IAP Political Forum

A 12 year old girl is staying in jail in Dubai simply because she has nowhere else to go. I couldn't believe my eyes when I read this:

Dubai - Daughter’s jail time (http://www.7days.ae/showstory.php?id=57190)



So what if they turn out to be innocent? Do they know how traumatic this would be to the child? And what if the verdict is guilty? What will happen to the child? Will she remain in jail with her mother? In the entire country, they couldn't find an orphanage or a social institution to send the girl to, they couldn't take information from the mother to contact someone in her country to send the child to, they couldn't make any effort except the girl in jail with her mother!!!

This is really outrageous! When will these countries join the rest of the planet. And to say this is Dubai, that is supposed to be the most "civilized" of the lot  >:(

...


I have seen that young girls plight in articles everywhere and Cedar, I agree 100% with you. Here's hoping the publicity alone will shame Dubai into changing their position on this as well as pressure from the U.N.  >:(


...

this is hard for us to understand but we are not Muslim,,, Muslim women have different that other women role in life whether it's Tajikistan or Dubai it doesn't matter,,,

The question is what you would do if foreign citizen in your country accused in severe crimes according to your law got arrested ? I think it was mother's responsibility whether to keep a child when she on a crime spree or not,,, mother without common sense in defending a child should have no right to keep the child,,,

With all due respect, if she left Tajikistan to Dubai to work as prostitute then her girl would have much better time and food in Dubai'i jail rather back home,,,

It's hard to make a stance here. One hand the mother is accused of prostitution (not a healthy environment for the child); but having the child in prison with the mother isn't healthy, too.

The only comfort I can see in all of it, is the child is still with her mother, and not taken from her and thrown into some orphanage -- and possibly adopted into a worse family.

What does the mother say? Free the child to live in an orphanage? Or be with her?

The mother wanted to be let go on bail to care for her daughter while waiting for the trial to finish. She hasn't been pronounced guilty yet although, knowing the Arabs, I am almost sure she will be  ::)

The question is: Why not bail?

And if they insist on keeping the mother in jail while on trial, I would say an orphanage is better for the child. She will not be put to adoption before the trial is over, so if the mother is pronounced innocent, this would mean that the child wouldn't have had to go through any of this. If the mother is pronounced guilty, then the child will have to leave her anyway, so what't the point of keeping her there through the trial?

There isn't any point in that Cedar. Dubai is weird AFAIK. What do you know of Dubai?


Warmest regards and welcome here!
Terry

Don't they have some sort of foster care in that part of the world? Not to be confused with an orphanage which is for permanent placement of children into other families. Foster care is a temporary residence for the child.

On a side note, (and I realize I being kinda argumentative) why assume that the mother is the best person for the child to be with? Mothers can be awful people too. If the Mother is guilty of the crime directly maybe its the mothers new significant other is responsible for the crime, but how responsible of a mother is she if she brings these people into her daughters life?

One thing we can be sure of is that the US won't withdraw their friendship because of it. It'll largely be ignored the same way the beheading in chop,chop square in Saudi is ignored.

And of course the same rats who want to demonize people in the M.E. will feign concern for the little girl.

Most thinking people aren't fooled anymore.

Exactly Orwell.

Saudia Arabia has the worst human rights record in the Middle East.
And in Egypt many of the members of the opposition party are languishing in jail without charge.

What it all comes down to is this. 
If the people don't vote in a government that the US favours, then they're subjected to collective punishment until a tyrannical strongman is installed that the US does favour.
It's exactly what happened over decades throughout Latin America.

You're right on the money with that pal. And the other half of the story is that Iraq under Saddam was a very progressive modern nation by M.E. standards which allowed all religious persuasions and saw women treated as equals. That's another good one to stick up the warmongers noses!

Wrong as usual, and quite a few Kurds who lost thousands to Saddam would testify to his inhumanity and inhumane term as a dictator.



Terry

Iraq under Saddam was top democracy back then by Middle East standards,,, they just gassed Kurds and attacked Iran , Israel and Kuwait,,, this is democratic approach, aye? Not even to mention hundred thousands Iraqis who suffered from political repressions after your dear Saddam made their kids blow off them self again Iran.

Wrong Terry?? Now that's a well reasoned argument you pose to us. I'm going to expand on your argument a little in the hopes of helping you out a little. You need to understand Terry, that of course there will be many Iraqis who would tell you all kinds of horror stories about Saddam's methods. And I am quick to admit that many of them are factual. But the real point is Terry, is that Saddam was in the process of putting down armed insurrections against his government by mostly the US. You need to consider the methods the US would use against an entity which was suppported by say the Russians, which came to the US and tried to overthrow the government.

And lastly Terry, it's always quite nausiating to us antiwar people when you prowar people bring up such issues because we know that you really don't feel any empathy in the least for others. Especially Iraqis Terry. Sorry terry but we really do have your number by now.

Then you are a patronizing fool and will be treated as such, with nothing. Sabe ese?
Oh, and I corrected one of your mistakes (in bold) of your quote. War, for those who know it, is nothing your kind would know about. You had just get down on your knees and thank those that gave so that you have freedoms that many do not.

Pro-War? You really are a fool.




T.

You're just getting mad because I know so much more about the topic than you do. You'll get over it soon. You're not one of the spelling Nazis are you? ;-)

Hey Jane most of the crimes you attribute to Saddam occured when he was a favoured friend of Washington.
As I stated before, after he gassed the Kurds in Halabja in 1988 he was still being sold weapons by the US 20 months after the attack. By this they actually condoned his actions. 
Business as usual I guess.
Oh and Washington tried to blame this attack on Iran.  Plenty of credibility there. 

that's interesting

out of 5 crimes i've attributed Saddam, the one and only you can connect to US is war against Iran. It's quite logical for US to support Iraq in war when Iran claimed US as enemy right after their Islamic revolution.

The most important you counter argument yourself, if US was so nice to Iraq after 88' then why would Iraq attack another US ally named Kuwait? There must be something happened between two back then...

Make your mind, get facts and come again... i don't buy these "weapon sales" after 88' as fact furthermore it's  irrelevant and doesn't prove a thing,,,

It proves everything.
Even after Saddam gassed the Kurds in Halabja the US condoned the attack by:
1.  Blaming Iran
2.  And continuing to supply Saddam with the means of carrying out more attacks.

Show me one instance of Saddam using chemical weapons after Washington transferred him from the category of favoured friend to diabolical rogue?

After he attacked Kuwait he proved he'd outlived his usefullness and the swinging door, rather like the Orwell novel '1984' happened.  Hang on we supported this guy with chemical weapons while he was carrying out such attacks - whoops you're not supposed to remember that as Washington pretends it never happened and tried to erase this from history.

America never supplies weapons of mass destruction. Give me a reliable source please.  ;)




Regards Terry

.

Again you proved nothing but used few empty words and illogical chain of events

Iran declared US as enemy prior Iraqi-Iranian war and Kurds 88' and it was obvious that Iran would be blamed in first place while after research US government came to idea Saddam used WDMs on Kurdish village thus the fight between US and Iraq followed by Gulf War.

Now for gas itself, it called Mustard Gas and been synthesized back in 1822. Do you really think Iraq was unable to reproduce technology from beginning of 19th century? Was it really needed US to import Mustard into Iraq so Saddam could use it against Iran and Kurds? There is no single evidence US had this gas though, Soviets did but not US... Mustard was so WWI... So it doesn't seem to prove anything


Just to make you shut up for few days and think twice before posting some utter crap made of slogans you never checked, Mustard gas was declared as a Chemical Weapon by Geneva convention back in 1993, Iraq had medium range ballistic missiles as it bombed Israel with those back in Gulf War,,,

Now you got owned, IRAQ HAD WDMs ,,, as you can use those SCUDs to carry Mustard Gas which was declared as Chemical Weapon back in 93'


Bottom line don't fuck around with me,,, if i never respond to utter crap types like you use it doesn't mean you right,,, most of ppl just got bored answering the same answers to different newbies who have no idea about army, politics or life but come as gangs to overtake forums because they have no ganja to smoke or girl to fuck with in the college,,

Absolutely Waylander. You deserve an applause for that one!  :)


Warm regards
Terry


.

I got 'owned'?
Where are the WMD the very reason for this war?

Okay you want a source girls and boys then here it is:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/13/1041990224220.html

Saddam Hussein has form: he has used WMD before

It is true that Saddam Hussein has used these weapons before, against those who couldn't respond in kind - Iranian soldiers and perhaps most infamously on 17 March 1988 against "his own people" in the Kurdish city of Halabja. Within half an hour of this attack over 5000 men, women and children were dead from chemical weapons containing a range of pathogens which were dropped on them.

If Washington and London are genuinely concerned about Iraq's WMD, why did they continue to supply him with the means to acquire them for 18 months after the attack on Halabja?

Initially, the US blamed Iran for the Halabja attack, a particularly cynical ploy given Saddam had also used chemical weapons against Teheran's forces during their nine-year conflict in the 1980s. In fact Washington continued to treat Saddam as a favoured ally and trading partner long after the attack on Halabja was exposed as his handiwork. At the time, the Reagan Administration tried to prevent criticism of Saddam's chemical attack on the Kurds in the Congress and in December 1989, George Bush's father authorised new loans to Saddam in order to achieve the "goal of increasing US exports and put us in a better position to deal with Iraq regarding its human rights record ." Surprisingly, the goal was never reached. In February 1989, eleven months after Halabja, John Kelly, US Assistant Secretary of State, flew to Baghdad to tell Saddam Hussein that "you are a source for moderation in the region, and the United States wants to broaden her relationship with Iraq."

According to the reports of a Senate Banking Committee, the "United States provided the government of Iraq with 'dual-use' licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-system programs. According to the report, this assistance included "chemical warfare-agent precursors; chemical warfare-agent production facility plans and technical drawings; chemical warfare-filling equipment; biological warfare-related materials; missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment." These technologies were sent to Iraq until December 1989, 20 months after Halabja.

According to William Blum a "veritable witch's brew of biological materials were exported to Iraq by private American suppliers," including Bacillus Anthracis (cause of anthrax), Clostridium Botulinum (a source of botulinum toxin), Histoplasma Capsulatam (causes disease which attacks lungs, brain, spinal chord and heart), Brucella Melitensis (bacteria which attacks vital organs) and other toxic agents. The US Senate Committee said "these biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction," and it was later discovered that "these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program" (Blum 2002, pp.121-2).

After the recent leaking in Germany of Iraq's 12,000 page declaration of its weapons program, it is now known that at least 150 companies, mostly in Europe, the United States and Japan, provided components and know-how needed by Saddam Hussein to build atomic bombs, chemical and biological weapons (for the list, see http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/*BLOWN MEASURE*01/22/1042911434942.ht=ml Always willing, we're off to war again). Unsurprisingly, the US was keen to excise these details from Iraq's report before its wider dissemination to non-permanent members of the Security Council (Newsday (US), 13 December, 2002; The Independent (UK), 18 and 19 December, 2002; Scotland on Sunday (UK), 22 December, 2002).

Historian Gabriel Kolko claims that "the United Stares supplied Iraq with intelligence throughout the war [with Iran] and provided it with more than $US5 billion in food credits, technology, and industrial products, most coming after it began to use mustard, cyanide, and nerve gases against both Iranians and dissident Iraqi Kurds" (Kolko 2002, p.34).

If the US is genuinely concerned by Saddam's WMD, why did Donald Rumsfeld (then a presidential envoy for President Reagan, currently President George W. Bush's Defence Secretary) fly to Baghdad in December 1983 to meet Saddam and normalise the US-Iraq relationship, at a time when Washington new Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis against Iran (Washington Post, 30 December, 2002)? Why were no concerns about the use of these weapons raised with Baghdad?

Here's a nice little summary of the Halabja gassings and the Pelletier report. I'm posting this only in the interest of informing those who aren't up to date with the facts. And also as an item for discussion on who really gassed the Kurds. It's a hard choice to make for Americans and that's the reason why it's still hotly debated. And a very good reason why Saddam should have been brought to trial on this specific issue.

I have little doubt that this was one of the many reasons why the US seen to it that he was executed posthaste!

Running from subject again, WaylanderII ?

Mustard Gas that been used by Iraq during both event was declared as disallowed Chemical Weapon only by 1993, the most important US and UK were the ones who passed the law. Don't look for some blog post even if it was in newspaper to justify your words,, you words are unrelated to subject and you shifting conversation with me.

Iraq had WDM and this was one of the reasons for US attack, other reasons are obvious and yes somewhere in the bottom of the list it is oil,,,, there were many reasons to attack Iraq and all reasons were justified what is unjustified is death of almost million ppl for 4 years but again we can blame US or the real killers aka terrorists either Sunni or Shiite...

your "there was no WDM" or "war for OIL" doesn't work anymore. Iraq was a pain in the ass sooner or later it won't be. Hopefully all those brave man both on ally side and Iraqi side who fight for country without armed religious militias.

I'm not running from anything as I just posted a link which supported my assertions that Saddam Hussein continued to be a favoured friend of the US and continued to provide him with weapons 20 months after the Halabja attacks.

And it's a simple question Jane - where are all the WMD?
Just answer the question - where are the WMD?
These were the reasons that led to the 'pre-emptive' invasion.

And consider this.  There were no Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq, but thanks to the Bush invasion he's created terrorists where before there were none. 

Are you laughing at me? Iraq used WDM against Iran and it's own Kurds,,, ask them where is Iraqi WDM,,, you one dirty liberal bastard ,,, Ask those Iraqis on whos children WDMs were tested,,, it's not some article in newspaper and it's ain't some cheap conspiracy talk which became a fashion in your hole... IT IS REALITY
Otherwise Islamic revolution in Iran won't hate Iraq more than US, UK or Israel.

start being ashamed of yourself, your methods are no different than Saddam's "the only truth" brainwashing

Exactly so Jane, I do agree with your post. Kudoes to you!



Regards
Terry


.

Yes Jane you're right and he used those weapons while he was a favoured friend of the US and was rewarded by those actions with further weapons 20 months after

The US even went further in it's support of the chemical weapons attack on the Kurds by Saddam Hussein on Halabja in 1988 by trying to blame Iran for the attack.

What part don't you understnad?

"Initially, the US blamed Iran for the Halabja attack, a particularly cynical ploy given Saddam had also used chemical weapons against Teheran's forces during their nine-year conflict in the 1980s. In fact Washington continued to treat Saddam as a favoured ally and trading partner long after the attack on Halabja was exposed as his handiwork. At the time, the Reagan Administration tried to prevent criticism of Saddam's chemical attack on the Kurds in the Congress and in December 1989, George Bush's father authorised new loans to Saddam in order to achieve the "goal of increasing US exports and put us in a better position to deal with Iraq regarding its human rights record ." Surprisingly, the goal was never reached. In February 1989, eleven months after Halabja, John Kelly, US Assistant Secretary of State, flew to Baghdad to tell Saddam Hussein that "you are a source for moderation in the region, and the United States wants to broaden her relationship with Iraq."

According to the reports of a Senate Banking Committee, the "United States provided the government of Iraq with 'dual-use' licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-system programs. According to the report, this assistance included "chemical warfare-agent precursors; chemical warfare-agent production facility plans and technical drawings; chemical warfare-filling equipment; biological warfare-related materials; missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment." These technologies were sent to Iraq until December 1989, 20 months after Halabja."

And the question still stands - where are all the WMD - the reason for the pre-emptive invasion?

Also correct Waylander, so there is now no dispute, right? .. or no?




Regards
Terry



.

Maybe this is the exact time took to investigate an issue. I guess such idea never crossed in your mind. Maybe the deal was 20 month long and US was afraid if they would not fulfill the deal Iraq will attack Kuwait. This maybe the reason Iraq did attack Kuwait.

It's all big MAYBE, simple speculation. Unlike you who certainly sure in some conspiracy i'm open for any ideas and believe deep inside that neither me or you will know the real truth... I guess this thinking is a part of being a human in 21th century.


Do they need to show you Iraqi armories? US government said Iraq has WDM and they certainly did this is what matters. If you have a problem with "Hollywood" type of pre war propaganda,,, then get older and start thinking clear because you fall into same type of "Hollywood" conspiracy just by opposite party.

Maybe they keep materials they got from IRan for your

If you were and are shocked that government uses you as goat while government itself is a shepherd then again start understanding that. Thats the problem with ppl like you it's not that you care for Iraq or American soldiers who die there but you care for you personally being belied by US government... So again they did not lie to you, they just used facts with lies as well you or anyone else does in case he wants to "prove" a point.

America never supplies weapons of mass destruction. Give me a reliable source please."

Dispute to your words here Terry?
So you agree with what I said?

And Jane you can scrunch up your face and wish all the facts away, but they're here in black and white.
I'm not talking about any 'conspiracy' as the US Senate Banking Committee found that their government continued to supply Saddam with weapons after the December 1988 chemical weapon attack on Halabja. 

Washington even said that he was a 'source of moderation.'  So after gassing the Kurds 11 months before, Washington condones the attack first by blaming Iran and then stating that Saddam is an okay guy and we'll continue to arm him with weapons.  Such a 'source of moderation' that he committs mass murder on his own people and the US government okays that by continuing to arm him with the weapons he committed mass murder with.
"In February 1989, eleven months after Halabja, John Kelly, US Assistant Secretary of State, flew to Baghdad to tell Saddam Hussein that "you are a source for moderation in the region, and the United States wants to broaden her relationship with Iraq."
Also you can't play the 'intentional ignorance' card as Washington attempted to blame Iran for the mass murder.

And Iraqi armouries?  Sorry were there WMD found after the US invaded?  You believe the US government, so where are the WMD?  What is that saying again 'Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.'  The only conspiracy that was committed were by the crazies in the White House who told us Saddam had WMD, that Saddam had Al Qaeda terrorists in his country and somehow convincing the majority of their own population that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks.

And finally the people that don't care for the deaths of US soldiers and the 1000000 Iraqis killed since March 2003 are the crazies in the White House that knowingly used forgeries (yes Jane, do you want me to have to prove this to you  with links as well, as Bush used forgeries in his January 2003 State of the Union address) and lied about WMD and Saddam's supposed links to Al Qaeda.

Not quite right about the forgeries I'm afraid. The "State of the Union Address" is written by one or more speech writers and normally given a once over 'practice',at the least, by POTUS, at which time changes may or may not be made. The speech writers on the other hand aren't so lucky. They submit many 'draft' copies to POTUS's Chief-of-Staff...
and so on. The last is loaded onto a 'tele-prompter' that appears clear to the audience as well as a hard copy on the podium.


Terry