Lajmi i fundit nga Iraku

[Fringo]

E-mail Author
Author Archive
Send to a Friend
Print Version





August 13, 2004, 8:53 a.m.
Abetting Beheadings
It is not clear that Islam condemns the al Qaeda killings.



Any rational person has to welcome yesterday's attempt by Mustafa Akyol to find in Islam an unambiguous condemnation of the barbarous beheadings we've repeatedly seen since the butchering of Daniel Pearl two years ago. Regrettably, however, Akyol manages to achieve ostensible clarity only by abridging the Koran and seminal events in Islamic history — including the life of the Prophet Muhammed. I wish he had engaged these troublesome matters directly and opined about what we are to make of them.


To begin with, Akyol proceeds from the premise that jihad, i.e., violent holy war, as anticipated in the Islamic tradition, contemplates both that there will be many prisoners during active hostilities and that they must under all circumstances be treated humanely. Alas, there is abundant evidence that neither proposition is true. First and foremost, there is the Koran itself — specifically, Sura 8:65-67:

65. O Prophet, rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding. 66. For the present, Allah hath lightened your burden, for he knoweth that there is a weak spot in you: But even so, if there are a hundred of you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred, and if a thousand, they will vanquish two thousand, with the leave of Allah: for Allah is with those who patiently persevere. 67. It is not fitting for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land: Ye look for the temporal goods of this world, but Allah looketh to the Hereafter: and Allah is exalted in might, Wise. (Emphasis added.)
To support the notion of a consistent Islamic doctrine mandating humane treatment of prisoners, Akyol mines verse 6 from Sura 9: "If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of God; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge." Unfortunately, this passage addresses the very different situation of the time after Muslims have "subdued the land" and find themselves dealing with unbelievers who have broken treaties.

In fact, and on the contrary — as the verses from Sura 8 excerpted above illustrate — there is clearly Koranic authority for militants to rely on in concluding that (a) when jihad is ongoing, the taking of prisoners is frowned on, and (b) jihad should be ongoing until the enemy is subdued, meaning he has either surrendered or been routed.

So if prisoners ought not be kept, what, according to Muslim tradition, is to be done with them? The answer is not nearly as clear or as reassuring as Akyol contends. As Andrew G. Bostom has recently explained:


According to Muhammad's sacralized biography by Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad himself sanctioned the massacre of the Qurayza, a vanquished Jewish tribe. He appointed an "arbiter" who soon rendered this concise verdict: the men were to be put to death, the women and children sold into slavery, the spoils to be divided among the Muslims. Muhammad ratified this judgment stating that it was a decree of God pronounced from above the Seven Heavens. Thus some 600 to 900 men from the Qurayza were lead [sic] on Muhammad's order to the Market of Medina. Trenches were dug and the men were beheaded, and their decapitated corpses buried in the trenches while Muhammad watched in attendance. Women and children were sold into slavery, a number of them being distributed as gifts among Muhammad's companions, and Muhammad chose one of the Qurayza women (Rayhana) for himself. The Qurayza's property and other possessions (including weapons) were also divided up as additional "booty" among the Muslims, to support further jihad campaigns. (Emphasis added.)

Akyol lingers on "historical accounts reporting Prophet Muhammad ordering his men to treat captives very humanely," but he leaves this one out. Moreover, it is far from the only germane example of Islamic beheading practice. As Bostom elaborates, the eleventh-century classical Islamic jurist al-Mawardi, writing during the so-called "Golden Age" of the Abbasid-Baghdadian Caliphate, counseled the following with regard to captives taken in the jihad:

As for the captives, the amir [ruler] has the choice of taking the most beneficial action of four possibilities: the first to put them to death by cutting their necks; the second, to enslave them and apply the laws of slavery regarding their sale and manumission; the third, to ransom them in exchange for goods or prisoners; and fourth, to show favor to them and pardon them. (Emphasis added.)

Why give the choice of execution by beheading ("cutting their necks")? Marwadi relied on the Koran itself, specifically Sura 47:4. This is precisely the verse that Akyol cites to support his proposition that if beheading victims Nicholas Berg, Paul Johnson, and Kim Sun-il had been "regarded as prisoners of war" by their jihadist captors, "The verdict of the Koran is clear about them: They should be taken as captives during the battle, then, after the war, they should be released for free or ransomed." But is that what Sura 47:4 really says? Unfortunately, no. It reads:

Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind the captives firmly: therefore is the time for either generosity or ransom until the war lays down its burdens. . . ." (Emphasis added.)
Obviously, we should all wish that the interpretation of this verse were as Akyol would have it — and perhaps someday, if there is a Muslim reformation and a clearly defined moderate Islam becomes the creed's dominant ideological force, that will finally be the case. But we are not going to get there by pretending, ostrich-like, that the words "smite at their necks" aren't there. The militants may plainly read this verse to say: Execute by beheading first, and show mercy only after the enemy — i.e., the entire enemy, not the individual captive — has been "thoroughly subdued." Akyol needs to make a principled argument about why that jihadist construction is not only unreasonable but somehow pellucidly un-Islamic. He is not going to convince anyone who needs convincing by simply avoiding the words he'd prefer not to confront.

Nor, one is sadly forced to note, is Sura 47:4 singular. Others not addressed by Akyol but plain as day include, for example, Sura 2:191 ("[S]lay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they first fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith"); Sura 5:33 ("The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief throughout the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land"); and Sura 8:12 ("Remember thy Lord inspired the angels with the message: 'I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: Smite ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them"). (All italics mine.)

The execution of captives, particularly by beheading, is not unusual in the history and scripture of Islam. This is not in any way to say that beheading is unique to the Muslim world — it was, for example, practiced in Europe for centuries. But, it is still practiced commonly in the Muslim world, and not just among jihadists but also in states, such as Saudi Arabia, in which Islamic law is, at least nominally, the regnant legal system.

I applaud Akyol for condemning the depravity of the militants who have savaged Johnson, Berg, il-Sun, Pearl, and others. But I don't believe he has made a compelling case for the "Islamic condemnation of the al Qaeda killings." Such a case would require taking these troubling verses and incidents head-on, and providing a cogent explanation of why they should not be interpreted as jihadists have interpreted them.

— Andrew C. McCarthy, who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others, is reachable through www.benadorassociates.com.

[abnk]

E kush është shkaktari i gjithë ketyre trazirave ne irakë ? vet irakianet a !

Nqs don me dite shkaqet (nuk asht nji shkak i vetem) fillo e studio qysh me krijimin e Perandorise Osmane me ramjen e Perandorise Osmane, krijimin e shtetin Iraken edhe ardhjen e Sadamit n'fuqi. Athere ndoshta fillon e kupton shkaqet.

[Fringo]

Al Qaeda vs. the Koran
Killing noncombatants is not the Islamic way.

By Mustafa Akyol

After my article, "An Islamic Denunciation of al Qaeda Killings," appeared on NRO, Andrew C. McCarthy published a response that both welcomed and criticized my argument. I welcome his commentary as well, for it helps me elaborate my case. But I have to be critical too.


McCarthy begins by defining jihad as "violent holy war." Yet the term "jihad" does not necessarily refer to armed conflict. It simply means "effort" and it can include nonviolent struggles, such as an intellectual endeavor against atheism. Of course, there is also military jihad in the Koran and in the Islamic tradition; that is the point we have to discuss and, perhaps, redefine.

McCarthy argues that I mined some verses of the Koran and overlooked some parts that don't fit my case. It is true that, to be brief, I did not include all the verses related to the subject in my original article. Even when all of those verses are included, however, and understood in their proper contexts, my position — that killing noncombatants or captives is against Islamic principles — still holds.


THE KORAN IN CONTEXT
Context is crucial. To understand and interpret the war verses in the Koran, one has to keep in mind that they were revealed in seventh-century Arabia, where battles were fought by swords and spears. Winning a battle meant killing a great number of your enemies. Any reluctance during the battle to attack and kill the enemy could bring defeat, and, in Muslims' case, annihilation of the whole umma, or community of believers.

The first verse that McCarthy quotes should be understood in this context. After a detailed analysis of manpower on the battlefield, the Koran states:

It is not fitting for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land: Ye look for the temporal goods of this world, but Allah looketh to the Hereafter: and Allah is Mighty, Wise. (8:67)
Here we see a military strategy that was necessary in a battle of swords: If Muslims started to take prisoners in the middle of the encounter — which would mean collecting ransoms or "temporal goods," later — it could prove to be a grave error. The enemy would have a chance to retaliate, those captives could rejoin the fight, and the battle itself could be lost. Such an event occurred at the battle of Uhud. The pagan army had a cavalry force that stood aside during the battle, and when the Muslim army seemed victorious and started to collect the spoils, those cavalrymen hit the Muslims from behind and won. Many Muslims were killed, and the Prophet himself was injured.

So, the Koranic principle of not taking prisoners in the middle of a battle is all about assuring victory. Verse 47:4, also quoted by McCarthy, in fact confirms this conclusion:

Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind the captives firmly: therefore is the time for either generosity or ransom until the war lays down its burdens....
The phrase "when ye meet the Unbelievers in fight" clearly shows that the verse speaks about a battlefield. Both this verse and that quoted above order Muslim soldiers to kill enemy combatants in battle until the land or the enemy is "subdued" — or in today's military terms, "secured." Once that military target is achieved, there need be no further killing.

Yet McCarthy finds in this a justification for the beheadings in Iraq. His reasoning goes like this: (a) When jihad is ongoing, the taking of prisoners is frowned on, and (b) jihad should be ongoing until the enemy is subdued.

Here is a crucial flaw in McCarthy's argument; a failure to distinguish between a military jihad (a war) and a battle. Early Muslims of Medina were at war with the pagans of Mecca for many years, but they took prisoners of war after the battles they won. If they thought along the lines McCarthy suggests, they should never have taken any prisoners of war, which was obviously not the case.

What was the case? As I explained in my original article, Muslims were ordered by the Koran to treat POWs well, and historical accounts about the Prophet Muhammad show that this command was honored. The Prophet is even reported to have said, "You must feed them as you feed yourselves, and clothe them as you clothe yourselves, and if you should set them a hard task, you must help them in it yourselves" (Gabrielli, Arab Historians of the Crusades, pp. 138-39).

McCarthy criticized me at this point for leaving out the account of Bani Qurayza, the Jewish tribe whose men were reportedly beheaded by order of the Prophet because they had secretly collaborated with the pagan army attacking Medina. I had a reason for leaving this out: I strongly doubt its historical accuracy. There is no reference to such a dramatic event in the Koran and it only appears in the biography of the Prophet written by Ibn Ishaq, a man who died 145 years after the event. In a detailed article that questions the accuracy of this story, scholar W. N. Arafat explains why it was probably a "later invention." Ibn Hajar, an Islamic authority, denounced it and other related stories as "odd tales." A contemporary of Ibn Ishaq, Malik the jurist, denounced Ibn Ishaq outright as "a liar" and "an impostor" just for telling such fables. Moreover, as Rabbi Brad Hirschfield of the National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership says, the "massacre... hardly shows up in Jewish literature."

I conclude that the Koranic order to not take POWs and instead continue to kill the enemy is limited to unsecured battlefields.

Moreover, that "enemy" refers only to combatants. The Koran is clear on this:

Fight in the Way of God against those who fight you, but do not go beyond the limits. God does not love those who go beyond the limits. (2:190)
Thus, war can only be waged against "those who fight" against Muslims, i.e. combatants. It is also well known that Prophet Muhammad was careful to make this distinction and strictly ordered Muslim soldiers to avoid harming women, children, the elderly, or people at temples and monasteries.

What al Qaeda did to Nick Berg, Paul Johnson, Kim Sun-il, and recently Murat Yuce — a Turkish citizen working for a Jordanian company that gave service to the American army — was unacceptable according to both of the criteria in question: There was no battle, thus no battleground to be secured, and the victims were noncombatants. These were cold-blooded murders and they must be condemned from a Koranic point of view.


DISCOVERING THE GOOD "UNBELIEVERS"
Yet, the hateful rhetoric of the radical Islamists has blurred the distinction between enemies and friends, combatants, and civilians. In that rhetoric, all non-Muslims are labeled simply as "unbelievers" and then seen as enemies of Muslims, even as legitimate targets. Whereas in the Koran Jews and Christians are called "The People of the Book," and salvation is promised to them if they worship God sincerely (2:62). And Muslims are ordered to be kind to them, unless they behave unjustly:

Only argue with the People of the Book in the kindest way — except in the case of those of them who do wrong — saying, "We have faith in what has been sent down to us and what was sent down to you. Our God and your God are one and we submit to Him" (29:46).
Even if one is an unbeliever, i.e. an atheist or a pagan, that does not make him an enemy of Islam and Muslims. The Koran, after warning Muslims for being friendly to those who have persecuted the Prophet, makes an important distinction:

God does not forbid you from being good to those who have not fought you in religion or driven you from your homes, or from being just towards them. God loves those who are just. God merely forbids you from taking as friends those who have fought you in religion and driven you from your homes and who supported your expulsion. Any who take them as friends are wrongdoers (60:8-9).
Therefore, besides those who show open hostility to Islam and Muslims, all non-Muslims are to be treated graciously. The Koran hints that even those enemies can be won:

It may well be that God will restore the love between you and those of them who are now your enemies. God is All-Powerful. God is Ever-Forgiving, Most Merciful (60:7).
This is very different from what you can hear from al-Qaeda spokesmen and similar terrorists.


"THIS IS NOT OUR TRADITION"
The Koranic concern for noncombatants might explain why even some of the radical clerics in Iraq object to the killings in question. British journalist James Brandon, who was kidnapped by the militias of the radical cleric Moqtada Sadr, was freed recently. Sadr, obviously no moderate, "apologized" for the initial rough treatment of Brandon and declared, "This is not our tradition, not our rules. It is not the tradition of Islam."

Similarly, Sheikh Abdullah al-Janabi, Fallujah's leading cleric, though a supporter of "resistance against occupation," said the beheadings are "not accepted or approved by the people [of Falluja]" or by himself, and the kidnappers "don't understand the concept of honest and true resistance."

I do not share the views of these radical clerics, but it is notable that even they disapprove of the beheadings. Those who commit them are even more radical groups such as al Qaeda, whose indiscriminate violence is alien to Islamic tradition. As Bernard Lewis confirms about September 11, those attacks had "no justification in Islamic doctrine or law and no precedent in Islamic history" (I>The Crisis of Islam, p. 119). The same is true for the recent beheadings in Iraq.

To argue otherwise, McCarthy mentions the legal opinion of the eleventh-century Muslim jurist al-Mawardi, who gave four options to a Muslim ruler on the treatment of POWs, one of which was beheading. Let me go further and give an example showing how this was implemented. When Saladin, the Muslim hero of the twelfth century, defeated the crusader army in the battle of Hattin in 1187, he had two important POWs brought to his tent: King Guy and Reynauld de Chatillion. Saladin spoke kindly to the king, offered the desperately thirsty man iced water, and later set him free. That was because King Guy was a noble man — an enemy, but noble nevertheless. Reynauld was, on the other hand, truly evil. He slaughtered unarmed Muslim pilgrims and travelers, including the sister of Saladin, and dared to attack the holy shrine at Mecca. He tortured the Patriarch of Antioch, "massacred thousands of [Orthodox Christian] men, women and children," and cut off the noses of all Greek monks he could gather (Armstrong, Holy War, p. 242). Saladin beheaded Reynauld with his own hands because, as he explained to King Guy, he had committed "great crimes and treachery." Later, the Templars, who led the most brutal massacres against Muslim civilians in the past, were executed as well, because they had "shown themselves to be dedicated enemies of Islam" (Armstrong, p. 255).

In other words, this was about killing war criminals, not even enemy soldiers. Later on, Saladin conquered the cities of the Crusader Kingdom, including Jerusalem, and he was revered for the fact that he did not harm any of their Christian inhabitants. Even Europeans of the time respected Saladin as man of honor, generosity, and chivalry.


MUSLIM REFORMATION
Still, a coherent argument against indiscriminate violence carried out in the name of Islam should go beyond all of these examples. I have tried to explain that terrorism against civilians has no justification in mainstream Islam, but there is another major issue: Some aspects of Islamic tradition are outdated, and we have to reevaluate some of our doctrines in light of modern times.

This is a very wide issue that needs extensive work. Briefly: The Koran was revealed in the seventh century and some verses refer to events that do not or could not take place today. This means there are some parts of the Koran that we can't — and aren't supposed to — implement literally now. Take the verse that orders Muslims to muster "cavalry" to frighten their enemies (8:60). Today, of course, no Muslim state would think of building an army based on cavalry. The verse can't be implemented literally. We can only infer a principle — such as that strong armies are necessary for national defense — and apply that principle in a modern context.

The same line of reasoning can be extended to some other social and political issues in the Koran, especially to the war verses such as the ones quoted by McCarthy (2:191, 5:33, 8:12). Again, it is possible that we no longer need take all of these verses literally.

Besides that, some traditional doctrines can be abandoned completely. Take the much-disputed concepts of "House of War" and "House of Islam," developed by Muslim jurists in the 8th century. Those jurists regarded all foreign lands as enemy territories, because they could not expect tolerance and safety for Islam there. Today we live in much different world, in which religious freedom is widely established, especially in liberal democracies. Thus there is no justification to see those democracies as "House of War." That very definition is simply outdated; along with many other concepts in the Islamic tradition.

I agree, then, with McCarthy that Muslims need to have reformation — to reread the Koran in today's terms, question all post-Koranic traditions, and create a new canon that will include, among other things, a doctrine of just war that leaves no excuse for terrorism and other aggressive actions. Whether we can accomplish such a reform — good for both Muslims and non-Muslims alike — will be a crucial question in the years and decades to come.

— Mustafa Akyol is a political scientist, columnist, and writer from Turkey. He is also director at the Intercultural Dialogue Platform, based in Istanbul.

[Mision]

Irakianët ekzekutojnë pengun turk

nuk eshte biznes i ndershem gjate kohes se luftes,,sa gjynaf qe kete nuk e ka kuptuar me heret ,,turku

[Toro]

DEATH ROW

By NILES LATHEM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRUTAL END:
The purported bodies of the victims, all kidnapped Nepalis, in gruesome footage shown on an Islamic Web site.
Reuters




September 1, 2004 --


WASHINGTON — Al Qaeda-linked savages in Iraq said yesterday they slaughtered 12 Nepali hostages — and posted gruesome videos and stills on the Internet, showing the killers decapitating one captive and shooting the others in their heads.

In the most horrific mass murder of Iraq's six-month foreign hostage drama, the al Qaeda-linked Army of Ansar al-Sunna bragged about the atrocity on an Islamic Web site.

The thugs claimed they killed the Nepali cooks, cleaners and construction workers because they were employed by a company doing work for U.S. forces.

"We have carried out a sentence of God against 12 Nepalis who came from their country to fight the Muslims and to serve the Jews and the Christians — believing in Buddha as their God," said a statement by the group's "military committee."



At the end of the video, the group promised more kidnappings and executions of Iraqis and foreigners working with American and coalition forces.

The video shows two masked terrorists - one dressed in camouflage - holding down a Nepali prisoner.

One of the killers slits his throat — then beheads the hostage and holds up his head to the camera, brandishing it as though it were a trophy.

The video then shows a group of hostages lying face down in what looks like desert sand while a coldblooded terrorist executes them by methodically shooting each in the back of the head with an automatic rifle.

The video then shows the bullet-riddled bodies seeping blood onto the sand.

Tiny Nepal had nothing to do with the war, had refused U.S. requests to send troops to Iraq, and had tried to discourage its citizens from traveling there because of security concerns.

The kidnappers had made no demands of the Nepal government after the workers, who were employed by a Jordanian construction firm, were kidnapped Aug 20.

"There were no demands from the kidnappers to negotiate, and then, all of a sudden, we hear that they killed them," said Nepal's ambassador to Qatar, Shyamananda Suman, who handles his country's affairs in the Persian Gulf region.

"We wanted to get in touch with the kidnappers, but there was no way to do so.


"I talked to the media and appealed to the kidnappers to set them free, or at least to know their demands, but all that went in vain."

The Nepali foreign ministry issued a statement saying, "This barbarian act of terrorism to kill innocent civilians without asking for any conditions for their release is against the minimum behavior of human civilization."

News of the massacre hit the families of the hostages hard.

The mother of one fainted when informed by a journalist of the awful video.

A father was devastated.

"Oh, Lord, why have you kept me alive," said Jit Bahadur, father of 19-year-old Ramesh Kadhka, who went to Iraq to earn a salary of about $555 a month, more than six times what he earned at his old job.

Iraqi terrorist groups have now executed 23 of the 100 foreign hostages taken during a wave of kidnappings that began in April.

U.S. intelligence officials told The Post that The Army of Ansar al-Sunna is believed to be commanded by Jordanian terror master Abu Musab Zarqawi, who personally claimed responsibility for decapitating American hostage Nicholas Berg.

[Hyllien]

Kjo eshte dicka qe Amerika e ka merituar, duke futur hundet ne nje konflikt qe nuk kishte pune. Te vjen keq te shofesh se car ndodh, por ama edhe duke pare keto palacot per diten e trete rrjesht ne konvente qe nuk flasin hic fare per politiken e brendeshme por vetem sulmojne demokratet, apo Cheney sot qe beri nje fjalim skandaloz te mbushur me rrena, kjo nuk durohet. Amerika po vuan liderat e saj qe e kan zen rob e jo terroristat. Nga suficiti me i madh ne histori i arritur nga Clintoni, kemi arritur ne deficitin me te madh. Me car lekesh do i "ndihmoj" Bushi keto vende, pa patur ne terezi edukimin ketu, mjeksine edhe plot reforma te tjera sociale.

Sja kan fajin carcafbardhet, fajin e kane vete qe u futen kuturu vetem me mendim te fitonin. Te ishte Klintoni keto gjera do ishin bere shume me me mend. U arriten vetem akorde paqe ne kohen e tij, dhe nje lufte ne kohe rekord kundra serbit, pa viktima civile pa gje, jo si keta palloshat.

[kolombi]

Cyklo
Behet fjale per masaker kunder Nepalezeve,ne kete te pakten teme.Kur te presin 12 koka amerikanesh atehere le te themi e meritonte apo jo.Do me thuash se per hir te "shkatereve te luftes amerikaneve",keta lavire presin e vrasin.Medet..........si ajo e thenia e pleqve te fshatit "Per inat te sime vjehrre ,une do fle me mullixhine"

[Kryeplaku]

Gjynaf.... per faj te Amerikes e hajne edhe te tjeret!!!

[Ryder]

Nuk gjykohet lufta bazuar ne c'do vrasje qe behet nga secila ane. Lufte esht dhe te dyja palet do kene viktima. Duhen marr parasysh keto detaje te vogla para se ti futesh tjereve neper shpia me tanke per ti "cliruar".

Nepalezet i paska marr tornadoja para meqe s'paskan pasur gisht ne lufte...kot nuk i ka keshilluar shteti mos te udhetojne ne Irak. Njerezit kthehen ne kafshe ne lufte e siper kshuqe mir esht te mos shkosh si turist ne fushen e betejes.

Megjithse ajo pjesa "They were serving Jews and Christians and believing in Budha as their God" mu duk si pak e dyshimte. Ma merr menja esht kulmi i fondamentalizmit ekstremisto-nacionalist.

[bunny]

Gjynaf.... per faj te Amerikes e hajne edhe te tjeret!!!

E vertete!

Sot degjova ne lajme qe Kanalet Arabe jane konfirmuar qe 3 Turq te tjere jan kapur,po ashtu edhe 3 Maqedonas.Maqedonasit punon ne 1 firme Amerikane ne Irak,shpresoj qe te mos jete e vertete!

Persa i perket 12'cen ketu,kur u dha ne lajme nuk mund ta shikoja pasi ishte shum brutale,as nuk u mundem te imgjinoj sesi jane ndjere ato nena/femi/gra etj te aferm kur kan pare te afermit e tyre duke vdekur ne ate lloj menyre.
Dicka nuk kuptoj ca duan Maqedonsit/Nepali/Turqit duke punuar atje???
ohh zot...ai i madhi ka thene ruaju te te ruaj...nuk ka thene ik edhe vendos veten ne mes te luftes edhe kerko shpetim...