American IED's

As you probably know, IED stands for “Improvised Explosive Device,” and it means any homemade bomb. A lot of the tactical creativity on both sides in Iraq revolves around the IEDs. The soldiers work on ways to detect or survive them, and the jihadis work out new ways to hide them. They’ve stuck bombs in dead dogs, hid them in curbs or buried them under streets, a whole bag of tricks. In each, concealment is key.

So, until recently, no one had ever deployed a hot pink IED, but now we have them in Washington, DC.

Each Friday night, members of “Code Pink” hold an anti-war protest at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, featuring signs with slogans like “Maimed for a lie” and “Enlist here and die for Halliburton,” and occasionally some flag-draped coffins. Choosing to do the no-blood-for-oil barking moonbat boogie mere yards from the beds of our wounded is despicable enough, but it gets worse. Walter Reed has a program that allows some of the soldiers to spend Friday night out at a steakhouse, and the protests are timed so that the troops will see them from the transport bus. The Code Pinkos aren’t protesting about wounded soldiers, they’re protesting at wounded soldiers. Kevin Pannell, who lost two legs in a grenade attack in Iraq, points out that many of the wounded suffer from survivor’s guilt, and the coffins are a painful reminder. Torturing wounded veterans? Just another Friday night for Code Pink.

John Gibson of Fox News described his conversation with one soldier this way: “I was doing Tony Snow's radio show Thursday and one soldier about to go back to Iraq said these protestors are America’s IEDs, roadside bombs set to go off and injure a soldier here just as certainly as IEDs in Baghdad are set to go off and blow off a soldier’s leg over there.”

And this activity is hardly an aberration. Code Pink recommends that protesters visit recruiting centers with signs calling troops “killers.” Their leadership is on record supporting the Iraqi “resistance”--you know, the guys who call themselves “Al-Qaeda in Iraq.” Perhaps most incredibly, they sent a “gift” of $600,000 dollars to “the other side” (their words, not mine) in Fallujah before the Marines went in. Supposedly it was meant to purchase medical supplies. Yes, I’m sure the terrorists followed all the rules!

Code Pink is also helping out the media’s latest darling, Cindy Sheehan. This came to light when Mark Matthews, a reporter for KGO TV in San Francisco looked into the funding sources for the growing Sheehan circus. As Matthews said in his report, “There is real reluctance to talk about who's paying, and the P.R. machine that's promoting Cindy Sheehan…” Matthews found that Sheehan’s background support consisted of four main radical organizations: Code Pink, True Majority, MoveOn.org and Democracy for America, the “progressive” group born out of Howard Dean’s presidential campaign and run by his brother James. It’s nice to know that the current DNC chair shares a common vision with people who mock men who shed blood for our country.

I know there are people who really do mean it when they say they support the troops but oppose the war. But folks, it’s time for a gut check. The anti-war movement is headed by people who don’t share those values. When they see a wounded soldier or a grieving mother, they either see a target, or a potential mouthpiece. They don’t just want the war to stop; they want us to lose it. When they see this country, they don’t see the land of the free and think “the Iraq thing is a bad idea,” they see the Fourth Reich, and they are glad to support the “resistance” killing our troops…and Iraqi troops…and Iraqi cops…and Iraqi kids getting a candy handout or riding the bus to school. They might even, as Sheehan has, call them “freedom fighters.”

Being an honestly patriotic member of the anti-war movement today is like going to Selma to march with Dr. King and finding out that the Klan will be at the front of the march, organizing the march, and giving most of the speeches.

No wonder there’s a backlash building. Code Pink was outnumbered four to one by counterprotesters last Friday night, and the soldiers on the bus never fail to salute the protesters with one finger. A pro-troop rally in Crawford on Saturday brought in at least 3,000 enthusiastic people, some of whom drove all the way from San Francisco. When the neo-hippies say “no more Vietnams,” they should listen to themselves more closely, because we aren’t having a rehash of their mistreatment of the Vietnam vets. They can keep their spit—and their roadside bombs—to themselves.

This is the letter that went out on IslamToday.com back in 2002 that shows militant Islam aligning with NION an ANSWER.

Special Report on NOT IN OUR NAMES| Amir Butler|

INTRODUCTION

To understand the blanket of intimidation that has been spread across the United States, one needs look no further than a recent incident at Ohio State University. When George W. Bush was invited to speak to the graduating class, the students were given clear instructions how to behave :

Immediately before class members filed into the giant football stadium, an announcer instructed the crowd that all the university's speakers deserve to be treated with respect and that anyone demonstrating or heckling would be subject to expulsion and arrest. The announcer urged that Bush be greeted with a 'thunderous' ovation."

Academic freedom is like the canary in the cage used by coal-miners to warn when the oxygen in the mine was running out or becoming contaminated. That the campuses of American universities - once the cradles of dissent and progressive thinking - have reached such a point, speaks volumes as to the conditions that all sections of American society now find themselves under.

THE ORIGINS OF THE MOVEMENT

It was against this backdrop that, on March 23rd, 2002, a group of American activists congregated in New York to initiate a project of resistance. It was a project that sought to reinvigorate a tradition of popular dissent in America, such as the great protests during the Vietnam War. Amongst the organizers of this project are some of the key protest organizers of the Vietnam era (such as Clark Kissenger who organized the marches on Washington in 1965) .

Out of this initial meeting, a letter was formulated, signed by the initiators and distributed throughout the country, outlining the proposal and calling people to action against what it described as an "unprecedented situation" . It read, in part:

The U.S. has commenced a series of wars, beginning with Afghanistan where they killed thousands of innocent civilians, and they now openly threaten unilateral war on Iraq, Iran, North Korea or any place else on the planet they decide. The government has targeted Arab and Muslim immigrants, rounding up over 1,000 and still holding hundreds in indefinite detention, refusing even to release their names. They have gutted longstanding civil liberties and unleashed police spying. The executive branch of government has seized vast new powers, unchecked by either the legislature or the judiciary. They have attempted to intimidate all dissenting voices, and tried to make critical thought itself suspect.

A vision of resistance was mapped out in the letter. People would come together to make a statement that they "will not let the US government pit the people of this country against the rest of the world". The movement, an alliance of sorts between various groups and individuals, would seek to be powerful enough to send a clear message to the people of the world that they stand with them against the war. In other words, that "we the people" are NOT part of the Bush "us" but are part of the world's "us." As Jeremy Pikser, one of the organizers, noted, the movement seeks to demonstrate to the rest of the world that there is dissent in America and not all Americans stand with the war .

According to the defining principals in this letter, the resistance would take many forms, and include school administrations pledging not to turn over the names of Arab and Muslim students. It would include Army Reservists pledging not to be part of occupying other countries or raining bombs on civilians. It would require community residents pledging to defend their neighbors "who wear turbans or head coverings or "look different" or express unpopular views". It would include all acts of solidarity for immigrants unjustly detained, and a pledge of support for all the writers, activities, artists and everyone comes under attack for breaking ranks and daring to dissent.

From this beginning, a movement was born, adopting the name "Not in Our Names" in reference to the various government actions being performed in the collective names of the American people.

On June 6, 2002, the project was launched by anti-war protests throughout the United States, including Georgia, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Hawaii, SW Wisconsin, California, New York, and Washington. Reports posted on the Not In Our Name web page , suggest that the protests were well attended.

THE CALL TO RESISTANCE

The launch was accompanied by the release of a document entitled "The Call" that clearly articulates the objectives of the movement. It describes their unwillingness to stand silent in the face of an emerging police state, with the associated eradication of the rights of immigrants and foreigners.

The authors extend their hands to all those suffering from US policies, and affirm that the American citizen has a special responsibility to resist their government's actions whether it is military intervention or the supplying of arms to oppress populations in Palestine.

The Call describes, in some detail, the forms which this resistance should take:

"Resistance of critical thought, resistance by speaking out, resistance through creating powerful art, and resistance through finding ways to halt the machinery of war and repression. Resistance by individuals and resistance through mass action. There already have been inspiring examples of resistance, and we would hope the Not in Our Name project would inspire more things like:

Campuses erupting with debates and protests.
People uniting together to defend Arab, Muslim and South Asian immigrants who come under attack, working to free those detained and supporting those who are targeted.
Civilians supporting soldiers and reservists who resist illegal and unjust orders.
Support for writers, artists, activists and everyone who comes under attack for breaking ranks and having the courage to dissent.
We will not "watch what we say." We will dare to do what is necessary. "
A Pledge of Resistance was formulated ; a solemn oath to resist and to oppose the war and the accompanied usurpment of civil rights. It's intent was act as a "bridge between what people think and what they do" and to "help strengthen people's resolve to do the right thing."
The Pledge is a list of personal promises, with passages such as, "Not in our name will you wage endless war, there can be no more deaths
no more transfusions of blood for oil". Given its almost poetic qualities, it has been read by spoken-word artists on radio on the nationally-syndicated Democracy Now program, and featured in a variety of artistic events throughout the United States.

The call of Not in Our Name has been met with support from some of the leading intellectual and artist minds in the United States. Respondents to the Not in Our Name call recently signed a "Statement of Conscience". Initially published in The Guardian (a British newspaper), but later published in other Left-leaning newspapers such as the Sydney Morning Herald , the statement is both a disavowal of current American policy and an impassioned call for action. It is interesting to note that the statement had to be published in a British newspaper. As at the time of writing, no major American newspaper has run the statement. It was signed by 69 prominent Americans, such as Noam Chomsky , Edward Said , William Blum , Gloria Steinem , Paul Chevigny , Martin Luther King III , Michael Albert , and Rev. George Webber .

The statement rejected completely US government claims of truly representing the American people in its pursuit of an endless war - describing the war as just the pursuit of revenge against people disconnected from the horrors of September 11. It expressed the opposition of the signatories to the rounding up and "forced disappearance" of over 1,000 mostly Muslim men and rejected the manner in which organizations have been classified as terrorist with "just the stroke of a presidential pen".

The Israeli "refusniks" were singled out for praise in the statement as a source of inspiration for their recognition that there are limits and their refusal to serve in continuing the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank.

The statement expressed the urgent need for action and concluded:

There is a deadly trajectory to the events of the past months that must be seen for what it is and resisted. Too many times in history people have waited until it was too late to resist. Bush has declared: "You're either with us or against us." Here is our answer: we refuse to allow you to speak for all the American people. We refuse to be party to these wars, and we repudiate any inference that they are being waged in our name or for our welfare. We extend a hand to those around the world suffering from these policies; we will show our solidarity in word and deed.

The next step in this program of organized resistance will be a day of Mass Resistance to take place in the fall, 2002. In the lead-up to that, the Pledge and the Call will be carried throughout America via religious congregations, concerts, poetry readings and gatherings of students and youth.
THE SIGNIFICANCE TO MUSLIMS

For Muslims, this resistance and the ideas it represents are significant. For those of us living in Western societies, particularly America, it is significant in that it represents one of the most coherent voices of opposition to the "forced disappearance" of over 1,000 mostly Muslim males, as well as the general curtailment of civil liberties. Those behind this campaign have pledged a commitment to defend us and to fight for our rights.

For Muslims in the Muslim lands, a popular movement opposing the war and opposing US foreign policy should demonstrate the fallacy of the notion that the non-Muslim world is a homogenous block, all standing firmly behind Bush's war on terror. On the contrary, there are many Americans, from all walks of life, who do not agree with the Bush administration's policies and are taking steps to oppose them. One of the objectives of Not In Our Names was to give these individuals strength and motivate them to action.

According to the organizers, it has met with a positive reaction from the American people. At least 60 people a day are reported to be emailing one of the organizers requesting their names to be added to the list . As such, the list of signatories is reported to be growing at a very rapid rate.

It should also be noted that this is not the only anti-war movement. There are already anti-war coalitions, such as International A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop the War and End Racism) that seem to have similar goals and objectives. International A.N.S.W.E.R. seems to be the more mature of the two groups, and likewise has a Pledge for Peace on their website . A distinction may be that Not in Our Name seems to be more focused on direct action, of which demonstrations are a small part, whereas A.N.S.W.E.R. seems to focus primarily on rallies.

Muslims must also keep in mind that, in essence, this movement (as with other anti-war and civil liberties movements) is working to defend our interests. The primary victims of the Bush administrations' actions are Muslims; whether those Muslims who end up in a legal twilight zone after being accused of terrorist links, or whether it is those Muslims in Iraq or elsewhere who may be bombed by American forces. As such, we should support them in those matters in which our religion does not find conflict, for we will be the ultimate beneficiaries of their successes.

Whilst it is too early to determine if this particular movement will reach the level that the anti-war movement during Vietnam did, there should be little doubt that popular dissent can and does make a difference. Vietnam provides an intriguing case study as to the effect of popular resistance in Western secular democracies. The Oxford Companion to American Military History notes:

The American movement against the Vietnam War was the most successful antiwar movement in US history. During the Johnson administration, it played a significant role in constraining the war and was a major factor in the administration's policy reversal in 1968. During the Nixon years, it hastened US troop withdrawals, continued to restrain the war, fed the deterioration in US troop morale and discipline (which provided additional impetus to US troop withdrawals), and promoted congressional legislation that severed US funds for the war. The movement also fostered aspects of the Watergate scandal, which ultimately played a significant role in ending the war by undermining Nixon's authority in Congress and thus his ability to continue the war. It gave rise to the infamous 'Huston Plan'; inspired Daniel Ellsberg, whose release of the Pentagon Papers led to the formation of the Plumbers; and fed the Nixon administration's paranoia about its political enemies, which played a major part in concocting the Watergate break-in itself.

CONCLUSION

This is clearly a positive step and one that Muslims should find encouraging. If nothing else, it is demonstrative proof that there is resistance to the Bush administration's actions, and it would be unjust to paint all of American society with a single brush. The characterization of American society as homogenous and completely supportive of American policies is a common misconception, and one which this movement seeks to address.

Whilst there had been pockets of dissent in the past, the organization of efforts under a common set of objectives promises to improve the effectiveness of the anti-war movement in the United States. The signing-up of prominent intellectuals such as Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Edward Said and others gives credibility to the movement, and the experience of the organizers in organizing anti-Vietnam War protest means that the movement has the requisite grounding in mounting successful campaigns of resistance against government. Likewise, the inclusion of artists, musicians and other figures from American popular culture will ensure that a wide audience is reached. These are all factors which may contribute to its future effectiveness.

Ultimately, the success of the movement will largely depend upon whether it is able to develop the critical mass needed to effect change on policies. That is impossible to predict at this very early stage. However, the recent revelations of government incompetence prior to September 11 have affected public perceptions of the government and may contribute positively to a growth in the anti-war movement. In addition, the increasing realization that the American public is being manipulated through a campaign of fear-mongering is also likely to increase support. If the threat that has been used to justify the war becomes seen by the American people as being non-existent or disproportionately small compared to the US response, it will lead to a reduction in popular support for the war which may convert into an increase in opposition. Finally, unless the United States is able to sustain a climate of fear from an immediate threat, then it is doubtful that the American people will continue to support the "War on Terror" over the long-term.

Muslims will be the ultimate beneficiaries of whatever success the movement achieves in fighting the government's actions domestically or with regards to its foreign policies and war against terror. As such, it is a movement that we should support in as much as what they are working for and the manner in which they are doing it, is consistent with Islam.

And Allah knows best.

Link to the "Not In Our Name" original article!

Bush urges 'culture of service' to graduates at Ohio State commencement, Lawrence Knutson, Associated Press, 14/6/2002, http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020614/ap_to_po/bush_7
US Artists Damn 'War without Limit', Duncan Campbell, The Guardian, 14/6/2002
Our History, Not in Our Name, http://www.notinourname.net/history.html
US Artists Damn 'War without Limit', Duncan Campbell, The Guardian, 14/6/2002
www.notinourname.net
The Call, Not in Our Name, http://www.notinourname.net/the_call.html
The Call, Not in Our Name, http://www.notinourname.net/the_call.html
Pledge of Resistance, Not in Our Name, http://www.notinourname.net/NIONcall.pdf
We believe ... we must oppose the injustice being done in our names, Sydney Morning Herald, 17/6/2002, http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/06/16/1023864378288.html
Professor Noam Chomsky is a scholar of linguistics at MIT, author and arguably the most prominent thinker of the Left.
Edward Said is a prominent Palestinian-American academic and author.
William Blum is a former diplomat, who left the employ of the government in 1967 in protest of the Vietnam War. In 1969, he wrote an expose of the CIA, naming over 200 active agents. He also maintains the foreign policy section for Z magazine (www.zmag.org). He is also the author of Killing Hope, Rogue State.
Gloria Steinem is an American journalist and feminist, most famous for found Ms magazine. She was named Woman of the Year by McCall magazine in 1972.
Paul Chevigny is a prominent Professor of Law at New York University (NYU).
Martin Luther King III is the eldest son of slain civil rights campaigner, Rev. Martin Luther King. In 1997 he was elected leader of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the civil rights organization his father founded.
Michael Albert is the editor of Z Magazine (www.zmag.org)
George Webber is professor emeritus at the NY Theological Seminary.
US Artists Damn 'War without Limit', Duncan Campbell, The Guardian, 14/6/2002
http://www.internationalanswer.org/
http://www.internationalanswer.org/Pledge.pdf

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.