit us on 9/11 because we were occupying part of his homeland, Saudi Arabia, at the Prince Sultan Air Force Base, where Bush Senior first put troops in 1991 to project force into Kuwait and enforce the Iraqi no-fly zone. The Bush policy of an unending Occupation Of Iraq is increasing the danger that people will use the tactic of terror against us and our allies, and, just like George W. Bush wisely redeployed our troops from Saudi Arabia, we should begin right now to redeploy our troops who are occupying Iraq.
[Tim Russert]: But the War...
[Senator Reid]: Tim, Tim, Tim! The war is over! George W. Bush declared victory himself, in May of 2003, when our brave soldiers seized control of Iraq. That's the definition of the end of a war, as anybody who's ever served in the military can tell you. Unfortunately, our Occupation Of Iraq since the end of the war, using a small military force and a lot of Halliburton, hasn't worked. We should take Halliburton's billions and give them to the Iraqis so they can rebuild their own nation, the way we helped Europeans rebuild after World War Two. And go from being an occupying power to being an ally of Iraq and the Iraqi people, like we did with Japan and Germany.
[Tim Russert (bewildered)]: I can't call it a war anymore? We have to change our NBC "War In Iraq" banners and graphics?
[Senator Reid (patting Russert's hand)]: Yes, Tim. The war is over. It's now an occupation, and has been for three years. And like all occupations, it's best to wrap it up so Iraq can get on with their business. I'm sure your graphics people can come up with some new logos that say "Occupation Of Iraq." It'll be a nice project for them, maybe even earn them some much-needed overtime pay. The "War In Iraq" graphics are getting a bit stale, don't you think? After all, soon we'll be able to say that we fought World War II in less time than we've been in Iraq. Wars are usually short, but occupations - particularly when they're done stupidly - can be hellish.
[Tim Russert (brightening)]: Ah, so! Now I get it! I even wrote about wars and occupations in my book about my dad. Thanks for coming on the program today and clarifying this for us.
If the Democrats don't shift the discussion from "war" to "occupation," the Republicans will succeed in painting them as being "in favor of losing a war," which will destroy their electoral possibilities.
Instead, every time a Republican or a member of the press uses the Rove slogan "War in Iraq," Democrats need to correct them by saying, "You mean the Occupation of Iraq..."
Military occupation and the laws of war:
There have long been customary laws of belligerent occupation as part of the laws of war which gave some protection to the population under the military occupation of a belligerent power. These were clarified and supplemented by the Hague Conventions of 1907. Specifically "Laws and Customs of War on Land" (Hague IV); October 18, 1907: "Section III Military Authority over the territory of the hostile State"[1]. The first two articles of that section state:
Art. 42.
Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
Art. 43.
The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.
In 1949 these laws governing belligerent occupation of enemy territory were further extended by the adoption of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV). Much of GCIV is relevant to protected persons in occupied territories and Section III: Occupied territories is a specific section covering the issue.
Article 6 restricts the length of time that most of GCIV applies:
The present Convention shall apply from the outset of any conflict or occupation mentioned in Article 2.
In the territory of Parties to the conflict, the application of the present Convention shall cease on the general close of military operations.
In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: 1 to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, 143.
GCIV emphasised an important change in international law. The United Nations Charter (June 26, 1945) had prohibited war of aggression (See articles 1.1, 2.3, 2.4) and GCIV Article 47, the first paragraph in Section III: Occupied territories, restricted the territorial gains which could be made through war by stating:
Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.
Article 48 prohibits mass movement of people out of or into occupied territory:
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive. ... The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
Protocol I (1977): "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts" has additional articles which cover military occupation but many countries including the U.S. are not signatory to this additional protocol.
In the situation of a territorial cession as the result of war, the specification of a "receiving country" in the peace treaty merely means that the country in question is authorized by the international community to establish civil government in the territory. The military government of the principal occupying power will continue past the point in time when the peace treaty comes into force, until it is legally supplanted.
"Military government continues until legally supplanted" is the rule, as stated in Military Government and Martial Law, by William E. Birkhimer, 3rd edition 1914.
[edit] Examples of military occupations
Main article: List of military occupations
In most wars some territory is placed under the authority of the hostile army. Most military occupations end with the cessation of hostilities. In some cases the occupied territory is returned and in others the land remains under the control of the occupying power but usually not as militarily occupied territory.
This can not in any way be called an occupation. There cannot be an acting and ELECTED Prime Minister, President, Cabinet and Constitution of, for and by Iraqis if it were an occupation.
In 2003 before the first elections it could be arguably called an occupation, but that is not the case now. Prime Minister Al-Maliki clearly is calling the shots and making the political decisions along with the Iraqi President.
Look at WWII or even teh occupation of Israel by the Romans. THOSE were occupations.