.. And why I will not (Iraqis To Protestors: "Not In Our Name")

After your march, when you return to your cosy little house basking in a warm self-congratulatory glow at the thought of a job well done, perhaps you'd spare a minute or two to pen a letter to Dr Khalaf [see below] and explain to him why his fellow Iraqis should be left at the mercy of Saddam. I'm sure he'd appreciate it, he might even forward them to his relatives who are still in Iraq - I'm sure they'd be interested in your expert views.

I write this to protest against all those people who oppose the war against Saddam Hussein, or as they call it, the "war against Iraq". I am an Iraqi doctor, I worked in the Iraqi army for six years during Iraq-Iran war and four months during Gulf war. All my family still live in Iraq. I am an Arab Sunni, not Kurdish or Shia. I am an ordinary Iraqi not involved with the Iraqi opposition outside Iraq. I am so frustrated by the appalling views of most of the British people, media and politicians. I want to say to all these people who are against the possible war, that if you think by doing so you are serving the interests of Iraqi people or saving them, you are not. You are effectively saving Saddam. You are depriving the Iraqi people of probably their last real chance get rid of him and to get out of this dark era in their history. My family and almost all Iraqi families will feel hurt and anger when Saddam's media shows on the TV, with great happiness, parts of Saturday's demonstration in London. But where were you when thousands of Iraqi people were killed by Saddam's forces at the end of the Gulf war to crush the uprising? Only now when the war is to reach Saddam has everybody become so concerned about the human life in Iraq. Where were you while Saddam has been killing thousands of Iraqis since the early 70s? And where are you are now, given that every week he executes people through the "court of revolution", a summary secret court run by the secret security office. Most of its sentences are executions which Saddam himself signs. I could argue one by one against your reasons for opposing this war. But just ask yourselves why, out of about 500,000 Iraqis in Britain, you will not find even 1,000 of them participating tomorrow? Your anti-war campaign has become mass hysteria and you are no longer able to see things properly. Locum consultant neurologist, London

Look at this...I posted that letter on an AOL message board, and look what I get back.....

Subj: Re: Letter from an Iraqi Dr.

Date: 2/15/2003 6:11:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time

From: xxxxxxxx@aol.com

To: xxxxxxxxxx@aol.com

Dear Dr. Kahlif:

I read your post with interest.

With all due respect, please understand that it is not every American's desire to send his/her children into harms way to murder what is sure to be many of your fellow Iraqi civilians. While I can appreciate that Sadaam is an oppressive dictator, please remember that it is the US that supported his behavior and allowed him to continue unabated for many years.

I resent your chastizing our citizens for exercising what is truly their right......to question what role our government takes with regard to war. Perhaps it is YOU who should just go home to your nice little house in the suburbs and be thankful, or, better yet, enlist your services in the US military to personally fight for the liberation of your former country.

====================================================

I should write back saying that she better invade or I will sue

While I can appreciate that Sadaam is an oppressive dictator, please remember that it is the US that supported his behavior and allowed him to continue unabated for many years.

You know, to read this and stop and think about it, is really to stare into the abyss and see the abyss staring back. What do you suppose this could possibly mean?

"While I understand that Sadaam (sic) is an oppressive dictator, you must understand that the wholesale torture of your people is much less important to me than than my obsessive hatred for my country."

I spent months after 9-11 trying to figure this out. Let's see, a US Administration supported a bad guy some years ago; in the meantime the bad guy has become a threat to the well-being of the whole world; but a different US Administration is not allowed to do anything about it -- why?

Try it on another case: a man used to beat his wife, but stopped ten years ago. Now she's being raped in the backyard, but he isn't allowed to stop it, because he used to treat her badly too.

Then I realized that this is not really meant as an argument. It's a strangled cry of hate that's just barely been forced into intelligible sentences. Intelligible thoughts would be too much to ask.

There was a time when the Left had actual ideas -- bad ones, but still, there was a point to it. Now I see a so-called peace movement that seems to have at its heart no ideas, and only two emotions: hatred and contempt.

I am starting to find it extremely creepy.

I should write back to her and send her this..."Hey lady, guess what happens when we treat these guys as someone elses problem?"....

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away Written December 5, 2001

The U.S. Can't Allow Justice to Be Another War Casualty By MANSOOR IJAZ President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.

I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.

From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.

The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.

As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.

Realizing the growing problem with Bin Laden, Bashir sent key intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996.

The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his activities and associates.

But Saudi officials didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.

In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.

Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for Al Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks.

Some of these men are now among the FBI's 22 most-wanted terrorists.

The two men who allegedly piloted the planes into the twin towers, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, prayed in the same Hamburg mosque as did Salim and Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian trader who managed Salim's bank accounts and whose assets are frozen.

Important data on each had been compiled by the Sudanese.

But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan's religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan's intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.

Gutbi had shown me some of Sudan's data during a three-hour meeting in Khartoum in October 1996. When I returned to Washington, I told Berger and his specialist for East Africa, Susan Rice, about the data available. They said they'd get back to me. They never did. Neither did they respond when Bashir made the offer directly. I believe they never had any intention to engage Muslim countries--ally or not. Radical Islam, for the administration, was a convenient national security threat.

And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.

The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden's extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best.

Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.

Mansoor Ijaz, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is chairman of a New York-based investment company.

They are all control freaks, every last one of them. They hate the idea of people thinking for themselves, and being left alone to make their own decisions.

There is an explanation for this:

Police fire tear gas, rubber bullet at Colorado Springs war protest

Why is it these Leftists always attach themselves to strange occult mysticism? They are what I call the "Religious Left."

They worship for gods those appearances that remain in the brain from the impression of external bodies upon the organs of their senses, which are commonly called ideas, idols, phantasms, conceits, as being representations of those external bodies which cause them, and have nothing in them of reality, no more than there is in the things that seem to stand before us in a dream...

Like the necromancy of the Wellstone funerally, the use of Martin Luther King Day, or constantly invoking the "spirit of the '60's," they attempt to raise spirits of the dead as a totem for worship.

Marxism and their forms of Cultural Marxism are a religion, a collection of cults. In many cases they worship a dead Karl Marx like some (and I stress some) Christians worship a dead Jesus, and not a living God. This is no more apparent than in the practice of enshrinement and regular grooming of Lenin's corpse in the former Soviet Union.

It is similar to the religious fervor associated with the pro-abortion advocacy. The societal practice of abortion is ritual mass murder upon the altars dedicated to idolatrous vanities, a collective human sacrifice to pagan idols.

As is Ms. Parks' association with The Federation of Damanhur (check out their Cultural Marxist statements to preserve primitive, dying cultures), so is the Left properly identified with a confederacy of decievers that, to obtain dominion over men in this present world, endeavour, by dark (meaning also obscure) and erroneous doctrines.

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.