CIA bomber's wife says war must go on against US

[demoleft]

Source: ap

ISTANBUL – The Turkish wife of a Jordanian doctor who killed seven CIA employees in a suicide attack in Afghanistan says her husband was outraged over the treatment of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison and the U.S.-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Defne Bayrak, the wife of bomber Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, said in an interview with The Associated Press that his hatred of the United States had motivated her husband to sacrifice his life on Dec. 30 in what he regarded as a holy war against the U.S.

Bayrak also said Friday, "I think the war against the United States must go on."

Turkish police questioned and released Bayrak on Thursday. But she says police confiscated a book she had written called "Osama bin Laden the Che Guevera of the East."


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100108/ap_on_re_eu/eu_turkey_cia_afghan_attack

---

"Osama bin Laden the Che Guevera of the East."

give her a camomile.

[Lerkfish]

1. the obvious ultimate result of torture

too bad the bush admin never considered the cost of such actions.

[demoleft]

2. i'm afraid they considered it but never cared. which is worse. n/t

[CJCRANE]

5. If you were

a war profiteer what would you do to ensure the other side hates you (to keep the conflict going)?

[saigon68]

42. The shameful picture will recruit forever

This is a better recruiting tool, than the Uncle Sam poster in WW 2

[No Elephants]

65. Not only of torture, IMO, but also of absence of prosecution. Abu Ghraib was publicized years ago.

This guy did nothing all those years, so why now?

[SpiralHawk]

70. Torture is not the kind of thing you forget overnight

I mean, they tortured Jesus Christ over 2,000 years ago, and evangelical christians wear a reminder of that -- a cross - around their neck every day, never forgetting the evil and cruelty perpetrated upon the man who is their hero.

Perversely, the Republicon operatives who set up and executed the brutal & far-reaching Bush-Cheney torture machine all claim to be 'christians.'

[icnorth]

3. Outraged over the treatment of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib?

Gitmo? Al Quaida recruitment tools? Disjointed, bleeding heart, grannies in running shoes librul concept, more I tell ya, more, more I say...:sarcasm: off.

[stuart68]

4. i thought we were fixing all that...

when is it scheduled to close (gitmo) ?

[icnorth]

6. 2011 I think but that may

be up in the air a bit with a number of Yemeni prisoners detained there.

[icnorth]

8. Alternative to Gitmo...

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Illinois-prison-to-house-Gitmo-detainees/564487/">Illinois prison to house Gitmo detainees

[Lost4words]

15. nope, same ol same ol,

gotta maintain that diaster/depression economics. We got that Friedman/Chicago School of Shock econ.
And the trully fat cats are watching their wealth piles grow to the sky.

you see it really hasnt changed except for the names!

[stuart68]

49. Hope and Change

nothing changing here - move along...

[bitchkitty]

7. Camomile?

I don't get the reference - 'splain?

[demoleft]

9. easing nerves and calming, among the properties of the plant, used for tea. n/t

[CanonRay]

10. Sure hope she's on the No Fly list

I sure don't want to be on a plane with her.

[Lerkfish]

11. but you're ok with Abu Ghraib? I mean, she has a point

[demoleft]

12. no, i don't think she has a point. a war against you, american citizen...

...has nothing to do with abu ghraib.

terrorism has no justification of any kind.
blowing up planes and bulding just kills people, not military, cia or anything.

her comparison between osama and guevara is so base that needs no comment.
just crazy propaganda.

[zeemike]

14. Well if you can't shoot the gun out of their hand

Then you have to shoot them that hold it.
And it is us that our government says they are acting for.

[T Wolf]

16. It is NOT our (or your) job or right to choose someone else's heros or leaders. As has been

said here and elsewhere, "terrorism" is the warfare of the poor. The tactic is only defined negatively by those who are rich enough to be able to afford a standing army and military hardware.

Were the colonists "terrorists" because they cowardly ambushed the Redcoats from behind trees instead of standing in neat lines like the British army regulars did?

In a war, you use whatever tactics are available to you.

[demoleft]

17. osama and his bunch of terrorists are all but "poor". your romantic vision...

...deserves quite different heroes to point to.

terrorists kill civilians. i get upset and bark wildly when US or western bombs kill civilians - why should i justify a terrorist who does it on clear will?

as to my "right" - no, i have no right to say who her hero must be.
but i still have a right to discuss it and criticize it.

that's democracy. something that terrorists undermine at every chance.
she can claim what she wants, and i can comment the way i please.

this is no iran here.

[AlphaCentauri]

21. The problem with these type of terrorist is that they were our terrorist

they used to blow up other people and soldiers and we were fine with it, they were not considered terrorist but now even a kid with a stone is a terrorist.

When did we lost our principles?

[Mika]

48. "When did we lost our principles?"

Who are "we"? Did the US government ever have "principles".

[The_Last_Samurai]

63. Democracy????

What "Democracy" r u talkin about?

My name is Zakaria Soubra, just google my name and u will read the "democratic" articles about me. I was accused for being a terrorist and fanatic and a lunatic and the list kept going on and on. I was detained for almost a year, taken away from my school, moved from a jail to another throughout the states, put before a grand jury to testify, and after all this the "Democratic" government has decided to deport me back to my country. why??? simply because I spoke my mind about the American foreign policy straight out flat out. I did not do anything that violated the law but wait a minute: I OPENED MY MOUTH!!! HOW DARE I !!! My friend: wake up and smell the coffee. After September 11 the statue that was called Democracy fell and shattered into pieces. I truly believed that according to the 1st amendment I could say whatever I wanted. But after 911 using the 1st amendment became a crime.

They deported me and put a ban on me for 10 yrs. I cannot go back to my wife's homeland for 10 years. I am not allowed to visit my inlaws whom I respect and love. If I hate USA and wanted to harm it, according to them, then why for GOD's sake did I marry an American? Additionally, I have two beautiful American kids who will always remind me of the beautiful America I have known: America when the Twin Towers were still standing...

[demoleft]

69. yes, democracy. sorry for you and what happened to you. but our sick democracy is better than...

...what those criminal bombers dream about. better than iran and afghanistan, better than china and cuba or russia.
though what happened to you is painful, millions live in a condition of freedom of opinion.

americans were wounded with sept 11, deeply so. and the west was as well.

the bombers are terrorists, period.
they hit civilians to kill, not military. period.

this is what the topic is about here. calling terrorists heroes or liberators, calling osama a che guevara.
what is your opinion about what terrorist' wife said?

as to me, i stick to my sick democracy and work to improve it.

[leftynyc]

23. Moronic theory

considering he was a doctor and came from a wealthy family. And the bin ladens aren't hurting for money either. Try again.

[T Wolf]

25. Where is their standing army? Where is their air force? Where is their navy? To expect

them to fight our military on our terms is naive and arrogant, and stupid.

The point is NOT whether their leaders are rich, poor, or Martians. It is the wealth of their leaders (and backers) that enables them to do what they do. But it is not enough to finance a military establishment like the one we have.

The tactics that we label as "terrorism" are the tools they have to use.

[rayofreason]

53. "[b]abmushed[/b]...Redcoats" - some myths...

...never die.

Like the myth of guerilla war in the American revolution. The only time there was a serious irregular attack on a British column was after Lexington and Concord as the Brits headed back to Boston through a swarm of minutemen. After that, it was pretty much regular 18th century warfare, though in a much more wild environment. Bunker Hill, Brooklyn Heights, Princeton, Trenton, Saratoga, Monmouth, Camden, Cowpens,...the list goes on to Yorktown. All regular battles. Hit and run tactics were used by Marion (Swamp Fox) in the south against Cornwallis, but Marion was regular Continental army and commanded organized units, not a partisan band. Open order, and the extensive use of snipers (riflemen) and skirmishers, might have seemed "irregular" to Brits fighting with european training, but they adopted many of the same tactics (viz. Tarleton's Raiders).

But some myths never die.

And Che is actually an apt choice - after all, he was a cold-hearted murderous son of a bitch.

[kiranon]

32. Agree. Put her on the no fly list and she has no point. One can be against

abu ghraib without becoming a terrorist or supporter of terrorism. If she believes in human rights, she would not support terrorism. Can you imagine what she will tell her children. And, the hate continues on to the next generation.

[carla]

37. Excellent point, often forgotten...

If we believe inhuman rights, we should not support terrorism even state-sponsored war.

[carla]

38. Excellent point, often forgotten...

If we believe in human rights, we should not support terrorism even state-sponsored war.

[carla]

39. Excellent point, often forgotten...

If we believe in human rights, we should not support terrorism and/or state-sponsored terrorism/war.

[carla]

40. Excellent point, often forgotten...

If we believe in human rights, we should not support terrorism and/or state-sponsored terrorism/war.

[golfguru]

66. [phone]

[The Stranger]

51. But the story you posted involved CIA operatives who were there to kill people.

Do you consider an agency like the CIA, which has been responsible for untold numbers of innocent civilian deaths all over the world, to be somehow "innocent?"

[sabrina 1]

68. I am completely against violence, but let's be real.

She does have a point and the Bush administration gave it to her. What would Americans do if they saw pictures of their citizens being tortured by an invading army in their own country? Or their country being bombed into smithereens killing innocent civilians every day for years? What SHOULD they do?

Before you answer think about what America did after 9/11. Was that not crazy? We invaded two countries. We bombed market-places, at weddings, in their apartments and homes, killing innocent civilians, men women and children and didn't stop until the numbers reached over one million, mostly people who never harmed us. We tortured them, some were tortured to death.

Supposing we were watching this happen to Americans? What would be the reaction of the average American? Her husband didn't get on a plane, he bombed people he knew were responsible for the ongoing drone killings in Afghanistan and now in Yemen.

It is pretty hypocritical for any American to criticize this woman for pointing out the obvious. That if you kill other people's loved ones, SOME OF THEM are going to do the same thing America did, they are going to want revenge.

If we want this to stop, then the U.S. has to stop killing people in other countries. If they don't want to do that, then they have to accept that pay-back is part of the equation. We don't get to do all the killing, although we're doing most of it. There are always consequences and if people are going to whine over the consequences then they should not be invading other people's countries.

[barb162]

59. Maybe she and hubby should have started in their own back yard?

Jordan: "Prisoners were reported to have been tortured and otherwise ill-treated. Thousands of people were held without charge or trial under a sweeping provision allowing administrative detention. Procedures in trials before the State Security Court (SSC) breached international standards for fair trial. New restrictions on freedom of expression, association and assembly were approved by the parliament. Women faced discrimination and were inadequately protected against domestic violence. Migrant domestic workers were exploited and abused, and inadequately protected under the law. At least 14 people were sentenced to death but there were no executions."snip
http://thereport.amnesty.org/en/regions/middle-east-north-africa/jordan

[Taverner]

64. I don't care if she does have a point, I don't want her on an airplane with me

[barb162]

58. That's for damned sure! n/t

[zeemike]

13. No, no , no....They hate us for our freedom.

Shut that woman up....we can't have people thinking that they hate us for what we are doing to their neighbors.

:sarcasm:

[Pavulon]

18. Che is a guy we killed, who backed a defunct method of government

communism. She sounds spot on except for the war must go on drivel.

[demoleft]

20. i'm not a fan of che. but there's still a difference between...

...killing soldiers/agents/military/paramilitary and civilians.
9/11 action was not war. it was subhuman.

i see some (not you) on DU, in their push to criticize the US actions in ME, are close to justify bin laden/al qaeda ways.
which of course i take it as paradox and refuse to believe.

[Coventina]

22. And that is why I firmly believe that terrorism is crime, not war.

9/11 was mass-murder carried out by an organized criminal syndicate.

We never should have started a "war on terror."

*sigh*

[Pavulon]

27. I believe a shadow war is better fit than traditional Judge jury

this is a military event that requires international activity by intelligence communities and spec ops guys. An extended ground war may not be the best approach. Not like the Taliban was going to give up bin laden.

911 and the USS Cole were acts of war that required a military response. The correct response is debatable in Afghanistan. Iraq is a different thing.

[Coventina]

28. I understand why you believe that. I understand that it is possible

for good-hearted, serious-minded people to have different opinions on this extremely difficult, complex issue.

My problem with the shadow war approach is that it lacks oversight by the American people. We deserve to know what is being done in our name. I don't trust our government, even under an Obama administration, to not commit atrocities in the shadows.

Obviously, Bushco did not deserve any trust at all, under any circumstances.

[Pavulon]

31. Congress oversees the CIA and controls its budget. In a Representative Democracy

that is what the public gets. The public does not have a right to know sources and methods used to gather information or dispatch people. It does not need to know the agreements in place between the US, Pakistan, Yemen, Jordan, and the rest that allow us a wide latitude to deal with these guys.

They did not steal from walmart and unless they live here they have no protection from our constitution.

[The Stranger]

29. But that's the problem. If you treat it as a war, you have to comply with the laws of war.

And the Neo-Nazi-Cons refuse to do that.

The choice is either: (1) it is a crime, in which case it is prosecuted as a crime, and every criminal defendant (and every human being) is accorded due process; or (2) it is a war, in which case Geneva protections and the law of war applies.

The Neo-Nazi-Cons have tried to create a fraudulent third category that does not exist and is not conceptually valid.

And that is no accident. They are using terrorism or "Terrorism" to do exactly that.

[Pavulon]

30. The rules used by CIA and others post Church

allow for the use of military force against the enemy. Clandestine operations are legal and have been used in every conflict. That means they can be spied on, pressured, and even killed if they are not in the US. Geneva allows for holding of POW until the end of the war, on this case that could be 40 years. Who knows.

Geneva is not all that friendly.

[The Stranger]

33. That's what the Neocons say.

They say that there is a war, and so they can kill (or murder, if they're wrong) without establishing guilt, but then when it comes to "the enemy" they've captured, suddenly they say it really isn't a real war after all. These are not soldiers, supposedly, but some new-fangled, manufactured category of "combatant." So they put them in cages and torture them.

Then there is the issue of whether this is a war, or some new kind of Neo-Nazi-Con "war." A real war is declared by the Congress, and that was done that way to prevent the Executive from dragging the nation into unnecessary wars and declaring any dissent to be treason. It is also to prevent "secret" wars that are not only never declared, but are never ending.

That is why the only legal way out is to return to enforcing the criminal law. Despite its difficulties in respecting due process, it is the only way the Republic isn't destroyed from within by the Neo-Nazi-Con movement.

[Pavulon]

34. Say - Do

every administration (regardless of party) has used intelligence resources to protect american interests. This has included killing people, including heads of state. The Korean conflict was not a declared war.

Both the executive and legislative control this. Once can issue orders to stop, the other can stop funding.

US Criminal law does not cover a guy in Yemen. We can kill this person and his buddies on executive order.

[The Stranger]

45. Nothing you have said really addresses my post, but you're still wrong about the law.

Even if I were to agree about "every administration" doing something, every administration and every party may do something, but that doesn't necessarily make it legal. And to wage a secret war, by definition, it has to be kept from the people. I suppose that sometimes this includes either keeping it from Congress or having the right crooked (or Neo-Nazi-Con) Congresspeople involved.

The criminal law referenced wasn't necessarily U.S. criminal law. The rights underlying due process are inalienable to man (and woman), speaking in the broadest sense. Due process isn't accorded only Americans or those in certain countries. It is a civil right accorded to an individual against a government.

[Alamuti Lotus]

46. All such things are fine against you as well

--still a fan? Or is that different? The argument does or does not apply in reverse?

[carla]

43. You seem to have missed

the government whitewash investigation that said the impossible was possible after all. I stick with physics. Buildings don't fall at free fall rate ; unless deliberately demolished. 9/11 was an act of US government sponsored terrorism. Possible bit players include the Saudis and the Israelis, who likely ponied up several black ops experts for the world's biggest terror spectacle. Don't believe me, just do your own research and be honest with what you find.

[demoleft]

44. i am open to further investigations and michael moore approach...

...finds me interested.

but the topic here is not who's responsible for 9/11. the topic here is this woman endorses terrorism. and to me, bush terrorism or osama terrorism does make little difference. she pictures osama as a hero, she calls "war" terrorism against US citizens (i still find it hard to call "war" hiroshima bombing, go figure!)

and i fidn that too many DUers are ready to sponsor this attitude because they criticize (and rightly) US and its ME policy.
it's crazy - and if u're honest with this all you'll find i'm right: this woman talks crazy.

not to mention the parallel between osama and che guevara.
grotesque.

ciao.

[DeeOwl]

19. What's the big deal?

So, somebody blows up half a dozen spooks or so, probably really nasty pull-your-teeth and sodomize-that-detainee types and this is a national story? I'm starting to wonder though if one of the seven was somebody higher ups daughter or a son, because this is getting way too much attention. It's not like these spook types don't get blown, shot, stabbed and generally dispatched in all sorts of nasty ways all the time, yet we don't hear about those.

[Downwinder]

24. Haven't seen any figures yet on how many people these spooks pulled the plug on.

A suicide bomber is a terrorist but a drone operator with a missile is not?

And what's a dirty bomb, a piece of DU wrapped around an explosive charge?

[T Wolf]

26. One, I think the media will take any opportunity to criticize Obama and the Dems.

So, this is just another opportunity for them to scream that he (and they) are not "keeping us safe." It is the same thing that you get when comparing the media reaction to the BVD-bomber with the coverage (and lack of criticism of the Bushies) about the shoe-bomber.

It is also being used to drive a wedge between the CIA and their fellow-killers and the administration - attack from within and all.

[Flaneur]

35. She is not alone. Most Jordanians think blowing up CIA guys is a good thing.

That's what I heard on a BBC report from Amman this week. The Jordanian government is in an awkward position, playing spy games with the US while post of the population loathes us for our foreign policies.

[The Stranger]

50. The CIA conducting secret wars aren't "innocent civilans," right?

They're there to kill people, right?

[Flaneur]

52. That is the thinking, yes.

[fascisthunter]

36. Our Government's Foreign Policies and Corporate Interests

are coming back to bite us all in the ass. You just can't bully the World and then expect them to be civilized.

[MinM]

41. "Osama bin Laden the Che Guevera of the East." ???

:wtf: The Associated Press spews more right-wing talking points. :daily: :web:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x507676

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x507972

[ngant17]

47. Che was atheist and a communist

so how in the hell could you compare him to an longtime anti-communist and a devout believer?

Che fought a different kind of war, and it wasn't about killing innocent bystanders.

[Exultant Democracy]

54. Suicide bombing is a symptom of occupation. We want oil more then we want peace.

We can only expect more violence directed at us unless we leave.

[barb162]

55. What were we occupying in 2001?

[Exultant Democracy]

56. Dude like half the middle east. Where have you been since WW2? Take a look at our map of army bases

[barb162]

57. So a refueling base with 10 people is an occupation of a country?

What number of US troops were in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, etc, on 9 -11-2001? I'm wondering what you're getting at here, because if we allowed France or England to refuel their ships here with lets' say, 10 people, that means they occupy the US. Or does Gitmo, for example, mean we are running the entire country of Cuba, instead of the Castros.

[Exultant Democracy]

60. It isn't your opinion that matters it's theirs and so obviously the answer is yes.

Your answer also makes it clear that you have no clue as to what the US has been up to for the last 5o years in the middle east. Try reading confessions of an economic hit-man and then research neo-liberalism. I don't have the time to educate you myself.

Also "refueling base with 10 people"? I don't even know where you got that but none of our bases in Saudi Arabia (the muslim holy land) had 10 people in 2001. As you should know the locals have been demonstrating against the US presence their for decades.

[barb162]

61. Is this clueless

v. you're clued in or something? How about dealing with some facts. Just because some people think the moon is made of blue cheese doesn't mean their perception is correct .

Your last paragraph here brings up Saudi Arabia and then doesn't state how many US troops were there in 2001. Were US troops controlling the KSA in 2001? Please provide some backup linkie for that. US troops have cleared out of there years ago. I notice you didn't state how many US troops were in Syria, Iran, Iraq, etc., in 2001 but you make wild statements we were all over the Mideast in 2001. If we were, what were the troop levels by country?

[Exultant Democracy]

62. between 5k and 10k in Saudi Arabia in 2000-2001 go to http://www.globalpolicy.org

if you have any other questions.

[golfguru]

67. Was 911 before or after Iraq invasion?

Was Abu Ghraib run by us or Iraqi's on 911?