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]
Dear list members, SC Resolution 1483 puts Iraq under occupation authorities, if Mohammed and others likes it or not. For many years they supported US to wage a war against Iraq through different pretexts, may be the important was WMD.. Now, they have nothing to say but the mass graves!! I am waiting the coming Iraqi government, IF THERE WILL BE ANY, and in which way they will face the opposition. I am not defending Saddam Hussein, yet; already the occupation authorities decreed an act prohibiting any activity or publishing that oppose the occupation and call to resistance.. These authorities do not differ from S.H. Bremer became a new S.H and his so-called coalition provisional authorities are the new RCC. They are doing every thing to engage our minds in every thing except asking them about the future.. Back to the mass graves, the only pretext they have now, the mass grave in al-Muthana air base, now they are sure that the graves are for the martyrs of the last war, and others in Mosul and other where were also for the martyrs.. let me ask, those who were killed by so-called uprising in 1991 where did they bodies go? To mass graves that are discovered now.. I admit that S.H was brutal led to the other side brutality.. so, let us forget the past 35 years, and put Iraq in between our eyes trying to get it back, can we? Regards Nermin al-Mufti, occupied Baghdad >-----Original Message----- >From: Mohammed Ali [mailto:email@example.com] >Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 03:07 PM >To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com >Subject: Re: [casi] The International Occupation Watch Center in Iraq > >Dear colleagues, > " Anti-occupation group/Funeral Banners in Iraq" >"Banners in Iraq keep losses in public view >July 6, 2003, By Natalie Pompilio, Inquirer Staff Writer >BAGHDAD, Iraq - The banners, black with yellow and white lettering, can't be missed. They hang >throughout Baghdad, covering walls at the busiest traffic circles, draping across fences and even >hanging on street vendors' carts.Some of the more recent banners recall the crimes of Saddam >Hussein's >government. One memorializes 24 "martyrs" whose bodies were found recently in mass graves. "Died >at the hands of Saddam Hussein" is how they are remembered. They >greatly outnumber the dead at coalition hands. >But Hussein is gone, untouchable, while the U.S. military is visibly present." > >Regards, > Muhamad > >>>> H Sutter <firstname.lastname@example.org> 07/11 1:28 pm >>> > >Dear Mohammed Ali, > >Mohammed, I understand you to be delighted about >the creation of the International Occupation Watch >Center in Iraq. So am I, especially since the media >in Iraq is censored by the US occupiers. > >You may differ only on a few points of semantics, >and perception. > >> If it is "occupied Baghdad" how come you are free to >> enter it as an opponent, hold public meetings, set up >> web sites and be free to leave it whenever you want. >> Obviously, it is far more free than "unoccupied Iraq". > >Baghdad is indeed occupied, in case you have any >doubts. So inhabitants of that city are writing >from "occupied Baghdad", regardless of who may or >may not enter their occupied country. > >In this context, occupation means the "seizure >and control of a country or area by military forces" >[Webster]. > >"Free", a highly subjective concept, is of course >open to interpretation. > >But it seems irrelevant to speculate if occupied >Iraq is "far more free" than "'unoccupied Iraq'". >The degree of freedom, real or imagined, does >not justify the occupation. > >Because the war was illegal under international >law, so is the occupation - irrespective of >freedom, WMDs, or any human rights infringements. > >It is interesting that you should take it as a >manifestation of 'freedom' that the occupiers >are not screening out "opponents" - as yet. > >According to the Geneva Convention, occupied Iraq >may not be treated a prison, despite USUK's attempts >to turn it into one. So the occupiers can't very >well lock up Iraqis for setting up websites or for >holding "public meetings". > >But occupied Iraqis may not espouse views considered >'unfriendly' to the occupation anywhere. Demonstrators >have been killed and wounded; people have been gagged, >handcuffed, and tortured; clergy have been censured >for commenting unfavourably on the occupation. In >fact, the occupiers stifle all criticism, no matter >how valid, on the grounds that is anti-American >hostility. > >(As an aside: The world is getting weary of this >'anti-American' boomerang in response to any >criticism. People consider it rather infantile. >They can't fathom why the only super power is >expecting ovations for its wars, destructions, >and other misdeeds - like a four-year-old.) > >> Therefore, I propose that you extend your remit in >> time to include the same under "unoccupied Iraq", >> namely mass graves, torture chambers and flattened >> villages. > >As I understand it, the people who set up the >International Occupation Watch Center act as monitors, >not as double-entry bookkeepers. They will track >the effects of the occupation, including human >rights violations. In any case, no amount >of bookkeeping would cancel out USUK violations: >two wrongs simply don't make a right. > >> By definition, human rights standards stipulate >> one yardstick everywhere for everyone and at all >> times. > >Applying a "yardstick" means judging people or >situations by comparison. But the monitors of the >USUK occupation neither judge nor compare. They >will merely record what's happening in Iraq under >occupation. In their own words, they "will monitor >the role of CPA in Iraq". You should be pleased >about that. > >Besides, the assumption about equal wrong for all >doesn't hold true: Human rights violators may be >equal, but some are definitely more equal than >others. Power enters into the equation. > >> Otherwise, one will be guilty of double standards >> and selectiveness at best. > >I believe your fears about "double standards" are >groundless. Automatically, the world thinks of >America first when it comes to "double standards". >Not because that country has a monopoly on hypocrisy, >but because it is preaching unceasingly about >freedoms and human rights to others. > >To begin with, people in all parts of the world >stumble over the Declaration of Independence, which >proclaims that 'all men are created equal' with >'unalienable rights'. But, like everywhere else, >American society has always trampled on the rights >of those considered less equal than others. The >same goes for human rights violations. > >> At worst, it may be seen as detraction from the >> endemic cause of Iraq's deplorable past state of >> human rights. > >Again, your fears are groundless: there can be no >question of "detraction". Legally and morally, >Iraq's human rights past doesn't justify USUK's >invasion - nothing does. Nor does it justify the >killing, maiming, and the destruction that went >with it. And it does not justify the occupation >or the human rights violations committed by the >occupiers. > >But if you feel that a country's human rights >record is cause for a foreign takeover, then >let's bomb, invade, and occupy America: > >The US has a well-documented record of home-grown >human rights violations, including torture. It has >a 56-long record of training foreign thugs on >US soil in vicious methods of torture and other >niceties - complete with training manuals. This >happens at the School of the Americas (now renamed) >in Fort Benning, Georgia. SOA graduates have >committed unspeakable atrocities. (The BBC produced >a documentary, "They Shoot Children Don't They?) >And the US has an equally dismal record for >sponsoring 'friendly' dictators in mass murder, >torture, rape and other crimes against humanity: >eg, in Latin America, Indonesia, Iran... > >Still, I can see why you favour the notion that >previous wrongs by Iraq cancel out USUS wrongs, >seeing that you support the war and the occupation. >But this logic will convince only the like-minded, >who need no convincing. And in the end, we all >have to live and die with our own conscience. > >I wish you peace of mind, Mohammed. > >Best regards, >Elga Sutter > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 email@example.com >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 on its networks - >for more information see http://www.hackney.gov.uk/council/data/email_disclaimer.htm > > >_______________________________________________ >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 firstname.lastname@example.org >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 email@example.com All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk