Jim Lehrer (anchor, the News Hour with
Jim Lehrer, PBS): �How would you describe Zarqawi?�
Gen. John Abizaid (Commander of U.S. forces on Iraq and Afghanistan): I would
describe him as a mad man.�
Jim Lehrer: �Where is this guy?
Abizaid: �He's somewhere in Iraq." [Source]
After, we examined how President Bush, the State Department,
the United Nations, and imperialist media (e.g., CNN) interpreted the terrorist
attack that killed the U.N. envoy to occupied Iraq, Sergio Vieira De Mello; we
shall now examine how Zionist academic circles treated the same attack.
Specifically, in which way did these circles use the attack
against De Mello to manipulate American public opinion and veer it to think
only in terms of �al-Qaeda," Islamic, and Arab �terrorism," while
excluding a gamut of serious suspects such as the United States, Israel,
Britain, American-hired mercenaries, or other vassal states that occupied Iraq?
Could we interpret that manipulation as a preliminary stage for 1) the American
introduction of �Zarqawi," or 2) the administration�s claim that Iraq had
become the �central stage� in the war against, �terror"?
As a reminder, for a manipulation to be successful in a
post-9/11 ideologically charged environment, Zionist strategists follow a
well-experimented intellectual ruse: lead (mislead) the reader via endless
repetitions of commonplace indoctrinating concepts without providing any proof
except pre-packaged opinions and unsubstantiated reports that most readers lack
the necessary tools to investigate let alone verify.
This is a cunning practice: it re-recycles previously
circulated propaganda themes as verified, settled, and accepted
�facts." Example: once the Bush Administration spread the rumor that Iraq
threatened the world with weapons of mass destruction, Zionist think tanks and
imperialist media kept repeating that rumor as if it were a solid reality.
Method: a manipulation expert (thinker) transforms those
themes into false-facts by the application of what I call, the Principle of
Past Thresholds (Colin Powell used this method in his U.N. deceptive
presentation in February 2003.) Details: the manipulator applies two processes:
mental and psychological, whereby an individual would be inclined to accept
re-cycled propaganda themes as �facts� requiring no further verification. At
the base of this presumed acceptance is the assumption that the public have
already absorbed those themes and passed beyond the threshold of doubt when
confronted with them again. Expectation: based on cognitive research, the
manipulator knows that consequent to previously stratified inductions, a
re-cycled theme would acquire its own �certainty� because of earlier
indoctrinations that made their way into the collective consciousness through
mechanical repetitions by legions of other manipulators.
By following this intellectual premise, the manipulator of
Iraqi and Arab issues expects two possible developments. One: that prior
indoctrination would forestall the potential urge to investigate a given matter
from a different angle. Two: that the new sequential indoctrination could sink
even deeper in the mind of readers since they would probably depend on stored
information (disinformation) to make an updated judgment.
Consequent to these processes, a cycle of indoctrination on
a subject makes a full circle: because, disinformation was at the root of the
earlier judgment, the updated version would be only a matter of rationalized
In the case that we are about to examine, a Zionist
professor of law attempted to make a categorical connection between the attack
against the U.N. compound and Islamic �terrorism." Method: engaging in an
apparent criticism of the Bush Regime for invading Iraq (hence the
assassination of De Mello), while, effectively, endorsing Bush�s war in Iraq
based on her understated objective to tie that war and the assassination to
�Islamic terrorism," which in turn bring back to mind the �iconic� event
of 9/11 attributed to Islamist Arabs.
Details: the professor used the Principle of Past
Thresholds: she intended to induce the reader (s) to form a preconceived,
positive judgment based on previous indoctrinations positing that
violence in Iraq is solely �Islamic," and that the U.S. is alien to it
despite its invasion and occupation of the country. During this process, the
professor eliminated all references to the contexts where the violence
occurred. Nowhere could you find that Cohn attempted to tie the post-invasion
rationale (the �mission�) to terrorism and tactics by the occupiers to secure
Iraq for the imperialist interests of the United States.
Under the deceiving title, �Sergio Vieira De
Mello: victim of terror or, U.S. foreign policy?� professor
Marjorie Cohn (Thomas Jefferson School of Law, San Diego) wrote a classic piece
of duplicitous Zionist literature. On one hand, Cohn earnestly criticized
Bush�s invasion of Iraq as the cause of De Mello�s death. On the other, she
advanced several political pre-conclusions on the issue of Iraq�s occupation
and Arab �terrorism� that automatically nullified her criticism and
intrinsically justified the war.
The following are selected quotes from Cohn�s argument (I
added Italics to all relevant passages):
month short of his return to Geneva, Mr. de Mello was buried alive in
rubble from a suicide truck bomber who targeted the United Nations in
Bush unleashed �almost biblical� firepower on Iraq, al Qaeda was
not operating there. Yet since the U.S. /U.K. became the occupying
power, Iraq has become fertile ground for outside jihadis. Many Saudi
Arabian Islamists have crossed the border into Iraq to prepare for a
holy war against the U.S./U.K. forces, according to The Financial
Arab satellite television channel al-Arabiya broadcast a statement
purportedly from al Qaeda, which urged Muslims around the world to travel
to Iraq to fight the U.S. occupation, and claimed that recent attacks on
U.S. forces had been carried out by jihadis.
- Osama bin
Laden has long decried the United States� role in the first Gulf War, the
punishing sanctions against the people of Iraq.
- In the twisted minds of the terrorists who likely executed the
worst attack on a U.N. civilian operation in its 58-year history, the
United States and the United Nations are linked
From title to argument, Cohn�s article is deceptive. For
instance, in the title she juxtaposed two political concepts (terror vs. U.S.
foreign policy) that enjoy neither common foundation nor adversarial polarity.
That is, her rhetorical question did not present clearly defined subjects such
as, for example, U.S. foreign policy vs. the Palestinian issue.
Discussion: Terror is an abstract term; as such, it could
mean a variety of things from the simplest sensation of fear to the most
complex: paralyzing anxiety. Cohn, therefore, wanted to achieve an ambitious
objective: using induction, she aimed at leading the reader to read the word
�terror� as �Arab terror." Ultimate purpose: if that happens, the reader
would actually read the word, �terror� as �terrorism," or at least,
But the meaning of terror differs from that of terrorism. As
a term, terrorism is a political definition that evolved from the ideologies of
Zionism and imperialism to depict their adversaries (examples: the IRA,
Basques, Palestinians, Arabs, Chechens, etc.) Besides, while terrorism in the
general sense accepted today is a concrete action of physical violence by
groups with political cause but without relation to any specific state, the
foreign policy of a nation, on the other hand, is a set of rationalized
guidelines expressing the ideological bent of the ruling elites toward another
Because terrorism could also be 1) a domestic occurrence in
any country, and 2) foreign but of unknown national origin, then why did Cohn
juxtapose such an abstract concept of violence (terror) to the foreign policy
of the United States? Explanation: Cohn�s wider objective appeared to be
two-fold: 1) imply that the �terrorism� she was talking about meant only
foreign terrorism; implicitly, �Arab� and �Islamic� terrorism� and, 2) U.S.
wars against the Arab and Muslim states are a response to that �terrorism.�
Certainly, an alternative linguistic model to Cohn�s
deceptive title exists. Had she really wanted to be a critic of the U.S.
invasion of Iraq without Zionism lurking in her thought, she could have opted
for a provocative yet cogent title such as: Sergio Vieira De Mello: victim
of Islamic terrorism or U.S. war of aggression against Iraq? That did not
happen -- she just juxtaposed evil (terror) vs. good (U.S. foreign policy).
Forcefully, because the concept of war to implement colonialism is not a
specific matter of foreign policy, Cohn, therefore, intentionally misled the
reader by incongruent political inference.
Consequently, Cohn intended to send a concealed message of
indoctrination. This is how she did it: she implicitly suggested a link between
the attack on the U.N. and the Palestinian struggle against the Israeli
occupation. Method: she described the attack against the U.N. as carried out by
�a suicide truck bomber.�
With the insertion of the term, �suicide bomber (often used
by Israel, the West, and the United States to describe Palestinian military
operations against the Israeli occupation of what remained of historical
Palestine), Cohn managed to establish two defining parameters:
- First: Arab Muslims are a bunch of fanatics who �commit suicide to
kill their intended victims.�
- Second, because of the Israeli and American propaganda that depicts
self-sacrificing (technically a form of warfare) attacks against the
settler state are, therefore, acts of �terrorism." It follows that by
implication and by direct suggestion, Cohn implied that the attack against
the United Nations was �inevitably� an Arab �terrorist� attack. Hence, the
subliminal message: occupied Iraq is bustling with �terrorists."
Hundreds of American and European writers and politicians
influenced by or affiliated with Zionism struggled to limit the concept of
self-sacrifice as a form of war, to Islamic fanaticism. This inference is
bogus, ideologically motivated, and a precise instrument of psychological
warfare against Arabs and Muslims.
Let us examine the issue of �suicide bombing.� Because the
United States and Israel have been engaging in wars of aggression against the
Arabs since Britain and the West installed Israel in 1948, then we must ask a
question: is self-sacrifice in war an ethical calamity? Remember, we are not
dealing here with suicide as a product of psychological meltdown by
individual(s), but as a means of war.
A quote from a militarist website could help. Wrote Gerald W. Thomas, �While Japan
apparently did not use suicide tactics at Pearl Harbor, we know of their use of
the Kamikaze later in the war. One historian stated that by the end of WWII:
7,465 Kamikazes flew to their deaths; 120 US ships were sunk, with many
more damaged; 3,048 allied sailors were killed and anther 6,025
wounded. [Italics added]
As you can see from these figures, Japanese attackers (or,
as per the trend today, �suicide-bombers�) did not die for nothing. In military
terms, instead of being killed by the enemy�s bullets and bombs, they chose to
die while killing enemy soldiers and destroying their military arsenals. My
point: suicide bombing is a form of warfare, and as such, it does not relate to
any form of fanaticism.
If Arabs of Islamic or Christian faith in Palestine (or
elsewhere) choose to fight a militarily superior enemy in that way (since they
possess no jetfighters or artillery), then which is the cause that would make
one choose that form of war: 1) religious belief, 2) psychological imbalance,
or 3) the innate need to be free from foreign occupation?
I submit that the �need to be free from foreign occupation�
is the only motive. (In my reading of the American literature on Japanese
Kamikazes, I never came across the suggestion that American writers and
historians considered such acts by Japanese soldiers as Shinto fanaticism,
although, many point out to the Kamikaze�s unquestioned obedience to military
orders and devotion to the emperor.
In the case of Arab Palestinians who attack Israeli soldiers
and settlers using that form of warfare, Israeli and western propaganda
depicted such acts as a product of Muslim fanatics who die in that way to �earn
a place in heaven.�
This is rubbish. I never read in the Muslim Quran that God
promised heavens to those who fight Zionism and Imperialism. Instead, the Quran
is full with allusion of heavens to those who die for the cause of God. But
Palestinians in Gaza who battle the Israelis because they destroyed their homes
are definitely not fighting for God or his Word. They are fighting the Israelis
for two reasons: 1) to be free from the Israeli occupation, and 2) to recover
their natural rights on the land.
A question: why does the axis Israel-United States consider
warfare by the F-series jetfighters and stealth bombers as civilized, while it
treats warfare by self-sacrificing attackers a form of fanaticism?
Propaganda supplies the answer: describe the attack as
suicide, and then attribute it to an assumed religious fanaticism of Arab
Muslims. Does that work? So far, the strategy has worked, but only as far as it
concerns the intended recipients: the uninformed, the indifferent, and the
rigid ideologue, alas, the majority!
Now, if Yehod Olmert, Tony Blair, Jack Chiraque, and George
Bush do not want to see the Arabs die by self-sacrifice while fighting the
Israeli occupiers of Palestine or the American occupiers of Iraq, would they
like them to stay in their homes so the U.S. and Israeli jets can bomb them to
ashes? With this in mind, let us analyze the major themes advanced by Cohn:
One: Cohn deliberately falsified events: a suicide
truck bomber did not attack the U.N. compound, but a truck detonated with
remote control destroyed it. Even CNN (the audio-video bugle of Zionism beside
Fox Network) could not lie about what happened. In its dispatch
from Iraq on August 20, 2003, CNN reported, �Sergio Vieira de Mello, a veteran
U.N. official appointed to the post in May, was killed when a bomb-laden
cement truck exploded beneath the window of his office in the Canal Hotel at
about 4:30 p.m. [12:30 p.m. GMT; 8:30 a.m. EDT].
Two: the dispatch continued with
the following, �Given the location of the bomb, Vieira de Mello could have been
the target of the attack, said Paul Bremer, the U.S. civilian administrator in
Three: as you can see, CNN and
Paul Bremer did not speak of a suicide bomber, but of a concrete truck laden
with explosives with the inference that someone detonated it by remote control.
Four: as a curiosity, it is not
clear as to why Cohn employed the phrase �almost biblical� to the U.S.
bombardment of Iraq and placed it between quotation marks. Possible
explanation: she aimed at involving biblical mythologies on the war against
Iraq to appeal to Christian Zionists.
Five: Cohn was categorical when she stated that, �Iraq has
become fertile ground for outside jihadis." In analyzing this statement, I
must first clarify matters of language. When the U.S. and Israel refer to Arab
Muslims who actively engage in the opposition of the combined American- Israeli
imperialism in the Arab Middle East, the term of preference is �Jihadis�
[plural of Jihadi]. The imperialist usage of this word implies abomination as
if that word is some sort of �evil� in the Bush-esque tradition.
However, the word �Jihadi� does not exist in Arabic as a
noun; but, if pronounced in that way, it does exist as a compound possessive,
meaning �my struggle." The correct noun is �Mujahid.� But, the noun
�Mujahid� derives from the verb, �yujahid� which means, �to struggle."
A question: why do imperialist opinion makers consider the
struggle (Jihad) against U.S.-Israeli imperialism, colonialism, Zionism,
domination, and occupation, an abomination? To emphasize the nature of this
question, let us make this example: if an Arab country would invade Israel, the
Israeli society would defend itself against this invading army on two levels:
1) as Zionist, Jewish (secular or religious -- including fanatics), and 2) as
an Israeli in term of citizenship. If this sounds logical, then where is the
problem when the Iraqi society defends itself against foreign invaders on two
levels: 1) Muslim or Christians (secular or religious -- including fanatics),
and 2) as Iraqi citizens?
Next, we shall discuss the concept of Jihad as used by Cohn
and relate it to the struggle against colonialism. This is very important,
because, among other things, the U.S. called Zarqawi, a �ruthless Jihadi�
Next: Part 11 of 23
B.J. Sabri is an Iraqi-American anti-war activist. Email: email@example.com