By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
President Yahya Jammeh, who has for twenty-one years served as Gambia’s president, declared his nation an Islamic republic claiming this action would serve to break from the nations “colonial past.”
Though Gambia’s population is ninety percent Muslim and this would be in many ways seem an alignment with the culture of its people, the nation nevertheless has a very poor reputation for human rights, especially in its treatment of its homosexual citizens.
Jammeh is a vehemently and vocal anti-gay leader who told gays and lesbians in 2008 to leave the country or risk decapitation. Five women have now been arrested as accused lesbians in what human rights groups are calling a national campaign of terror and torture by the police.
The law criminalizes what it calls “aggravated homosexuality,” involving “serial offenders” and people living with HIV or AIDS. The law lumps such “repeat offenders” who engage in homosexual relations with people who engage in homosexual acts with someone who is under 18, disabled or who has been drugged or is under the “authority” of the homosexual. The accused face life in prison.
Amnesty International has charged that people are being tortured by police and forced to confess to homosexual acts or to accuse others of such acts.
Last year the European Union withheld aid packages to the small nation over its human rights record.
President Jammeh claimed in a television interview that no dress code would be enforced and promised that people of all religions would be allowed to practice their faith. He continued, “As Muslims are the majority in the country; the Gambia cannot afford to continue the colonial legacy.”
Jammeh withdrew Gambia from the British Commonwealth in 2013 claiming it was a neo-colonial organization.
By Darren Smith
Source: BBC News
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
@Paul C. Schulte
1, December 17, 2015 at 4:48 pm
“Ken Rogers – one author accepts that it was done, but not by the named pilot. He describes a pilot with the skills of a fighter pilot. The other denies it was the right plane. However, that leaves the problem of a phantom missing 757 (with passengers) and many dead in the ring of the Pentagon.”
Your reading comprehension isn’t what it could be, is it, Paul. 🙂
Here’s what the author I cited actually wrote:
“On 27 November 2009 PilotsFor911Truth.org published a simple fact about the flight of Flight 77 which makes a conventional hijacking scenario impossible – according to Flight Data provided by the NTSB the Flight Deck Door was never opened in flight. The status of the door was polled every 5 seconds from 12:18:05 GMT to 13:37:09 GMT, and each poll logged the door as closed (a CSV file of the log can be downloaded here).
“No-one entered the cockpit of the plane during the flight, therefore it was not flown into the Pentagon by an Arab hijacker.
“What caused Flight 77 to hit the Pentagon? Electronic hijacking is a strong possibility…” (Emphasis added)
Please note that debunking with evidence a particular 9/11 Commission Report (CR) claim, such as that Hani Hanjour crashed a 757 into the Pentagon, does NOT obligate the debunker to provide an alternative to the debunked claim.
For the same reason, for example, a defense attorney who can show that his client was in another state at the time of a crime is under no obligation, in demonstrating his client’s innocence, to show who did commit the crime.
There is an abundance of 9/11 literature attempting to account for the phenomena you reference, and if you’re interested, you can easily find it, such as the following testimony with respect to an explosion inside the Pentagon on 9/11: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIy9hjB3DGk
If you’re currently pressed for time, here’s a brief synopsis of 9/11 events: http://mycatbirdseat.com/2013/10/james-corbett-9-11-explained-in-5-minutes/
Glad to see am not the only one to be underwhelmed by paul’s vaunted powers of logical deduction…
He almost got me thinking I was the problem 🙂
When are we going to find out if the Grand Mufti of Palestine met with Hitler? Did the Grand Mufti ask for Nazi help in exterminating the Jews in Palestine? Did he refuse the White Paper that would have given the Palestinians their own country?
Paul, where have you been? There is no way you haven’t heard of google…Right?
@Paul C. Schulte
1, December 17, 2015 at 3:25 pm
“Ken Rogers – you offer two cites, one says a 757 cannot have done it. The other says a 757 did it, but it was a different pilot. Come on, which is it?”
Well, Paul, the earlier citation’s author adduces the evidence against Hani Hanjour’s having flown a 757 into the Pentagon and the later citation’s authors adduce the evidence against anyone’s having flown a 757 into the Pentagon.
What’s the cause of your perplexity?
Ken Rogers – one author accepts that it was done, but not by the named pilot. He describes a pilot with the skills of a fighter pilot. The other denies it was the right plane. However, that leaves the problem of a phantom missing 757 (with passengers) and many dead in the ring of the Pentagon.
@Paul C. Schulte
1, December 17, 2015 at 11:30 am
“Ken Rogers – I know this is going to come as a shock to you however I have a close friend whose apt. viewed the Pentagon and who watched the plane fly into the building. Sorry if that causes problems.”
Well, gee, Paul, your comment just completely destroys all the circumstantial and physical evidence and testimony that American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) couldn’t have created the hole in the Pentagon’s west wall on 9/11. 🙂
No, I’m not shocked, just embarrassed for you that you could proffer such a lame comment and apparently expect it to be taken seriously.
Ken Rogers – you offer two cites, one says a 757 cannot have done it. The other says a 757 did it, but it was a different pilot. Come on, which is it?
Paul, do you have a cite for that friend’s testimony?
@john smith
1, December 16, 2015 at 9:57 am
As this blog’s software permits only two links per post, here are two which I couldn’t include in my last post, but which substantiate what I wrote:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-study-from-pilots-for-9-11-truth-no-boeing-757-hit-the-pentagon/6133)
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hanjour.html
@john smith
1, December 16, 2015 at 9:57 am
“ok ken but understand, if you parse through the information we have which is anomalous to the 9/11 official narrative, it does not EXPIATE the Muslim terror participants, it just adds: hundreds of Israelis who apparently knew what was coming, and countless American (gentile, nominally “Christian” perhaps) intelligence apparatchiks who facilitated the mess, like the CIA which ordered their fbi liason not to notify fbi that al queda terrorists had entered the country, to say nothing of the bizarre failure to scramble jets to intercept, etc. we have no idea however WHO if anybody accelerated the disaster with prepositioned explosives. we have evidence of thermite but no clue who put it there.”
————
For the record, I have no desire to exculpate anyone who may have participated directly or indirectly in the planning and/or execution of the horrific attacks of 9/11/01.
You write that the evidence against the credibility of The Zelikow Report (aka The 9/11 Commission Report) doesn’t “expiate the Muslim terror participants…”
To which “Muslim terror participants” are you referring?
The Saudis on the FBI’s list of 19, several of whom were documented to have turned up later alive and well? http://asheepnomore.net/2015/08/04/the-fbis-blunder-911-hijack-suspects-alive-and-well/#arvlbdata
The Saudi whose passport miraculously survived the crash and fireball of one of the “hijacked” planes, fluttering to the street where, as Providence would have it, an FBI agent discovered it, in pristine condition? http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/passport.html
The Saudi (Hani Hanjour) who could, according to his Florida flight instructors, barely fly a small plane, but who the 9/11 Commission claimed had executed a maneuver in a Boeing 757 which maneuver many highly experienced US airline pilots say they couldn’t duplicate? (See link in following post).
(See also the flight data provided by the NTSB under a FOI request demonstrating that the plane whose data it purportedly was would therefore have flown over, not into, the Pentagon. Link in following post).
The “Muslim” (Mohammed Atta) who was observed in Venice, Florida drinking heavily, using drugs, and engaging in other activities considered by most Muslims to be anathema ?
You also write, “…we have no idea however WHO if anybody accelerated the disaster with prepositioned explosives. we have evidence of thermite but no clue who put it there.”
Well, we can be pretty sure that the explosives weren’t put there by elves from the North Pole, nor by the alleged 19 hijackers, who were theoretically preoccupied with piloting the planes they’d hijacked.
No, the explosive were placed by people with access to the interiors of the buildings that came down at free-fall speed into their own footprints, as buildings subjected to expert controlled demolition are wont to do.
Our not knowing at this time the specific identities of the people who placed the explosives hardly militates against our awareness that the explosives very much in evidence on 9/11 did not place themselves.
We may also be sure that access to the buildings’ interiors to effect their demolition on 9/11 was not available to anyone unfamiliar to those in charge of the buildings’ security.
In sum, evidence regarding any role “Muslim terror participants” may have played in the events of 9/11 must be sought separately from the Bush Administration’s mythical 9/11 Commission Report, written in every essential by one of their own, Philip Zelikow.
Ken Rogers – I know this is going to come as a shock to you however I have a close friend whose apt. viewed the Pentagon and who watched the plane fly into the building. Sorry if that causes problems.
To add to what Ken said, Tom, here are the words of Donald Rumselfd offering the same perspective:
[As a 2004 Rumsfeld-commissioned study about the causes of Terrorism put it: “Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom,’ but rather, they hate our policies,” in particular, “American direct intervention in the Muslim world,” our “one-sided support in favor of Israel,” support for Islamic tyrannies in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and “the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.” As a result, trying to change Muslim perceptions of the U.S. without changing U.S. policies of imperialism and militarism is the ultimate act of futility.”]
https://theintercept.com/2015/12/15/when-the-state-department-tries-to-choose-muslim-thought-leaders-to-win-hearts-and-minds/?comments=1#comments
@Tom Nash
1, December 17, 2015 at 12:54 am
“Ken Rogers…….I’d guess that Pape’s theories are not universally accepted by other ME/terrorism/conflict experts. If I presented an opposing view by another “imperically analytical” (sic) expert, and you didn’t agree with that expert, I could also resort to asking if “your private speculation” is “more credible” than that expert’s opinion.”
I see that you not only value your emotional speculation over Pape’s integration of empirical data, but that you’re mentally locked into a circular, self-referential feedback loop.
Rather than speculate about what I’d do if you were to do something which you haven’t done, why don’t you simply do it and find out?
If you can’t or won’t, you’re admitting that you’re more interested in maintaining your emotional state regarding the question of terrorist motivation than you are in finding out what terrorists have to say about it, as Pape has done.
Here’s a summary (on Amazon’s website) of what another student of Middle East affairs lays out in his book, “Imperial Hubris: How the West is Losing the War on Terrorism”(2004):
“Though U.S. leaders try to convince the world of their success in fighting al Qaeda, one [formerly] anonymous member of the U.S. intelligence community* would like to inform the public that we are, in fact, losing the war on terror.
“Further, until U.S. leaders recognize the errant path they have irresponsibly chosen, he says, our enemies will only grow stronger. According to the author, the greatest danger for Americans confronting the Islamist threat is to believe—at the urging of U.S. leaders—that Muslims attack us for what we are and what we think rather than for what we do.
“Blustering political rhetoric ‘informs’ the public that the Islamists are offended by the Western world’s democratic freedoms, civil liberties, inter-mingling of genders, and separation of church and state. However, although aspects of the modern world may offend conservative Muslims, no Islamist leader has fomented jihad to destroy participatory democracy, for example, the national association of credit unions, or coed universities.
“Instead, a growing segment of the Islamic world strenuously disapproves of specific U.S. policies and their attendant military, political, and economic implications. Capitalizing on growing anti-U.S. animosity, Osama bin Laden’s genius lies not simply in calling for jihad, but in articulating a consistent and convincing case that Islam is under attack by America.
“Al Qaeda’s public statements condemn America’s protection of corrupt Muslim regimes, unqualified support for Israel, the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and a further litany of real-world grievances. Bin Laden’s supporters thus identify their problem and believe their solution lies in war.
“Anonymous contends they will go to any length, not to destroy our secular, democratic way of life, but to deter what they view as specific attacks on their lands, their communities, and their religion. Unless U.S. leaders recognize this fact and adjust their policies abroad accordingly, even moderate Muslims will join the bin Laden camp.” (Emphasis added)
*The formerly anonymous author of the book is retired CIA Bin Laden Section Chief, Michael Scheuer.
What a crock…….is that really the best you can do?
The fallacy, Tom, is to posit that were the causes to the upheaval removed suddenly, the fact that the effects would still going for a while then sufficient proof that the causes were not the causes.
it is akin to hooking up prongs on your flesh, you feel pain, but once the prongs removed, you should expect yourself to automatically cease feeling pain and return to the state before the prongs were hooked on.
That never happens in this world…every pain we experience currently is tied to the injuries of the past.
If the West removed itself from the ME and stopped meddling into their affairs would not suddenly heal everything, it would, however, be a necessary first step to the healing process.
Glad to see that you have something of a sense of humor, Po. Calling someone else a “dishonest debater” is proof of that.
Tom, you are being a dishonest debater…you are flipping every argument I make and throwing all kinds of sticky stuff at me hoping one would stick…Sorry bro, no luck here.
I do not need your help finding arguments to bolster my case, I offered plenty already, the clearest one, and the one you have yet been able to go around? Numbers! Statistics! Facts!
Interestingly, I thought to dig up that Pape study Ken just offered, but knew you would dismiss it as either biased or flawed yet offer nothing to counter it…
Better luck next time.
You must have a LOT of time on your hands, Po ….I don’t.
Tom Nash
1, December 17, 2015 at 12:03 am
Are you implicitly asking whether Pape’s extensive empirical work on the subject of terrorist motivation is more or less credible than your private speculation?
On what is your speculation based?
Ken Rogers…….I’d guess that Pape’s theories are not universally accepted by other ME/terrorism/conflict experts. If I presented an opposing view by another “imperically analytical” expert, and you didn’t agree with that expert, I could also resort to asking if “your private speculation” is “more credible” than that expert’s opinion.
By that reasoning, no one should ever question any experts.
The Sunni- Shia conflict will likely play out for some time. Much of the ME violence, for example, is an internal factional struggle between True Believers. Even within the Sunni realm, there are competing and conflicting factions.
That is primarily what my “private speculation” in based on. You may have a rosier scenario about what would happen in the ME if all U.S./Western troops withdrew, and all aid to/support for Isreali ceased.
would be interesting to see Pape’s theories being challenged in a debate. Those theories may not seem as “empirically analylitical” if he’s ever tried to support them against real challenges.
The empirically analytical work of Robert Pape at the University of Chicago is quite illuminating with respect to the motivation of terrorists, in general, and suicide terrorists, in particular.
“After 9/11, the University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape compiled a database of all the suicide terrorist attacks committed worldwide from 1980 to 2000—187 in total. Pape then analyzed his material, the most comprehensive collection of suicide terrorism ever assembled. His findings are illuminating. Rather than poverty, or a hatred of freedom or other Western values, or even Islamist fundamentalism—as the popular theories claimed—Pape found that the primary motive of suicide terrorists is the desire to compel democratic countries to abandon their occupations of foreign lands.
“Pape published his findings in the American Political Science Review in 2003, and the accompanying article became one of the most widely discussed pieces of political science of the decade. He expanded the piece into a book, Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, which was nominated for the Council on Foreign Relations’ prestigious Arthur Ross Book Award and covered by CNN, the Washington Post , the American Conservative , Fox News, Huffington Post , and NPR. It was impressive attention for a wonky book.
“Pape established the Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism in 2003 and now has a new book, Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It, coauthored with defense analyst James Feldman. In the book, Pape has updated his database of suicide terrorist attacks to 2009, examining a staggering 2,200 in total. Cutting the Fuse comes with glowing blurbs from Nobel laureate Thomas Schelling, Freakonomics author Steven Levitt, and 9/11 Commission chairs Lee Hamilton and Thomas Kean and has resulted in presentations at several Washington think tanks.
“Pape’s ideas have also had a strong impact on the new and growing field of terrorism studies. Though not a major area of research before 9/11, the question of what makes terrorists and their bombs tick has galvanized many scholars in the years since the attacks. Pape is one of them, and his analyses have become the gold standard in the field, used by heavyweights like Marc Sageman, Peter Bergen, Michael Scheuer, and Mia Bloom.
“Pape’s work has proved powerful among academics for two reasons. For one, it is rigorously empirical. Dying to Win lists all known suicide attacks and categorizes them by date, target, weapon employed, and death toll. It cross-references these with an analysis of the various foreign occupations occurring from 1980 to 2003, which are themselves subdivided by different typologies. In other words, Pape moves terrorism from the realm of speculation to social science.
“His second major accomplishment is even more vital: He analyzed terrorists as rational political actors. Suicide terrorists are uniquely horrifying in their methods, yes, but they are simply waging a form of asymmetrical warfare. In other words, they are using terror to pursue politics by other means, as Clausewitz’s famous dictum held.”
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/big-boom-robert-pape-remakes-terrorism-studies
Ken Rogers…..I think that’s very BIG maybe. I.e., if all American/Western troops were withdrawn from the ME tomorrow, all aid to Isreali ceased tomorrow, I think it’s doubtful that you’d see much difference in the objectives and tactics in groups like ISIS, Al Queda_ etc.
Po…..I think you missed the Inquisition to in your list of “current” Christian Terrorism to understate current Islamuc Terrorism.
You forgot to add in the Crusades, Po, in your ongoing effort to understate tge CURRENT problem of Islamic terrorism.
There is, or was , an Italian-American Anti-Demation League that objected to mentions of Italians in the Mafia.
Or that the Mafia was “well-represented” in organized crime.
There efforts were more humorous than effective. But they did succeed in pulling a great Alka-Selzer commerial from TV.
My point in using the Mafia-Italian analogy, which you misinterpreted, was that denying that the Mafia was a major problem in organized crime is similar to your unending attempts to understate Islamic terrorism.
Virtually everything your have presented us flimsy, and dated, “evidence” in your feeble attempt to equate Christian Terrorism with Islamic Terrorism.
Niw, tell us about the Spanish missionaries and their treatment of the Indians in the Americas to deflect from the CURRENT major problem of international Islamic Terrorism.
Them go back to the Crusades to get even “more current”.
Tom Nash – Don’t forget the Grand Mufti of Palestine and his plan to exterminate all Jews in Palestine. He was responsible for the first violence against Jews after the Balfour Declaration (he wasn’t Grand Mufti yet).