A R C H I V E S
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board
| why opposed to the 'liberation' of Iraq |
|---|
| a_Silver_Rose |
| 04/19/03 at 02:45:45 |
| [slm] ~~~~~~~ Question and Answer Details Name Joe - United States Topic Politics & Economics Title War on Iraq: Liberation or Occupation? Question Why are the Arab and Muslim countries so opposed to the US liberation of Iraq? Iraqi people have been killed, oppressed and violated by Saddam’s regime for so many years, yet the Arab world has done nothing. Why are you then opposed to the American attempt to liberate those people? After Baghdad fell people came out welcoming our American troops. Can’t you see that we are bringing them justice and dignity? Date 2003/4/10 Name of Consultant Group of Consultants Content of Reply * This answer was provided by both, Sister Heba Ezzat and Professor Shahul Hameed. Salaam Joe, Thank you very much for your question. Needless to say that this question is not about an Islamic perspective that is a matter of belief or worship, but rather a matter of political judgment. Of course the ethics and morality of war itself - any war - is very much rooted in religious convictions, but this remains an issue to be discussed at length separately. Thus, allow us here to reply to your question regarding the war on Iraq and its legacy. To do full “justice” to your question, I think I need to address the hidden assumptions behind it. Only the Arab and Muslim countries oppose the US invasion… But it is obvious that the US invasion of Iraq is opposed not only by the Arab and Muslim states, but also by most of the countries of the world. I would quote the former British Cabinet Minister Robin Cook here. In his resignation address to the British Parliament, he referred to the British participation in the invasion in these words: “The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner - not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council.” Thus, it should be clear to anyone who follows the recent developments in international politics, that the US invasion of Iraq is in contravention of NATO, EU and UN decisions. What is more, the whole world is seething in a turmoil of war protests; and the United States, Britain, Spain and Australia, whom are the major players in the “coalition of the willing”, are no exception. Saddam’s regime has not been doing any good to the people of Iraq... It is true that Saddam Hussein was a dictator; and so he took away from his people, many of the “freedoms” that the United States “used to” be famous for, and which the American administration seems bent on curtailing now. Astonishing also is that protestors in California have been targeted by your police rubber bullets! In the States! Yet, Saddam was not the only dictator in the world; and probably he was not the worst. It needs to be emphasized here that it is a fact that some of the worst dictators of recent history were supported, trained, bankrolled and supplied with weapons of mass destruction by the United States of America. Saddam was not an exception till recently, and the US supported him in his war against Iran and provided him with the weapons it is now claiming are weapons of mass destruction… Arab regimes were reluctant to oppose Saddam’s regime… But again, you know that to interfere in the internal matters of another country goes against the international law, by all standards. We used to have certain universally accepted norms and criteria, by which international bodies could use some restrictions and sanctions vis a vis countries that violated the fundamental human rights. For instance, formerly there were restrictions on South Africa, owing to its policy of apartheid. The International Criminal Court for instance, is world's first permanent war crimes court that can prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. But the United States undermined it, by coercing the Security Council to vote a compromise that gives American troops a 12-month exemption from prosecution, to be renewed annually. It is common knowledge that the Arab and Muslim States have neither the will nor the power to influence another sovereign country to do what they want. If it were otherwise, probably this blatant US invasion would not have taken place. The United States is legally and morally right in invading Iraq… We will quote no less a person than the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark on the legal aspects of the US invasion of Iraq. In a letter to all members of the UN Security Council, with copies to the UN General Assembly, on 17th November 2002, he wrote: “A military attack on Iraq is obviously criminal; completely inconsistent with urgent needs of the peoples of the United Nations; unjustifiable on any legal or moral ground; irrational in light of the known facts; out of proportion to other existing threats of war and violence; and a dangerous adventure risking continuing conflict throughout the region and far beyond for years to come. The most careful analysis must be made as to why the world is subjected to such threats of violence by its only superpower. This is which could so safely and importantly lead us on the road to peace. It is also how the UN can avoid the human tragedy of yet another major assault on Iraq and the powerful stimulus for the retaliatory terrorism, which it would create... The US has renounced treaties controlling nuclear weapons and their proliferation, voted against the protocol enabling enforcement of the Biological Weapons Convention, rejected the treaty banning land mines, endeavored to prevent its creation and cripple the International Criminal Court, and frustrated the Convention on the Child and the prohibition against using children in war. The US has opposed virtually every other international effort to control and limit war, protect the environment, reduce poverty and protect health. George Bush cites two invasions of other countries by Iraq during the last 22 years. He ignores the many scores of US invasions and assaults on other countries in Africa, Asia, and the Americas during the last 220 years, and the permanent seizure of lands from Native Americans and other nations - lands like Florida, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California, and Puerto Rico, among others, seized by force and threat… His motives may include to save a failing presidency, which has converted a healthy economy and treasury surplus into multi-trillion dollar losses. This is to fulfill the dream - which is becoming a nightmare - of a new world order to serve special interests in the US. It is also to settle a family grudge against Iraq; to weaken the Arab nation, one people at a time; to strike a Muslim nation to weaken Islam. On the other hand, it is also to protect Israel, or make its position more dominant in the region; to secure control of Iraq's oil to enrich US interests, further dominate oil in the region and control oil prices. Aggression against Iraq for any of these purposes is criminal and a violation of a great many international conventions and laws, including the General Assembly Resolution on the Definition of Aggression of December 14th, 1974… Israel has a stockpile of hundreds of nuclear warheads, derived from the United States sophisticated rockets, capable of accurate delivery at distances of several thousand kilometers. It contracts with the US for joint development, of more sophisticated rocketry and other arms with the US. Israel has violated and ignored more UN resolutions for forty years than any other nation. It has done so with impunity. The violation of Security Council resolutions cannot be the basis for a UN-approved assault on any nation or people, in a time of peace. It cannot also be the absence of a threat of imminent attack, but comparable efforts to enforce Security Council resolutions, which must be made against all nations who violate them. Since George Bush is permitted to attack Iraq with or without the approval of the UN, he will become public enemy number… This is a defining moment for the United Nations. Will it stand strong, independent and true to its Charter, international law and the reasons for its being, or will it submit to the coercion of a superpower leading us toward a lawless world and condone war against the cradle of civilization?” Please visit the following link for more details: Mr Clark’s letter We hope Mr Clark has answered your question more fully than we can ever do. We would also like to request the supporters of ‘Operation Iraqi Free`om’ to think of the following point: Considering the overwhelming destructive capabilities of the weapons of mass destruction at the disposal of the United States that it used in its war on Iraq including cluster bombs that were used against civilians, one wonders how many of the Iraqis will be left alive in the liberated Iraq, to enjoy the wonderful freedoms the Americans are bringing?! Let us ask you a moral question at the end… apart from your belief or ours: is it legitimate to use evil means to achieve a noble cause?? Besides… is the cause noble?? And, is America here for a moral mission as it claims, with no economic nor strategic targets? Let us consider these questions to reach righteous answer. And, let us pray for peace and re-conciliation. Thank you and please do keep in touch. Salaam source: http://www.islamonline.net/askaboutislam/display.asp?hquestionID=4806 |
| 04/19/03 at 18:09:04 |
| a_Silver_Rose |
| Re: why opposed to the 'liberation' of Iraq |
|---|
| jannah |
| 04/19/03 at 05:28:20 |
| salam, just wondering what the 'source' of this article is. if it's not a news article it's in violation of our new rules, sorry sis |
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board |