What happened to the oppressed Shias who were expected to shower the American soldiers with flowers after the removal of Saddam Hussein and the Bathist regime? The US pretence of caring for the Shia community is nothing more than a pretext to divide and rule. It was the same Shias during the era of Khomeini that were described as the fanatical fringe. Similar description is now being used to describe the Shias (Hezbollah) in Lebanon who have heroically resisted the Israeli aggression and driven them out of their lands.
Majority of the Shia masses remained relatively passive to the US onslaught on Iraq. Some saw it as an opportunity to oust Saddam Hussein. But most are under the clutches of their Scholars (Ayatollahs) who advocate a non-political role due to theological reasons. Yet, it is these types of Ayatollahs like Bahr-al-Ulum made the ‘political’ decision to support the war on Iraq. Thus, they should explain their decision to the relatives of the victims in Iraq. Commonsense dictates that real liberation comes from within and not from a marauding invader with an alien culture. Such types of Ayatollahs do not respond when they are required to do so, and when they do; the response is another form of humiliation! This is surely the nadir of the Ayatollahs.
Whatever the reasons were for the passivity of the Shias, the recent events in Najaf and elsewhere makes it clear that there is clearly a conflict with the US designs in Iraq and the US vision for the role of Shia community.
The discord was visible from the onset, when the Shia community made it clear that they wanted some form independent Islamic government and clearly the Ayatollahs were commanding the influence. No one really knew the likes of Ahmad Chalabi and Adnan Pachachi. So popular democracy in the form of free election was out of the question, until the climate was right. Who determines that? Of course, the US or its proxy in the Green Zone in Baghdad.
Second reason for this conflict was due to the ugly behaviour of the US forces in Iraq and the gruesome pictures from Abu-Ghraib only confirmed this. Many in the Arab/Islamic world were hardly surprised; they expected it in line with the US culture and history.
There was also the ongoing theft of Iraq’s resources. From the shameless US-soldiers looting money from old ladies who saved up for the pilgrimage to Mecca, to the billions of oil revenue that have gone ‘missing’. Anyone care to audit Paul Bremer or any of his cronies? Many of the valuable relics from Iraq have ended up in e-bay auctions and the black-market; even a prominent academic who appears on TV was recently caught stealing valuable artefacts. Earlier, Iraq as a country was put on sale in a manner that the Americans would not do to their own economy. That’s what freedom means; freedom for the American multinationals, like Abu-Ghraib was for the US soldier’s genitals, perhaps also included a few serial killers as well!
The third reason given by many of the Political analysts is that the recent upsurge in the conflict with the Shias is an indirect confrontation with its neighbour Iran. Therefore, Muqtada al-Sadr is representing the Iranian interest by preventing Iraq to become a launching pad for the next invasion or bombing campaign against her. If the resistance in Iraq diminished early on, by now we might have witnessed some kind of incursion into Iran.
Let us not forget that the US originally invaded to disarm Iraq of its mythical WMDs. A recent poll showed that 54% of the US population still believe that Iraq had such weapons prior to the war. This reflects the superficial nature of the US masses and the manipulative mass media that are constantly feeding information that is half-truths and half-claims. This corroborates what the master propagandist Joseph Gobbles said, that when a lie is repeated often enough, it would eventually become a fact.
The latest spin on the absence of WMDs is this: “the absence of evidence is not conclusive to say that it did not exist in the first place”. So, you can invade a country, kill thousands, yet still place the burden of proof entirely upon the victim! This means that the issue of ‘evidence’ has become irrelevant for the accuser and the victim is guilty from the onset and they have to prove their innocence. This view of ‘guilty until proven innocent’ is reflected in the treatment of the captives in Guantanamo Bay and Abu-Ghraib. Where the US army are dispensing ‘justice’ by sodomy, rape, torture, sadism, execution and unknown methods of sexual perversion –” welcome to the ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ US style.
Now that the absence of the WMDs is confirmed and Saddam Hussein is in captivity, why is the US still in Iraq? The answer is, to ‘help’ build democracy and establish human rights. On the point of democracy, the masses are carrying the portraits of Muqtada al-Sadr not Iyad Allawi. But it is Iyad Allawi who is in charge, appointed by the invaders, ironically appointed in the name of democracy. What if the majority of the Iraqis want Muqtada al-Sadr or Zarqawi to rule over their land? Would the US really respect the decision of the Iraqi majority under those circumstances?
All this indicates that the US perception of democracy is only when there is a pro-US regime, which the rest of the Arab/Islamic world reads it as demo-mockery! No wonder the White House spokesman remarked about Hugo Chavez of Venezuela: “just because you win a majority of the votes doesn’t make your government legitimate”. Yes, democracy is not about the will of the ordinary masses but the imposition and acceptance of US style corporate-democracy that will function favourably to the US interests.
As for human rights, it does not matter what the US say judge them by their deeds. What we witness is to the contrary: the sheer US barbarism and cowardice. The US and the Northern Alliance systematically massacred the prisoners with hands tied behind their backs in Mazar-e-Sherif and in the fort of Qala-i-Jhangi in Afghanistan. The clear violation of human rights by incarcerating prisoners including children in Camp-X-Ray, Bagram and Abu-Ghraib, many of them have already been proven to be totally innocent as they were eventually released. The prisoners are routinely subjected to torture, rape, sodomy and even execution. They made videos out of it and even setup competition to see who can do the most damage to an Iraqi prisoner using their guard dogs or other means. So, imagine all the other events not caught on camera and conveniently avoided by the pliant embedded ‘journalists’!
Then came the US-led state terrorism, where the civilian population in Fallujah, Najaf and elsewhere were massacred and thus terrorised. In addition, the US soldiers depending on their mood were blowing up wedding parties, taking pot shots at civilians at checkpoints, snipers shooting for fun and shooting anti-US demonstrators in ‘free’ Iraq. No surprise that one of the typical US soldier remarked that he got his revenge in Iraq. At least he was being honest.
Of course, the media spins talked about the Iraqi victims as insurgents but the ones who are buried largely comprised of women, children and the old as testified by the doctors and the relatives of the victims. Fox News, CNN and the BBC are not too interested in this aspect of collateral damages. In any case, it is really difficult to envisage how the US soldiers can establish human rights when the army has been trained to kill and destroy. This is what they are doing in Iraq.
The US is clearly at odds with the rest of the world in terms of the meaning of the notion of “human rights”. As one innocent victim who was held at Camp-X-Ray said after his release, all he wanted was the rights that the US gave to their animals, i.e. the guard dogs. So, it seems that the Darwinian theory is very much alive within the Pentagon and the US administration and not just confined to the Ku-Klux-Klan members!
But, let me explain briefly why my reference to the Darwinian theory of evolution, for the benefit of the people at www.freerepublic.com and some of the rightwing Republicans that are not too bright. My reference to this notion on a previous occasion confused them. The Darwinian theory of evolution is interpreted as this: The white Anglo-Saxons at the top, then all the aliens are in ranked, the lowers ones getting darker eventually reaches the apes in the animal world, finally, all the way down to the single cell amoeba.
From the US conduct it looks as though, the sand-niggers (Arabs/Muslims) have been placed at the bottom of that evolutionary scale, which perhaps explains the US policy to treat prisoners worse than animals. For sure had this treatment been given to the animals it would have caused an moral outrage in the West, as it during the first Gulf war when the birds were dying due the deliberate spillage of the oil. Never mind the people being incinerated by the US bombs. The likes of Daniel Pipes, Thomas Freidman, the mysterious writers of the Daily Telegraph in London, and Christopher Hitchen in collusion with the Muslim-Moderates can surely give it the ‘scholarly’ and the ‘academic’ angle to this perspective and justify why “Arabs/Muslims” are being treated worse than animals!
After the so-called handover to Iyad Allawi, it was expected that human rights in Iraq would be established even if it means the use of brute force. Thus, accordingly it was recently reported that Iyad Allawi, personally shot and killed six prisoners without a trial. He also had very strong CIA connection and was a member of the Bath Socialist party. Sounds familiar? Yes, it is certainly a kind of DÃ©jÃ vu. Prepare for the next round, when the oppressed Sunnis will need liberating.