US-Britain led West must apologise to the Muslim World and pay at least 5 trillion as compensation
While the report should be admired for its candidness in examining the reasons for going into war, the report gives a clear impression that even after such a colossal intelligence failure and such a brutal massacre of Iraqi civilians, the authors are pained not mainly by the loss of several million Iraqis but by the loss of “the 179 British service personnel and civilians killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2009”
After the release of the Chilcot Report, ideally the entire world would have stood united and demanded severest possible punishment to the perpetrators of a crime that led to the loss of at least 3 million innocent lives in Iraq. But when the lives lost were mostly of Muslims, why should the world bother about it? Even if the rest of the world had not done what it must have done, the Muslim World must have gone mad after US-British led West and had demanded an immediate apology to the whole Muslim world, the payment of at least 5 trillion dollars in compensation and a firm commitment of total disengagement from their lands. But the Muslim World is busy celebrating Eid, distributing sweets and hugging one another. No Muslim country went to the UN to demand immediate debate and condemnation of the countries involved in the massacre and compensation. There was no such move. Even if there was such a move, it would of course not succeed as the self-styled champions of Democracy have the right to veto any resolution not suited to even one of them. There was hardly any mention of the report in the Eid sermons. They were busy singing the old theme of hostilities against Muslim World without enlisting the demands against West. What can be the bigger evidence of the radicalisation of West, their crimes against humanity in general and against Muslims in particular than the fact that whatever little violence in the name of “Terrorism” is being committed by Muslims pales into absolute insignificance in comparison to West’s violence against the Muslim World? And the march of violent radical West did not stop with Iraq. Once tired of Wars, they launched a campaign to fuel and sustain civil wars in Muslim countries. In response to one single attack on 9/11, in which the culprits of the attack perished with the planes and the alleged masterminded was killed in an isolated attack 11 years later, at least 5 Muslim countries — Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Egypt have been totally destroyed and devastated with more than 4 million lives lost. Still, the international media is busy using isolated “terrorist” attacks here and there killing a few dozen people, allegedly by Muslim outfits, in debating the role of Islam and Muslims rather than that of Westerners and Christian West.
A BBC Report gives the following as the highlights of the Chilcot Report:
- “UK military commanders made “over-optimistic assessments” of their capabilities which had led to “bad decisions”
- There was “little time” to properly prepare three military brigades for deployment in Iraq. The risks were neither “properly identified nor fully exposed” to ministers, resulting in “equipment shortfalls”
- Policy on the Iraq invasion was made on the basis of flawed intelligence assessments. It was not challenged, and should have been
- Mr Blair overestimated his ability to influence US decisions on Iraq; and the UK’s relationship with the US does not require unconditional support
- “At some point” but that when Britain joined the US-led invasion in March 2003, the Iraqi dictator posed “no imminent threat”, the existing strategy of containment could be continued and the majority of UN Security Council members supported continuing UN inspections and monitoring”.
- “The judgements about the severity of the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of a mass destruction — WMD — were presented with a certainty that was not justified. Despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the invasion were underestimated.”
- Tony Blair overstated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, sent ill-prepared troops into battle and had “wholly inadequate” plans for the aftermath,
- There was no “imminent threat” from Saddam — and the intelligence case was “not justified”,
While the report should be admired for its candidness in examining the reasons for going into war, the report gives a clear impression that even after such a colossal intelligence failure and such a brutal massacre of Iraqi civilians, the authors are pained not mainly by the loss of several million Iraqis but by the loss of “the 179 British service personnel and civilians killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2009”.
Even Tony Blair seems to be more remorseful for the lives of British military men rather than for the Iraqi lives. He said, “”I feel deeply and sincerely in a way that no words can properly convey the grief and sorrow of those who lost ones they loved in Iraq — whether our armed forces, the armed forces of other nations or Iraqis.” His statement puts Iraqi lives last. For him the lives of hundreds his people are more important than the lives of the millions of other people. His apology is mainly directed towards his own country and his own people and not to the people of the country which his military men killed at his orders. For him Saddam Hussein was a bigger threat to peace than George Bush despite the fact that his madness had already consumed hundreds of thousands in Afghanistan. David Cameron, the current Prime Minster, also thinks that it was important to “really learn the lessons for the future” because “sending our brave troops on to the battlefield without the right equipment was unacceptable and, whatever else we learn from this conflict, we must all pledge this will never happen again.” Again the concern is mainly limited for his own troops. And the families of the 179 British service personnel and civilians killed in Iraq followed their leaders feeling that their loved ones had died “unnecessarily and without just cause and purpose”.
The questions that need to be posed to West are:
· Who gave them the right to categorize “Violence” in a way which suits only its own designs? How can “Terrorism” be a bigger and more condemnable violence than the “Wars” and the “Civil Wars” fuelled by them?
· Who gave them the right to change regimes in Muslim countries according to their own will?
· Who gave them the right to send weapons and fighters from outside to sustain valence against the rulers?
· Why should they not apologize in unequivocal terms to the entire Muslim World for the colossal loss of innocent human lives and devastation of their lands?
· Why should they not declare it in no uncertain terms that they will disengage from the Muslim World without any further delay?
· Why should they not be made to pay compensation for the loss of lives and devastation and destruction of the land, property and assets of the Muslim World?
· Why should the leaders responsible not be tried in International Court for crimes against humanity?
· Why should they not face a universal condemnation for their brutalities aimed at its unchallenged hegemony in the world?
When the whole Muslim world should have come on the streets to protest against the brutalities of Radical West, they are still in the Eid mode. Let us see if they come out of the party mood at all in the coming days!
More from Dr Javed Jamil
So we now have a long list of legal crimes (drinking, smoking, gambling, promiscuity, pornography, prostitution…medium.com
But if Trump becomes the President of America, he would soon know that even if he had been in place of Obama, he too…medium.com
The Muslim organisations and NGOs of Muslims all over the world must form an umbrella organisation and engage in a…medium.com