Was the Invasion of Iraq Justified?

[I wrote this up while doing some research this morning, I think worth some time to read, you could also watch the video on YT.]

“The making of aggressive war is a war crime”

The United Nations had not sanctioned or permitted the Iraq war. Therefore, Bush and Blair may have to face criminal charges at the Hague. George Galloway heads the discussion which aired on Press TV.

Under several sections of the Geneva Conventions, investigation is done under two heads, says Ali Mohammad Azhar.

War crimes are killing, torturing, and detaining under inhumane conditions. Anyone who is aware of such, not only the perpetrators, are guilty of war crimes.

Mr. Mansfield a prominent legal counsel was also sourced by Al Azhar.

Bush and Blair were supported by the United States Congress and the UK Parliament. So they’re hands are clean. It is a contrary point of view, however.

Is it unfair to blame them for a political decision which was made with support from the US Congress and UK parliament?

“It’s ridiculous” says David Casavis, one who says he would be lawyer for Bush and Blair if asked.

Kofi Anan had said the war was illegal. Galloway argues that this is “not ridiculous”.

The fact that Saddam invaded Kuwait and Iran, according to Casavis, was reason enough to kill half a million children, according to his statements of support for the two leaders.

The chief prosecutor to the United Nations and the secretary general of the United Nations, neither of whom are politicians, were correct in saying that both Bush and Blair had committed war crimes. IN Tehran, he speaks next to the man, Ayer, who has filed against Blair, and his colleague who has filed against Bush in The Hague, hope they would be called to Kuala Lumpur to give evidence (which later took place, after the airing of this program).

“You don’t get a much more serious person than the chief prosecutor”, says Galloway.

It’s illegal to plan and orchestrate a war, which is not a direct threat. By that definition alone, Bush and Blair did something illegal.

Galloway mentions Bush had the power to enter into the war without the Senate’s approval, but in fact he did get authorization from the Security Council.

“The evidence has been building up… and it’s quite obvious the occupation was unnecessary.” And “they did not find anything.” comments one female audience member.

“Their leaders have killed their own people, that’s why Saddam Hussein was tried in The Hague”, says another woman. “This is the point of what a witch hunt is”… “This just seems… that now they have an opportunity to put the blame on other people”. He’s looking at it legally (Acampo), but she doesn’t agree with that. She wants to look at the issue from a completely political perspective.

Another member says that millions of Iraqis have been killed up to date, so it doesn’t seem justified, and suggests that their lives are worth less than American’s lives, for example.

In other words, because Saddam had killed his own people, doesn’t justify killing Iraqis in an “illegal war” or even in an invasion to catch a criminal like Saddam Hussein. Saddam was tried in The Hague and executed for war crimes. Bush and Blair have not been tried, though the Kuala Lumpur meeting found them guilty of war crimes.

The [Vietnamese]  war criminals were prosecuted for waterboarding at the end of the war. Why are Bush and Blair not also prosecuted for the actions of their government, which knew about the torture and interrogation techniques which were clearly inhumane and against human rights and/or the Geneva conventions?

Patrick Basham says he doesn’t believe the war was justified. “I think the war was a mistake.” But he believes it is wrong to criminalize the political questions. He believes people are just making themselves to “feel better” but it is correct to assert that these policy makers, the President and Prime Minister, made decisions which others would disagree with, “generally believed they were doing the right thing” and “logically doesn’t make sense”. “There has been a double standard but not compound an error by then going after other people, whether Bush or Blair [or others in power] who are currently unpopular”. He is saying, this doesn’t justify going after all the other people who supported the war.

“That at least has the intellectual consistency of applying one standard to all” replies Galloway.

David Casavis says “… some things are unwise, but not illegal”. “Bush was not interested in Iraq, he not interested in anything but Mexico.”” …when we were attacked at the World Trade Center that changed everything.”

“Iraq had nothing to do with the World Trade Centre though”, counters Galloway.

Casavis continues, “Colin Powell presented … at the UN that proved to be wrong. And our own state department contradicted that… but you enter into war with the facts that you have.”… “Unwise but not illegal”.

“It’s not a coincidence that Nixon was pardoned and then you have several illegal wars after that”, says an ex-soldier, and a spokesperson, who served in Iraq and now walks with a cane, by his own admission participated but now is against [illegal] wars.

“The US has a long list of war crime”, says one woman. “I stood in the United Nations lobby and watched Colin Powell lie through his teeth and he knew he was lying about the supposed facts that got us into Iraq. That was wrong, that was criminal and it really must be prosecuted.”

“Well, he himself [Colin Powell] now describes it as a blot on his career record” reminds Galloway.

Admiral Elmar Schmaehling, an ex-military man, joins the debate from Berlin. Asked why he thinks torture took place, he says, “Because Bush and Mr. Blair they both believe that they are superior to everybody as persons and as states. And so they think they can do this. And they can do [whatever they like of] all kinds of war and aggression and crimes without having to expect consequences.” He believes that torture is clearly against international law and making excuses for it is clearly wrong. “I’m very astonished that Mr. Bush even today defends the use of torture…”

A young man with a European accent comments next, “What I see is that there are two ideologies here, one is the humanitarian [looks at the value of the human being] and the other one is emphasizing the Western culture conquering culture.” “And we are [at] a point to decide which world, which way we are going.”

“You remember about the Nuremburg process and the values of the society were set up [after] the Second World War. And Bush and Blair respect it and follow those values when they invaded Iraq.”

“And I have in my mind the image of Churchill and Roosevelt and Stalin. Stalin was a war criminal and in place of Stalin I could put uh, Saddam, and the other two, Churchill, Blair, Roosevelt, Bush.” And we could judge Churchill and Roosevelt as war criminals with the values and that ideology which we respect today, he adds.

Galloway says it is a long time since he has heard Bush and Blair compared to Roosevelt and Churchill.

The titles of war criminal, atrocities perpetrator, etc. were titles given to Bush and Blair by their own western people, says, a man via satellite from the Tehran audience. It is very obvious that they have committed atrocities, he says, and should receive justice. A woman in the audience speaks next, “can anybody answer me, why…” is her only question, and response to the debate. She says, “it is a matter of geography.”

Galloway responds, "...perhaps a three letter word, O-I-L".”

So we discover that usually a debate like this comes down to the question of resources, and motivations for the war, and we have to wonder, were the motivations of Bush and Blair pure or evil?



Read the account and then you decide

“And with documentary testimony that thousands - some say as many as 12,000 - men and women have been "disappeared" by a government that claims to be fighting "international terrorism", Algeria's military-backed government will find it hard ever again to win sympathy in the West. A police officer who was in charge of the Algiers' city police armoury has described to The Independent how his colleagues killed prisoners in cold blood, how police torturers suffocated prisoners with acid-soaked rags after tearing out their nails and raping them with bottles. A 30-year old Algiers policewoman has told of how she watched prisoners - at the rate of 12 a day - tied half-naked to ladders in the Cavignac police station in Algiers while, screaming and pleading for mercy, salt water was pumped into their stomachs until they agreed, blindfolded, to sign confessions.”

“[She] admitted to signing false death certificates" and reports of a prison  called the "killing room" by the police woman as well.

(from an Article by Robert Fisk, The Independent, UK reported)

http://www.missionislam.com/conissues/algeria.htm

A “terrible war” against (suspected) “terrible” (Muslim) ‘rebels’. Yet one wonders why soldiers with fake beards go into villages and commit atrocities that are later suspected acts of their own doing. The witness is one of them. Why would he tell this story, except as “whistleblowers” do - often to alleviate their own guilt and free their minds from the horror they are witness to, so that just maybe they can sleep nights?

Why can’t the police and army “maintain [their] honor”? Simply because they are thugs, criminals, and use torture to force confessions.

The article describes police and army as ‘agents’ and then expects the public to believe that what is being said about the rebels is true, or that the atrocities said to be committed by rebels are surely not the work of others e.g. the government and its henchmen?

It’s not a dirty war, only, it’s a propaganda war.

J. D-N



Wrong Assumptions Based on Imperfect Knowledge - Part One

Islamic ruling by an incompetent:

When Osama Bin Laden was killed, the Americans buried him at sea: they claimed that it is permissible to bury Muslims at sea, so they did that without the consent of Bin Laden’s family, although they also had his wives in custody.

Frequently we hear about some Fatwa issued, not by Islamic scholars, but by non-Muslims. The fact is, they are not capable of issuing a correct Islamic opinion on any subject, nor are they qualified to do so, because that requires a known Islamic Studies degree, or some proper and accepted form of Islamic education. Also, Muslims necessarily rely on Muslims for reliable Islamic rulings; they cannot rely on non-Muslims for this (Isn’t that so?). It is well known that even regular Muslims are not allowed to make “fatawa”, but are only allowed to repeat the Islamic legal opinion of a scholar, if they are certain it is as he had said. Someone might make an incorrect statement, based on their knowledge, but which they had forgotten, or mixed up. They are not be punishable for making a mistake, but this can lead to some problems for others.

A woman told me that the Prophet, SAWS, had been affected by “the evil eye”, or ‘hassad’ as it is known in Arabic. I thought that maybe she was just trying to prove her point, that a woman who didn’t read qur’an on herself, but her husband reads qur’an on her, could still get ‘hassad’ (even if she had read the verses on herself). I told her, the Prophet, SAWS, used to read the three final chapters of the qur’an and was protected from ‘the evil eye’ by it; he, SAWS, also used to read ‘ayat al Kursi’, in english called, “the verse of the throne”, the Fatihah, or opening chapter (often read seven times when indicated) and other verses of the qur’an at different times.

Not only was this Islamic studies student wrong in her judgment about the protection afforded by reading verses of the qur’an against the evil eye, but she also stated incorrect information about the Prophet, SAWS; that he had been affected by ‘the evil eye’ when in fact, we read in the traditions that once, a Jew performed a magic spell on the Prophet, SAWS, without his knowledge, and a while later the angel Gabriel informed the Prophet, SAWS, about the location of the magic , a charm, which he must undo to break the magic spell. Magic can be very powerful or dangerous, and is something which is completely forbidden in Islam. If one does magic, it takes that person out of Islam. As for the Prophet being afflicted by the ‘evil eye’, it never happened. He also taught others how to protect against it, so it is possible to be safe from the ‘evil eye’s’ effects.

The one who possesses an ‘evil eye’ might be a good Muslim, but should protect others from his ‘evil eye’ when he sees something which he envies, by saying “ma’esha allah tabarak allah” or “what Allah has willed, may it be blessed by Him”. It is known that some people naturally have a more envious disposition than others; therefore they should always repeat the formula when they see something beautiful or which could make them envious. That will also protect their souls from the envy, and make them more God fearing. Also, people would not hate them.

Other examples of ‘fatawas’ by ignorant people involve the important aspects of the prayer. Praying with the face veil is permissible; the prayer will be acceptable. Similar to covering the feet with socks; the feet still touch the ground. There is a hadith which mentions that for the prayer to be acceptable seven bones have to touch the ground. Based on this saying, one woman who claimed that she has an Islamic Studies degree told another that she cannot pray with the niqaab on. We can see that this is not correct because there are times when women must cover their face while praying, such as in a public place, where others (specifically, men) might see them. IN any case, I asked a scholar, and he informed me that it is not an incorrect prayer. Although it is preferable to pray without the face veil, it is acceptable to occasionally pray with it on, whether it accidentally falls over the face, or if the woman prayed with it on intentionally.

Renditions are unIslamic:

In Islam, torture is forbidden; suicide bombing is also forbidden. To fight terrorism, the Saudi Arabian government sentenced some people to prison. Some of these men had already served prison in Guantanamo, or Bahrain, and then were sent to Saudi Arabia. It is a well known ‘secret’ that the Saudis employ other nationals to torture prisoners. Therefore, Egyptians, for example are brought to perform this ‘duty’.

But the Saudis also have found other ways to deal with people involved in terrorist plots; for example, one young Muslim Saudi, who explained that he had been used as a suicide bomber by a group; men who wore masks to hide their identity had strapped a bomb to this young man, who was fortunately able to live because the bomb he was wearing didn’t go off. He ran for his life, was caught and sent to rehabilitation. So, the Saudi government spared this person, mainly because he claimed he didn’t know what his mission was; he had volunteered for Jihad, according to Islamic principles, not to volunteer for a suicide mission, in Iraq.

No one knows who the group or men were who did this to him. It is believed based on his statements, (which I saw in a television broadcast) that they may not have been Arabs, or Iraqis but actually ‘foreigners’, another way of saying that they were probably Westerners/Americans.

If prisoners are sent to Saudi Arabia, or any Muslim government, then one would hope that they would be dealt with according to Islamic principles. While many governments in the west, and elsewhere abhor capital punishment, it is the opinion of Muslim jurists that this is far more humane, and a better way to deal with hard core criminals; highway robbers, murderers, terrorists, rapists, or drug dealers, etc. and dangerous repeat offenders, than life in prison.

It is therefore perturbing that the Saudis have come up with this idea of ‘rendition’ the way that the Americans do. It is similar to what the Stalinist regime used to do to prisoners, in effect, making them disappear. During renditions, prisoners are sent away and not heard from, nor allowed any legal counsel. Then they are tortured, and possibly killed while in detention; sometimes the torture continues for years. This is totally unconscionable and surely is un-Islamic. So, why does the Islamic government allow it? It seems, they do not ask their Islamic scholars what is the proper view of torture, and they assume that if a non-Muslim or other person does the torture, then, it is not their sin. They believe they absolve themselves of responsibility for the crime. Torture is a crime against humanity. Not only is it unIslamic but it is against all international conventions.

It is strange to sometimes hear people defend torture.

IN all cases, when ignorant people, or unqualified people make ‘fatawas’, especially as no one has asked their opinion, it seems arrogance is a motivating factor. Such people are too eager to express their opinions, and likewise their manner of doing so is insincere. When an opinion is sought, the scholars are always friendly, and seem to want to help, not hurt the questioner. They do not speak of their own free will, but say what they have learned according to the strongest opinions available. They are free of willful arrogance or a bullying attitude.

The one common character flaw which many people have who offer their opinion when not asked, is arrogance. It is not a characteristic of a good believer’s, therefore sincere Muslims should try to purge this tendency from their personality and character, or the people will not appreciate them and will in fact suspect their motives, or their sincerity.

Non-Muslims cannot make juristic or other decisions for Muslims or believers.

The Americans were of course wrong to bury Osama Bin Ladin at sea, based on several obvious things, which I can see, and a true scholar would come up with more evidence than I can.

1) Bin Laden died in his home, or thereabouts after the Navy Seals attacked him and the family or people with him at the time.

2) He was nowhere near the sea, so why should he be buried at sea?

3) A Muslim must clean the body, ghusl, and perform wudhu for the body (both are essentially forms of ritual purification of the body) before the dead person is to be buried. The family or close relatives have the right to perform the ghusl.

4) There is no reason to assume that bin Laden did not die a Muslim, despite his ‘fatawa’ about fighting the Americans and his belief that Americans should be killed in suicide bombing attacks.

5) A Muslim should be prayed on by his fellows, meaning his relatives and male Muslims in the community.

6) As far as we know, none of these things did take place, because Osama was buried at sea by the Americans. (A muslim clergy for the Americans did the required ghusl, prayer, and burial, according to the American authorities).

7) Is an American Muslim, who works for the non-Muslims army, while they are hostile to Muslims and kill innocent Muslims worldwide, permitted to do this sacred duty?

 Therefore, it seems on several counts the Americans did wrong by burying him at sea.

Part Two

Ritual Purification vs. Mental Illness Cure:

One non-Muslim told me that Islam will cure the mental disorder Obsessive Compulsive Disorder because the rituals in Islam, such as purification before the prayer, are such that the person suffering from OCD will be somehow satisfied with purifying himself and stop the obsessive washing, or other forms of compulsion which he does. This was baseless, of course, with no scientific research behind it.

The fact is that there are Muslims today who have this disorder; they continue to wash their body parts even after they have already done so. The purification for prayer known as ‘wudhu’ is done once by washing parts of the body or wiping with water in a specific order a specific number of times (yet it is flexible). Then s/he can pray.

Some Muslims, like the general population, suffer from ‘waswisah’, or ‘whisperings’, such as thoughts that they did not do something, such as perform the wudhu properly. They sometimes continue repeating wudhu, which is not correct. The point is, the ritual washing is not meant as a cure for OCD, but to purify one’s body. One should say ‘Bismillah’ or a short formula which is said before or during purification (inaudibly) or also before entering the toilet. Then one can perform wudhu and pray with it.

Only passing of gas, natural discharge, or using the toilet renders the wudhu invalid. In case of sexual discharge or sexual relations and penetration, a complete bath (ghusl) is in order before one can pray. Release of prostatic fluid also requires wudhu, as above. Menstruation and post partum bleeding (nafees) require a full bath (ghusl). One could therefore, remain in a purified state all day long, as long as none of the above things occurred, which would render the ‘wudhu’ invalid. Of course, sleep in another nullifier of the ‘wudhu’, which requires a new wudhu, if one wants to pray, or also according to some scholars, before one can hold or read the Qur’an (definitely after sexual relations, as there is a specific hadith about this).

Some Muslims, repeat the prayer many times. Again, this is due to their urge to repeat the prayer, and doubts about their prayer’s validity. Some people repeat the units of the prayer, thinking they have forgotten one or more. Again, if this happens often, the correct opinion, which was given by a scholar on the subject, is that s/he should not continue to add an/other unit/s to the prayer, but end her/his prayer, without making the prostrations for forgetfulness (sujud sahw) either, and leave it at that, because it is a recurring habit; another cannot be sure if s/he is just very forgetful, or perhaps s/he is suffering from ‘whisperings’. If the person is just forgetful, maybe the solution is for her to try to concentrate better during the prayer, or have ‘khushu’, which is intentional, and can be improved by performing the prayer in an environment where there are minimal distractions, and getting in the habit of prolonging the prostrations, and other movements, concentrating on what one is reading during the prayer or saying in the up and down movements, and the bowing, and so on. Also, looking at the place in front of you during the bowings and at your nose during the prostrations, or at your folded hands during the standing and at the finger during pointing while sitting, making the ‘tashahud’.

Scholars tell the Muslims who suffer from doubts or ‘whisperings’, that they should expel these by reading the Qur’an and seeking cure and Allah’s guidance. It is possible to be freed from the burden of such doubts and often self-destructive behavior. If the problem is not waswisah, but an actual mental disorder; the person should first be diagnosed by seeking a professional opinion, and then perhaps a cure or improvement of the symptoms would be achieved with medication, or some other form(s) of treatment.