On Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction
مستقبل الانتفاضة
وطبيعة الصراع في فلسطين
September 23, 2002
The *FREE ARAB VOICE* (http://www.freearabvoice.org)
(Your Voice in a World where Money, Steel, and Fire Have
Turned Justice Mute)
On the Second Anniversary of the Intifada, we trace in this issue of the
Free Arab Voice (FAV) a collection of threads linking the struggle on the
three fronts of Palestine, Iraq, and the Arab and Muslim communities in
North America:
- A Free Arab Voice Editorial: An Overview of the Arab Scene (see text
below)
- (In Arabic) FAV's Editorial افتتاحية الصوت العربي الحر
- (In Arabic) The Future of the Intifada and the Nature of the Struggle in
Palestine, by Ibrahim Alloush
بمناسبة الذكرى الثانية: مستقبل الانتفاضة وطبيعة الصراع في فلسطين? د. إبراهيم
علوش
- A Free Arab Voice Practice Quiz: What Do You Know About Iraqi Weapons of
Mass Destruction (WMD)?
(Ten Solved Questions, Plus A Bonus Question, see text below)
- The Real 'Suicidal' Muslims in North America: Muslims trying to appease
bigotry will bring about more bigotry. On the Georgia farce and the Muslims
who took pride in playing informants in Buffalo, by Nabila Harb
- A Call to Impeach Prince Saud al Faisal, the Foreign Minister of Saudi
Arabia, for High Treason, by A Reader from the Arabian Peninsula
- WHEN THE ZIONISTS TAKE DOWN OUR FLAG, TAKE THEM DOWN!
The Resistance Must Escalate When Zionists Squeeze Harder
By Ali al Askari (text below)
- Readers' Corner: But What About Saddam? On using Saddam as an excuse to
attack Iraq, by Tom Sager
- A Report on the Protest Against Netanyahu's Visit to Concordia University
in Montreal, Canada, by Chadi Serhal
- The Moral High Ground: the case for unconditional resistance in
Palestine
- Culture: Two Translated Papers from the Arab Renaissance:
- The Powerful Jewish Lobby, by Mark Weber
- (In Arabic) The Powerful Jewish Lobby
دراسة عن اللوبي اليهودي القوي في الولايات المتحدة? بقلم مارك ويبر
- The 'Anniversary of 9/11': Realities and Illusions
- Notes to the Readers of the Free Arab Voice
#####################################################
#####################################################
1) A Free Arab Voice Editorial: An Overview of the Arab Scene
"Regime change" is now the watchword in Washington as
ships loaded with tons of American weaponry clog the
ports of Qatar, Kuwait, Djibouti, and the Zionist
Entity. On the media front, meanwhile, George Bush?s
coterie of neo-conservative advisers churn out articles
and hold conferences slamming one Arab country after
another, preparing the media and the world public for
a vast campaign to topple governments and redraw borders
in the Arab region to suit US and Zionist interests.
They charge Iraq with "seeking to acquire weapons of
mass destruction." They fault the Palestine Authority
whose mass arrests of its own citizens and close
cooperation with "Israeli" security and the CIA have
nevertheless failed to stop attacks inside the Zionist
entity. As Congress draws up sanctions legislation
for Syria, Richard Armitage in the State Department
says that Lebanon?s Hizb Allah, an ally of Damascus,
is on America?s list of future targets because it owes
the United States a "blood debt." Even America?s
staunchest Arab ally, Saudi Arabia, has been dubbed
the "kernel of evil" because of the high proportion of
Saudi citizens among the 19 hijackers of September
11th.
Despite all this rhetoric about democracy, nuclear
proliferation, "terrorism" and "blood debts,"
Washington?s real aim ? to seize direct control of the
Arab Nation ? comes through clearly when we notice
that America has but one "cure" for all these various
supposed concerns ? regime change. Never mind, of
course, that the Zionists could be said to owe a blood
debt to Americans as well, at least over the US
intelligence ship the U.S.S. Liberty which they
attacked in 1967, or that the Jewish state reportedly
has an arsenal of some 400 nuclear warheads in
addition to stocks of chemical and biological weapons.
To those of us who regard democracy as more than a
demagogic slogan, it is particularly galling that the
US should claim that it desires "democracy" for
Palestinians. It turns out that Washington has its
own very peculiar definition of "democracy." This
includes the banning of any Palestinian group that
actively opposes the Zionist occupation of their
country, and the arrest of individuals who criticize
the Palestine Authority?s effort to stamp out
resistance to the Zionist occupation. The US has
defined the "rule of law" as meaning that orders from
the Palestinian Supreme Court should be scrapped if
they call for the release of opposition figures
imprisoned without trial or charge by the Palestine
Authority.
In an effort to save America the trouble of changing
their regimes, several Arab capitals have rushed to
respond to the strident US challenge by reassuring
Washington that they hear and obey and that their
borders are open to US military "advisers" to "guide"
their battle against "terrorism." There was even an
unconfirmed report that Saudi Arabia has offered to
pay for half the cost of an American war on Iraq.
In line with this, Arab states as well as other
countries supposedly "friendly" or "neutral" towards
Iraq (such as Russia, France, and China) began putting
pressure on Iraq unconditionally to open its doors to
the weapons inspectors withdrawn by the United States
just before its air offensive on Iraq in December
1998. This pressure, though couched in terms of
"avoiding bloodshed" was the worst kind of
backstabbing. On 16 September, Iraq announced that it
was indeed allowing the return of the inspectors.
This -- probably correct -- tactical move serves to
contain the impact of that backstabbing. Yet the
pressure by these states on Iraq had a totally
different meaning: it gave legitimacy to demand that
inspectors be allowed to resume their activity
unconditionally, without regard to the Iraqi demands
that the inspections regime not be open-ended, that
sanctions be lifted, and that disarmament of Iraq be
integrated into a disarmament of the entire region,
including that of the Zionist entity. The "fraternal
and friendly" states' pressure amounted to their
endorsement of the preposterous demands of the US and
the Security Council and this jeopardized Iraq's
strategic position. Particularly in such a critical
situation their own strategic interests would dictate
that they should stand with Iraq unconditionally.
Instead, they tried to appease aggression in their
search for a mirage of safety. That is precisely
where this sort of capitulation is self-destructive.
Taking that self-destructive course yet further and
conveniently forgetting the stand they took at the
Arab League summit in March against any US attack on
Iraq, Arab capitals, one after another, have announced
that they would have "no choice" but to support such
an invasion, provided that Washington first obtains a
covering resolution from the United Nations.
In stark contrast to this disgraceful vista of regimes
scurrying about to do America?s bidding and cooperate
with the Zionist entity, the Palestinian resistance,
in particular the martyrdom bombers and the country of
Iraq ? its leadership and its people ? stand defiant.
It is not difficult to imagine that an end of the
intifada and resistance in Palestine would constitute
a signal victory for aggressive Zionism, not only over
the Palestinian people but over all Arabs, Muslims,
and honest people of the world whose oppressors would
daily remind them that resistance to injustice is
futile and "suicidal." No less would an imperialist
success in Iraq spell disaster for all independent
people in the region and the world. Just as the
disappearance of the USSR, for all its weaknesses and
faults, has left the globe at the mercy of the one
remaining superpower, now able to dictate its terms to
all with virtually no opposition, so the establishment
of an American puppet regime in Iraq and the
consequent opening of the inevitable Zionist "embassy"
in Baghdad would drive the rest of the Arab and
Islamic regimes, already panicking in the face of
American threats, into docile subservience to the
American-Zionist juggernaut. With 65 percent of the
world?s oil plus the dividends of the Caspian and an
Afghan pipeline at their command, not to mention
control of the most crucial strategic crossroads on
the planet, the Zionist-American global power would
have a stranglehold on the development of every people
on earth.
In the face of this mad campaign to remake the Arab
world under the banner of "regime change," support for
the intifada and for Iraqi resistance are no longer
merely a decent moral choice. They are now an urgent
necessity for all free people on earth.
#####################################################
4) A Free Arab Voice Practice Quiz: What Do You Know About Iraqi Weapons of
Mass Destruction (WMD)?
(Ten Solved Questions, Plus A Bonus Question)
Q: Who Used Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq in 1991?
A: The United States used between 300 and 350 tons of depleted uranium on
Iraq in 1991 according to American and British sources and to physical
evidence obtained by Iraq. As a result, the Iraqi environment got so
polluted, cancer cases increased by 55.6% between 1991 and 1994, while
un-induced abortions increased by 50.2 %, and deformities amongst newborns
increased by 254% during the same period, according to Iraqi health
officials.
Q: Who Tried to Evade and Misdirect Arms Inspections of Weapons of Mass
Destruction in Iraq?
A: According to former chief weapons inspector in Iraq Scott Ritter, in a
speech before the Iraqi Parliament on September 9, 2002, the United States
used inspection teams in Iraq in missions that were completely outside the
prerogatives mandated by the United Nations Security Council. Ralf Ekeus, a
former head of the committee charged with disarming Iraq, said on Swedish
Radio on July 28, 2002, that the United States had used inspection teams to
pursue its own political agenda, including monitoring the movements of
President Saddam Hussein. In the fall of 1991, David Kay, a former head of
United Nations arms inspection teams, had delivered 25,000 Iraqi documents
to the United States without even consulting with the United Nations.
Moreover, on November 29, 2001, CNN's website reported: "Iraq, particularly
after revelations from one of the chief U.N. weapons inspectors that UNSCOM
was consulting with Israeli intelligence, also believed the inspectors were
spies, rather than an independent U.N. body". UNSCOM, of course, is the
United Nations special commission set up to disarm Iraq, and you can find
the exact source of the quote from CNN at:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/11/29/iraq.arraf.otsc/
We should also mention the fact that when Scott Ritter resigned from UNSCOM
- because he thought Madeleine Albright was being too DOVISH on Iraq- he was
being investigated by the FBI for passing off information to "Israel". He
admitted publicly to relaying information to certain states in the following
interview with National Public Radio (NPR):
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/ritter_8-31.html
in the last paragraph before the subtitle "Mr. Ritter: "Iraq still has
prescribed weapons capability".
[Please copy the material in those links to your own archives, as the Free
Arab Voice has found in the past that some of the links it provided from the
Western media, which tended to inadvertently expose American or Zionist
policies, such as the ones above, were quickly removed - FAV]
Q: But Aren't Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction a Threat to Iraq's Neighbors
and World Peace?
A: In fact, Iraq never had nuclear weapons. Its only nuclear reactor,
Tammuz (otherwise known as Osirak), built under the supervision of the
French for civilian uses, was destroyed by "Israel" in July 1981. In the
meantime, "Israel" has continued to stockpile hundreds of nuclear warheads,
thus remaining the only nuclear power in the region with the blessing of the
United States government. "Israel's" nuclear program began in 1957. It has
been refusing adamantly to sign the non-proliferation treaty for a long time
now. And, according to Ha'artz Daily (August 15, 2002), "Israeli" officials
have openly made nuclear threats against Iraq, supposedly to preempt a
possible Iraqi strike in case the United States attacked Iraq. It is
strange that this public admission to the possession of nuclear warheads did
not raise the ire of the international community, and that nobody thought
that was a threat to regional peace except the potential victims.
Q: But What About Iraq's Chemical Weapons Which Are Iraq's Main Type Of
Weapons Of Mass Destruction?
A: As for Iraq's chemical and biological weapons, CNN reports that: "The
original U.N. special commission set up to disarm Iraq -- UNSCOM -- spent
seven years in Iraq trying to piece together how many weapons Iraq had and
what happened to them. When they withdrew in December 1998, most of the
weapons had been accounted for but according to UNSCOM there were still key
pieces of information missing, particularly about Iraq's biological weapons
programme. Some members of the Security Council argue that the file could
never be 100 percent closed and that they should agree with Iraq on a way to
lift sanctions. UNSCOM withdrew in 1998 just hours before the United States
and Britain launched a major bombing in Baghdad". In other words, Iraq's
chemical weapons were totally destroyed by the time UNSCOM left in 1998. A
chief weapons inspector said on National Public Radio on February 13, 1998,
that weapons inspections have effectively destroyed the major targets
related to chemical or biological weapons in Iraq.
Q: But What About Those Iraqi Biological Weapons That Have NOT Been Properly
Accounted For Presumably?
A: As Sheryl McCarthy pointed out in Newsday on May 20, 2002, there is, so
far, no known method of delivering biological weapons to distant targets via
missiles or rockets. This is not to mention that Iraq is forbidden by the
United Nations from having long-range missiles. If Iraq still has any
biological weapons left, it cannot possibly use them without hurting itself
first and foremost. Given the fact that there are many states in the world
pursuing a nuclear weapons program, for example, Australia and Argentina,
and given the fact "Israel" is the foremost nuclear, chemical, and
biological power in the region, Iraq feels it is unjustly being singled out
in a blatant double standard here. What is has now in the way of weapons,
if any, is nothing compared to what others have or are trying to have.
We should also mention here the fact that the U.S. officially admits to
having biological agents (e.g., the anthrax powder that is said to have been
sent to U.S. senators and others, supposedly by a disgruntled employee in a
U.S. lab). See also the following:
http://www.sundayherald.com/27735
where it is mentioned that a report drawn up "for Dick Cheney (now
vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz
(Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby
(Cheney's chief of staff)", "hints that, despite threatening war against
Iraq for developing weapons of mass destruction, the US may consider
developing biological weapons -- which the nation has banned -- in decades
to come. It says: 'New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal',
biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will take
place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of
microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific
genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a
politically useful tool".
Q: Isn't it True Though that the United States Wants to Overthrow the Iraqi
Regime to Eliminate the Threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction Seeping to
Terrorists, Especially After the Experience of September 11th?
A: First of all, the decision to overthrow the Iraqi regime was made long
before September 11th. For example, section three of the Iraq Liberation
Act of 1998 provides for overthrowing the Iraqi regime. Secondly, the
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was quoted in the media in February 2002
as saying that it has no evidence whatsoever that Iraq was involved in
attacks on Americans since 1993, and never ever on Americans on American
soil. In other words, the United States government's has never been able to
establish any serious connection between Iraq and what it calls the 'war on
terrorism'. Thirdly, the plans of the United States to invade and overthrow
regimes in other countries, as underlined in Bush's speech at West Point in
early June 2002, on the basis of allegedly potential threats, is a direct
threat to the sovereignty of all states in the world and the stability of
international relations, not just Iraq.
Q: Then What Did Iraq Have To Hide By Refusing To Allow Weapons Inspectors
Back Into Iraq?
A: Keep in mind that the U.S. Senate has enacted a law in 1997 allowing the
president of the United States to prevent international weapons inspectors
from entering American weapons sites under the pretext of 'preserving
national security', even though the U.S. is the only state in the world that
has ever used weapons of mass destruction before. As mentioned above, Iraq
has had to constantly deal with irregular activities by weapons inspectors.
Moreover, after seven years, seven months, and ten days of weapons
inspections that were concluded with a massive strike in 1998, only hours
after international inspectors pulled out, Iraq has been demanding that
weapons inspections be tied to some kind of time schedule and to an end to
the sanctions. This anxiety about endless weapons inspections has been
exacerbated by the fact that sanctions on Iraq, more than twelve years after
the Iraqi pullout from Kuwait, have crippled the Iraqi economy, prevented
the reconstruction of the damaged Iraqi infrastructure after the war, and
have so far killed more than 1.75 million Iraqis, many of whom are children.
In short, Iraq does not object to the principle of weapons inspections. It
only demands that weapons inspectors not be American, British, or "Israeli"
spies, and that weapons inspections be tied to a time schedule for lifting
the crippling sanctions on Iraq.
Q: If That Is So, Then Why Is The United States Government So Adamant About
Invading Iraq Under The Pretext of Disarming Iraq?
A: American officials have said openly and repeatedly that the United States
wants to overthrow the regime in Iraq regardless of whether it allows arms
inspectors back into Iraq or not. This was underlined by the insistence of
the Bush administration to push the U.S. Congress and the United Nations
Security Council for a resolution allowing the use of force against Iraq
even after it accepted to allow arms inspectors back unconditionally, as
unfair as unconditional inspections are, in order to thwart another
aggression. Hence, American officials do NOT hide their intent of installing
a pro-American regime in Iraq, regardless of what happens to arms
inspections and what they accomplish. Only the American and the British
media try to insinuate this chimerical linkage between disarming an
essentially disarmed Iraq, and the need to install, by force if necessary, a
pro-American regime there.
Q: But Why Does The United States Want to Disarm Iraq Anyway, With Or
Without A Pro-American Regime There?
A: Disarming and weakening Iraq militarily should be viewed from a strategic
regional perspective, not from the needle hole of the allegations of the
United States and the United Kingdom about it being a threat to its
neighbors. The British Guardian quoted Wesley Clark, the former head of
the Nato Alliance, as saying on August 20, 2001, that Iraq is no threat to
the United States, but is a potential threat to "Israel". In fact, as the
state with the second largest known oil reserves on earth, a weak Iraq would
be a country left to seeking foreign protection like all the other rich
weaklings in the Arab Gulf. Nowadays, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other
states in the Arab Gulf are only too aware of the burden this American
'protection' has become on their budgets, sovereignty, and decision-making.
Weakening Iraq leaves these states even weaker and more needy of American
'protection' than they already are. That's one reason Iraq?s neighbors in
the Arab Gulf have been opposed to another massive strike on Iraq.
Furthermore, weakening Iraq strengthens "Israel" against the Arabs combined,
including the so-called 'moderate' Arab regimes. Thus, weakening Iraq
militarily makes it easier for "Israel" to impose its political will on
Palestinians and adjacent states, be they Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, or Jordan.
Weakening Iraq, moreover, strengthens "Israel's" ally, Turkey, against
Syria. But most importantly, it sets the stage for breaking up Iraq along
sectarian and ethnic lines, under the pretext for a Federal Iraq (The
International Herald Tribune, May 16, 2002). This sets the stage for
weakening and breaking up other Arab states as well (To read about plans to
redraw the map of the Arab region, look at the Boston Globe of September 9,
2002, and the Guardian of September 3, 2002. To read on Zionist plans to
break up Arab states, please go to:
http://www.freearabvoice.org/ZionistConspiracy_DivideTheArabWorld.htm
ALL THE ABOVE IMPLIES THAT THE BEST INTEREST OF ALL THOSE OPPOSED TO
COLONIALISM IN THE WORLD, LIES IN A STRONG, NOT A WEAK, IRAQ. THE WORLD
NEEDS IRAQ TO REMAIN STRONG TO STOP THE WORLD FROM BECOMING MORE UNI-POLAR
THAN IT ALREADY IS, AND TO CURB THE ZIONIFICATION OF THE ARAB WORLD.
Q: But Didn't Iraq Use Chemical Weapons Against The Kurds?
A: If the reference here is to Halabja, the Kurdish village in northern Iraq
where many Kurds died from poison gas, then the allegation that Iraq ?gassed
its own people? is a charge that even the United States Department of
Defense does not seem to embrace wholeheartedly. For example, read the
following references accumulated from the Village Voice of May 1-7, 2002:
A Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report filed a week after the attack on
Halabja stated that "MOST of the casualties in Halabja were reportedly
caused by cyan[o]gen chloride. THIS AGENT HAS NEVER BEEN USED BY IRAQ, but
Iran has shown interest in it. Mustard gas casualties in the town were
probably caused by Iraqi weapons, because Iran has never been noted using
that agent."
One report, "Lessons Learned: The Iran-Iraq War," was prepared by Dr.
Stephen Pelletiere and Lieutenant Colonel Douglas Johnson of the U.S. Army
War College's Strategic Studies Institute. Its findings came out of a
two-day conference attended by U.S. defense attachés who had served in the
Middle East, as well as by military and political analysts from both the CIA
and the DIA who had monitored the war. Because neither Iran nor Iraq had
allowed reporters or foreign military observers at the front, the report
drew on field reports, open source materials, and "signal
intelligence"?phone and radio messages sent by the warring armies, and
picked up by the National Security Agency.
Most of the report's chapter on chemical weapons is devoted to Iraqi
military tactics, but one sentence stands out: "Blood agents [i.e., cyanogen
chloride] were allegedly responsible for the most infamous use of chemicals
in the war?the killing of Kurds at Halabjah. Since the Iraqis have no
history of using these two agents?and the Iranians do?we conclude that the
Iranians perpetrated this attack." (The report is available at
www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/3203/.)
All of this was reported at the time. On May 3, 1990, referring to yet
another study, The Washington Post stated: "A Defense Department
reconstruction of the final stages of the Iran-Iraq war has assembled what
analysts say is conclusive intelligence that one of the worst civilian
massacres of the war, in the Iraqi Kurdish city of Halabja, was caused by
repeated chemical bombardments from both belligerent armies."
>From http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0218/trilling.php
Thus, a letter to the editor of the International Herald Tribune of
September 19, 2002 noted:
?The massacre, which killed hundreds of civilian Kurds, happened during
three days of fighting in March 1988 between Iraqi and Iranian forces.
?However, according to a study by the Pentagon of the final stages of the
eight-year war between Iran and Iraq, Iranian forces appeared to be the
major culprit for the massacre.
?The Pentagon's study asserted that Iran might have been the first to fire
artillery shells filled with cyanide gas into Halabja when Iranian
commanders mistakenly believed that Iraqi forces were occupying the town.
According to a Pentagon specialist, Iran's assertion on March 20, 1988, that
many of Halabja victims died from cyanide poisoning was self-incriminating
as only Iran uses cyanide. "We know Iraq does not use cyanide gas. We are
sure that Iran uses cyanide," the official said?.
source:
http://www.iht.com/articles/71108.html
A slightly different account also considers Iranian troops indirectly
responsible for what happened in Halabja when they presumably prevented
Kurdish villagers from fleeing the scene of heavy fighting with Iraqi troops
in Halabja. To see that narrative by Gwynne Roberts, go to:
http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/poisonous-weapons.html
In short, the massacre in Halabja, as horrendous as it may have been, was
just another bloody chapter in the eight-year long war between Iraq and Iran
in which both sides used chemical weapons on each other at various times.
But no matter whether one adopts the Pentagon?s or Gwynne Roberts? version
of events, no serious observer could accuse Iraq of ?gassing its own people?
the way the Western media does it.
Moreover, the United States government should stop pretending that it cares
for the well-being of the Kurds. In the year 1994, the worst oppression was
practiced by the Turkish army against the Kurdish provinces in Turkey. As a
result, more than one million Kurds fled to the regional capital, Diar
Baker. During the same year, and while the Turkish army was wreaking havoc
on the Kurdish countryside, the Turkish state became the single largest
importer of American military gear in the world (Noam Chomsky, 'The Recent
Bombing of Yugoslavia', 1999). In 1996, the Turkish state became "Israel's"
strategic ally in the region, and thus, above criticism by association! In
short, the United States poses the issue of the Kurds quite selectively.
Now Turkey is worried that a break-up of Iraq would agitate the Kurds in
Turkey as well. So even Turkey is not too keen nowadays on the destruction
of Iraq.
A Note from the Free Arab Voice:
During 42 days of massive bombing, the coalition led by the United States in
the Gulf War in 1990-91 destroyed ten thousand civilian, economic,
educational, health, and other establishments in Iraq, ranging from state
buildings to hospitals to schools to factories to highways to power grids to
water systems to mosques. Practically all of Iraq's efforts at
modernization have been set back several decades. This could not have been
possibly done with the interest of Iraqis in mind. So the United States
should stop pretending it cares for the well-being of common Iraqis either.
If we, however, were to use the criterion of who killed the Iraqi people, or
who has used weapons of mass destruction before, in Iraq or elsewhere, to
pass judgment, the biggest culprit would by far be the governments of the
United States and the United Kingdom. With their murderous sanctions that
have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, their use of a few
hundred tons of depleted uranium in Iraq in 1991, and the usage of Agent
Orange in Vietnam, not to mention Japan in 1945 and the phosphor bombs the
Brits dropped on Dresden (AFTER THE WAR WAS WON), the United States and
Britain should be the first to be investigated and monitored for their
weapons of mass destruction.
The truth of the matter is that "Israel", with its plans to break up the
Arab states, is the biggest source of instability in the Arab region. While
the United States government, with its weapons of mass destruction that it
has openly threatened to use against countries like Russia, China, and
Syria, is the biggest threat to stability in the world.
What the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom need to
understand, moreover, is that the question of who is to rule Iraq or control
its resources is the business of the Iraqis themselves. What Arabs,
Muslims, or the peoples of the Third World need, therefore, is a free hand
to make their own destiny. They don't need the interference of colonial
powers furthering their selfish interests under the garb of furthering
'freedom', 'democracy', 'peace', 'stability', or 'human rights', which in
the West only mean the exportation of distorted forms of the real thing. So
let the people choose, and keep your capitalist tentacles off the people and
resources of the Third World.
Keep your hands off Iraq!
Lift the sanctions now!
Disarm "Israel"!
The FREE ARAB VOICE
www.freearabvoice.org
One Bonus Question: What Can *YOU* Do To Help?
A: Distribute this Free Arab Voice quiz on Iraqi WMD to as many media
outlets as you can, and translate it to your native language if it's not
English. It is crucial that we all do our part in exposing the hollowness
of the excuses pertaining to Iraqi WMD with which the United States,
Britain, and "Israel" cover up the true motives behind their aggression on
Iraq.
#####################################################
7) WHEN THE ZIONISTS TAKE DOWN OUR FLAG, TAKE THEM DOWN!
By Ali al Askari
The Palestinian Resistance will be making a big mistake if it sits still
while the Zionists 'punish' us for our attacks against them. After all, we
all know that this is nothing but a typical Zionist excuse to take another
step in their plan to destroy us. In truth, though, there is really no
point to a human bomb attack if the Resistance immediately buckles to a
Zionist 'counter-attack' by fading into the shadows. Whatever we may think
of Arafat and his policies of appeasement towards the Zionists and
Americans, the Resistance has to respond instantly to the Zionist attack
upon him with MORE human bomb attacks.
When they push, the Resistance has to push back even harder. The Zionists
may have superior weapons, but they have a limited population. Every
Zionist is a settler-invader and they have to learn that they attack any one
of the Palestinian people AT THEIR PERIL.
Striking directly at the Butcher Sharon might be very satisfying emotionally
but he is only one of the heads of the hydra monster of Zionist terror, and
another would pop up instantly in his place. There is no real difference
between one Zionist terrorist 'leader' and another. They may make different
kinds of speeches and pretend to have different attitudes, but at the end of
the day, they all will support the racist Zionist entity that Occupies the
Palestinian homeland. When push comes to shove, they will react in
traditional Zionist terrorist fashion. Behind the masques of 'dove' and
'hawk', every Zionist is a vampire needing Palestinian blood to survive.
To let the human bomb resistance become part of a game of political strategy
is to dishonour the sacrifices of our glorious martyrs. Not only must any
false compromise be rejected, but any illusion that a temporary halt of our
human bombs will 'save' Arafat or any other Palestinian must be rejected as
well. Let the Zionist clearly understand that the Palestinian response to
Zionist terror will be more human bomb attacks and stronger Resistance.
The Zionists took down the flag of Palestine in front of our eyes and
replaced it with the Zionist Star of Terror. Appeals to the United Nations
and the international community will be as pointless as any appeal to the
Zionists themselves. There is only one possible response: Palestinian
resistance must 'take down' every Zionist it can wherever that Zionist may
stand and it has to be done NOW!
################################################
################################################
The Free Arab Voice is an alternative newsletter that comes out
only in cyberspace.
The Free Arab Voice welcomes your comments, suggestions, and
submissions. If you do not wish to be on FAV's mailing list,
please indicate as much by writing to us.
FAV Home Page - > Please click on the logo above, and we'll FAV you there :)
|
