Bush's war of terror on innocent Iraqis

[porus]

http://www.marchforjustice.com/id191.htm

[saif]

What could be described as the Americans’ way of
“liberating the Iraqis”.!!

Under the title “Top Ten”, supposedly adopted by Washington - to “win the hearts of the Iraqi
people”, written by a female writer referred to as “Ayeda”.

The ways were put down from 10 to 1.

10. Bomb them…
9. Bomb them and tell them that you didn’t do it…
8. Bomb them and tell them that they did it to themselves…
7. Bomb them and tell them that you are really sorry…
6. Bomb them and blame it on their leaders…
5. Bomb them and then throw food at them…
4. Starve them…
3. Cut off their water…
2. Bomb them and then go on their radio and tell them you have come to ‘liberate’ them…
1. Bomb them and then call them terrorists

AND RUMSFIELDS'FAVOURITE:
SADDAM HAS KILLED MORE IRAQIS THEN WE DID!!!!

[Muddai]

Perhaps you meant to say "Bush's war against Saddam's terror on innocent Iraqi's" ?

Unless of course you believe that all Iraqi's were free and Saddam was innocent to begin with....(!)

[Danish]

Slam Bam Goodbye Sadam.

Sadam = Tyrant
Bush = Tyrant

Karbala/Najaff = place of worship of idols Hussian and others...
Iraq = place of worship of idol Sadam...

Didn't GOD say that he will punish those who are unappreciative and worship anyone and anything other than God by putting a tyrant against another ...

And I must add that basically the entire Iraq’s regime towards this very godly tyrant and his worshipers has perhaps been uprooted and demolished and/or scattered and taken refuge. Sadaam's portraits, sculptures, symbolic statues, pictures on billboards, rooftops, building walls and ofcourse the idolworshipers all over the country are being crumpled. Thousands of idolworshipers of their leaders, imaams, dais, etc., have been dislodged and many brutally killed. GOD’s retribution comes upon many in various ways; some mysteriously, some suddenly and some without warnings. Beware, perhaps many more such regimes will (by GOD’s Will) be accounted for as we are nearing for the ‘ultimate peace’.

[3:10] Those who disbelieve will never be helped by their money, nor by their children, against GOD. They will be fuel for Hell. [3:11] Like Pharaoh's people and those before them, they rejected our revelations and, consequently, GOD punished them for their sins. GOD is strict in enforcing retribution. [3:12] Say to those who disbelieve, "You will be defeated, then gathered in Hell; what a miserable abode!"

[3:13] An example has been set for you by the two armies who clashed - one army was fighting in the cause of GOD, while the other was disbelieving. They saw with their own eyes that they were twice as many. GOD supports with His victory whomever He wills. This should provide an assurance for those who possess vision.

I pray to GOD for all the innocent lives and the believers in HIM who have otherwise suffered and sacrificed their lives.

I bear witness that there is no other god but GOD. HE is Alone and has no partners.
SUBMIT TO GOD ALONE AND NOTHING ELSE.

[anajmi]

where oh where are the WMDs

No evidence yet on weapons of mass destruction

The war on Iraq is nearly over and still no evidence has been presented
so
far of the country's possession of weapons of mass destruction, the
purported reason for the attack.
A US military official said on Tuesday more testing and analysis was
required before determining whether substances found at sites in
central
Iraq were banned chemical weapons agents.
"Initial reports were 'yes, it could potentially be'," said Brigadier
General Vincent Brooks.
"We do not know enough at this point to say it should be discounted or
that
we have found some weapons of mass destruction for use."
That contradicted an earlier remark on Tuesday by a US military source
near
the predominantly Shia city of Karbala in Iraq who said tests indicated
the
substances were not chemical weapons agents. "The latest tests turned
out
negative," the source said.
"The United States is now embarrassed because it could not confirm the
presence of WMD in Iraq," said Dr. Hassan Krayyim, a professor of
political
science at the American University of Beirut.
During an earlier phase of the war, US military officials claimed that
President Saddam Hussein would use chemical weapons against the
invading
forces as soon as they cross the "red line" around Baghdad.
Until now he hasn't. "Even if (Saddam Hussein) has chemical weapons, it
is
not logical for him to use them in the heart of the Iraqi capital,
because
Iraqi soldiers and residents will be affected," said Krayyim.
He pointed out that the use of such weapons would only be significant
if
they harm the enemy and not one's forces.
"That's why the US troops are so confident that they won't be attacked
by
chemical weapons that they have removed their suits," he said referring
to
the Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) protective outerwear suits.
"They
know the WMD issue is over."
Shortly after US troops entered the Iraqi capital, they were ordered to
take
off their NBC suits.
Krayyim ruled out the possibility that Iraq would use WMD even if it
possesses such weapons. "Iraq does not have a political interest in
that
because the Iraqi government wants to quash the justification which the
US
used for waging its war," he said.
US violations
In the meantime, US President George Bush has authorised the use of
tear gas
in Iraq, which could be a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention
that
states that "each state party undertakes not to use riot control agents
as a
method of warfare."
"It won't be the first violation that the United States commits If it
uses
tear gas," Krayyim said. "They have also used cluster bombs in the war
on
Iraq."
The use of cluster bombs drew criticism from human rights organizations
against the US. "Amnesty International is deeply concerned about the
high
toll of civilian casualties and the use of cluster bombs in US military
attacks in heavily populated areas," AI said in a statement on April 2.
On April 1, at least 33 civilians including many children, were
reportedly
killed and around 300 injured in US attacks on the town of al-Hilla.
Amnesty International referred to reports that cluster bombs were used
in
the attacks and may have been responsible for some of the civilian
deaths.

"The use of cluster bombs in an attack on a civilian area of al-Hilla
constitutes an indiscriminate attack and a grave violation of
international
humanitarian law," the leading human rights organization stated.

"If the US is serious about protecting civilians, it must publicly
commit to
a moratorium on the use of cluster weapons. Using cluster munitions
will
lead to indiscriminate killing and injuring of civilians," the
organization
added.--- Al Jazeera with agency inputs

[anajmi]

An interesting email from Michael Moore

Dear friends,

It appears that the Bush administration will have succeeded in
colonizing
Iraq sometime in the next few days. This is a blunder of such magnitude
and
we will pay for it for years to come. It was not worth the life of one
single American kid in uniform, let alone the thousands of Iraqis who
have
died, and my condolences and prayers go out to all of them.

So, where are all those weapons of mass destruction that were the
pretense
for this war?

Ha!

What I am most concerned about right now is that all of you, the
majority of
Americans who did not support this war in the first place, not go
silent or
be intimidated by what will be touted as some great military victory.
Now,
more than ever, the voices of peace and truth must be heard. I have
received
a lot of mail from people who are afraid of retaliation at work or at
school
or in their neighborhoods because they have been vocal proponents of
peace.
They have been told over and over that it is not "appropriate" to
protest
once the country is at war, and that your only duty now is to "support
the
troops."

Can I share with you what it's been like for me since I used my time on
the
Oscar stage two weeks ago to speak out against Bush and this war? I
hope
that, in reading what I'm about to tell you, you'll feel a bit more
emboldened to make your voice heard in whatever way or forum that is
open to
you.

When "Bowling for Columbine" was announced as the Oscar winner for Best
Documentary at the Academy Awards. And, thus, I said the following from
the
Oscar stage:

"On behalf of our producers Kathleen Glynn and Michael Donovan (from
Canada), I would like to thank the Academy for this award. I have
invited
the other Documentary nominees on stage with me. They are here in
solidarity
because we like non-fiction. We like non-fiction because we live in
fictitious times. We live in a time where fictitious election results
give
us a fictitious president. We are now fighting a war for fictitious
reasons.
Whether it's the fiction of duct tape or the fictitious 'Orange
Alerts,' we
are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you.
And,
whenever you've got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, you're
time
is up."

The next day and in the two weeks since, the right-wing pundits and
radio
shock jocks have been calling for my head. So, has all this ruckus hurt
me?
Have they succeeded in "silencing" me?

Well, take a look at my Oscar "backlash":

-- On the day after I criticized Bush and the war at the Academy
Awards,
attendance at "Bowling for Columbine" in theaters around the country
went up
110% (source: Daily Variety/BoxOfficeMojo.com).

The following weekend, the box office gross was up a whopping 73%
(Variety).
It is now the longest-running consecutive commercial release in
America, 26
weeks in a row and still thriving. The number of theaters showing the
film
since the Oscars has INCREASED, and it has now bested the previous box
office record for a documentary by nearly 300%.

-- Yesterday (April 6), "Stupid White Men" shot back to #1 on the New
York
Times bestseller list. This is my book's 50th week on the list, 8 of
them at
number one, and this marks its fourth return to the top position,
something
that virtually never happens.

-- In the week after the Oscars, my website was getting 10-20 million
hits A
DAY (one day we even got more hits than the White House!). The mail has
been
overwhelmingly positive and supportive.

-- In the two days following the Oscars, more people pre-ordered the
video
for "Bowling for Columbine" on Amazon.com than the video for the Oscar
winner for Best Picture, "Chicago."

-- In the past week, I have obtained funding for my next documentary,
and I
have been offered a slot back on television to do an updated version of
"TV
Nation"/ "The Awful Truth."

I tell you all of this because I want to counteract a message that is
told
to us all the time that, if you take a chance to speak out politically,
you
will live to regret it. It will hurt you in some way, usually
financially.
You could lose your job. Others may not hire you. You will lose
friends. And
on and on and on.

Take the Dixie Chicks. I'm sure you've all heard by now that, because
their
lead singer mentioned how she was ashamed that Bush was from her home
state
of Texas, their record sales have "plummeted" and country stations are
boycotting their music.

The truth is that their sales are NOT down. This week, their album is
still
at #1 on the Billboard country charts and, according to Entertainment
Weekly, on the pop charts they ROSE from #6 to #4. In the New York
Times,
Frank Rich reports that he tried to find a ticket to ANY of the Dixie
Chicks' upcoming concerts but he couldn't because they were all sold
out.

Their song, "Travelin' Soldier" (a beautiful anti-war ballad) was the
most
requested song on the internet last week. They have not been hurt at
all,
but that is not what the media would have you believe. Why is that?
Because
there is nothing more important now than to keep the voices of dissent
and
those who would dare to ask a question -- SILENT. And what better way
than
to try and take a few well-known entertainers down with a pack of lies
so
that the average Joe or Jane gets the message loud and clear: "Wow, if
they
would do that to the Dixie Chicks or Michael Moore, what would they do
to
little ol' me?" In other words, shut up.

And that, my friends, is the real point of this film that I just got an
Oscar for -- how those in charge use FEAR to manipulate the public into
doing whatever they are told.

Well, the good news, if there can be any good news this week, is that
not
only have neither I nor others been silenced, we have been joined by
millions of Americans who think the same way we do.

Don't let the false patriots intimidate you by setting the agenda or
the
terms of the debate. Don't be defeated by polls that show 70% of the
public
in favor of the war. Remember that these Americans being polled are the
same
Americans whose kids (or neighbor's kids) have been sent over to Iraq.
They
are scared for the troops and they are being cowed into supporting a
war
they did not want and they want even less to see their friends,
family,and
neighbors come home dead.

Everyone supports the troops returning home alive and all of us need to
reach out and let their families know that.

Unfortunately, Bush and Co. are not through yet. This invasion and
conquest
will encourage them to do it again elsewhere.

This is not the time for the majority of us who believe in a peaceful
America to be quiet. Make your voices heard. Despite what they have
pulled
off, it is still our country.

Yours,

Michael Moore

[anajmi]

Abd finally here is what I feel about this war.

Saddam Hussein was a big bastard. He's gone.

Iraqis have been suffering because of him and the US sanctions for the last 12 years. Look at them now, Saddam is gone, Sanctions will be gone, happy days inshaallah will be here again.

So what was this all about? US wanted to go into Iraq for what? there are no wmds, there is no connection between saddam and al-qaeda, and bush says that he does not want the iraqi oil. Let us give him the benefit of doubt. So why oh why did he go into iraq for a war?

The only people to benefit from this war are the iraqis. The terror threat level in America will never go down, so these guys over here will always be living in fear, so it does not benefit the americans. Iraqis are free because of cowboy bush, so hey if he wants a few drops of free oil, sure give it to him.

[anajmi]

Bush & Blair are now asked; why have you invaded and occupied a
sovereign
state?

LONDON, April 14 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) - Now that the
U.S.-led
forces actually invaded and occupied Iraq, now that Saddam Hussein’s
regime
no longer exists, the question remains; where are Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction? A leading British paper asked Sunday, April 13.

“They were the reason the United States and Britain were in such a
hurry to
go to war, the threat the rank-and-file troops feared most. And yet,
after
three weeks of war, after the capture of Baghdad and the collapse of
the
Iraqi government, Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction - those
weapons that President Bush, on the eve of hostilities, said were a
direct
threat to the people of the United States - have still to be
identified,”
The Independent said.

“Many influential people - disarmament experts, present and former
United
Nations arms inspectors, our own Robin Cook - have begun to wonder
aloud if
the weapons exist at all.

“The public surrender of a senior Iraqi scientist could yet backfire
against
the U.S. and Britain. Lieutenant-General Amer Hammoudi al-Saadi, who
handed
himself over to U.S. forces Saturday, continued to proclaim that Iraq
no
longer holds any chemical or biological weapons. He should know: the
British-educated chemical expert headed the Iraqi delegation at weapons
talks with the United Nations.

“The few "discoveries" trumpeted in the media - the odd barrel here, a
few
dozen shells there - have not been on a scale that could reasonably
justify
the unprovoked military invasion of a sovereign country, and in most
cases
have been proven to been no more than rumor, or propaganda, or a
mixture of
the two,” charged the paper.

“It could still be that, as American forces advance on Tikrit, Saddam's
home
town, chemical or biological weapons may be discovered, or even
deployed by
diehard Iraqi troops,” the paper said, apparently before the last Iraqi
stronghold was actually captured.

Tikrit fell to U.S. forces entirely Monday, April 14, without any
reports of
chemical finds.

“But if the casus belli pleaded by George Bush and Tony Blair turns out
to
be entirely hollow - and it should be stressed that we can't yet know
that -
what does it say about their motivations for going to war in the first
place? How much deception was involved in talking up the Iraqi threat,
and
how much self-deception?

“As Susan Wright, a disarmament expert at the University of Michigan,
said
last week: "This could be the first war in history that was justified
largely by an illusion." Even The Wall Street Journal, one of the
administration's biggest cheerleaders, has warned of the "widespread
skepticism" the White House can expect if it does not make significant,
and
undisputed, discoveries of forbidden weapons,” it continued.

Before the war, American intelligence officials said that they had a
list of
14,000 sites where, they suspected, chemical or biological agents had
been
harbored, as well as the delivery systems to deploy them. A substantial
number of those sites have been inspected by the invading troops.
Evidence
to date of a "grave and gathering" threat: precisely zero.

“Much of what has been unearthed points to something we knew about all
along: the weapons programs that Iraq ran before the 1991 Gulf War,
before
sanctions, before regular U.S. and British bombing raids in the no-fly
zones
and before the UN weapons inspection regime that ran from 1991 to
1998,”
according to the paper.

U.S. troops have discovered a few suspect barrels here, a sample bottle
of
nerve agent there, stacks of chemical suits and some drugs typically
used to
counteract the effects of a chemical attack, such as atropine and 2-pam
chloride.

According to many military experts, these finds suggest the vestiges of
a
weapons program that has been dismantled, not one that is up and
running.
The U.S. government argues that the weapons have been deliberately
dispersed
and hidden - a claim that would have more merit if there were any
evidence
of where the materials might have gone.

In his State of the Union address in early February, President Bush was
quite specific about the materials he believed Saddam was hiding:
25,000
liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of plutonium toxin and 500 tons of
sarin,
mustard and nerve gas. These days, he does not mention weapons of mass
destruction at all, focusing instead on the liberation of the Iraqi
people -
as if liberation, not disarmament, had been the project all along.

Refuting U.S. claims, the paper went on, “The administration has shown
its
embarrassment in other ways. On day two of the war, Donald Rumsfeld,
the
Secretary of Defense, said finding and destroying weapons of mass
destruction was the invading force's number two priority after toppling
Saddam Hussein - itself a reversal of the argument presented at the UN
Security Council.

“A week later, Victoria Clarke, the Pentagon spokeswoman, pushed the
issue
further down the list, behind capturing and evicting "terrorists
sheltered
in Iraq" and collecting intelligence on "terrorist networks".

“Now we are told that hunting for weapons is something we can expect
once
the fighting is over, and that it might go on for months before
yielding
significant results. "It's hard work," a plaintive Ms Clarke said last
week.

“Nonsense, say the disarmament experts. "It's clear there wasn't much,"
said
Professor Wright, "otherwise they would have run into something by now.
After all, they've taken Baghdad."

Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector who spent four months
badgering
the United States and Britain in vain for reliable intelligence
information
about the whereabouts of lethal weapons, now says he believes the war
was
planned on entirely different criteria, well before his inspection
teams
went back into Iraq in December.

"I think the Americans started the war thinking there were some
[weapons]. I
think they now believe less in that possibility," he told the Spanish
daily
El Pais. "You ask yourself a lot of questions when you see the things
they
did to try to show that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons, like the fake
contract with Niger."

Anxious to find a "smoking gun", a team of U.S. disarmament experts has
been
set up to question Iraqis involved in weapons programs, while others
comb
sites and analyze samples in the field using mobile labs.

The move has alarmed the weapons inspectors at the UN, where Kofi
Annan, the
UN Secretary General, pointedly said last week: "I think they are the
ones
with the mandate to disarm Iraq, and when the situation permits they
should
go back to resume their work."

The U.S. team has attempted to lure some of the inspectors, who are
recognized as the sole legitimate international authority on Iraq's
weapons
programmes.

The latest theory being touted in Washington by the usual unnamed
government
sources is that the Iraqis have moved their weapons out of the country,
very
possibly into Syria.

“This claim appears to have originated with Israeli intelligence -
which has
every motivation for stirring up trouble for its “hostile” Arab
neighbors -
and has been bolstered by reports of fighting between Iraqi Special
Republican Guard units and US special forces near the Syrian border,”
The
Independent explained.

Disarmament experts do not give the claim much credence. After all, any
suspicious convoy or mobile laboratory would almost certainly be
spotted by
U.S. planes or spy satellites and bombed long before it reached Syria.

“But the notion does provide the hawks in Washington with a compelling
plot
device not unlike the McGuffin factor in Alfred Hitchcock's films - a
catalyst that may or may not have significance in itself but that gets
the
suspense going and keeps the story rolling.

“If the Bush administration should ever seek to turn its military wrath
on
Damascus, the weapons of mass destruction it is failing to find in Iraq
might just provide the excuse once again,” concluded the paper.

[anajmi]

Everybody in Iraq is a millionaire. Things couldn't have been better for the iraqis.

Recently 626 millions dollars have been found in houses by the US military which says that the money belongs to the iraqi people.

The population of Iraq is 25 millions. 626 dive by 25 is = 25.04

25.04 million dollars for each iraqi!!

I wish I was an Iraqi (a live one)

[anajmi]

how come bush doesn't want to save the palestinian muslims? If not from israel, then he can at least save them from arafat. maybe cause they don't have oil? or may be cause it is destiny?

[porus]

Originally posted by anajmi:
626 millions dollars....

The population of Iraq is 25 millions. 626 dive by 25 is = 25.04

25.04 million dollars for each iraqi!!

Actually, $25.04 for each Iraqi!

[anajmi]

Man, now i feel really stupid. I've been thinking about some good that could happen for the iraqis after this war. I thought there was some finally.

[Muddai]

Don't give up yet.... The oil revenues will do just fine for them now that it won't be spent on palaces and cash hoarded by thugs. I sincerely hope the Iraqi don't succumb to the pressure of the Mullahs, and do indeed form a secular and democratic government.

Unlike Afghanistan, they are already secular, rich in resources and secularly educated.

[nausicaa]

I hope so too Muddai, but I don't think this will happen. Unless there is extended US presence and control, I foresee a theocracy in the region.

-N