The Zarqawi affair, part 2 of 15
By B. J. Sabri
Journal Contributing Writer
Sep 13, 2006, 02:18
�Four more U.S. soldiers have been charged with rape and
murder and a fifth with dereliction of duty in the alleged rape-slaying of a
young Iraqi woman and the killings of her relatives in Mahmoudiya, the military
said Sunday. Green [one of the rapist murders] is accused of raping the woman
and killing her and three relatives -- an adult male and female and a girl
estimated to be 5 years old. An official familiar with the investigation said he
set fire to the rape victim's body in an apparent cover-up attempt.� --International
Herald Tribune - Aug 8, 2006. [Italics added]
Within the United
States, three forces converged to destabilize the Arab states through wars,
threat of military intervention, and assassination of political figures.
secular Jewish Zionists including secular neocon Christians; objective: tight
control over world governments; methods: international finance, U.S. and
Israel�s nuclear threat, military assistance, or other forms of control through
blackmail or pressure by their American proxy (the U.S. government). Specific
objective: liquidate the Palestinian Question, direct or indirect military
control of Arab states, and, ultimately, the subjugation of the Arab nations to
the American and Israeli will.
traditional imperialists; objective: the establishment of a global American
Empire; methods: the political use of the military and economic powers of the
United States, threat of nuclear war, and threat of unilateral military action.
Specific objective: establish direct or indirect military control over Arab
lands, oil, and other resources.
theological Christian Zionists; objective: the evangelization of the Arab
peoples in line with biblical �prophesies; methods: 1) employ the military
forces of the United States to protect the process of conversion, 2) bribery,
and 3) charity programs. (Currently, there are over 380 Christian groups
working around the clock to convert Iraqi Muslims. Also, there is a plan to
build the largest church in the Middle East capable of seating 25,000
worshipers with money taken from Iraqi oil sales or expropriation.
alacrity of means and the unchained aggressiveness of the United States of
George Bush, it is realistic to predict that these three forces would not stop
after Iraq or Lebanon despite lulls and delays. This is not a hypothesis, but a
reasoned expectation based on the study of U.S.-Israeli military activity
curves, �mission� statements by the establishment, and material facts on the
Arguably, if the
psychopathic ideologues of empire in the U.S., Britain, France, and, of course,
Israel were to succeed in achieving their immediate goals, the fabric of our
civilization will permanently unravel, and countless nations who thus far
enjoyed peaceful ethnic and religious mosaics should begin to fear for their
In examining the
U.S.-Israeli association, it is possible to identify an intricate, multi-stage
strategic plan. In this plan, acts of self-inflicting terrorism (it is possible
that 9/11 is such an act), aggressive policy to provoke reactive hostility to
facilitate intervention, pretexts, and rationales form one unitary purpose.
Thus, 9/11, the story of Iraq�s WMD, the story of al-Qaeda, the story
that Syria assassinated a former Lebanese officer, are all chapters in that
plan. For example, Israel destroyed a half of Lebanon under the pretext that
Lebanese fighters captured two of its soldiers.
(On the specific
subject of the captured Israeli soldiers, one has to remember a few facts.
First, technically, Lebanon is still at war with the Israel since it never had
a peace treaty with it. Second, Israel still occupies a part of Lebanese territory
(the Shabba Farms). Third, Israel has been detaining over 1,510 Lebanese
prisoners since it invaded Lebanon in 1982.)
Having outlined the
American-Israeli goals in the Middle East, we have to ask a series of
preliminary questions: who invented the Zarqawi hoax, why, and what role it
played in the American tactic to keep Iraq occupied while igniting a
confessional war between Iraqi Arab Muslims. Most importantly, how did the
United States prepare for the appearance of Zarqawi on the Iraqi scene?
First, let us go
back to the day when the Bush Regime spread the news of its latest military
�marvel� in occupied Iraq, i.e., the �killing of Zarqawi." On that day, it
was as if the world came to a standstill: hold your breath, praise the Lord,
and say halleluiah. . . . for the hyper-empire killed Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi,
whom the United States described as �al-Qaeda leader� in Iraq and the
�mastermind� of the Iraqi �insurgency."
The ensuing orchestrated
emotional frenzy was uncontrollable. The White House rejoiced, newspapers
published a large photograph of his lifeless face, and TV stations broadcasted
the same repeatedly. America�s man at the United Nations, Kofi Annan, expressed
his pleasure in the elimination of a man who �harmed� innocent Iraqi civilians,
columnists of the empire theorized on how a post-Zarqawi world would look, and
Forbes Magazine speculated on possible fluctuations in the stock market.
Europeans and Russians exalted; Israel (the co-maker of the Zarqawi hoax)
sarcastically celebrated; the American marionette in Baghdad, Iraqi �Prime
Minister" al-Maliki called it a �victory against terrorism�; and Islamists
lauded his �mystical martyrdom and the trail of incense he left behind.�
Many Arab regimes
applauded; besieged Iran, which did not object to the U.S. invasion of
Afghanistan and Iraq, remained ambiguous but expressed satisfaction; and
pro-occupation Iraqis, be they Kurds, Arab Shiite, or Arab Sunnis, partied.
How did progressive
writers and analysts react to the �death� of Zarqawi? Many critics of this
violent American Empire joined in the celebration. It is unsettling that a
majority of these critics dispensed with the requirements for a rigorous
analysis, imitated the imperialist media, and, to varying degrees, copied the
parlance of the Bush regime. Many spoke of Zarqawi as a �ruthless killer,"
but without providing any evidence on either guilt or innocence, or ever
questioning whether he was a hoax or real.
In sum, if
Zarqawi�s death were a cake, not even a crumb of it remained after all those
who had interests in his story took a greedy bite at it. Yet, attentive readers
should treat all this over-inflated commotion with an infinite dose of
skepticism while remembering that we are dealing with another gigantic farce
that U.S. war strategists scripted in the guise of Colin Powell�s U.N.
presentation on Iraq�s nuclear and biological capabilities, and on Blair�s
assertion that Iraq could hit Britain within 45 minutes notice.
Briefly, Bush, who
gave us the crimes of 9/11, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Falluja, Talaafar, and
Haditha; who occupied Afghanistan under the pretext that it sheltered al-Qaeda;
who created the hoax of Iraq�s WMD to invade it; who turned Iraq into mass
graves; and who transformed America into a praetorian Zionist police state, has
only killed the hoax he created.
Is it true that Bush killed a hoax?
staged killing, or going public with Zarqawi�s �death� -- if indeed the U.S.
killed a real person -- long after the occupation force killed him, made
the hyper-empire look like a very nervous Don Quixote fighting the ghosts it
created at American carnage mills around Iraq.
surrealistic euphoria that engulfed most of the world consequent to Zarqawi�s
�death," we have to raise more questions. Did the United States kill a
physical or ethereal Zarqawi? Did Zarqawi really exist? Was he an American
agent? Was he, as per U.S. propaganda, the al-Qaeda point man in Iraq? Does
al-Qaeda itself exist in Iraq or elsewhere? Was Zarqawi really the nightmare of
U.S. occupying troops in Iraq and of Iraqi Arab Shiite Muslims?
In particular, if
Zarqawi, as the U.S. claimed, was conducting an �insurgency� against the U.S.
and its Iraqi �stooges," why is it he never attacked U.S. forces, but only
Arab Shiite Muslims people, but, never attacked or killed pro-occupation
is it that Zarqawi never attacked or killed any Kurd -- be they ordinary
people, leaders, or militia? Again, why and who decided to spare the Kurds from
his �wrath�? Does this suspicious selectivity prove that Zarqawi, if he existed
in the specifications the U.S. supplied us with, was colluding with the United
States to spare the Kurds since they, together with Iraqi Shiite Arabs, have become
the spear of U.S. colonialism in the entire Arab and Muslim worlds?
More important than
anything else, who massacred tens of thousands of Iraqis -- specifically, Arab
Sunni and Shiite -- like sheep? Who cut their heads off, drilled their eyes,
mutilated their genitals, and destroyed the symbols and temples of Islam and
Christianity across Iraq: Zarqawi, the United States, or someone else?
In Iraq�s long
history, there have been only two events where such barbarity occurred. The
first, after the Mongols of Holagu invaded and occupied Iraq (center of the
Abbasid Empire) and destroyed its capital city, Baghdad, in 1258. The second,
after George Bush and Zionists invaded and occupied it in 2003. That means,
this type of atrocity is foreign and is imported. Ancient, mediaeval and modern
world history is filledl with accounts of how foreign invaders killed, maimed,
raped, tortured, and performed macabre rituals on their victims. What we have
seen from the American invasion of Iraq proves that in matters of invasions,
the Americans as invaders are no different from any other invaders in history,
if not the worst, since they pretend to possess superior �civilized behavior�
over the rest.
By a twist of
history, the American invasion of Iraq offered a rare insight on how past
invaders destroyed the lands and civilizations they invaded. Except in our
time, we have the remarkable power to see invasions as they happen.
evidence of the U.S. crimes in post-invasion Iraq does not take its strength
from either perception or impression, but from the splendid power of a modern
device that depicts reality without retouch: the unbiased lens of a camera or
We do not have
photographs or video showing how the U.S. government and white settlers
destroyed the Original Peoples to conquer their lands, but we do have
photographs and video films showing the �Shock and Awe� bombardment of Iraq to
conquer it. We do not have photographs or video showing how Holagu�s warriors
tortured their captive Baghdadis and split their bodies with horses running in
opposite directions, but we do have photographs and video showing how Bush�s
soldiers abused and tortured the Baghdadis in Abu Ghraib prison. And so on. . .
Also, because the
American strategy in occupied Iraq exceeds by its planned violence all
strategies of past fascist regimes, it is mandatory to keep asking questions.
For instance, who created the bloody saga of Zarqawi then tore it down at a
crucial point to show off the �prowess� of an empire in fast decline and deep
military crisis? Who is destroying Iraqi cities and forcing 3 million Iraqis
from all groups to seek refuge in neighboring countries, Zarqawi or the United
States? Who forced over a half million Iraqis in the Anbar province to become
refugees in their own land,: Zarqawi or the United States? Who is destroying
Iraqi mosques and churches,: Zarqawi or the United States? Who raped Iraqi
women and sodomized young Iraqi boys,: Zarqawi or U.S. soldiers?
To answer these and
other questions, we have to take the bold step and reframe the issue of Zarqawi
after flushing out of it all neocon indoctrinations, mechanical political
views, copied statements, parroted views, or simplistic approaches. In the rest
of this series, I shall discuss the Zarqawi affair according to the following
sequence: discussion, questions and answers, and conclusion.
I must point out
first that any discussion of the Zarqawi hoax or the tale of the �al-Qaeda
insurgency� in Iraq is pointless unless we tie the invention of the hoax to
three essential factors. First, U.S. geostrategic procedures and tactical
management of the occupation; second, the ethnical, confessional, and
econo-political order created by the occupiers to achieve conquest; and third,
the Iraqi resistance to the American occupation.
However, because of
severe shortage on verifiable information on Zarqawi, we have to separate his
affair from the hyperbole that envelopes it. To do that, we have to employ a
dual tool: logic as supported by facts, and facts as supported by articulate
examination. Again, documented facts on Iraqi events under the American
Occupation Regime (AOR) do not exist since the United States, its Iraqi
surrogates, and the rest of the world, each for its own reason, are all
partners in the crime of silence about what happens in Iraq. (Although sluggish
on daring political analysis, Dhar Jamail�s MidEast Dispatches
are a reliable source on specific details of the occupation.)
For instance, let
us assume that �Zarqawi� was an enemy of the U.S. occupation of Iraq. If this
were the case, then why do many consider his armed resistance anathema?
A possible answer
could be something like this: he was a �terrorist." If we were to ask as
who made that claim, and if the answer is George Bush and the neocons, then we
have a problem. First, if Zarqawi�s existence itself is dubious, then why
should we believe the attributes of a person whose existence is in doubt? A
Muslim person with specific, even rigidly dogmatic beliefs about Islam, does
not automatically qualify that person to join the club of terrorists -- assuming
we know what a terrorist is? But, if a �terrorist� means someone who is
fighting U.S. military occupations in Iraq, Afghanistan, or the soft American
military occupation of the Arabic Peninsula, that entails one thing: the
appellation given to that fighter is only political. As such, it is biased thus
Arguably, if the
U.S. and Israel want to institute a joint empire nourished by the blood of
nations incapable of defending themselves, then they should expect
resistance. The idea that the neocons can unleash their military terrorism on
Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and elsewhere, while expecting a
thankful gesture and a smile is not attractive to the survivors of that
Next, we are going
to debate this issue from a different angle: if the specific conditions of a
nation (such as Iraq) impede it from repelling an invasion by a technologically
superior enemy, does this enemy expect that nation to submit to its order and
accept being conquered?
B. J. Sabri is an Iraqi-American antiwar activist. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Copyright © 1998-2006 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor