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] let's talk Iraq history



Dear Gabriel and others,
  Re:                   ' But then, is it really surprising to find an apologist for Saddam Hussein 
rubbing shoulders with
Holocaust deniers?
My answer is a definite , NO. They are gradually coming out of the closet of Anti-Sanctions and 
Anti-War camps under which they mingled with the genuine sympathisers with the Iraqi people. One 
byproduct of the toppling of  Saddam Hussein inside Iraq is exposing the scale of his regimes 
brutality in the dungeons, toture chambers and mass graves. While he was still in power, they 
denied it or paid lip service to our protests about his violation of human rights, focussing only 
on the external threats of sanctions or war. Now that his regime is gone, but not his legacy to 
Iraq, his apologists abroad are understandably getting edgy, as shown by their hyperactiveness. 
Whenever a new mass grave or toture chamber is unearthed, they cast doubt on the source and detract 
from it by blaming it all on the Americans even if the latter were not  there at the time. Another 
marker of the apologists now is they have nothing positive to offer the Iraqi people, only using 
their plight to score points in their political crusade against the powers that be. As this is 
detrimental to the interests of the Iraqi people and I admire them for being such Anti-Imperialist 
warriors, it would be mutually beneficial if they, respectfully, adopted another cause.
Another marker of their markers is because they have lost the argument, they are becoming 
aggressive and some even rude to those who dare to beg to differ.
Below is just one of the many reports on recently discovered mass graves.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,973543,00.html
Muhamad
>>> "Voices UK" <voices@viwuk.freeserve.co.uk> 06/09 2:31 pm >>>
Dear List Members,

Judging by this interview with its author, Nita Renfrew's biography 'Saddam
Hussein' must be the most appalling pro-Saddam apologia. It is therefore
very revealing - though unsurprising given his past posts to the List - that
Dirk describes it as a 'superb piece of history.'

It is also revealing to look at who else spoke at the 'Third International
Conference on Authentic History and the First Amendment' along with Renfrew.
A quick Google search finds the Conference web-site:
http://www.barnesreview.org/Conference/. The Conference's 'Report on
Revisionism', included speakers Russ Granata speaking on 'Bunker 1" at
Auschwitz: Gas Chamber or Farmhouse?' and somebody called Juergen Graf
speaking on 'Was Treblinka a "Death Camp?".' But then, is it really
surprising to find an apologist for Saddam Hussein rubbing shoulders with
Holocaust deniers?

Best wishes,

Gabriel
(writing in a personal capacity)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dirk Adriaensens" <dirk.adriaensens@skynet.be>
To: <soc-casi-discuss@lists.cam.ac.uk>
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 11:39 PM
Subject: [casi] let's talk Iraq history



[ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ]

Dear all,
looking into the archives of http://www.irak.be/ned/archief/midden.htm, I
found this superb piece of history, written by Rita Renfrew, who wrote an
excellent book about Iraq in 1992: "Saddam Hussein". You can download the
whole book.
A very remarkable woman, journalist. It seems to me that women in these
troubled times take the lead in the anti-invasion movement. Or am I wrong?
If you want some antidote against the US/UK rolling-mill, read this
interview. It clarifies a lot of issues that are not clear to the
anti-sanctions movement.
It is a must-read for all of you anti-sanction/anti-occupation campaigners.
Could we miss the internet? I think not. It gives us the opportunity to
remember what really happened.
Yours in struggle for peace.
Dirk Adriaensens
www.irak.be
Myths About Israel, Iran-Iraq War, Saddam Debunked by Veteran Journalist

http://www.americanfreepress.net/07_14_02/Myths_Saddam/myths_saddam.html

American-born Nita Renfrew went to Israel as an idealistic young liberal who
wanted to experience life in a country she believed was a model for the
world. What she discovered was not what she expected. It gave her new
insights into what the Arab-Israeli conflict was really all about.

In subsequent years, after leaving Israel, Renfrew traveled widely,
including a stint as the Spanish correspondent for LeMonde Diplomatique, the
well-known French foreign affairs journal. She has been a radio commentator
and is the author of Saddam Hussein, an authoritative and objective (but
very hard to find) biography of the Iraqi leader.

Following her recent appearance as featured speaker at the Third
International Conference on Authentic History and the First Amendment,
sponsored in Washington, D.C. by The Barnes Review, Renfrew was a guest on
the June 23 broadcast of Radio Free America, the weekly call-in talk forum
sponsored by American Free Press with host Tom Valentine.

What follows is an edited transcription of the interview. Valentine's
questions are in boldface. Miss Renfrew's responses are in regular text.



Tell us, just how did a young American girl end up settling down in Israel?
When I first went over to the Middle East in 1968, it was right after the
1967 war. I had been living in Mexico. We had all heard about how heroic the
Israelis were because they had defeated these monstrous Arabs who had wanted
to push the Israelis into the sea and how the Israelis had "made the desert
bloom." So I thought Israel was some kind of idealistic country and that's
why I wanted to go over there. I was about 21 at the time.

I lived on a kibbutz, right on the border of Jordan, next to the Golan
Heights, which had been occupied during the 1967 war. We were being shelled
all the time there on the border. That's exactly where I had my first clue
as to what was going to happen to Iraq in the future.

The first day I was sent down to work in the banana fields with a group of
Americans. There were eight American girls working next to the border that
day. We were putting paper bags over the bananas to keep them from freezing
before they were picked. There was always somebody with us. I watched a
Mirage jet fly over a Palestinian village that was on a hilltop on the other
side of the border and watched a mushroom cloud rise over the village as the
Mirage returned and flew back into Israel. I had seen pictures of atomic
blasts and thought this was what it was, but the cloud was smaller.

Everybody laughed at me and said, "Oh no, that was just napalm." I said,
"They're dropping napalm on a civilian Palestinian village?" And they
responded, "Well, these Palestinians come across the border and put land
mines in the fields and bombs in buses, so we have to do this once a week."

I was there for nine months and I watched it happen once a week, with the
Palestinians doing nothing to provoke it. This was the beginning of my
disillusionment, watching what I saw. I realized Israel was not what I
thought it was.

After I had been there for three weeks, they left us without a supervisor
down by the border in the banana fields and told us, "If the Palestinians
start shooting at you, there's a trench over there. Go hide in it." I was
working and wondering why they had left us unsupervised.

All of a sudden there was this tremendous explosion and I felt this stinging
on my face and I threw myself on the ground, thinking they were shooting at
us. I thought I heard my partner-we worked in pairs-laughing hysterically
and I looked at her and saw she didn't have a leg. She had stepped on a land
mine and was crying hysterically-not laughing.

The Israeli soldiers came and took us out of there. I had an Israeli-born
boyfriend there at the kibbutz and he was very idealistic. He came running
up to me and said, "Thank God it wasn't you. I worried all morning that it
might be you." I responded, "You mean you knew there was a land mine there?"
He said, "Oh yes, we knew. We caught three Palestinian guerrillas and the
army killed them but we only found two of the land mines. We knew that there
was a third one but we couldn't find the tracks and we couldn't find it with
a metal detector."

In other words, they used these idealistic American girls-including you-as
guinea pigs?

Yes, we were unwilling human shields. I asked my boyfriend, "Well, why
didn't you tell us about the land mine?" And he said, "Well, then you
wouldn't have gone to work and we didn't want to lose the bananas." I said,
"Well, why didn't you guys go down there?" And he said, "Well, everybody on
the kibbutz knew and we didn't go down there." So the blinders fell off my
eyes. My partner survived, losing her leg, but I don't think anyone told her
that they knew there was a land mine there.

As a result of experiences such as this, I became interested in the politics
of what was happening in the Middle East and I started asking a lot of
questions. Young Israelis who were my age had been in the military and they
fought in the 1967 war. I started asking them questions about the Arabs.
They said, "Oh, the Arabs are all cowards and run away."

But they said there were two exceptions: the Bedouin guard of King Hussein
in Jordan, who were very brave and who would fight to the death. However,
they said there were not many of them, so they were not too worried about
them.

And they also said that the Iraqi soldiers were formidable. The Iraqis
fought to the death. They said that the Iraqis didn't have good training or
weaponry. But if they ever did, they would be a threat to Israel. They said
that Iraq had a large population and a lot of oil wells.

I kept hearing this all the time, and, of course, it didn't mean much to me.
But later, as I saw that Israel was behind a lot of the policies designed to
destroy Iraq and with the 1991 war against Iraq, I began to understand it
all.

After I left Israel and came to New York, I followed events in the Middle
East very closely. I met many Arabs from all of the different countries. In
1984, after the United States re-established relations with Iraq, I was
invited as an American journalist to visit Iraq. This was following the
Iran-Iraq war.

I had a lot of Persian friends. I had previously visited Iran and I actually
met the Ayatollah Khomeini right after he assumed power. I had been watching
the Iran-Iraq war.

Khomeini had been in exile in Iraq for many years during the time that the
shah ruled Iran.

Saddam Hussein had come to power in Iraq in 1968 when the Ba'ath Party came
to power.

Ba'ath basically means "Renaissance" in Arabic. And it's important to
understand what the Ba'ath Party is, because it has to do with why Israel
has problems with Iraq and Saddam.

The problem that Israel has with Saddam is its problem with the ideology of
the Ba'ath Party, really, even though the Israelis try to personalize the
matter, as the Israelis are now trying to do with Yasser Arafat, the leader
of the Palestinians. It sounds better, public-relations-wise, if you want to
get rid of a "terrible dictator" as the Israelis have portrayed Saddam, and
now Arafat.

In fact, Saddam Hussein has been one of the proponents of Pan-Arabism or
Arab nationalism since the time he was a child. This refers to a unity among
all Arab countries.

Although Egypt's former leader Gamal Abdul Nasser is identified with
Pan-Arabism, Nasser got a lot of his ideas from the Ba'ath Party and was
influenced by its ideology after it came into existence in Syria in 1947,
formed by two Muslims and a Christian. This was at a time when the Zionists
were expelling the Palestinians from Palestine in preparation for declaring
the state of Israel in 1948.

One of the main tenets of the Ba'ath Party has been to restore Palestinian
sovereignty in Palestine and to unite the whole Arab people so that they
would be a united country and a bastion against what they considered to be
European colonialism. Israel is a key component of that colonialism.

As vice president in Iraq, Saddam was considered an equal partner of his
cousin, who was the president. In 1979, Saddam's cousin resigned as
president for health reasons and Saddam became president.

This was right after Khomeini returned to Iran. Khomeini hated Saddam
because the shah of Iran had asked him to expel Khomeini because Khomeini
was creating opposition to the shah.

Saddam agreed to expel Khomeini and that's when Khomeini went to Paris and
was able to rally and successfully oust the shah.

The Persians in Iran didn't like the United States because the United States
was backing the corrupt and brutal regime of the shah in Iran. This leads
right into the Iran-Iraq war which began after Khomeini assumed power in
Iran, after the shah was ousted by Islamic fundamentalists.

That's right. You see the Ba'ath Party of Iraq is a secular party. It
believes in the separation of state and religion.

So the Shiite Muslims in Iran, led by the Ayatollah Khomeini, wanted a
Muslim religious state like Khomeini brought to Iran. In fact, Khomeini
wanted an Islamic republic composed of all of the Islamic states and
eventually a world government.

But to have that, Khomeini needed to conquer not only Iraq but also Mecca
and Medina which are sites in Saudi Arabia that are holy to all Muslims-both
Shiites and Sunnis. He had to go through Iraq, which is the only Arab
country with a land border with Saudi Arabia. So Khomeini was calling on the
radio for the Shiite soldiers in Iraq to defect and assassinate Saddam. The
Shiites are more than 50 percent of the Islamic population in Iraq. There
were assassination attempts.

Saddam believed that even though Iran had more than three times the manpower
of Iraq and far greater strategic depth, he figured he could do a preemptive
strike against Iran, since there were sanctions on Iran and the country
couldn't get spare parts.

Saddam calculated that would stop Iran from invading Iraq and the rest of
the Arab world.

However, Saddam miscalculated the fact that, during the shah's time, Iran
had financed part of the defense industry in Israel. There were arms
factories in Israel that belonged jointly to Israel and the Iranian
government.

While Khomeini was saying that Israel was another enemy of the Muslims, the
Iranian army continued to have the same liaison people with Israel. Israel,
in turn, saw this as an opportunity to give Iran parts for its military
hardware and to get a war started between Iraq and Iran and therefore take
the attention away from the Palestinian question.

And that intrigue by Israel led to the now-infamous Iran-contra arms deals,
in which Israel played a major role, though that was downplayed by the
American media.

The United States was drawn into this when U.S. officials started sending
and selling all kinds of weapons to the Iranians to fight Saddam. This was
all supposedly done by the United States to get the American hostages out of
Iran. But Israel's agenda was to get that war started and to keep it going.

So every time one side started to lose the war, Israel would get the United
States to supply that side-either Iraq or Iran-with satellite intelligence
and spare parts. When that side got stronger, then the United States would
supply the other side. The United States was playing both sides.

Where did Saudi Arabia fit in this?

Right before the Iran-Iraq war started, Saddam had made a trip to Saudi
Arabia and he had met with King Fahd. Although Saudi Arabia has a small
population, it has a lot of oil wells.

The same thing can be said about Kuwait.

Both of those countries agreed that Iraq would use its manpower to fight the
war and they would help pay for the Iraqi war effort since it was really a
war effort to defend all of the Arab countries against Iran, and those
countries, in particular.

That was very critical, since Iran had a large population and they could
send wave after wave of Iranian soldiers against Iraq.

In fact, Iran started doing that. They called it "human wave attacks." They
had North Korean training. They would send these lightly-armed young men and
old men across the border into Iraq by the tens of thousands and Iraq almost
fell at a certain point.

Is this when sarin gas was used in chemical warfare in the Iran-Iraq war?

It was in roughly 1985 when this began. Because the southern part of Iraq
narrows to a little point-the British had carved out the state of Kuwait
from Iraq-the Iranians were able to get just a few miles from the border of
Kuwait. If they had managed to stay there, they would have broken into
Kuwait and Iraq would probably have fallen very quickly.

As a momentary digression, I think it is important to reiterate the point
you just made: The fact that there was never any such nation as Kuwait until
the British created it by taking the land away from Iraq. That fact was
hardly ever reported by the American media when Saddam invaded Kuwait in
1990.

That's right. There was never any such nation as Kuwait. It was just a
little town. The Iraqis were traditionally hard to govern and they still
are. They are very independent and autonomous-thinking. I think one of the
reasons the British wanted to cut off Kuwait was so that the British could
make Iraq into almost a landlocked country, when Iraq had traditionally been
a sea-faring country.

To return to Saddam's use of poison gas against the Iranians, where did
Saddam get this gas?

>From the Americans, apparently. He had been building some rudimentary gas
plants before, but the Americans apparently helped him build more of them.
One of the plants was a precursor to the mustard gas plants of Bechtel Corp.

I want to point out that Iran was also using chemical weapons. I don't know
where Iran got those weapons.

There is a famous incident involving a Kurdish village, Halabja, in which
chemical weapons were used, but the truth about what really happened has
been overwhelmingly distorted and covered up by the U.S. media.

Toward the end of the Iran-Iraq war in 1988, the Iranians had started an
offensive in the north after their efforts in the south, around Kuwait, had
failed. They redirected their efforts to the north, because there's a lot of
oil up there, too. The Kurds in Iraq had been continuously armed by Israel,
starting in the 1950s, in order to destabilize Iraq.

The Kurds had also been armed by the shah for the same reason. Now the
Iranians under Khomeini had begun to arm them again.

Everybody from President Bush to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld have
said that "Saddam killed his own Kurdish population" in Halabja, using
poison gas.

There was a battle in Halabja between the Iranian army and the Iraqi army.
The mayor of Halabja, who is related to a man I know here in the United
States, said that it was the Iranians who dropped the chemical weapons on
the village-not the Iraqis-and the Kurds got caught in the cross-fire. It
was not done deliberately. One of the indications, he said, is that when the
Kurds fled the village, they didn't flee across the border to Iran, but back
into Iraq since the planes were coming from Iran.

Interestingly enough, there is a U.S. Army War College report, by Stephen
Pelletier, who headed up the analysis team on the Iran-Iraq war for the
United States. He and his co-author based their report on the information
that was being continuously gathered by the CIA and the U.S. Defense
Intelligence Agency during the Iran-Iraq war.

The report said that the Kurds in Halabja had died from cyanigin blood
agents. The Iraqis were not known to have any cyanigin blood agents but the
Iranians were. So the U.S. Army War College report concluded that the Kurds
died from Iranian chemical weapons-not Iraqi chemical weapons. Mr. Pelletier
still stands by his re port and was recently quoted as saying so in The
Village Voice.

This leads into another thing: Here in the United States we are very much
concerned about women's rights and we always hear about the mistreatment of
women in Arab and Muslim countries. It's not that way under Saddam Hussein
at all.

No, on the contrary. As a matter of fact, in Saudi Arabia, a lot of
women-including women in the royal family-named their sons "Saddam" right
after the 1991 war because he is a hero to women. In Iraq, women enjoy many
of the equal rights that we do in this country. I have found that half of
the university students in Iraq were women. About half of the government
employees, up to the mid-levels, were women when I was there.

I believe this is a great factor in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait not liking
Saddam, since their women are often saying, "Why can't we be like Iraq?" So
they point toward Saddam as being a model for what they would like to have
in their own country.

In your book on Saddam, you pointed out that Saddam himself wanted an
education so badly that he abandoned his own family.

When Saddam was 10 years old, his cousin from a nearby town came to visit
and he showed him how he could read and write, by writing in the dirt.
Saddam was fascinated by this and when his cousin returned to Tikrit, he
begged his family to allow him to go to school. They told him, "You don't
need to know how to read and write. You're going to be a poor melon grower."

So he ran away from home and went to his cousin's house, where his uncle was
a teacher. Saddam stayed there and went to school. His best subject was
history. He was always fascinated by history, especially Arab history, which
is why he naturally fell in with the Ba'ath Party's ideology of restoring
the Arab world to its glorious history. In fact, Saddam has given a great
deal of money to archeological research. Artists love Saddam, too, because
he supports the arts.

If an election was held in Iraq, he might not have to rig it, contrary to
what the American media might contend.

I was talking to a Jordanian businessman the other day. Jordan is a
monarchy. This businessman said to me: "You know, I have always hated Saddam
Hussein because I hate socialism."

The Ba'ath Party has a socialist concept and believes in housing and
education for people, to be paid for by Iraq's oil riches. So this Jordanian
businessman hates Saddam because of that ideology.

However, he said, "If I were an Iraqi today, I would vote for Saddam. If
Saddam is intelligent, he will hold elections because he'll get 95 percent
of the vote. No other Arab leader would get that kind of vote today."

Yet, the American media portrays Saddam as some sort of hated dictator. We
always hear about how he has to live in a different bunker or palace every
day.

Well, even though Saddam is very popular, he has a lot of powerful enemies.
So there's always an assassin around somewhere.

Saddam is a Sunni Muslim and the Shiite Muslims are the more fundamentalist
types. They are the ones who resent Saddam's liberal policies.

The Shiites also resent Saddam, who believes in separation of religion and
state. They would rather see a fundamentalist Muslim state.

If the United States attacks Iraq-and it appears as if the civilians in our
government want to do it, despite the fact that our Joint Chiefs of Staff
have protested-we will achieve what the Arabs have never been able to
achieve, and that is to unite the Arab world.

It's impossible to predict what would eventually happen. But this would
unite the Arab world in fury against the United States. I believe that all
of what we call "terrorism"-which is happening with the Palestinians against
Israel-would be directed toward us. Anything could happen.

Another thing which would happen is what the Joint Chiefs of Staff said: If
we attack Iraq and go into the cities, Saddam will know that he has nothing
to lose and will use chemical weapons against our troops. God knows what
will happen. It's totally unnecessary.

Iraq and Saddam have never been our enemies. They have always wanted to be
our friends. The reason the Gulf War happened in 1991 is because Israel does
not want a strong Arab nation in the area. And by strong, I mean a country
that has both a large population and the oil wells.

When I went to Iraq in the late 1980s, it was about to be officially
declared a "First World Country" because Saddam had built the country up to
such an extent. But it was so totally destroyed in 1991 by the U.S.-imposed
sanctions which are causing-according to the UN-the deaths of 5,000 children
every month. It totals something like nearly two million deaths. For every
child that dies, there are five who grow up malnourished to the point that
they have brain damage.

The United States has done terrible things to that country. If they hate us
in the future, it's no wonder.



_______________________________________________
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



_______________________________________________
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


London Borough of Hackney may exercise its right to intercept any communication which you send to, 
or receive from, any employees or agents of the Council using its telephony/data networks.  By so 
communicating you give your consent to London Borough of Hackney monitoring and recording any use 
of these networks.

The Data Protection Officer, London Borough of Hackney, Hackney Town Hall, Mare Street, London E8 
1EA datapro@hackney.gov.uk

Please contact the sender if you have received this e-mail in error.


_______________________________________________
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]