This is absolutley inappropriate for a socialist list.
"Your silence will not protect you"
--Audre Lorde
http://www.geocities.com/abnerdillard/Stan_Goff.html
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mrs. Jela Jovanovic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 2:27 AM
Subject: [L-I] Fw: [ArabForum] Jews Want Christians and Muslims to Fight
With East Other
----- Original Message -----
From: InfoTimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 5:54 PM
Subject: [ArabForum] Jews Want Christians and Muslims to Fight With East
Other
>
> ==================================================
> INFORMATION TIMES: http://www.InformationTimes.com
> ==================================================
>
> JEWS WANT CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS TO FIGHT WITH EACH OTHER
>
> Masterminds of Zionism are working for a clash between
> Christianity and Islam.
>
> Racist Zionists are Struggling to Enslave and Dominate the Whole
> World.
>
> U.S. Government Rulers Are Enemies of All Muslims and All Arabs.
>
> American rulers or outlaws have declared their Racist War
> against Islam, Afghanistan, all Afghans, all Arabs and all
> Muslims without presenting any legal evidence to the American
> people to prove or justify their decisions/reasons for attacking
> nations to seek revenge for the September 11 airplane attacks on
> the Bush Theocracy.
>
> Iraqi President Saddam Hussein Second Letter to the American
> People
> http://www.uruklink.net/iraq/emss17.htm
>
> In the name of God, the most Compassionate, the most Merciful
>
> Once again, we make a return to comment on the incident that
> took place in America on September 11, not for its significance
> as such, but for the implications surrounding it and its
> ramifications in terms of results at the levels of the world of
> which we are a part or rather a special case as a nation known
> for the basis and uniqueness of its faith.
>
> On previous occasions, we have already said that the United
> States needs to try wisdom after it has tried force over the
> last fifty years or even more. We still see that this is the
> most important thing the world must advise the U.S. about if
> there is anybody who wants to say something or adopt an attitude
> towards this incident [of Bloody Tuesday], and who is concerned
> about world peace and stability. This is the case if the U.S.
> and the world are convinced with the dictum and the verdict,
> namely that what has happened came to America from without, not
> within.
>
> It is among the indisputables in the law or general norms, in
> dealings, in social life and even political life that any charge
> should be based on evidence if the one who makes the accusation
> is keen to convince others or has respect to that who listens to
> the accusation or is concerned with it as part of the minimal
> obligation of his duty. But the U.S. has made the charge before
> verification, even before possessing the minimum evidence about
> such a charge. It has even not availed itself the opportunity to
> verify things, first and foremost. It started a drive of
> incitement and threat, or said something irresponsible by
> broadening the base of charges to include states, circles and
> individuals.
>
> American officials set about making charges or giving the guided
> media, the Zionist media and its symbols within the authority
> and outside it a free hand in order to prepare the public mind
> for the charge. What does this mean?
>
> In a nutshell, it means that the U.S. gives no heed to the law
> or rely on it. It has no concern for the counter viewpoint in
> line with its dangerous policy towards this issue or others.
> That is why we find that it takes no pain to secure evidence.
> Therefore, it needs no evidence to pass its verdict. It is
> content with saying something, passing verdicts, whether people
> other than the American officials are convinced or not. This
> means, in keeping with the policy it has pursued since 1990,
> that it has no regard for the viewpoint of the peoples and
> governments in the world in its entirety. It gives it no weight
> or heed despite the fact that it claims to be the (number one)
> democratic state in the world. The basic meaning of democracy
> even by the standards of its initial emergence in the Western
> World is that facts should lay bare before the people so that
> the people would assume their responsibility with full
> awareness. Our description of the U.S. attitude vis-a-vis this
> incidence is a practical description. It means that American
> officials do not respect even their own people's viewpoint, let
> alone the world's. In this conduct, the American officials
> behave as though they are deluding the peoples, beating up the
> misleading media drums to do the job of mobilizing them against
> enemy or enemies against whom no evidence about their
> accountability for the action they are accused of has been
> furnished. All the officials there seek to achieve is to foment
> the hostility of the peoples of the U.S. against whoever they
> assumed to be an enemy before the incident has occurred. The
> tax-payer would be in a position where he is prepared to accept
> the blackmail trap arms manufacturers have laid for him in
> addition to the wrangled interests on the level of senior
> military and civil officials in the U.S.
>
> One might argue that political verdicts do not always emanate
> from the same bases, procedures or courses adopted by the
> judiciary or criminal courts. Rather, precedents and backgrounds
> could suffice to arrive at a conclusion which may prove right.
> Even if, for the sake of argument, we go along with this notion,
> just to keep the debate uninterrupted, we say that this could be
> true about the media and statements which are of media and
> propaganda nature, even political statements. In this instance,
> the error could not be necessarily fatal.
>
> But is this permissible in war?
>
> Once more, we say that war is not an ordinary case. Neither is
> it procedural in the life of nations and peoples. It is a case
> of unavoidable exception. Evidence based on conclusion is not
> enough, even if it is solid to make a charge against a given
> party or several parties, a state or several states to the
> extent that the one who makes the charge declares war on the
> party or parties against which charges were made and bears the
> responsibility of whatever harm might be sustained by his own
> people and the others including death, the destruction of
> possessions and the ensuing serious repercussions. It is only
> the U.S. administration that has made the charge against a
> certain religion [Islam], not just a given nationality.
>
> Let us also accept the interventions of those who contend that
> the U.S. has not said this through its senior officials and
> within this limitation. In fact, some officials have denied that
> their policy is one of making the charge against a given
> religion. However, we believe that the lack of evidence to make
> a charge, the disrespect to the golden sound rule of proper
> accusation which leads to the declaration of war and restricts
> the charge to a certain nation, states, designations and
> individuals, can only be understood as a premeditated charge
> without evidence that the action was carried out by Muslims.
> This is complemented by free reins for the media to float it, to
> prepare the public opinion to accept it or to be tuned to it so
> that anything opposed to it would sound like a discord.
>
> Below is the list [of defendants]:
>
> Afghanistan, Usama bin Laden, the Islamic Qaida (base) party or
> organization, Syria, Yemen, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine
> [Iran, Libya and Sudan]. The list may be curtailed or enlarged
> according to the pretexts of the policy of power, which has
> found its opportunity or the power that is looking for its
> opportunity to declare war. Whether the items of the list are
> increased or cut down, would all this mean anything but the
> accusations against Muslims, including, or rather in the
> forefront of whom are Arabs? Why should this cross the minds of
> U.S. officials unless they have basically assumed themselves and
> their policy to be enemies of Arabs and Muslims?
>
> Could this charge mean anything other than the desire to settle
> old scores, all based on the assumption that their foreign
> policies are incompatible with the American policy, or they do
> not give in to the U.S.-Zionist policy vis-a-vis the world and
> Palestine?
>
> Consider statements by the U.S. officials who say the war would
> be long because it is aimed at several states. Notice the
> blackmail or better the terrorism they mean and which was
> designed to include several states and parties on a list that
> could be longer or shorter in accordance with a policy of sheer
> terrorism and blackmail, first and foremost, the illusion that
> Arabs and Muslims and the people of Palestine would leave the
> arena for the aggression of the Zionist entity [Israel] and its
> vile imperialism.
>
> These charges which were made without consideration and in an
> instantaneous way mean that the mentality of the U.S.
> administration has been pre-loaded, prior to the [Sept. 11]
> incident, even if we apply the norms of today and not the norms
> of the law. It has made assumption tantamount to conclusive
> verdict, namely that 'Islam with Arabs in the lead of Muslims
> are enemies of the U.S.' More precisely, the U.S. on the level
> of its rulers has taken it as a final verdict that it is the
> enemy of Arabs and Muslims. In so doing, they have stored the
> final verdict in their minds. On this basis, they built their
> preparation in advance. On this basis too, they prepared (the
> mind) of the computer, which was programmed on this assumption,
> which has taken the form of a conclusive verdict. This reminds
> us of the free reins given to political writers, the so-called
> thinkers, inclupast heads of state and ministers who the Zionist
> policy wanted, over the last ten or fifteen years, to assume
> that faith based on the religion of Islam with the ensuing
> implication is the new enemy of the U.S. and the West and it is
> the backdrop against which American rulers act, with the
> participation of some Western rulers who came under the pressure
> and interpretations of Zionist thought and scheming.
>
> Obviously, this assumption is no longer a pure assumption for
> the purpose of scrutiny testing and examination. It has become
> part and parcel of conclusive verdicts. That is why the verdict
> was instantaneous, without consideration or waiting for the
> evidence to have a basis, evidence on which the pre-supposition
> is based in order to be a conclusive one. The charge has not
> only been made against all governments in Islamic or Arab states
> but also against all Islamic peoples, including the Arab Nation
> and to all designations, parties, states and governments whose
> policies do not please the U.S., whose policies and positions
> are not palatable to the U.S. in particular or because they call
> for the liberation of Palestine and a halt to the U.S.
> aggression on Iraq, and adherence to their independence and
> their nations' heritage.
>
> Anyone who is surprised by this practical conclusion, allowing
> courteous words to be said on the margin of verdicts to replace
> it, has to contemplate our verdict:
>
> The U.S. has declared it is at war. It is gearing up for war
> since the early moments in the wake of the [Sept. 11] incident,
> as though it were the opportunity those concerned have been
> waiting for. It has allocated the necessary funds for the war,
> or part of them. Have you ever heard or read in the near on far
> history, of a state declaring war before even defining who its
> enemy is? The opportunity to declare the state of war came with
> the incidence that befell it. It is not yet known whether it was
> carried out by a foreign enemy or from inside [the USA]. Thus,
> the war declared by America would cease to be a reason for the
> incidence. Rather, it is the incident that has availed the
> opportunity to launch the war, which has not been a result of
> the incident under any circumstances!
>
> One might contend it is the nature of the incident, the scale of
> pain the American officials felt as a result of what their
> peoples suffered, the embarrassment they felt due to the
> sufferings that hit the people there, that prompted American
> rulers to rush to declare war. The suffering of the people is
> not caused by the incidence alone, but by the failure of the
> authorities concerned which have been preoccupied in hatching
> conspiracies abroad, assassination and sabotage operations
> against world states and freedom-loving people. They rushed to
> declare war and name the parties so that they would leave no
> option but to launch the war. Once again, we say, could this be
> a reason and ground to facilitate the charge and the subsequent
> resolutions, why should not it be a ground for others as well?
>
> If the fall in the whirlwind of rage, not the pre-meditated
> planning, results into war resolutions on their senior level
> inside the U.S., then why you should not expect someone to
> direct his fire to it under the pressure of similar
> considerations or danger?
>
> Once again we say that the U.S. administration and those in the
> West who allied themselves with it against Arabs and Muslims,
> now and in the past, or rather against the world, in all the
> arenas that witnessed the scourges of the alliance, need to take
> recourse to wisdom after they have had power at their disposal
> and deployed it to such an extent that it ceased to frighten
> those who experienced it. Dignity, the sovereignty of the
> homeland and the freedom of the sincere man is a sacred case,
> along with other sacred things which real Muslims uphold,
> including, Arabs who are in the lead.
>
> If this is the practical description of the pre-mediated
> intentions that decided war against Arabs and Muslims, while the
> party that took the decision waits for a cover to declare a war,
> and may launch it against those whom it has been biding time,
> could there be anyone who could avert it other than God, the
> Almighty? -- Anyone other than the will of the peoples, when
> they become fully aware, after they know and fear God, after
> they have believed in Him.
>
> "For us Allah (God) sufficeth, and He is the best disposer of
> affairs."--(Holly Quran).
>
> Once again, we say that the people do not believe any more the
> slogans of the United States, except those whom it intends evil
> against. Even when it says it is against terrorism, the United
> States doesn't apply this to the World, and according to the
> International Law. But according to its will it imposes what it
> wants on the World and refuses what it thinks might be harmful
> to it only, and it exports the other kinds of evils to the
> World. To certify this, could the United States tell its peoples
> how many organizations working against their own countries are
> existing in the United States? And how many of those, the term
> terrorism could be applied to if one standard is used and not
> the double standards? And how many are those it finances overtly
> and covertly? How many are those accused with killing and theft
> in other countries are now in the United States? If the United
> States presents such inventory to its people and to the World,
> and initiated implementing one standard and one norm on its
> agents and those it calls friends -- And if it starts the same
> storm against the killers in the Zionist entity [Israel]
> responsible of killing Palestinians in occupied Palestine and in
> Tunis and Lebanon -- And if it charges its own secret services
> with what they have committed in special actions and
> assassinations which they brag to publish in the form of
> stories. Only then one can believe the new American slogans that
> America is trying to make them believe. Only then it becomes
> legitimate to ask the world to do what it believes is useful for
> the security of the World.
>
> This is a chance to air an opinion whose time has come. It is
> also addressed to the people of the U.S. and the Western people
> in general. Zionism has been planning for the domination of the
> world since its well-known conference it convened in Basle in
> 1897. Ever since, it has been working in this direction. It has
> scored successes you can feel by controlling finance, media and
> commerce centers in your countries and whoever rules in your
> name, here and there, in decision-making centers. But its
> domination is not yet fulfilled to have its will absolute and
> final. This could only be feasible when two heavenly faiths
> [Islam and Christianity] upheld by the biggest bloc in the world
> are thrown into conflict. Otherwise, Zionism would be denied the
> accomplishment of all its ambitions. The masterminds of Zionism
> are, therefore, working for a clash between Christianity and
> Islam on the assumption that this, and only this, could secure
> the chance to dominate the world, when new opportunities open up
> for their domination. Could there be any better situation than
> that when the stealing dog finds his household pre-occupied by a
> grief so that it could win the thing it has set its eye on, the
> thing that wetted its mouth? Would the sensible men and women in
> the West become aware of this Zionist conspiracy? Or would
> Zionism outsmart them to attain its aims?
>
> INFOTIMES INTERNET-WEB LINKS:
>
> Jews Want Christians and Muslims to Fight With East Other
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/InfoTimes/message/1081
>
> Iraqi President Saddam Hussein Second Letter to the American
> People
> http://www.uruklink.net/iraq/emss17.htm
>
> The Iraqi Presidency
> http://www.uruklink.net/iraq/epage1.htm
>
> [Publisher: Information Times
> http://www.InformationTimes.com
> America's international daily Internet newspaper
> Chief Editor: Syed Adeeb - Washington, DC, U.S.A.
> Copyright © 2001 Information Times. All Rights Reserved.]
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Get your FREE credit report with a FREE CreditCheck
> Monitoring Service trial
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/MDsVHB/bQ8CAA/ySSFAA/rfOolB/TM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
> Arab Forum is the Information Times daily Internet/e-mail newsletter.
>
> - Post Messages: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> - Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> - Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> - Arab Forum Editor E-Mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> - Arab Forum
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ArabForum
> - Information Times
> http://www.InformationTimes.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Leninist-International mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
_______________________________________________
Leninist-International mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
