_ By Shaikh Zakzaky (h)
Continuation of part 1......
Now, perhaps I should not be concerned with the definition, a lot of people have defined terrorism in their own way. But I must be concerned about what should be called terrorism, but it is not called, and that is "state terrorism." I've heard terrorism being mentioned but none of
them have written a certain Government, which has been using terrorism as a weapon to sustain itself and to intimidate its opponent.
It seems that after September 11, some particular Governments have adopted the word and misuse it in a way that strike terror. In other words, use terrorism in order to sustain either their own policies in their countries or outside world. Typical of this, is the Government of the United
States of America, which in itself is becoming more and more of a terrorist Government. I'm not saying all the people in the United States are terrorists, but the Government is becoming a terrorist one. What will you say of their own atrocities in Afghanistan and Iraq? If it is not known,
it is now accepted for an open secret indeed.
Somebody told me a story of Afghanistan, where a delegation from the United States had a meeting with the Taliban government long before the September 11, 2001 tragedy. They wanted to have some agreement, which will allow the United States government access to abandoned gas resources of Afghanistan. But the Taliban government refused. When the
agreement failed they wrote them (Taliban government) that they either consent to US exporting their gas or they will litter the streets on top of the land beneath which is their gas with corpses of their people. And after sometime, we heard September 11 attack, and while the flames could still be seen burning and the smokes filled up the skies; they said it was Usama bin Laden! How did they know? And they kept on saying it was Usama bin Laden up till today. And the same person, the President of the United States of America, Mr. George W. Bush said the responsibility for the strike was from one man. His name was Usama bin Laden, with his network of Al-Qaeda. So he confined it to one man and his network, and he said his message to the Taliban Government was to deliver Usama bin Laden. A little after, they did what they did in advance, one would have thought that was the end of it.
Who is responsible for striking the World Trade Center on September 11 2001? The United States Government said it was from one man, his name was Usama bin Laden and his network of Al-Qaeda. So it proves that this man was a suspect, they were thinking he was a prime suspect. One might ask, if you are representing director of security. Somebody is suspected of committing a crime; whatever the crime, whatever the gravity of the crime, even if it is a matter of hundreds of people, but the suspect is inside a house. What do you do when you want a suspect? Does the rule allow you to destroy the house including everybody inside it? No! How much more when he is hiring a room in a hotel. Does the law say that you can go and destroy the whole hotel and the entire guest inside it because you want to destroy him? If that is the case, they should have shown if it is legally allowed. But this is what they did in Afghanistan they destroyed the whole nation looking for one man. Worst still at the end of the day the man escaped! And they have destroyed the lives of so many millions of innocent people. If this is not state terrorism, what is it? Next time they will now come to Nigeria and say, they want all our oil for the next one hundred years or we will face the consequence like Afghanistan, if we decline. What do we do? Do we just say ok, come, and have it? Because we wouldn't want to be like Afghanistan, who have been taken one hundred years back.
Now there's no water, no electricity and people are riding on the back of donkeys. Now, if they say either you succumb for what they want, or they destroy you. What else is that, if not terrorism? But it is done in the name of "fighting terrorists". A terrorist carrying out his terrorist acts in the name of fighting terrorism is what? Now having done what they did in Afghanistan, that would have been alright, it has finished. Bin Laden was not there, even if they want to continue bombing Afghanistan to get Bin Laden, believing that it is justified, alright they should continue, having said that only one man is behind it and that is Usama bin Laden. Now why did they go to Iraq? At the beginning they said that Saddam had connection with Al-Qaeda, and that, a meeting of one security agent of Iraq, took place somewhere in Europe, with one member of Al-Qaeda network. It seems the world did not believe them. Well even though they have not convinced us of the fact that Usama bin Laden was behind it, in any case, they said he was behind it and they did what we saw in Afghanistan. Now they failed to convince us that Saddam Hussein has any connection with Al-Qaeda or with Usama bin Laden. At one time they even said that, Usama bin Laden escaped from Afghanistan and they were suspecting that he was somewhere in Iraq. When the world was not convinced with what they made people believe, they said it was the weapons.
Well, we all know what happened. The United Nation Inspectors were there doing their inspection, because they have intelligence that the weapons were there. And they were there to destroy them because they could be used, within 48 minutes to destroy Europe and America from Iraq, so they went and they did what they did. Destroyed towns and villages, at the end of it all, there were no forms of weapons of mass destruction. Now they came to admit that there were no weapons of mass destruction that the attack was based on speculation, so they did what they ought to? They should get out of Iraq, and apologize there and then. They didn’t, instead, they now change the cause, they were there to hang Saddam, for what reason? We didn't know! Saddam could be a dictator, it's none of the business of the United States Government or any Government in the world for that matter. It is the business of Iraqi people. It is up to them to rise against their dictator, topple him and replace him with another government. That is not the business of any other nation. Now they got Saddam Hussein, so it should have ended there. No. They now said another thing, they were there to give Iraq freedom and democracy.
Of recent what was George Bush saying? He said that, yes they agree that there was no weapons of mass destruction, yes they agree that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous man and they toppled him, now they have given freedom to the Iraqis, but they have to continue to be there in order to give terrorists trouble so that terrorists would not have time to come and trouble the United States. So at the end of the day the whole thing changed, now they are engaging terrorists, who are the terrorists? Iraqis? So Iraqi people whom you have occupied and you are daily destroying? Are now terrorists in their own country? You're taking their oil, still they are terrorists? Who are they destroying? So many times, you will see it in the district of Polluja, even yesterday they destroyed houses with families inside them, some of them are story buildings - many stories. And then they were bringing out corpses including those of babies, and then they said the reason for all this atrocity was that Al-Zarkawee of Al-Qaeda was believed to be somewhere in the building. According to the intelligence, he must be leaving around that house. So many families have been totally exterminated in the name of looking for Zarkawee.
Now judging by what Bush was saying, "his troubling terrorists", are in many countries, it means that not only in Iraq but also in so many other countries, this could happen. After all, out of the nineteen people who struck on September 11, fourteen of them came from Saudi Arabia. So Saudi Arabia could be the next target, so that according to Bush's philosophy; don't give terrorists a chance, next they could also be in Syria, Lebanon, Egypt where Muhammad Attah came from and so on. So their own acts knows no bound - they can strike on any other country with the aim of giving the terrorists trouble so that they'll not have time to go and trouble America. If what they are doing is not terrorism, what else is terrorism? Now you might say that you've heard that so many lives were lost in September 11, but compare it with how many lives they have destroyed also in the name of fighting or taking revenge. And yet they have not got at the man they said was behind it.
If America can occupy Afghanistan, usurp all its resources, and do the same to Iraq and all its resources, why shouldn't other countries do the same? More so, what you need to do is evolve your September 11 and start to attack your neighbors in the name of fighting terror.
_ We will Continue at part 3
© Freedom Fighters Ng.
Tags
Shaikh Zakzaky