JEWS WANT CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS TO FIGHT WITH EACH OTHER

Masterminds of Zionism are working for a clash between Christianity and Islam.

Racist Zionists are Struggling to Enslave and Dominate the Whole World.

U.S. Government Rulers Are Enemies of All Muslims and All Arabs.

American rulers or outlaws have declared their Racist War against Islam, Afghanistan, all Afghans, all Arabs and all Muslims without presenting any legal evidence to the American people to prove or justify their decisions/reasons for attacking nations to seek revenge for the September 11 airplane attacks on the Bush Theocracy.

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein Second Letter to the American People
http://www.uruklink.net/iraq/emss17.htm

In the name of God, the most Compassionate, the most Merciful

Once again, we make a return to comment on the incident 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 at the levels of the world of which we are a part or rather a special case as a nation known for 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 U.S. about if there is anybody who wants to say something or adopt an attitude towards this incident [of Bloody Tuesday], and who is concerned about world peace and stability. This is the case if the U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 for the viewpoint of the peoples and governments in the world in its entirety. It gives it no weight or heed despite the fact that it claims to be the (number one) democratic state in the world. The basic meaning of democracy even by the standards of its initial emergence in the Western World is that facts should lay bare before the people so that the people would assume their responsibility with full awareness. Our description of the U.S. attitude vis-a-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 U.S. against whoever they assumed to be an enemy before the incident 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 U.S.

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 backgrounds could suffice to arrive at a conclusion which may prove right.
Even if, for the sake of argument, we go along with 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 on 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 is only
the U.S. administration that has made the charge against a certain religion [Islam], not just a given nationality.

Let us also accept the interventions of those who contend that the U.S. 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 Muslims.
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 [of defendants]:

Afghanistan, Usama bin Laden, the Islamic Qaida (base) party ororganization, Syria, Yemen, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine
[Iran, Libya and Sudan]. 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 accusations against Muslims, including, or rather in the
forefront of whom are Arabs? Why should this cross the minds of U.S. officials unless they have basically assumed themselves and their policy to be enemies of Arabs and Muslims?

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 U.S.-Zionist policy vis-a-vis the world and
Palestine? Consider statements by the U.S. 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 Muslims and the people of Palestine would leave the arena for the aggression of the Zionist entity [Israel] and its
vile imperialism.

These charges which were made without consideration and in an instantaneous way mean that the mentality of the U.S.
administration has been pre-loaded, prior to the [Sept. 11] incident, 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 Muslims
are enemies of the U.S.' More precisely, the U.S. on the level of its rulers has taken it as a final verdict that it is the enemy of Arabs and Muslims. 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 state and 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 U.S. 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 U.S., whose policies and positions
are not palatable to the U.S. in particular or because they call for the liberation of Palestine and a halt to the U.S. aggression on Iraq, and adherence to their independence and their nations' heritage.

Anyone 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 U.S. has declared it is at war. It is gearing up for war since the early moments in the wake of the [Sept. 11] incident, 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 [the USA]. Thus, the war declared by America would cease to be a reason for the incidence. Rather, it is the incident that has availed the opportunity to launch the war, which has not been a result of the incident under any circumstances!

One might contend it is the nature of the incident, 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 in 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 U.S., then why you should not expect someone to direct his fire to it under the pressure of similar considerations or danger?

Once again we say that the U.S. administration and those in the West who allied themselves with it against Arabs and Muslims,
now and in the past, or rather against the world, in all the arenas that witnessed the scourges of the alliance, 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 Muslims 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 Muslims, 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 (God) sufficeth, and He is the best disposer of affairs."--(Holly Quran).

Once again, we say that the people do not believe any more the slogans of the United States, except 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 it imposes what it wants on the World and refuses what it thinks might be harmful
to it only, and it exports the other kinds of evils 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 people 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 [Israel]
responsible of killing Palestinians in occupied Palestine and in Tunis and Lebanon -- And if it charges its own secret services
with what they have committed in special actions and assassinations which 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 the security of the World.

This is a chance to air an opinion whose time has come. It is also addressed to the people of the U.S. 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 centers in your countries and whoever rules in your name, here and there, in decision-making centers. But its
domination is not yet fulfilled to have its will absolute and final. This could only be feasible when two heavenly faiths
[Islam and Christianity] 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 wetted its mouth? Would the sensible men and women in the West become aware of this Zionist conspiracy? Or would Zionism outsmart them to attain its aims?