Oct 29, 2002 op eds

October 29, 2002 Opinion Editorials http://www.aljazeerah.info

What Arabs think about U.S. or major world events
By James Zogby

During the past year there has been an unprecedented interest in the Arab world. Many in the West, profoundly shaken by the traumatic events of September 11, 2001, began to look more closely at the Middle East, a region about which they only had limited knowledge. Books and articles were written, television documentaries were aired, even Congressional hearings were convened.

All too often, however, Arabs were absent from these discussions and presentations. As a result, instead of closing the gap, the bad or biased information produced by those efforts only served to deepen misunderstanding.

Even when some Arabs have made an effort to engage in and inform this discussion they all too often have missed the point. These Arab information campaigns focused largely on policy matters, when what we have learned from our polling of U.S. opinion, is that Americans do not want to know where Arabs stand on issues, they want to know who Arabs really are - what they believe and how they think. As one U.S. respondent said to us in a focus group discussion we had organised, "Are Arabs like us?"

Of course this discussion in the West did not stand alone. In the Arab world, Arabs were asking similar questions about Americans. Clearly the tragedy of September 11 had awakened both sides to an awareness of the profound gap in understanding that divided both worlds. But Arabs were engaged in another discussion as well. In salons and majlises, in public forums and in private, Arabs were taking a hard look at their own society and their needs.

One such effort at critical self-examination was the Arab Human Development Report 2002 (AHDR 2002) produced by the United Nations Development Programme and the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development.

The report was an independent look at contemporary Arab economic, social and cultural realities. It was both thorough and incisive. And while the report recognises the significant advances in human development that the Arab world has made in the past 50 years, it also points out the extraordinary needs that continue to exist and that have not been addressed adequately.

What is important is that the report was written by Arabs, for Arabs and it has been acclaimed by Arabs. The AHDR 2002 is seen by many not as a catalogue of problems, but as a useful road map to future progress.

The AHDR 2002 largely was based on macro-economic - social and cultural measurements. Earlier this year a group of us embarked on a very different type of inquiry - a survey of Arab public opinion. This week I'll be in Cairo at the conference of the Arab Thought Foundation to release the findings of the study, "What Arab Thinks: Values, Beliefs and Concerns."

Commissioned by the Arab Thought Foundation and conducted by Zogby International, "What Arabs Think" analyses the views of 3,800 Arab adults in eight counties (Morocco, Egypt, Saudia Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Jordan, Lebanon and Arabs in Israel). It represents a landmark, probing look at Arab public opinion.

Public opinion polling is new in the Arab world. For years American political leaders and commentators have spoken of the "Arab street," but done so with derision. In polling we do not address a "faceless street," rather we speak to real people with diverse opinions. They are interviewed. Their opinions are respected, reported and analysed. The results are presented in percentages giving both the majority and minority viewpoints.

"What Arabs Think" is different to other recent polls that have been conducted in the region. Most of these have been focused externally. They have been designed to answer questions about what Arabs think about the United States, or critical political events in the world or the region.

"What Arabs Think" does not look outward. Its focus is inward. It is an effort to learn what Arabs believe, what their concerns are, what values they seek to teach their children and what political issues matter most to them. It also examines how Arabs identify themselves and how they view their own countries and other nations in the world.

The study was designed with two audiences in mind. For Americans it was intended to answer questions about who Arabs are - to create a fuller picture of Arab values and beliefs of Arabs as real people.

Although the study has only been given a limited release in the United States, it has already created discussion on television, in congressional hearings, think tanks and at universities. After the formal release of the book in Cairo, this U.S. discussion will increase.

At the same time it is hoped that the study will promote discussion and further inquiry in the Arab world about matters of values, political concerns and identity. To facilitate this discussion, "What Arabs Think" presents its findings by country, so that the views of, for example, Lebanese can be compared with Saudis or Moroccans.

Similarly the results in each case are cross-tabulated by age, gender, education level and access to the internet. This provides for a comparison of the views of young and old, men and women, etc. As a result of this process, the views of young Jordanians can be compared with older Jordanians, or the values of Kuwaiti women can be compared with those of Egyptian women, etc.

The data is itself fascinating. We found, for example, the priority values that Arabs prefer to teach to their children. We learned what are the most important political concerns of Arabs in all eight countries. We also learned what Arabs think about 13 other countries in the world, and what they value most about their own countries.

As the introduction to "What Arabs Think" concludes, "polling opens a window - it welcomes opinion and invites debate." In the weeks to come, this column will present some of the findings of "What Arabs Think." I thank the Arab Thought Foundation for entrusting me with this landmark effort, and I look forward to a continuing discussion.

Dr. James J. Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute and a Democratic political lobbyist, hosts the weekly radio and television programme 'A Capital View' on the Arab Network of America which is also aired live in the Middle East on MBC. He also writes a weekly column that appears regularly in Gulf News.

Dying Abdullah's dynasty in Kashmir

Ershad Mahmud

Doubtlessly, elections have critically changed the entire political
landscape in the Indian held Jammu & Kashmir. Significantly, in the wake of
the same elections, Abdullah dynasty has perished after ruling the J&K state
for over 27 years. One of the prominent political casualties was the newly
elected president of the National Conference (NC) Omer Abdullah. Besides 10
other sitting ministers failed to win their respective seats. Abdullah
family had been the champion of Kashmiri identity and anti-autocratic rule
in Kashmir since the early days of 1940s. This posture had provided the
family with an opportunity to enjoy immense love and respect from the common
people for over five decades. The ouster of the Abdullah dynasty from the
political scene qualifies an in-depth analysis as to what factor led the
party to such an unexpected humiliation. One also needs to study as to how
the party would chalk out its future strategy.

The National Conference and the Abdullahs have been a strong bridge between
India and the people of the J&K. Mostly analysts hold the NC and the
Abdullah family responsible for snatching the state from Pakistan and
handing it over to India. Initially, Sheikh Abdullah managed to seek a
semi-independent status for the state from New Delhi. However, 5 years
later, all dreams became nightmares for the family when Jawaharlal Nehru
jailed his friend Abdullah. The Indian establishment dumped him in prison
for 22 long years. After the hard times behind bars, the elder Sheikh
emerged as proponent of right of self-determination. He even formed a
political party, Plebiscite Front, which led to a two-decade long struggle.
Dismemberment of Pakistan in 1971 brought the shrewd Kashmiri family back in
the Indian fold. The Abdullah family bargained his political views with
chief ministership of the state.

On the other hand, there is no denying of the fact that the Kashmiri people
are pro-freedom and against Indian rule. Having known this hard reality the
Abdullah family has successfully been exploiting popular sentiments of the
people through politics of deception and duplicity. Interestedly, over the
years the NC has been playing dual role to satisfy the starkly two opposing
constituencies. The former state governor, Jagmohan, very aptly described
this characteristic in his book 'My Frozen Turbulence in Kashmir'. He
writes, "Different postures could be adopted at different times and places
by the same leader. Of Sheikh Abdullah, for instance, it was said that he
could be a communalist in Kashmir, a communist in Jammu and a nationalist in
New Delhi."

These circumstances made NC the sole proprietor of Kashmiri aspirations,
thus ensuring a freehand to play the opposition and the government both role
at the same time.

The late 80s marked the beginning of armed struggle, which successfully
crippled Indian political and intelligence machinery in the state. While the
Kashmiri resistance effectively ousted New Delhi, only NC had the recipe for
the rescue. Moreover, the National Conference largely reinstated the Indian
setup in the state. Being more loyal than the king himself, Farooq formed
two brutal forces i.e. J&K Special Task Forces and Special Operation Group.
Both the forces unleashed a new era of repression and swiftly became
murderous squad of Farooq Abdullah's NC regime.

Contrary to the past experience, the brutality and poor governance badly
exposed the NC and Abdullah family. He was being considered as a purely
Indian pet all along his 6 year long tenure in power. Having made many
political mistakes, Abdullahs had lost their Kashmiri identity and became a
mouthpiece of Delhi instead of the people. Meanwhile, the NC joined the
coalition government in Delhi with its command lying in the hands of
ultra-rightist BJP. Despite rejection of the autonomy report and Gujrat
carnage, Omer Abdullah did not part ways with the BJP-led central
government. Omer is still holding the portfolio of deputy minister for
external affairs in cabinet.

In this backdrop, Kashmiri people have two options, either to back the All
Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) or accept the dictates of the Indian
forces and poll votes. As Kashmiris are traditionally known for their wisdom
and flexibility, from Srinagar to far-flung Doda district, they showed a
mixed response in the recent polls. Interestingly, the data shows that they
completely boycotted the election but voted against the National Conference
in the countryside. Removal of the NC from political scene was really an
uphill task, as the party has been a major foe of the Kashmiri resistance
since long. The Hurriyat could have never been able to dislodge the NC from
power, but the common people did it quite easily and peacefully.

From two-third majority of 57 seats house in 1996, the NC has settled for
just 28 seats this time. Not only Omer Abdullah is a loser but also his
uncle Mustaf Kamal from Gulmarg bagged a humiliating defeat by a massive
margin of 21,000 votes. The ouster of two stalwarts marks the end of the
Abdullah dynasty at a critical time in the history of the state.

The Apple of orchard of Kashmir, Sopur, brought unexpected victory for
Congress' candidate. The election results for the town, considered a hub of
militants and liberated area up to 1994, gave birth to newer questions. Have
the people reconciled with India? Has the militancy backfired? The factual
position bring another interesting facet of public opinion as analysts
believe the people voted for Congress to punish NC and it leadership for
their anti-representative polices. Omer Abdullah himself confessed that his
party's closeness to Delhi resulted in the unexpected defeat.
The state capital, Srinagar, was presenting yet another facet of public
sentiments. The beautiful Kashmiri town was wearing the look of ghost city
until the news of Omer Abdullah and his party's defeat became the public
knowledge. The city woke up as they heard the turning of tides against the
Abdullahs; the people of Srinagar joyously celebrated the moments. The next
morning, influential Indian Express reported, "People hug each other with
congratulatory words."

The National Conference is not a dead horse now. They have a bigger role to
play in the opposition than the one they played while being in power. Slowly
but surely it will try again to emerge as champion of Kashmiri rights, their
identity and even advocate of right of self-determination. The dummy
opposition of Abdullah may return to power corridors, courtesy the Indian
political system, which has the guts to create the dummy leadership to
isolate a genuine one. Now, the NC may try to steal the slogans of APHC to
lessen its strength. Analysts observe that such a strategy can somehow
restore the NC's lost reputation and mass support.

It is evident from the situation on ground that India failed to get the real
message from the turmoil as well as the election results. May it be the
Indian government, opposition parties or the national press; they all seem
have a firm belief that the Kashmiris are fed-up with resistance struggle
and want to settle down their issues within Indian framework. At the same
time, the Indian approach has become more assertive and unrealistic after
converting election into a credible democratic exercise and winning the
American acclaim. Across the Line of Control, the Pakistani policymakers and
press, who used to ignore the internal situation and political manipulations
of J&K state, would have to keenly monitor the fast changing scenario of the
disputed state.

* The writer is a specialist on dynamics of Kashmir conflict and
India-Pakistan relations. Working with Institute of Policy Studies.

AIPAC's power is often overrated

By Issam Nashashibi
YellowTimes.org Guest Columnist (United States)

(YellowTimes.org) – "Pro-Israel bankroll claims another victim," screamed the headline from an article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution (AJC). The article also read in part, "and now the message is clear: Unless you want the kiss of political death, stay clear of any Arabs and Muslims."

Here we go again, I thought, another Arab-baiting article on the heels of the three the AJC published in its vehement campaign against Representative Cynthia McKinney. Interestingly, the guest column, written by an Arab-American, did not once mention AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, perhaps because the AJC editor recognized the author provided no evidence to back up his conclusions regarding AIPAC's omnipotence.

Ironically, much compelling evidence points to many other reasons for the Georgia Democrat's electoral loss. Indeed, Representative McKinney herself clearly articulated the cause for her loss: that the Republicans wanted to get rid of her more than Democrats wanted to keep her. Therein lie the real causes of her electoral loss: changed district demographics to include more Republican-leaning voters, the Republican "crossover" vote, and low turnout by her supporters.

Following the 2000 census, McKinney's congressional district was redrawn to include more suburban whites and fewer African American poor, her strongest base of support.

Recognizing that, and conscious of the Muslim- and Arab-baiting attacks her Republican opponent used against her during the 2000 campaign, McKinney started fund-raising early to amass a formidable war chest for the 2002 congressional campaign. She was not unprepared for a competitive electoral race.

Having failed to defeat McKinney every other way, the Republicans adopted an approach that would enable them to vote for the Democrat of their choice: They backed an African-American woman running against McKinney in the Democratic primaries. Moreover, they passed on the opportunity to select their own party candidates by crossing over to vote against Cynthia McKinney in the Democratic primary.

These same reasons were behind the failure of Representative Earl Hilliard to gain his district's Democratic Party nomination, except that they were amplified because Hilliard had not accumulated a significant campaign war chest.

In addition, Hilliard's small but dedicated campaign staff failed to muster more than 50 percent of the primary vote, thus forcing a run-off election in which more Republicans, having nothing to lose, crossed over to vote against Hilliard, whose Alabama base did not turn out to vote for him a second time so soon after the primary.

Despite these very straightforward reasons for the two electoral losses, the press continues to mythologize AIPAC's power and invincibility, a theme echoed in some of the Arab press in a classic case of shooting oneself in the foot by promoting an opponent's myth.

Interestingly, in yet another example of AIPAC's self-proclaimed myth of invincibility, the Israeli lobby's leadership, realizing that John Sununu, Jr. was on his way to winning New Hampshire's Republican senatorial primary, openly declared him to be its next target. That news, however, not to mention Sununu's victory despite the challenge of AIPAC, did not resonate with either the national or the Arab press.

Despite the mounting evidence that the myth of AIPAC's power is indeed just that, many in this country - including Arab Americans - continue to help promote AIPAC's omnipotence by giving it credit it has not earned. Their objective, they argue, is to "educate" the average voter about AIPAC's influence to motivate the electorate to combat it. Not only has such an argument failed to achieve its objective in the last 35 years, there is no evidence the electorate wants to know (or cares) about AIPAC's so-called omnipotence. On the contrary, there is compelling evidence to support the late House Speaker Tip O'Neill's truism that all politics is local: something AIPAC is not.

Nevertheless, AIPAC makes a point of lobbying every elected official from mayors to senators on pro-Israel issues. Unfortunately, there is virtually no group opposing AIPAC's views and countering its efforts. This lack of meaningful opposition makes AIPAC appear powerful.

Some argue that concern about AIPAC's omnipotence is justified because AIPAC is a frequent topic of The Washington Report (www.wrmea.com), a monthly Washington-based periodical that calls for a balanced U.S. policy in the Middle East. These people fail to note, however, that the Washington Report's objective is not to mythologize AIPAC's power, but to force the U.S. Federal Election Commission to classify AIPAC as a political action committee (PAC), thereby requiring it to reveal its contributors and funding sources, and to disclose the manipulation of the campaign finance system by the network of pro-Israel PACs.

In a March 1999 Washington Report article (http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0399/9903015.html), I argued that, while AIPAC's "top-down" strategy has worked for Zionism, it might not be as effective for an Arab-American lobby because the resulting competition would prompt AIPAC to increase its spending, thus demanding even more of Arab Americans' scarce financial resources.

Regarded from a purely economic perspective, AIPAC's lobbying results in more than $200 in aid to Israel for every dollar AIPAC spends. That's a lucrative business proposition no one would easily give up but, to the contrary, would defend vigorously even if the annual expenses were multiplied many times over.

Another disadvantage of the "top-down" strategy is that it ignores the most basic objective: institutionalizing our relationship with the mainstream U.S. electorate instead of investing in individuals who may remain in Washington only a few years. Arab Americans, therefore, should concentrate on a "bottom-up" strategy that approaches the U.S. political leadership through the other half of the electoral equation: votes.

Such a strategy has worked wonderfully in southern California's Los Angeles and Orange County areas. A three-year old coalition of Muslim, Arab and Armenian organizations has successfully managed to convince area representatives to be more balanced on issues of importance to the coalition, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This influence came through frequent contacts with candidates, representatives, and other elected officials. Also important were coalition members building alliances with other ethnic and similarly minded organizations, in addition to assisting candidates' campaigns by donating funds and time as volunteers.

The most exciting aspect of this strategy is the opportunity it provides to inform fellow volunteers not about AIPAC's access to Congress, but of the real human rights issues important to Arab Americans, such as Washington's bias toward Israel and Israeli apartheid. This way, such subjects become truly local by creating an informed and active electorate that will instinctively work with Arab Americans on holding any representative's feet to the fire on such issues. With a growing mainstream electorate that shares Arab American concerns about Israeli apartheid and U.S. bias toward Israel, we can build a real, and more permanent, force to counter AIPAC's access in Congress.

[Issam Nashashibi, long-time activist for Palestinian human rights, is a U.S.-based Director of Deir Yassin Remembered (http://www.deiryassin.org), an organization of Jews and non-Jews whose objective is to build a memorial for the victims of the Deir Yassin massacre.]

Issam Nashashibi encourages your comments: inashashibi@hotmail.com

Fundamental rights of Pakistanis abused under cover of terrorism

By Mushahid Hussain

Khaleej Times, 10/28/02).

ONE of the biggest casualties of the 'war on terror' has been human rights. The anti-terror campaign was supposed to make the world a safer place from terrorists and terrorism, not forfeit the inalienable rights of law-abiding citizens.

Under the cover of terrorism, fundamental rights of citizens have been undermined, even sometimes ceased to exist as happened in the case of detainees in the United States and Guantanamo Bay in Cuba after September 11.

Indefinite detention without charges has now become standard practice in the 'civilised' West, notably the United States and even Britain, and it seems Pakistan has now quickly followed suit with a new law which enables the government to detain a suspect without charge for a year. The most recent and glaring case of violation of human rights under the garb of the war on terror was the arrest last week of Dr Amir Aziz, a prominent Pakistani medical practitioner from Lahore who had the reputation of living up to the finest precepts of his noble profession.

Suddenly, the dreaded Al Qaeda connection has been made, without any evidence provided. The biggest 'crime' cited is that the good doctor chose to go to Afghanistan in order to pursue his profession. The manner of his arrest was shameful. With the police publicly denying any knowledge or role, Dr Aziz was taken from his hospital by a team of Pakistan intelligence, assisted, advised and directed by the American FBI of course. No warrants of arrest, no charge sheet and no respect was shown for a doctor practising his profession publicly.

What an irony, and what a reversal of policy. Before September 11, 2001, the Taleban were supposed to be Pakistan's best friends, and any suggestion to the contrary then was considered detrimental to the 'national interest'.

Today, thanks to the US-led 'war on terror' and Pakistan's U-turn regarding the Taleban after September 11, any suggestion of remote connection with the Taleban is enough to brand anyone as being against the 'national interest'.

And it is suddenly synonymous with terrorism as is being suggested in the case of Dr Aziz although to date nothing has been demonstrated either of his having violated any law, let alone aiding and abetting terrorism.

The 598 prisoners still being held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba from the Afghan War for the last 10 months represent 43 Muslim countries, and these prisoners are being held as 'unlawful combatants' rather than as 'prisoners of war', which would allow them protections under the Geneva Conventions.

The Bush administration has already established military tribunals to try such detainees. 422 of these prisoners were captured with Pakistan's help and cooperation.

Now, in an interesting twist, the US defence secretary has said "a half dozen or so" would be released and returned to Pakistan from Cuba. In his October 22 Press briefing, Rumsfeld made the startling admission that his government "does not believe that any of the Pakistanis at Guantanamo Bay are terrorists".

In effect, he is saying that since they are not terrorists, they were innocent of that accusation and they were therefore imprisoned wrongly. During their entire 10 month illegal detention, they were not charged and not tried and nor were they allowed access to a lawyer.

As if this wasn't enough, Rumsfeld provided an interesting rationale for keeping other detainees still at Guantanamo Bay, 70 per cent of who are apparently from Afghanistan, Yemen and Saudi Arabia. He said at his October 22 briefing that one criterion for keeping a detainee is asking the question, "are they people who ought to be kept off the street simply because they might be inclined to go back and again engage in activities that would be opposed to the Afghan government or to the United States?"

In other words, just the fear of any future act on their part is enough to deprive them indefinitely of their inalienable human right, namely, to live as a free man.

Apart from the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, who were at least initially suspected of involvement in terrorism, about 1,200 Muslim Americans living in the US - many of them Pakistanis - were arrested after September 11.

None of the Pakistanis were charged with any violent crime, save for immigration violations and no one has been involved in any kind of terrorism. Yet here too, the government of Pakistan has failed to protect the rights of its nationals who have been languishing in American prisons after September 11, without charges levied upon them, without trial and mostly without access to lawyers or even their families.

When protests came from the Pakistani people, the US government released and deported these jailed Pakistanis in two installments of 140 and 133 respectively.

Despite this travesty of justice, and notwithstanding Pakistan's 'services' to the US after September 11, the government has failed to raise its voice for these compatriots who were deprived of their freedom illegally.

Even in the US, there is now concern at the general direction in which the country is headed after September 11. Muslim Americans, particularly Pakistanis, have been at the receiving end of policies that have often singled them out for persecution.

Last week's protest demonstration against the impending war in Iraq, the biggest anti-war rally in Washington since the million-man 1967 anti-Vietnam protest, specifically referred to this aspect.

If voices are being raised for the rights of detained Pakistanis and all other Muslims in the US by Americans, surely the Pakistan government could do better. It is, after all, foremost among its responsibilities to preserve, protect and promote the rights of its nationals at home and abroad.

With reference to Dr Amir Aziz, the rule of law must prevail and not the rule of man. Either he should be brought before a civilian court according to the due legal process, and if, as is generally presumed, it is a case more of suspicion substituting for real evidence, then he should be set free immediately.

An official apology should follow for the distress caused to his family and him, which is the least one expects from any civilised government when it wrongfully confines its citizens.

pour la paix


> > Dear MoveOn and people of the world,
> >
> > We are 25 teenagers and young people, the youth task
> > force of the Yugoslav NGO, BEOSUPPORT, in Belgrade. The name of
> > our task force
> > is the BS Team. Your message regarding the
> > possibility of air
> > strikes on Iraq reached our adults, and was conveyed
> > to us. Here
> > is our answer, and we are sure we speak on behalf of
> > 28,000
> > citizens who support us in our campaign for a
> > National Plan
> > against the exploitation of children. All were
> > bombed with us.
> >
> > In 1999 we suffered the biggest air campaign in
> > history. Our
> > country was punished because we had a dictator who
> > made a huge
> > harm to many innocents around us but first turned
> > our lifes in
> > disaster and misery. Our country is full of graves
> > and
> > handicapped, poor and isolated. As a solution, 19
> > countries for 78
> > days sent up to 900 planes daily upon us, targeting
> > the evil,
> > striking the innocents. Bombs did not remove it, we
> > did. Now, how
> > does it look in reality, being bombed? The awful
> > sound of the
> > warning signal, then darkness no one can imagine,
> > then long
> > frightening silence. The most awful were the nights.
> > At one
> > moment, the silence would be broken by the unanimous
> > barking of
> > many many thousands of terrified dogs, who heard
> > something we
> > could not. But we knew the planes were approaching.
> > In some
> > minutes, the explosions, huge and terrifying would
> > start, the
> > walls would tremble, and we were shaking in darkness
> > awaiting
> > whether we would stay alive, or would die as
> > collateral damage.
> > After the ending signal, we would first check by
> > phone whether our
> > relatives in other parts of the city are alive, and
> > then we would
> > look at the fire enlighting the sky. The city was
> > burning. At the
> > end, coffins and tombs, tears and ruins, no bridges
> > for us. During
> > all that time, the evil who victimised us and others
> > was safe.
> > Dictators and families and friends have bunkers at
> > home, villas
> > abroad, and risk nothing. Now they are well and
> > rich. Being in
> > prison on fair trial is great, compared to death and
> > wheel chair
> > !!! [Editor's note: This is a reference to former
> > Yugoslav
> > President Slobodan Milosevic, who is being tried for
> > war crimes
> > and crimes against humanity.]
> >
> > While we suffer diseases, our country is
> > contaminated. The
> > peacekeepers, young as us, are risking their health
> > in Kosovo same
> > as we do. Now we face the threat of the same fate
> > for Iraq and we
> > want to tell you and all that no child and no person
> > at all should
> > be unhappy twice, victimised by having an
> > unacceptable government,
> > and also by global solutions to move away that
> > government. We are
> > aware of the horrors of terrorism, we moan all the
> > victims of 11th
> > September, we, more than many, understand the
> > Americans. We share
> > the experience of fear and death and ruins, and we
> > want the
> > terrorism stopped. We also want a life free of
> > threat of poisoning
> > and bombing planes. But air strikes on countries are
> > not a
> > solution. THEY STRIKE INNOCENTS. We trust democracy,
> > we want a
> > better world but we urge democracy to find solutions
> > others than
> > one we were subjected to. We support all the
> > Americans who don't
> > want innocents to be victimised as a solution and
> > join them as
> > victims. We support all the people who feels same.
> > We entrust you
> > this message, our plea for a wise solution,
> > democracy must find
> > one. And we are confident you will manage to convey
> > this voice of
> > bombed children in favour of unknown Iraqi friends
> > in jeopardy to
> > any place where it is appropriate. We are here, very
> > proud for the
> > opportunity to join efforts for a better world.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > On behalf of BS TEAM and all BEOSUPPORT. Zorka
> > Kolundzija 17
> > years, Severin Jolovic 19, Vuk Palavestra 13.
>Editor's note: BEOSUPPORT is a registered Yugoslavian

Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent http://www.aljazeerah.info