lundi

Hadil le bébé qui quitte Gaza pour la cité des anges

Hadil Al Haddad, un bébé d’à peine 19 mois, une Gazaoui qui a subi une opération à cœur ouvert il y a 6 mois, vient de décéder hier à l’hôpital de Gaza… Son arrêt de vie vient d’être signé par Israel et le blocus assiégeant hommes, femmes, enfants, étudiants, malades et innocents !

205ème patiente à perdre la vie suite au blocus, rejoignant ainsi le paradis des 44 enfants l’ayant précédée…

des suites des punitions collectives et journalières subies par le peuple palestinien, ce peuple qui meurt à petits feux dans un endroit où les victimes d’Israel se comptent même parmi les patients dans les hôpitaux.

Les hôpitaux,

ces endroits où le désespoir tue l’espoir

ces morgues pour vivants où l’odeur de la mort plane

ces morgues pour vivants où l’odeur de la mort plane depuis

depuis

longtemps

depuis le temps

le temps de l’occupation,

le temps du blocus,

le temps des interdictions de circulation,

le temps du bafouage des droits humains

par les défenseurs mêmes des droits

humains

les mêmes défenseurs

qui défoncent ces droits

ce n’est plus Inn d’être

humains

humains, huez ces sales mains !

sales mains de ces mêmes défenseurs

qui humilient l’humanité

ôtant le droit d’exister !

Comme c’est ironique, les Humonétaires qui s’associent aux Tueurs !

Dans l’espoir de la paix !?

dans les Dés-Espoirs de faire la paix je dirais !

bref vous ne convaincrez jamais

Décidément ! On en aura tout entendu un certain 14 juillet …de ce… siècle dernier!

De ce… siècle dernier, on en aura tout vu

tout entendu sauf…

sauf les cris…

les cris de ces tout petits

les cris de détresse des innocents

Des innocents comme Hadil Al Haddad partie de ce monde hier à 19 mois déjà

A l’âge d’un an déjà elle a subi une opération à cœur ouvert en Palestine, faute de moyens, elle devait se rendre dan s un autre pays pour poursuivre les soins, Israel en a décidé autrement ! Son arrêt de mort a été signé ! Car qui sait peut-être qu'elle représente un éventuel danger pour la sécurité d'Israel !

Des innocents comme ces ces 7 frères et sœurs morts dans une tuerie il y a tout juste 3 ans !

Paix à ton âme Hadil et à toutes les innocentes victimes !

Islamophobia

IS BRITA IN ANTI-MUSLIM?

THE HISTORY of post-war Britain is a proud story of enlightenment and the steady eradication of irrational fears and resentments. Prejudice against foreigners, homosexuals, gays and blacks has been softened or even eliminated. But today, one resentment is stronger than ever. Islamophobia — prejudice against Islam — is Britain’s last remaining socially respectable form of bigotry, and we should be ashamed of ourselves for it.

This dangerous demonising of the country’s 1.6 million Muslim inhabitants is happening all around us. Take the story in a red-top newspaper earlier this year about a bus driver who apparently ordered his passengers off his bus so that he could kneel towards Mecca and pray.

It was taken up by those who want to exaggerate and exploit divisions in our society and added to the growing list of perceived outrages committed by Muslims in this nominally Christian (though largely secular) country of ours. Pictures of the driver on his prayer-mat went the rounds.

Except it didn’t happen like that. The truth was that his bus had been taken out of service by an inspector because it was running late, and the passengers switched to the one behind — not an unusual occurrence by any means, as bus travellers know.

The driver, with his bus temporarily idle, took the opportunity of a break and used it for his prayers. Meanwhile, as CCTV cameras show, the passengers waited for no more than a minute before boarding the next bus and going on their way.

That is the explanation the bus company would have given if it had had the chance. Instead, the newspaper chose to believe its one informant, a 21-year-old plumber, who had arrived late on the scene, jumped to the wrong conclusion and seen the chance to make some money by selling the story.

In these disturbing times, when Muslims are seen as fair game for any mischief or mendacity, the newspaper jumped at it. ‘Get off my bus: I need to pray’, screamed its headline, and another Islamophobic nail was hammered into the coffin of inter-racial harmony in this country.

Again, six months ago, there was a widely reported story that hospital nurses in Yorkshire were having to stop treating other patients while they moved the beds of sick Muslims to face Mecca five times a day.

The source was an unidentified nurse, and there was, as with so many of these Islamophobic urban myths, a small grain of truth about it — caring staff would sometimes help the terminally ill in this fashion. But, as the hospital authorities made absolutely clear, never five times a day. Nonetheless, the story took on a life of its own as angry letters poured in and MPs voiced their protests. The incident is now part of the folklore, a central piece of evidence for those who make the case that Muslims are invading, infecting and destroying the British way of life.

Not surprisingly, it was the terrible 9/11 and 7/7 terrorist outrages in New York and London that detonated much of the reaction we see today, but Islamophobia was causing concern well before these events. Back in the Nineties, the multicultural think-tank, the Runnymede Trust, was warning of its dangers, and a report to this effect was endorsed by the incoming Labour Home Secretary, Jack Straw, in 1997.

SO IT was sad, therefore, to see Straw, a decade later, joining in the chorus against Muslim women wearing the veil. It was clear to me that this was more than a random rumination from a member of the Government. Rather, Labour appeared to have made the extraordinary decision to try to identify with the general mood of anti-Muslim resentment.

I was shocked. In such volatile times, it was incumbent on all those in positions of influence —— politicians as well as commentators like myself — to get their facts and language right.

Instead, Straw’s intervention liberated the British media to go to extremes. Soon practically every day brought forth news of some fresh

affrontery perpetrated by a Muslim. This cumulative litany of condemnation became an anti-Islamic crusade. Nor is it confined to one side of the political and cultural spectrum. It enlists militant atheists alongside Christian fundamentalists. It unites liberal progressives and curmudgeonly Tory commentators.

Take Polly Toynbee of the Guardian, normally regarded as a model of political correctness and a champion of the oppressed. As long ago as 1997 she wrote: ‘I am an Islamophobe, and proud of it.’

Or this from one Conservative columnist, writing in The Independent: ‘There are widespread fears that Muslim immigrants, reinforced by political pressure and, ultimately, by terrorism, will succeed where Islamic armies failed and change irrevocably the character of European civilisation.’ He was in no doubt that we are fighting a remorseless war against Islam.

This is a gross distortion. There is, of course, no question at all that Britain, along with many other countries, finds itself in a battle with certain groups of Muslim terrorists. But that is not the same as being in a battle with Islam, and it is morally wrong, inflammatory and intellectually feeble to make that claim.

Nonetheless, one columnist in an upmarket Sunday paper could ask rhetorically: ‘Islamophobia? Count me in.’ Imagine him declaring: ‘Anti-semitism? Count me in.’ This just wouldn’t happen. Anti-semitism is recognised as an evil, noxious creed and its adherents barred from mainstream society and respectable organs of opinion.

But there is no social, political or cultural protection for Muslims. As far as the British political, media and literary establishment is concerned, the normal rules of engagement are suspended.

In their arguments, all those making such sweeping dismissals of Islam interpret the Koran as a violent text and Islam itself as bloody and oppressive. They ignore its overwhelming message of peace and tolerance. Paradoxically, the result is they end up sharing the same warped interpretation of a great religion as Osama bin Laden and the violent extremists they denounce.

The vast majority of Muslims view their faith very differently. Shahid Malik, minister for the Department for International Development, is MP for Dewsbury, where the lead July 7 bomber, Mohammad Sidique Khan, comes from. ‘All Muslims I’ve come across find him and what he did abhorrent,’ Malik told me.

‘He doesn’t speak for them, any more than the last bomber in this country before 7/7, a man called David Copeland, who bombed Brixton, Brick Lane and Soho and killed three people and maimed and injured over 80, reflected white or Christian opinion. That’s really the message we’ve got to get across, that evil exists in all walks of life, across all religions, but it doesn’t represent that religion.’

Mr Malik, 40, warned that Muslims have become targets for the rest of society in the same way that Jews were once persecuted: ‘I think most people would agree that if you ask Muslims today what do they feel like, they feel like the Jews of Europe,’ he said. ‘I don’t mean to equate that with the Holocaust,’ he added.

MUCH media coverage ignores moderate Muslim opinion and serves only to increase hatred and resentment. There was a shiver of horror, for example, when a poll revealed that 81 per cent of Muslims in Britain felt they were Muslim first, and just 7 per cent British first.

What went largely unreported was another poll with significantly different results — 46 per cent of Muslims said British first and Muslim second, just 12 per cent Muslim first and British second. Most importantly, 42 per cent said that they did not differentiate, an option that had not been offered in the previous poll.

People often accuse Muslims of arrogance and of refusing to engage in the British way of life, and undoubtedly there is some truth in these criticisms. But media reports tend to enhance rather than diminish this sense of separateness and confirm stereotypes, however much mistaken.

Earlier this year, a tabloid newspaper dramatically warned that thousands of hospital patients were in danger of catching superbugs because female Muslim medical students refused to follow new hygiene rules and bare their arms below the elbow.

This was supposedly happening at Leicester University, so I and a team of researchers from the Channel 4 Dispatches programme went there to investigate. Not a single member of staff we spoke to had come across any problems with hand-washing.

The students were shocked by the stories. One said: ‘I always roll up my sleeves, and everyone that I know does.’ The university told us that one student had asked a question about the new regulations, but had never objected to them.

Once again, a small grain of truth had been grossly distorted. The insulting claim that Muslim medics were putting their religious beliefs before patients’ safety was simply not backed up by evidence.

Leicester was the site of another distorted story when the highly respected Economist magazine reported that the campus cafeteria was banning pork and serving exclusively halal food. In fact, the student union had made just one out-cafe halal, leaving the other 26 on site, including the main canteen, serving pork as usual.

None of this misreporting would matter so much if it weren’t for its consequences. For many, physical attacks are the manifestation of the growing anti-Muslim sentiment, even though they receive scant attention from the mainstream media.

Sarfraz Sarwar knows this only too well. He has lived in Basildon in Essex for 40 years. Since 9/11, pigs’ trotters have been left outside his front door and the walls covered with graffiti. There was an unsuccessful fire-bomb attack.

Among the incidents we came across in our research was one in Bolton this year, when a group of young people chased Muslim men, shouting racial and religious abuse and wielding a chainsaw.

Barely reported was the story in Cornwall, at a Methodist chapel being converted into an Asian community centre, where the words ‘F*** off you Asian bastards’ were written on a table and a pig’s head nailed to the door.

In Birmingham, three men were jailed for tying a Muslim colleague to railings and force-feeding him bacon. In East Yorkshire, a man was jailed for 16 years after police discovered four home-made nail bombs as well as bullets, swords, axes and knives in his flat. He had been preparing himself for a war against Muslims. He was a Nazi sympathiser with links to a far-Right group.

Herein lies a growing danger: Islamophobia, inflamed by media reports, is being hijacked and exploited by the far Right in politics.

The British National Party has in recent years turned away from its usual anti-semitism and anti-black campaigning. Party members are now rebuked for bringing up the Holocaust. Instead, they focus on terrorism, the evils of Islam, and scare stories of Britain becoming an Islamic state.

AND wherever there are tensions between Muslims and the local community, you can bet the BNP will be there, fanning discontent. In Stoke on Trent, where it has nine elected councillors, it has made progress by falsely linking the town’s high unemployment in the wake of the collapse of the pottery industry to Muslim immigration.

The BNP plays upon ordinary people’s sense of not being heard by police and politicians, of being a silent majority. But ordinary Muslim families feel themselves to be virtually a silenced majority, too, all tarred with the brush of extremism and deafened by the clamour of negativity against them.

It is about time that we collectively extended to them the rights and respect other citizens enjoy.

I am not arguing here for special treatment for Muslims. They should be subject to the law of the land and the same democratic scrutiny as the rest of us. Virulent anti-semitism or homophobia being preached in British mosques should be exposed and rooted out.

But by exactly the same token, Muslims should be given the same protection from insults or ignorant abuse as other minority groups.

Regrettably, though they are our fellow citizens, we nevertheless misrepresent them and in certain cases we persecute them. Our attitude can lead only to estrangement and alienation. And therein lies the greatest danger.

Because if we continue to demonise Muslims, we make it all the easier for Al Qaeda to find recruits from within those communities. Islamophobia will backfire on us — and simply magnify the very threat it presumes to address.

DISPATCHES: It Shouldn’t Happen to a Muslim is broadcast on Monday July 7 at 8pm on Channel 4. An accompanying pamphlet, Muslims Under Siege: Alienating a Vulnerable Community by Peter Oborne and James Jones, is available from Democratic Audit, University of Essex.

Peter Oborne Daily Mail 4.7.2008

Is Fear of Islam a New Desease?


FEAR OF ISLAM: BRITAIN’S NEW DISEASE

Suspicion of the Muslim community has found its way into mainstream society - and nobody seems to care.

Three years ago, four young suicide bombers caused carnage in London. Their aim was not just to kill and maim. There was also a long-term strategic purpose: to sow suspicion and divide Britain between Muslims and the rest. They are succeeding.


In Britain today, there is a deepening distrust between mainstream society and ever more isolated Muslim communities. A culture of contempt and violence is emerging on our streets.

Sarfraz Sarwar is a pillar of the Muslim community in Basildon, Essex. He is constantly abused and attacked, and the prayer centre he used has been burnt to the ground.

Mr Sarwar, who has six children and whose wife is matron of an old people’s home, is a patently decent man. His only crime is his religious faith. He and his fellow worshippers now meet in secret to evade detection, and the attacks that would follow.

The first abuse that Mr Sarwar’s family suffered was in October 2001 – just after the 9/11 attacks – when pigs’ trotters were left outside their door, the walls of their house were covered with graffiti and two front windows were broken.

Since then, the family has suffered many attacks, including a failed firebombing. In February, the tyres of Mr Sarwar’s new car were slashed; in March his windows were broken again. He has now installed CCTV cameras, replaced his wooden back door with one made of steel and erected higher fences.

An investigation for Channel 4’s Dispatches programme discovered many violent episodes and attacks on Muslims, with very few reported; those that do get almost no publicity.

Last week, Martyn Gilleard, a Nazi sympathiser in Yorkshire, was jailed for 16 years. Police found four nail bombs, bullets, swords, axes and knives in his flat. Gilleard had been preparing for a war against Muslims. In a note at his flat he had written, “I am sick and tired of hearing nationalists talking of killing Muslims, blowing up mosques and fighting back only to see these acts of resistance fail. The time has come to stop the talking and start to act.”

The Gilleard case went all but unreported. Had a Muslim been found with an arsenal of weapons and planning violent assaults, it would have been a far bigger story.

There is a reason for this blindness in the media. The systematic demonisation of Muslims has become an important part of the central narrative of the British political and media class; it is so entrenched, so much part of normal discussion, that almost nobody notices. Protests go unheard and unnoticed.

Why? Britain’s Muslim immigrants are mainly poor, isolated and alienated from mainstream society. Many are a different colour. As a community, British Muslims are relatively powerless. There are few Muslim MPs, there has never been a Muslim cabinet minister, no mainstream newspaper is owned by a Muslim and, as far as we are aware, only one national newspaper has a regular Muslim columnist on its comment pages, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown of The Independent.

Surveys show Muslims have the highest rate of unemployment, the poorest health, the most disability and fewest educational qualifications of any faith group in the country. This means they are vulnerable, rendering them open to ignorant and hostile commentary from mainstream figures.

Islamophobia – defined in 1997 by the landmark report from the Runnymede Trust as “an outlook or world-view involving an unfounded dread and dislike of Muslims, which results in practices of exclusion and discrimination” – can be encountered in the best circles: among our most famous novelists, among newspaper columnists, and in the Church of England.

Its appeal is wide-ranging. “I am an Islamophobe,” the Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee, wrote in The Independent nearly 10 years ago. “Islamophobia?” the Sunday Times columnist Rod Liddle asks rhetorically in the title of a recent speech, “Count me in”. Imagine Liddle declaring: “Anti-Semitism?

Count me in”, or Toynbee claiming she was “an antiSemite and proud of it”.

Anti-Semitism is recognised as an evil, noxious creed, and its adherents are barred from mainstream society and respectable organs of opinion. Not so Islamophobia.

Its practitioners say Islamophobia cannot be regarded as the same as antiSemitism because the former is hatred of an ideology or a religion, not Muslims themselves. This means there is no social, political or cultural protection for Muslims: as far as the British political, media and literary establishment is concerned the normal rules of engagement are suspended.

“There is a definite urge; don’t you have it?”, the author Martin Amis told Ginny Dougary of The Times: “The Muslim community will have to suffer until i t gets its house in order. Not letting them travel. Deportation; further down the road. Curtailing of freedoms. Strip-searching people who look like they’re from the Middle East or Pakistan. Discriminatory stuff, until it hurts the whole community and they start getting tough with their children.” Here, Amis is doing much more than insulting Muslims. He is using the foul and barbarous language of fascism. Yet his books continue to sell, and his work continues to be celebrated.

And we found the language of Islamophobic columnists such as Toynbee, Liddle, or novelists such as Amis, duplicated by the British National Party and its growing band of supporters.

All over Europe, parties of the far right have been dropping their traditional hostility to minorities such as Jews and homosexuals; in Britain, the BNP has come to realise that antiSemitism and anti-black campaigning won’t work if they are serious about electoral success.

To move to mainstream respectability, they need an issue that allows them to exploit people’s fears about immigrants and Britain’s ethnic minority communities without being branded racist extremists.

They have found it. Since 9/11, and particularly 7/7, the BNP has gone all out to tap a rich vein of anti-Muslim sentiment. The party’s leader, Nick Griffin, has described Islam as a “wicked, vicious faith” and has tried to distance himself and the party from its anti-Semitic past. Party members are now rebuked for discussing the Holocaust and told to focus on terrorism, the evils of Islam, and scare stories of Britain becoming an Islamic state.

Griffin’s strategy has been inspired by the press. He said: “We bang on about Islam. Why? Because to the ordinary public out there it’s the thing they can understand. It’s the thing the newspaper editors sell newspapers with.”

Last month, we visited Stoke- on-Trent, a BNP heartland with nine BNP councillors, a council second only to Barking and Dagenham in far-right representation. The party has made this progress in large part by mounting a vicious antiMuslim campaign. Stoke has one of the lowest employment rates in the country since the pottery industry collapsed. The BNP has tried to link this decline to Muslim immigration.

Other campaigns have focused on planning issues over mosques, a flashpoint elsewhere too. The BNP accuses the Labour council of cutting special deals with Muslim groups in exchange for support. Wherever we explored tension between Muslims and the local community we tended to discover the BNP was present, fanning discontent.

Many categories of immigrants and foreigners have been singled out for hatred and opprobrium by mainstream society because they were felt threats to British identity. At times, these despised categories have included Catholics, Jews, French and Germans; gays were held to subvert decency and normality until the 1980s, blacks until the 1970s, and Jews for centuries. Now this outcast role has fallen to Muslims. And it is the perception that Muslims receive special treatment that fuels the most resentment. When we investigated clashes at a Muslim dairy in Windsor, we found the perception that police had failed to investigate what seemed to be a racist attack by Asian youths on a local woman played a powerful role in fanning resentments.

But by the same token we believe that Muslims should be given the same protection as other minority groups from insults or ignorant abuse. This protection is not available. Ordinary Muslim families are virtually a silenced minority.

We should all feel ashamed about the way we treat Muslims, in the media, in our politics, and on our streets. We do not treat Muslims with the tolerance, decency and fairness that we often like to boast is the British way. We urgently need to change our public culture. Peter Oborne’s Dispatches film, “It Shouldn’t Happen to a Muslim”, will be screened on Channel 4 at 8pm on Monday 7 July. The pamphlet Muslims Under Siege, by Peter Oborne and James Jones, is published next week by Democratic Audit.
Peter Oborne The Independent (4.7.2008)

British MP: Muslims in the UK feel like ‘the Jews of Europe’

British MP: Muslims in the UK feel like ‘the Jews of Europe’

LONDON – Addressing the issue of anti-Islamic prejudice in the UK, a British government minister has said that the growing culture of hostility has led many Muslims to say they feel targeted like “the Jews of Europe.”

Labor MP Shahid Malik, Britain’s first Muslim government minister, made the statement in an interview with to be broadcast on Monday on the UK’s Channel 4, to coincide with the third anniversary of the 7/7 bombings in London which killed 52 people.

Malik, appointed minister for international development by Prime Minister Gordon Brown last year, said it has somehow become legitimate to target Muslims in a way that would be unacceptable for any other minority.

“Somehow there’s a message out there that it is OK to target people as long as it’s Muslims, and you don’t have to worry about the facts, and people will turn a blind eye,” he told the Dispatches program.

Malik made clear that he was not equating the position with the Holocaust.

“I think most people would agree that if you ask Muslims today what do they feel like, they feel like the Jews of Europe,” he said. “I don’t mean to equate that with the Holocaust, but in the way that it was legitimate almost – and still is in some parts – to target Jews, many Muslims would say that we feel the exact same way.”

The Channel 4 documentary, entitled “It Shouldn’t Happen to a Muslim,” will look at claims that negative attitudes to Muslims have become legitimated by think-tanks and the media who use language now being used by the far right.

He said that many British Muslims now felt like “aliens in their own country” and that he himself had been the target of racist incidents. The MP said he regularly receives anti-Muslim hate mail at his constituency office in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, which was home to Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of bombers.

To show how Muslims were being targeted, Malik used an example of a newspaper story that ran in the British press last December claiming that staff in a Dewsbury hospital had been ordered to turn the beds of Muslim patients towards Mecca five times a day.

“It’s almost as if you don’t have to check your facts when it comes to certain people, and you can just run with those stories,” he said. “It makes Muslims feel like aliens in their own country. At a time when we want to engage with Muslims, actually the opposite happens.”

A poll accompanying the program found that 51 percent of Britons blame Islam to some degree for the 7/7 attacks while more than a quarter of Muslims now believe Islamic values are not compatible with British ones. Eight out of 10 said they felt a marked increase in hostility toward their faith since the 2005 bombings, while 90% of Muslims said they still felt attached to Britain.

Former Metropolitan Police head of counter terrorism, Andy Hayman, who was Britain’s most senior anti-terrorism officer until he resigned last December, is asked on the program why it is important to engage with Muslims who express extreme views.

“Because we’re tackling headon the people that we feel are at the heartbeat of this whole complex agenda,” he said. “Not to have a dialogue with them would seem that we are apprehensive, we’re scared, we’re frightened... So even if it’s appeasement in some quarters, that is still a conversation that is not being had and needs to be had.”

Simon Woolley, a member of the government’s task force tackling race inequality, concurred, saying: “On an almost daily basis, there is rampant Islamophobia in this country, the effect of which is not for our Muslim community to get closer to a sense of Britishness but to feel further away from a feeling of belonging in British society.”

JONNY PAUL Jerusalem Post correspondent
06.07. 2008

Are Muslims the 'New Jews of Europe' ?


Muslims feel like ‘Jews of Europe’

Minister’s shock warning on rise of anti-Islamic prejudice

Britain’s first Muslim minister has attacked the growing culture of hostility against Muslims in the United Kingdom, saying that many feel targeted like “the Jews of Europe”.

Shahid Malik, who was appointed as a minister in the Department for International Development (Dfid) by Gordon Brown last summer, said it has become legitimate to target Muslims in the media and society at large in a way that would be unacceptable for any other minority.

Mr Malik made clear that he was not equating the situation with the Holocaust but warned that many British Muslims now felt like “aliens in their own country”. He said he himself had been the target of a string of racist incidents, including the firebombing of his family car and an attempt to run him down at a petrol station.

“I think most people would agree that if you ask Muslims today what do they feel like, they feel like the Jews of Europe,” he said. “I don’t mean to equate that with the Holocaust but in the way that it was legitimate almost – and still is in some parts – to target Jews, many Muslims would say that we feel the exact same way.

“Somehow there’s a message out there that it’s OK to target people as long as it’s Muslims. And you don’t have to worry about the facts, and people will turn a blind eye.”

Cahal Milmo The Independent 4.07. 2008


vendredi

De l'Art de s'Attribuer les Victoires des Autres


29/03/2008

Un ancien codétenu d'Ingrid Bétancourt raconte:

  • Le 4 février dernier, Luis Eladio Perez, le plus rebelle des otages des Farc, a entrepris la "marche de la liberté". Quelques jours auparavant, dans l’émission "Les voix des otages", sur une radio colombienne, il avait entendu que les Farc annonçaient sa libération ainsi que celle des ex-parlementaires Gloria Polanco, Orlando Beltrán Cuéllar et Jorge Eduardo Gechem. Il n’en a rien cru jusqu’aux dernières heures avant le départ, quand le commandant lui a ordonné d’emballer ses affaires. En sortant, il a vu Ingrid. Après un an de séparation, cinq minutes lui ont suffit pour se convaincre de l’état de santé alarmant dans lequel elle se trouve.
  • La libération de Luis Eladio Perez en compagnie de trois autres otages a été précédée de la remise en liberté de deux otages (Clara Rojas et Consuelo Gonzalez), comme gestes unilatéraux de la guérilla. Puis, Raul Reyes, le numéro deux des Farc, en charge des négociations avec les gouvernements étrangers impliqués dans le processus, a été abattu lors d’une incursion de l’armée colombienne sur le sol équatorien et un autre commandant emblématique a été assassiné par l’un de ses hommes de confiance, infiltré par les services secrets colombiens. Les Farc vont-elles poursuivre ces libérations malgré ces deux coups durs?
  • "Les Farc vont libérer de la même façon Ingrid Betancourt et les trois autres otages 'politiques' qui restent en leur pouvoir. Et le gouvernement colombien devra répondre à ce geste en libérant, en tant que prisonniers politiques, les guérilleros réclamés par les Farc.
source


10/04/2008

Affaiblies, les Farc manquent d'argent
  • L'état-major de la guérilla, qui vient de perdre deux de ses sept membres, pourrait être tenté par un repli stratégique dans la forêt tropicale.

  • Les temps sont durs pour la dernière guérilla marxiste léniniste d'Amérique du Sud. Au-delà de la perte depuis le début de l'année de deux membres sur sept de la direction du mouvement Raul Reyes, tué dans un raid de l'armée colombienne en Équateur, et Ivan Rios descendu par son garde du corps , il semble que les Farc connaissent de plus en plus de difficultés tant militaires que financières. «L'équilibre des forces entre les Farc et l'armée s'est totalement inversée depuis huit ans», explique Antonio Cavallero, analyste politique colombien.
  • Le plan Colombie, largement financé par les États-Unis, a permis à l'armée colombienne d'acquérir de nouveaux avions et de nouveaux hélicoptères. Les effectifs de la police ont considérablement augmenté ce qui a permis son retour dans 200 à 300 villages où auparavant l'administration et l'ordre étaient assurés par les Farc. À la fin des années 1990, la guérilla disposait encore une capacité offensive importante. Les Farc avaient l'habitude de s'installer dans des campements bien aménagés et donc peu mobiles. Ils ne le peuvent plus, les hélicoptères rendant très vulnérables ce type d'installation.
  • «C'est une guérilla du troisième âge. La plupart des cadres ont largement dépassé la cinquantaine, constate Otty Patino, ancien militant du M19, un mouvement qui a abandonné la lutte armée au début des années 1990. Guevara disait toujours que les campements sont les mouroirs des guérillas.» Désormais, les guérilleros sont forcés de se réfugier toujours plus loin dans la forêt et d'être très mobiles. L'un des seuls otages à être parvenu à s'échapper, John Frank Pinchao, a raconté dans un livre les incessantes marches pour échapper à la traque de l'armée.
  • Les enlèvements rapportent de moins en moins

  • c'est la crise idéologique qui mine de façon plus profonde les Farc. «Pour avoir privilégié les activités militaires, les Farc ont abandonné la formation politique
envoyé spécial à Bogota Patrick Bèle dans

26/05/2008
Colombie: après la mort du leader des Farc, une chance pour la paix

  • Avant même la mort par infarctus, confirmée ce dimanche par la guérilla, de Manuel Marulanda, leader des Farc, les forces publiques colombiennes avaient réellement pris l'initiative depuis un an. L'année dernière, les militaires commençaient à pouvoir attaquer les campements de la guérilla de manière un peu plus directe qu'auparavant. La mort du "Negro Acacio", en septembre, avait inauguré cette série de coups de force, quand celle de Reyes, numéro 2 des Farc, démontrait encore plus cette nouvelle capacité militaire. Ces progrès s'expliquent facilement par plusieurs éléments:
    Le premier, et probablement le plus important, est la réforme de l'armée entamée par le président Pastrana (1998-2002).
  • Ensuite, le Plan Colombie a apporté à l'armée des moyens qu'elle n'aurait jamais pu imaginer sans l'aide américaine, principalement en termes de mobilité, élément fondamental pour une lutte contre une guérilla.
  • Le troisième élément est une meilleure coordination de l'intelligence militaire. Au début 2007, le ministère de la Défense a embauché un groupe d'anciens militaires israéliens chargés de compiler et d'analyser les informations des forces publiques. Jusqu'à leur arrivée, l'armée colombienne avait les moyens d'attaquer et la technologie adéquate, mais bien souvent pas la formation. Il est d'ailleurs intéressant de voir que les Etats-Unis n'ont fourni qu'une formation médiocre pour l'utilisation de leur matériel.
  • La politique de "sécurité démocratique" du président Uribe a ainsi commencé à avoir de réels effets, comme le replis de la guérilla. L'armée commençant à démontrer sa supériorité de manière claire, il est normal de voir des pans entiers du groupe armé s'effondrer. Les guérilléros, bien souvent engagés depuis plus d'une vingtaine d'années, ne voient plus de terme possible à leur combat, une victoire devenant impossible. suite...

mercredi

L'antiterrorisme en France mis en cause par HRW

Eh voilà, je venais tout juste d'évoquer des pensées dans le message précédent, que je tombe sur le rapport de HRW, mais lisez d'abord cet article (lisez jusqu'au bout et ne vous réjouissez pas trop)

Une ONG met en cause l'antiterrorisme en France dans un rapport
Reuters
Les méthodes du système judiciaire français de lutte antiterroriste sont mises en cause par une ONG américaine, Human Rights Watch (HRW), qui estime dans un rapport qu'elles portent atteinte aux droits fondamentaux et suggère leur réforme. "Poursuivre des personnes à cause des gens qu'elles connaissent et de ce qu'elles pensent porte atteinte aux droits fondamentaux.
Il s'agit d'un principe erroné et d'une pratique dangereuse", écrit Judith Sunderland, chercheur à la division Europe de HRW. "L'approche adoptée par la France risque d'aliéner des personnes de confession musulmane, éventuellement de radicaliser certaines personnes et d'éroder la confiance dans les forces de l'ordre et de sécurité", estime HRW. Dans son rapport intitulé "La justice court-circuitée", l'organisation suggère la réforme du système français instauré en 1986 et qui se caractérise par une centralisation de facto des enquêtes sur le terrorisme dans un "pool" de juges spécialisés à Paris. L'équipe de juges français dispose de pouvoirs procéduraux étendus comme la garde à vue de quatre jours - six jours si des préparatifs d'attentat sont avérés - et fonde presque toujours ses enquêtes sur l'incrimination d'"association de malfaiteurs en relation avec une entreprise terroriste". Cette incrimination, trop vague selon HRW, permet d'arrêter de manière arbitraire "sur la base d'une minimum de preuves", estime-t-elle. Elle remarque que la base des enquêtes est souvent le travail des services de renseignement, français - la DST est aussi un service de police judiciaire - ou étrangers, dans des pays ou la torture est pratiquée. L'ONG, qui dit avoir travaillé sur la base d'entretiens avec une vingtaine de personnes impliquées dans des enquêtes, dénonce le caractère "oppressant" des interrogatoires de garde à vue ou sont monnaie courante selon elle "la privation de sommeil, la désorientation, les interrogatoires incessants et répétitifs ainsi que les pressions psychologiques".RECOMMANDATIONSAu stade du procès, l'incrimination d'association de malfaiteurs amène aussi souvent aux yeux de HRW des condamnations peu étayées par des preuves. HRW suggère de définir plus précisément le délit d'association de malfaiteurs en relation avec une entreprise terroriste, en exigeant la preuve de l'intention de participer à un projet, d'améliorer les protections pendant la garde à vue en permettant la présence d'un avocat aux interrogatoires. Elle préconise aussi de renforcer le rôle et l'indépendance des juges des libertés et de la détention et de déclarer irrecevables les preuves obtenues sous la torture ou au moyen de mauvais traitements, y compris de pays tiers. HRW demande à l'Onu et au Conseil de l'Europe de se pencher sur le sujet. Les critiques contre le système avaient été violentes dès 1999, lorsque le dossier "Chalabi" visant un groupe de soutien au Groupe islamique armé algérien (GIA), avait vu finalement innocentées 89 des 173 personnes initialement poursuivies, cumulant une cinquantaine d'années de détention provisoire. Après les attentats du 11 septembre 2001, la situation s'est renversée et la France a même parfois fait figure de modèle. Les partisans du système français relativisent ses défauts en soulignant que les Etats-Unis ont instauré la détention extrajudiciaire illimitée dans le camp de Guantanamo et légalisé certaines formes de torture. Le Royaume-Uni a aussi permis la détention sans cadre judiciaire d'étrangers accusés de terrorisme de 2001 à 2004. Une incrimination du type de celle "d'association de malfaiteurs", jugée nécessaire pour démanteler les groupes avant leur passage à l'acte, a été introduite par plusieurs pays.

Interrogé sur le rapport de l'ONG en marge du compte rendu du conseil des ministres, le porte-parole du gouvernement a fait valoir que les lois françaises en matière de lutte contre le terrorisme avaient été édictées en "riposte à une menace". "Notre pays a suffisamment souffert de cette menace, qui a été mise à exécution à plusieurs reprises", a dit Luc Chatel. "Ensuite, nos dispositions législatives sont souvent calées sur ce qui existe dans d'autres pays en la matière", a-t-il ajouté.


Lire le rapport:

La justice court-circuitée
Les lois et procédures antiterroristes en France


Who must panic ?


Je suis américain, je crois en Dieu : je suis patriote
Je suis français, je crois en Dieu : je suis ringard
Je suis italien, je crois en Dieu : je suis croyant
Je suis français, je ne crois pas en dieu car y'en a marre qu'on me traite de vieux plouc
Je suis allemand, je ne crois pas en dieu car ce n'est pas une fabrication allemande
Je suis turc, je crois en Dieu car il ne m'empêche pas d'être moderne
Je suis oriental, je crois en Dieu...

mais...

attendez !!!

ne partez pas comme ça !!!

je suis juif...

ouf...

soulagement !!!

Je suis aussi oriental et je crois en Dieu...

je suis musulman...

nooon !!! Ne paniquez pas comme ça !!!

mais...

chuuut...

ne le dites à personne car il parait qu'il n'est plus permis de l'être...

sous peine de se faire soupçonner,
persécuter,
dénoncer,
enlever,
déporter vers une prison secrète,
torturer,
assassiner...