The following is an archived copy of a message sent to the CASI Analysis List run by Cambridge Solidarity with Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of Cambridge Solidarity with Iraq (CASI).
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [CASI Homepage]
[ This message has been sent to you via the CASI-analysis mailing list ] [The message below is from Hassan. I am forwarding it for administrative reasons] Daniel O'Huiginn ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:27:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Hassan <email@example.com> Dear List, On 29 May 2004, Dr. Kamil Mahdi commented on a post from the IPO that it: "reflects sectarian sentiments", and continued "Sectarianism is as disagreeable in Iraq as it is in Ireland and elsewhere, and it is being promoted by the US through the occupation and through the imposition of formal ethnic claims to political legitimacy. People should be aware that there is widespread rejection of sectarianism across Iraq's society." This applies again to the latest post from Yasser Alaskary. Yasser thinks that it is a joke to refer to the "resistance", which is the same propaganda of Allawi's "government". Even the Americans admit now that there is an organized resistance in Iraq which is carrying out over 70 operations a day against the occupation forces, seemingly led by experienced army officers, developing new tactics and methods. US officials have also admitted that the militant "foreigners" in Iraq are no more than 10% of the forces actively opposing the occupation, which means that over 60 operations a day are carried out by Iraqis themselves. The Salafi Wahhabis do exist now, thanks to the US "open borders" policy. Those had no place in Iraq before the occupation, and will not have when the Americans and their followers leave. I am sure all agree that the targeting of civilians is rejected and should not be part of any liberation movement. But, Yasser himself justified the killing of Iraqis when in 2002 he stated that the death of thousands of Iraqis should be accepted as a price for overthrowing Saddam's regime. It may surprise him to know that the number of civilians killed since 20 March 2003 has crossed 37000... Is it therefore acceptable to kill thousands of Iraqis in order to overthrow Saddam's regime, but condemn Iraqis trying to get rid of an illegal occupation when they kill civilians?? Isn't that double morality?? To begin with, the new Iraqi new army, the National Guard and Police are made up from the military wings of SCIRI (Badr Brigade), Da’wa party, Allawi’s group, Chalabi's group and Peshmerge. But who were the targets of the terrorist attacks of the Da'wa party in the 1980s (the Ministry of Planning, for example and car bombs) but Iraqis? Who were the victims of the Communist/Kurdish Ansar movement attacks in the 1980s but Iraqis? Allawi admitted to having worked with 15 foreign intelligence agencies, and information leaking from the CIA has admitted that Allawi was responsible for terrorist attacks in the 1990s whose victims were Iraqi civilians. In the 1991 uprising, SCIRI's Badr Brigades killed thousands of Iraqis, including family members of the Ba'th party Cadres in southern Iraq. Both Barzani and Talabani clans have killed thousands of Kurds and non-Kurds, all of them Iraqis. Tens of alcohol shop owners have been killed by religious fanatic groups in Iraq since the 'liberation', and all were Iraqis.. Are all of those to be condemned too or not?? As to hostages, then we also agree that the taking of civilians should be absolutely condemned. But the Americans started that by taking women and children hostages to force the men to surrender. To begin with, no one seems to know who is behind those kidnappings and hostage taking. There are hundreds of Iraqi scientist and well-educated professionals who have been killed, some kidnapped and some having their children kidnapped. The message given to those and others was to leave Iraq. No sane person would think that behind these kidnappings are 'the Sunni board of clerics' or 'moqtada's lot'; no Iraqi force will benefit from this brain drain, certainly not Saddam's agents who still believe they will come back to power.. There are also tens of religious men, Sunni and Shi’i, who have been assassinated in what looks like an effort to create sectarian conflicts between the two sects. As to foreigner hostages, then again very few of them are in fact civilians, and even then we don’t know who is behind those kidnappings. There is a growing belief that behind those kidnappings are forces that want the occupation to continue; and these are not 'the Sunni board of clerics' nor 'moqtada's lot', and certainly not Saddam's agents, all of who want the occupation to end! I leave you to draw your own conclusions!! I would have wanted to hear from the IPO on the rape and torture to which Iraqis (men, women and children) were subjected. I would have liked a condemnation of those acts from the parties that were in opposition and which claimed they wanted an end to the rule of terror, as I would have wanted to hear from Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, other religious leaders. This remains wishful thinking.. The ends justify the means, it seems. Most important is that Ibrahim al-Ushaiker (now added al-Ja'fari to his name)becomes Vice President and the Da'wa gets a couple of Cabinet positions; the rest can go to hell.. Iraqis can be terrified by dawn attacks, by bombs, by imprisonment, by torture and by rape... So what if a few thousand die? What if a few hundred are raped? While western media condemned these acts, the Iraqi front chooses to be quiet.. And now that Kofi Annan finally found the moral courage to admit what legal experts and decent human beings have said for over two years, that the attack on Iraq was illegal, how is that translated on the ground? Doesn't that mean that all those persons imprisoned are 'hostages', taken illegally by an occupation force which illegally attacked their land? Doesn’t that mean that all that comes out of this illegal occupation is also illegal, including all the decisions of the CPA and the 'interim government' and all its actions? The reference to 'moqtada's lot' gives the impression that this 'lot' has no standing inside Iraq. This is the way they have been referred to by those Shi'i politicians who were brought in by US tanks. Moqtada al-Sadr draws the base for support from his father's and uncle's reputations, both having been killed by Saddam. He has accused the Hawza of keeping silent about atrocities and crimes, and that has annoyed the religious leadership's 'big four'. Moqtada's followers will explain that he lost his father and two brothers because they openly opposed Saddam. And while the others either kept quiet or left Iraq, he remained in Iraq facing the oppression. He finds big support from among the poor, specifically because the Hawza is accused of misappropriating funds which instead of being spent on improving their affairs, end up in hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign accounts owned by sons and relatives of those leaders!! The day the attacks against Najaf began, Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani was flown by a US military plane to Baghdad International Airport from where he flew to Lebanon then to London. We were told he was suffering from a serious heart ailment that might necessitate surgical intervention. As if London is the only place to get medical treatment, where the new Iraqi leaders also spent their summer!! The 'dying' man was seen coming down the stairs from the plane and walking to the waiting car unaided. Then all ended up in a minor eye surgery! During all that period, not a single statement or remark were given by him condemning the attacks on Najaf, the death of Iraqis or the destruction of property, especially the holiest of holies for Shi'is. That did not go unnoticed by Iraqis...'Moqtada's lot' which fought US attempts to enter Imam Ali's shrine, accepted Al-Sistani’s orders and agreed to a ceasefire with the Americans, because of their respect to Al-Sistani’s position, and in order to save people from further suffering. The Americans, however, keep breaking their promises and attacking Moqtada’s aides and arresting them. Criticism of Al-Sistani among Shi’is is increasing, especially in Al-Sadr city in Baghdad, where people are demanding that he issues a Fatwa condemning the US and its actions... Yesterday, they even used a suicide bomb attack against the Americans and the Iraqi National Guard working with them.. Yasser says 'We completely agree with Sayyid Sistani's insistence on elections'. Is that the only thing he agrees with Al-Sistani on, or does he agree with his other statements? Does he also agree with the Fatwas of Sayyid Ali al-Sistani, Sayyid Muhammad Sa’id al-Hakim, Sheikh Muhammad Ishaq al-Fayyadh and Sheikh Bashir al-Najafi issued on 12 March 2003 that call for resistance to the coming aggression and condemns anyone who cooperates with the foreign aggressor? How should that be interpreted, other than that the US, its foreign allies and all of those who cooperate with the illegal aggression should be fought? I am not against differing opinions, but I am against relying on generalizations and sectarianism in the selective way the IPO keeps dealing with these issues. No one owns the absolute truth alone. The aggression was illegal and it was a crime against humanity. Most of the world has finally admitted this. Those who advocated war and the killing of Iraqis have no moral right to come now and preach us about right and wrong. Best HZ _______________________________________ Sent via the CASI-analysis mailing list To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-analysis All postings are archived on CASI's website at http://www.casi.org.uk