http://english.daralhayat.com/opinion/OPED/02-2006/Article-20060218-7d7eba7e-c0a8-10ed-0118-a77017d47034/story.html

Ayoon Wa Azan (The Ideology of Terrorism and Killing)

Jihad el Khazen     Al-Hayat     - 18/02/06//

A multi-language - including Arabic - internet website communicates
the body count in Iraq since the onset of the war. Casualty figures
are derived solely from a comprehensive survey of online media
reports. Where these sources report differing figures, the range (a
minimum and a maximum) are given. The latest available figures for the
civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq are 28403
civilian casualty at the bare minimum, and 32013 casualty at a
threshold. The victims were claimed by US military intervention
violating the Geneva Convention and by operations carried out by
terrorists claiming to be resistance...

The previous figures include, nine members of an Iraqi family killed
when American F-14 warplanes bombed and obliterated a home near the
northern industrial city of Baiji, about 150 miles north of Baghdad.
The warplanes had been pursuing insurgents. Muthanna al-Qaisi, a
spokesman for the governor of Salahaddin Province announced the number
of casualties and added that three more relatives were wounded.

Iraq is witnessing a resistance against occupation, but it is also
witnessing a horrific terrorism by the group of al-Zirqawi and others.
While resistance is understandable, terrorism against civilians is
inadmissible, condemned, and inexcusable. The tragedy of Iraq is that
it is being subjected to random sweeping US military operations
claiming the lives of innocent civilians, in addition to the terrorism
of known terrorists. This is also considered terrorism.

A generally acknowledged definition of terrorism is to kill civilians
that are not participating in the killing. This means that the
Americans practiced terrorism in Baiji, in Falouja, in Ramadi, Anbar,
and in every place where they undertook a military operation where
civilians were killed. However, we should note that terrorism
emanating from any source does not justify the terrorism of another
party such as the group of al-Zirqawi.

It is no wonder thereafter that the US (and Israel for the same
reasons) doesn't want to join the International War Crimes Tribunal,
because it knows that its soldiers in Iraq will be referred to this
tribunal one day after the other charged with terrorism (this will be
also the fate of the Israeli government that killed ten times more
Palestinian civilians than Israeli ones in suicide attacks).

At the beginning of this month, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, General Peter Pace, issued a counterterrorism strategy, most of
which remained secret. However, some details thereof were leaked to
the press. We read that the strategy targets terrorist leaders, their
havens, financial networks, their methods of communication and ability
to move around the globe. It also aims at gathering information on
terrorism personnel and ideology.

The strategy acknowledges the adverse effects of the military
operations without giving examples as the ones presented in the
aforementioned lines from each Iraq city afflicted by a US military
intervention. It also does not tackle the issue of torturing prisoners
from the Pangram air base in Afghanistan and Abu Ghraib in Iraq, to
the Gulf of Guantanamu and every military prison, including the one
established by the Central Intelligence Agency in Central Europe,
where it transferred detainees by plane. The latest news I have before
me is a UN report corroborating the accusation of torturing prisoners
in Guantanamu.

We may agree with the Americans that terrorism has intensified since
President Bush announced his war on terrorism after 9/11, 2001. I also
have information about sweeping statistics on insurgent violence in
Iraq that were declassified for a Senate hearing appear to portray a
rebellion whose ability to mount attacks has steadily grown in the
nearly three years since the invasion. The statistics were included in
a report written by Joseph A. Christoff, Head of the International
Affairs and Trade in the Governmental Accountancy Office. While it
appears at a certain point that the operations against the Americans
have declined and the US and Iraqi military sources claim that
violence is waning, the fact is that the general image shows that
there is ongoing insurgent violence.

President Bush is still insisting that the Americans are triumphing or
will triumph in Iraq. However, I found a troublesome twist in his
State of the Union speech, since he seems to have renounced the "war
on terrorism." He realized that it is absurd and cannot be won, as
long as the American people will oppose any lingering war at the end,
and as long as terrorism is not a defined quality or country. It shall
remain as long as its causes are there, and even without causes.

President Bush said that freedom succeeded, but there are still
insurgents fighting. "One of the most importance sources of resistance
is radical Islam and the attempt of few to distort a noble religion
and turn it into an ideology of war and killing."

If President Bush means by radical Islam Osama Ben Laden, Ayman
Zawahiri, al-Zirqawi, and similar terrorists, we support him. However,
"radical Islam" is a broad expression that may be used against any
Islamic party opposing the US policy, especially in countries where
the US has strategic interests such as oil.

The fact is that the renunciation of the "war on terrorism" gradually
took place, and the administration tested other slogans. In October
2005, President George Bush himself spoke before a US democratic
institution and pointed out to the "focused ideology" behind the 9/11
terrorism. He said "Some dub it evil radical Islam. Others say that it
is an extremist Jihad, while others call it Fascist Islam."

I had warned during the past days of "Islamofaschism" as it is
promoted by the neo conservatives. However, it seems that "radical
Islam" was opted for as a successor to the war on terrorism.

I urge President Bush to reconsider his option, especially that he
respects and reveres Islam. The expression will be interpreted as
another attempt to satirize all Muslims because  of a misled and
oppressive minority.

The most important feature is that the US will not fight terrorism or
practice it, and we say "Never forbid something you practice."
 






--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.intellnet.org

  Post message: [email protected]
  Subscribe:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has 
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of 
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT 
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the 
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of 
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, 
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other 
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes 
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material 
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use 
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' 
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 


Reply via email to