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]
[ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ] Dear Gabriel, I find your personal attacks not fair at all. I invite you to read my mail again, and then think of a better way to tackle me. It is not what you write that bothers me, it's what you don't write. If you read carefully (and Roger and Elga have already answered to part of your mail) you can conclude that: a) I found it very odd that only a few persons on this list have discussed the question of lifting the sanctions under US/UK occupation, while CASI couldn't wait to declare that they were happy that US/UK conquistadors lifted the sanctions for their own benefit. Rahul and Sarah asked the right questions about this key issue and Rahul was personally attacked by Raimundo. You didn't come to his defence. CASI was able to grow thanks to the help and the authority of listmembers worldwide. Yet, CASI didn't feel the need to organise a discussion about lifting sanctions before they published their decision. They didn't value the efforts and skills of the members of their own discussion-list. We are "quantité négligeable". I don't consider this a very democratic attitude. I wrote to Rahul that it would be a good idea to open this discussion again, because it is a crucial one, and because I was ashamed that the list had let Rahul down and didn't respond to the personal attacks by Mr. Antiwar.com. Rahul was also disappointed that only few people of the list came to his defence. b) Denis Halliday has the right to think what he wants about the lifting of sanctions. I have no problem that he expresses his opinion. I was referring to the courageous position he took against the illegal and barbarious invasion. The embargo was an economic war against Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was a military war. In both cases it is a war, where many innocent people suffered and died unnecessarily, for the sake of oil and world-domination by US/UK. How can you oppose economic war, but don't have an opinion on military war? I find this attitude "half-hearted". I looked the word up in a dictionary to be sure that I used the right expression, as neutral as possible, in the sence of "neither fish nor flesh". I didn't use the word "disgraceful" like you did. Why do you attack me on this? And yes, personally I find that this "half-hearted" attitude is a support for war. I think you do understand that. If you want, I can explain. c) My mail had two parts. On the second part, about our future plans, and the cooperation we seek with the international community (also on their demand !) about the different actions against the occupation, you don't comment. Instead, you try to discredit me personally. I wonder why. As for me, I welcome every decent action against the war & occupation. Also yours (www.irak.be advertised for and signed your pledge). You may have noticed that already. On our website we have spoken interviews from april this year with a.o. Kathy Kelly and Michael Birmingham of Voices, your organisation I believe, and people we admire very much. You also know we worked together on Hans von Sponeck's ad in the IHT of march 2002. We don't think we have all the wisdom in the world to tackle the illegal US/UK invasion and their war crimes. We don't want to play "cavalier seul". That's why we seek international cooperation. Why don't you cooperate with our action to keep the war-crimes case in Belgium? Or don't you think this is an action that is worth to be undertaken? We must all raise our voice in this wilderness, Gabriel. And we're condemned to work together in order to achieve something. d) And then you try to give me the death-blow by trying to link me to WW2-negationists and SH-apologists. You really insult me with the next sentence: "It is therefore very revealing - though unsurprising given his past posts to the List - that Dirk describes it as a 'superb piece of history.'" Can you please explain to me where Rita Renfrew is negationist and how you can link negationism and SH-apologists with "my last posts". I really am very shocked by this sentence. You discredit our years of hard work in the anti-sanctions movement by putting this without any proof or fact. I can assure you, Gabriel, I'm not a right-wing WW2-negationist. On the contrary. Not a word about the interview itself, that I find indeed superb, because it tries to give a context for atrocities that happened and still happen in the region. Instead you find a "deus ex machina" in consulting Google. End of discussion, you think. I could have posted excerpts from Ramsey Clark's splendid book "The Fire this time", in which he makes roughly the same analysis. Ramsey Clark is of course not suspected as he was a young lawyer at the Nurnberg trials. But this specific interview of Rita Renfrew is so compact and easy to read, and it gives an insight in a part of history that the conquerors want us to forget, like for example the dirty role of the Zionist state of Israel in the Mid-eastern conflicts. My memory is not so short that I reduce Iraq and its former government to Halabja and Halabja alone. Note by the way that the Halabja discussion in the rest of Europe (France, Spain, Portugal, Germany) is far from over. And I'm only 75% sure that Halabja was the work of SH's army. And when I'm not sure, every detail that can lead to the truth is welcome. But I keep my eyes and ears open. In my modest library I have 2 brochures from the same Dutch NGO Novib, one from 1981 (weeks before the Iran-Iraq war, and before Halabja) and one from 1992. If I compare what is written about the same SH and the same government, I conclude that they must be talking about 2 different countries. In 1981, Iraq and it's government were praised for the alphabetisation of its population (UNESCO also acknowledged this), the efforts in the field of public health, investments of oil revenues in its own economy and infrastructure, woman rights etc.. I'm very sorry, but I don't seem to be able to forget this merits. I get very suspicious if the US/UK governments and corporate media tell us lie after lie after lie, and I start asking questions of what else in the past they may have lied about, and I want to explore and read, and I want to comprehend the whole picture, not a cut-out part. What's wrong with asking questions, Gabriel? I've been asking all these questions ever since I went to Iraq in 1992, when I lead a small European delegation, invited by the Federation of Iraqi women. I didn't go to Iraq with a prefab view, but I wanted to keep an open mind. I saw the courage and the strength of Iraqi women and men, I saw their resistance and I decided to increase my support for their resistance against the embargo. I have spoken with literally thousands of people the last 13 years, not only in Iraq, but also in the rest of the Arab world, in the rest of the Third world, about Iraq, SH, the Kurds and what they thought about it. I didn't want to remain on the sideline and adopt a unilateral Western view. So please try to understand my anger when part of the anti-sanctions movement is collapsing, and starts to adopt the views of the governments of the occupation forces. e) And it is not me who wants to close down the CASI-list. It is CASI itself that announced its own funeral. So don't shoot the pianist who declares he wants to continue to resist. And I'll express my opinion here: I would be very disappointed if CASI would close down. I'm very much in favour of its continuation. The forum I announced for the discussions about invasion and war crimes cases has been opened the 2nd of may 2003, weeks before CASI's announcement. So we're not jumping in the CASI hole to fill it with our own forum. But as the CASI discussion-list is meant mainly for English-spoken people, it excludes users who don't understand English. There's more to this world then the US/UK, you know. Gabriel, I'd be very pleased if you contribute to this forum. Your continuous efforts with VIW-UK and Arrow against the sanctions are very admirable, and were very important for the anti-sanctions and anti-war movement in the UK. f) If your aim is to discourage those who want to take an offensive stand against US/UK occupation, those who want to actively oppose US world domination, those who ask questions beyond the lines that have been drawn by our governments and corporate media, if you want to divide the anti-sanctions/anti-war movement, you're on the right course. But I hope we can work together, if possible. Yours in struggle for peace. Dirk Adriaensens www.irak.be _______________________________________________ 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