. Further to the Email Exchange in the below posting:
Email exchange: The following is an exchange of emails with a dear friend who saw the video of the blasting of the Bradley:
Imad: Your half hearted apology does not clear your support of al-Qaeda. I am really disgusted with your contribution to promoting terrorism, and in providing a platform for its dissemination. Repent AD -- AD Half hearted it is not. Promoting terrorism? Why don't you take on Bush for a change? Did you see the (updated) item of US soldiers shooting randomly in Ramadi fighting "terrorism"? What are they promoting? Your version of anti-terrorism, I presume. I do not repent a single word I have said on my Blog. Others' tattered statements are their own and they can wipe whatever with them. Imad Khadduri -- Imad The mess that the Americans got Iraq in does not justify your siding with terrorism. You can crticize GW Bush and the US, but to promote al Qaeda's "heroic" crimes is another matter. I suppose this is difficult for you to comprehend. Repent AD -- Dear AD I can see where your problem is, though you apparently look at it in an astigmatic manner. Kindly do a Google search for "Define: Terrorism" . Among the converging results, you might closely read the following:
"Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives". US Federal Bureau of Investigation
Now, if you can ever explain to me how the above video of blowing up an occupier's Bradely (subject of your flurry) on Iraq's soil is an act of "terrorism", or that my showing of it is "siding with terrorism", I would declare you the best Missionary (or maybe Da'iya) this side of the US who would indeed cause me to repent. All the best Imad Khadduri
The above exchange instigated the comment of yet another very dear old friend for whom I have the highest esteem and respect:
Dear Imad Salam
I always resist the temptation to respond or comment because I think that sometimes it is a waste.
However, despite being very busy writing a book with a strict deadline to meet, I find myself tempted to make a short comment. It is in relation to the exchanges between your dear friend and yourself. I do not want to know who the friend is but I would not be surprised if he is one of our Baghdad College produce!
To avoid any confusion I must state from the outset that I oppose killing innocent people as a matter of principle, that only those guilty are supposed to be punished as I do not believe in the inheritance of guilt.
The point which seems to be missed is that we have been conditioned by the massive deception of the Western media into attaching definitions to words which may not necessarily be what our culture assumes. Take the word ‘terrorism’. The imperialist media has made people think that it is an act that could only perpetrated by individuals and not by states. Thus the killing of people in New York is terrorism but incineration of children in Falluja is an act of war against a new category that has never existed under the international law, which itself was created by the West, of ‘enemy combatant’.
You dear friend says:
‘You can crticize GW Bush and the US, but to promote al Qaeda's "heroic" crimes is another matter.’
You don’t criticize murderers. You summon them before a court, indict them and ask them to submit their defence and when they fail you sentence them in accordance with the law that prevails in the land of the crime – in this case Iraq. But what would I tell my client who seeks justice for the killing of his 4 year old child by the US in Falluja, when I cannot indict George Bush in Iraq because Bremer has granted him immunity and I am prevented by the biased justice system in the US/UK from initiating action there. Would it surprise you that when people are denied justice, they take it into their hands?
Your friend refers to the ‘mess the Americans got Iraq into’, how pathetic to refer to genocide as a ‘mess’!
There is a further point which your friend seems to have missed, namely the right to terrorise your enemy. Many Muslims take Qur’anic dictate as not open to question. It is in this light they function. Aggression is prohibited in Islam but self defence is an obligation not just a right. When some body or power assumes Muslims as enemies, then that power by Qur’anic dictate becomes the target of Muslim as a religious obligation.
When Qur’an says (I would not translate Qur’an and to those who do not understand it as it was revealed I need not show excuse):
واعدوا لهم ما استطعتم من قوة ومن رباط الخيل ترهبون به عدو الله وعدوكم
(For the sake of clarity, I will translate: "And prepare for them all the force that you can muster and horses - meaning weapons- to terrify the enemy of God and your enemy").
The verse makes it clear that those who make Islam their enemy should be terrorized.
If some Muslims operate in accordance with the above dictate, then how can I argue against them while still maintaining the infallibility of Qur’an?
The killing of innocent people in Iraq or Afghanistan does not fall within the ambit of the above verse and is thus indefensible.
However, the killing of people in US is a different matter. It is argued by those who assume a wider interpretation of the above verse that there are no civilians in the camp of the enemy when the enemy attacks Muslim civilians. Thus when the Americans pay their taxes, serve in the army, elect their representatives who then go and kill our civilians and claim that to be collateral damage, make themselves our enemy by choice. If killing civilians in Falluja and Najaf is part of the war against terrorism then killing civilians in New York is equally part of war against terrorism. I find such an argument very compelling.
فان اعتدوا عليكم فاعتدوا عليهم بمثل ما اعتدوا عليكم
(Again, for the sake of clarity, I will translate: "If they transgress upon you, then transgress upon them in the same manner as they transgressed upon you")
Life must be precious wherever it is. However, the West keeps reminding us that it is not so and that the life of one of their citizens is worth more than the lives of thousands of those in other parts of the world. Thus everybody talks about 9/11 as if it was the day before doomsday, but little is mentioned of 6 August (Hiroshima), 7 April (first Falluja massacre) or 28 January (Zarqa, Najaf) as examples of massacres in which no less civilians were exterminated by the US and its allies. If half a million Iraqi children are worth the price, as Albright commented and remained in office, then I would not shed a tear for 3000 Americans because none of them is more precious than my son.
The question that needs an answer is where does this lead to? The answer seems to be until the West gives up its genocidal policies dating back to 1492, through the cleansing of all America, North and South, Australia, New Zealand, the colonization of all Africa and most of Asia and the post colonialism invasions. Nothing has changed - when the British army invaded Iraq in 1916 (there was no Saddam Hussain) it claimed to have come to liberate Iraqis, when the US invaded in 2003 it claimed to have come to liberate. In both occasions they neither asked the Iraqis nor did they care about what the Iraqis wanted.
Western imperialism has assumed different excuses over the centuries, ranging from civilizing the barbarians, to spreading Christianity (the bastardized version they adopted) to protecting human rights. For the next wave , post human rights, they would have to find a new excuse – How about universally imposing the law of same sex marriage?
Once the West stops treating the Muslims as enemies and Westerners stay within their borders, then Muslims would have no claim or appeal to arms. When the politician in the US/UK talk about the War with Islam lasting another 100 years, they are not saying that because they believe that Muslims simply enjoy it but because they know that they are not going to give up their claim to supremacy in the World. I suggest that your dear friend should read carefully what Bremer said and did in Iraq because he may end up suggesting more than simple criticism!
xymphora, Who won the 'war on terror'? Zbigniew Brzezinski writes about the ‘war on terror’. I can’t emphasize enough how important it is for Americans to understand that the entire concept is Israeli, invented by Israeli strategists, and promulgated mainly by Benjamin Netanyahu (and his agents working within the highest levels of the American government), to provide a rationale for the peculiar against-interest continued American sponsorship of Israel after the fall of the Soviet Union ... .
Nizar Sakhnini, PLANNING FOR ETHNIC CLEANSING IN PALESTINE: Zionist ethnic cleansing operations of 1948 were planned way before 1948. Ethnic cleansing was part and parcel of the Zionist plans for the creation of the Jewish State they had in mind.
I was going to write to you regarding the friendship which existed netween your father and mine who in the early thirties were bit teaching at the same school in Mosul and my father and yours apparently were both members of the Scientific society. I am coming close to completling the translation of my Fathers memoirs nd he is talking about your father fondly.
On the topic of your above posting I am not surprised to see the reaction of your friend.
There three major classes of people in the west according to their political opinions:
Those who see reality as it has always been, those who see things from Bush and Blair's new virtual false reality, and those who are completely deaft and dumb (politically I mean).
The real danger is in Bush and Blair's virtual reality amd the sycological impact and affect of what they are doing on the nect generations.
I was disgusted with AD's comments and wanted to send you a message but then I said what the hell. There are thousands like him. He is the similar of those who said that "this is not occupation, it is liberation" and they wanted us to listen to them. Indeed it is utter rubbish to obliquely suggest to you that you can only "criticize" GW but that you must condemn those who were blowing the US tank. Your friend AD has selected the worst episode to bring forward his argument. In any case can AD tell us where are the innocent people who were murdered in this instant? There were even no US soldiers involved. I know a lot of Alqaida enemies who were delighted at the blowing of the tank. They do make a differentiation between Alqaida support and its actions against the US. I hope that AD is not my friend because I have one AD friend but I think he is much wiser.
As for Abdul Haq, a dear friend, I want to tell you honestly that I was hoping he is the writer of the letter before reading his name at the end of it. My regards to him and well said indeed. I will only add that if some of the resistance acts look ugly, it is because they are just as beautiful as the occupation that brought them about. I know of no resistance that was beautiful because its enemy was never meant to be so. Regards
WHY GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORLD'S LEADING TERRORIST: Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. - US Federal Bureau of Investigation
The War on Muslims: There follows a list of Christian countries I can think of that have been conquered by Moslems since the Industrial Revolution:
On the other hand, to the best of my admittedly weak historical understanding, the following Islamic countries have been conquered by Christians: Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Jordan, Chad, Pakistan, Bangla Desh, Libya, Indonesia, Yemen, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Kyrgyz, Kazakhstan, Somalia, Sudan, and Uzbekistan, to name a few. On various occasions Christians have tried to conquer Afghanistan, but with no better luck than they deserved.
Easter Surprise: Attack on Iran, New 9/11… or Worse: The devastating implications of a US strike on Iran are clear. And that begs the question: how could the US public be convinced to enter another potentially ugly and protracted war? Former CIA Officer Philip Giraldi chillingly noted that the Pentagon's plans to attack Iran were drawn up "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States." Writing in The American Conservative in August 2005, Giraldi added, "The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites ... As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States."
Iraq admits police behind sectarian massacre: Survivors told harrowing tales of gunmen dragging men out of their homes, handcuffing and blindfolding their victims, before spraying gunfire at random leaving dead pensioners, fathers, sons and teenagers in their wake.
I fart in your general direction: The Iranians know what I’ve been saying for months and months and months, that the talk of a war against Iran is an American bluff. The Iranians intend to drive a wedge between Tony and the neocons, and are succeeding brilliantly. By the way, those American troops supposedly massed on the border of Iran . . . the charge of the light-headed brigade? The Americans don’t seem to mind losing 3,000 soldiers one-by-one, but I think even they’d notice 3,000 all at once.
Meanwhile, the Arabs now are starting to feel comfortable that their old friends in the American Establishment ... are starting to pay attention again and are actually ruling the world.
First, shockingly both allies are rejecting or demanding amendments to the Arab plan, but have no concrete alternative plans of their own to offer except Bush’s “vision” and Israel ’s unilateral long-term and transitional plans for the Palestinian – Israeli track of the sixty-year old conflict, but nothing for settling the collective Arab – Israeli conflict.
Please post this reply to your friend Abdul Huq on the question of terrorism.
I fully agree with Abdul Huq's assessment of imperialism, its historic crimes and terrorist conduct. The question is how to fight it, to what end, and win!
His interpretation of the Quran, and Islamic conduct in war is way off the mark. His is Bin Laden's interpretation, which is rejected by nearly all Muslim scholars. Even though I am a Marxist, I say it with the confidence of someone who studied aspects of this issue, that to target the entire American people for the crimes of Bush is anti-Quran, anti-Islamic and at variance with the conduct of warfare by early Muslim leaders.
It is of course wrong as a matter of principle, for we should never stoop to the mass-murdering, dastardly tactics of imperialism.
The struggle to defeat the imperialist occupation should and must unite the Iraqi people, and attract the support of people across the world, including most of the American and British peoples. This is winning the Vietnamese way. Bin Laden's targeting of innocent civilians (whether Iraqi, Anmerican or British) is not only immoral but will lead to isolation, defeatism and defeat.
Imperialism produces Hiroshimas and Fallujas, and Bin laden promises more of the same, plus sectarian-engineered civil wars. He is the type of enemy that US imperialism loves to have.
To fight imperialism, and defeat it, is to fight for liberty, a peaceful world and a better future for the whole of humanity.