By Yvonne Ridley

Many of us are still in a state of shock over the guilty verdict returned on Dr Aafia Siddiqui.

The response from the people of Pakistan was predictable and overwhelming and I salute their spontaneous actions.

From Peshawar to Islamabad, Karachi, Lahore and beyond they marched in their thousands demanding the return of Aafia.

Even some of the US media expressed discomfort over the verdict returned by the jurors … there was a general feeling that something was not right.

Everyone had something to say, everyone that is except the usually verbose US Ambassador Anne Patterson who has spent the last two years briefing against Dr Aafia and her supporters.

This is the same woman who claimed I was a fantasist when I gave a press conference with Tehreek e Insaf leader Imran Khan back in July 2008 revealing the plight of a female prisoner in Bagram called the Grey Lady.

She said I was talking nonsense and stated categorically that the prisoner I referred to as “650” did not exist.

By the end of the month she changed her story and said there had been a female prisoner but that she was most definitely not Dr Aafia Siddiqui.

By that time Aafia had been gunned down at virtually point blank range in an Afghan prison cell jammed full of more than a dozen US soldiers, FBI agents and Afghan police.

Her Excellency briefed the media that the prisoner had wrested an M4 gun from one soldier and fired off two rounds and had to be subdued. The fact these bullets failed to hit a single person in the cell and simply disappeared did not resonate with the diplomat.

In a letter dripping in untruths on August 16 2008 she decried the “erroneous and irresponsible media reports regarding the arrest of Ms
Aafia Siddiqui”. She went on to say: “Unfortunately,
there are some who have an interest in simply distorting the facts in an effort to manipulate and inflame public opinion. The truth is never served by sensationalism…”

When Jamaat Islami invited me on a national tour of Pakistan to address people about the continued abuse of Dr Aafia and the truth about her incarceration in Bagram, the US Ambassador continued to issue rebuttals.

She assured us all that Dr Aafia was being treated humanely had been given consular access as set out in international law … hmm. Well I have a challenge for Ms Patterson today. I challenge her to repeat every single word she said back then and swear it is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

As Dr Aafia Siddiqui’s trial got underway, the US Ambassador and some of her stooges from the intelligence world laid on a lavish party at the US Embassy in Islamabad for some hand-picked journalists where I’ve no doubt in between the dancing, drinks and music they were carefully briefed about the so-called facts of the case.

Interesting that some of the potentially incriminating pictures taken at the private party managed to find the Ambassador was probably hoping to minimize the impact the trial would have on the streets of Pakistan proving that, for the years she has been holed up and barricaded behind concrete bunkers and barbed wire, she has learned nothing about this great country of Pakistan or its people.

One astute Pakistani columnist wrote about her: “The respected lady seems to have forgotten the words of her own country’s 16th president Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865): “You
can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some
of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time”.

And the people of Pakistan proved they are nobody’s fool and responded to the guilty verdict in New York in an appropriate way.

When injustice is the law it is the duty of everyone to rise up and challenge that injustice in any way possible.

The response – so far – has been restrained and measured but it is just the start. A sentence has yet to be delivered by Judge Richard Berman in May.

Of course there has been a great deal of finger pointing and blame towards the jury in New York who found Dr Aafia guilty of attempted murder.

Observers asked how they could ignore the science and the irrefutable facts … there was absolutely no evidence linking Dr Aafia to the gun, no bullets, no residue from firing it.

But I really don’t think we can blame the jurors for the verdict – you see the jury simply could not handle the truth.    Had they taken the logical route and gone for the science and the hard, cold, clinical facts it would have meant two things.  It would have meant around eight US soldiers took the oath and lied in court to save their own skins and careers or it would have meant that Dr Aafia Siddiqui was telling the truth.

And, as I said before, the jury couldn’t handle the truth. Because that would have meant that the defendant really had been kidnapped, abused, tortured and held in dark, secret prisons by the US before being shot and put on a rendition flight to New York. It would have meant that her three children – two of them US citizens – would also have been kidnapped, abused and tortured by the US.

They say ignorance is bliss and this jury so desperately wanted not to believe that the US could have had a hand in the kidnapping of a five-month -old baby boy, a five-year-old girl and her seven-year-old brother.

They couldn’t handle the truth … it is as simple as that.

Well I, and many others across the world like me, can’t handle any more lies. America’s reputation is lying in the lowest gutters in Pakistan at the moment and it can’t sink any lower.

The trust has gone, there is only a burning hatred and resentment towards a superpower which sends unmanned drones into villages to slaughter innocents.

It is fair to say that America’s goodwill and credibility is all but washed up with most honest, decent citizens of Pakistan.

And I think even Her Excellency Anne Patterson recognizes that fact which is why she is now keeping her mouth shut.

If she has any integrity and any self respect left she should stand before the Pakistan people and ask for their forgiveness for the drone murders, the extra judicial killings, the black operations, the kidnapping, torture and rendition of its citizens, the water-boarding, the bribery, the corruption and, not least of all, the injustice handed out to Dr Aafia Siddiqui and her family.

She should then pick up the phone to the US President and tell him to release Aafia and return Pakistan’s most loved, respected and famous daughter and reunite her with the two children who are still missing.

Then she should re-read her letter of August 16, 2008 and write another … one of resignation.

* Yvonne Ridley is a patron of Cageprisoners which first brought the plight of Dr Aafia Siddiqui to the world’s attention shortly after her kidnap in March 2003. The award-winning, investigative journalist also co-produced the documentary In Search of Prisoner 650 with film-maker Hassan al Banna Ghani which concluded that the Grey Lady of Bagram was Dr Aafia Siddiqui

By Yvonne Ridley

Many of us are still in a state of shock over the guilty verdict returned on Dr Aafia Siddiqui.
The response from the people of Pakistan was predictable and overwhelming and I salute their spontaneous actions.
From Peshawar to Islamabad, Karachi, Lahore and beyond they marched in their thousands demanding the return of Aafia.
Even some of the US media expressed discomfort over the verdict returned by the jurors … there was a general feeling that something was not right.
Everyone had something to say, everyone that is except the usually verbose US Ambassador Anne Patterson who has spent the last two years briefing against Dr Aafia and her supporters.
This is the same woman who claimed I was a fantasist when I gave a press conference with Tehreek e Insaf leader Imran Khan back in July 2008 revealing the plight of a female prisoner in Bagram called the Grey Lady.
She said I was talking nonsense and stated categorically that the prisoner I referred to as “650” did not exist.
By the end of the month she changed her story and said there had been a female prisoner but that she was most definitely not Dr Aafia Siddiqui.
By that time Aafia had been gunned down at virtually point blank range in an Afghan prison cell jammed full of more than a dozen US soldiers, FBI agents and Afghan police.
Her Excellency briefed the media that the prisoner had wrested an M4 gun from one soldier and fired off two rounds and had to be subdued. The fact these bullets failed to hit a single person in the cell and simply disappeared did not resonate with the diplomat.
In a letter dripping in untruths on August 16 2008 she decried the “erroneous and irresponsible media reports regarding the arrest of MsAafia Siddiqui”. She went on to say: “Unfortunately,there are some who have an interest in simply distorting the facts in an effort to manipulate and inflame public opinion. The truth is never served by sensationalism…”
When Jamaat Islami invited me on a national tour of Pakistan to address people about the continued abuse of Dr Aafia and the truth about her incarceration in Bagram, the US Ambassador continued to issue rebuttals.
She assured us all that Dr Aafia was being treated humanely had been given consular access as set out in international law … hmm. Well I have a challenge for Ms Patterson today. I challenge her to repeat every single word she said back then and swear it is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
As Dr Aafia Siddiqui’s trial got underway, the US Ambassador and some of her stooges from the intelligence world laid on a lavish party at the US Embassy in Islamabad for some hand-picked journalists where I’ve no doubt in between the dancing, drinks and music they were carefully briefed about the so-called facts of the case.
Interesting that some of the potentially incriminating pictures taken at the private party managed to find the Ambassador was probably hoping to minimize the impact the trial would have on the streets of Pakistan proving that, for the years she has been holed up and barricaded behind concrete bunkers and barbed wire, she has learned nothing about this great country of Pakistan or its people.
One astute Pakistani columnist wrote about her: “The respected lady seems to have forgotten the words of her own country’s 16th president Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865): “Youcan fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people someof the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time”.
And the people of Pakistan proved they are nobody’s fool and responded to the guilty verdict in New York in an appropriate way.
When injustice is the law it is the duty of everyone to rise up and challenge that injustice in any way possible.
The response – so far – has been restrained and measured but it is just the start. A sentence has yet to be delivered by Judge Richard Berman in May.
Of course there has been a great deal of finger pointing and blame towards the jury in New York who found Dr Aafia guilty of attempted murder.
Observers asked how they could ignore the science and the irrefutable facts … there was absolutely no evidence linking Dr Aafia to the gun, no bullets, no residue from firing it.
But I really don’t think we can blame the jurors for the verdict – you see the jury simply could not handle the truth. Had they taken the logical route and gone for the science and the hard, cold, clinical facts it would have meant two things. It would have meant around eight US soldiers took the oath and lied in court to save their own skins and careers or it would have meant that Dr Aafia Siddiqui was telling the truth.
And, as I said before, the jury couldn’t handle the truth. Because that would have meant that the defendant really had been kidnapped, abused, tortured and held in dark, secret prisons by the US before being shot and put on a rendition flight to New York. It would have meant that her three children – two of them US citizens – would also have been kidnapped, abused and tortured by the US.
They say ignorance is bliss and this jury so desperately wanted not to believe that the US could have had a hand in the kidnapping of a five-month -old baby boy, a five-year-old girl and her seven-year-old brother.
They couldn’t handle the truth … it is as simple as that.
Well I, and many others across the world like me, can’t handle any more lies. America’s reputation is lying in the lowest gutters in Pakistan at the moment and it can’t sink any lower.
The trust has gone, there is only a burning hatred and resentment towards a superpower which sends unmanned drones into villages to slaughter innocents.
It is fair to say that America’s goodwill and credibility is all but washed up with most honest, decent citizens of Pakistan.
And I think even Her Excellency Anne Patterson recognizes that fact which is why she is now keeping her mouth shut.
If she has any integrity and any self respect left she should stand before the Pakistan people and ask for their forgiveness for the drone murders, the extra judicial killings, the black operations, the kidnapping, torture and rendition of its citizens, the water-boarding, the bribery, the corruption and, not least of all, the injustice handed out to Dr Aafia Siddiqui and her family.
She should then pick up the phone to the US President and tell him to release Aafia and return Pakistan’s most loved, respected and famous daughter and reunite her with the two children who are still missing.
Then she should re-read her letter of August 16, 2008 and write another … one of resignation.
* Yvonne Ridley is a patron of Cageprisoners which first brought the plight of Dr Aafia Siddiqui to the world’s attention shortly after her kidnap in March 2003. The award-winning, investigative journalist also co-produced the documentary In Search of Prisoner 650 with film-maker Hassan al Banna Ghani which concluded that the Grey Lady of Bagram was Dr Aafia Siddiqui

By YVONNE RIDLEY

MANY of us are still in a state of shock over the guilty verdict returned on Dr Aafia Siddiqui.

The response from the people of Pakistan was predictable and overwhelming and I salute their spontaneous actions.

From Peshawar to Islamabad, Karachi, Lahore and beyond they marched in their thousands demanding the return of Aafia.

Even some of the US media expressed discomfort over the verdict returned by the jurors … there was a general feeling that something was not right.

Everyone had something to say, everyone that is except the usually verbose US Ambassador Anne Patterson who has spent the last two years briefing against Dr Aafia and her supporters.

This is the same woman who claimed I was a fantasist when I gave a press conference with Tehreek e Insaf leader Imran Khan back in July 2008 revealing the plight of a female prisoner in Bagram called the Grey Lady.

She said I was talking nonsense and stated categorically that the prisoner I referred to as “650” did not exist.

By the end of the month she changed her story and said there had been a female prisoner but that she was most definitely not Dr Aafia Siddiqui.

By that time Aafia had been gunned down at virtually point blank range in an Afghan prison cell jammed full of more than a dozen US soldiers, FBI agents and Afghan police.

Her Excellency briefed the media that the prisoner had wrested an M4 gun from one soldier and fired off two rounds and had to be subdued. The fact these bullets failed to hit a single person in the cell and simply disappeared did not resonate with the diplomat.

In a letter dripping in untruths on August 16 2008 she decried the “erroneous and irresponsible media reports regarding the arrest of Ms Aafia Siddiqui”. She went on to say: “Unfortunately, there are some who have an interest in simply distorting the facts in an effort to manipulate and inflame public opinion. The truth is never served by sensationalism…”

When Jamaat Islami invited me on a national tour of Pakistan to address people about the continued abuse of Dr Aafia and the truth about her incarceration in Bagram, the US Ambassador continued to issue rebuttals.

She assured us all that Dr Aafia was being treated humanely had been given consular access as set out in international law … hmm. Well I have a challenge for Ms Patterson today. I challenge her to repeat every single word she said back then and swear it is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

As Dr Aafia Siddiqui’s trial got underway, the US Ambassador and some of her stooges from the intelligence world laid on a lavish party at the US Embassy in Islamabad for some hand-picked journalists where I’ve no doubt in between the dancing, drinks and music they were carefully briefed about the so-called facts of the case.

Interesting that some of the potentially incriminating pictures taken at the private party managed to find the Ambassador was probably hoping to minimize the impact the trial would have on the streets of Pakistan proving that, for the years she has been holed up and barricaded behind concrete bunkers and barbed wire, she has learned nothing about this great country of Pakistan or its people.

One astute Pakistani columnist wrote about her: “The respected lady seems to have forgotten the words of her own country’s 16th president Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865): “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time”.

And the people of Pakistan proved they are nobody’s fool and responded to the guilty verdict in New York in an appropriate way.

When injustice is the law it is the duty of everyone to rise up and challenge that injustice in any way possible.

The response – so far – has been restrained and measured but it is just the start. A sentence has yet to be delivered by Judge Richard Berman in May.

Of course there has been a great deal of finger pointing and blame towards the jury in New York who found Dr Aafia guilty of attempted murder.

Observers asked how they could ignore the science and the irrefutable facts … there was absolutely no evidence linking Dr Aafia to the gun, no bullets, no residue from firing it.

But I really don’t think we can blame the jurors for the verdict – you see the jury simply could not handle the truth.    Had they taken the logical route and gone for the science and the hard, cold, clinical facts it would have meant two things.  It would have meant around eight US soldiers took the oath and lied in court to save their own skins and careers or it would have meant that Dr Aafia Siddiqui was telling the truth.

And, as I said before, the jury couldn’t handle the truth. Because that would have meant that the defendant really had been kidnapped, abused, tortured and held in dark, secret prisons by the US before being shot and put on a rendition flight to New York. It would have meant that her three children – two of them US citizens – would also have been kidnapped, abused and tortured by the US.

They say ignorance is bliss and this jury so desperately wanted not to believe that the US could have had a hand in the kidnapping of a five-month -old baby boy, a five-year-old girl and her seven-year-old brother.

They couldn’t handle the truth … it is as simple as that.

Well I, and many others across the world like me, can’t handle any more lies. America’s reputation is lying in the lowest gutters in Pakistan at the moment and it can’t sink any lower.

The trust has gone, there is only a burning hatred and resentment towards a superpower which sends unmanned drones into villages to slaughter innocents.

It is fair to say that America’s goodwill and credibility is all but washed up with most honest, decent citizens of Pakistan.

And I think even Her Excellency Anne Patterson recognizes that fact which is why she is now keeping her mouth shut.

If she has any integrity and any self respect left she should stand before the Pakistan people and ask for their forgiveness for the drone murders, the extra judicial killings, the black operations, the kidnapping, torture and rendition of its citizens, the water-boarding, the bribery, the corruption and, not least of all, the injustice handed out to Dr Aafia Siddiqui and her family.

She should then pick up the phone to the US President and tell him to release Aafia and return Pakistan’s most loved, respected and famous daughter and reunite her with the two children who are still missing.

Then she should re-read her letter of August 16, 2008 and write another … one of resignation.

Yvonne Ridley is a patron of Cageprisoners which first brought the plight of Dr Aafia Siddiqui to the world’s attention shortly after her kidnap in March 2003. The award-winning, investigative journalist also coproduced the documentary In Search of Prisoner 650 with film-maker Hassan al Banna Ghani which concluded that the Grey Lady of Bagram was Dr Aafia Siddiqui. She regularly contributes to TheMuslim.Ca

By Yvonne Ridley

“Why is there even a trial?” It was, of course, a rhetorical question and probably the most poignant and telling observation made during the opening proceedings against Dr Aafia Siddiqui in New York this week. It is a question I hope every US journalist and media group across the world keeps on asking every day as American tax dollars are squandered persecuting an innocent women for no other reason than someone is incapable of saying: “I made a mistake”.

I don’t know who this individual is, other than he is very senior in US intelligence and is directly responsible for ordering the kidnap, rendition, torture and abuse of Dr Aafia and the disappearance of her three children. In his drive to cover his own tracks and frame Dr Aafia she ended up being shot several times by US guards in an Afghan police cell in the province of Ghazni. Initially, he may have done nothing more than sign a piece of paper which brought about her kidnap from Karachi way back in March 2003 – but by now he will know that the entire Muslim world is watching and waiting to see what happens when the trial gets underway for real on Tuesday, January 19.

Despite the judge’s futile attempts to keep switching and changing pre-trial hearings, supporters of Dr Aafia still manage to fill the spectator gallery and overspill room. Judge Richard Berman will by now be acutely aware he is handling one of the most sensitive cases ever brought before a court in the entire history of George W Bush’s ill-fated War on Terror. I know he has received hundreds of postcards from those who have attended Cageprisoners meetings demanding he uses his influence to stop the primitive and brutal strip searches Dr Aafia has been forced to endure every time she meets with her legal team and attends court.

Should she resist these searches, I can tell you having witnessed CCTV footage fo a woman prisoner doing the same, Dr Aafia will be held down by around four to five male prison warders while two female officers tear away at her clothes and then carry out full cavity searches. What I witnessed on CCTV footage is tantamount to rape and had I not seen it with my own eyes, I would have thought it was filmed in a third world country. Sadly this primitive practice and the pleas of hundreds, if not thousands of westerners to Judge Berman to have the practice stop, have yet to take effect.

The trial is scheduled to begin on Tuesday, January 19 at 9am in the Federal Court in Manhattan, New York where the frail Pakistani mother-of-three faces charges for an alleged crime which happened in Afghanistan in July 2008. The pre-trial hearing on Monday was quite illuminating in itself after the prosecution:

• ADMITTED Dr Aafia is not a member of al-Qaida
• REVEALED she has no links to any terrorist organization
• STATED there were no fingerprints on the gun she was supposed to have wrested from one of the soldiers
• CONCEDED no bullets were recovered from the cell

The defense complained that the prosecution had still not turned over the list of witnesses they intend to call so defense lawyers have no idea who those witnesses are. It had previously been agreed that the legal team representing Dr Aafia would get those names at least one week before the start of trial.

Dr Aafia’s lawyers requested once again that she be spared the strip searches and have a video link.  The judge said he wanted now for her to have the right to confront her accuser so she must be forced to court. (It should be noted that the defense made the argument that if Aafia’s ability to face her accusers is so paramount, why is this not applied to the “evidence” when those who accuse her of having this evidence are not being brought to court and so she has no right to confront them? However she still must be strip searched and brought to trial against her will for the sake of this same right.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Aafia made one appeal to the public saying that she was for peace and wanted to help.  She said that she was not against America and many injustices are being done to her. Many people in the audience cried as the US Marshalls again forcibly removed her, physically pushing her at times. The defense lawyers pleaded with the US Marshalls and the MDC prison legal representative, Christa Colvin, to allow even a 5 minute meeting between Aafia and her brother but the US marshals refused. When her brother attempted to say a few words to her, the marshals turned Aafia’s head away so she could not respond.

So, this is justice US style. The case, outlined by the prosecution appears to be so thin it is anorexic. It all rests on whether this tiny framed, frail woman wrestled an assault rile from the hands of a burly US soldier and fired off two rounds while she was in a dazed and confused state.

The fact that she was kidnapped from her home city in Pakistan at the behest of US intelligence, beaten, tortured and abused in Bagram for several years before being dumped outside the governor of Ghazni’s home five years later is not up for discussion.

The fact her three children, two of the US citizens, were also kidnapped and two of them are still missing is, apparently not relevant either.

All Judge Berman wants to establish is: “Did Aafia wrestle the gun for a US soldier with the intent to shoot him?”

And since there’s no forensic evidence tying Dr Aafia to the gun, there seems to be no case. No fingerprints, no bullets, no residue – NOTHING.

The prosecution has even conceded there are no terror links which blows the New York tabloids’ headlines calling her the ‘Al-Qaida Mom’.

As I said at the start of this article the rhetorical question asked by one observer was probably the most poignant one of the day: “Why is there even a trial.”

But here’s an even better question I challenge the US media to ask: “Who is responsible for putting this innocent women through six years of hell and where are her missing children?”

* Yvonne Ridley is a patron of Cageprisoners, the first human rights organization which highlighted the mystery disappearance of Dr Aafia Siddiqui in 2003 and has campaigned for her release ever since.

Please remember Dr, Aafia and her children in your prayers and supplications

By Yvonne Ridley

“Why is there even a trial?” It was, of course, a rhetorical question and probably the most poignant and telling observation made during the opening proceedings against Dr Aafia Siddiqui in New York this week. It is a question I hope every US journalist and media group across the world keeps on asking every day as American tax dollars are squandered persecuting an innocent women for no other reason than someone is incapable of saying: “I made a mistake”.

I don’t know who this individual is, other than he is very senior in US intelligence and is directly responsible for ordering the kidnap, rendition, torture and abuse of Dr Aafia and the disappearance of her three children. In his drive to cover his own tracks and frame Dr Aafia she ended up being shot several times by US guards in an Afghan police cell in the province of Ghazni. Initially, he may have done nothing more than sign a piece of paper which brought about her kidnap from Karachi way back in March 2003 – but by now he will know that the entire Muslim world is watching and waiting to see what happens when the trial gets underway for real on Tuesday, January 19.

Despite the judge’s futile attempts to keep switching and changing pre-trial hearings, supporters of Dr Aafia still manage to fill the spectator gallery and overspill room. Judge Richard Berman will by now be acutely aware he is handling one of the most sensitive cases ever brought before a court in the entire history of George W Bush’s ill-fated War on Terror. I know he has received hundreds of postcards from those who have attended Cageprisoners meetings demanding he uses his influence to stop the primitive and brutal strip searches Dr Aafia has been forced to endure every time she meets with her legal team and attends court.

Should she resist these searches, I can tell you having witnessed CCTV footage fo a woman prisoner doing the same, Dr Aafia will be held down by around four to five male prison warders while two female officers tear away at her clothes and then carry out full cavity searches. What I witnessed on CCTV footage is tantamount to rape and had I not seen it with my own eyes, I would have thought it was filmed in a third world country. Sadly this primitive practice and the pleas of hundreds, if not thousands of westerners to Judge Berman to have the practice stop, have yet to take effect.

The trial is scheduled to begin on Tuesday, January 19 at 9am in the Federal Court in Manhattan, New York where the frail Pakistani mother-of-three faces charges for an alleged crime which happened in Afghanistan in July 2008. The pre-trial hearing on Monday was quite illuminating in itself after the prosecution:

• ADMITTED Dr Aafia is not a member of al-Qaida
• REVEALED she has no links to any terrorist organization
• STATED there were no fingerprints on the gun she was supposed to have wrested from one of the soldiers
• CONCEDED no bullets were recovered from the cell

The defense complained that the prosecution had still not turned over the list of witnesses they intend to call so defense lawyers have no idea who those witnesses are. It had previously been agreed that the legal team representing Dr Aafia would get those names at least one week before the start of trial.

Dr Aafia’s lawyers requested once again that she be spared the strip searches and have a video link.  The judge said he wanted now for her to have the right to confront her accuser so she must be forced to court. (It should be noted that the defense made the argument that if Aafia’s ability to face her accusers is so paramount, why is this not applied to the “evidence” when those who accuse her of having this evidence are not being brought to court and so she has no right to confront them? However she still must be strip searched and brought to trial against her will for the sake of this same right.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Aafia made one appeal to the public saying that she was for peace and wanted to help.  She said that she was not against America and many injustices are being done to her. Many people in the audience cried as the US Marshalls again forcibly removed her, physically pushing her at times. The defense lawyers pleaded with the US Marshalls and the MDC prison legal representative, Christa Colvin, to allow even a 5 minute meeting between Aafia and her brother but the US marshals refused. When her brother attempted to say a few words to her, the marshals turned Aafia’s head away so she could not respond.

So, this is justice US style. The case, outlined by the prosecution appears to be so thin it is anorexic. It all rests on whether this tiny framed, frail woman wrestled an assault rile from the hands of a burly US soldier and fired off two rounds while she was in a dazed and confused state.

The fact that she was kidnapped from her home city in Pakistan at the behest of US intelligence, beaten, tortured and abused in Bagram for several years before being dumped outside the governor of Ghazni’s home five years later is not up for discussion.

The fact her three children, two of the US citizens, were also kidnapped and two of them are still missing is, apparently not relevant either.

All Judge Berman wants to establish is: “Did Aafia wrestle the gun for a US soldier with the intent to shoot him?”

And since there’s no forensic evidence tying Dr Aafia to the gun, there seems to be no case. No fingerprints, no bullets, no residue – NOTHING.

The prosecution has even conceded there are no terror links which blows the New York tabloids’ headlines calling her the ‘Al-Qaida Mom’.

As I said at the start of this article the rhetorical question asked by one observer was probably the most poignant one of the day: “Why is there even a trial.”

But here’s an even better question I challenge the US media to ask: “Who is responsible for putting this innocent women through six years of hell and where are her missing children?”

* Yvonne Ridley is a patron of Cageprisoners, the first human rights organization which highlighted the mystery disappearance of Dr Aafia Siddiqui in 2003 and has campaigned for her release ever since.

Please remember Dr, Aafia and her children in your prayers and supplications

Related:  The Powerful Testimony of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui

In this post, Adam Holland exposes the link between disgraced former Congressman (and John Demjanjuk supporter) Jim Traficant and both the far right and Islamic anti-Zionists. The key link is Michael Collins Piper, described as the far right’s emissary to the Muslim world. Among others, he is connected to Press.TV/Galloway associate/pro-Hezbollah Yvonne Ridley. He is also connected to Cynthia McKinney assoicate and conspirationist Matthias Chang.

The Respect Annual Conference was held in Birmingham this year.

The Respect annual conference took place in Birmingham on Saturday with 210 delegates attending. The event revolved around the three key themes of our general election campaign: anti-racism and defense of multiculturalism, opposition to the cuts agenda of the mainstream parties, and international solidarity.

The opening session was introduced by Respect party leader Salma Yaqoob. Salma laid into New Labour for creating the conditions under which the BNP has grown; with its attacks on the Muslim community and increasingly anti-immigrant rhetoric.

Salma Yaqoob

She described how, since 9/11, Labour has resisted any examination of the disastrous role of its own foreign policy in creating a homegrown terrorist threat, leaving the impression that there is something intrinsic to the religon and culture of British Muslims that presents a threat to British society. She cited Jack Straw’s attacks on Muslim women who wear niqab; the attacks on mainstream Muslim organisations like the MCB and MAB for “sitting on the sidelines” in the fight against terrorism from the former Secretary for State for Communities, Ruth Kelly; and the Preventing Violent Extremism agenda, now described by Liberty as the ‘biggest spying operation’ since the Cold War.

Conference delegates

Similarly when Gordon Brown says that he wants ‘British jobs for British workers’, or ‘local homes for local people’, or curbs on immigration, he is stoking the fires of fear and intolerance that the BNP are the primary beneficiaries of. Salma challenged myths about immigrants being responsible for the recession or shortages in housing and concluded by emphasising Respect’s twin track approach in tackling racism: On the one hand, upholding and defending multiculturalism and challenging all forms of racism; and on the other hand, challenging the social inequality that allows the politics of resentment and division to breed.

The following discussion was by far the best of the conference. Not only was the quality of contributions largely very impressive, but they also conveyed a deep sense of commitment to tackling racism and an engagement in that struggle.

George Galloway

The second session was introduced by George Galloway, focusing on the recession and the politics of an alternative to economic crisis. Unfortunately, the discussion became distorted by those advocating the yet to be born ‘son-of-No2EU’.

An account of what followed, by an observer from the Green Left, accurately conveyed George’s response: ‘Galloway absolutely hammered No2EU in particular for standing against Peter Cranie in the North West… and refused to entertain any talk of coalition with the son of NO2EU.’ In addition to hammering NO2EU for effectively letting the BNP in (‘if the left had united it would have been Peter Cranie on Question Time not Nick Griffin’) he was scathing about the exaggeration being peddled about son-of-NO2EU. Contrary to claims by Ian Donovan, there were not ‘three national unions’ supporting this initiative; the reality was that three national union secretaries addressed a meeting in a personal capacity on working class political representation. George predicted the FBU would not support any so-called ‘new coalition’ and ridiculed the idea that the Prison Officers Association were now in the vanguard of building a far-left of Labour alternative, saying this would come as a bit of a surprise to any prisoner, especially those black, Irish or Muslim prisoners who had been on the receiving end of dealings with ‘screws’.

A sharp tone was adopted by both George and Salma towards an increasingly marginal current of opinion in Respect that sees our future as part of a coalition of the far left. The tone reflects the degree of frustration with an argument, just 6 months before a General Election, over backing a coalition with no name, no policies and no electoral credibility.

Nick Wrack

It also reflects a clear difference of strategy. As both George and Salmaexplained, we are focused on building unity and working with others, but we reject the narrow conception of left unity that gives pride of place to organizations with absolutely no popular support. Respect’s former National Secretary, Nick Wrack, came in for particular criticism, with Salma pointing out the irony of his calls for ‘left unity’ when he was one of those insisting that Respect should stand against the Greens in the North-West European region.

The message was delivered loud and clear: we wish all those who want to join the ‘coalition with no name’ well on their journey, and where we can establish friendly relations with any other progressive party or coalition we will do so, but we have an opportunity to advance the left by getting Respect MPs elected. If we fail, it will not be for the want of trying.

Andrew Murray

The final session was introduced by Andrew Murray who received a standing ovation for his passionate call for opposition to the war in Afghanistan and for Respect to use its strengths to help Stop the War reconnect with its core support. He was followed by Francisco Dominguez from the Venezuela Solidarity Campaign, who painted a vivid picture of the Bolivarian revolution 10 years on, the threats it faces, and the importance of international solidarity. Finally, Kevin Ovenden outlined exciting new developments in Palestinian solidarity, describing the way that Viva Palestina was fast becoming a global campaign, finding new and significant support in Malaysia among other places, and deepening its productive relationship with the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign.

Delegates vote

There was genuine and sharp debate at this conference. And the outcome was clear. Respect’s leadership is absolutely determined that the influence of the ultra-left will remain marginal. There is no place for the kind of political sectarianism that is indifferent to a Tory victory or bitterly hostile to cooperation with the Green Party. Such views, often articulated by politically irrelevant grouplets of the far left, are an obstacle to the growth of a radical party of the left. The potential for a serious radical and left-wing party will be determined by its ability to speak to the millions who are essentially disillusioned Labour

Respect Conference

supporters, and its ability to provide convincing alternatives to the politics of war, racism and cuts.
I fully expect the new National Council, on which the more sectarian voices are a shrinking minority, to drive through this perspective more forcefully in the coming year.

A report by Ger Francis

[Videos for this event will be available soon. Picture gallery on the Birmingham Respect facebook group: here]

Additional reports:

Respect Conference – Andy Newman, Socialist Unity (15.11.09)

Respect Conference in Birmingham today – Derek Wall (Green Party), Another World is Possible (14.11.09)

Saturday, 24 October 2009 11:22

The Pakistan Government has been ordered to secure the release of scientist Dr. Aafia Siddiqui from US custody.
Originally published in Pakistan, By Yvonne Ridley

The Islamabad High Court made the ground-breaking directive in a move welcomed by her family, supporters and anyone who wants to see justice delivered to a woman who has been trapped in a hellish existence for the last six years.

However, not everyone is happy that Justice Raja Saeed Akram has ordered the government to work towards bringing Aafia home.

As I discovered a few days ago during a visit to Pakistan it seems her ex-husband Dr. Muhammad Amjad Khan has been briefing against the mother of his three children.

In an exclusive interview given to Karachi journalist Aroosa Masroor at The News, Dr. Khan said that most claims about Aafia, propagated to garner public support and sympathy, are untrue.

Why he chose to break his silence after six years is not immediately obvious … unless you buy in to the crazy theory that he was instrumental in his wife’s arrest and disappearance.

Of course it would be outrageous and defamatory to suggest Dr. Khan was involved and I certainly have no evidence to suggest otherwise, but what intrigues me is why this man would want to try and deliberately mislead the public as he did in his first on-the-record interview.

I am not sure what are his motives but, in a conference I gave at the Islamabad National Press Club this week I threw out a challenge to Dr. Khan to either put up or shut up.

In his February 18 interview he said: “Aafia’s release cannot be secured by propagating stories based on falsehood and deception,” and then he went on to tell a lie so blatant that I can no longer remain silent, and here’s why.

He reckons that the iconic photograph of Aafia, slumped to one side with eyes closed, was a stunted up picture taken by her sister Fowzia years ago. He even goes into fine detail explaining her injured mouth, saying that Aafia’s upper lip was cut by a milk bottle in an accident.

Fowzia, he says, warned him at the time that if he tried to divorce Aafia, she would use the picture against him alleging him to be an abusive husband. “It was made to appear in the picture that Aafia was badly injured. Today, the same picture is being circulated in the media to claim that Aafia was tortured for years in Bagram,” he states in The News interview.

There’s no hesitation in this statement – he is very clear about the origins of ‘that picture’. Well I am also clear about the origins of ‘that picture’ because it was taken by the office of the Governor of Ghazni in July 2008.

How do I know? Because the governor told me so himself, and then showed me copies of that and other pictures taken of Aafia on the day of her arrest that he stored on his personal laptop. If you check this unedited footage shot by film-maker Hassan al Banna Ghani who accompanied me on my investigations to Pakistan and Afghanistan last year, the origins of that iconic picture become very clear.

That is why I stood up in a press conference a few days ago and called Dr. Khan a liar, and then invited him to sue me “in a court of his choice” for slander and defamation. As a journalist I know the seriousness of making such a statement and I do not make it lightly but I also mean what I say and say what I mean.

In the meantime, I will let you – the viewer – make your own judgment about the photograph of Dr. Aafia. Perhaps you have your own theories about why her ex-husband would lie. Here is the clip

The divorce was, without doubt, a very bitter experience for both sides as most divorces are. Bitterness can remain a lifetime companion, but at the end of the day Dr. Aafia is the mother of his three children and as such she deserves his support and respect.

If he can’t give it, then I suggest Dr. Khan returns to the shadows once more and stops briefing against his wife.

Sharing details of his failed marriage with Dr. Aafia, serves no purpose although I have to question why Dr. Khan signed a legal agreement whereby the custody of the three children was given to Aafia after their split, if he really thought his wife was (as he portrays in the article) … a violent, unstable woman in the sway of jihadists.

In the meantime two of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui’s children – Marium now aged 10, and six-year-old Suleiman – are still missing.

Perhaps that is something which would concern any parent, but Dr. Khan states casually: “I am sure they are around Karachi and in contact with their maternal family as both Aafia and the children were seen around their house here and in Islamabad on multiple occasions since their alleged disappearance in 2003.

“They may be living under an assumed identity just like Aafia and Ahmed had been living [as Saliha and Ali Ahsan] for five years before they got arrested.”

He said Dr. Fowzia’s claim that the children are missing after being removed from the Bagram prison in Afghanistan “may be an attempt to attract sympathy of the government and the people and distract its attention from the real location.”

He also attempts to pour cold water on claims that Aafiya was held in US custody, including Bagram for five years – but how would he really know?

I, on the otherhand, have eye witness accounts that the woman known as Prisoner 650 who was held in Bagram for years is none other than Dr. Aafia Siddiqui.

Even the US authorities, after months of denial, finally supported my statements and admitted that Prisoner 650 was indeed a female detainee in their custody.

The only dispute we have now is the identity of Prisoner 650. The US authorities say she isn’t Aafia but refuse to say who she is and to which country she was returned.

I, on the other hand, now have an interview statement given freely by former Guantanamo detainee Binyam Mohamed confirming that Prisoner 650 and Dr. Aafia Siddiqui are one in the same. This man saw her during his time in Bagram and has made a positive identification. His evidence is, in my opinion, irrefutable.

Again, make your own judgments by checking out Binyam Mohamed’s interview through this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGHWcPRBQr8

I now understand Aafia’s case is going to be submitted to the International Court of Justice in  The Hague and that the government of Pakistan is making serious efforts on this issue.

In the meantime the case against Aafia will be resumed in New York later this month after a psychologist and physician give their reports regarding her health and if she is fit to plead.

The court hearing is, in itself, illegal and I’m not sure how it can go ahead. I say that on the basis Aafia, is after all a Pakistani citizen who is being tried for an alleged offence carried out in Afghanistan. She is only standing trial in America because she was put on a rendition flight to America – and was certainly not extradited.

* Yvonne Ridley is a patron of the human rights organisation Cage Prisoners and works as a broadcast journalist. her weekly show The Agenda goes out every Friday evening 8.07(GMT) on Press TV – her website is www.yvonneridley.org

References to this aricle:

Interview with Binyam Mohamed: http://www.presstv.com/programs/player/?id=90350

Interview with Governor of Ghazni: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBhseSkNX68

Interview in The News: http://www.thenews.com.pk/print3.asp?id=20404

Source:lhttp://www.freeaafia.org/updates/46-international-news/115-pak-govt-ordered-to-secure-the-release-of-dr-aafia.htm

Fazel Muhamad, 48, holding pictures of family members who were killed in the attack. Photograph: Ghaith Abdul-Ahad; The Guardian

In the past two days I have had three “curious” replies to a post in matangmanok regarding Yvonne Ridley, the British journalist who had converted to Islam.  I have approved one of the replies to show that if there is genuine discussion needed on a subject I am willing to open the doors.  But the two other replies to the same post that are now pending my approval have forced me to wonder if there is a new anti-Muslim wave I am unaware of.

I would like to invite the two people who have swamped me with these strange correspondences to please understand, I prefer to keep this space open for all who wish to contribute their thoughts without attacking another person’s choice of faith.

Mr Fulgente Antonio, I permitted your initial reply to the article concerning reports by Yvonne Ridley.  Your follow-up is far too long and too similar to the other person who posted a reply on the same day, forcing me to wonder if you know each other in more ways than one.

Mr Jeffrey Lang, this is how your reply started:

It is really a pity that an educated British lady converts to Islam and fails to get to know the realty of Jesus, the LIGHT OF THE WORLD. I had earlier went through the same experience of being led astray by the PROPHET OF DOOM, Mohammad, but later I realized that was stepping into hell. I would like to list  a comparison between the Lord of Light, JESUS, and the Prophet of Doom, Mohammad, so that the message would be made clear to Yvonne Ridley and all misled Muslims. I would like also to note that I have returned safely to the Lord Jesus and abandoned the bleak image of Mohammad.
Jeffrey Lang (project@genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu).

The rest of it, I am sorry to say, will take up too much space on my blog.  I will gladly forward the rest of the lengthy text to anyone who kindly requests it.

I grew up in a now predominantly Catholic country.  Before the Spanish colonizers arrived it had been largely Muslim, but there were many other belief systems among the myriad tribes.  The Europeans stayed for over 300 years, and in that time countless lives were lost in the effort to convert the population to the lovely religion of Christianity.  Numerous rebellions took place, villagers took to the hills to avoid being forced to accept a foreign belief system.

If you look at the history of religions – not just Christianity – that tried to impose their belief systems on others, you might just find that weapons of destruction accompanied such flag-waving campaigns.  In the end the “triumphant” religion seems to have taken over the pre-existing one, but in fact it often gets changed as well in the process.

The “subsumed” religion, just like any organism, seeks ways of surviving in the most amazing ways.  I dare say that animism and ancestral worship continue to bleed through the bandages of the Christian faith – one has to know where to look.  Though that is a matter for another time.

For now these are the things I would like to mention.  It is easy to wave a flag and brand someone.  With that, the flag-waver and brander calls attention to him/herself.  What cause are you fighting for?  What box do you stand on?  Or is that a coffin?  Have you measured it?

Choosing a faith – or for that matter, rejecting one or all – is a very personal matter.  And so there is an arrogance that carries with it a terrible blindness when one decries a particular religion, condemning every single person who might be its follower.

A few steps away from that dangerous activity is the closing of doors to a common humanity.

بسم الله الرحمان الرحيم 

 Il Governo pakistano ha ricevuto l’ordine di assicurarsi del rilascio della scienziata, dottoressa Aafia Siddiqui, attualmente detenuta negli Stati Uniti.

L’Alta Corte di Islamabad ha emesso la rivoluzionaria sentenza, con un’azione accolta con favore dalla sua famiglia, dai suoi sostenitori e da tutti coloro che desiderano vedere che giustizia sia fatta nei confronti di una donna che è stata intrappolata in una esistenza infernale negli ultimi sei anni.

Sorelle pakistane manifestano per Aafia

Tuttavia, non tutti sono felici che il giudice Raja Saeed Akram abbia ordinato al Governo di adoperarsi per riportare a casa Aafia.

Come ho scoperto pochi giorni fa, durante una visita in Pakistan, sembra che il suo ex marito, il dottor Mohammad Amjad Khan, si stia impegnando contro la madre dei suoi tre figli.

In un’intervista esclusiva concessa al giornalista di Karachi Aroosa Masroor, di “The News”, il dr. Khan ha dichiarato che molte delle affermazioni a proposito di Aafia, propagate per guadagnare il sostegno e la simpatia del pubblico, sarebbero false.

Perché abbia scelto di rompere il suo silenzio, dopo sei anni, non è immediatamente evidente… a meno che non facciate vostra la folle teoria secondo cui egli sarebbe stato determinante nell’arresto e nella scomparsa di sua moglie.

Naturalmente, sarebbe oltraggioso e diffamatorio suggerire che il dr. Khan fosse coinvolto, e io certamente non ho prove per ipotizzare altrimenti, ma quello che mi intriga è il motivo per cui quest’uomo voglia giudicare e deliberatamente fuorviare il pubblico, come ha fatto nella sua prima intervista.

Non sono sicura di quali siano le sue motivazioni, ma in una conferenza stampa che ho tenuto al National Press Club di Islamabad questa settimana, ho lanciato una sfida al dr. Khan, perché fornisca le prove, oppure taccia.

Nella sua intervista del 18 febbraio, ha dichiarato: “Il rilascio di Aafia non puo’ essere garantito dalla diffusione di storie basate sulla falsità e l’inganno”, continuando poi a mentire in modo cosi’ palese che non posso rimanere più a lungo in silenzio, ed ecco perché.

Egli sostiene che la fotografia di Aafia, accasciata su un fianco con gli occhi chiusi, fosse un’immagine ingannevole, scattata da sua sorella Fowzia anni fa. Si lancia perfino a fornire minuziosi dettagli, che spiegherebbero la sua bocca ferita, dichiarando che il labbro superiore di Aafia fu tagliato da una bottiglia di latte accidentalmente.

Fowzia, dice lui, lo avverti’ a quell’epoca che, se egli avesse provato a divorziare da Aafia, lei avrebbe usato quell’immagine contro di lui, accusandolo di essere un marito violento. “Fu fatto sembrare nella foto che Aafia fosse stata gravemente ferita. Oggi, la stessa immagine viene diffusa sui mass media per affermare che Aafia è stata torturata per anni a Bagram”, afferma nell’intervista rilasciata a “The News”.

Non vi è alcuna esitazione in tale affermazione – egli è assolutamente certo dell’origine di “questa immagine”. Ebbene, anch’io sono sicura riguardo alle origini di “questa immagine”, poiché essa è stata prelevata dall’ufficio del Governatore di Ghazni nel luglio del 2008.

Come lo so? Perché è stato lo stesso governatore a dirmelo, e poi mi ha mostrato delle copie di questa e di altre immagini scattate ad Aafia il giorno del suo arresto, che egli conservava nel suo computer portile. Se si esamina questo inedito filmato girato dal regista Hassan al Banna Ghani, che mi ha accompagnata nelle mie indagini in Pakistan e in Afghanistan l’anno scorso, le origini di questa immagine risultano chiarissime.

Questo è il motivo per cui mi sono alzata in piedi durante una conferenza stampa, pochi giorni fa, chiamando il dottor Khan un bugiardo, e invitandolo poi a perseguirmi “in un tribunale di sua scelta” per calunnia e diffamazione. In quanto giornalista, comprendo la gravità di una tale affermazione, e non la pronuncio con leggerezza, ma penso quello che dico, e dico quello che penso.

Nel frattempo – caro lettore – lascero’ che tu possa giudicare da solo riguardo alla fotografia della dottoressa Aafia.

Puo’ darsi che tu abbia una teoria personale sul perché il suo ex marito abbia mentito. Ecco il filmato:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBhseSkNX68

Il divorzio è stato, senza dubbio, un’esperienza molto amara per entrambe le parti, cosi’ come lo sono  la maggior parte dei divorzi. L’amarezza potrà accompagnarlo per tutta la vita, ma alla fine della storia la dott.ssa Aafia è la madre dei suoi tre figli, e come tale merita il suo sostegno e il suo rispetto.

Se non glieli puo’ dare, allora consiglio al dott. Khan di tornarsene nell’ombra e di smettere di fare dichiarazioni contro sua moglie.

Aggiungere dettagli a proposito del suo matrimonio fallito con la dott.ssa Aafia non servirebbe a nulla, sebbene io debba chiedermi perché il dott. Khan firmo’ un accordo legale in base al quale la custodia dei tre figli fu affidata ad Aafia dopo la loro separazione, se davvero egli pensa che sua moglie fosse (come ritrae nell’articolo) “una violenta, instabile donna sotto il dominio dei jihadisti”.

Ahmed, il figlio tredicenne di Aafia (qui con la zia materna Fowzia), è stato riconsegnato dall’Afghanistan alla sua famiglia in Pakistan nel settembre 2008, a cinque anni dalla scomparsa. I suoi due fratellini, Marium e Suleiman, risultano ancora dispersi

Nel frattempo, due dei figli della dott.ssa Aafia ( Marium, che adesso ha 10 anni, e Suleiman di 6 – risultano ancora dispersi.

Probabilmente è qualcosa che dovrebbe colpire ogni genitore, ma il dott. Khan afferma con indifferenza: “Sono sicuro che si trovino intorno a Karachi, e in contatto con la loro famiglia materna, cosi’ come Aafia e i bambini sono stati visti intorno a casa loro, qui e a Islamabad, in diverse occasioni, fin dalla loro presunta scomparsa nel 2003. Puo’ darsi che vivano sotto false identità, come avevano vissuto Aafia e Ahmed (Come Saliha e Ali Ahsan) per cinque anni, prima che fossero arrestati”.

Egli afferma che la dichiarazione della dott.ssa Fowzia, secondo cui i bambini sono scomparsi dopo essere stati trasferiti dalla prigione di Bagram in Afghanistan, “potrebbe essere un tentativo per attirare la simpatia del governo e della gente, e distrarre l’attenzione dalla vera localizzazione”.

Egli cerca anche di gettare acqua fredda sulle dichiarazioni secondo cui Aafia fu detenuta dalle forze statunitensi, anche nella prigione di Bagram, per 5 anni. Ma cosa sa costui veramente?

Io, al contrario, ho le dichiarazioni di testimoni oculari, secondo cui la donna nota come Prigioniero 650 che è stata detenuta a Bagram per 5 anni altri non è che la dott.ssa Aafia Siddiqui.

Anche le autorità statunitensi, dopo mesi di smentite, finalmente concordano con le mie dichiarazioni, ammettendo che il Prigioniero 650 fosse davvero una detenuta di sesso femminile sotto la loro custodia.

La sola disputa che continua a dividerci è l’identità del Prigioniero 650. Le autorità statunitensi dichiarano che non fosse Aafia, ma rifiutano di dire chi fosse e a quale Paese sarebbe stata restituita.

Io, d’altra parte, possiedo ora un’intervista-testimonianza rilasciata liberamente dall’ex detenuto di Guantanamo, Binyam Mohamed, che conferma che il Prigioniero 650 e la dott.ssa Aafia Siddiqui sono la stessa persona. Quest’uomo la vide durante il tempo da lui trascorso a Bagram, e l’ha riconosciuta. La prova da lui fornita è, a mio parere, irrefutabile.

Ancora una volta, esprimete il vostro parere esaminando l’intervista a Binyam Mohamed, attraverso questo link:

http://www.presstv.com/programs/player/?id=90350

Vengo ora a sapere che il processo contro Aafia sta per essere sottoposto alla Corte Internazionale di Giustizia dell’Aja e che il Governo del Pakistan si sta adoperando seriamente sulla questione.

Nel frattempo, il processo contro Aafia riprenderà a New York a fine mese, dopo che uno psicologo e un medico avranno presentato le loro relazioni riguardo alla sua salute, e abbiano deciso se ella sia in grado di difendersi.

L’udienza è, di per sé, illegale, e non so come potrà proseguire. Io dico che, per cominciare, Aafia è dopotutto una cittadina pakistana che viene processata per un reato che si presume commesso in Afghanistan. Sta subendo un processo in America soltanto perché è stata gettata su un “rendition flight” verso l’America – e non è stata certamente estradata.

Yvonne Ridley

9 giugno 2009

http://yvonneridley.org/yvonne-ridley/articles/the-intriguing-case-of-dr-aafiya-siddiqui.html

Yvonne Ridley è una sostenitrice dell’organizzazione per i diritti umani Cage Prisoners, e lavora come giornalista radiofonica.

Il suo settimanale di attualità “The Agenda” va in onda ogni venerdi’ sera alle 19.05 (GMT) su Press TV.

Riferimenti a questo articolo:

Intervista a Binyam Mohamed: http://www.presstv.com/programs/player/?id=90350

Intervista al Governatore di Ghazni: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBhseSkNX68

Intervista a The News: http://www.thenews.com.pk/print3.asp?id=20404

[Continued from the previous missive...]

From what I understand, separate disciplinary procedures are being considered against Cllr. Mulla of Blackburn and Darwen in connexion with his alleged part in the Lancashire County Council e-mail brou-haha; and I for one would not be at all disappointed if they are realized. Mulla has insisted that he supports local Holocaust Memorial Day events each year, but would not remain silent if he saw similar ‘atrocities’.

I have had a good look around, and there is one genuine sulphur-smelling genocide he appears remarkably silent on. This may be the limitations of Google which, when I use the criteria ~*+”Salim Mulla” +Darfur”, I found only hits on Gaza. I am happy to stand corrected if I can be shown he has led rallies against Darfur as he has with Gaza.

One invited speaker at this rally was Yvonne Ridley, who is either a deep-penetration agent by MI5 [Ed: please don’t mention “deep-penetration” and “Yvonne Ridley” in the same sentence; it made me barf] or a genuine nutter who believes “drinking coca cola is like drinking the blood of Palestinian children” (I would prefer it mixed in with Purim pastries, myself):

Another was Lauren Booth who used her husband’s coma as a poor-me article, and whose step-sister’s husband did something once. Booth does not believe the Jewish Chronicle can be expected to print the truth, and can be seen emerging from a Gaza shop stricken by sanctions:

No, sorry, not that one. This one:

Here Booth genuinely is strolling through Hamas palace gardens. Bear in mind that the region was and still is in the grip of a serious drought:

At this time, Booth managed to abuse both the 400,000 Survivors in Israel (by accusing them of repricating the actions of the Nazis) and the victims of the Darfur genocide (by claiming Gaza was in a worse situation). This is Darfur:

And this is a photograph which Yans Arthus-Betrand never would take:

What disgusting women, Booth and Ridley are: as, with great delight, I saw many of the readers of the Blackburn Citizen [which I linked to above] also think. Dude, Ridley was there in person! Footage of the pogrom Smurfs for Jihad rally ‘peace-rally’ can be seen, including an appearance by Daud “You Sunk my Navy” Abdullah:

But, back to Mulla.

[To be continued...]

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Nel Nome di Allah, il sommamente Misericordioso, il Clementissimo

di Yvonne Ridley
(hafizahallah)

Provo un profondo malessere constatando che la cultura pop contamina alcuni cosiddetti artisti di an-nashîd. Beninteso, è con molta leggerezza che impiego il termine “artisti di an-nashîd”. Bisognerebbe piuttosto parlare di “boys bands” islamiche e di “popstars” musulmane.
Nel corso della storia, eminenti sapienti hanno spesso dichiarato che la musica è illecita; non mi ricordo di avere mai letto che i Compagni (radiAllahu ‘anhum) si esaltassero al suono della musica… Non fraintendete. Sono assolutamente favorevole al fatto che la gente si sfoghi, ma in un modo degno e appropriato al proprio contesto.
La ragione che mi spinge a esprimere il mio turbamento è la seguente: qualche giorno fa, durante un raduno nel centro di Londra, l’isteria ha sopraffatto le sorelle della fila centrale nel momento in cui una sorta di pop-mania irrompeva nella sala del concerto. E non parlo qui di stupide ragazzine senza giudizio; si trattava di sorelle di 20, 30 o 40 anni, che urlavano, gridavano, si agitavano e ballavano.
Perfino gli agenti della sicurezza, che somigliavano più a curapipe che a bulldozer, sembravano stupiti mentre tentavano di impedire alle sorelle velate di salire in piedi sulle loro sedie.
Beninteso, gli assistenti di scena hanno ancor più aggravato le cose: agitavano le braccia incoraggiando la folla, largamente composta da donne musulmane, ad “alzarsi e cantare in coro” (si chiamano “fluffers” durante i numeri di spogliarello!).

L’oggetto di questa ondata di adulazione era il britannico Sami Yusuf, che è così fiero del suo passaporto bordeaux da desiderare che tutti salutino la bandiera. È sorprendente che non abbia invitato le sue fans a cantare l’inno nazionale. Il fratello Sami ha chiesto al suo pubblico di innalzare grida di acclamazione nel caso in cui fossero fiere di essere britanniche. In seguito alla chiassosa risposta, ha dichiarato che non era abbastanza forte e ha chiesto loro di ricominciare.
Come può qualcuno trarre un qualsiasi orgoglio dall’essere britannico? La Gran Bretagna è il terzo Paese più odiato del mondo. La bandiera nazionale è rigurgitante del sangue dei nostri fratelli e sorelle di Irâq, Afghanistan e Palestina. La nostra storia gocciola del sangue del colonialismo, è incatenata allo schiavismo, alla brutalità, alla tortura e all’oppressione. Inoltre, non abbiamo mai assistito ad una partita di calcio corretta, fin da quando abbiamo vinto la Coppa del Mondo nel 1966…

Sembra che Sami abbia anche dichiarato che in uno dei punti vendita di “Brand UK” ci sono dei musulmani arruolati nella Polizia Metropolitana! Astaghfirullah! Non dimenticate che questi poliziotti applicano la strategia dello “sparare per uccidere”, e che avrebbero fatto fuori un musulmano, l’anno scorso, se soltanto fossero stati capaci di distinguere un Bengalese da un Brasiliano…
Ed è sempre questa organizzazione ad aver organizzato delle retate in più di 3.000 abitazioni musulmane dopo l’11 settembre. Mi chiedo veramente che genere di vita si conduca sul Pianeta Sami. Se è tanto orgoglioso di essere inglese, perché vive nella grande democrazia egiziana del Medioriente?

Sembra che la forma di isteria incoraggiata da Sami esista anche negli Stati Uniti; se si produce da una riva all’altra dell’Atlantico, allora deve esistere in tutto il globo e avvelenare le masse. Le “boys band” come “786” e “Mecca 2 Medina” sono anche l’oggetto di una sorta di adulazione femminile che ci si aspetterebbe di osservare piuttosto rivolta verso gli idoli del pop americano, o verso “X-Factor”.

Non vi è dubbio sul fatto che le riunioni islamiche dovrebbero incoraggiare un comportamento improntato al riserbo e alla calma.
Chi bisogna biasimare? Le sorelle scatenate? Gli organizzatori che hanno permesso questo comportamento eccessivo che reca danno all’Islâm? O gli artisti?
Abu Ali e Abu Abdul Malik, nella loro lotta per la loro fede, non cercherebbeo certamente di far gonfiare questo genere di isteria. Non più degli artisti eroici e anonimi di an-nashîd che cantano per la libertà; informatevi riguardo “Idhrib Ya Asad Fallujah” per comprendere di cosa sto parlando.
Fallujah è attualmente sinonimo di una forma di resistenza eroica che ha innalzato i Palestinesi di Jenin al rango dei Comunardi di Parigi e degli assediati di Leningrado. I militari americani hanno vietato ogni nashîd su Fallujah a causa del potere e della passione che vi sono evocati.
Tuttavia, se questi an-nashîd spingessero le sorelle a correre per le strade dondolandosi e danzando, potrebbero essere oggetto di una dissuasione, a causa delle attività illecite derivanti.

Francamente, non capisco come qualcuno nella Ummah possa lasciarsi andare a gridare di gioia per eccesso di piacere, mentre il mondo odierno presenta tanta brutalità e sofferenza. Fiumi di sangue vengono versati dalle vene dei nostri fratelli e sorelle dovunque nel mondo musulmano. Le grida e gli appelli agli eroi della musica soffocano le urla provenienti dalle galere dell’Uzbekistan, dove i nostri fratelli e le nostre sorelle vengono bruciati vivi in tinozze di acqua bollente.

Quanti si lanciano e alzano le braccia, invocando con passione la giustizia nei confronti dei nostri in Kashmir, in Afghanistan, in Cecenia, in Palestina e in Irâq? E tanti altri teatri di massacri esistono in Asia e nel mondo arabo. Contate di montare sulle sedie a teatro e condividere la vostra collera a proposito di Guantanamo e di altri gulag in cui i nostri fratelli e le nostre sorelle subiscono torture, stupri, sodomia, violenza e cremazione? O semplicemente vi allontanerete da me, la vostra sorella inquieta, per accendere la radio sul canale dei cantanti del genere di Sami Yusuf, perché costoro possano vendervi una chimera attraverso delle parole tranquillizzanti e una voce melodiosa?

Oh Musulmani, svegliatevi! La Ummah non sanguina: vive un’emorragia.

Non prestate orecchio all’illecito. Ascoltate piuttosto i gemiti della vostra famiglia mondiale.

Jazakillahu khayran alla sorella Naghat del forum Islamie
Fonte: http://yvonneridley.org/

Comment at end

7th July, 2009

NAMED – BRITISH EMPLOYEES/SYMPATHISERS OF THE PRESENT IRANIAN GOVERNMENT 

THE ENEMY WITHIN?

PRESENTERS ON PRESS TV

GEORGE GALLOWAY - a British Member of Parliament and head of the RESPECT party.

YVONNE RIDLEY -  former Al Jazeera and Sunday Express journalist.

ANDREW GILLIGAN - The Evening Standard columnist, best known for his 2003 report about a British government briefing paper on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction (the September Dossier) while working for BBC Radio 4’s The Today Programme as its defence and diplomatic correspondent.

NICK FERRARI – UNTIL LAST WEEK WHEN HE HAD THE SENSE TO RESIGN. (Why he was persuaded to join them in the first place concerns me.) 

TARIQ RAMADAN, A SWISS citizen but WELL KNOWN IN BRITAIN TOO 

Also listed as an employee – Afshin Rattansi, the award-winning former BBC journalist and novelist, and Guardian columnist. He launched the Dubai Business Channel, and worked in senior positions at Al Jazeera, Bloomberg and CNN International.

And then there’s THE MOST (IN)FAMOUS OF THE LOT, LAUREN BOOTH. She is a half-sister to Cherie Booth, the wife of Tony Blair, who is now the Quartet’s Middle East envoy. She is probably the most highly-connected Briton to work for the present Iranian government and must have felt like a major coup to Amanutjob… Ahmadinejad. 

Lauren Booth, with head scarf, as she appears on Press TV

Lauren Booth speaks: How her Press TV programme is too important to her to stop doing it. AND here, her sad childhood. Is this why she has rejected her own country and culture and perhaps some of her own family?

Wikipedia- Lauren Booth - “Currently Lauren presents ‘In Focus’ on the UK’s Islam Channel, and ‘Between The Headlines’ on the Iranian-owned Press TV.^{[3] [4]“}

Press TV was made available on the Sky package from December 2008, but its programmes are already available on Arabic packages, as well as its website (www.presstv.com).

BACKGROUND TO THE BROADCASTING ISSUES IN IRAN,  BRITAIN & THE WORLD

As Iran performs on many fronts following unrest after its disputed election returned Ahmadinejad to office, the President of Iran has challenged Obama to a debate. Iran has also charged the last of nine arrested Iranians who worked for the British Embassy with acting against Iran’s security. It is  struggling as valiantly as its lies will permit to pass the blame to the west, especially Britain, for its people’s unrest after the recent elections. Meanwhile a conservative Iranian newspaper suggests that the opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi should be charged with treason.

It is suggested that one of the reasons local diplomats in the British Embassy in Iran were arrested had something to do with the BBC’s Persian TV Channel, although the autorities have said they may have been fomenting unrest. The Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad took exception to the BBC Persian channel’s kind of “news” getting out to the Iranian people.

Meanwhile, back in Britain we have been hosting THEIR kind of news since January this year. In London, in fact under the less clearly identifiable definable name of “Press TV”. Doesn’t sound quite as Iranian as the BBC Persian Channel sounds British.

But of course the enemy within uses this kind of tactic. It’s called subterfuge, and we have plenty of the homegrown type here in Britain.

BBC Persian TV will broadcast for eight hours a day, seven days a week, in peak viewing time in those countries. The head of BBC World Service, Nigel Chapman, says millions of Iranians have dishes and there is plenty of demand. But Iranian officials have branded the channel a “security threat” and say they will take “necessary” steps. 

The BBC has been broadcasting in Farsi on the radio since 1940 and it launched BBCPersian.com in 2001. The radio has a weekly audience of 10 million people and the BBC hopes that the television service will reach the same figure within three years.

Correspondents say despite the efforts of the government in Tehran, the BBC has a high reputation as a reliable news provider among Iranians.

Although the government has banned Farsi-language operations, it does allow the BBC to base an English-language correspondent in the country. But the authorities have warned citizens not to get involved with the new TV channel, and the BBC has advised viewers not to risk getting themselves into trouble in order to take part in phone-ins and other interactive broadcasts.

As part of the BBC World Service, the new channel is funded by the UK Foreign Office at an annual cost of £15m ($22m) but it is editorially independent of the government.  Ten days after first broadcasting Iran blocked the BBC’s Persian website.   

Presenter Nick Ferrari quits Iran Press TV over ‘bias’ after election

Nick Ferrari, a leading British radio presenter, quit his show on the station yesterday in protest at the regime crushing dissent after the Iranian elections, but Press TV continues to employ plenty of other Britons — including MPs and Cherie Blair’s half-sister.

It operates freely in this country, even as foreign journalists are ejected from Iran. It advertises on London buses.

The regime set up Press TV two years ago to break the “stranglehold” of the Western media — and its coverage of the election and the aftermath has certainly been different.

1. Offcom is investigating PRESS TV for accuracy and due impartiality.

2. Press TV is situated near the North Circular road in North London, off the Hangar Lane gyratory system.

3. It was set up two years ago ny the current Iran regime as the Voice of Tehran in order to challenge western broadcasting and views.

4. Nick Ferrari, the London radio host quit Press TV over the suppression of dissent and because BBC reporting was airbrushed out. He says he cannot reconcile that behaviour with working there.

5. Matthew Richardson, executive of what he described as ‘Press TV Limited’ defended Press TV.

6. Jeremy Paxman asked him why the first information of the shot young woman, Neda Agha-Soltan, was over a week late on Press TV. No satisfactory answer came from Richardson.  Another ”enemy within.”

Watch the Newsnight programme from 1st July, 2009

RELATED

• Times: Dominic Lawson:  Iran’s British stooges
• Watch Press TV live: Read some of the comments on this channel to see the depth of hatred against the west, especially Britain.
• Oliver Kamm – ‘Iran’s Broadcaster’
• An anti-the Newsnight report : “ Newsnight goes a bit Chomsky”
• Spectator’s Martin Bright says he didn’t realise Yvonne Ridley was SUPPORTING the present regime in Iran!
• Iran’s Press TV disputes death of  Neda Agha-Soltan, 26, on June 20th.
• New York Times – report & pictures here.
• YouTube video on this young woman’s death – WARNING!! OVER 18s ONLY.

بسم الله الرحمان الرحيم

Assalamu ‘alaykum waRahmatullahi Ta’ala waBarakatuHu 

Copio-incollo un interessante articolo della sorella Yvonne Ridley, jazakillahu khayran alla sorella Umm Zakaria del blog Cose Cosi’ per averlo tradotto

Il modo in cui i mezzi di informazione occidentali si sono occupati della guerra a Gaza è molto di parte a causa del rifiuto di mostrare ai telespettatori le immagini reali delle vittime.

Una della ragioni è la decisione di Israele di non permettere ai mezzi di informazione occidentali di entrare a Gaza.

Oltre a questa oltraggiosa censura da parte di una cosiddetta democrazia, c’è il solito pretesto che molte delle immagini mostrate dai mezzi di informazione arabi sono troppo scioccanti per il pubblico occidentale.

In effetti, l’orribile foto che mi è stata inviata della testa di un bambino che giaceva tra le macerie di Gaza mi ha davvero tolto il respiro.

Ma questa è la guerra ed è vera e se i mezzi di informazione mostrassero questo tipo di immagini forse il pubblico si renderebbe conto degli orrori provocati dalle bombe sganciate sui civili.

Tra i mezzi di informazione arabi non c’è questa reticenza ed ecco perché molte persone che hanno la parabola seguono le reti mediorientali per guardare il genocidio in corso a Gaza.

Una delle reti che sta riscuotendo un gran seguito è la giovanissima Press TV, iraniana, e da poco su Sky 515. Sta diventando la rete più seguita dai telespettatori, in particolare tra gli europei che conoscono l’inglese, che vogliono solo la verità, poco importa se scioccante o sgradevole.

C’è circa mezza dozzina di giornalisti palestinesi sul terreno con le troupes di Press TV per mostrare gli orrori della guerra in corso. Ammiro la loro dedizione e il loro coraggio e li saluto tutti, uno per uno…alcuni di loro sono miei amici.

In questo momento presento uno show, ma ho anche lavorato come giornalista per oltre trent’anni occupandomi di conflitti e dei loro postumi dalle Falklands, alla prima e seconda guerra del Golfo, i conflitti irlandesi, la Palestina, l’Afghanistan e l’Iraq per diverse testate giornalistiche e reti televisive.

E un elemento comune in tutti i conflitti è la costante battaglia di giornalisti e corrispondenti di guerra per arrivare alla verità, ma la battaglia per raccontare la verità sta diventando sempre più difficile nonostante la straordinaria tecnologia che abbiamo a disposizione.

La gente al potere che compie cose terribili non vuole che la verità esca fuori, ecco perché sempre più i giornalisti si ritrovano banditi o censurati.

Sapete, la verità è un’arma potentissima e molto influente che puo’ essere usata contro queste persone. Purtroppo, quando è distorta e manipolata puo’ essere ancora più distruttiva.

La macchina da guerra israeliana riesce a distorcere la verità in modo magistrale, ecco perché lo stato continua a restare impunito per non aver aderito alla convenzione di Ginevra sulla punizione collettiva dei cittadini di Gaza.
La tattica israeliana è crudele, perversa e dimostra che ai suoi leader non interessa il processo di pace o uno stato palestinese.

Stanno creando il terreno ideale per far crescere l’estremismo, sabotando gli sforzi per la pace e sprecando tutta la buona volontà messa dagli altri.

Cinque anni fa, l’amministrazione Bush menti’ sulle armi di distruzione di massa…una menzogna ripetuta a gran voce dall’ex Primo Ministro britannico Tony Blair per persuadere i mezzi di informazione a sostenere l’invasione illegale ed immorale dell’Iraq.

E ha funzionato.

Affinché possano vergognarsene in eterno, la maggior parte dei mezzi di informazione sono caduti nella trappola e se la sono bevuta: a parte alcuni giornalisti, la maggior parte ha taciuto su questo ….. Il New York Times, in realtà, dopo ha pubblicato le scuse in prima pagina, ma il danno era stato fatto e la percezione del pubblico era difficile da cambiare.

Purtroppo, molte delle stesse testate giornalistiche e degli stessi giornalisti non hanno imparato niente da quel periodo vergognoso. All’inizio di questa guerra, Israele ha tirato fuori solo la futile scusa dei razzi di Hamas come giustificazione per lanciare la sua marca di “Shock and Awe” a Gaza. (Nota della traduttrice: la Ridley si riferisce, per chi non ce l’avesse presente, all’operazione di guerra condotta dagli Stati Uniti in Iraq che prende il nome dalla ben nota teoria militare, conosciuta anche come “dottrina del dominio rapido”, sviluppata da Ullman e Wade alla National Defense University negli Stati Uniti nel 1996, basata sull’uso estremo della forza per dominare il campo di battaglia con un dispiegamento spettacolare di armi e militari per paralizzare la capacità dell’avversario di percepire il campo di battaglia e distruggere la sua VOLONTA DI COMBATTERE. Tra le applicazioni di questa teoria, gli “studiosi” succitati annoverano Hiroshima e Nagasaki, come esempi storici antecedenti alla loro formulazione, e i bombardamenti massicci in generale. Vorrei farvi notare che la definizione è presa da Wikipedia, e mi sembra importante sottolineare lo scopo di tale dottrina di combattimento, ovvero annichilire la volontà dell’avversario per ottenere una completa sottomissione. Purtroppo per loro, i musulmani si sottomettono solo all’Onnipotente e questa teoria, per quanto distruttiva, non riesce a dare gli esiti da loro sperati.)

I razzi di Hamas hanno ucciso solo poco più di venti israeliani mentre la guerra di Israele a Gaza ha ucciso oltre 700 persone inclusi più di 200 bambini negli ultimi 13 giorni (vedere il bilancio aggiornato, ndt). Le persone gravemente ferite e mutilate sono per ora migliaia.

Ma la scusa dei “razzi di Hamas” è stata incontestabile in Occidente, nonostante per essere pienamente credibili i mezzi di infromazione israeliani giorni dopo avessero rivelato che l’operazione Piombo Fuso fosse già stata pianificata sei mesi prima allo scopo di distruggere il partito democraticamente eletto di Hamas.

Si, è vero, i razzi ci sono ma non sono nient’altro che pezzi di metallo di rottami che hanno per combustibile del fertilizzante. Come ha osservato un collega, sono delle fionde rispetto ai proiettili, ai missili da milioni di dollari e bombe anti-bunker usate da Israele.

Alcuni dicono che i razzi Qassam sono il frutto della disperazione, personalmente penso che siano più di un semplice gesto simbolico da parte di un popolo che da anni soffre un assedio brutale e medievale per mano di Israele.

Nonostante la sua straordinaria macchina da guerra e la sua tecnologia, questi piccoli razzi raramente vengono intercettati dai radar militari. Gli israeliani non ne sanno niente finché non atterrano e questo li fa impazzire.

Eppure, i leader israeliani e i loro sostenitori continuano a fare una propaganda assurda sui razzi di Hamas che sono molto meno sofisticati di tutto quello che l’IRA ha usato in Gran Bretagna durante il periodo più duro delle sommosse. E bada bene, l’IRA era finanziata e sostenuta dai dollari americani mentre Hamas non ha nessun generoso benefattore dalla sua parte.

Non ricordo che il governo britannico abbia ordinato di lanciare dei missili da crociera su Belfast come risposta alla miseria e al dolore che le bombe dell’IRA avevano causato a Londra, Manchester, Birmingham e altrove. Non ricordo nemmeno di elicotteri Apache che sorvolavano gli uffici del Sinn Fein a Falls Road o assassini mirati di leader dell’IRA.

La maggior parte dei giornalisti con un briciolo di intuito investigativo si renderebbe conto che la scusa dei razzi di Hamas è pura menzogna.

Ma continuano ad usarla come pretesto per lanciare quello che tanta gente, inclusi degli ebrei pacifisti, ha descritto come un olocausto e un genocidio.

Milioni di persone hanno fatto delle manifestazioni: si sono viste rabbia e anarchia sulle strade di tutto il mondo ma gli unici che guardano altrove sono i leader occidentali e i mezzi di informazione al loro servizio.

I leader occidentali, come un branco d’oche che fanno la danza del ventre, sono una grande disgrazia e hanno la stessa utilità che hanno le Nazioni Unite, sempre più “sdentate”, ma c’è una sferzata che sta arrivando e sta arrivando dalla gente comune di ogni parte del mondo.

Sta venendo fuori la forza della gente, quel tipo di forza che ha dato vita alla rivoluzione iraniana e cubana, che ha fatto cadere dittatori crudeli come Nicolae Ceausescu in Romania e ha fatto crollare il muro di Berlino.

Per dirla in parole semplici, il pubblico è diventato cinico ed è stanco delle menzogne. Se i principali mezzi di informazione vogliono riconquistare un minimo di credibilità i giornalisti devono sfidare i leader israeliani e occidentali.

La verità è un’arma potente ed è vero che…

- Israele ha nel mirino i civili: più di due terzi dei morti sono donne e bambini. Allora perché permettere a Tzipi Livni di dire: “La striscia di Gaza è controllata da Hamas e il prezzo lo stanno pagando i bambini israeliani e palestinesi, ma la colpa e l’emissario è Hamas.” Questa è una pura menzogna. Quali bambini israeliani sono stati uccisi? Gli unici bambini morti sono a Gaza.
- Hamas è un’organizzazione politica che ha un’ala militare e non il contrario. E’ stata eletta democraticamente dalla gente che era stanca della corruzione della precedente classe politica che li aveva delusi.
- Israele ha rotto il cessate-il-fuoco il 4 novembre 2008, un fatto che alla fine si è saputo sulla CNN quasi due mesi dopo durante un dibattito sebbene la BBC, la FOX e altri canali occidentali non l’abbiano ancora accennato.
- Hamas non usa civili come scudi umani, e poi dove sono le prove? Israele ha bisogno di fare propaganda o di far tacere, ma i mezzi di informazione non chiedono mai le prove.
- Israele dice di preoccuparsi dei civili e di avvertirli in anticipo dei raid aerei nella loro zona: anche l’IRA faceva cosi’, ma non ricordo nessuno che si sia congratulato con loro per gli interventi umanitari.

E fate attenzione anche all’ultima bugia che sta per passare sui mezzi di informazione sul capo di Hamas Mahmud Zahar che, secondo la propaganda sionista avrebbe detto che i bambini ebrei di tutto il mondo sono bersagli. Un collaboratore del The Guardian ha citato Zahar con queste parole: “I sionisti hanno legittimato l’uccisione dei loro bambini uccidendo i nostri. Hanno legittimizzato l’uccisione della loro gente in tutto il mondo uccidendo la nostra gente.”

Non è quello che ha detto. Purtroppo, la traduzione araba non era corretta e quelli che dovrebbero saperlo non hanno controllato il discorso originale davanti alla sua trascrizione.

Il danno ormai è fatto e resta da vedere se poi ne seguiranno le scuse o una correzione.

Come disse Churchill: “Una bugia ha già fatto il giro di mezzo mondo prima che la verità abbia l’occasione di mettersi gli stivali”.

YVONNE RIDLEY, 8 gennaio 2009

(dal sito YMOUK, Young Muslim Organization United Kingdom)

di Yves Schaëffner, “La Presse”, Montréal, 4 aprile 2006

tradotto dal sito
“QUIBLA. Il quotidiano online dei Musulmani liberi e attivi e dei loro alleati”

Dal nostro inviato speciale, Londra – Imprigionata dai Talibani nel 2001, la giornalista britannica Yvonne Ridley si è in seguito convertita all’Islâm ed anima una trasmissione di informazione su Islam Channel. La femminista convinta ha un percorso per lo meno atipico.

Conosce il Corano da soli quattro anni, ma Yvonne Ridley è già la stella di Islam Channel. E con ragione! Non capita tutti i giorni alla piccola rete televisiva londinese di poter reclutare una giornalista occidentale così nota, che in più si è convertita all’Islâm, dopo essere stata arrestata dai Talibani!
Ancora novizia in materia di Sûre del Corano, Yvonne Ridley possiede al contrario un serio bagaglio giornalistico. In 30 anni di carriera, la giornalista che rasenta la cinquantina ha lavorato praticamente in tutte le redazioni più importanti d’Inghilterra (Daily Mirror, News of the World, The Observer, Sunday Ewpress…).

La sua conversione all’Islâm, la deve ad uno strano concorso di circostanze. Dopo l’11 settembre, vola in Pakistan con l’idea di fare un reportage in Afghanistan per il Sunday Express. Ma quando il visto le viene negato per tre volte, decide di attraversare la frontiera illegalmente, in incognito sotto un burqa.
Sfortunatamente, le sfugge la telecamera sotto lo sguardo di un Talibano. Trascorrerà dieci giorni in cella.
“Tutti i giorni mi dicevano che sarebbe stato l’ultimo giorno”, ricorda la giornalista, oggi tutta vestita di nero e coperta da un hijâb su cui poggia un foulard color albicocca.
Invitata a convertirsi da un religioso, mentre si trova in detenzione, la madre di famiglia, tre volte divorziata, rifiuta, promettendo però che troverà il tempo di leggere il Corano se sarà liberata.
Ogni promessa è debito: al suo ritorno in Inghilterra, si immerge nello studio del Libro Sacro. Cristiana praticante, scopre “una religione più moderna, più attuale”. E due anni e mezzo dopo il suo soggiorno nelle celle afghane, decide di abbracciare la religione di Muhammad (pace e benedizioni di Allah su di lui).
Femminista convinta, dice di essersi appunto convertita perché il Corano dona maggiore libertà della Bibbia alle donne: “Le donne musulmane non conoscono i loro diritti. Non è islamico opprimere le donne, come accade in alcuni paesi musulmani”, se la prende lei.
E il fatto di portare il velo? “Sta scritto nel Corano, è un dovere per tutte le donne Musulmane. Non si può prendere solo ciò che si vuole di una religione. Ma io non giudico e non critico le donne che non lo portano. Si tratta della loro libera scelta”.

Oltre ai valori del Corano, Yvonne Ridley ha anche fatto sue le cause che stanno a cuore a numerosi Musulmani. Dopo aver lavorato sei mesi per il sito Web di Al-Jazeera, in Qatar, nel 2003 (è stata licenziata per sindacalismo e –secondo lei – perché Washington non avrebbe apprezzato una delle sue inchieste), torna in Inghilterra e fonda con altri il partito politico “Respect”.
Amalgama di persone di sinistra e di ferventi Musulmani, Respect si è opposto fermamente alla guerra in Iraq. Candidata a tre riprese dal 2004, la signora Ridley non è tuttavia mai riuscita a farsi eleggere.
Dal gennaio 2004, è anche responsabile delle questioni politiche per la rete Islam Channel. Negli studi di “Agenda” – un quotidiano di informazione – accoglie ogni giorno degli invitati che discutono generalmente di soggetti che toccano da vicino i Musulmani.

Pur negando di essere stata vittima della sindrome di Stoccolma – che spinge gli ostaggi a difendere le idee dei loro rapitori -, la giornalista condanna oggi l’invasione dell’Afghanistan: “Si trattava solo di questioni petrolifere”, sostiene.
Meglio ancora, difende l’eredità dei Talibani: “Stavano sradicando la coltivazione dell’oppio. E cosa vediamo dall’invasione in poi? La coltivazione dell’oppio è ripresa con maggior vigore, l’industria pornografica è in piena effervescenza, gli stupri sono aumentati…”
Criticando la pubblicazione delle caricature di Muhammad (sallAllahu ‘alayhi waSallam) da parte di alcuni mass media occidentali – che paragona alle caricature degli ebrei da parte dei nazisti prima della Seconda Guerra mondiale -, considera pure che i Musulmani sono “i nuovi ebrei”: “Quando si demonizza la gente con delle caricature, si è su una brutta china”.
Ai suoi occhi, Guantanamo si può paragonare d’altronde ad un campo di concentramento dei tempi moderni.
Benché sorpresi dal suo percorso, i suoi vecchi colleghi del Sunday Express continuano a nutrire molto rispetto per lei. “Ha fatto delle scelte inabituali, ma sono le sue scelte. Sono convinto che sia competente oggi così com’era in passato”, conclude il suo ex collega, Jim Murray, oggi responsabile dell’attualità al Sunday Express.

HonestReporting Media BackSpin, 1. Juli 2009

Die Times of London berichtet, dass Moderator Nick Ferrari seinen Job bei Press TV (Zum Vergrößern der Abbildung bitte draufklicken) gekündigt hat, um gegen die verfälschte Berichterstattung des im Iran ansässigen Senders über die Ausschreitungen nach der Wahl zu protestieren:

Ferrari, Gastgeber beim täglichen Frühstücksfernsehen von LBC, erklärte der Times gegenüber, dass die Berichterstattung von Press TV bis vor der Wahl „halbwegs fair“ gewesen sei, aber danach nicht mehr. „Ich gehe davon aus, dass ihnen gesagt worden ist, was sie zu tun haben, und ich kann das mit meiner Arbeit dort nicht vereinbaren“, so Ferrari.

Die Times berichtet auch, dass Ofcom Nachforschungen zu Press TV anstellt:

Die Medienaufsichtsbehörde Ofcom geht einer Beschwerde nach, dass Press TV seine Sorgfalts- und Unabhängigkeitspflicht verletzt habe, und viele Iraner, die in Großbritannien leben, seien entsetzt darüber, dass der Sender ungehindert operieren kann.

Auch wenn Reporter ohne Grenzen den Iran als “weltgrößte Gefängnis für Journalisten“ bezeichnet, rechtfertigt sich Lauren Booth dafür, dass sie bei Press TV auf der Gehaltsliste steht:

Booth erklärte der Times gegenüber, dass ihr allwöchentlich ausgestrahltes Programm Remember the Children of Palestine „zu wichtig für mich war, um es nicht zu machen“.

George Galloway, Yvonne Ridley und Andrew Gilligan – auch sie bei Press TV beschäftigt – bestanden darauf, dass ihre Sendungen keinerlei Beeinflussung ausgesetzt seien. Klar, wenn man sowieso die Parteilinie nachplappert, ist das auch nicht mehr nötig.

ShareThis