The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]


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

Re: [casi] Doctors tell how children's deaths became propaganda




Dear List,

When Saibal Mitra asked "Talking about stories, it
would be most interesting to know were the stories
about WMD came from", Yasser Alaskary replied with a
reference to an interview in the Guardian.

That interview has nothing to do with the issue of
WMDs in any way, and doesn't address it at all. I
wonder why Alaskary referred us to it...

I don't intend this to be a personal attack, but the
way the Iraqi Propsect Organisation has presented
itself and its case on CASI makes one wonder what
agenda it has.

Let me give all an example and let you all be the
judge.

On 23 Dec 2002, Yasser Alaskary from the Iraqi
Prospect Organisation posted the following:

"The Iraqi Prospect Organisation is a network of young
Iraqi men and women living in the west, working to
promote a proportional democracy for Iraq."

On 9 Mar 2003, the objectives changed to the
following:
"The Iraqi Prospect Organisation [
http://www.iprospect.org.uk ] is a network of young
Iraqi men and women living in the west working to
promote the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the
establishment of a proportional democracy in Iraq."

Then when the military actions started, IPO went to
sleep! Not a word, no press releases, nothing...

Only after the fall of Baghdad, did IPO come back to
life, when the Chairman of IPO, Ahmed Shames (the
proper way to write the name of course is Shams!)
posted the following on CASI on 10 Apr 2003:

"A New Dawn

On this historic day, we would like to congratulate
all Iraqis around the world and all people who care
for humanity on the fall of Saddam Hussein and his
ruthlessly oppressive regime.

In a day filled with symbolism, the Iraqi Prospect
Organisation will symbolically change its mission
statement from:
'.a network of young Iraqi men and women living in the
west working to promote the overthrow of Saddam
Hussein and the establishment of a proportional
democracy in Iraq.'

To:

'.a network of young Iraqi men and women living in the
west working to promote the creation of a
proportionally representative Interim Iraqi Authority
leading to the establishment of genuine democracy in
Iraq.'

With joy and tears at the end of a dark age we look
ahead to the future, to the challenges that lie
ahead."

The IPO is NOT working anymore towards "promoting the
establishment of a proportional democracy in Iraq",
and now concentrates on promoting " the creation of a
proportionally representative Interim Iraqi Authority
leading to the establishment of genuine democracy in
Iraq", whetever that may mean.

And so, in less than six months, the IPO changed its
objectives twice, bending with the wind and the
direction of funding, it seems...
This behavior has a name, which I am sure we all
know..

In his interview in the Guardian, Yasser states "Now I
realise that people's opinions of this war were based
almost entirely on a hatred of American policy."
I suppose Yasser's opinions were NOT based entirely on
a personal hatred of Saddam Hussein? So why can't
people have similar biases when it comes to the US??

Yasser expresses disregard and ignorance of the
history of the sanctions, not that he opposed them at
all. He states that "declaring war on the basis of the
presence of weapons of mass destruction was stupid",
without seemingly realizing that the reasons for
imposing sanctions from 1991 until now was the alleged
possession of WMDs by Iraq. If the presence of WMDs
was a stupid reason for declaring war, was it also a
stupid reason for continuing sanctions?

And Yasser continues in the same sentence to expose
his reasons for supporting war by saying " but I would
have supported anything that got rid of Saddam." So it
IS personal hatred..

Yasser then says "The Iraqi Prospect Organisation
[IPO] has always worked to promote the establishment
of a genuine democracy".
What he doesn't say is that the IPO is a bit over one
year old.. So this "always worked" is a bit
misleading, to say the least. And Alaskary doesn't say
that the IPO doesn't have definite objectives for more
than three months..

Then Alskary exposes the sectarian agenda of IPO, when
he starts talking about how "the new regime has to be
proportionally representative of all ethnicities",
referring to some Arab countries wanting to maintain
minority Sunni rule.

If the issue is democracy, how can we draw the lines
and make divisions based on sectarian identifications,
not competence or a record of honesty and integrity?
Would IPO want Iraq to be divided in the same as
Lebanon has been, with each religious group allocated
a certain part of the institutions? That, if anything,
is catastrophic for the country and it would be a
recipe for civil war.

Yasser Alaskary, who talks about democracy, doesn't
want Adnan Pachachi to get involved in the interim
regime, because "he has had nothing to do with Iraq
for many years and, as foreign minister, he approved
everything that Saddam did." Yet, we are asked to
accept Ahmad al-Chalabi (a thief who has left Iraq in
1958); Iyad Allawi (an ex-Ba'th member and head of the
National Union of Iraqi Students in England); Najib
al-Salihi (a commander of a battalion of Saddam's
forces until 1995); Tawfiq al-Yassiry (a general in
Saddam's army until 1991) and others, regardless of
their history, simply because they are Shi'is.
Al-Pachachi is not suitable because he is a Sunni, I
presume??

Yasser ends his interview with a rare expression of
wisdom; so contradictory that one wonders if one
should laugh or cry:
"It is now that Iraqi people really need help to get a
government up and running, but all we get is various
countries trying to re-shape Iraq's future as they see
fit."

So Iraq should get help to get a government up and
running (from the US and UK occupiers) and that is
good, but various countries try to shape Iraq's future
as they see fit (the UN and the rest of the world),
and that is bad in Alaskary's mind.. Does Iranian
intervention belong to the good or bad interventions??

HZ



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com

_______________________________________________
Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss
To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk
All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk


[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]