Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Layla Anwar: Morning Coffee

Expand Messages
  • World View
    An Intervisit - Morning Coffee Layla Anwar An Arab Woman Blues http://www.uruknet.de/?p=37964 I have a neighbor. We cross each other s paths occasionally... We
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 26, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      An Intervisit - Morning Coffee
      Layla Anwar
      An Arab Woman Blues

      I have a neighbor. We cross each other's paths occasionally...
      We sometimes wave hello and sometimes stop and exchange a few words
      from across our "garden fences."

      I know that my neighbor, who also lives in Iraqi land, is an
      editor/publisher of some sort.

      The other day, driven by both curiosity and an eagerness to get better
      acquainted with my neighbor, I invited her over for a virtual cup of

      And since she lives in Uruk Land, I naturally, wanted to find out
      more...So we chatted a little... I will let you in on our conversation.

      First let me introduce you to her. Her name is Paola Pisi and she is
      the editor of Uruknet.info.

      And the following are bits and pieces of our meeting over a virtual
      cup of coffee...
      Since what she had to tell was quite important. I will share it here
      with you, in its entirety.

      So get yourself a cup of coffee, tea or your favorite drink and read on...

      I have noticed you've been in the virtual uruknet land for quite a few
      years now. How did it all start? And today, with so many years of
      experience being in that virtual land, what are your feelings,
      impressions, thoughts...

      Uruknet started in the spring of 2003, just after the invasion. Its
      goal was and still is to offer our readers news, comments and analysis
      from a wide range of sources. With so much propaganda, disinformation
      and fog of war, it seems to us the battle for information on the issue
      of Iraq in particular and more in general on the Middle East is
      paramount in these tragic years.

      When we started, it seemed to us that almost everybody was against
      Iraq, in a way or in another. Four years later that impression has
      been reinforced by our experience.

      Already at the time of the First Gulf War and then during the
      genocidal embargo, we assisted to a psychological war; even those who
      condemned the sanctions were at the same time condemning the Iraqi
      government and Saddam Hussein. In the West this psychological war
      resulted in a complete isolation of Iraq and after many years it has
      certainly helped the 2003 invasion of the country.

      The US-led war of aggression against Iraq has been an illegal war
      according to international law and the UN Charter, the Nuremberg's
      supreme international crime. All the following effects coming from
      that invasion are therefore illegal and outside the UN Charter.

      All the crimes following the invasion have to be seen as the result of
      that invasion and ascribed to it. Opposing that war of aggression,
      that supreme international crime, should have meant calling for the
      respect of international legality and the UN Charter.

      The anti-war movement and generally the left never demanded respect of
      legality and international right. In that case, they would have
      struggled for the only solution aligned to international law i.e.
      restoring the status quo ante the unlawful and criminal Anglo-American
      war of aggression.

      Rejecting the illegal aggression carried out against Iraq should have
      involved the refusal of all its effects as a logical result, first of
      all the unlawful removal of the legitimate Saddam Hussein's
      government; and this whatever opinion one has on President Hussein and
      on the Baath Government.

      By all standing international covenants, Saddam Hussein was Iraqi
      Republic's legitimate President until his assassination. Instead, the
      so-called anti-war movement and the so-called left have never drawn
      this logical and legal consequence.

      Even those opposing the war have not called for the respect of
      international law and all its consequences. The legitimate government
      of Iraq, the only legitimate government of a country illegally invaded
      and occupied, has been abandoned by the international community while
      the sectarian Quisling forces were lynching Saddam Hussein and the
      other members of his government.

      Yes, there have been protests on that scandal known as the trial and
      its many Kafkaesque absurdities. But the only real, serious point to
      make should have been the international illegality of a trial where
      the supreme international criminals and their collaborators put on
      trial their victims. The international community and the so-called
      anti-war movement have ignored this gargantuan scandal.

      Instead, the so-called progressive anti-war movement backed
      uncritically, almost without exceptions, demonizing campaigns carried
      out by imperialist propaganda against President Saddam Hussein and the
      Baath Government.

      They never inquired about the soundness of accusations without proofs
      coming from the same sources that had been spreading falsehood on WMD
      and on connections with al-Qaeda. On the contrary, "progressive" not
      only believed - or pretended to believe - to alleged Baath
      Government's "crimes", but added to all this another absolutely false
      slanderous accusation, according to which Saddam Hussein was a servant
      of the USA and had been put in power by the CIA.

      All this was based on anonymous rumors skillfully spread in order to
      lessen support to the Baath Government, and also based on a picture of
      Saddam and Rumsfeld together, that has been high-pressure posted
      millions of times until, although the picture itself doesn't prove
      anything, ends up by taking the place of missing evidence.

      On the occasion of President Hussein's lynching, the only concern for
      most of the so-called progressive (besides defending legitimate Iraqi
      President's executioners, Moqtada al-Sadr and the Mahdi army) was to
      insult the assassinated President, writing that he always carried out
      USA orders, accomplices in his "crimes". Many "left-wing" websites
      even published this obscenity, signed by Gabriel Ash, entitled "Puppet
      kills puppet":

      Now we got to the shameful point to read on the alternative websites
      the protest because the Americans haven't allowed yet the lynching of
      Ali Hassan al-Majid, Sultan Hashem al-Tai and Hussein Rashid Al-Tikriti.

      There is no need to comment of course.

      The reason of so-called left and anti-war movements' behavior is
      surely a complex problem. All got mixed up: hired informers,
      opportunists who had never wanted to be marginalized by politically
      correct left, and also many people who are acting in good faith but
      have fallen in traps drawn up by imperialist propaganda (I myself know
      people absolutely above suspicion who firmly believe that Saddam was a
      CIA asset, and don't want to understand that the falsehood of "Saddam
      man of the Americans" has been the winning card the USA played since
      the first war in order to prevent Western left approval to the Baath

      A certain role has been played by many opponents to Saddam living in
      exile in Western countries, who have been working promptly inside
      several movements, in order to direct them towards a "No to war No to
      Saddam" line (obviously, I surely don't want to blame all Saddam's
      opponents who live in exile: there are many of them who are worthy of
      respect and esteem, like Imad Khadduri or Iraq solidarity-al-Thawra
      group and many others).

      Still, if anyone wants to go to the root of the matter, I think the
      real reason is that part of the anti-war movement and of the so-called
      left do not represent a real opposition to imperialism, but they
      rather represent the other face of imperialism itself. Her Majesty's
      Opposition, necessary and subsidiary to the system preservation.

      All these reasons explain why the so-called anti-war movement – with
      just a few exceptions – has never supported the Iraqi resistance. Not
      only that, but a large and important part of the so-called anti-war
      movement has expressed sympathy and solidarity with the occupation
      troops, "our troops", an occupation army responsible for more than one
      million Iraqi deaths and four millions Iraqi displaced.

      This obscene contradiction is not even perceived as such by the

      It's as if a pro-Palestinian movement needed to express solidarity and
      sympathy to the "Israeli" army or as if one of the moral and political
      imperatives of the anti-Nazi resistance were to express sympathy and
      solidarity to the Nazi army and the SS.

      There have been in these past few weeks a little debate on why the
      anti-war movement hasn't supported the Iraqi resistance.
      As I said before, the so-called anti-war movement – from the first
      moment of the illegal war of aggression – has never asked for the
      respect of the UN Charter, for the restoration of the status quo ante
      bellum, the respect of international legality, in the case the
      restoration of the legitimate government of Iraq.

      Instead, when the legitimate president of Iraq was captured by the
      illegal Occupation, one of the founding fathers of this Left, Noam
      Chomsky, wrote an article that started with the following paragraph:

      "All people who have any concern for human rights, justice and
      integrity should be overjoyed by the capture of Saddam Hussein, and
      should be awaiting a fair trial for him by an international tribunal."

      (Then he continues with the usual lies of Saddam Hussein man of
      Washington, and therefore the responsibility of the USA in his "crimes").

      On this basis, how could anyone think that THIS anti-war movement,
      incapable of the most bashful babbling in favour of international
      right, could ever support legitimate Iraqi national resistance?

      To all this we could add that since the very beginning Zionist and
      imperialist propaganda started speaking about "Sunni" and not
      "national" resistance (after having falsely described as "Sunni" the
      Baath Government, when under Saddam Hussein deputies were
      predominantly Shiite and vice-prime minister was a Christian), and
      many people fell into this trap too.

      The head-on collision between resistance on one side and occupying and
      collaborationist sectarian militia on the other was described as a
      Shiite/Sunni civil war. Now many believe - or pretend to believe -
      that resistance places anonymous bombs that massacre thousands of
      innocent civilians.

      If you are given only a few sentences to describe the Iraqi
      "experiment", how you would qualify it?

      The "experiment" is completely succeeded; Iraq doesn't exist anymore.
      The country has been completely destroyed, its People is still being
      exterminated through a genocide ignored by the international community
      and even by part of the "progressive left". It's difficult to find
      precedents of such barbarity in recent history. Iraq doesn't exist
      anymore, maybe one day…

      Being editor in charge of Uruknet.info and working around the clock, I
      am sure you have seen tons and tons of articles, news clips, papers on
      Iraq. Bearing that in mind, what are your views on both the mainstream
      media and the alternative media?

      It's obvious that in an imperial system the mainstream media are in
      general functional to that system. There are good exceptions and of
      course many good journalists and writers who still do a very decent,
      honest work.

      More problematic is the situation in the so-called alternative media.
      Here we have many good websites that offer excellent articles and
      analysis but there are also many other alternative websites that are
      the face of a fake opposition to the system they claim to oppose.

      It's evident that a fake democracy needs a fake opposition, based on
      weak ideas, if any. There are also too many alternative websites that
      seem to have the goal to distract their readers, with a conspiracy
      theory after the other.

      Other websites publish all and its contrary, without a vision, a
      political line, without some ideas on priority and hierarchical
      importance. Too many go just after the mood of the day, the coup de
      theatre, the sensationalism, maybe just to have more readers.

      In many cases the panorama is quite depressing, a postmodernism used
      to hide its emptiness. Again, as I said, there are many excellent
      alternative websites and many important writers, journalists and
      analysts in the alternative media (and sometimes even in the
      mainstream media).

      So what do you think has been one of the major worst faults of the
      Western Left and anti- war movement?

      To all the above, I add that maybe this is the worst fault of a
      substantial part of western left and anti-war movements: their
      tendency in favor of Moqtada al-Sadr, presented to the Western public
      as the great leader of the Iraqi resistance.

      It's a detail that all the Iraqi nationalist websites that support the
      Iraqi resistance write just the opposite about al-Sadr (often his
      Mahdi army is called the Anti-Christ army), one of the main enemies.
      Basically, all Iraqi bloggers, (right, left, centre, pro-Saddam,
      anti-Saddam, pro-resistance, anti-resistance) denounce continuously
      the monstrous crimes of al-Sadr's Mahdi army.

      All one has to do is to read the testimonies of the Iraqi displaced in
      Jordan and Syria; many among them stated that they fled Iraq to escape
      the persecutions by the Mahdi Army. But in the West, many among those
      who claim to defend the Iraqi people, praise continuously the virtues
      of al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army, responsible for the ethnic cleansing
      and co-responsible for the Iraqi genocide.

      Therefore, most of the Western left and anti-war movements have done
      worse than non supporting the Iraqi resistance: they backed with all
      their forces Moqtada al Sadr and his death squads, engaged not only in
      fighting resistance, but also in Iraq ethnic cleansing: in this way
      many of self-styled progressives made themselves accomplices in Iraqi

      A fake opposition from within the imperialist system can't but support
      a fake opposition within the Quisling Iraqi government, as the
      al-Sadr's movement.

      In some cases there have also been some exiled opponents of Saddam
      Hussein, like Sami Ramadani in the UK Stop the War, the most Sadrist
      group of the antiwar movement in the West, whose demonstrations have
      seen the presence of Sheik Zangani, one of the many spokespersons of
      al-Sadr. Obviously the work of these Iraqi exiled have been possible
      because of the more general orientation pro-Iran and pro-Sadr of the
      most part of the so called left in the west.

      From the beginning, the western left allied with al-Sadr since the so
      called Najaf uprising. Sadr had all the characteristics to become the
      hero of this left: he had welcomed the US as liberators and after the
      invaders had captured the Iraqi president, Sadr organized a popular
      demonstration to ask for Saddam Hussein's killing without trial (and
      at last he's been given what he had asked), and all the media in the
      West would write that Sadr was the son of a Shiite ayatollah killed by
      Saddam (obviously this is not true, there is no proof that the Iraqi
      government killed Mohammed Sadeq al-Sadr). Supporting Sadr for the
      left meant to not being accused to support the Baath or the
      Saddamists, which is to say, the resistance.

      When finally al-Sadr got into the political process, the support from
      the western left has increased; in this way the left could support the
      quisling government and the big lie of an Iraqi government independent
      or quasi-independent from the occupation. Since after Najaf the Mahdi
      army didn't fight the American occupation but focus on the killing of
      thousands of Iraqis, the western left didn't have any problem; it
      could support our troops and the fake "Iraqi resistance" at the same time.

      But the worst had still to come. At least from the first attack
      against the Samarra's mosque, it's been clear that the Mahdi army
      didn't participate just to the killing of some few targets but it was
      doing a bloody ethnic cleansing in Baghdad and in the South of Iraq,
      slaughtering Sunni, nationalists, secular Shiites, and more in general
      anyone who would dare to oppose the occupation. Only in the three days
      immediately after Samara attack, the Sadr's death squads massacred
      more than 3,000 innocent Iraqi civilians in Baghdad and occupied and
      destroyed more than 100 Sunni mosques.

      On many Iraqi websites and blogs appeared hundreds of testimonies,
      photographs, videos of these crimes committed by these sadistic
      Sadrist psychopaths.
      We've seen photos of children and babies massacred, with their eyes
      pulled out, just because they were Sunni.

      In spite of the atrocious job made by the western mainstream media,
      some information about the Mahdi army was available for all to know
      and understand. We have all read stories of the sadrists killing
      people inside their own ministries, in particular the minister of
      health and the cruel and revolting persecution of the Palestinians
      living in Iraq by the Mahdi army.

      What have the western left and antiwar movement done in front of all this?
      They have given their support to this monster. The most absurd
      conspiracy theories started to appear in the so-called alternative
      media. The crimes that all the testimonies and the Iraqi victims
      denounced as committed by the Mahdi army were instead the work of
      improbable American death squads. Known and unknown alternative
      writers wrote that the western media wanted to criminalize al-Sadr,
      when actually the western media was doing quite the opposite.

      Of course there are also US death squads in Iraq, but the existence of
      the death squads created and funded by the Occupying power cannot and
      must not be used to deny any involvement of the Badr Organisation and
      the Mahdi Army in the current Iraqi genocide. The civil war is clearly
      the aim of the occupation forces that try with any means to incite
      sectarian fights, to destroy the Arab, Iraqi national identity, so as
      to finally carry out the project of the tripartition of the country
      and one of the main means used by the Occupying power to create a
      civil conflict in that country is exactly the use of the sectarian

      One of the worst lies coming from the left was that al-Sadr was seen
      by the Iraqi nationalists and the Iraqi resistance as the leader able
      to unite the country against the American occupation. The most
      sectarian, and extremist of the Iraqi politicians was sold to the
      western public as the progressist, nationalist al-Sadr, the hero of
      the western antiwar crowds. In this way the left has promoted the
      genocide of the Sunni, nationalist Iraqis and made a true propaganda
      campaign, worse than Fox news.

      It's obvious that many of the promoters of al-Sadr in the West cannot
      be in good faith. The information on what was happening in Iraq was
      available to everyone.

      As I said, the Iraqi websites supporting the Iraqi resistance have
      always been full of information denouncing the crimes of the Mahdi
      army and the resistance sees the Mahdi army as an enemy more dangerous
      than the occupation. It's true that most of these websites are in
      Arabic but the translations were available on the internet.

      There have also been several Iraqi bloggers, from all political
      tendencies and all agree on one thing: the terror coming from
      al-Sadr's death squads. Why? Everybody in Iraq knows a friend or a
      relative or a neighbor who has been kidnapped, tortured and killed by
      the Mahdi army. Naturally many Western writers, journalists and
      bloggers who are not specialized in the Iraqi situation have been
      defending al-Sadr in good faith as a result of the many years of
      propaganda and disinformation that brought to a compete mystification
      of the reality on the ground. But whoever directs this choir surely is
      not in good faith.

      When Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was lynched and assassinated by
      the Mahdi Army, the western left had to explain to its public opinion,
      completely disgusted by what had seen on TV, that what they had seen
      was actually the result of fantastic theories, circulated by the
      western progressists and antiwar campaigner to once again brainwash
      the population. It was not the al-Sadr movement who lynched the Iraqi
      President, as we all had watched on TV. No, it was... (you can fill
      this space with whatever you like: Americans, anti-Sadrists, everyone
      but the real responsible). The antiwar movement's intellectuals had to
      cover once again the responsibilities of this monster.

      Do you personally have any concrete examples that points to the above
      and would like to share ?

      Just two episodes that I can tell you since I was directly involved.

      Last year Gabriele Zamparini and I wrote a little piece on the
      kidnapping, torture and killing of one of President Saddam Hussein's
      lawyer, Kahmis al-Obeidi. Providing qualified testimonies, we
      indicated as probable killers the Mahdy Army.

      The BRussells Tribunal published an article by one Max Fuller where
      the author accused Zamparini and I to "do exactly what the occupation
      wanted". The aim of the Brussells Tribunal and Fuller was to defend
      the Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigades and to accuse whoever dared to
      expose to do exactly what the occupation wanted.

      We replied with a long, detailed article where, one by one, all the
      lies of this Fuller and his supporters were unmasked and exposed for
      what they were. An inept attempt to hide the truth, defend the
      horrible crimes of the Mahdi army, the Badr brigades and obviously
      Iran. This Fuller had never written anything on Iraq before emerging
      as an expert on the Iraqi situation. His only goal was to provide a
      smokescreen to hide what the Shiite militias were doing in Iraq. The
      Brussells Tribunal is still selling Fuller's lies to the four corners
      of the planet.

      The second episode is even more revolting, if possible.

      After the lynching and assassination of Iraqi President Saddam
      Hussein, very few groups and internet websites expressed any real
      criticism and condemnation.

      Among these, two linked websites: Workers World and International
      Action Center (the latter being the organization of Ramsey Clark, one
      of Saddam Hussein's lawyers). These two organizations have also
      organized a protest demonstration for the occasion. This would have
      been a great job if the first preoccupation of these people had not
      been to defend the assassins of the Iraqi President!

      Workers World issued a statement a few minutes after the lynching of
      the Iraqi president;

      "...The Pentagon, which in fact is against any Iraqis who fight for
      their sovereignty, has also launched an offensive against the
      Shiite-based Mahdi Army. The Bush gang is scrambling to come up with a
      way of sending more troops to Iraq than those available in the U.S.
      Army and Marine Corps, National Guard and Reserves..."

      Sara Flounder, a co-director of the International Action Center
      immediately after Saddam's lyinching, posted a shameful article in
      defence of al-Sadr and his drill boys :

      "It is also suspicious that an unofficial video was released showing
      alleged Mahdi Army members taunting Hussein. Hussein's assassination
      follows news that the U.S. has stepped-up attacks and arrests of
      members of the Mahdi Army, led by Moqtada al-Sadr. This offensive too
      is part of a desperate attempt to further divide the country and cut
      off any avenues of negotiation or phased withdrawal for the U.S. forces.

      According to sources who monitor Iraqi resistance web sites, these
      have contained messages warning resistance fighters that the U.S.
      occupiers are trying to provoke battles between the resistance and the
      Mahdi Army. These messages urge fighters to make the main target the
      U.S. occupation forces, and where possible to convince Mahdi Army
      militia forces to join the resistance against the U.S."

      In the same article, Mrs. Flounder insulted President Hussein and sang
      the praises of the Iranian mullahs:

      "In the 1980s Washington was ready to collaborate with the Saddam
      Hussein government when it wanted to use the Iraqis against the
      Iranian Revolution with the Iraq-Iran war. Saddam Hussein was not
      executed because the U.S. occupation forces considered him a dictator.
      Although he had in the past been willing to make deals and to maneuver
      with imperialism, Washington saw his real crime as his refusal to hand
      over sovereignty or the control of the rich resources of Iraq."

      ( After all, not only the ultra pro-Iran Workers world but the most
      part of the western left has always taken the side of Iran against
      Iraq; when they had the choice between a reactionary theocracy and a
      socialist government, the western left had no doubts. Iran has become
      the symbol of the fight against imperialism and capitalism. )

      Workers World website is strictly linked to Ramsey Clark organization.
      After three day this shameful article was reposted on IAC (Ramsey
      Clark's OFFICIAL website)

      Mrs. Sara Flouders and IAC center " organized protest demonstrations
      on Dec. 30 against the execution of Saddam" Hussein" (and in support
      of his executioners? ).

      After Saddam's assassination Workers world and IACenter posted other
      articles in defence of his assassins, Moqtada al-Sadr and the Mahdi army.

      But Sara Flouders went indeed beyond every limit. She wrote that the
      resistance websites praise Moqtada and the Mahdi army. Of course it's
      a lie: all the resistance websites hate that monster. Maybe they hate
      more al-Sadr than they do the occupiers themselves. So doing, Mrs.
      Flounders is besmirching the National Iraqi Resistance.

      After having read Mrs. Flounders article, I sent her the following
      letter. Obviously I did not receive a reply.

      Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 1:41 AM
      Subject: For the attention of Mr. Sara Flounders

      Dear Mrs. Flounders,
      I've just read your article "Bush prepares to escalate Iraq war".

      It reads:

      "It is also suspicious that an "unofficial video" was released showing
      alleged Mahdi Army members taunting Hussein. Hussein's assassination
      follows news that the U.S. has stepped-up attacks and arrests of
      members of the Mahdi Army, led by Moqtada al-Sadr. This offensive too
      is part of a desperate attempt to further divide the country and cut
      off any avenues of negotiation or phased withdrawal for the U.S. forces.

      According to sources who monitor Iraqi resistance web sites, these
      have contained messages warning resistance fighters that the U.S.
      occupiers are trying to provoke battles between the resistance and the
      Mahdi Army. These messages urge fighters to make the main target the
      U.S. occupation forces, and where possible to convince Mahdi Army
      militia forces to join the resistance against the U.S."

      We too monitor Iraq resistance websites, and we have found only
      articles and messages blaming Mr. Moqtada al-Sadr and his genocidal
      gang for having assassinated the Iraqi President in a sordid sectarian
      lynching and for mass murdering iraqis. Probably we are monitoring
      different resistance websites.

      This is indeed the first time that I see an article condemning an
      assassination and praising the assassins. Moreover, as far I as know,
      the Mahdi army fights against the Iraqi National Resistance.
      Could you be so kind to tell me which are those resistance websites
      that defend Mr. Al-Sadr, so that I too can monitor them?
      Many thanks.

      Paola Pisi
      Editor, www.uruknet.info

      PS: These are some pictures from Sadr City:

      PS: These are some pictures from Sadr City:
      y-former-iraqi-president-saddam-hussein-baghdad-s.html ...

      And as I said, I have not received a reply to this day.

      This visit will be continued in Part 2 over a cup of afternoon tea. So
      do you join us, again.


      An Intervisit - Afternoon Tea
      Layla Anwar
      An Arab Woman Blues

      Following my Morning Coffee exchange with my neighbor, Paola Pisi -
      which I do hope you have enjoyed - I would like to let you in on the
      rest of our conversation which took us right into the afternoon in
      time for a nice cup of tea or should I say a small glass of strong
      Iraqi tea...

      Prepare your own hot or cold drink and join us for the rest...

      You mentioned at some point a pro-Iran line, can you elaborate on this?

      Following what I said before, I need to add that the support to
      Moqtada al-Sadr and his death squads must be seen in the more general
      pro-Iran political line of most of the anti-war movement and its
      alternative information.

      Of course Iran has all the rights to use nuclear power for civilian
      purposes and most of Bush's accusations against Iran are false and
      grotesque. Not only doesn't Iran arm the Iraqi resistance, but the
      militias backed by Iran actively fight against that resistance. And
      the Iranian government, far from arming the resistance in Afghanistan,
      actively supports Karzai.

      Iran has helped the wars of aggressions of the USA against Afghanistan
      and Iraq.

      In Iraq, the sectarian militias backed by Iran have been carrying out
      ethnic cleansing in South Iraq and in Baghdad and massacred the
      Palestinians in Iraq.

      All the Iraqis I know and all the Iraqi websites (non pro-Iraqi
      government) are explicit in calling this a double occupation: Iraq has
      been occupied by the US and by Iran.

      A few days ago the spokesperson of one of the main groups of the Iraqi
      resistance, Islamic Army, stated on Al-Jazeera that the Iranian
      occupation is even worse than the American one (obviously the US are
      the main responsible ones for the Iraqi genocide, because without the
      American war of aggression there wouldn't have been any occupation of

      But most of the alternative information on the alternative websites
      have completely ignored the criminal role of Iran in the wars of
      aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq and have constantly engaged in
      a defense of Ahmadinejad.

      Everything Iran does is right, holy and blessed by Allah, every charge
      against Ahmedinejad is a U.S falsehood (when all accusations against
      Saddam Hussein were crystal clear true, no proof needed). Any news not
      favorable to Iran is published by those alternative websites with an
      alert sign next to it: war pimp alert.

      Can we believe that they all are in good faith? Many are surely in
      good faith because four years of brainwashing made a lot of people no
      realize the absurdity of an anti-war movement engaged against a war
      that does not exist and indifferent to the one under way. But is not
      surely in good faith, the one who is orchestrating all this.

      They are all at Ahmedinejad's feet, whatever he does: and this in
      spite of his active help in US attacks against Iraq and Afghanistan,
      and in despite of his support to puppet governments of Maliki and Karzai.

      Iran has become the holy cow of the alternative information. Whoever
      dares to talk about the role of Iran in the Iraqi occupation is
      accused to be a servant of imperialism or worse.

      In all this, the question of a possible war against Iran has had a
      blackmail function.

      In the last three years the alternative websites have published dozens
      of articles on the coming war against Iran, far many more than on the
      real genocide of Iraqis.

      During the past three years they have been speaking about next
      imminent unavoidable USA attack (often "nuclear") to Iran, they call
      the roll, they petition, they gather signatures against a war that
      does not exist and probably will never exist.

      They are in mourning and preventive bereavement since four years for
      "Iranian nuclear holocaust" and don't give a damn about the real one -
      the Iraqi one.

      They have given a thousand certain dates for USA attack (the last one
      was the 6th of April), and as the date is over without anything
      happened, obviously, they start all over again with the following
      date, endlessly.

      As many others, I personally find difficult to believe there will be a
      war against Iran and obviously I am totally against such a war that
      would add devastation to devastation, sorrow to sorrow, and many
      innocent lives will again pay the prize of much madness.

      Of course there are grave tensions between the US and Iran, tensions
      caused by the nuclear question but above all by the spoils of the Iraq
      war. De facto Iran is the real winner of the war against Iraq and the
      US now can't leave the whole Iraq to Iran.

      I personally believe that the US and Iran will finally reach an
      agreement without going to war. Of course I may be wrong – I certainly
      hope not. There has been too much bloodbath already.

      It's a fact that in the last three years every and any rumor has been
      interpreted by some part of the alternative information as the
      beginning of the war against Iran, even giving the exact dates –
      always wrong – of the possible start of the military hostilities,
      coming from anonymous sources, of course.

      It's sure anyway that in all these years the incessant propaganda, day
      after day, article after article, on the war against Iran has
      prevented any serious critical analysis on the role of Iran in the war
      of aggression and occupation against Iraq. Even worse, that propaganda
      helped to mask the actual Iraqi genocide, an "insignificant detail"
      next to the imminent (even nuclear) conflict against Iran.

      In the last few days, even the ORB poll suggesting a total of
      1,220,580 deaths as a result of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 has
      had in many alternative websites much less result and space (if any)
      than the much more important and significant denial to Ahmadinejad to
      visit the Ground Zero in New York (probably another sign that the war
      against Iran is coming?) or the arrest by the US of an Iranian in the
      Iraqi Kurdistan.

      Obviously the US have no right to arrest Iranians in Iraq, for the
      simple reason that the US should not be in Iraq in the first place.
      For the same reason, the US should not have the right to arrest the
      Iraqis in Iraq, but we know that the US have been detaining tens of
      thousands of Iraqis without anyone screaming and denouncing this crime.

      Recently the USA have revealed to have in detention 750 Iraqi children
      (the youngest are just 10 years old!): for them nobody has cried,
      protested and denounced the scandal. But we have read many articles a
      few weeks ago about the detention for a few hours of seven Iranians in
      Baghdad. It seems to me that Iraq has really only very few friends.

      Recently Scott Ritter wrote an article, published by all the
      alternative media, with the title "Iraq Will Have to Wait." His thesis
      is that the Iraqi genocide is a minor event and that the US anti-war
      movement must focus on the Iran war.

      "Of the two problems (the reality of Iraq, the potential of Iran),
      Iran is by far the more important. The war in Iraq isn't going to
      expand tenfold overnight. By simply doing nothing, the Democrats can
      rest assured that Bush's bad policy will simply keep failing. War with
      Iran, on the other hand, can still be prevented.[…] The antiwar
      movement in America must make a strategic decision, and soon: Contain
      the war in Iraq, and stop a war from breaking out in Iran. The war in
      Iraq can be contained simply by letting war be war. There is no
      genuine good news coming out of Iraq. There won't be as long as the
      United States is there. As callous as it sounds, let the war establish
      the news cycle, and let the reality of war serve to contain it. The
      surge has failed. Congress may not act decisively to bring the troops
      home, but it is highly unlikely that Congress will idly approve any
      massive expansion of an unpopular war that continues to fail so publicly."

      Scott Ritter is spreading this thesis, based on anonymous information,
      since February 2005, when he wrote that Bush had already signed the
      order to attack Iran and that it would happen that same June.

      Moreover, Ritter started to say that the Iraq war is a "minor event"
      compared to the imminent war against Iran. (see also:

      In March 2005 he revealed his anonymous sources: "someone".

      "Late last year, in the aftermath of the 2004 Presidential election, I
      was contacted by someone close to the Bush administration about the
      situation in Iraq."

      This time though he made a correction: Bush didn't sign the order to
      attack iran as yet but all must be ready for the following June. Why

      ""When I asked why that date, the source dropped the bombshell:
      because that was when the Pentagon was told to be prepared to launch a
      massive aerial attack against Iran, Iraq's neighbor to the east, in
      order to destroy the Iranian nuclear program."
      In June 2005 there was no the attack against Iran but Ritter insists:
      The US War with Iran has Already Begun

      . This time the anonymous sources have completely changed the plot;
      there won't be the aerial attacks but an attack from the ground:

      "To the north, in neighbouring Azerbaijan, the US military is
      preparing a base of operations for a massive military presence that
      will foretell a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran.
      Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld's interest in Azerbaijan may have
      escaped the blinkered Western media, but Russia and the Caucasus
      nations understand only too well that the die has been cast regarding
      Azerbaijan's role in the upcoming war with Iran."

      Ritter's rich, detailed account this time comes without any revelation
      of the sources but I guess it must have been again that "someone".

      In February 2006, Ritter again changes version and this time the
      attack against Iran becomes nuclear:
      "Ritter also predicted the military strategy for war with Iran. First,
      American forces will bomb Iran. If Iranians don't overthrow the
      current government, as Bush hopes they will, Iran will probably attack
      Israel. Then, Ritter said, the United States will drop a nuclear bomb
      on Iran."

      But this is not the only Ritter's revelation. Ritter writes:
      "John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, 'will deliver
      a speech that has already been written. It says America cannot allow
      Iran to threaten the United States and we must unilaterally defend

      How does he know? "How do I know this? I've talked to Bolton's
      speechwriter," Ritter said."

      Why all these people must go to confide with talkative Ritter is a
      mystery nobody can explain. Anyway, Bolton could not make that speech
      because in the meanwhile after a few months he left his position at
      the U.N.

      In October 2006 Ritter reveals that Israel didn't want a war against
      Iraq but against Iran.

      Who knows who told him this? Maybe that "someone"?

      In January 2007 Ritter writes,

      "If I were to be invited to go to Washington today and speak to the
      Democratic equivalent of the Republican Theme Team, I would spend very
      little time on the issue of Iraq. Right or wrong, the Iraq War was a
      product of domestic American politics, not any genuine threat to
      national security, and as such the solution for Iraq will be derived
      not from whatever happens inside Iraq, surge or no surge, but rather
      from what happens here in America."

      Since Scott Ritter started to voice his different oracles on the war
      against Iran and say that the war in Iraq was a minor event compare to
      the imminent attack against Iran (it was February 2005), more than a
      million Iraqis have been slaughtered. It was February 2005 and a few
      months earlier, in the fall 2004, the first Lancet study was published
      with those 100,000 Iraqi deaths as a result of the war since the
      invasion in March 2003. Today we have more than 1.2 million Iraqi

      The effects of this disinformation campaign on the anti-war movement
      have been disastrous and the imminent war against Iran has been used
      to hijack the public attention from the real war and the real genocide
      against the Iraqi people.

      Of course Ritter has not been the only one to ride this campaign.
      There have been hundreds of articles and analysis on the imminent war
      against Iran, always new dates were announced and in the meanwhile the
      Iraqi genocide was being ignored.

      The brainwash has been so successful and the war that there isn't has
      become for everybody more important than the real war and the real
      genocide that when Ritter wrote the last article saying that Iraq Will
      Have to Wait and that the war against Iran was far more important than
      the war against Iraq, people didn't object the monstrosity of this
      statement. It had become normal in our age of propaganda and

      Another effect of this campaign has been to cut that little support to
      the Iraqi resistance since all the Iraqi resistance groups agree to
      denounce the double occupation, from the US and Iran.

      Having been around Uuruk land for quite some, you probably know better
      than the average layperson , the current Iraqi scene, the players, and
      the forces. What are your impressions on that subject?

      It's already difficult to follow what is going on at the present but
      it's impossible to predict the future.

      What is certain is that Iraq will be divided in three parts. This is
      probably the best article I have read on this subject.

      It's not clear if the sectarian Maliki Government will stay till the
      partition or there will be first the attempt of a fake national unity

      Until recently there seemed to be a strong propaganda in favour of
      al-Sadr with a prospective of an Allawi-Sadr-Saleh-al-Mutlak's
      government with the participation of some traitors who should
      represent the resistance and the involvement of the UN.

      This project has been strongly supported from that part of the US
      establishment that has opposed the neo-cons from the beginning and
      that now has been collecting much support from within the US powerful
      interests, including some neo-cons now that probably the tripartition
      of Iraq - surely the original plan - has failed, at least for the moment.

      Obviously an eventual Allawi-Sadr-Saleh-al-Mutlak's government
      couldn't be possibly worse than the actual Maliki's puppets. But it
      could open the doors to an even greater criminalization of and war
      against the real resistance.

      Even now the U.S propaganda tells us that there is only al-Qaeda that
      fights against the U.S occupation of Iraq. An eventual new government
      with inside traitors and the fake Iraqi resistance would probably mean
      an increasing of the U.S propaganda; all those outside this kind of
      government will be defined terrorists and all part of al-Qaeda, when
      every body knows that al-Qaeda in Iraq is a group marginalized and
      fought by the true Iraqi resistance (and probably – at least in part
      -it is a black-op: I don't like conspiracy theories in general, but it
      looks as al-Qaeda works for US interests).

      In this case, the barbaric assassination of Saddam Hussein, the
      legitimate president of the Republic of Iraq would have been a
      metaphor of Iraq's end: as the USA gave the Iraqi president to al-Sadr
      and his Mahdi Army so they could lynch him, in the same way the US
      could give the whole Iraq to the same criminals.

      But in the latest weeks it seems al-Sadr has lost the support he used
      to have and it seems he was marginalized while Hakim seems to get more
      powerful. Maybe Maliki will succeed to stay in power till the
      partition of Iraq.

      But again, this is just a hypothesis, and of course I still hope in
      the victory of the Iraqi resistance.

      You mentioned that Iraq is finished as a country. Imagine you have a
      magic wand in your hands, what would it take to have an Iraq again?

      I am not Iraqi so from my point of view, as a person from a Western
      country, the only magical thing would be to bring the clock back to
      before the 1991 war of aggression against Iraq and before the
      genocidal embargo; before the long war of aggression, started in 1991,
      waged by the West against your country.

      For the rest, only Iraqis can decide what's better for their own
      country; certainly it's not for me to decide.

      And so ended our afternoon conversation over a small glass of strong
      Iraqi tea.

      I don't know why I have this bitter taste left in my mouth. Maybe
      truth is caustic to swallow...But at least, I have a good neighbor who
      speaks it.

      May you pay heed as well, for time is running out and it will soon be
      a very dark night fall for all of us...

      WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE To subscribe to this group, send an email
      to:wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC
      VIEWhttp://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/ Need some good karma?
      Appreciate the service?Please consider donating to WVNS today.Email
      ummyakoub@... for instructions. To leave this list, send an
      email to:wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.