Worth it?

I was looking back at my old e-mails the other day and stumbled across an e-mail from Trudy Rubin that was sent almost 5 years ago. I was surprised because the e-mail was "read" but it was the first time I had seen it. She had kindly sent me the notes of an interview with my father which I am publishing here with her permission.

I had an argument with my father about the war shortly before he left London for the last time. Over lunch I told him that I was planning to attend the anti-war march with some friends to protest the US invasion of Iraq. He was shocked at first, then said "You can go if you want, but you don't know the meaning of Saddam Hussein". He then went on to explain who Saddam really was and how important it was for someone, anyone, to do something about him. I remember that day very well, because he spoke so much he didn't even have his lunch and because I was still not convinced and took to the streets of London to protest. The lives that would be lost could not possibly be worth a post-Saddam Iraq.

After my fathers death I realised I was indeed ignorant of Saddam so I read a lot more about Iraq's Saddam-era history to learn about the true horrors of Iraq under Saddam. The Iraq-Iran war, the Gulf war, Anfal campaign, the scholar killing-spree, Uday, Qusay, '91 intifada e.t.c and it wasn't long before I realised anything short of a nuclear strike on Iraq would still have been worth it. It seems cruel to say that it was worth all those people who were killed, but their blood was a price Iraq paid to get rid of Saddam. Blood that was willingly given or unwillingly taken. No one chooses who goes and who stays. God, fate, destiny, call it what you like.

April 1, 2003
Sayid Majid al Khoei [speaking by satellite phone from a US base outside Najaf]

We are very near Najaf. Inshallah we will go there soon.
It is not true that the Shia are reluctant (to welcome the Americans). From the South till our towns, everyone in the tribes is waiting for the right time to cooperate and show their reaction.

Q: Why aren't they cooperating yet?
A: The people inside - some have cooperated. But they are still under the control of the Baath and the Fedayeen. My town, there is a tight curfew, house arrest, no one can go out, anyone would be shot. That is why it is still difficult for those inside.

In Um Qasr and free areas, they are happy but worried. Not as happy as in '91, they are still not sure (about the future) until the US finishes the job in Baghdad. Once (betrayal) was enough for us. We don't know if the US will leave us alone to face Saddam Hussein again.

If the allies surround Baghdad and show that Saddam is finished...they don't need to really finish (kill) him, but if the people see that the allies won't let him go.

Nobody is allowed to go to the shrine. There is no other way but to invade the city, even if it damages the shrine, the allies must take Najaf soon.

What would make me personally angry, if Saddam's army damages the shrine and then blames the US army. The allies are being very careful to shoot around the holy places. People know that Saddam's men shot the shrine in '91, and that in '91 the allies broke many things but not the Holy Shrines.

If the US finishes the fedayeen, then Najafis can take responsibility to run the city again. If the city is in the hands of the people, there might be spies for Saddam there, but everyone will point out who is fedayeen and mukhabarat.

There are many ways to cooperate (with the allies). We are independent, we came ourselves. It was difficult.

Q: Should there be an (allied) military government?
A: It is too soon to judge. We must wait to see how Iraqis think. The Iraqi opposition sees things totally different from people inside Iraq. The government should belong to them (insiders) not the opposition. They will decide how to build a government. People are still waiting, if Saddam is finished and people take the government things will change.

People won't turn against the Americans. We had too many wars made by Saddam Hussein, one war for eight years, one for seven months. They won't turn against the Americans.

In each city, if people die (in this war), it is hard to say who they will blame. Unfortunately, there is no other choice.

I personally am ready to be killed in order to finish the suffering of the Iraqi people.

Yes, I can trust the Americans. Everyone knows the situation is entirely different than in '91. In '91, the Americans came to liberate Kuwait, not to change the regime. Now Iraqis gave details about Saddam to the Americans. People who demonstrate (against the war, around the world) don't know the meaning of Saddam.

This time the Americans came and said they would finish this. They have sent many messages. I can't speak for the Iraqi people. They are waiting because they don't trust exactly. Tribal leaders say 'we will help, but this is a political game, we will help if we are sure'.

It is true that in Nasiriya Ali Hassan Majid with his own hand shot tribal leaders. People are still scared.

We tell them "Don't rise up in these days.
"Don't fight in the town against the allies.

"Don't go out."

Sayid Majid tells me he must go, and we agree to talk again in a few days.

Eagle Eye

Eagle Eye is a recent Hollywood movie that was released in the UK last week. It is your typical high-tech, fast-paced, action packed American movie. The film revolves around a DoD computer system that has gone terribly wrong. The AI system wants to murder almost every member of the executive in the US government because the President disregarded the recommendation to "abort mission" for the assassination of a terrorist that is targeted in the first few minutes of the movie.

The computer system chooses two civilians (Shia LaBeouf and Michelle Monaghan) to help it carry out mass-murder. Only the Defence Secretary is spared because he agreed with the recommendation to abort the mission. The shocking part of the film is that the terrorist (Fahim Fazli, pictured) is named "Majid al-Khoei". Although the IMDb cites the name as "Al Kohei" the name that is shown on the computer screen in the movie is clearly "MAJID AL-KHOEI".

What is even more shocking is that no one in a $80 million budget film bothered to use Google to check whether using my fathers name for a terrorist would be appropriate. I do not expect anyone of them to go out of their way to thoroughly research a proposed name but even a 20-second glance at the google results would have shown them that "Majid al-Khoei" was a moderate philanthropist who was slain by terrorists in a cold-blooded attack. Anyone with self-respect or decency would have then raised an eyebrow.

Error, misjudgement, lack of due diligence or a sly and cunning attack on a dead man, whatever it is, I want to get to the bottom of this and find out which fool decided to be a smart-ass and throw in a well-known and respected name to the writers/producers.

I tried to transcribe parts of the first few minutes of the film:

[Suspected terrorist is travelling in a 3 car convoy and is being closely-watched by US forces]

Defence Secretary: How tell me you spotted the beard in the middle of a god-damn sand storm? Is it really him?
Voice: We're confirming that now
Technician: Sir, audio is coming now
Voice: Verifying voice pattern now
Voice: Four males, speaking in a Rashadi dialect, consistent with our intel on al-Khoei
Technician: Sir its just coming up.

["37% Probable Match…Majid al-Khoei" shown on computer]

...

[Another picture is taken of the suspected terrorist as he leaves his car and "51% match Majid al-Khoei" is shown on the computer, which recommends abort mission]

...

[President calls]
Defence Secretary: Mr President, we have a 51% identity match on Majid al-Khoei, the bad news is that there's some possibility he's at a funeral, you should also be aware we have an abort recommendation, but the Joint Chiefs are urging the go.

...

President: And if it is al-Khoei, and he walks, I'm putting our people at risk, you have a go.
Defence Secretary: Thank you Mr President.
Joint Chief of Staff: We're weapons hot!
Technician: We have weapons hot!

[A missile is fired at the suspected target and the people attending the funeral are killed]

Al-Arabiya

As one of the anonymous commentators has pointed out, the website of Al-Arabiya, the Saudi Arabian satellite channel, has been hacked. Al-Arabiya has not stooped down to the (very low) standards of the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera but it has broadcast its fair share of sectarian-laced reports and anti-Shia rhetoric, and thus was the target of Shia hackers. No Iranian flag-painted faces this time but a burning flag of Israel instead of a torn one.

According to Zeinobia it was re-hacked by the Saudi's but I still get the same message on the Al-Arabiya website. Let the games begin, sorry, I mean continue.

www.alarabiya.net

Iraqi Doctors: Armed & Dangerous

In their infitie wisdom, the Iraqi government has decided that Iraqi doctors should be allowed "to carry one weapon" in order to defend themselves.

I don't think anyone has a problem with people who want to defend themselves per se, but I think this is a stupid idea because not only are these people not used to carrying weapons but because they have spent most of their lives trying to save peoples lives, and now they are supposed to be prepared to start taking them.

I remember the first time I carried a concealed weapon in Iraq it was a really strange feeling for me, I knew it was normal to be armed, even some taxi drivers have guns, but the gun felt 'heavy'. Half the time it felt more like a burden rather than something that is there to protect me, even though I wouldn't have minded using it to shoot someone trying to kill or kidnap me. I can't imagine how 'heavy' a gun would feel in the hands of a doctor.

So what happens if the doctor shoots and the terrorist will die if no one gives him medical attention? Does the doctor have a duty to try and help him stay alive? It would be interesting to see exactly how many doctors will start walking around Baghdad with a pistol stuffed into their belt, because many will refuse outright to carry something that is used to kill and maime.

Sabeeh, a doctor in Tal A'far says "I think it will not be of help because I do not know how to shoot, and have never used a gun. I don't think I will carry a weapon.". Its also weird that they have decided to pass this law after 5 years of chaos and when there has been a dramatic improvement in security. Why? And why now?

Sunni Websites Hacked

Following the attack on hundreds of Shia websites, some Iranian Shia decided to pay back in kind by hacking many of the most visited Sunni websites. www.alsunnah.com, www.alburhan.net, and www.alsrdaab.com were just some of the sites targeted. A picture of the 'Persian Gulf', a face painted with the Iranian flag and an Israeli flag torn in two come up as the homepage for these sites. The hacking was justified by using part of a verse from the Quran [2:194]

"...And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you..."

Some sites however show a picture of two hands interlocked with the phrase "Oh Muslims, Unite Unite" with a tongue-in-cheek message at the bottom that reads "Because of Eid-el-Fetr , some of your sites will be returned to you in the next 24 hours".

The Shia hackers targeted hundreds of sites that had nothing to do with the earlier attack on Shia sites. These two extremist groups will continue taking cheap shots at one another and 'pathetic' isn't even the right word to describe these attacks.

I was shocked to learn that Makerem Shirazi, a Grand Ayatollah based in Qum met and praised the "Ashyaneh" group responsible for this retaliatory attack. The meeting will also come as a shock to those conspiracy theorists who cried "divide and conquer" when they first heard about the attack, which they thought was the work of Jews trying to cause trouble between the Shia and Sunnis (who lived happily side by side for a thousands years before the Jews came along and forced them to kill each other).