President Saddam Hussein
Open Letter to the Peoples of the United States
September 17, 2001
In the name of God, the most Compassionate, the most Merciful.
Once again, we make a return to comment on the incidence that took place in
America on September 11, not for its significance as such, but for the implications
surrounding it and its ramifications in terms of results on the level of the
world of which we are part or rather a special case as a nation known as it
is with the basis and uniqueness of its faith.
On previous occasions, we have already said that the United States needs to
try wisdom after it has tried force over the last fifty years or even more.
We still see that this is the most important thing the world must advise the
US about if there is anybody who wants to say something or adopt an attitude
towards this incidence, and who is concerned about world peace and stability.
This is the case if the US and the world are convinced with the dictum and the
verdict, namely that what has happened came to America from without, not within.
It is among the indisputables in the law or general norms, in dealings, in social
life, and even political life, that any charge should be based on evidence if
the one who makes the accusation is keen to convince others or has respect to
that who listens to the accusation or is concerned with it as part of the minimal
obligation of his duty. But the US has made the charge before verification,
even before possessing the minimum evidence about such a charge. It has even
not availed itself the opportunity to verify things, first and foremost. It
started a drive of incitement and threat, or said something irresponsible by
broadening the base of charges to include states, circles and individuals.
American officials set about making charges or giving the guided media, the
Zionist media and its symbols within the authority and outside it a free hand
in order to prepare the public mind for the charge.. What does this mean?
In a nutshell, it means that the US gives no heed to the law or rely on it.
It has no concern for the counter viewpoint in line with its dangerous policy
towards this issue or others. That is why we find that it takes no pain to secure
evidence. Therefore, it needs no evidence to pass its verdict. It is content
with saying something, passing verdicts, whether people other than the American
officials are convinced or not. This means, in keeping with the policy it has
pursued since 1990, that it has no regard to the viewpoint of the peoples and
governments in the world in it entirety. It gives it no weight or heed despite
the fact that it claims to be the democratic state (number one) in the world.
The basic meaning of democracy even by the standards of its initial emergence
in the Western world, that facts should lay bare before the people so that the
people would assume their responsibility with full awareness. Our description
of the US attitude vis-à-vis this incidence is a practical description.
It means that American officials do not respect even their own peoples
viewpoint, let alone the worlds. In this conduct, the American officials
behave as though they are deluding the peoples, beating up the misleading media
drums to do the job of mobilizing them against enemy or enemies against whom
no evidence about their accountability for the action they are accused of has
been furnished. All the officials there seek to achieve is to foment the hostility
of the peoples of the US against whoever they assumed to be an enemy before
the incidence has occurred. The tax-payer would be in a position where he is
prepared to accept the blackmail trap arms manufacturers have laid for him in
addition to the wrangled interests on the level of senior military and civil
officials in the US.
One might argue that political verdicts do not always emanate from the same
bases, procedures or courses adopted by the judiciary or criminal courts. Rather,
precedents and back- grounds could suffice to arrive at a conclusion which may
prove right. Even if, for the sake of argument, we go along this notion, just
to keep the debate uninterrupted, we say that this could be true about the media
and statements which are of media and propaganda nature, even political statements.
In this instance, the error could not be necessarily fatal.
But is this permissible in war?
Once more, we say that war is not an ordinary case. Neither is it procedural
in the life of nations and peoples. It is a case of unavoidable exception. Evidence
based on conclusion is not enough, even if it is solid to make a charge against
a given party or several parties, a state or several states to the extent that
the one who makes the charge declares war at the party or parties against which
charges were made and bears the responsibility of whatever harm might be sustained
by his own people and the others including death, the destruction of possessions
and the ensuing serious repercussions. It was only the US administration that
has made the charge against a certain religion, not just a given nationality.
Let us also accept the interventions of those who contend that the US has not
said this, through its senior officials and within this limitation. In fact,
some officials have denied that their policy is one of making the charge against
a given religion. However, we believe that the lack of evidence to make a charge,
the disrespect to the golden sound rule of proper accusation which leads to
the declaration of war and restricts the charge to a certain nation, states,
designations and individuals, can only be understood as a premeditated charge
without evidence that the action was carried out by Moslems. This is complemented
by free reins for the media to float it, to prepare the public opinion to accept
it or to be tuned to it so that anything opposed to it would sound like a discord.
Below is the list:
Afghanistan.. Usama bin Laden the Islamic Qaida (base) party or
organization Syria.. Yemen Algeria.. Iraq Lebanon Palestine.
The list may be curtailed or enlarged according to the pretexts of the policy
of power, which has found its opportunity or the power that is looking for its
opportunity to declare war. Whether the items of the list are increased or cut
down, would all this mean anything but the accusation of Moslems, including,
or rather in the forefront of whom Arabs? Why should this cross the minds of
US officials unless they have basically assumed themselves and their policy
to be enemies of Arabs and Moslems?
Could this charge mean anything other than the desire to settle old scores,
all based on the assumption that their foreign policies are incompatible with
the American policy, or they do not give in to the US-Zionist policy vis-à-vis
the world and Palestine?
Consider statements by the US officials who say the war would be long because
it is aimed at several states. Notice the blackmail or better, the terrorism
they mean and which was designed to include several states and parties on a
list that could be longer or shorter in accordance with a policy of sheer terrorism
and blackmail, first and foremost, the illusion that Arabs and Moslems and the
people of Palestine would leave the arena for the aggression of the Zionist
entity and its vile imperialism.
These charges which were made without consideration and in an instantaneous
way mean that the mentality of the US administration has been pre-loaded, prior
to the incidence, even if we apply the norms of today and not the norms of the
law. It has made assumption tantamount to conclusive verdict, namely that Islam,
with Arabs in the lead of Moslems are enemies of the US. More precisely, the
US on the level of its rulers has taken it as a final verdict that it is the
enemy of Arabs and Moslems. In so doing, they have stored the final verdict
in their minds. On this basis, they built their preparation in advance. On this
basis too, they prepared (the mind) of the computer, which was programmed on
this assumption, which has taken the form of a conclusive verdict. This reminds
us of the free reins given to political writers, the so-called thinkers, inclupast
heads of state and ministers who the Zionist policy wanted, over the last ten
or fifteen years to assume that faith based on the religion of Islam with the
ensuing implication is the new enemy of the US and the West and it is the backdrop
against which American rulers act, with the participation of some Western rulers
who came under the pressure and interpretations of Zionist thought and scheming.
Obviously, this assumption is no longer a pure assumption for the purpose of
scrutiny testing and examination. It has become part and parcel of conclusive
verdicts. That is why the verdict was instantaneous, without consideration or
waiting for the evidence to have a basis, evidence on which the pre-supposition
is based in order to be a conclusive one. The charge has not only been made
against all governments in Islamic or Arab states but also against all Islamic
peoples, including the Arab nation and to all designations, parties, states
and governments whose policies do not please the US, whose policies and positions
are not palatable to the US in particular or because they call for the liberation
of Palestine and a halt to the US aggression on Iraq, and adherence to their
independence and their nations heritage.
Any one who is surprised by this practical conclusion, allowing courteous words
to be said on the margin of verdicts to replace it, has to contemplate our verdict:
The US has declared it is at war. It is gearing up for war since the early moments
in the wake of the incidence, as though it were the opportunity those concerned
have been waiting for. It has allocated the necessary funds for the war, or
part of them. Have you ever heard or read in the near on far history, of a state
declaring war before even defining who its enemy is? The opportunity to declare
the state of war came with the incidence that befell it. It is not yet known
whether it was carried out by a foreign enemy or from inside. Thus, the war
declared by America would cease to be a reason for the incidence. Rather, it
is the incidence that has availed the opportunity to launch the war, which has
not been a result of the incidence under any circumstances!
One might contend it is the nature of the incidence, the scale of pain the American
officials felt as a result of what their peoples suffered, the embarrassment
they felt due to the sufferings that hit the people there, that prompted American
rulers to rush to declare war. The suffering of the people is not caused by
the incidence alone, but by the failure of the authorities concerned which have
been preoccupied by hatching conspiracies abroad, assassination and sabotage
operations against world states and freedom-loving people. They rushed to declare
war and name the parties so that they would leave no option but to launch the
war. Once again, we say, could this be a reason and ground to facilitate the
charge and the subsequent resolutions, why should not it be a ground for others
If the fall in the whirlwind of rage, not the pre-meditated planning, results
into war resolutions on their senior level inside the US, why should not you
expect someone to direct his fire to it under the pressure of similar considerations
Once again we say that the US administration and those in the West who allied
themselves with it against Arabs and Moslems, now and in the past, or rather
against the world, in all the arenas that witnessed the scourges of the alliance,
are in need to take recourse to wisdom after they have had power at their disposal
and deployed it to such an extent that it ceased to frighten those who experienced
it. Dignity, the sovereignty of the homeland and the freedom of the sincere
man is a sacred case, along with other sacred things which real Moslems uphold,
including , Arabs who are in the lead.
If this is the practical description of the pre-mediated intentions that decided
war against Arabs and Moslems, while the party that took the decision waits
for a cover to declare a war, and may launch it against those whom it has been
biding time, could there be anyone who could avert it other than God, the Almighty?
Anyone other than the will of the peoples, when they become fully aware, after
they know and fear God, after they have believed in Him.
For us Allah sufficeth, and He is the best disposer of affairs.
( Holly Quran)
Once again we say that the peoples do not believe any more the slogans of the
United States, accept those whom it intends evil against. Even when it says
it is against terrorism, the United States doesnt apply this to the World,
and according to the International Law. But according to its will to impose
what it wants on the World and refuse what it thinks might be harmful to it
only, and export the other kinds of it to the World. To certify this, could
the United States tell its peoples how many organizations working against their
own countries are existing in the United States? And how many of those, the
term terrorism could be applied to if one standard is used and not the double
standards? And how many are those it finances overtly and covertly? How many
are those accused with killing and theft in other countries are now in the United
States? If the United States presents such inventory to its peoples and to the
World, and initiated implementing one standard and one norm on its agents and
those it calls friends. And if it starts the same storm against the killers
in the Zionist entity responsible of killing Palestinians in occupied Palestine
and in Tunis and Lebanon. And if it charges its own secret services with what
they committed of special actions and assassinations they brag to publish in
the form of stories. Only then one can believe the new American slogans that
America is trying to make them believe. Only then it becomes legitimate to ask
the World to do what it believes is useful for its security and the security
of the World.
It is a chance to air an opinion whose time has come. It is also addressed to
the peoples of the US and the Western people in general. Zionism has been planning
for the domination of the world since its well-known conference it convened
in Basle in 1897. Ever since, it has been working in this direction. It has
scored successes you can feel by controlling finance, media and commerce centres
in your countries and whoever rules in your name, here and there, in decision-making
centres. But its domination is not yet fulfilled to have its will absolute and
final. This could only be feasible when two heavenly faiths upheld by the biggest
bloc in the world are thrown into conflict. Otherwise, Zionism would be denied
the accomplishment of all its ambitions. The masterminds of Zionism are, therefore,
working for a clash between Christianity and Islam on the assumption that this,
and only this, could secure the chance to dominate the world, when new opportunities
open up for their domination. Could there be any better situation than that
when the stealing dog finds his household pre-occupied by a grief so that it
could win the thing it has set its eye on, the thing that whetted its mouth?
Would the sensible men in the West be aware of that? Or would Zionism outsmart
them to attain its aims?