WHY AMERICA?

Why are so many Muslim anti-America.

Is the whole Islamic world extremist? Does Islam permit the murder of innocent men, women and children? Are Muslims anti-democracy? The Western media does its utmost to create Islamophobia but is Islam a violent religion?

The answer to all these questions is a resounding NO. Yet the Western media has done everything possible to convince the world that the answer to the above questions is yes.

There are many problems with the way the Western media reports. Let me at this point make it very clear that this article is not looking to justify the attack on the World Trade Centre, I absolutely condemn the act of barbarism unconditionally irrespective of whether the terrorists were Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Black, White, Asian or whoever.

.............................

Our thoughts and prayers are with those people that lost their lives and with those people who lost their loved ones.

All I’m trying to do is give you a view held by many people in this world but is not encouraged for whatever reasons.

Let me start by recalling something during the Gulf war. A particular national daily had described a weapon used by the Americans in the Vietnam War as a highly sophisticated bomb which is used with great efficiency. Yet when Saddam threatened to use the same bomb during the Gulf war, it was a ‘barbaric’ weapon. The difference between an American finger pushing the button to release a Napalm bomb and an Iraqi finger doing the same is the difference between sophisticated and barbaric.

Lets look at the Palestine issue. Everyday you hear about suicide bombers - so called Muslim extremists killing innocent civilians. What about the innocent men, women and children killed by Israeli army every time they attack Palestine without any provocation. Because the Israeli kill with bombs from tanks and fighter jets supplied by the Americans, it is acceptable but when a Palestinian blows himself up killing innocent people in a revenge attack he is a terrorist.

Ever thought that the Palestinian killed himself because that is the only way the Palestinians can attack Israel in response to its attacks. The Palestinians, unlike the Israelis don’t have tanks, fighters and other military hardware supplied by the USA - if they did surely they would use them. So the suicide bombers are carrying out attacks in the only way they can.

Personally both acts are just as barbaric. Whether you use suicide bombers, bomb towns and buildings with fighters and use cruise missiles as the USA do the end result is the same. Innocent lives are lost.

They are all barbaric acts. Just because USA use a cruise missile to blow up a building and kill innocent people doesn’t make it a less horrifying experience for those who die or the loved ones they leave behind. And don’t be taken in by USA claims that these cruise missiles are accurate. Remember the missile that hit a hospital basement and killed all those innocent women and children during the Gulf war. It was a USA missile.

There were many reports after the war that claimed that the Hi-tech weaponry used by the Americans was no more effective or accurate than conventional weapons of war but these reports were played down by the media. A lot more Iraqi civilians died than the Americans would have you believe.

.............................

Usama bin Laden is the biggest terrorist in the world but did you know that he was once heavily supported and encouraged by the USA. During the Russian occupation of Afghanistan Bin Laden flew out to Afghanistan to fight the Russians, he received aid and support from the Americans - was he not a terrorist then or did America ignore this fact because it was in their own interests to do so.

America supported Saddam very heavily during the Iran - Iraq War. America was Saddams ally during the war. Saddam was an evil leader at that time but America ignored this fact because America didn’t want Ayatollah Khomanis Islamic regime in power in Iran. Again America ignored Saddam Hussains track record because it was in America’s interest to do so.

The problem with America is that they are responsible for aiding, encouraging and supporting these evil men at some stages of their lives with full knowledge of what these men were like. Doesn’t that make America just as evil?

These men have been used by the USA to further its cause - now that is a frightening truth.

At this point, may I add that the USA give $5 billion worth of financial aid to Israel a year - with which Israel buys a lot of American military hardware. So obviously there is going to be resentment amongst the Muslims in the Arab world and further afield. America offers moral, financial and military support to Israel whilst it actively attacks and suppresses Iraq.

If America cannot take an active role in the Middle East then the least it should do is stay neutral.

Its pro Israel stance is frightening to the Muslim world and the resentment turns to hate,

What about Iraq - well 11 years on from the War - the Americans and British are still in Iraq - what for? Why don’t they go and implement the UN resolutions in Palestine or Kashmir? Saddam Hussain is still in power but the sanctions imposed on Iraq are hurting the innocent civilians of Iraq.

Shortage of food and essential medical supplies because of sanctions mean babies are dying everyday - five hundred a month.

Lack of medical care means innocent people are dying everyday. Is this not EVIL, INHUMANE even BARBARIC or is it acceptable because the Americans think it’s the right thing to do. The fact is it makes no difference to Saddam, his children won’t suffer, his family will not go hungry and the babies in his family will not die because of a lack of medical attention. Only the innocent people of Iraq are suffering.

When all of Europe is saying its time to lift the sanctions for the last few years why is America resisting. Are all the European ministers naive or stupid - I think not. As previously proven America is yet again looking after its own interests.

When India and Pakistan carried out nuclear tests America put a horrendous amount of pressure on both countries to stop developing their nuclear technology for fear of tension in the region and fear of a nuclear war. Just for the record, the USA is the only country in the world to have used a nuclear bomb on a civilian population killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. How dare they stop other countries from developing a means of defence.

We talk about democracy. Nationally the USA is a democratic country but is it a democratic nation on a world scale. I think not. It goes against the wishes of its European allies on many occasions and bullies the weaker third world countries through economic, political and military pressure to agree with its policies and line of thinking. Sounds a bit like a dictatorship doesn’t it.

I know there will be many people offering counter arguments to the issues I’ve raised and that’s great but why is it the American counter argument is always the correct one. Is the rest of the world stupid?

To end the article the attacks that took place in New York on September were not for the love of Islam as the Western media is reporting. Islam preaches peace, harmony and tolerance. The attacks took place because of the hate for America. That does not justify the attacks in any way - they were evil acts of terrorism that deserve condemnation from everyone in the world but it begs the question why is there so much resentment towards America in the Muslim world. Maybe the Americans need to take a look at their foreign policies.

And finally, the Western media should not be allowed to get away with the creation of Islamophobia. Remember the news industry is a massive business. Sensationalism creates interest and interest creates readerships and viewer ship which equals to more money. Just to put things into context a foreign correspondent of the Times resigned last month claiming Rupert Murdoch (one of the most powerful media moguls in the world and owns the Sky network as well as many newspapers across the world) demands only pro Israeli coverage. Some BBC reporters say that the BBC bows to Israeli pressure by toning down reports.

Remember what you are fed is not the full picture - there is a lot you don’t see or hear that might change the way you think.

SICK YOUTHS DAUB SWASTIKAS ON 6 YEAR OLDS HEAD THEN SEND HIM TO AN ASIAN SHOP

RACIST thugs painted a six-year-old white boy with Nazi swastikas, then ordered him to march into an Asian shop.

Little Jack Bolton was told the shopkeeper would give him free sweets because of the symbols daubed by teenagers on a Bradford estate torn by riots in July. Jack's father John, 32, said: "I found him upset and covered in green ink. He had no idea what the swastikas meant, he had been told he would get free sweets and fizzy drinks from the shop.

"Jack was upset because the shopkeeper told him to go away and he didn't understand why." The louts drew the swastikas with a green marker pen on the youngster's face and arms after spotting him in a park on the rundown Ravenscliffe estate in Bradford.

Jack told his dad and mum Michelle, 32, that two youths aged about 18 or 19 approached him.

Mr. Bolton, a forklift truck driver, scrubbed the marks off before going to Greengates mini-market to apologise to the shopkeeper.  Mr. Bolton has reported the incident to police. The right-wing British National Party regularly targets teenagers in recruitment drives at Ravenscliffe where gangs of youths ran riot, attacking buildings and hurling bricks and bottles at police. Mr. Bolton added: "What happened to Jack is a sick joke, but a joke that could end up hurting people. "Jack does not know what swastikas imply, but I have told him so a six-year-old will understand that they are bad symbols and people who use them hurt people." The shopkeeper did not want to comment, but has accepted Mr. Bolton's apology. Police said they would investigate if they got a complaint.

JUDGE ORDERS PROBE INTO RACIST CELL KILLING

A senior judge declared that an “independent investigation” should be held into how and why Asian teenager Zahid Mubarek was placed in a cell with a known violent racist who then battered him to death.

The declaration was an embarrassing High Court defeat for Home Secretary David Blunkett, who had

refused to order such an inquiry into the death of Mr. Mubarek, a first offender serving three months for theft at Feltham Young Offenders Institution, west London. But the judge’s ruling was a victory for the family of 19-year-old Mr. Mubarek, who was killed by skinhead Robert Stewart - a hardened offender known to prison officers as “Spliffy” and later diagnosed at his trial as a psychopath.

Director of the Prison Reform Trust Juliet Lyon welcomed the ruling and said: “Only a thorough-going

independent investigation will tell us why Zahid Mubarek was sentenced to custody for a comparatively minor offence and how he was in effect sentenced to death by being placed in a cell with a racist, mentally-ill young man in a profoundly unsafe institution.”

A Home Office spokesman said: “We are considering the implications of the ruling.”

Mr. Mubarek’s family could not understand how the young victim had been forced to share a cell with Stewart, also aged 19, on Feltham’s Swallow wing for the six weeks leading up to his murder in March last year.

Amnesty International recently cited the Mubarek case as an example of “widespread” racism in British prisons at the launch of a human rights report on racial injustices throughout the world.

Mr Justice Hooper, sitting at the High Court in London, was told by family lawyers that a senior officer had warned in the wing observation book that Stewart was “a very dangerous individual” and highlighted his warning in red, advising others to consult Stewart’s security file.

Stewart, who had a cross and RIP tattooed on his forehead, had obtained a Ku Klux Klan sign which was hung openly on his cell noticeboard.

Patrick O’Connor QC, appearing for Mr Mubarek’s family, said: “It is critical that his family and loved ones understand how and why a tragedy like this has taken place.

“They cannot for the life of them understand how Zahid Mubarek was ever allocated to share a cell with this monster.”

Lawyers for the Home Secretary argued that there had already been sufficient investigations into the case, particularly through the Butt internal prison service inquiry.

But the judge ruled that Imtiaz Amin, the dead youth’s uncle, of Eastfield Road, Walthamstow, east

London, was entitled to a declaration that Mr Blunkett must hold “an independent investigation” in order to fulfil his obligations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights to arrange “an

effective inquiry” into the tragedy.

He added that, in the reasons he hoped to give on October 5, he hoped to give further guidance.

In July, former chief inspector of prisons Sir David Ramsbotham said Feltham should be privatised and condemned the activities of the local branch of the Prison Officers’ Association as “absolutely intolerable”, saying he believed the trade union had prevented any chance of real change at the unit.

Sir David said he was confounded that there had been no improvements despite three earlier damning reports, one of which described Feltham as “rotten to the core”.

Imran Khan, solicitor for Mr Mubarek’s family, said after the ruling: “This is a fantastic result which is

ground-breaking in many ways. “It is also a huge embarrassment for the Home Secretary. This was the first major challenge to one of his decisions in the courts and he has failed.”

During a two-day hearing, Mr O’Connor had described how shortly before 3.30am on March 22 2000, Mr Mubarek was found lying on his bed with serious head injuries after being hit seven to 11 times with a leg broken off a cell table.

According to Stewart, the leg had been broken off the table two weeks before and then, to

disguise its presence, put back to prop up the table.    Stewart had also hidden a wooden dagger under his pillow.

There was evidence that he had written a letter in which he had threatened to murder his cellmate.

Mr. Mubarek had been due to be released from a relatively short sentence of three months for theft - his first offence - on the day he was found fatally injured. The fact that he was to be released might not have been unconnected with Stewart’s motives.

At the time he was allocated his cell with Mr. Mubarek, Stewart was serving a sentence for sending a “racially motivated malicious communication”. A racist letter from him had been intercepted by a prison officer in January last year, only weeks before the Asian teenager was allocated the same cell.

POLICE MAY FACE £2m RIOT INSURANCE BILL

Greater Manchester Police Authority may end up having to foot the bill paid out by insurance companies following the recent riots in Oldham. Insurers have the right to recover any claims made against them from the police under Victorian legislation. This may ultimately come from taxpayers. The Oldham Chamber Of Commerce says 400 premises suffered damage in the riots in May. The bill could reach £2m. The former mill town was the scene of three nights of racial unrest.

RACIST ATTACK VICTIM TO ADDRESS INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

A Lancashire shopkeeper is to address an international conference on racism.

Mal Hussain, who suffered years of abuse at his shop on the Ryelands estate in Lancaster, will make a speech in Durban, South Africa.

His minimart was the target of a firebomb attack and at times he was too scared to leave the building.

Mr Hussain will relive his experiences in the speech to the delegation of international representatives at the United Nations organised event.  

THEY NEED YOU MORE THAN EVER

Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith has stressed the importance of the party becoming more inclusive. Mr Smith wants the party to adopt more ethnic minority candidates, saying its activist are mainly white and retired. Mr Duncan Smith said ‘Whatever your race, creed or colour, you have something to give’.

more news (previous month)