Moscow supports nuclear armed North Korea and nuclear arming Iran while opposing US moves to create a European missile shield gainst possible missile attacks from the Stalinist/Kimist and Islamist rogue states.
On July 4, while Americans were celebrating their independence, the Kremlin said it would aim missiles at European countries if Washington goes ahead with its missile shield, which Russia considers a threat. Russia hinted it may station missiles in its most westerly region bordering EU members Poland and Lithuania if the US does not cooperate over plans for a European missile shield.
At a meeting with US President George W. Bush this week, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed an expanded plan for missile defense cooperation that would involve Russia and NATO sharing data about missile launches from Iran and North Korea.
Enriched by high oil prices, Russia is not inclined to assist or compromise with the embattled Bush administration. US-Russian relations are likely to get worse before improving.
Analysts are concerned that the failed London and Glasgow bombings and release of a new video speech by Al Qaeda’s No. 2 commander, Egyptian cleric Ayman al-Zawahri, could signal the start of a major new terrorist offensive by the Islamist group.
The video appeared on a website Wednesday used by Islamist militant groups. The video called for unity in jihad and the overthrow of “corrupt” Muslim governments in the Middle East.
Zawahri accused the Saudi Arabian royal family of corruption, condemned Palestinian concessions to Israel, and criticized the Egyptian government as an ally of the United States.
From the desk of Filip van Laenen on Tue, 2007-07-03 23:44
There has been some debate in the media about the fact that many of the suspects involved in the car bombs in London and Glasgow last week are physicians. Are they not bound by the Hippocratic Oath., which states that a physician may not harm? But does such an oath really matter for terrorists? And what’s the Hippocratic Oath worth anyway, especially in the West?
Let’s start with the terrorists: why shouldn’t they plan or carry out a car bomb attack in Great-Britain, or Iraq for that matter, just because they’re physicians who have taken the Hippocratic Oath? I’m a civil engineer, and I never got the impression at university that it would be OK for me to harm people as part of my job, on the contrary. Furthermore, the Hippocratic Oath never stopped the development of biological or chemical arms, even though I’m sure many medical doctors were (and probably still are) involved. Not to mention Josef Mengele, who took the Hippocratic Oath too, just as well as Ayman al-Zawahri, al-Qaeda‘s No. 2, George Habash of the PLO and Mahmoud al-Zahar, the Hamas strongman in Gaza, as Thomas Wagner from Associated Press points out.
That so many people are puzzled by the fact that many of the suspects were physicians who had sworn to harm no-one says more about the people who are puzzled than the suspects. It seems that some people still don’t understand, even after 11 September 2001 in New York, 11 March 2004 in Madrid and 7 July 2005 in London. There is a war going on, and contrary to what some people in the media want us to believe, it was not the West that started it. In fact, being a physician is just an easy ticket in if you want to enter the United Kingdom. The following quote from The Sun sums it up quite well:
It was a perfect cover. Who could possibly suspect a doctor of wanting to inflict death and injury on innocent people?
My guess: the Israeli’s could,and probably would too. Actually, it’s a lesson they learned years ago, and maybe we should start learning from them instead of blaming them for almost everything that’s going wrong in the Middle East.
Finally, how much is the Hippocratic Oath still worth in the Western world anyway? The oath explicitly bans both euthanasia and abortion, but references to it aren’t even accepted in modern debates about those two issues. In Belgium, for example, physicians are still allowed to refuse to perform abortion or euthanasia on moral grounds, at least for the time being. The Belgian government has not really appreciated those difficult physicians very much. Marc Cosyns, the doctor who announced last week that he is planning to perform euthanasia illegally to reopen the debate, has not been confronted with his Hippocratic Oath at all. If that isn’t in conflict with the Hippocratic Oath, why would killing infidels be?
Daniel Johnson makes a connection between socialized medicine and the Muslim doctors’ plot in the UK in today’s New York Sun:
For half a century the British have convinced themselves that the NHS is the envy of the world. It is – for the third world. And it is the third world’s doctors and nurses who keep alive this socialist cult of security from cradle to grave.
No politician dares to reform the NHS, which is still run by its white-coated medical priesthood. Even Margaret Thatcher, who was fearless with terrorists, quailed before the doctors and nurses. “The NHS is safe in our hands,” she said. But the question has long been: are we safe in the NHS’s hands? [….]
But training our own doctors is expensive. Today, the agencies that supply the NHS with doctors recruit their staff throughout Africa and Asia. Many are Muslims and, inevitably, some of them are Islamists. [….]
Anybody with medical qualifications has been able to enter Britain with few questions asked. Of the 277,000 doctors in the NHS, some 128,000 – that is nearly four out of 10 – were trained abroad. It was a loophole that should have been obvious, given Al Qaeda’s declared strategy of recruiting highly educated professionals. The cell that launched last week’s attacks is probably not the only one.