Saturday, June 23, 2007

Female Suicide Bombers

MEMRI TV reported Dr. Yunis Al-Astal (Palestinian MP from Hamas) said When Jihad becomes an individual duty, it applies to women too, because women do not differ from men, when it comes to individual duties.
Women as well as men are just cannon fodder. They don't care if they die. Now clerics, that is a different matter. They tell others to become suicide bombers, but they don't strap on a vest themselves. Because they know they are lying to the people.
... I would like to tell you a wonderful story which took place in later times. There was a woman called Umm Ibrahim Al-Hashimiya, and Ibrahim was her only child. She prepared 10,000 dinars, in order to hold him a wedding the likes of which had never been seen. All the girls of the neighborhood were hoping to become his wife. One day, she attended a sermon about Jihad, the virtues of the mujahideen, and about the black-eyed virgins or Paradise. She immediately decided that her son would marry the black-eyed virgins. She went to the preacher and paid him the 10,000 dinars, on the condition that her son would marry the black-eyed virgins, about whom she heard things that encouraged her to act the way she did. Indeed, her son wage Jihad for the sake of Allah, and she awaited news of his martyrdom with bated breath. When the army returned, she hastened to ask: "Should I be congratulated because my gift was accepted, or should I be offered condolences because it was returned?" The army commander said to her: "The gift was accepted, and the bride has been brought to the groom." She praised Allah for accepting her sacrifice – her only son, who was about to be married. She believed that his wedding was his martyrdom for the sake of Allah....
So the stupid mother no longer has a son, or her 10,000 dinars, and her son is looking around hell trying to find his 72 virgins.
Interviewer: Dr. Al-Astal, we have seen that some of the female martyrdom-seekers set out on their martyrdom operation without a veil? To what extent does our religion allow women, when they embark upon Jihad for the sake of Allah, to use means of camouflage, such as removing the veil?

Yunis Al-Astal: When Jihad becomes an individual duty, the husband's permission or consent is not required, because jihad becomes like prayer.
Only a lot louder, and there are more pieces of flesh flying through the air.
Just like a woman does not have to ask for permission to pray, to fast during the Ramadhan, or to give charity, she does not need to ask for permission when Jihad becomes an individual duty.
She may have to ask permission to leave the house, if she is planning on coming back, but if she is going to kill herself trying to kill others, that is ok.
In my opinion, in places invaded by the enemy, Jihad becomes an individual duty. With regard to your question about the veil, especially when it comes to martyrdom-seekers who had to go into the Zionist cities deep in Palestine – Jihad is a duty, and so is wearing a veil, but the duty of Jihad is ten times great than the duty to wear a veil.
So they can blow themselves up without wearing a veil. Is it ok if they get stinking drunk first, so they have the courage to push the button?
... The message of the female martyrdom-seekers to the enemies is that they should go back to where they came from, or else our Jihad will continue until this land regains its holiness – from the [Mediterranean] Sea to the [Jordan] River.
Many of the Jews lived in that area before the state of Israel was created, and many of the people in Gaza and the West Bank came from other Arab countries. How do those points jive with what you just said?


If you want to view this clip, click here

Marisol blogged Now, certainly Yunis al-Astal will get a barrage of letters from "moderate" clerics the world over telling him jihad is an inner spiritual struggle, right?

4 comments:

Agathocles said...

How great is the gap between the uninformed suicide-bomber giving up his/her life for a pack of lies told by a preacher, or the uninformed US soldier giving up his/her life for a pack of lies told by state officials?

Suicide bombings are not going to help in the creation of a Palestinian state.

US did not invade Iraq to remove an evil tyrant.

Suicide bombings are the ultimate political tool for Israel to refuse any ideas about leaving the occupied areas, the ultimate excuse for stealing even more palestinian land with the construction of the separation wall and expansion of the illegal settlements.

If the US invaded Iraq to remove an evil tyrant, why didn´t Bush & co say so until all their other lies had been exposed?

Why would they claim Saddam possessed WMD´s, but still refuse to let the weapon inspectors do their job?

Why would they produce the "Niger-documents" showing that Saddam tried to purchase uranium (and, it was later revealed, signed by a minister in Niger that had resigned ten years earlier, THAT´S good intelligence for you).

Why would the claim Saddam harboured al-Qaida terrorists (even though Saddam and bin Laden loathed each other: when Saddam invaded Kuwait, bin Laden did not wish for US troops to enter the middle east, so he offered to set up a mujahedeen army with veterans from the Afghan war and new recruits from Saudi Arabia and other parts of the arab world, to expel Saddam from Kuwait - I guess they´d be getting along real well after that).

Well, there´s only one reasonable explanation: There was a completely different motive for attacking Iraq, but one that would not win enough popular support if the people were informed of the truth (that´s democracy for you: you, the people, are welcome to decide, as long as you decide in unimportant matters, or, in the case of an important matter, that you make the "right" decision, otherwise we mislead you, so that you make the "right" decision, and note that by "right I mean the decision WE want you to make).

So I could say: Women as well as men are just cannon fodder. If they die, they believe it´s for their country, and an honourable death. Now politicians, that is a different matter. They tell others to join the army, but they or their families don´t go to Iraq. Because they know they are lying to the people....

Agathocles said...

And should there be any doubts...;

The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed.

Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protesters claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered.

In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists".

"Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants.

Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US.

We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities and pipelines [in Iraq] built on the premise that privatisation is coming

Mr Falah Aljibury
An Iraqi-born oil industry consultant, Falah Aljibury, says he took part in the secret meetings in California, Washington and the Middle East. He described a State Department plan for a forced coup d'etat.

Mr Aljibury himself told Newsnight that he interviewed potential successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration.

Secret sell-off plan

The industry-favoured plan was pushed aside by a secret plan, drafted just before the invasion in 2003, which called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields. The new plan was crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the Opec cartel through massive increases in production above Opec quotas.

The sell-off was given the green light in a secret meeting in London headed by Mr Chalabi shortly after the US entered Baghdad, according to Robert Ebel.

Mr Ebel, a former Energy and CIA oil analyst, now a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, told Newsnight he flew to the London meeting at the request of the State Department.

Mr Aljibury, once Ronald Reagan's "back-channel" to Saddam, claims that plans to sell off Iraq's oil, pushed by the US-installed Governing Council in 2003, helped instigate the insurgency and attacks on US and British occupying forces.

"Insurgents used this, saying, 'Look, you're losing your country, you're losing your resources to a bunch of wealthy billionaires who want to take you over and make your life miserable,'" said Mr Aljibury from his home near San Francisco.

"We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities, pipelines, built on the premise that privatisation is coming."

Privatisation blocked by industry

Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA who took control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government a month after the invasion, stalled the sell-off scheme.

Mr Carroll told us he made it clear to Paul Bremer, the US occupation chief who arrived in Iraq in May 2003, that: "There was to be no privatisation of Iraqi oil resources or facilities while I was involved."

Ariel Cohen, of the neo-conservative Heritage Foundation, told Newsnight that an opportunity had been missed to privatise Iraq's oil fields.

He advocated the plan as a means to help the US defeat Opec, and said America should have gone ahead with what he called a "no-brainer" decision.

Mr Carroll hit back, telling Newsnight, "I would agree with that statement. To privatize would be a no-brainer. It would only be thought about by someone with no brain."

New plans, obtained from the State Department by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine under the US Freedom of Information Act, called for creation of a state-owned oil company favoured by the US oil industry. It was completed in January 2004 under the guidance of Amy Jaffe of the James Baker Institute in Texas.

Formerly US Secretary of State, Baker is now an attorney representing Exxon-Mobil and the Saudi Arabian government.

View segments of Iraq oil plans at www.GregPalast.com

Questioned by Newsnight, Ms Jaffe said the oil industry prefers state control of Iraq's oil over a sell-off because it fears a repeat of Russia's energy privatisation. In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, US oil companies were barred from bidding for the reserves.

Ms Jaffe says US oil companies are not warm to any plan that would undermine Opec and the current high oil price: "I'm not sure that if I'm the chair of an American company, and you put me on a lie detector test, I would say high oil prices are bad for me or my company."

The former Shell oil boss agrees. In Houston, he told Newsnight: "Many neo conservatives are people who have certain ideological beliefs about markets, about democracy, about this, that and the other. International oil companies, without exception, are very pragmatic commercial organizations. They don't have a theology."

A State Department spokesman told Newsnight they intended "to provide all possibilities to the Oil Ministry of Iraq and advocate none".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

"By 2010 we will need [a further] 50 million barrels a day. The Middle East, with two-thirds of the oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize lies." - US Vice President Dick Cheney, then Halliburton chief executive officer, London, autumn 1999

Further information:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB28Ak01.html

...

Don Singleton said...

And yet the US is pushing for the Iraqis to come up with a plan for the distribution of oil revenues so that all groups (Kurds, Sunni, and Shia) share in them

Agathocles said...

You mean a plan to distribute what´s left of the revenues after large non-iraqi oil companies have taken their share, a share which, with "production sharing agreements" is far higher than any of these companies could ever dream to receive in any other country.

For more information of just how great this loss of revenue might be for the iraqi people:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm#ripoff

"Our figures show that under any of the three sets of PSA terms, oil company profits from investing in Iraq would be quite staggering, with annual rates of return ranging from 42% to 62% for a small field, or 98% to 162% for a large field. This shows that under PSAs, Iraq's loss in terms of government revenue will be the oil companies’ gain.

By way of comparison, oil companies generally consider any project that generates an IRR of more than a 12% to be a profitable venture. For Iraqi oil fields, even under the most stringent PSA terms, it is clear that the oil companies can expect to achieve stellar returns."

...