Saddam's Willing Executioners

I can't believe they beat another dead horse in order to allude some false sense of security or, in Bush's own words, "a milestone for Iraq" (which it isn't). And from the looks of it, Saddam's execution is more or less a ticking time bomb, which, when triggerred, could spark more conflict and chaos in war-torn Iraq. I have no sympathy for the ex-dictator of Iraq who killed at least a hundred thousand Kurdish innocents and tens of thousands of Sunnites and Shiites... Wait. I shouldn't be distinguishing between the Iraqis that he united under his tyrannical rule, as all were in equal danger of being executed by his death squads.

Then again, I'm not happy or jumpy either. It sickened me to many degrees to see people actually celebrate the death of Saddam Hussein. I mean, I can understand that a now defunct dictator is no longer alive, but to celebrate on the death of someone makes those Iraqis and Americans who celebrated over his stinking rotting corpse as bad as those radical "Izlamizts" who allegedly celebrate over the deaths of innocents and soldiers alike. To me, the act of Saddam's execution was more about revenge than justice, for if it was justice, we wouldn't have sectarian attitudes being thrown about all around, and a sectarian government installed by the Coalition that continues to carve up Iraq into more slices than can ever be cut on a family-sized pizza. The execution was not a productive move, especially since it occurred on the first day of Eid Al Adha before sunrise. Perhaps the Iraqi court didn't want Saddam to have a grab at the sweets and candy that people usually pass out to others during this time of love and forgiveness (Eid, that is). This is a day that Muslims worldwide come together and thank God for all His Bounties that He bestowed upon this Earth. It was supposed to be a beautiful day. And they started it out with the hanging of a ruthless dictator.

The fact that it was carried out on Eid Al Adha of all days will make it appear as an insult to Muslims who oppose the Coalition's neo-colonialist occupation of Iraq, as it is just one of many ploys employed by the Coalition to further stamp on the heritage of Iraq, as I explained in an earlier post. However, Saddam was in Iraqi custody, not American custody, so it was the Iraqi government, not the Coalition, that killed him. But let's remind ourselves who really is governing Iraqi politics for the time being, not that the Coalition really does at the moment, but the fact that this is an occupation makes this argument all the more convincing. The trial itself was a farce that signalled nothing but the continuation of the American occupation in Iraq, and the continuing humiliation of Iraqis nationwide, Sunni and Shiite.

Saddam was discredited as a dictator who was the reason behind the sectarian strife that we see today in Iraq. What we see today is an oversimplification of the issue, as Sunnites and Shiites were actually more united under Saddam: in fear, that is. This civil strife was only recently started by the Coalition in as political and militaristic a way as possible, seeking to divide Iraqis starting with the Charter that was drafted out by that neocon who calls himself a "Muslim", Zalmay Khalilzad. According to the late Issam Nashashibi,

Khalilzad's impeccable credentials make him a natural for membership in the neo-conservatives cabal which is the driving force behind Washington's Iraq policy. "He has a narrow of view of the Middle East and South Asia," his former associate stressed. "[Zalmay thinks of] security to the exclusion of everything else. He tends to look at military solutions as the first, not the last policy option."

Of course, that was just a tip of the iceberg: Zalmay wasn't the only person behind the machinations of the Coalition that divided the Iraqis. The point is that Saddam, while a ruthless dictator, did not incite strife at all, but merely killed those who dissented against him, and this is NOT an attempt to justify the monstrous actions of a man like him.

Even more ironic is that people have forgotten the Coalition's active role in the past to install Saddam in power: after all, Saddam was the CIA's man in Baghdad. According to John Collins,

Conveniently carried out just five minutes past the hour when "Anderson Cooper 360" goes on the air, the execution provided an opportunity for viewers to think about the long story of the Iraqi leader's brutal reign. Yet when it came to informing the audience about one key aspect of that history - the role of the United States in helping to create and maintain the "butcher of Baghdad" - CNN offered only amnesia.

It amazes me that Palestinians and other Iraqis and Arabs are actually mourning the death of Saddam Hussein. And then there's Libya's president, Muammar Ghaddhafi (who can't be helped by a mental hospital), offerred several days of mourning for the dictator. That comes months after he said that Britian and America must try Saddam. I can understand why many Palestinians love Saddam, mainly because he was the most vocal Arab leader to talk about unifying the Arabs against Israel and spoke of "freeing Palestine"; any rational person would know that this is nothing but empty rhetoric. Anyways, John Collins further notes that

In the rush to celebrate the death of the "butcher of Baghdad," we are up to our necks in all three types of denial. The failure to provide a full account of this horrifying chapter of Iraqi and American history is, to be sure, an act of literal denial. If two leaders shake hands, but the photo is not shown on CNN, did they really shake hands? One is reminded of the oft-quoted statement by an anonymous New York Times staff member: "If the Times wasn't there, it didn't happen."

Of course, the facts about the U.S. role in Saddam's brutality are not always literally denied, and this is where the second and third types of denial come into play. No doubt in the coming days we will hear numerous commentators attempt to "spin" the facts, as has often happened in discussions of U.S. ambassador April Glaspie's famous "green light" to Saddam just before Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. It wasn't really a green light, we'll be told. Yes, it was a handshake, but that doesn't mean it was an endorsement of Saddam's policies.

The boldest (and, one must add, the most honest) defenders of U.S. policy will employ the language of implicatory denial, insisting, when pressed, that U.S. support for Saddam was justified under the circumstances. We'll be told that the realities of the Cold War, or the struggle against the threat posted by the Iranian revolution, or the need for maintaining U.S. access to cheap fossil fuels, created a context in which the U.S. had no choice but to get its hands dirty.

In this light, it seems that the initial coverage of Saddam's execution has served as a collective ritual hand-washing designed to reassure Americans that they really are the blameless leaders of a cosmic struggle against "evil." And so the answer to the existential question comes into view. Today's mainstream journalism, even "live" TV, is a far cry from the first draft of history. Instead, it functions largely as a transmission of selective history that has been drafted--and airbrushed, and sanitized, and rearranged, and distorted--long before it ever reaches our eyes and ears.

The hypocrisy already stinks like rotten fish.

Another thing: why was Saddam only tried for the Dujail killings? Why didn't they try him for the gassing of the Kurds and the killing of many Sunnite dissidents and clerics who opposed him? Why did they try him only for the killing of Shiites, not that their lives are unimportant?

But let's be honest: Saddam's execution will not heal the already unstable condition that Iraq is in at the moment, and that's not the only thing that grinds my gears. It's just an example of justice gone awry. I'm reminded of the brand of justice that Thrasymachus, a Greek notable, who argued that

Justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger

In this case, the "stronger" is the Coalition that is occupying Iraq. I could think of many figures who should've joined Saddam in the gallows, most notably Bush, Blair and Sharon (along with many Coalition and Israeli military officials who have blood on their hands). I am especially angered at the Coalition's deception of the international public and how they entered Iraq under false pretenses.

Bottom line: Saddam's life is not worth the lives of innocents who might die as a result of sectarian strife that might ensue as a result of this execution. The death of another dictator who was installed by the American government, and who speaks empty promises of restoring pan-Arab nationalism (of which I am an ardent critic of), amounts to the beating of a dead horse. It will most likely add more salt to the wound of Iraq, which will need more than just a united Iraqi effort to restore the nation. I'd like to say that I have hope for this country, but it saddens me to say that I've lost most of that hope when I see the Iraqi public opinion divided over many matters, of which Saddam was an unexpected determinant of shaping this public opinion. I think, however, that if Iraqis wake up and realize that they're being disunited in a mess, thanks in part to the sectarian government and the Coalition, they would rise up and deport the Coalition, and overthrow the government in order to establish a government for a united Iraq. Saddam's execution was just an assertation of the fact that the Iraqis will suffer from imperialist occupation and neocon chickenhawk stupidity for who knows how long.

This is hard coming from someone who has lost almost all hope for this Cradle of Civilization, but I'd like to take a moment of silence... not for the petty dictator called Saddam, but for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who sufferred as a result of this farcical war, and I pray, with you, in these sacred days of Eid Al Adha, a time of forgiveness, love and compassion, for the safety of the people of Iraq, the hopefully eventual unification of the people of Iraq, and justice for the people of Iraq... especially against those who seek to sow discord and increase bloodshed amongst Iraqis and humanity in general.

Salaam, from Saracen

UPDATE: And if you thought that it wasn't about revenge or dividing the Iraqi people, just read this and then bang your head against a wall. Ok, I was kidding about the "banging your head" part, but the extent of the divisions between the Iraqi people is simply unbelievable.

Seasons Greetings and Happy Holidays!

Salaam/Shalom/Shlama/Hello/Ciao/Bonjour/Hola/(Greetings in all tongues) to all of you. I'd like to first wish a very Merry Christmas to all my Christian brothers and sisters, a Happy Hannukah to all my Jewish brothers and sisters, and a Eid Mubarak to all my Muslim brothers and sisters, and, last but not least, Happy Holidays to all. I hope that you all enjoy this vacation/holiday as much as I am, and wish that the upcoming year will be full of blessings and enlightenment.

I'd like to leave you with a little unofficial prayer for peace:

Dear Santa,

I live in Israel/Palestine and I think I am probably addicted to the big bad conflict we have here. We all seem to be addicted to the conflict we have here. We are so used to it, sometimes I wonder if, given half a chance, we could really learn to live without it. Meanwhile, the academics study it. The politicians cook it and bake it and spin it. The pollsters monitor it. Nonprofit organizations and NGOs mop up the messes, frequently lethal, that it makes. Dissident poets bemoan it, and the journalists (with the exception of a courageous handful, who tell the truth) pretend to report on it. The prisoners find their education, for better or worse, in its shadow, while the wardens find some kinky pleasure there, or anyhow their paycheck.

The mothers, raped by the conflict, carry it with them like some spawn of Satan. That is how it feels, these days. We are continually and forcibly violated by the politicians' spinmeisters, who keep trying to impregnate us with their dysfunctional fantasies so we can deliver more soldiers for the conflict. The children are afraid of the conflict, they're afraid that it's lurking under the bed (if they have a bed, if they have a house), or that it's about to fall on them from the sky and explode in a hail of blood and gore, to kill and maim, like it did last night or last week or in the last war. Or, brainwashed, they crow about the enemy's getting what he deserves, never thinking that "the enemy" is mainly a bunch of kids like them. And then they get a bit older and go out to do battle.

Santa, tell me: What in God's name have we done to the children?

While the innocents suffer, the arms merchants and the generals sign fat deals. Out in the countryside you can see the only truly neutral bystanders to the conflict, cows lowing in their barnyard or goats and sheep grazing on their patch of grass and brambles; surely they hear the infernal screaming when the missiles of death approach. Perhaps they are afraid; no one knows or cares. Once in a while, when I go down south to visit my sister on her kibbutz, I drive through the desert past the dread zone where The Bomb dozes in its nest, deep beneath the sandy hills ­ waiting. Waiting for someone to make a mistake.

Meanwhile Gaia, the living brooding spirit of this beautiful besieged planet, pays us no attention whatsoever; we are an errant flake on the skin of her mysterious, majestic body. She goes on breathing as always - inhale, exhale; inhale, exhale. She can feel a fever coming on, but she has been afflicted before. No matter. She will know how to restore the balance when the time comes. Is there any ice left up there at the North Pole, Santa?

If I feel like praying, I can access a direct line to the Almighty by email or fax They have these handy services now. Here's what you do: (1) Compose your prayer. (2) Send it by email, fax, or post and the company will print it and take it to the ancient Western (formerly Wailing) Wall in Jerusalem and stuff it in the cracks with thousands of other supplications to the Most High. Express delivery guaranteed! (3) Pay by credit card, from anywhere - unless you're in Gaza: Gaza the besieged, the starving, where there is no email, fax, or post, no credit card, no electricity, no water, no work, no bread, and not much else, either. You can still pray there, but the company cannot guarantee delivery, and anyhow the service is not really designed for Muslims.

Santa, I have a few other outgoing letters If you know how to get them to their destinations, give me a hand here, okay? And thanks for listening.

Dear Spirit of Love,

Or whatever your name is - get us into rehab, quick! We need help! We are massacring the neighbors - we are killing each other here. People are besieged, shot, bombed, terrorized, and I swear, some folks justify this. They justify it. How sick is that?! We need help! Most of us want to stop the killing but we don't know how. Help!

Dear Abby,

I am a Jewish freethinker in Israel. (Sometimes I write "in Israel/Palestine" because it seems to make more sense, but we won't go into that now.) I have a question. If Jewish renewal in Palestine after a thousand generations is visionary and noble, why is the idea of repatriating the displaced Palestinians after a mere fifty or sixty years seen as delusional? I don't get it.

Dear Allah,

I have an acquaintance, a Muslim, whose brother is a political prisoner. He's been in prison in Israel more than twenty years ­ nearly half his life. He went into a cell at age 25, waving his banned manifestos; that was in 1986. Soon, he'll have a Ph.D. and I think he's starting to lose his hair. He writes eloquent essays in prison and works on his research. I'd like to play him Libby Roderick's anthem of the oppressed, "How Could Anyone," beginning: How could anyone ever tell you / you were anything less than beautiful? Tell me what else I can do for him. How will this balance ever be restored? How will this debt ever be paid? His name is Walid Daka. He belonged to a banned organization, and maybe he helped to plan violent acts of resistance; I don't know. But I think his real crime was being born Palestinian, because all the rest followed from that.

Dear Jesus,

Come back! We need you! But don't come back as a woman, they won't listen. Don't try to come back as an ordinary Muslim traveler on an airplane, God forbid ­ they'll arrest you at the airport. Don't come back as a foreign (guest) worker: they'll take your passport and lock you up. Don't come back as a cabinet minister because, inside of a week, you'll start to care more about keeping your car and driver than about comforting the poor and afflicted. Better to stick with the donkey, like last time ­ but don't try to cross a checkpoint with it; they'll think it has a bomb in its belly and they'll blow it up, poor critter. I read the other day that there are over 500 checkpoints on the West Bank now; hard to believe. That's a lot of checkpoints. So maybe come on foot. Or get Scotty to beam you over here. But come quick! We're sinking. And whatever you do, don't go to Bethlehem this time. It's under siege and crumbling, but the people are incredibly resilient. They'll break your mortal heart.

Dear Goddess,

Sometimes lately when I'm driving to work on the Abominable Highway Six, built on confiscated land through the hilly heart of Israel/Palestine, I pass the perverted separation barrier around Tulkarm without really noticing. I've only been riding on this road since last spring, and initially I used to stare at the sections of separation wall as I went by, full of acute emotions. The wall dominated my consciousness. I wrote an essay about it. I had nightmares about it. I used to lower the car window and salute the cousins caged on the other side. I'd play them Peter, Paul and Mary ("If I had a hammer, I'd hammer out justice") on the CD player in my car, with the volume on maximum. I'd cry, sometimes; but not anymore. Not even a year has gone by, and I'm desensitized. I don't cry. Sometimes I even forget to look. I forget to salute. I drive by Tulkarm (a ghetto; a prison that was a town) and forget to pay my respects. And then Qalqilya, same thing only bigger, a bit farther along, less hilly ­ same thing. What is happening to me, while we are doing what we are doing to them? When I eventually come to the bottom of this slippery slope, what ghoulish being will gaze back at me out of my mirror? We ought to be careful where we are headed (goes an old folk saying), or we are liable to get to where we are going.

Dear reader:

Well, I can't fix the obscene separation barrier with an old album of Peter, Paul and Mary. But I can get the word out to you, out there in the world -- because if enough people agree we are on the wrong path here, maybe there is still time to walk a different way together. You must not demonize us, though, if you want to help. We're just a bunch of ordinary people who have thoroughly lost our way, possibly because our national ethos was built on an unsustainable foundation. The military sector is very powerful and the political sector is morally bankrupt. What happened to us here could happen to you but I hope, for your sake, that it never does.

Tomorrow on the way to work, I'll stop the car on the shoulder of the highway and get out and listen to the grass growing, for a while. The maintenance crews continually go up and down the length of Highway Six with their spray gizmos, blasting the greenery into oblivion all along the route, beyond the slightest shadow of a weed. All the verge turns brown. It looks vanquished, as if life itself has surrendered, as if brutality has won, at least on this privately- built-for-profit toll road of desolation.

You might think the poisonous reality has begot a permanent wilderness of scorched earth here. But if you sit still and listen, you can hear the grass, deep down, gathering itself to grow again, ready in all innocence to push on through, the sap dancing up from the roots under the ground. New life emergent, rising out of this brutalized place, draws to itself the energy of pure Love from the vast silent starlit universe. That alchemy of renewal is all we can offer by way of solace to a grieving mother or father or child in any Qalqilya on earth. No one can bring back the dead, make the invalid whole or give back the prisoner's lost years, but this I can promise you: The destroyers will not have the last word. We ordinary moms and dads and families - we refuse to be enemies. Our souls are ready to reach past this conflict to a new shared future, as the blades of grass are ready to poke through the dirt again, all over this sorrowing land, reaching up regardless through the blood-soaked soil: little green stalks of life and hope, irrepressible. And over every blade of grass hovers its own angel, whispering: Grow, lovely one! Shaatr! Ta'al! Come to me Grow!

All About the Hajj

Islam is a religion that is built on five pillars: the Shahadah (to bear witness that there is no God but The God, and that Muhammad (pbuh) is the Apostle of God), the Salat (to pray five times a day, in the early morning before sunrise, at noon time, in the afternoon, after sunset and after nightfall), the Zakat (charity, alms-giving, calculated at 2.5% of one's annual income), the Sawm (fasting in the month of Ramadan and other days it has been ordained to fast on the Muslim calendar)... and the Hajj. Of all five pillars, the Hajj completes the Muslim. Any Muslim can say the Shahadah, acquire the knowledge to perform Salat, acquire the wealth to perform Zakat, and forgo food and drink and all other worldly desires in order to perform Sawm. But the Hajj is one thing that many Muslims die without being able to carry out. The Hajj, while obligatory, is required mainly of able-bodied Muslims.

Yet, no pillar of Islam had as such a profound effect on Muslim's lives as the Hajj, owing more or less to the hardship associated with it. But what amazes most Muslims who go for Hajj is that they are accompanied by millions of other Muslims of all races, cultures and backgrounds who have the same purpose in mind over the week of Hajj: to worship God and spiritually rejuvenate themselves. During this week, several rites are performed, each with a historical significance.

The Hajj all occurs in the Holy City of Mecca. The first day of Hajj involves a tawaf, going around the Kaaba seven times, as well as the sa'i, going between two hills, the Safa and Marwa. Both are located within the mosque of Al Haram, in the heart of Mecca itself. The significance of the tawaf has to do with a custom that has passed down from generations ever since the Kaaba was built by the Prophet Abraham (pbuh) and his son, Ishmael (pbuh). Pilgrims have been walking around the Kaaba since the time it was built. The Safa and Marwa are two hills that Hagar, wife of Abraham (pbuh), scurried across 7 times in search of drinking water for her son Ishmael (pbuh). Muslims repeat this movement, emulating this historic search for rejuvenance.

And then, the "Greatest Pillar of the Hajj", the sojourn at Mount Arafat, begins, on the 9th day of the last month of the Islamic Calendar, one day after the beginning of the Hajj. This is the same mountain on which the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) gave his Farewell Sermon. During the whole day, Muslims stand on the Mount or one of its nearby foothills, within a defined boundary, and pray to God for forgiveness for all their sins and to bless them in this life and the Hereafter. Muslims elsewhere around the world usually fast on this day. After sunset, pilgrims head for Muzdalifah for the Jamarat (stoning) of the Devil. On this site, Abraham (pbuh) was believed to have been deceived by the Devil, who manifested himself in front of Abraham (pbuh). In response, Abraham (pbuh) stoned the Devil himself 21 times in 3 different locations. In imitation, Muslim pilgrims stone these pillars, purging themselves from evil, and casting all their sinful desires. According to Wikipedia,

If one is able to crush the al‑Nafs al‑Amarah during the stoning of the Jamarah al‑'Uqbah [the jamrah of Aqaba], then one has taken the next step in attaining closeness to Allah, and since between the servant and Allah there is no more than the distance of one step, if one has been able to take this step and make it past one's own low desires and wishes, then that which follows is the level of closeness to Allah.

During those two or three days after the Eid that one is in Mina, one must stone the three Jamarat, meaning that one must trample upon his internal despot (al-Nafs al-Amarah), the external despot of the Shaitan from the Jinn (Iblis and those like him), and the Shaitan from among the Humans (the enemies of religion and of humanity).
The stoning of the three Jamarat is in essence, the trampling upon the despots and waging war against all of them. When one focuses on them and the hatred for them, then one automatically focuses with complete attention upon one's self – and rightfully so – while stoning the Jamarat, one must focus entirely upon one's self. [3]

I point this out to explain the benefit of such a seemingly senseless ritual.

On Eid AL Adha, a lamb is sacrificed and its mutton and wool are distributed amongst needy people. This is significant as it is reminiscient of Abraham's failed sacrifice of his son Ishmael; a ram was put in his stead, but it has been ordained for Muslims to sacrifice a lamb: a lamb, after all, is more delicious.

At the end of the Hajj, people usually clip off their hair or shave them.

Honestly, I don't have much to tell you about this glorious pillar of Islam. But if you would like to find out more, here are some links to help you out:

Inside Mecca - Discovery Channel
Islamicity's Hajj page

And just to give you an idea of how the Hajj has affected people, take a look at what Malcolm X has to say.

And God knows best. Eid Mubarak and a Happy New Year to all.

Salaam, from Saracen

Yawwwn... The Arab World Hates the U.S. Government More than Ever

Great... Now, tell me something I don't know for a change. I mean, who would expect this coming? Ever since the beginning of the war on Iraq, we thought that the Iraqi people would greet the Coalition troops with flowers and candy, though I hate to say that the Iraqis saved those flowers for other purposes. This is due to the worsening conditions in the nation, with increasing violence and a deployment of "divide and conquer" tactics on part of the Coalition. Then, of course, the elections came around, but those didn't curb the increasing violence that ensued afterwards. One could only hope that this civil strife doesn't conflagrate to nearby MidEastern nations... God, I hope not.

Anyways, two organizations, Zogby International (owned by Arab-American James Zogby) and United Press International (owned by some other guy I don't know), published two separate polls which show that Arab distrust of the U.S. government has increased. This is nothing new, really: Al Jazeera published many polls like this before... not that this is anything new. But with the recent war on Lebanon and the increasing raids in Gaza that go unabashed, the American government remains blind to the Arab public that it supposedly wants to help. For this alone, we can see why Arabs would hate the U.S. government even more than they did before. Zogby's poll is quite revealing itself: if anything, negative attitudes were on the rise, especially towards American "freedom/democracy" and whatever else is American in general (of which the latter I tend to have a neutral opinion on).

In interpreting it further, we have Tom Regan of the Christian Science Monitor, who published these findings online. Before we continue, I'd like to highlight the skeptical accuracy of polls, as mentioned by Regan here:

The surveys, conducted in November, surveyed 3,500 Arab adults in Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan.

Well, 3,500 adults in each nation might make sense, but each nation mentioned has a population that is a thousand-fold bigger than the sample size taken in the poll. However, Regan would have known this and taken that earlier polls had either the same sample size or even a smaller sample size. He cites the Washington Times, which reported that in the past,

Mr. Zogby said he first noticed a distinct shift in 2004. In the 2006 survey, only a plurality of Lebanese polled expressed a favorable view of the American people, with 44 percent approving and 18 percent expressing unfavorable views.

The American people are viewed least favorably in Saudi Arabia, where 18 percent said they had a favorable opinion and 34 percent expressed an unfavorable opinion. At the same time, 50 percent of Saudis say they like American products, compared with 24 percent who do not ...

Middle Eastern poll respondents cited the Iraq war and perceived US support for Israel over the Palestinians as their biggest concerns.

Of course, nothing surprising there. I tend to take polls with a grain of salt, as many have been shown to be faulty (such as the famous bollocks of a Daily Telegraph poll which showed that 53% of Britons feel that Islam is a threat to the West).

James Zogby himself commented on the results, saying,

"If America wants to salvage itself and improve its standing and get the credibility and legitimacy it needs to lead in Iraq, it needs to do something to earn the trust of allies in the broader region."

Well, of course the American government needs to earn that trust, but from what I see, it's not going to be an easy path, considering that the American government has an impressive track record of 50+ years in accumulating and earning distrust of the Arab people towards the American government. Such a long time eventually lead to a substantial portion of the Arab population hating not just the American government, but also anything that hinted at being commercially American.

But it's not going to be easy for the American government to salvage this trust from the bloodied corpses of dead Iraqis, Lebanese and Palestinians, the heap of rubble of destroyed homes and buildings, and the despair in the souls of those who were rendered destitute as a result of American interventionism, in whatever form it came over these Goddamned 50+ years of aggression and support of aggression against Arabs.

Salaam, from Saracen

News Professionalism Reaches New Heights...

...or not:



Just listen to what the lady says in the end:

"God, I hope this isn't recorded, or we'll go in 60 directions (Arab expression for "we'll be in serious trouble") ..."

Then, you have this from Al Jazeera:



Very professional of you, man... Really... You don't laugh at a joke on the air.

And then this:



Just wait for the caller: it turns out that Dr. Hassan Husni's secretary answers for him when he's scheduled for the interview.

And then there's the rant offered by the guy in the white robe near the end... "C'mon... let us go homes and relax with our families..."

Of course, you have people like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to give you all the news-related laughs you need, but this is just too much.

Comedy gold...

Wow... just... wow...

Has Ahmadinejad Lost his Mind?!

He's not "possessed" like many people make him out to be, but he is as obsessed with the Holocaust issue and other whacko conspiracy theories. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad went too far this time: he hosted a "Holocaust conference" that was most likely a mock conference used to insult Jewish history and the Holocaust itself, which is an event that has roots in human history as Jews, Poles, and all other "opponents" to the Nazi regime were executed (quoted "opponents" because many of them were innocent of any opposition or support for that matter). Ahmadinejad is shatterring his own image with the very thing that people are accusing him of being: denying the Holocaust's existence.

To do that, he invited several historians from around the world to attend this conference... historians who have been painted as Holocaust deniers. Granted, these people have the right to believe what they believe in, but as long as they do, there will be people elsewhere who will criticize them for it. I myself do not deny the Holocaust: I know people whose parents and grandparents survived the Holocaust. The invitee list is caustic. Among the attendees are former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke and French professor Robert Faurisson, both of them well-known anti-Semites. If Iran's leader was honest about this Holocaust conference, he would have invited an equal number of reputable historians on the Holocaust who affirm its occurrence, not just Khaled Mahameed, who is one of these historians.

Not surprisingly, the conference received widespread condemnation, mainly from the Western world. Of course, we get the same old, lame old rhetoric from Ehud Olmert, probably the most incompetent Israeli Prime Minister to date. The conference was immediately labelled as anti-Semitic (which I believe it is to some extent) because it speaks of continuing a debate which ended years and years ago, ever since the criminals responsible for the Holocaust were tried and executed.

But Ahmadinejad received even more noteworthy criticism from an unexpected source: a Palestinian prisoner. While I'm sure that most if not all Palestinians believe that the Holocaust really occurred, this one made note because it was actually made much more public. Angus McDowall of The Independent writes,

However, Mr Ahmadinejad has been condemned on the eve of the conference by Mahmoud al-Safadi, who was sentenced to 27 years by Israel for throwing Molotov cocktails during the 1988 intifada. In an open letter to the Iranian president, he says that Mr Ahmadinejad's stance is a "great disservice to popular struggles the world over".

"Perhaps you see Holocaust denial as an expression of support for the Palestinians," he writes. "Here, too, you are wrong. We struggle for our existence and our rights, and against the historic injustice that was dealt us in 1948.

"Our success and our independence will not be gained by denying the genocide perpetrated against the Jewish people, even if parts of this people are the very forces that occupy and dispossess us to this day." Mr Safadi says that reading the works of Arab intellectuals helped convince him that the Holocaust was a historical fact.

Golden words, in my opinion. I find it hypocritical that Ahmadinejad stands against the genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people and at the same time deny that genocide occurred against the Jews, even though a part of the Jewish people (i.e. Zionists in the Israeli regime) are committing atrocities against the Palestinians. It is often taken in the Arab world, sadly, that Israel represents the world Jewry, and Judaism as a whole, and that support for the Palestinians means that we should oppose Israel, the "representative" of the world Jewry. This is the reason why many Zionists equate anti-Zionism (over Palestine) with anti-Semitism, and sadly, some pro-Palestinian supporters, Palestinian or not, "justify" their anti-Semitism because the "other side" is anti-Arab or anti-Palestinian or anti-Muslim racist.

This, of course, isn't true. There are many Zionists out there who support a Jewish state, but do not support genocide, nor are they anti-Arab/anti-Muslim bigots, and I know this because I've debated with such people. Ahmadinejad seeks to polarize the sides, and turn it into some apocalyptic conflict. His support for Palestine does not come at denying the Holocaust. If he hosted a conference against Zionist motivations in Palestine (i.e. the Catastrophe of 1948), I'd have no problem as it is purely historical, though politics is rapidly losing its flavor with me because of how much it divides people. If he is supporting an oppressed people, he shouldn't denigrate the oppressor's background, that's what I'd say. I hope this Holocaust conference becomes nothing more than a sham and a reassurance to Ahmadinejad that it did happen.

Ahmadinejad's views on Israel have been very ambivalent. On one note, he acknowledges the existence of the Holocaust but undermines the legitimacy of the Israeli regime. On the other, he is willing to say that the Holocaust is a myth. Even returning to the related stories in the first article I presented (the one with Olmert and Merkel) do you see this ambivalence in his opinion. Clearly, Ahmadinejad is stammerring on this issue.

On that note, I am equivocal in condemning all genocides in the history of man, from the earliest days to the present, wherever such killings of innocents occurs. Whether it be the Holocaust, Stalin's Purges, the Crusader conquest of Jerusalem, etc., there is no justification for such actions. Ahmadinejad is now trying to push some of that under the dirt, and that is certainly not going to help the Palestinian cause for self-determination. But Ahmadinejad remains a non-threat, though his provocative remarks and assertation of independence are quite surprising for a politician these days. Whatever it is, with or without this petty Holocaust conference, the Holocaust happened, and so has every other genocide that has been recorded in human history. And those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it. We should remember all incidents of sufferring in the past and present, so we could work together to build a safer and more prosperous future for our children.

Salaam, from Saracen

Jesus Christ (عيسى المسيح) in Islam

Here we are, in the splendid month of December, looking forward to a New Year in 2007. But before this year ends, many an occasion will be observed. On the Jewish calendar, we have Hanukkah, an important Jewish festivity. This year, Eid ul-Adha is coming up near the end of this month as well. And of course, not so far behind, we have Christmas, which falls on the 25th of this month. How close these festivities are...

...and yet, we choose to bicker and segregate instead of unite and celebrate together, not that we should compromise our faiths, but I believe in a modicum of respect for others and their beliefs. Well, let's get back to Christmas. On this day (according to Christians, though we do not know the exact date), a man who would instill a big change unto this world was born a birth. And not just any birth, but a miraculous virgin birth. His mother was Mary, and his name was Jesus. You might have read this before, but as a Muslim, I believe that Jesus (peace be upon him) is indeed one of God's Prophets and Messengers, and he sent a message to Mankind that has been echoed in the New Testament and the Koran. I hear his name quite often. One example includes this implicit reference to him in Fairuz's masterpiece, Zahrat el Mada'in (زهرة المدائن, "Flower of the Cities"):

الطفل في المغارة و أمه مريم وجهان يبكيان

"The infant in a cave, with his mother, Mary... both of them crying..."

Well, according to the song, they were crying because of injustice, and Jesus Christ (pbuh) was definitely one who stood up against all sorts of injustices being wrought against the innocent. Well, that, and of course preaching the Gospel (which we believe has not been fully preserved to the present day).

Now, as a Prophet and Messenger of God, Jesus was bestowed miracles which he could perform by God's leave and Will. From what I've read in the Koran, Jesus is a special case because miracles were bestowed upon him since birth, which itself was miraculous. And so was the birth of John the Baptist (Yahya, يحيى, pbuh) before him: to a barren woman, the wife of Zachariah (Zakariyya, زكرية, pbuh). God mentioned in the Koran this beautiful story, in Chapter 19, dubbed - not surprisingly - Mary (Maryam, mother of Jesus):

[19:2] (This is) a recital of the Mercy of thy Lord to His servant Zakariya.
[19:3] Behold! he cried to his Lord in secret,
[19:4] Praying: "O my Lord! infirm indeed are my bones, and the hair of my head doth glisten with grey: but never am I unblest, O my Lord, in my prayer to Thee!
[19:5] "Now I fear (what) my relatives (and colleagues) (will do) after me: but my wife is barren: so give me an heir as from Thyself,-
[19:6] "(One that) will (truly) represent me, and represent the posterity of Jacob; and make him, O my Lord! one with whom Thou art well-pleased!"
[19:7] (His prayer was answered): "O Zakariya! We give thee good news of a son: His name shall be Yahya: on none by that name have We conferred distinction before."
[19:8] He said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son, when my wife is barren and I have grown quite decrepit from old age?"
[Yusufali 19:9] He said: "So (it will be) thy Lord saith, 'that is easy for Me: I did indeed create thee before, when thou hadst been nothing!'"
[19:10] (Zakariya) said: "O my Lord! give me a Sign." "Thy Sign," was the answer, "Shall be that thou shalt speak to no man for three nights, although thou art not dumb."
[19:11] So Zakariya came out to his people from him chamber: He told them by signs to celebrate Allah's praises in the morning and in the evening.
[19:12] (To his son came the command): "O Yahya! take hold of the Book with might": and We gave him Wisdom even as a youth,
[19:13] And piety (for all creatures) as from Us, and purity: He was devout,
[19:14] And kind to his parents, and he was not overbearing or rebellious.
[19:15] So Peace on him the day he was born, the day that he dies, and the day that he will be raised up to life (again)!

One might find a similar descriptions in the New Testament regarding John the Baptist (pbuh), who is elevated to a saintly status due to his piety and wisdom in preaching the Word of God. Of course, he was but a forerunner of Jesus Christ (pbuh) himself, who would also come with glad tidings and preach to Mankind, through the Children of Israel and the residents of Palestine.

Following John's (pbuh) preaching and death, another remarkable figure enters the fray. Her name is Mary (peace be upon her), mother of Jesus. Could it have been coincidence that she had such a pious son? After all, God praises her as a pious, upright and righteous woman who stayed away from wrong and sin. God relates in the same chapter:

[19:16] Relate in the Book (the story of) Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place in the East.
[19:17] She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent her our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects.
[19:18] She said: "I seek refuge from thee to (Allah) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear Allah."
[19:19] He said: "Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son.
[Yusufali 19:20] She said: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?"
[19:21] He said: "So (it will be): Thy Lord saith, 'that is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us':It is a matter (so) decreed."
[19:22] So she conceived him, and she retired with him to a remote place.
[19:23] And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm-tree: She cried (in her anguish): "Ah! would that I had died before this! would that I had been a thing forgotten and out of sight!"
[19:24] But (a voice) cried to her from beneath the (palm-tree): "Grieve not! for thy Lord hath provided a rivulet beneath thee;
[Yusufali 19:25] "And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree: It will let fall fresh ripe dates upon thee.
[19:26] "So eat and drink and cool (thine) eye. And if thou dost see any man, say, 'I have vowed a fast to (Allah) Most Gracious, and this day will I enter into not talk with any human being'"
[19:27] At length she brought the (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms). They said: "O Mary! truly an amazing thing hast thou brought!
[19:28] "O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!"
[19:29] But she pointed to the babe. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?"
[Yusufali 19:30] He said: "I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet;
[19:31] "And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live;
[Yusufali 19:32] "(He) hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable;
[19:33] "So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)"!
[Yusufali 19:34] Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute.

Among the many miracles that Jesus was bestowed was, suggested by these verses, his ability to speak from infancy. This is confirmed in an earlier chapter in the Koran, titled Aal Imran ("the family of Imran (Amram in the Bible, is it?)"):

[3:45] Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah;
[3:46] "He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. And he shall be (of the company) of the righteous."
[3:47] She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: Allah createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is!
[3:48] "And Allah will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel,
[3:49] "And (appoint him) a messenger to the Children of Israel, (with this message): "'I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah's leave: And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I quicken the dead, by Allah's leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe;
[3:50] "'(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.
[3:51] "'It is Allah Who is my Lord and your Lord; then worship Him. This is a Way that is straight.'"

Jesus (pbuh), like all prophets and messengers before and after him (peace be upon them), performed miraculous signs so as to get people into believing that he was indeed bestowed with the gift of bearing God's Message and tidings. He was able to speak to people from birth, teach them the Revelations in both the Torah and the Gospel, make a bird out of clay, heal the blind and the leper, and raise the dead... all by God's leave. But it was for the purpose of preaching that he performed these miracles. He definitely carried the same Message that was preached before and after him: worship God and fear Him.

Now, here's the catch. Christians believe that Jesus was crucified "for our sins". Crucifixion, however, is, from the Islamic perspective, not a fitting fate for a man who preached the Message of God. And indeed, we do believe that his fate was otherwise. Rather than crucifixion, he was raised to the company of His Lord, and will return near the End of Times (i.e. Second Coming). God tells us:

[3:52] When Jesus found Unbelief on their part He said: "Who will be My helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the disciples: "We are Allah's helpers: We believe in Allah, and do thou bear witness that we are Muslims.
[3:53] "Our Lord! we believe in what Thou hast revealed, and we follow the Messenger; then write us down among those who bear witness."
[3:54] And (the unbelievers) plotted and planned, and Allah too planned, and the best of planners is Allah.
[3:55] Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.

Strange, I know, but that's what we believed happened. For more explicit verses that explains this occurrence:

[4:157] That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
[4:158] Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise

So, in short, someone in his place (i.e. someone who looks like him) was sent to the cross, but Jesus (pbuh) was taken up and awaits the day that he will return to Earth and restore peace and justice for all of humanity.

Islam holds that God is One, and takes no partners. We do not believe in the Trinity, nor do we believe that Jesus (pbuh) is part of a "Trinity". But we do agree that his character was godly in essence because of his piety and his steadfastness. While human, he did not sin and, like his contemporary, John the Baptist (pbuh), did not take pleasure in worldly affairs. Returning to the idea of the crucifixion, we do not hold that one has to die for atoning for one's sin. According to Islamic belief, all that is needed to atone for one's sins is sincere repentance. It is this wonderful message, full of goodness, that Jesus has preached. Such messages can be found in the New Testament (though we believe that much of it has not been preserved) and the Koran. For example, Jesus once said:

[John, 13:84]A new command I give you: Love one another.

[Luke, 6:27-28] But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.

[Romans, 12:14]Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse (Romans 12:14).

Of course, God in the Koran and the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) confirm this message of goodness, but many people tend to favor different people who preached the message of God. God tells us:

[2:285]The Messenger believeth in what hath been revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith. Each one (of them) believeth in Allah, His angels, His books, and His messengers. "We make no distinction (they say) between one and another of His messengers." And they say: "We hear, and we obey: (We seek) Thy forgiveness, our Lord, and to Thee is the end of all journeys."

This is why I believe that this Message, the one that was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), was revealed to many Prophets and Messengers (peace be upon them all). We love them all and do not discriminate against any one of them because they have revealed the Message of God, whom we hold the highest love for. Whether it's Adam, Enoch (Idris), Noah (Nuh), Abraham (Ibrahim), Lot (Lut), Ishmael (Isma'il), Isaac (Is-haq), Jacob (Ya'aqub), Job (Ayyub), Jonah (Yunus), Elias (Ilyas), Elisha (Al-Yasa'), Ezekiel (Dhul-Kifl), Heber (Hud), Shelah (Saleh), Jethro (Shu'aib), Saul (Talut), David (Dawud), Solomon (Sulaiman), (Saint) George (Khidr), Moses (Musa), Aaron (Harun), Zechariah (Zakkariyya), John (Yahya), Jesus (Isa) and Muhammad... peace be upon them all... we care moreso about the Message that they revealed and, because God ordained it, believe that it was they who received the message and spread it to all of mankind.

My beliefs regarding Jesus are not meant to attack any other faith, especially Christianity. I only wish that we all learn to live together, regardless of background, all equal under the Eyes of God, in peace and prosperity, and hopefully practice what they, the Prophets and Messengers of God, have preached, with humility, piety and benevolence towards others. I also hope that during this critical period, where the festivities of the three Abrahamic faiths intersect, that we come to understand each other more, and understand those who do not adhere to our faiths or any faiths for that matter, and set during this holiday an example of interfaith and intercultural solidarity, for all of humanity to witness. Let's pray for a "heavenly peace" on Earth.

Farewell, and God Bless.

Salaam, from Saracen

Rumsfeld's "Memo of Options": Just Another Corruption Manual

Anyone been following up on this old coot? Yeah, I'm talking about U.S. Secretary of "Defense", Donald "Rummy" Rumsfeld, accomplished neocon and one man who has plenty of blood on his hands. I must admit that he has done quite a lot for the detriment of Iraq, sadly, considering the fallacious investigations into genocidal incidents on part of Coalition troops stationed there. Rumsfeld is famous for being cute in front of the mic, and in mulling over most issues that neocons try to run away from, whenever it comes to being questioned by the press (yes, God damn them for trying to get the truth out, eh, Rummy?). But they're authority figures, so we can't question them, even when they screw up a beautiful nation like Iraq 100,000 times over.

The ever so snoopy (and yet also biased) New York Times published a formerly classified Novermber 6 memorandum that Donald Rumsfeld himself issued regarding the Iraq war. The big hype of it all is that it was supposed to issue a "major" change. Well, let's just see how "major" it really is. Let's start by analyzing the intro of the memo:

"The situation in Iraq has been evolving, and U.S. forces have adjusted, over time, from major combat operations to counterterrorism, to counterinsurgency, to dealing with death squads and sectarian violence. In my view it is time for a major adjustment. Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough."

Remind me again... who was it who incited this "sectarian violence" and encouraged the formation of the "death squads" in the first place? The Iraqis themselves? Doubt they would commit suicide, especially when an invader such as the Coalition is involved.

What I find common amongst neocon politicians and other incompetents is that they usually have no friggin' clue on what they're talking about, and what they speak is usually empty Orwellian gibberish that is most dismissed by the biggest threat to such politicians: the intellectual mind. Let's just start by looking at his first "point":

"Publicly announce a set of benchmarks agreed to by the Iraqi Government and the U.S. — political, economic and security goals — to chart a path ahead for the Iraqi government and Iraqi people (to get them moving) and for the U.S. public (to reassure them that progress can and is being made)."

If anything, the U.S. public has not been assured of any such progress for the most part in Iraq. So, how are the Iraqi people themselves, who for the most part want the Coalition out of Iraq, going to respond to this? Obviously, not so well. Note also that Rumsfeld made it clear that this non-representative government of Iraq is the only body that the Coalition is dealing with, not the people of Iraq, and this of course underlies any sort of democratic reform because it fails to address the demands of the people.

Then, there's the question of a pull-out, or even adding more U.S. troops to the mess in Iraq. Honestly, Rumsfeld has no care whatsoever about human life: those of the Iraqi troops and those of his own nation's troops.

"Significantly increase U.S. trainers and embeds, and transfer more U.S. equipment to Iraqi Security forces (ISF), to further accelerate their capabilities by refocusing the assignment of some significant portion of the U.S. troops currently in Iraq."

Not that I tend to be biased, but carrying out joint military exercises, as Russia and China have done in the past, have been viewed at negatively because in this case, the developing Iraqi army is in cahoots with the developed Coalition (U.S./U.K.) army. This is pretty much starting to sound like the forging of the Egypt-U.S. alliance ever since that petty scumbag of a dictator, Husni Mubarak, took the presidential throne for himself.

Skipping over a few subtle empty points, we find something not so subtle:

"Initiate an approach where U.S. forces provide security only for those provinces or cities that openly request U.S. help and that actively cooperate, with the stipulation being that unless they cooperate fully, U.S. forces would leave their province."

So, let me get this straight. Provine A wants the help of the U.S., but the people of province A will only get that help if they allow themselves to be subjugated to Coalition "security measures". That is, the people of province A get their freedoms sacrificed for the sake of their "security", which could eventually result in the destabilization of the province. But seeing how that works, we turn to another point in this damning memo:

"Stop rewarding bad behavior, as was done in Fallujah when they pushed in reconstruction funds, and start rewarding good behavior. Put our reconstruction efforts in those parts of Iraq that are behaving, and invest and create havens of opportunity to reward them for their good behavior. As the old saying goes, “If you want more of something, reward it; if you want less of something, penalize it.” No more reconstruction assistance in areas where there is violence."

"Good" behavior means compliance with Coalition demands, not Iraqi demands. The Coalition has absolutely no moral right whatsoever to do such a thing. Of course, this is by definition cronyism, because it just leads to further distrust and may also give the Coalition the pretext to incite more civil tensions in Iraq, and I mean all over it.

This one made me laugh:

"Position substantial U.S. forces near the Iranian and Syrian borders to reduce infiltration and, importantly, reduce Iranian influence on the Iraqi Government."

He doesn't have to worry about it as there already is a strong Coalition influence on the government, which has proved more negative than positive.

The last point is just a pure re-iteration and confirmation of the goals of the Coalition in Iraq:

"Provide money to key political and religious leaders (as Saddam Hussein did), to get them to help us get through this difficult period."

That couldn't have been more clearer, Rummy. The memo of options has proved itself to be just another sleazy political move on part of the U.S. government in the case of Iraq. All they have to do is favoritize certain political figures over others so they could do whatever the Coalition tells them to do, and yet the Coalition absolves itself from any and all responsibility.

Whatever it is, I'm glad that Rummy Rumsfeld's words, like those of any politician, are not going to be implemented into U.S. foreign policy in the future. He has finally stepped down, only to be replaced by former CIA Director Robert Gates (Associated Press, Forbes). Also commenting on this event is Counterpuncher Mike Whitney. Rumsfeld, according to Whitney, can't be trusted, because Rumsfled

spies on Americans' phone calls, computers, medical records, bank records and groups. He has been a stanch supporter of planting propaganda in newspapers and TV. He introduced a program that created a "rapid response" team to rebut information that is critical of US foreign policy appearing on blogs, web-sites and letters to the editor. He controlled the flow of information coming out of Iraq and managed to silence many of the war's critics. He developed a plan for "Total Information Awareness" that is designed to control everything that the public sees and hears from cradle to grave.

Now he is trying to write his own legacy. It is just another in a long list of deceptions; a smokescreen created to conceal his responsibility in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

The memo states that Rumsfeld was planning to make major adjustments and that "Clearly, what US forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough". But "what US forces were doing" was exactly what Rumsfeld told them to do; nothing more, nothing less.

When he told them to bomb Falluja to the ground, they followed his orders; and when they tortured and stacked naked prisoners on top of each other, they followed his orders. And, when they trained the Shiite death squads to kill and maim Sunni suspects, they followed his orders.

Every major decision in 4 years of conflict bears Rumsfeld's imprimatur. It's his policy; it's his war. If Rumsfeld continued as Secretary of Defense, then nothing would change, because he has absolute confidence in violence and deception as the two main instruments for political transformation.

Rumsfeld's memo is great reading for fiction-lovers. It provides a revealing snapshot of a leader who carefully considered every alternative before making a decision. It's a stark contrast to the intractable narcissist who ignored his advisors and bullied his generals. But, like I said, it's great fiction.

Excerpt: "Announce that no matter whatever new approach the US decides on, the US is doing on a trial basis'. This will give us the ability to readjust and move to another course, and therefore not lose'".

In other words, keep moving the goalposts while people die and the public will never catch on.

That's a whole new take on cynicism.

Rumsfeld has enjoyed his 6-year tenure as Sec-Def. He probably thought it would never end. Now what he needs is a good biographer, like Bob Woodward, who can invent a story about his exploits fighting "radical Islam's" attack on the "land of the free and the home of the brave". No doubt, there'll be a photo of the square-jawed Rummy plastered atop the muscled torso of Favio staving off the swarthy Middle Eastern males' with his trusty DOD-issue scimitar.

Enough said.

The memo is just more gibberish; the empty dissembling of a con-man trying to hoodwink the public before scuttling off into political oblivion.

I know that this might seem irrelevant - that he drafted up this plan - but think of the irony here: in his last move as the Secretary of "Defense", he clearly defined for us the imperialistic "divide and conquer" motives behind U.S. foreign policy. And yet, here we see another war criminal, in the same row as people like Henry Kissinger, Ariel Sharon, George W. Bush Jr., Tony Blair, Slobodan Milosevic, and others, scuffle away from justice.

So, yes, as Whitney pointed out, I've got the same advice for you, Rummy: Don't let the door hit you on the way out... Don.

Salaam, from Saracen

Pitiful Politics of the Levant

I thought the situation in Lebanon would simmer down a bit after the Israeli invasion of the once upright Mediterranean nation during the hot summer that was hot for many reasons. Instead, I wake up to see, right on the morning news, turmoil. The (assassination of the Maronite cabinet minister Pierre Gemayel could not have come at a worse time. And now, instead of Lebanon uniting, we get fingers all over the place, pointing in all sorts of directions... with your friendly neighborhood Sa'ad Al-Hariri - who wouldn't amount even to my younger brother in his "maturity" - prattling on the same Bush-style B.S. about a lover of freedom who was killed in Beirut. Granted, I deplore the death of Gemayyel, but exploiting the death of one politician for the gains of another is just... typically political.

Well, you get the idea, not that I'd like to see Sa'ad Al-Hariri fall off from a two-meter stage and break his leg. But the thing is, why the heck do we have someone like Nasrallah now inciting protests against the government? I had a feeling that something like this was going to happen, especially since sectarian tensions flared during AND after Pierre Gemayyel's funeral. As two of my dear Lebanese friends put it, this is simply a case of "democracy gone wrong". According to Al Jazeera,

Christian leader Michel Aoun said that the Lebanese opposition would escalate its protests if the government failed to accept demands for a national unity cabinet. "If the prime minister and his camp continue to monopolise power, there will be an escalation of popular pressure," Aoun told Associated French Press. "We will paralyse the government ... we will force it to go into a deep coma."

I hate to break it to Aoun and other Lebanese officials, but I personally think that they are all sufferring from a coma at the moment: they are obviously not aware of the almost extremely disunited state that their nation is in. Unless they wake up, Lebanon will remain a divided nation. Also,

The Organisation of the Islamic Conference urged Lebanese leaders to act with "the highest degree of self-restraint, wisdom and responsibility in order to save the country from slipping on the inevitable slope of confrontation". Lebanon's Maronite church also weighed in, urging an early presidential election, an tribunal into the killing of Rafiq al-Hariri, and the formation of a new "government of accord" to end the political deadlock. The opposition, made up of Shia and Christian factions, has held demonstrations since Friday outside the offices of Fouad Siniora, the Lebanese prime minister,in central Beirut where he and several ministers have been holed up.

Poor Siniora... I wonder how it's like to be holed up inside a parliament building for days on end. My rather sarcastic sympathies aside, I have to outline something: Siniora isn't the sharpest bullet around. He's the former finance minister and held this position for a short while. Before that, he was a businessman. And what better businessmen to be politicians, especially in the Arab world? Ok, now seriously, let's reflect on the Maronite Church's position. The "government of accord" clearly caught my eye: it's seemingly the same demand being echoed by the opposition protestors who are camped outside the Lebanese parliament building.

But then again, something else caught my eye. Returning to the story regarding sectarian tensions making sparks especially after Gemayyel's funeral, one mourner, who goes by the name of Fadi Jalakh, said something that I am most definitely in cahoots with:

"Those who killed him don't want the Lebanese to unite. Anything after this is going to make things worse."

This is not to necessarily say that he's right: what is it was a personal vendetta? What if the murderer did want the Lebanese to unite, but in his/her own sick, perverted way? Many a man has been murdered since Hariri, among them politician Gibran Tueni, his colleague and a prominent journalist Samir Kassir (whose book, Being Arab, I will be talking about later), former Lebanese Communist party leader George Hawi, and now Industry Minister Pierre Gemayyel. It's relatively easy to see why all fingers have been pointed at Syria: all names mentioned have been vocal critics of the Syrian political intervention in Lebanon (and rightly so). One might speculate that because they opposed Syrian presense in Lebanon, they were killed. Another might say that others are seeking to sow discord between Arabs, and frame Syria in the process. Or it might have just been some strange political bickering... but whatever it was, Lebanese politicians all over were exploiting the deaths of these men.

To be honest with you, reader, I don't know what to make of this mess. On one hand, the protests have so far been "peaceful and civilized". On the other hand, they're still going on, and who knows when they'll end. I honestly don't know who to trust: Nasrallah and Aoun, or Siniora and his government. It's quite obvious, however, that they're still being political: Nasrallah, in a televised address, claimed that he and his supporters would lead a non-violent resistance and not encourage any sort of tension. Siniora, however, remains holed up, and he and his colleagues, including Jumblatt, whose demeanor speaks truly of his lacking intelligence, keep parrotting demands for dialogue with concessions and formation of a government "with accords". Of course, Nasrallah tries to lend credibility to his argument by stating, on Al Manar,

"We insist on our demands, for the formation of a real government of national unity... because it is the only means to prevent any foreign tutelage on Lebanon, so that we have Lebanese decision-making."

I'm not sure if I am to take his word on this one. I mean, clearly, politicians these days tend to be less concerned about the gains of nations and more concerned about their own selfish gains and influence in the region. This, of course, has to do with power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Bush definitely lead this adage by example; look what he did to Iraq. I wonder if the other politicians are smart enough not to fall into the same manhole.

I think it's best that these politicians follow my plan for political reform in the Arab world, because if they don't, they'll find themselves ripping each other apart. Nasrallah's Hizbullah faction clearly shows, for example, favoritism for the Shi'ite south. The same goes for Nabih Berri's Amal faction. The Lebanese Forces of Samir Geagea, yet another politician I have absolutely no respect nor love for, are almost purely Maronite-leaning, as are the Phalange/Kataeb of Amine Gemayyel, the father of the slain Pierre Gemayyel. What the Lebanese need is a party that favors Lebanese, and addresses the rights of other minorites in Lebanon who are not Lebanese in origin, just like any just nation would do.

Identifying the problem is the first step to the solution. And as long as the leaders themselves have personal vendettas that they just can't seem to shove aside, then I propose that these leaders be deposed in favor of a generation of new statesmen (NOT politicians) that has no (familial) association whatsoever with any of the sectarian/feudalist politicians in the Lebanese parliament. Either that, or all parties should drop their personal grudges and work towards rebuilding the nation that was once known as the "Paris of the Middle East"...

But who am I kidding? I have no hope for politicians who waste parliamentary sessions fighting over the most trivial of issues.

Salaam, from Saracen

Gender Politics and the Need for Gender Equity in Today's Societies

"O' ye who believe! Fear the Lord God, Who created you from a single entity, and from that created its companion, and from them sprung forth many men and women...
-The Koran, 4:1

At first, things might look normal. Men and women go about their daily lives, seemingly not complaining or fussing about what they hate about what they do every single day. Women are of special concern because of the wide variety of roles that they play across different cultures and societies. They could be working all day, or taking care of the house, or maybe even both, but even those "both" are just part of the wider range of possibilities of roles of females in contemporary societies. In the face of today's growing globalization, our roles and our behaviors are being shaped by this wave of pseudo-intellectual values and norms that seek to unipolarize the world into one single, predictable and thus unexciting place. Social life as we know it would vanish in front of our eyes.

But one of the pressing issues in the wake of this force is the shaping of a woman's status in society, and how others view her. When one takes a look at modern-day "Islamic" society, we tend to see women playing a rather limited role in the public sphere, whereas women are technically the center of attention in the Western world. One might argue, then, that women in Islamic societies have less freedom and are in fact being subjugated by concrete legislation that denies them rights. It sounds convincing, given Saudi Arabia's state of denying females the right to utilize a vehicle, or go out without a muhram (male chaperone). And then there's the pressing issue of the corrupt justice system that is fraught with incidence, such as the execution of a rape victim. Sad, but it happened; it also happened in Iran. However, the situation is not as bad as one thinks: women are not subjected to governmentally-sanctioned violence or the like. One might also think that women in the MidEast and other places with Muslim majorities look at women living elsewhere with envious desperation. Women living in Western societies could work, drive, drink, go out more, and enjoy the same rights as men do. Their lives seem perfect compared to those living under some sort of oppressive rule.

But perfect... they are not. And I shall give you little image on how gender equity has not been reached in today's world.

Women in today's societies will, like any other person in society (both male and female), try their best to stick to the societal norms and values. They follow a dress code that changes between circumstances, and are committed to their roles. They will, however, be subjected to pressure from various sources. First and foremost are their peers. Usually, people stick with those who are like-minded, or conform to a certain standard, etc. What their peers think of them or expect of them will confine the free will of a woman in areas such as her dress, attitude, and demeanor (posture?). Women undergoing the process of socialization tend to stick with women more than men. So, you might be thinking, then, that women are subjugating each other and negotiating their roles with their peers, and men are just around, sitting on the couch and watching Monday Night Football and not giving a damn about their wives, girlfriends and children.

Looks can be deceiving. That man on the couch belongs to the gender that is responsible for more than 99% of all historical wars and more than 99% of genocides, murders... hell, they kill themselves more, too. Men are actually more responsible for shaping women and defining their positions within society and what they should do. As most societies today are patriarchal (headed by men), much of what is expected from women in these societies is brought forth by those who dominate them: men. Even in Western societies are women being put under this subconscious control of every aspect of their social expressions and impressions by men, who try to exploit this "weaker sex".

Advertising is one method through which men and even other women exploit the "weaker sex" (Alvesson). When one takes a look at what women wear in the West, it could range from covered, modest clothing to clothing so seductive that the clothes themselves don't do their job of covering the woman properly. The latter form seems to be encouraged by mass media. It's everywhere: movies, designer ads, commercials, TV shows, etc. Don't tell me that you've seen, most of the time, a fashion ad with a woman moreso properly dressed. Sure, you might have, but which ones actually deliver the message? Which ones give women the impression that if they don't look like the women on TV or on the ads, they won't be good-looking, or "sexier"? Definitely not a business ad, that's for sure. You'll find them in the fashion ads: sleek-looking women who wear make-up, designer shoes, and clothes that reveal the skin in as many "exciting" ways as possible.

But if you thought that clothing ads were enough, take a look at the music and film industries. The emergence of "pimpin'" "Hip-Hop" culture (what the heck do they call it, really?) coincided with images of women being literally nothing but "sex slaves", "prostitutes" (they call them "hoes", which is ironically supposedly a less offensive form of "whore", but it still carries the same message across), etc. That is, this "pop culture" encourages women to be as sl*tty as possible, or as flirtatious as possible if not so seductive. Then there are movies and shows, which depict women in a similar light... you know, the "popular" girl image, the girl who's rarely smart, but always pretty and has a fan following; even worse, the "other" girls are led to be viewed as subservient to their male counterparts. Not a pretty picture for a girl who wants to be independent and successful, but falls prey to such heresy(Alternet). I'm not writing about this simply because "Hip-hop" just isn't my favorite music genre, or because I'm racist against black people (which I'm absolutely not), but mainly because this issue hasn't been spoken about much in the public sphere. Mark A. Neal has, though, explored the issue with surprising depth. He seeks to reform hip-hop culture in a way that removes all sexist influences. So, he remarks that when he wants a reform of hip-hop,

we are essentially demanding hip-hop's primary consumer base to consume music that is anti-sexist, anti-misogynistic and possibly feminist. And in what context have young white men (or black men for that matter) ever been interested in consuming large amounts of black feminist thought? Clearly, these young whites are consuming hip-hop for other reasons. In the case of young white males, hip-hop represents a space where they work through the idea of how their masculinity can be lived -- what they literally take from the hypermasculine "black buck" (think about 50 Cent's influence in the killing fields of Iraq) and indeed it is an integral part of the cash-and-carry exchange.

Here, Neal highlights one of the many reasons regarding why I despise sexist hip-hop music: it glorfies masculine materialism to the extent that women are belittled to the status of sex toy. Granted, I know that there are individuals who value women like people, but some people have taken it to the wrong level that dehumanizes women or decreases their worth.

Gender exploitation occurs everywhere, to be honest, but many people are too oblivious to its occurrence, even when/where it seems that everything is alright and that there's a general consensus about the roles that women play in such societies. It honestly saddens me to see something like this go unspoken about as much. There may have been issues of "Gender Equality" being discussed, but what is true Gender Equality? Subjecting women to more years of oppression? Or...

Wait... I'm starting to sound like a male feminist now, right? I guarantee you, I'm not. Well, I'll let you in on something. Ever since the dawn of man, most societies have been patriarchal, not matriarchal, which is the feminine counterpart. I believe that societies should preach gender equity. It's a no-brainer that, while men and women have different physical capabilities that define their roles, etc., men and women should have an equal voice in their societies. There should be no gender dominance, as is obvious in the societies of today, even in the West where gender exploitation is carried out under the guise of mass media and fashion advertising, or even in sports, were female athletes are constantly harrassed for not conforming to a specific body shape and fitness to the extent that they are rendered as merely nothing but acrobatic slaves... you know, the kind you see in a rundown circus parade.

Many of those who study society and the human world, from sociologists to psychologists, have found this shocking pattern that I speak of. The sexual harrassment of women in the field of sports was exposed by sociologists Vivian Krauchek and Gillian Ranson. After some diligent research into the matter, they came up with rather surprising results: the athletes' coaches exploited them because of their weight, size, flexibility, and other matters that would "affect" their performance. Female athletes, however, also tend not to question these inequalities. While many theories have evolved about why they don't "resist", many of them revolve on

a recognition of the sporting world as emphatically masculine, and women's participation in it as contingent on their willingness to accept the masculine rules of the game.

Historically, most sports have been "found" by men, so they assume that whatever their male colleagues do to them is for the "good" of the game. But come on, now: telling a female runner that her "butt is too big" is definitely not constructive criticism, is it?

That was just an example. There's also the issue of "sex slavery", a worldwide underground industry that specializes in exploiting young children, especially females, into the shady world of prostitution and the sex trade (UNICEF). The figures provided for those involved in the sex industry are frightening, to say the least, because it poses a threat to the welfare of many children around the world... and is seriously not in the best interests of men and women alike who want to live in a prosperous world.

So, what's the solution? Like I said: gender equity. There's simply no other solution. The continued exploitation and subjugation of women shouldn't go on like this. While I discussed the issue of women in Islam from my perspective before, I just want to outline the plain equality between men and women. First of all, according to the Koran, both men and women are created with the same nature, both human and soul.

[15:29]But He fashioned him in due proportion and breathed into him something of His spirit. And He gave you (the faculties of) hearing and sight and feeling (and understanding); little thanks do you give

Also, as Dr. Jamal Badawi outlined in his groundbreaking report, Gender Equity in Islam, liberating women from exploitation is a virtuous task, and it is up to them as women to do as they please and go where they please, and marry whome they please, and so on and so forth...

But forget my limited view on this. Gender Equity is needed everywhere. It is need in schools, in sports... you name it. What else should be done? Women should realize their own worth. No more should we differentiate between men and women when it comes to basic societal issues such as education, athletics, and public discourse. I mean, seriously, what's the point in believing that we as humans are all created equal when women are left out of the "we"?

As with all issues dealing with equity, it's not about "we" and "they", but it's always about "us"... and I mean all of us.

Farewell... and God Bless.

Salaam, from Saracen