Newsgroup: it.economia.borsa
Titolo: messaggio all'occidente [2]

http://www.uruklink.net/iraqnews/ereport16.htm
A second open letter from Saddam Hussein to the peoples of the United
States, Western peoples and governments
September 18, 2001
In the name of God, the most Compassionate, the most Merciful.
Once again, we make a return to comment on the incidence that took place in
America on September 11, not for its significance as such, but for the
implications surrounding it and its ramifications in terms of results on the
level of the world of which we are part or rather a special case as a nation
known as it is with the basis and uniqueness of its faith.
On previous occasions, we have already said that the United States needs to
try wisdom after it has tried force over the last fifty years or even more.
We still see that this is the most important thing the world must advise the
US about if there is anybody who wants to say something or adopt an attitude
towards this incidence, and who is concerned about world peace and
stability. This is the case if the US and the world are convinced with the
dictum and the verdict, namely that what has happened came to America from
without, not within.
It is among the indisputables in the law or general norms, in dealings, in
social life, and even political life, that any charge should be based on
evidence if the one who makes the accusation is keen to convince others or
has respect to that who listens to the accusation or is concerned with it as
part of the minimal obligation of his duty. But the US has made the charge
before verification, even before possessing the minimum evidence about such
a charge. It has even not availed itself the opportunity to verify things,
first and foremost. It started a drive of incitement and threat, or said
something irresponsible by broadening the base of charges to include states,
circles and individuals.
American officials set about making charges or giving the guided media, the
Zionist media and its symbols within the authority and outside it a free
hand in order to prepare the public mind for the charge.. What does this
mean?
In a nutshell, it means that the US gives no heed to the law or rely on it.
It has no concern for the counter viewpoint in line with its dangerous
policy towards this issue or others. That is why we find that it takes no
pain to secure evidence. Therefore, it needs no evidence to pass its
verdict. It is content with saying something, passing verdicts, whether
people other than the American officials are convinced or not. This means,
in keeping with the policy it has pursued since 1990, that it has no regard
to the viewpoint of the peoples and governments in the world in it entirety.
It gives it no weight or heed despite the fact that it claims to be the
democratic state (number one) in the world. The basic meaning of democracy
even by the standards of its initial emergence in the Western world, that
facts should lay bare before the people so that the people would assume
their responsibility with full awareness. Our description of the US attitude
vis-à-vis this incidence is a practical description. It means that American
officials do not respect even their own people's viewpoint, let alone the
world's. In this conduct, the American officials behave as though they are
deluding the peoples, beating up the misleading media drums to do the job of
mobilizing them against enemy or enemies against whom no evidence about
their accountability for the action they are accused of has been furnished.
All the officials there seek to achieve is to foment the hostility of the
peoples of the US against whoever they assumed to be an enemy before the
incidence has occurred. The tax-payer would be in a position where he is
prepared to accept the blackmail trap arms manufacturers have laid for him
in addition to the wrangled interests on the level of senior military and
civil officials in the US.
One might argue that political verdicts do not always emanate from the same
bases, procedures or courses adopted by the judiciary or criminal courts.
Rather, precedents and back- grounds could suffice to arrive at a conclusion
which may prove right. Even if, for the sake of argument, we go along this
notion, just to keep the debate uninterrupted, we say that this could be
true about the media and statements which are of media and propaganda
nature, even political statements. In this instance, the error could not be
necessarily fatal.
But is this permissible in war?
Once more, we say that war is not an ordinary case. Neither is it procedural
in the life of nations and peoples. It is a case of unavoidable exception.
Evidence based on conclusion is not enough, even if it is solid to make a
charge against a given party or several parties, a state or several states
to the extent that the one who makes the charge declares war at the party or
parties against which charges were made and bears the responsibility of
whatever harm might be sustained by his own people and the others including
death, the destruction of possessions and the ensuing serious repercussions.
It was only the US administration that has made the charge against a certain
religion, not just a given nationality.
Let us also accept the interventions of those who contend that the US has
not said this, through its senior officials and within this limitation. In
fact, some officials have denied that their policy is one of making the
charge against a given religion. However, we believe that the lack of
evidence to make a charge, the disrespect to the golden sound rule of proper
accusation which leads to the declaration of war and restricts the charge to
a certain nation, states, designations and individuals, can only be
understood as a premeditated charge without evidence that the action was
carried out by Moslems. This is complemented by free reins for the media to
float it, to prepare the public opinion to accept it or to be tuned to it so
that anything opposed to it would sound like a discord.
Below is the list:
Afghanistan.. Usama bin Laden. the Islamic Qa'ida (base) party or
organization. Syria.. Yemen. Algeria.. Iraq. Lebanon.Palestine. The list may
be curtailed or enlarged according to the pretexts of the policy of power,
which has found its opportunity or the power that is looking for its
opportunity to declare war. Whether the items of the list are increased or
cut down, would all this mean anything but the accusation of Moslems,
including, or rather in the forefront of whom Arabs? Why should this cross
the minds of US officials unless they have basically assumed themselves and
their policy to be enemies of Arabs and Moslems?
Could this charge mean anything other than the desire to settle old scores,
all based on the assumption that their foreign policies are incompatible
with the American policy, or they do not give in to the US-Zionist policy
vis-à-vis the world and Palestine?
Consider statements by the US officials who say the war would be long
because it is aimed at several states. Notice the blackmail or better, the
terrorism they mean and which was designed to include several states and
parties on a list that could be longer or shorter in accordance with a
policy of sheer terrorism and blackmail, first and foremost, the illusion
that Arabs and Moslems and the people of Palestine would leave the arena for
the aggression of the Zionist entity and its vile imperialism.
These charges which were made without consideration and in an instantaneous
way mean that the mentality of the US administration has been pre-loaded,
prior to the incidence, even if we apply the norms of today and not the
norms of the law. It has made assumption tantamount to conclusive verdict,
namely that Islam, with Arabs in the lead of Moslems are enemies of the US.
More precisely, the US on the level of its rulers has taken it as a final
verdict that it is the enemy of Arabs and Moslems. In so doing, they have
stored the final verdict in their minds. On this basis, they built their
preparation in advance. On this basis too, they prepared (the mind) of the
computer, which was programmed on this assumption, which has taken the form
of a conclusive verdict. This reminds us of the free reins given to
political writers, the so-called thinkers, inclupast heads of sand ministers
who the Zionist policy wanted, over the last ten or fifteen years to assume
that faith based on the religion of Islam with the ensuing implication is
the new enemy of the US and the West and it is the backdrop against which
American rulers act, with the participation of some Western rulers who came
under the pressure and interpretations of Zionist thought and scheming.
Obviously, this assumption is no longer a pure assumption for the purpose of
scrutiny testing and examination. It has become part and parcel of
conclusive verdicts. That is why the verdict was instantaneous, without
consideration or waiting for the evidence to have a basis, evidence on which
the pre-supposition is based in order to be a conclusive one. The charge has
not only been made against all governments in Islamic or Arab states but
also against all Islamic peoples, including the Arab nation and to all
designations, parties, states and governments whose policies do not please
the US, whose policies and positions are not palatable to the US in
particular or because they call for the liberation of Palestine and a halt
to the US aggression on Iraq, and adherence to their independence and their
nations' heritage.
Any one who is surprised by this practical conclusion, allowing courteous
words to be said on the margin of verdicts to replace it, has to contemplate
our verdict:
The US has declared it is at war. It is gearing up for war since the early
moments in the wake of the incidence, as though it were the opportunity
those concerned have been waiting for. It has allocated the necessary funds
for the war, or part of them. Have you ever heard or read in the near on far
history, of a state declaring war before even defining who its enemy is? The
opportunity to declare the state of war came with the incidence that befell
it. It is not yet known whether it was carried out by a foreign enemy or
from inside. Thus, the war declared by America would cease to be a reason
for the incidence. Rather, it is the incidence that has availed the
opportunity to launch the war, which has not been a result of the incidence
under any circumstances!
One might contend it is the nature of the incidence, the scale of pain the
American officials felt as a result of what their peoples suffered, the
embarrassment they felt due to the sufferings that hit the people there,
that prompted American rulers to rush to declare war. The suffering of the
people is not caused by the incidence alone, but by the failure of the
authorities concerned which have been preoccupied by hatching conspiracies
abroad, assassination and sabotage operations against world states and
freedom-loving people. They rushed to declare war and name the parties so
that they would leave no option but to launch the war. Once again, we say,
could this be a reason and ground to facilitate the charge and the
subsequent resolutions, why should not it be a ground for others as well?
If the fall in the whirlwind of rage, not the pre-meditated planning,
results into war resolutions on their senior level inside the US, why should
not you expect someone to direct his fire to it under the pressure of
similar considerations or danger?
Once again we say that the US administration and those in the West who
allied themselves with it against Arabs and Moslems, now and in the past, or
rather against the world, in all the arenas that witnessed the scourges of
the alliance, are in need to take recourse to wisdom after they have had
power at their disposal and deployed it to such an extent that it ceased to
frighten those who experienced it. Dignity, the sovereignty of the homeland
and the freedom of the sincere man is a sacred case, along with other sacred
things which real Moslems uphold, including , Arabs who are in the lead.
If this is the practical description of the pre-mediated intentions that
decided war against Arabs and Moslems, while the party that took the
decision waits for a cover to declare a war, and may launch it against those
whom it has been biding time, could there be anyone who could avert it other
than God, the Almighty? Anyone other than the will of the peoples, when they
become fully aware, after they know and fear God, after they have believed
in Him.
"For us Allah sufficeth, and He is the best disposer of affairs". ( Holly
Quran)
Once again we say that the peoples do not believe any more the slogans of
the United States, accept those whom it intends evil against. Even when it
says it is against terrorism, the United States doesn't apply this to the
World, and according to the International Law. But according to its will to
impose what it wants on the World and refuse what it thinks might be harmful
to it only, and export the other kinds of it to the World. To certify this,
could the United States tell its peoples how many organizations working
against their own countries are existing in the United States? And how many
of those, the term terrorism could be applied to if one standard is used and
not the double standards? And how many are those it finances overtly and
covertly? How many are those accused with killing and theft in other
countries are now in the United States? If the United States presents such
inventory to its peoples and to the World, and initiated implementing one
standard and one norm on its agents and those it calls friends. And if it
starts the same storm against the killers in the Zionist entity responsible
of killing Palestinians in occupied Palestine and in Tunis and Lebanon. And
if it charges its own secret services with what they committed of special
actions and assassinations they brag to publish in the form of stories. Only
then one can believe the new American slogans that America is trying to make
them believe. Only then it becomes legitimate to ask the World to do what it
believes is useful for its security and the security of the World.
It is a chance to air an opinion whose time has come. It is also addressed
to the peoples of the US and the Western people in general. Zionism has been
planning for the domination of the world since its well-known conference it
convened in Basle in 1897. Ever since, it has been working in this
direction. It has scored successes you can feel by controlling finance,
media and commerce centres in your countries and whoever rules in your name,
here and there, in decision-making centres. But its domination is not yet
fulfilled to have its will absolute and final. This could only be feasible
when two heavenly faiths upheld by the biggest bloc in the world are thrown
into conflict. Otherwise, Zionism would be denied the accomplishment of all
its ambitions. The masterminds of Zionism are, therefore, working for a
clash between Christianity and Islam on the assumption that this, and only
this, could secure the chance to dominate the world, when new opportunities
open up for their domination. Could there be any better situation than that
when the stealing dog finds his household pre-occupied by a grief so that it
could win the thing it has set its eye on, the thing that whetted its mouth?
Would the sensible men in the West be aware of that? Or would Zionism
outsmart them to attain its aims?

http://www.bitvillage.com/articolo_detail.cfm?idarticolo=57

Saddam Hussein wrote:
vaffanculo lurido zozzo!