Why Risk the World?
It has been apparent to all but the purblind - a defect in understanding assiduously cultivated by America's mass media - that the war United States is ready to wage against Iraq has almost nothing to do with its security.
In an age when the people believe that their voices must be heard, the United States must sell its wars the way corporations sell their products. In the past, the people were asked to lay down their lives for visions of glory; now, governments appeal to their self-interest. The first Gulf War had to be fought to protect American jobs. If Saddam Hussain stayed in Kuwait, he would raise the price of oil, and Americans would lose their jobs.
The argument this time is different. It had to be weightier than any fear of losing jobs. This new war seeks regime-change; it involves greater risks. American forces must invade Iraq, defeat the Iraqi army, occupy Baghdad, and stay around, even indefinitely. Americans understand that "regime-change" is serious business. They would not back this war unless Iraq threatened American lives. That explains why the war against Iraq had to supersede the war against terrorism, and why Saddam replaced Osama as the new icon of America's loathing.
This substitution was quite easily executed. Most Americans take the President at his word when he talks about foreign enemies; this trust comes more easily when a Republican occupies the White House. George Bush told Americans that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction, and he had to be stopped before he could transfer them to Al-Qaida. (Why hadn't he done this already?) For many Americans, it was an open and shut case. Saddam had to be removed.
The flaws in this argument did not matter. If Saddam hadn't used WMDs during the first Gulf War - when his army was being pummeled - why would he use them now? The CIA warned that a war, or the threat of it, would increase the risk of Iraq using WMDs. Others, like Scott Ritter, a former chief weapons inspector for the UN, pointed out that Iraq did not have any WMDs that mattered. More than 90 percent had been destroyed by inspectors; if any escaped, they would be past their shelf life. At least initially, few Americans gave any credence to these doubts, though that has been slowly changing.
Why then is United States straining to go to war against Iraq?
The most popular theory on the left is that this war is about oil. According to one version of this theory, the White House, a captive of oil interests, wants to corner Iraq's oil for American oil corporations. I do not find this credible. The power brokers in United States would not allow a single industry lobby, even a powerful one, to drag the country into a war which could hurt all of them, and perhaps badly, if the war plans went awry and produced a spike in oil prices. At the least, it is doubtful if oil interests, on their own, can account for the unobstructed rush to a mad war.
There is another oil theory. It argues that the American economy needs cheaper oil; this will save tens of billion dollars. Once Saddam has been removed, and Iraq's oil supply restored to levels that existed before the first Gulf War, the oil prices will come down substantially. It is hard to reconcile this theory with a US-imposed sanctions regime that has drastically curtailed Iraq's oil output for the past twelve years. If there were concerns that Saddam might use the oil revenues for a military build-up, that could be addressed by an inspections regime and selective economic sanctions.
There is also a third oil theory, one offered recently. It maintains that this war preempts the Euro threat to the hegemony of the dollar. By pegging oil to the dollar, OPEC has been a key player in the arrangements that have maintained the dollar as the currency of international reserve. In October 2000, Saddam Hussein offered the first challenge to this system by switching Iraq's dollar reserves to Euro. If OPEC follows Iraq's lead it could spell trouble for the dollar. This can only be stopped by dismantling the OPEC, and this demands war against Iraq.
An OPEC challenge to the dollar sounds seems naive at best. This is hardly the kind of revolutionary action we can expect from an OPEC packed with client states like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and UAE; the oil price hike of 1974 could only occur in the backdrop of the Cold War. A precipitate dethronement of the dollar could produce consequences for United States and the world economy which would make the East Asian financial crisis of 1997 look like a storm in a teacup. Not even the EU would push for such results. On the other hand, there is a small chance that the war itself might validate this theory - if it convinced OPEC that the war aims to dismantle the oil cartel.
If it isn't oil, then, is this civilizational war, a war of the Christian West against Islam? This conjecture flies in the face of some obvious facts. First, this is America's war. It is opposed by two key Western allies, France and Germany; and apart from Britain and Israel, the support of other Western countries lacks depth. More to the point, the overwhelming majority of Westerners outside the United States oppose this war. In United States itself, the anti-war sentiment has grown rapidly, and the most recent polls indicate a majority against the war if it happens without the support of the United Nations.
Is it then America's war against Islamists? Even that is doubtful. Apart from the right-wing Christian extremists, led by the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, nearly all Christian denominations have come out against the war. Everyone would agree that Al-Qaida constitutes the most serious Islamist threat to United States; they had proved it on September 11, 2001. And yet, we are ready to push this threat aside in order to wage war against one of the most decidedly secular of Arab states, one that spent ten years waging war against 'fundamentalist' Iran? Why not Wahhabi Saudi Arabia which supplied 16 of the 19 hijackers of September 11. Why not Shiite Iran? Their turn too will come, one hears neo-conservative voices, to be followed by Syria, Egypt and Pakistan.
Why then is United States ready to wage this war against Iraq, ostensibly against its own best interests? Most sensible people agree that this is a war whose consequences cannot be controlled, or even foreseen. It may destabilize friendly regimes, bringing radical Islamists to power in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. It may disrupt oil supplies, causing a price hike at a time when the global economy already weak and vulnerable to shocks. It may force Saddam to use his chemical and biological weapons - if he has them - leading United States to nuke Baghdad or Basra. It may fuel global terrorism for years to come, leading to attacks on American interests globally.
These anomalies quickly melt away if we are willing to entertain a seldom-aired hypothesis. This may not be America's war at all, much less a war of the West against Islam or Islamists. Instead, could this be Israel's war against the Arabs fought through a proxy, the only proxy that can take on the Arabs? This will most likely provoke derisive skepticism. Could the world's only superpower be persuaded to fight Israel's war? Is it even possible? Could the tail wag this great dog?
Consider first Israel's motives. Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and Pakistan do not threaten the United States; but they are a threat to Israel's hegemonic ambitions over the region. This conflict between Israel and her neighbors was written into the Zionist script. A Jewish state could only be inserted into Palestine by resort to a massive ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. After such inauspicious beginnings, Israel could only sustain itself by keeping its neighbors weak, divided, and disoriented. It has since waged wars against Egypt in 1956; against Egypt, Syria and Jordan in 1967; against Iraq in 1981; against Lebanon, since 1982; and against Palestinians continuously since 1948.
Israel's contradictions have deepened since the mounting of the second Intifada. When the Palestinians rejected the Bantustans offered at Oslo, Israel chose Ariel Sharon, a war criminal, to ratchet its war against Palestinian civilians. Faced with Apaches, F-16s, tanks and artillery, in desperation, the Palestinians turned increasingly to suicide bombings. Sharon's brutal war was not working, and Israel's losses began to catch up with Palestinian casualties. In April 2002, Israeli tanks reoccupied the Palestinian towns, destroyed Palestinian civilian infrastructure, increasingly placing Palestinians under curfews, sieges, destroying their workshops, stores, hospitals, orchards and farms. This was the new strategy of slow ethnic cleansing through starvation.
This slow ethnic cleansing is only a stopgap. The most serious threat which Palestinians pose is demographic: their growing population could soon turn the Jews into a minority inside greater Israel. Since the Palestinians won't live under an Israeli aparthied, the Likud, with growing popular support, is turning to Israel's second option. If the aparthied plan were to fail, Israel would engage in large-scale ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, more massive than the ones implemented in 1948 and 1967.
But Israel cannot do this alone. This ethnic cleansing can only be implemented in the shadow of a major war against the Arabs, a war to Balkanize the region, a war to bring about regime-change in Iraq, Syria and Iran, a war that only United States can wage. Israel needs United States to wage a proxy war on behalf of Israel.
It should be clear that Israel has the motive; but does it also possess the capability to pull this off? Is it possible for a small power to use a great power - the only superpower, in this case - to wage its own wars. Historically, great powers have often waged wars through lesser proxies; but that does not mean that this relationship can never get inverted.
What makes this eminently possible is the way an indirect democracy - in particular, democracy in United States - works. The demos elect candidates picked by powerful lobbies, ethnic, industry and labor lobbies; once elected, the officials work for the lobbies. By far the most powerful political lobby in this country works for Israel, led by American Israel Public Action Committee (AIPAC). There is scarcely a member of the Congress whose election campaigns have not been funded by AIPAC; several are funded quite heavily. The power of the pro-Israel lobby in United States, however, does not start or end with AIPAC. The result of this massive power is a Congress packed with Israeli yes-men. No member of the Congress has dared to contradict Israeli interests and remained in office. Just last year, two members of Congress, Earl Hilliard and Cynthia McKenny, were defeated by pro-Israeli money because they had stepped out of line.
Consider some of the achievements of the pro-Israeli lobby over the years. First, an estimate of the cost of Israel to US taxpayers. Since 1985, without debate or demurral, the Congress has sheepishly voted an annual foreign aid package of $3 billion to Israel, nearly two thirds of this in outright grants, and constituting one-third of all US foreign assistance. When estimated in 2001 constant dollars, the total foreign aid to Israel since 1967 adds up to $143 billion. That amounts to a transfer of $28,600 for every Jewish citizen of Israel.
The official aid is only a small part of the cost of Israel to the US economy. We need to account for loan guarantees and write-offs, bribes paid to Egypt and Jordan in support of our Israeli policy, subsidies to Israel's military R&D, boost in oil prices (attributed to US support for Israel in the 1967 war), losses due to trade sanctions imposed on Israel's enemies, etc. When Thomas Stauffer, a consulting economist in Washington, added up all these costs, he concluded that since 1973 Israel has cost the United States about $1.6 trillion. In per capita terms, this amounts to $320,000 for every Jewish citizen of Israel.
The US record on vetoes cast in UN Security Council constitutes another major achievement of the pro-Israel lobby. The US has cast 73 vetoes out of the 248 cast by all permanent members of the Security Council. On 38 occasions, these vetoes were cast to shield Israel from any criticism directed against its violation of human rights of Palestinians or the territorial rights of its neighbors. On another 25 occasions, US abstained from such a vote. This does not include the votes cast by United States - along with Israel, Tuvalu and Nauru - against UN General Assembly resolutions criticizing Israeli violations of human rights or Security Council resolutions. It would be difficult to maintain that the strategic interests of United States always demanded such a consistent voting record on Palestine.
I am aware that the notion of an Israeli proxy war against Iraq will be greeted with skepticism by not a few. I hope to have established that Israel possess in abundance both the motive and capability for such a war. There is some evidence that it has demonstrated this capability in the past also. In the words of Lloyd George, then Prime Minister of Britain, the Zionist leaders promised that if the Allies supported the creation of "a national home for the Jews in Palestine, they would do their best to rally Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world to the Allied Cause. They kept their word." It is doubtful if Zionist influence now is weaker than it was in 1917.
This is not to argue that the pro-Israeli lobby is the only reason for the projected US war against Iraq. At present, there are several forces in United States that are pushing for this war. Prominent among these indigenous forces are the oil corporations, the arms manufacturers, the aerospace industry, and the right-wing Christian evangelists. However, it is doubtful if these indigenous groups, on their own, could have pushed United States so decisively towards the present catastrophic confrontation with the Islamic world. Certainly, the intellectual justifications for this hazardous confrontation have come almost entirely from the pro-Israeli lobby. And their intellectual input may have been vital.
 Lilienthal, Alfred M., What price Israel (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1953): 20-21.
M. Shahid Alam is Professor of Economics at Northeastern University. His last book, Poverty from the Wealth of Nations, was published by Palgrave in 2000. He may be reached at [email protected]
M. Shahid Alam
Topics: Conflicts And War, Iraq, Saddam Hussein, United States Of America
It comes from the horse's mouth! Perhaps he made mistake when Bush did mention the reason he wants to attack Iraq is to ensure no more support for Palestinians 'terror' from outside (i,e Iraq) and thus peace will presumably continue and that Palestinians will finally be able to choose a true leader! Put it differently, Bush want to attack Iraq to remove Sadam dan to destroy Iraq war machines so that Israel will be safe.
Yes friends! This is what Bush said in a conference called by a conservative group today!
In one go Bush revealed what others have suspected all this while:
1) He want to attack Iraq to ensure Israel safety
2) He does not recognize Arafat as a true leader
3) He sees Sharon who have butchered innocent people in the Sabra and Shatilla massacre, as a true and peace loving leader.
Congratulation George for being truthful today
I didn't mention Nazis, but since you raised the subject: There is an overwhelming historical connection between the Palestinians and the Nazis. During the 30's and 40's, the Palestinian leader, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, had close ties with Nazi Germany. He met Hitler personally and spent much of WWII in Berlin as Hitler's personal guest. The Grand Mufti's intention was to encourage the Nazis to extend their "Final Solution" to the Jews of the Middle East. He was an ardent vocal supporter of the "Final Solution" (mass extermination of millions of Jews) and even actively participated in encouraging cooperation of countries under Nazi control to "liquidate" their Jewish populations.
Throughout WWII, the Palestinian leadership maintained close relations with the Nazis, renouncing them only towards the end of the war, when it became evident that Hitler was going to lose.
What I am describing is well-established documented historical fact.
BUT speaking Nazi's....there was a healthy relationship between Nazi's and Zionists during world war 2.....Mr. Ishakh Shamir (Irgun terrorist and former Israeli prime minister) volunteering his services to Hitler in exchange for a zionist state in the middle east. All this while European Jewry were sent to camps for extermination. Zionists were not concerned for the plight of jews they would later use to extract Western sympathy and hell of a lot of cash.
As Shamir proclaimed "A cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Poland." So its painfully evident that not only did Zionists and Nazis worked together....but have a lot in common.
Amazing how much bottom feeders are alike.
One thing some people have in common of course is letting emotion and opinion posed as religious belief by some religious leaders take hold in their minds over logic and analysis, and facts...
There is some truth that Americas support in foreign policy of Israel has something to do with the pending war, but it is too simple a solution, as I've mentioned 90% of Jews voted against Bush. Their opinion hardly holds sway over him.
Are we witnessing the start of an "alliance" between Islam and the Ku Klux Klan?
"The fact that the media could so unanimously cover up the real reason for the attack of September 11 is clear proof of the Jewish power over it.
And now this Jewish-controlled media is beating the drums for a massive war. This is the same Jewish media that for years has constantly criticized and ridiculed American patriotism. Right up until September 11, the media daily characterized George Bush as the village idiot who stumbled into the Presidency. Now that Bush may embrace Israel's Holy War against the Palestinians and their allies, he has suddenly become a great leader who will give us a wonderful victory in the glorious war ahead.
The same leftist Jewish bosses and media personnel who have subverted every true American patriotic interest to Israel's agenda over the past 50 years, have now put an American flag everywhere in sight, and solemnly tell us that George Bush's campaign to "rid the world of evil" is not in the least bit too ambitious."
This article and David Duke's have gone so many steps further to butress the point that this whole affair is against Islam and its roots. If not, why is Israel after Egypt, Syria (which is not an Arab enclave). Why is Israel sorry "America" after Iran.. The list goes on and on. Most of these countries have nothing to do with Arabism. Their only crime is that they say all authority is with Allah.
This is JudeoChristian (Apology to some of my Christian brothers who are being drag without their consents) - Islam and not Israel -Arab conflict as must ignorants would have us believe, period.
yes brother in order for the west to delude the muslims and divide them,they coined the term Islamist so that they can claim they don't despise Islam as a deen and creed,but rather they despise the islamist and extremists.
the term does not exist in the Quran and hadiths in which there is only a mu'amin,and a muslim.this made it easy for them to dupe unfortunatally some of our so called intellectualls like the one who wrote this article as well as the muslim masses.
Dr Elmandjra ,may Allah give him a long life,did a study of the word islamist and he came up with these results :
islamist as was used by Elshafii or Elashari : is anyone who belongs to a school of litterature and thought in islam.
islamist in the British encyclopedia (7,18 century) is the one who study in a muslim country or as known by orientalist.
islamist those jews who became muslims in Morocco
(18,19 century)after being kicked out from Spain (to make a differnce between the born and the revert muslim).
I think that the National Security Council is always/has been for many years + the Congress controlled by the Jews who are like double spy.They are americans, but they work for the State of Terror in Palestine. Again, the war is not against the islamists as you mention, but against the Muslims and the ISLAM. I don't understand why the Muslims talk and use the terminology of the white people (islamists, extremists, etc.... They succeeded to divide us by their terminology. Why not said this war is against the Arabs and the Islam. Why not quote from the Qu'ran.I don't know if you are Arab or non-Arab Muslim. Read the Hadeeths and the Qu'ran. Your analysis is meaningless. Controlling the oil or invading the Iraq is a war against the Muslims and the Islam.Speak directly and don't be coward. Don't fear them, unless your job will be in jeopardy.Therefore, keep silent and pray that Allah help our brothers in Iraq. And that is the weakest/lowest degree or level in the Islamic Faith.
If cant handle the facts kid, return to Nickelodeon.
1.Why must seperate cultures with seperate religious beliefs feel the need to enforce their beliefs on others?
2.Why must so much blood be shed to feed a world economy?
3.Why must ANY nation's leader be driven to make his nation and the rest of the world believe that he is much closer to God than any one else?
4.Why do people of nations such as Irac worship their Presidents as though they are Gods? ...after all they too are but men....
5. Finally, why do you feel Mankind is on a never ending quest to destroy himself over differences in religious beliefs?
Thank You for your time. I would really enjoy your insights on these questions.
A clear indication of the author's utter contempt for the truth is revealed by the following passage:
"When the Palestinians rejected the Bantustans offered at Oslo, Israel chose Ariel Sharon, a war criminal, to ratchet its war against Palestinian civilians. Faced with Apaches, F-16s, tanks and artillery, in desparation, the Palestinians turned increasingly to suicide bombings."
This cynical passage neatly turns the actual order of events entirely on its head. It implies that suicide bombings were a response to Sharon's election and to IDF incursions when precisely the opposite was the case. There is simply no way that the author can be unaware of the actual order of events (assuming, that is, that he reads newspapers). He expresses his utter contempt for truth and the intelligence of his reader by unashamedly reversing the actual order of events, to create an imaginary history better suited to his agenda.
Such is the complete lack of integrity underlying this article.
Join us in challenging dangerous nations
that produce and conceal weapons of mass destruction. Rooting Out Evil is sending a weapons inspection team to the United States to inspect the chemical, biological, and nuclear
weapons produced and concealed by the Bush regime. And we want you to join us.
Become an Honorary Weapons Inspector
And Support Our Mission Into The USA!
Yes, we really are sending an international team of weapons inspectors into the USA - read
more about our plans here http://www.rootingoutevil.org/
But you don't have to join us in person to be a Rooting Out Evil weapons inspector.
Simply fill in the form below, and be counted as one of the thousands - no, make that millions - of world citizens who say NO to chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.
90% of Jews didn't vote for Bush, but 90% of apocolyptic zionists did...
The Jews are scared to death of the main reason Israel is supported, Christian extremism. They could turn at any second. Why does Israel have nuclear weapons that can reach the US? For Bi national air shows?
If some arab countries help foreign countries to wage war on other arab or a muslim country what else can expect from .
Unity on common ground should be attained without ethnic differences.
Media specially T.V. is another big hurdle that constantly portrays muslims as bad people. Muslims should have their own public T.V. channel to educate the public.
May Allah help you in all your undertakings. Amen
I also ask that people please not confuse American citizens with what the Bush administration is trying to accomplish. Many people are not supporting war except as a last resort. I can't imagine that there are many people who could approve of Saddam, the man who has the modern day record for slaughtering muslims. Repressive governments which are the norm for the Arabs states have produced a whole generation of angry young men full of hate, trying to blame someone for their problems. The problem is worldwide - in the USA we have skinheads, neo-nazis, etc. As far as I can see Muslims and Jews are equally on their list of who they hate.
Even though the peace protests may give Saddam some hope, I think it is good to see people from all over the world, (including the 2000 Palestinians and Israelis who marched together), protesting war except as a very last resort. Even though the Governments don't "get it" yet I can see that many people are fed up with killing for dollars.
I have spent the last 6 months studying Islam, Judaism, and my own religion, Christianity. From what I have learned so far, we all worship the God of Abraham, and we are all supposed to beleive killing is wrong, mercy and understanding is right. Maybe it is wishful thinking that the world could change, but I know it never will as long as we look for other people to blame for our problems, and hate and fear people we know very little about.
While I myself continue to drift further away from the "Israel is wagging my dog" theory, Zionism would seem remain a important component of American policy for the Middle East. However, I'm beginning to think the Zionist protocol approach to American strategic planning sounds just a bit British to go the distance here in America - basically it sounds just too Byzantine to be reliable. Besides, the Zionists have a poor of a track record over the last couple of thousand years, as far as I can tell, in terms of lost lives, squandered advantages and misdirected talents for net gains in real estate controlled - especially since the 19th century (CE) - to remain on the trailing end of the leash for very much longer. To top it all off, the Zionists want to rebuild the Temple on the Mount - and presumably restoring the priest caste, animal sacrifices and the death penalty - basically reenacting the ONLY requirements prescribed in the Talmud that I (personally) consider to be less than profoundly beautiful. What can you say?
As for myself, I'm starting to lean towards the "let's expand American protector ship, for the greater good of the world" theory. I think it does a far better job of encompassing the quintessential American theme. Also, public demonstrations that protest our increased dependence on "colonially-fueled prosperity" sound a lot more plausible (and productive) than tens of thousands of Americans massing in the streets to protest an ageless and perpetual Global Zionist Conspiracy.
It might well, of course, be entirely possible to combine key elements of both theories that, when working in combination, do a better job than either theory by itself of explaining what's really going on. In any case, if either theory even comes close to reality, can "Har Megiddo (US) AFB" be far behind?
You see Allah has spoken the truth when He said it is always the "people of knowledge that do not understand.."
How dare you imply such a terrible conclusion. Yes the Israel don't like the Arabs, this is a fact which I don't bother much about. The reason is simply that Allah has asked me not to partake in any Ethnic sentimentalism in anyway wether it be against Arabs or Jews.
So What now? Allah has told me in the Quran in no uncertain terms that an attack on any MUSLIM any where is an attack on all MUSLIMS everywhere. Now Iraq is 99% muslims, never mind the secular Govt. they have in place, any reasonable, right thinking person, even if illiterate will agree that by implicative logic I have to conclude that Muslims are under attack if Iraq is attacked.
I rest my case.
How dare you put words in the mouth of Allah.
If you didn't know that the word Christian (messihi) and Jew (Yahhoodi) are not ever mentioned once in the Fatiha except in one hideous translation, from an Evil man than I apologize. I will not mention the name of this translator but anyone who has it will know from reading the Fatiha, for it speaks in the same way kelewar does.
Whoever suggested this awful, inaccurate translation of the Quran should be held suspect. Do not listen to them again for accurate information on religion, especially if they know Arabic and know better about what the fatiha really says "not the path of those who gone astray nor the path of those who have earned your anger"
Kelewar you would best choose another group of Muslims who doesn't suggest to you such hateful translations.
Hate for Jews isn't a reason to listen to someone critical analysis is. I swear some of you will listen to anything that says something bad about Jews or america just because it says bad regardless of its validity.
Listen to David Duke and you will know more why is this war? http://www.davidduke.com
YOU SHOULD GET A MEDAL FROM SHARON.Oh!SORRY I MEAN FROM BERLUSCONNI.BY THE WAY, I REALLY LIKE THE CALSHIO.HOW DO YOU SPELL THAT IN HEBREW?
reading of your article "why Risk the World?".
Would you be able to reach a large number of people to read your article through an American
Is it Iran after Iraq?
Yes your article/message ought to reach the common man (don't expect CNN to do it)!
I want to thank the website Islamicity.com for its broad/vast array of articles and its existence.
Reading through the comment section in regards to this article, I came across one response by a hateful man who proclaimed his "Italian" heritage, (most obviously hiding his Jewish background). Even though he voiced his displeasure in 'such eloquent' fashion, he still took time to read the article. This, in itself, tells me that Islamicity.com is reaching more and more people across this world...
With the ability to GATHER so much information (just a click away), I am convinced, that NO ONE can hide the truth!!!
This person, insha-Allah, does not realize it now; however, one day, when the world is at its pinnacle of hatred and war, "these types" of people will recollect on articles, like the one published here, and remember the TRUTH that was knocking on their foreheads long ago.
Allah (swt), along with the world, has always looked down upon the Jews. Their self-indulgence will, once again, cause their demise.
Those who know Islam, and I don't mean from the media, rather, those who "FEEL" Islam, know the truth.
I am a "white" male born in Chicago, Illinois with European heritage, who, not too long ago, was once blinded from the Truth. I 'believed' what my politicians spoke - WITHOUT QUESTION! Now, I am a little older and wiser. I learned to question.
My dear brothers and sisters in Islam... I am not an anti-Semite...in fact, I respect the fact that they (Jewish people) do not allow themselves to be taken for granted. (ie. the Holocaust)...they will "Never Forget".
But what about us... is it so long ago that we forgot the Massacre in ex-Yugoslavia? Why do we "ACCEPT" what is dealt to us by our neighbors? We must never let this type of tragedy ever become us again!!!!!!!!!!
I hope that these comments are not in vain... Iraq, Iran, Palestine, etc. etc. ARE WE NOT ALL UNITED?!?!?!?!
It is not right to put all of them in one basket that they are cruel. Because Allah says that even among them there are some good ones.
This should be an eye-opener for all people and lends credence to others who fight for peace and justice to all irrespective of caste, creed and religion.
Well done Shahid Alam!
wide variety of facts and rumors, but not nearly enough
connection to substantiate his conclusion.
AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED WE HAVE TO START
PICKING OFF THE MOSLEM COUNTRIES ONE BY
ONE. WHY BECAUSE OF YOUR TERRORISTS AND
ALL THE HATE YOU TEACH IN YOUR SCHOOLS
AND YOUR KORAN WHICH IS EVIL IN ITS SELF!!!!!
"DON'T WALK WITH CHRISTIANS AND JEWS""
ANY RELIGON THAT ENCOURAGES VIOLENCE IN
THE WORLD -ANY KIND SHOULD BE CONDEMNED.
HOW DARE YOU THINK THE LAND OF ISRAEL IS
YOURS-YOU WERE THE SECOND RELIGON AND AN
THE ANGER AND JEALOUSY TOWARDS ISRAEL
AND THE US IS SO HATEFUL AND EVIL-I HOPE WE
ALL START SPITTING AND ATTACKING YOU -
(WHATS THE DIFFERENCE YOU BELIEVE IN
SUICIDE FOR THE CAUSE) IN THE U.S. I WISH THEY
WOULD BAN ALL MOSLEMS IN THIS COUNTRY
BACK TO WHERE YOU CAME FROM. I NEVER
HEARD ONE OF YOU CREEPS CONDEMNING THE 9/
11 ATTACK. YOU SHOW SO MUCH HATRED-WHAT
IS YOU RELIGON-ITS NOT A RELIGON-ITS A CULT
OF EVIL PEOPLE.
I DON'T LOOK AT YOU PEOPLE AS HAVING A
RELIGON-BUT LIKE EVIL CHILDREN THAT LOVES
TO HATE JEWS. BY THE WAY I'M ITALIAN-NOT
JEWISH. ISRAEL IS THE ONLY DEMOCRATIC
COUNTRY THAT DOESN'T STINK IN THE REGION
AND YOU LIVE LIKE BEGGARS. YOU'VE MADE ME
AND A LOT OF PEOPLE VERY PREJUDICE AGAINST
MOSLEMS. BLAME YOURSELVES-IN THE END YOU
WILL ALL COMMIT SUICIDE-WHY DO YOU THINK
GOD PUT YOU HERE-TO COMMIT SUICIDE, KILL
PEOPLE AND SPREAD THE WORD OF HATE? YOU
PEOPLE ARE NUTS-USELESS ON THIS EARTH-GO
TO YOUR OTHER LIFE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
SINCERELY YOURS YOU ALL SPEAK WITH FORK
TONGUE-liars not to be believed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I found your article to be mixed. It provided a clear examinations of what (or what not) Bush is fighting for. Though I agree with you on several of the first points, (OPEC, etc.) I think you made a mistake by putting the blame on Israel. It is my belief that America is fighting this war because Saddam Hussein is a threat maybe not to us, but to his own people. The living conditions in Iraq are deplorable; he has done more damage to the Iraqis than anybody else is capable of. It's amazing how many Iraqi Opposition groups there are, just waiting to get their hands on Hussein. Just like in Afghanistan, most Afghanis hated the Taliban. The Taliban was awful, and we took them out because they did pose some threat, but mostly because of the Afghani plight. It has been my experience that many voices in the Arab world seek to shift the burden of their own problems onto Israel. Your argument against Israel is something I find historically offensive. In 1948 several Arab armies attacked Israel; they launched the offensive. Israel responded and won. And every time that the Arab armies have tried, they have lost. Jews and Israelis are not blood thirsty expansionist killers. What get's me about your article is that people who read it will think: Ah, no Israeli-Arab dialogue is possible; all Israelis are wealthy elitist killers. But the truth is, dialogue is possible. And dialogue is the road to peace. Former TERRORIST and Israeli Prime Minister, Menachim Begin met with Anwar Sadat and achieved peace through purely diplomatic means! Let us hope and pray that all terrorist may someday do as Begin did, and then there may be peace in the Middle East.
(I would like to see at least one article from a Muslim leader that supports war just for balance since there are some who do, and their arguments are little more flawed than arguments against war...)
I do like the article because it makes clear the cost Israel poses to the United states, in accurate and concise measures...
I do the same now with the claim Saddam could give Chemical weapons to terrorists. The truth be known no averege person knows the truth nor can know whether this s a lie is something only certain members of the American inteligence community can tell...
They very often are pretty accurate at saying what happens, they know a lot. The issue with trusting the "NSA" is not in the lies, which may or not be lies. It is in what they choose not to dwell on or say, for example Pakistan, old supporter of the Taliban and Al Qaeda has done far more to provide WMD to terrorists than Saddam.