Yes! US is Mother of all terrorists!!!
The remark uttered by a PAS member of
Parliament of Pokok Sena, Mahfuz Omar, calling US "The Mother of all
terrorists" caught my attention. His remark though, may not be accepted by
all. Infact, the US attack on Afghanistan receives varying reactions from the
public which basically fall into two groups. One group approves the attack and
the other views that a no war solution should be adopted. There was also a
viewpoint which disagree with Mahfuz's remark that label US as "The Mother
of all terrorists" but somehow admit the "bloody errors"
committed by US prior to the WTC tragedy. Kindly take note, the "bloody
errors" committed by US prior to the WTC tragedy were no error! They were
deliberate and brilliantly orchestrated by the US intelligents to fulfil US
interests and her "world order" agenda.
As a matter of fact, the US deserves the title "The Mother of All Terrorists" long before the WTC tragedy. The US should have been condemned by all nations, Muslims and Non-Muslims, without waiting for the WTC tragedy to happen. The fact that every one admitted that US hegemony is present all around the world in countries like the Middle-East, Illegitimate Israel, Asia, Africa, Latin America and sponsored dictators like Somoza of Nicaragua, Pinochet of Chile and Shah Pahlavi of Iran are clear-cut proofs that US harbours, nurtures and finances terrorism. US deserves such label, "The Mother of ALL terrorists". Let every reader accept and admit this fact first before we touch on the WTC tragedy and US attack on Afghanistan thereafter.
With the attack on Afghanistan, US has infact committed a terrible error, no, has committed an international crime. This is due to the fact that US and her allies (accomplices in this genocide) attack Afghanistan purely based on SUSPICION, not on irrefutable proof. And based on mere SUSPICION US employed a massive military strike on Afghanistan that killed children, women and non-combatants. How do you account for the death of innocent civilians as a result of a military strike which is based on mere suspicion? How do you justify this? Can this death be regarded as collateral damage? The innocents are indeed not responsible for the WTC tragedy. They took no part in that tragedy. They lived in a state of ruins and devastation and tried very hard to make a day-to-day living. Yet, they became victims of the US strike. Is this fair? Where is justice? Who is going to raise a voice on this? One thing for sure, they are not Americans! The US military has a technological mean to hit targetted areas. No excuse and no pretext, please.
Even with world support that approves the US military strike, that support is no justification to allow civilian death. If such moral code is accepted by US and the rest of the world, then the moral value of US is no different from that of the WTC terrorists. "US strike back" is infact an act of terrorism as her moral code concerning reprisal does not distinguish combatants from civilians. US is, in actuality, exhibiting an act of cowardice and revealing her true colour of barbarism!
Usamah (Osama) bin Laden has repeatedly denied responsibility for the WTC tragedy. In addition to that, Taliban has also condemned the attack and denied involvement but unfortunately these proclamations fell on deaf ears. How could US attack an independent nation that strongly denies responsibility? US has indeed committed a crime here. When there is a denial a stalemate is met. Under such circumstance, war can never be the right move! War that involves killing of human lives must be substantiated with irrefutable proof! Hence, the next rational step to resolve this is through an international court where "credible" evidences not only can be produced but also thoroughly cross-examined. US should have been more patient in this respect, because eventually, if the evidences are confirmed credible, the culprits can never run away. The fact that US was too hasty in her decision to attack independent Afghanistan implicated the "credible" evidences are suspected unsubstantiated. A simple analogy to affirm my point is this: If someone attack my house and I want to retaliate to seek justice and I suspect you with some what I gather as "credible" evidences whereas in actuality you are indeed innocent, do you feel my retaliation on you justified? The chance is Bin Laden may be innocent, that, he is not behind the WTC attack?!
A bloody error that US has committed is her by-passing the role of the UN. US is hell-bent to attack an independent nation. But US, with her arrogance, was quick to point out that "terrorists" deserves no rule of law. Whose law is this? What credible evidence does US have to point out that they are terrorists in the first place? "Terrorist" is a term coined by US to label anyone whom she regarded as her arch enemy. As for the CIA sponsored militants/extremists, the term "terrorists" seems to be silenced on them. Are the likes of Slobodan Milosevic, Radovan Karadzic, the IRA and the Zionist Jews terrorists? How do you draw a line in defining a terrorist?
When there is doubt, every life is sacred. When you want to attack an independent nation, isn't it an international rule that it must be carried out via a UN resolution? Similarly, to garner support isn't it a rule that it must be obtained through the UN resolution? The UN has been reduced to naught. Koffi Anan better resigns.
Now we hear the demand from the supporters of US to include HAMAS, Hezbollah and the Islamic resurgents in Kashmir as terrorists. US is also keen to attack another independent nation whom she suspects harbours the Al-Qaida organisation. Will it be Sudan, Iraq, or Saudi Arabia? Their inclusion in the terrorists list are likely as Bush has said that war on terrorism shall be on a broader scale not only confine to Usamah (Osama) bin Laden. When such voices are echoed to the whole world, then the prime motive here is to annihilate Islamic resurgents because they form the only groups brave enough to stand up against the might of the superpowers who continuously protect the tyrannical Israel. "Terrorist" is just a pretext.
Surely, the Muslims shall never forget this event. US and Britain must accept retaliation as the "terrorists" are now talking the language of revenge. Either you are with the faithfuls or with the infidels. Who do you choose?