When a white “terrorist” is awarded a privilege 1.8 billion Muslims are denied

[Piotr]

Iraq death estimates are higher
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131015-iraq-war-deaths-survey-2013/
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq
http://fair.org/extra/a-million-iraqi-dead/

100s of thousands according to some estimates, million+ according to others. A sizable percentage of those are estimated to be civilians. And for those that were not, it should not be forgotten that this was an unprovoked, unjust war of aggression whose justification, as shaky as it was, were based on a complete and utter lie. The combatants, were fighting against a foreign invader, which makes it defense.
Furthermore, this happened after a decade long crippling sanctions which all but brought the country to its knees making this aggression all the more despicable.
So whose responsibility is that?

As a result of crippling sanctions in the 90s , half a million children were estimated to have died in Iraq. This article is dated 4 march , 2000:
http://johnpilger.com/articles/squeezed-to-death
So whose responsibility is that?

It is the horrors and misery brought there by U.S. and its allies over the years that resulted in monsters such as ISIS to emerge in that region.Not to mention that its the U.S and its allies seem to be supporting ISIS , using it as a proxy to fight against Asad's Syria ,just like they supported the 'rebels' in Libya to topple Muammar Gaddafi.

In sum USA has killed more than 20 million people since World War II - source:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-ha...-37-victim-nations-since-world-war-ii/5492051

Not to mention that USA contaminated Afganistan and Iraq with depleted uranium and created Daesh.

 

[Dalit]

When a white “terrorist” is awarded a privilege 1.8 billion Muslims are denied
By Usman Ali Virk Published: November 11, 2017
2SHARES
SHARE TWEET EMAIL

When the attacker is white, he's labelled "unstable" to sidetrack from calling the shooter what he truly is – a terrorist. PHOTO: FOUL EXPRESS/MUSLIM SHOW

If the world can largely agree on one thing, it is the need to defeat terrorism. However, the frequency of unity seen when condemning terror does not echo beyond that, for every state of the world is employing its own methods (or lack thereof) of tackling this daunting, multi-faceted predicament, and hence achieving varying degrees of success.

The first and probably most pivotal step in the fight against terrorism is to clearly define what constitutes as terror and who is actually a terrorist. Failure to reach a singular consensus on this starting point will invariably lead to utter confusion amongst the public, something that would further embolden the extremists, and provide a vacuum to take advantage of. Similarly, nothing hurts a nation’s fight against terrorism more than selective hypocrisy when deciding whom to label a terrorist and whom to call a lone-wolf.

Take Pakistan, for example. Initially, after 9/11, we were failing miserably in the war against terror, a war we had imported from Afghanistan. The main reason, amongst others, was that our society was divided about the very problem it was trying to confront. The fault lines were drawn, with a substantive chunk of the population sincerely believing that fighting them should be the very last resort, and instead we would be better off seeking dialogue and negotiation with the terrorists, in order to reach an amicable consensus and coexist peacefully with them.

The other drawback in Pakistan’s approach was that our people were confused between misguided notions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ terrorists. Unfortunately, all the main players in this fight – the politicians, the military, the media, as well as the theologians – were to blame for muddling the waters and creating this bipolarity in the minds of the citizens. The lack of strong leadership and a confused and scared populace both led to a loud, evasive silence, which ultimately fanned the flames for this plague to spread all over the country. Had we unequivocally and unanimously spoken out against this from day one, we would possibly have been successful in nipping it in the bud.

Nevertheless, there is no point in crying over spilled milk, though woefully, what was spilled was the blood of thousands of innocent Pakistani men, women and children.

The moment we, as a nation, categorically decided to treat all terrorists as the same – irrespective of their backgrounds, motivations or justifications – we won the psychological fight. The clouds of guilt and confusion felt earlier were now replaced with a clear understanding of what was to be done moving forward. Granted, even now we are not entirely safe, but we are the only nation in the world that has successfully destroyed the network of the terrorists from our soil.

The United States initiated this war on terror, but from day one, its policies against terrorism have reeked of hypocrisy. First, the US refused to accept its share of the blame for this universal conundrum, and betrayed the world, and its own people, by pointing fingers elsewhere. During the cold war, the US, along with Ziaul Haq, had deliberately inculcated the youth of Afghanistan and Pakistan with the doctrine of jihad and created the ‘mujahideen’, calling them saviours against communism. America trained them, equipped them with weapons and financed them, and then once the war was over, they left the region without even looking back to see the mess they had created. The foundation for the Taliban was thus laid by the US.

In the same vein, when the US, along with its western allies, invaded Iraq on the pretext of destroying weapons of mass destruction, it ultimately set the foundation for the creation of the Islamic State (IS). How can one sovereign state invade another without good reason, and then simply say sorry and act as if nothing happened? Could the US be so naive as to think that there would be no consequences for its illegal and unlawful actions? The IS was the “gift” from America to the world – a consequence of the Iraq war.

“How can you have a war on terrorism when war itself is terrorism?” – Howard Zinn

Another indicator of America’s double standards is revealed in how it deals with domestic terrorism. The events of the last few months alone suffice to prove this point. It seems that whenever a ‘Muslim’ commits an act of terror, certain segments in America immediately jump on the bandwagon of Islamophobia and start blaming all the followers of Islam, equating Islam with terrorism and Muslims with being terrorists. It is unfortunate that despite being the leader of the free world, the US president is the first to act in this extremely hypocritical and vile manner.

Hypocritical, because when the attacker turns out to be white, which has happened quite often as of late, the reaction of that same group of people is completely the opposite. Now they start calling for “thoughts and prayers”, and the need to stick together and be united. They urge others who try to highlight their hypocrisy to stop “politicising” the incident and take the time to “heal”. Where is this wonderful advice when the act of terror is not committed by a white man? Why is it that in those cases their thoughts and prayers turn into Muslim bans?

In the last month, there have been two incidents that have highlighted these double standards. In New York, when an Uzbek man ploughed his car onto pedestrians, Trump was quick to denounce it as terrorism, and his right-wing, racist supporters soon followed suit with tirades against Islam. However, on November 5th, when a white man carried out a shooting in a church, killing at least 26 people and causing the largest mass shooting in Texas’s history, not once did Trump use the word “terrorist” or “terrorism” when denouncing the man’s actions. He has called the culprit mentally unstable and other fancy innuendos to side-track from calling the shooter what he truly is – a terrorist who killed innocent people in a place of worship!

This similar criminal and immoral fumbling of the US president was also witnessed when the deadliest shooting ever in America was deemed to be horrible enough to be labelled a terrorist attack. The whole world was shocked and disgusted at America’s leadership and what is very clearly a discriminatory and racist perspective on something as black and white as terrorism.

If America is indeed serious in its efforts to fight terror, it should take heed from Pakistan’s example and realise that a nation divided cannot win an ideological war of this magnitude. And to achieve this unison amongst its people, America has to shun its hypocritical approach towards terrorism, both internationally and nationally. Only then may it actually win the war on terror it has dragged us all into.

America has dragged the entire world into a war which can never be won. America and its allies have invested trillions of dollars into meaningless wars which have cost countless lives. It has yielded death and destruction. Nothing good has happened.

Today, white America can only point fingers and resort to blame games.

White America has created a lot of problems for itself. Muslims are just the tip of the iceberg. White America blames everyone. White America doesn’t have one enemy. One has to understand the white priviledged psyche to fully grasp the problem at hand. This isn’t a new phenomenon. It has existed for decades. Only during the previous election did the world truly get to know how severe this problem is. The Trump victory has exposed white American prejudice and bias to the bone.

From immigrants to China stealing jobs. All white victimization at display. White America has always been angry. First it were the “negroes” who were the enemy. After that came the “Commies”. Now you have the Moslems, Chinese, Russians and others on the hate list. White America always needs enemies to survive. Without enemies it feels insecure and vulnerable.

Particularly white America is divided as ever. It is morally bankrupt. It has a leader which is only accepted by a minority and despised by the rest. America’s worst nightmares are becoming a reality every day.

 

[curious]

Most of the killings in Iraq since 2001 are Muslims killing other Muslims.
We were speaking of the claim that the US have killed millions of Muslims,
and there is no source supporting that statement.
The usual sources support around 50,000 killed by the coalition.

Sources i posted estimate a much higher number, even if we agree for the sake of argument on 50,000, that's still a lot of people killed.

It was not an unprovoked war.
This started by Saddam Hussein invading Quwait.

Here we go again, we have had a similar chat some time back too haven't we? no matter..

There's more to Saddam's attack on Kuwait then that. Saddam who was being supported by u.s just a few years back, would never have attacked if he thought that u.s. would respond militarily. They gave him the impression that they will remain neutral, or at least not respond militarily, Saddam took the bait, and the u.s. used that as an excuse to establish their permanent military presence in the middle east.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/gulf-...in-and-ambassador-to-iraq-april-glaspie/31145

How Bush 41 Tricked Saddam Into Invading Kuwait:
http://rense.com/general69/41.htm
http://rense.com/general69/41.htm

After he was defeated, Iraqi forces were continously trying to down coalition aircraft
patroling the no-fly zone.

No fly zones were launched by U.S. Britain and France after the gulf war, these zones were illegal according to U.n secretary general, Boutros Boutros-Ghal. And they didnt shoot down any aircraft, though they fired. No that doesn't constitute a provocation leading to war.

He attempted to assassinate George H.W. Bush, and he did not cooperate with inspectors.
There are several just reasons for war, but people keep focusing on WMDs,
conveniently forgetting other causes.

Alleged assassination attempt in 1993, that failed even if it really happened. Cruise missile attack was launched on june 26, 1993 on a building housing IIS(Iraqi Intelligence Service) in Baghdad, killing between 6 to 8 people and injuring 12 others.
Besides they targeted Saddam Hussein also, to put it into perspective:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/longroad/etc/assassination.html

assassination has long been used by the cia to clear obstacles in the us foreign policy objectives and interests.
Leaders on the CIA's hit list:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/21/usa.davidpallister
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/US/Foreign_Assassinations_since_1945

If its OK when they do it, then why not the other way round?

So no, the reasons given by you do not constitute a provocation that justifies the 2003 war that they imposed on Iraq.

when you impose aggressive war on a nation, destabilize that region, with all the anarchy and misery that follows, then u cant just shrug off the responsibility like some spoiled brat, you have to own up to it.

The sanctions are a result of Saddams Policies, and they are his responsibility, noone else.
Would they have died if he had resigned in favour of an elected government?

Aah no actually they were the result of the policies of U.S and their allies, who considered the civilian population fair game in their objectives, which included regime change, just like the civilian population today in Syria, and earlier in Libya.

The "monsters" of ISIS already existed before the invasion, they were then called the Iraqi government.k

...ok, you do realize that the Iraqi government were secular right? ISIS are the corrupted version of Al-Qaeda and that's saying something.
The "monsters" were born during or after the war; all the pain and misery, hopelessness and humiliation acting as catalysts of their birth. That is how monsters are created.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Sources i posted estimate a much higher number, even if we agree for the sake of argument on 50,000, that's still a lot of people killed.



Here we go again, we have had a similar chat some time back too haven't we? no matter..

There's more to Saddam's attack on Kuwait then that. Saddam who was being supported by u.s just a few years back, would never have attacked if he thought that u.s. would respond militarily. They gave him the impression that they will remain neutral, or at least not respond militarily, Saddam took the bait, and the u.s. used that as an excuse to establish their permanent military presence in the middle east.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/gulf-...in-and-ambassador-to-iraq-april-glaspie/31145

How Bush 41 Tricked Saddam Into Invading Kuwait:
http://rense.com/general69/41.htm



No fly zones were launched by U.S. Britain and France after the gulf war, these zones were illegal according to U.n secretary general, Boutros Boutros-Ghal. And they didnt shoot down any aircraft, though they fired. No that doesn't constitute a provocation leading to war.



Alleged assassination attempt in 1993, that failed even if it really happened. Cruise missile attack was launched on june 26, 1993 on a building housing IIS(Iraqi Intelligence Service) in Baghdad, killing between 6 to 8 people and injuring 12 others.
Besides they targeted Saddam Hussein also, to put it into perspective:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/longroad/etc/assassination.html

assassination has long been used by the cia to clear obstacles in the us foreign policy objectives and interests.
Leaders on the CIA's hit list:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/21/usa.davidpallister
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/US/Foreign_Assassinations_since_1945

If its OK when they do it, then why not the other way round?

So no, the reasons given by you do not constitute a provocation that justifies the 2003 war that they imposed on Iraq.

when you impose aggressive war on a nation, destabilize that region, with all the anarchy and misery that follows, then u cant just shrug off the responsibility like some spoiled brat, you have to own up to it.



Aah no actually they were the result of the policies of U.S and their allies, who considered the civilian population fair game in their objectives, which included regime change, just like the civilian population today in Syria, and earlier in Libya.



...ok, you do realize that the Iraqi government were secular right? ISIS are the corrupted version of Al-Qaeda and that's saying something.
The "monsters" were born during or after the war; all the pain and misery, hopelessness and humiliation acting as catalysts of their birth. That is how monsters are created.

Whether 50,000 killed is lot or not is debatable.
The important thing is that the majority is combatants.
It is also quite far from "millions" which is what the Islamist support mafia usually claims.

Of course, the US ultimatum - "leave Quwait - or else..." published all over the world is not important at all.
Conpiracy theories trumph everything.

Would the US be in the Middle East, if Saddam had not invaded Quwait, and 911 did not happen?
Don't think so.

A failed assassination attempt on a President is stll cause of war.
A failed attack on an aircraft is still an attack.

As for the legality of the no-fly zone.

#6 clearly allows the coalition to contribute to the relief effort.
Since one of the major problems of the refugees is that Saddams forces are killing them,
it certainly provides relief if they are blocked from doing that.
If the Secretary-General is not using all the resources at his disposal, HE is violating
the resolution.

If/when the US are killing someone outside the US, it is certainly a reason for war.
Most countries would still avoid that for obvious reasons.

Saddam had a choice, and he chosed power over the life of his own people.

Al-Qaeda is certainly in the core of ISIS, but it did not become ISIS until the former Saddam cronies shaped things up.

 

[curious]

Whether 50,000 killed is lot or not is debatable.
The important thing is that the majority is combatants.
It is also quite far from "millions" which is what the Islamist support mafia usually claims.

i dont think any of the sources i posted have anything to do with "Islamist support mafia" as you put it. Though the callous disregard you show towards the Muslim dead as a result of western wars does reek of anti-Muslim mafia. Why dont you enlighten us by posting some of these sources of yours?

Of course, the US ultimatum - "leave Quwait - or else..." published all over the world is not important at all.
Conpiracy theories trumph everything.

It was too late by then, Saddam had already committed, he couldn't back down from his stand. He must have realized by that time that he had been played by his U.S. friends , but it was too late. He stepped on the trap, and the trap was sprung. His supposed allies of yesteryear turned on him, this is hardly surprising to us Pakistanis as we have been dealing with the U.S. for a long time.

Would the US be in the Middle East, if Saddam had not invaded Quwait, and 911 did not happen?
Don't think so.

No, not on the reason they are in middle east today. But the question you really need to be asking is that would Saddam try to annex Kuwait if he wasn't sure that the U.S would not respond militarily? I don't think he would, Saddam was no angel, but he wasn't suicidal either.

I don't know if you bothered to go through the link i posted above, but ill post the text from it:
Gulf War Documents: Meeting between Saddam Hussein and US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie
July 25, 1990. Eight days before the August 2, 1990 Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait
By Global Research
Global Research, June 28, 2014
Global Research 30 May 2012
Theme: US NATO War Agenda
In-depth Report: IRAQ REPORT

Saddam-Glaspie meeting

Transcript of Meeting Between Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. – July 25, 1990 (Eight days before the August 2, 1990 Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait)

(published on GR on March 5, 2012)

July 25, 1990 – Presidential Palace – Baghdad

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie – I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threat s against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship – not confrontation – regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait’s borders?

Saddam Hussein – As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie – What solutions would be acceptable?

Saddam Hussein – If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab – our strategic goal in our war with Iran – we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States’ opinion on this?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie – We have no opinion on your Arab – Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960’s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)

On August 2, 1990, Saddam massed troops to invade and occupy Kuwait. _____

Baghdad, September 2, 1990, U.S. Embassy

One month later, British journalists obtain the the above tape and transcript of the Saddam – Glaspie meeting of July 29, 1990. Astounded, they confront Ms. Glaspie as she leaves the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

Journalist 1 – Are the transcripts (holding them up) correct, Madam Ambassador?(Ambassador Glaspie does not respond)

Journalist 2 – You knew Saddam was going to invade (Kuwait ) but you didn’t warn him not to. You didn’t tell him America would defend Kuwait. You told him the opposite – that America was not associated with Kuwait.

Journalist 1 – You encouraged this aggression – his invasion. What were you thinking?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie – Obviously, I didn’t think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait.

Journalist 1 – You thought he was just going to take some of it? But, how could you? Saddam told you that, if negotiations failed , he would give up his Iran (Shatt al Arab waterway) goal for the Whole of Iraq, in the shape we wish it to be. You know that includes Kuwait, which the Iraqis have always viewed as an historic part of their country!

Journalist 1 – American green-lighted the invasion. At a minimum, you admit signaling Saddam that some aggression was okay – that the U.S. would not oppose a grab of the al-Rumeilah oil field, the disputed border strip and the Gulf Islands (including Bubiyan) – the territories claimed by Iraq?

(Ambassador Glaspie says nothing as a limousine door closed behind her and the car drives off.)
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Global Research, Global Research, 2014

https://www.globalresearch.ca/gulf-...in-and-ambassador-to-iraq-april-glaspie/31145
https://www.globalresearch.ca/gulf-...in-and-ambassador-to-iraq-april-glaspie/31145

regarding 911, the question to ask is why did they do such an attack, why was there so much hatred and resentment against the u.s. among the Muslims? why was it seen as unjust and oppressive? what is the historical basis of this thinking among st the Muslims regarding U.S. and its cronies?
In his letter to America, Obama bin Laden himself stated western support to oppressing Muslims in places such as Somalia, Chechnya, Kashmir, support for Israel and their aggression in Lebanon, presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, Sanctions on Iraq, pro-American governments in the Middle East among other things as motivations for 9 11.
Here is a link to his letter:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6537.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6537.htm
These are facts, calling them conspiracy theories doesnt make them invalid.

A failed assassination attempt on a President is stll cause of war.
A failed attack on an aircraft is still an attack.

In this context, no its not cause of war, U.S. president tried to assassinate him in the gulf war, so Saddam tried to retaliate by assassinating H.W. Bush in 93.
In retaliation to which pres. Clinton launched cruise missile attack on Iraqi Intelligence Service headquarters in Baghdad.
And, after the U.S. attack, Vice President Gore said the attack "was intended to be a proportionate response at the place where this plot" to assassinate Bush "was hatched and implemented."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/longroad/etc/assassination.html
So according to U.S. vice president, they had given the response to the assassination attempt there and then.

#6 clearly allows the coalition to contribute to the relief effort.
Since one of the major problems of the refugees is that Saddams forces are killing them,
it certainly provides relief if they are blocked from doing that.
If the Secretary-General is not using all the resources at his disposal, HE is violating
the resolution.

#6 : appeals to all Member states and to all Humanitarian organizations to contribute to these humanitarian relief efforts.
It mentions member states as in members of the U.N. and Humanitarian organizations, not the coalition that was a military alliance.
Humanitarian relief efforts it has nothing to do with establishment of no fly zones, and conducting perpetual bombing campaign for extended periods. Something like this would require explicit authorization.

taken from:
Labour claims its actions are lawful while it bombs Iraq, strarves its people and sells arms to corrupt states
7 August 2000

'To be absolutely sure about this, I took the trouble to ask Dr Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who was secretary-general of the UN when the US and Britain set up the so-called "no-fly zones", in which they dictate whose aircraft can fly. "The Security Council never approved or in any way ratified these zones," he said. Does that make them illegal? I asked. "Yes," he replied.'

http://johnpilger.com/articles/labo...s-its-people-and-sells-arms-to-corrupt-states
http://johnpilger.com/articles/labo...s-its-people-and-sells-arms-to-corrupt-states
So you can try to bend the words anyway you like, you cant change the facts, No fly zones were not legal full stop.

Saddam had a choice, and he chosed power over the life of his own people.

Not just Saddam but the people of Iraq too, the choice was, submit or suffer. Imperial hubris.

Al-Qaeda is certainly in the core of ISIS, but it did not become ISIS until the former Saddam cronies shaped things up.

Oh and they themselves got shaped up too, by the civilized" Americans and their civilized allies, imposing humanitarian wars left right and center...
Time tested formula: stir things up, cause trouble, then move in claiming you are here to stop the trouble.