Sunday, December 31, 2006

Executing Saddam; Executing Iraq

After Execution of Saddam; Iraqis lost forever the relations that destroyed their country. Saddam was not sentenced to death because of 148 Iraqis were executed when they planned to assassinate him while visiting Dujail in 1982 when he was President; this sentence came to save the “face” of the White House and many Iraqi politicians who are now key players in Iraq. The whole world remember Bush the father, the vice US president in 1983, saying; “he (Saddam) is our man in the there”! What was the relation between Bush the first and their (man) who drove Iraq to this end? The Iraqis will never discover the odd relation between Saddam and Masoud Barzani whom he helped against the militia of Jalal Talbani, now the Iraqi President, in 1996, to ”liberate” Erbil? Iraqis will never know again the odd relations between Saddam and Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak whom Saddam helped to restore leading Arab League which was shifted to Tunisia after the Egyptian former President Anwar Sadat visited Israel in 1977? Iraqis will never know the reason of the strange meeting between Saddam and Tanzanian retired President Julius Nayriry who visited Baghdad on the last day of 1988; then Saddam announced the forming of the Arab Cooperation Council in February 1989. On that visit, Nayriry said that he came to advice Saddam to establish regional councils to lead the region!! That council made Mubarak knew every thing about Iraq giving the data to US becoming one of the leading Arab leaders toward destroying Iraq. Execution Saddam is the last step of eliminating secrets would make the world to discover how America played changing the face of the region and destroying Iraq. The first step was the Tons of Iraqi official documents taken by US officials on the day Baghdad was occupied. Saddam was executed in the coming days. Who would sentence Bush who executed the whole Iraq? Bush made Iraq drown in Iraqis bloods while still until now telling lies after lies and smiling!! The all crimes committed by Saddam is being committing in Iraq now by the American occupying forces.
Executing a President in Iraq is not a strange matter. Going through the history of the modern Iraq; one can easily see that the all rulers of the modern Iraq, since 1921, were assassinated, executed and massacred brutally. The only President escaped this fate was Abdul Rahman Arif (1966-1968) who toppled by the Ba’thists in 1968.
While Saddam was buried one piece; I mean his body was one piece; only AlMighty Allah knows how the Iraqi “new” rulers would be buried?

Regarding the Iraqis new rulers, the execution is a “victory”. The followers of the Shiite cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr who suspend their participation in the political process protesting the meeting between Bush and the Iraqi Prime Minister weeks ago, said they will activate their participation after the execution. The Iraqis who are losing their country after losing more than 100 civilians every day know very well that the trial of Saddam was not but a political play to give “glory” to Bush who cheated the whole world alleging “Saddam is threatening US security”. Saddam’s lawyers who met him on the day of ratifying the sentence said he was smiling with high morals!! If he was smiling or not; the question is how the Iraqi cause would be finished?
Like it or not; one image no body will forget it: Saddam went to the gallows refusing wearing head cover while his executers were covering their heads and faces!!

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Any Body Could Help Marwa?

Marwa Adel Karam, 13 years old, lost her eye because of an American mistake.
Her mother interviewed by The following is the story:
At 3.30am, Oct. 30the 2006, a unit from the American DIRTY Tasks Force raided our house in Al-Safina neighborhood- Al-A'dhamiya district. Their pretext was: searching to find the kidnapped American soldier. (An Iraqi tear: An American soldier from Iraqi origin was called Qusay Al-Qaisi was kidnapped from Karrada while he was visiting his Iraq wife family. Al-Qaisi was the cousin of Intifadh Qamber, the spokesman of Ahmed Chalabi the liar who gave Bush the false documents about the Iraqi WMDs.. Qamber was given a military post, he was appointed as the Iraqi military attaché in the Iraqi embassy in the States. That soldier was not found until now). The mother continues saying: their armored vehicles blocked the street. They exploded our door. There was no man in the hose; my husband died years ago; my son in law was detained by the police for sectarian reason. The Americans found no body and nothing in the house. They stole our money, passports and IDs. While exploding the door, shrapnel entered into the right eye of my child Marwa. When they found the crime they committed against an innocent family; they apologized and took Marwa to Ibn Sina hospital in the Green Zone. She was brought back home after 3 days confirming that she needs more two operations as Dr Hamilton recommended. Yet; they did come back again to take her.
Young Marwa; according to her mother, was very clever in her school; but she refused going to her school this year because of her eye.
The operations need $15 000.. If there is any could help her; please send a comment; I will give you the email account you can be in touch with Marwa campaign through it.

Sunday, December 17, 2006

Another American Crime

The Baker-Hamilton report said that unless the Iraqi government made "substantive progress" on national reconciliation, security, and good governance, the US would have to reduce its political, military, and economic support to that government.
The Kurds were displeased with the report, which recommended that the central government supervise the "distribution" of the oil revenues. Shiites disliked the fact that the report urged dialogue with Baathists and blamed the militia for massacres. And Sunnis were annoyed because the report gave Iran a legitimate role in Iraq.
The strange thing is that those Iraqi officials who often say that Iraq is a sovereign country are the same ones who want the occupation forces to stay in the country. Where is the sovereignty when the US forces killed 17 civilians in Al-Ishaqi, 40 km north of Baghdad, one day after the report? Those who reject the report do so because it conflicts with their own interests. The Kurds, for example, want to annex Kirkuk to their areas -- and the militia leaders want to maintain their grip over the country.
In a telephone conversation, Dr Ayadah Al-Jaghifi, chief of forensic medicine at Tikrit Hospital, told the repoeters that the hospital has received the bodies of 17 people, including two women and five children. All had been killed with a bullet to the head with a small weapon. A US statement earlier claimed that US planes shelled two houses in Al-Ishaqi, killing 17 terrorists, including two women. This would be the third massacre of Iraqi civilians in Al-Ishaqi since May. The families of the victims are stunned by the silence of the government and the Arab and international media. But some are hoping against hope that a US serviceman would speak out to clear his conscience or that a US or western journalist would pick up the story. Otherwise, the case would never be investigated.
Untill that day, when such journslist would publish the story; the Maliki government will stay silence; Bush will say nothing; no invistigations would be.. The victims were IRAQIS; who does care about IRAQIS or of IRAQI blood.

Iraq and Different Reports!!

Of Repetition Compulsion, War Crimes, and National Narcissism (Again)
Arthur Silber
Once Upon a Time...December 9, 2006As a followup to my observations yesterday that nothing will fundamentally alter with regard to our Iraq policy -- regardless of the supposed "seriousness" of the Iraq Study Group, and regardless of the new Democratic Congress -- here are some key excerpts from a recent column by Norman Solomon:
The lead-up to the invasion of Iraq has become notorious in the annals of American journalism. Even many reporters, editors and commentators who fueled the drive to war in 2002 and early 2003 now acknowledge that major media routinely tossed real journalism out the window in favor of boosting war.But it's happening again.The current media travesty is a drumbeat for the idea that the U.S. war effort must keep going. And again, in its news coverage, the New York Times is a bellwether for the latest media parade to the cadence of the warfare state....During the weeks since the midterm election, the New York Times news coverage of Iraq policy options has often been heavy-handed, with carefully selective sourcing for prefab conclusions. Already infamous is the Nov. 15 front-page story by Michael Gordon under the headline "Get Out of Iraq Now? Not So Fast, Experts Say." A similar technique was at play Dec. 1 with yet another "News Analysis," this time by reporter David Sanger, headlined "The Only Consensus on Iraq: Nobody's Leaving Right Now."Typically, in such reportage, the sources harmonizing with the media outlet's analysis are chosen from the cast of political characters who helped drag the United States into making war on Iraq in the first place.What's now going on in mainline news media is some kind of repetition compulsion. And, while media professionals engage in yet another round of conformist opportunism, many people will pay with their lives.With so many prominent American journalists navigating their stories by the lights of big Washington stars, it's not surprising that so much of the news coverage looks at what happens in Iraq through the lens of the significance for American power.Viewing the horrors of present-day Iraq with star-spangled eyes, New York Times reporters John Burns and Kirk Semple wrote -- in the lead sentence of a front-page "News Analysis" on Nov. 29 -- that "American military and political leverage in Iraq has fallen sharply."The second paragraph of the Baghdad-datelined article reported: "American fortunes here are ever more dependent on feuding Iraqis who seem, at times, almost heedless to American appeals."The third paragraph reported: "It is not clear that the United States can gain new traction in Iraq..."And so it goes -- with U.S. media obsessively focused on such concerns as "American military and political leverage," "American fortunes" and whether "the United States can gain new traction in Iraq."With that kind of worldview, no wonder so much news coverage is serving nationalism instead of journalism.In this manner, the status quo protects itself and its prerogatives -- and its propaganda is dutifully amplified by a subservient press. This is why I have maintained that, even after the journalistic debacle of the leadup to the Iraq invasion, the media in this country have learned absolutely nothing. And Ralph Peters may be a repellently extreme and destructive example of this nationalistic narcissism -- with his endless emphasis on what "we" must do in Iraq, even though there never was and never will be any justifiable reason for our invasion and occupation, and despite the slaughter that is the direct result of our actions -- but the identical underlying perspective is revealed by most Americans, and by almost all of our press. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead and horrifically injured -- and still, it's almost all about us.For a further discussion of the moral implications of these incontestable facts, implications that our national leaders, our media and most Americans resolutely refuse to understand and acknowledge, I turn once more to Jacob Hornberger:
Hanging over the Iraq debacle, however, is that one overriding moral issue that unfortunately all too many Americans have yet to confront: neither the Iraqi people nor their government ever attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. That means that in this conflict, which has killed more than 600,000 Iraqis, the United States is the aggressor nation and Iraq is the defending nation.Why is that issue so important? Because it involves morality, not pragmatics. Do U.S. troops have the moral right to be killing people, when they are part of a military force that has aggressed against another country? Do they have the moral right to kill people who have done nothing worse than defend their nation from attack or attempt to oust an occupier from their midst? Does simply calling an action "war" excuse an aggressor nation from the moral consequences of killing people in that war?In other words, does the United States have the moral right to violate the principles against aggressive war, for which it prosecuted Germany at Nuremberg and condemned the Soviet Union in Afghanistan?By invading and occupying Iraq, Bush and Cheney have put the American people in the uncomfortable position of either supporting their government and its troops or supporting morality. Should a person support the actions of his government and its troops or should he obey the laws of God, when the government has placed its actions in contravention to those laws? What are the moral consequences for each individual faced with that choice?Americans, quite naturally, want to continue believing that the federal government projects its power around the world just to help people. They want to believe that their government invaded Iraq just to help the Iraqi people -- well, at least after the WMDs failed to materialize and that primary justification for the invasion fell by the wayside.But it's all a life of the lie -- a life of self-imposed deception and delusion -- a life that has refused for decades to confront the brutal and hypocritical role of the federal government in the affairs of other nations, including ouster of democratically elected leaders (e.g., Mossadegh in Iran and Arbenz in Guatemala), assassinations and miltary coups (e.g., Vietnam and Chile), the support of brutal dictators (e.g., Saddam in Iraq, the Shah of Iran, and Musharraf in Pakistan), brutal and deadly sanctions and embargoes (e.g., Iraq and Cuba), foreign aid to socialist or authoritarian regimes (e.g., Israel and Egypt), the teaching of torture to Latin American military brutes at the School of the Americas, interference in the domestic affairs of other nations (e.g., Venezuela) under the guise of promoting "democracy," and, of course, the far-flung secret empire of torture camps run by the CIA.But the prospect of indefinite failure and continuous death might well cause people to face reality and cause them to confront the painful facts and truth about U.S. foreign policy.I deeply hope that Hornberger is correct that ongoing slaughter and destruction might cause people "to face reality" and "confront the painful facts and truth about U.S. foreign policy" -- but thus far, the signs are not at all encouraging.The myth of Western, and more particularly, of American "exceptionalism" is a fundamental part of our nation's view of itself. It is deeply embedded in our national psyche, and I strongly doubt it will be dislodged in the foreseeable future. I recently quoted from Hampton Sides' new book, on the subject of the U.S. war against Mexico. Recall this sentence especially:"To conquer Mexico, in other words, would be to do it a favor. "And that remains the American perspective, and it very accurately captures our colonialist, condescending, and racist national attitude toward Iraq and its peoples: we were doing them a favor. If it turned into a genocidal murder spree, well, that's only because it was managed "incompetently." Most people still will not see the inescapable moral meaning of what we have done. And most people will never acknowledge that if we had implemented a murderous plan of conquest "competently," that would only make the results infinitely worse, not "better."We have murdered an entire country, and an unconscionable and entirely unforgivably huge number of innocent Iraqis. We have murdered them, without even the merest shadow of a justifiable reason.Remember it for next time. And unless our entire perspective and worldview is challenged and rejected, there will be a next time. That is the single fact of which you can be absolutely certain.
:: Article nr. 28904 sent on 10-dec-2006 04:28 ECT The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Uruknet .

Sunday, December 03, 2006


Sorry every body; the photos are too painful..
Yet you should see and protest.. I know that the killer hands are Iraqi but the instructions are coming from out side.. am I right? Some times I feel helpless.. I could not think.. the photos belong to:
Husam Fawzi Saisal Al-Janabi 30 years), Abbas Fadhil Mohammed Al-Janabi (23) and Latif Ahmed Mohammed Al-Janabi (26) years. The three were Sunnis; kidnapped by Mahdy militia from Al-Mansour area in Baghdad days ago.. the body were found\d in Baghdad morgue. The family paid $4000 to take their dead bodies. The kidnapper stole their BMW (1996) car.
Any body could SHOUT with me: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
Let’s wait and see what Bush’s MAN in Iraq will do?
I know.. I do not know..
Read “My Year In Iraq”, written by Bremer to discover how he (Bremer) deep rotted the sectarian feeling in Iraq; especially Shiites.. Then he created so called Governing Council.. I am not looking for a pretext; but saying the truth.. Again I know the hands are Iraqi

Friday, December 01, 2006


“He is our man in Iraq”..

Bush the second said praising Nuri Al-Maliki after their Summit in Amman last Thursday!! His father Bush the first described Saddam as “our man” in 1983 after he, Saddam met “my friend- according to Saddam” Donald Rumsfield.. Bush the first was vice president then!!
The Bush’s first man managed to destroy the Iraqi society within years. He became Iraqi President in July 1979. Iraq was on the top of the developing countries heading quickly to be among the developed countries. The five year developing scheme was paid in advance; yet Saddam took the power with $48 billion surpass in the Iraqi Central Bank!! Within years and under his reign Iraq became on the bottom of the developing countries list with more than $330 billion debts!!
His designated was finished; he felt that. He pretended to be a “national hero” ; but there was no time and capacity while the Iraqis were starving because of the embargo (resolution 661- Security Council 1990).
Now, it is the role of the Bush’s second man.. Ahmed Chalabi and Ayad Allawi did their best through providing false documents to Bush who used it as a pretext toward invading- occupying- destroying Iraq. The both were trying to be “our man in Iraq”; yet Maliki became.. Although Chalabi is playing a big role in targeting the Iraqi intellectual trying to restore being the America “strong man” in Iraq; but they began refusing him..
Maliki is their man for many reasons: he is doing his best ignoring the death squads and Shiite militia in black; although he knows very well who is leading and commanding these deadly forces.
Maliki, Bush’s “man in Iraq”, who agreed on the demands of the Iranian directed the so called United Iraqi Coalition appointing Bayan Jabr Soulagh as the minister of the finance.. Soulagh was the minister of interior of Jaafari. He was and still the “hero” of the death squads and the torture secret centers. He created using electric drill as a unique torture instrument!!
Being a minister of the finance, Soulagh began achieving the second stage of the Iranian campaign toward controlling Iraq and keeping Bush far from Iran. The price of the dollar is coming down very quickly while the prices of the food stuff and fuel are heading up. The second stage against the Iraqis began last Saturday and still going on. The Iraqis who are being killing by the death squads will be killed by cold and starving if Iran and Soulagh will continue pumping dollars I the Iraqi markets..
Maliki is Bush the second man in Iraq; any body, could, deny now the bloody Bush’s scheme toward eliminating Iraq and Iraqis?

Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim denied saying, “Sunnis will loss more if a civil war begins”. Al-Jazeera first put this “statement after Al-Hakim met by King Abdullah of Jordan.. then the media networks began repeating it.. The spokesman of the Jordanian Royal Court denied the statement too.
Al-Hakim denied saying that a civil war will affect the whole Iraqis.
Personally, I do not respect Al-Hakim; yet one should be fair. It is not the first time Jazeera plays a role in inciting sectarian war in Iraq.. Hamad Al Thani, the Emir of Qatar, assured weeks ago while celebrating the tenth year of Al-Jazeera, “Jazzera is a strategic scheme”.. Every body knows; Al-Thani led a coup against his father who was refusing relations and links with Israel.. Al-Thani began open relations with Israel. Whenever there is a high-ranking Israeli official in Qatar; Al-Jazeera airs a videotape of Bin Laden or Al-Dhawahri.. So; I think it is clear now why Al-Jazeera is inciting a sectarian war in Iraq.