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]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[casi-analysis] mesage from Hassan

[ 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

Daniel O'Huiginn

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Hassan <>

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
People should be aware that there is widespread
rejection of sectarianism across Iraq's society."

This applies again to the latest post from Yasser

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

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
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.


Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!

Sent via the CASI-analysis mailing list
To unsubscribe, visit
All postings are archived on CASI's website at

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]