New Trend Magazine (

[Biggest Islamic web site in the U.S.]
P.O. Box 356, Kingsville, MD 21087.
Phone: 410-435-5000.

Disclaimer: Views expressed are not necessarily shared by editorial committee.
Responses (positive or negative) up to 250 words are welcome.
Names will be withheld on request.
100 Taliban Resisting U.S-Karzai-Hazara Operation in Zabul
Vast Areas of southern, southeastern and southwestern Afghanistan Join Taliban
from our Afghanistan monitor

For a week now (September 2), heavily armed Afghan mercenaries along with U.S. Special Forces have been trying to dislodge nearly 100 Taliban entrenched in the Dai Chopan mountains of Zabul province. The U.S. brought in air strikes and helicopter gun ships to destroy the Taliban force with little or no effect. The U.S. claims that it has killed 13 of the Taliban while the Kabul "government" claims that 51 of the Taliban have been killed. Bodies on the ground indicate that SEVEN Taliban have been killed.

Meanwhile, Mullah Omar is reported to have sent more Taliban to join the fighting. Also, the Taliban have delivered diversionary raids near Spin Boldak and in Paktika province killing dozens of mercenary troops. The U.S. has admitted five of its troops were killed in these attacks. More than 20 mercenary Afghans were also killed.

Large areas of Afghanistan, especially those populated by Pushtoons, have reportedly joined the Taliban. Also, on various border areas with Pakistan, the Taliban have the full support of Pakistani tribes.

More than SIX MONTHS BACK, New Trend reported the resurgence of the Taliban. Finally, about two weeks back National Public Radio (NPR) admitted that such, alas, is the case. Only a couple of days back, the NEW YORK TIMES also admitted that the Taliban resurgence is a fact.

Think about it, dear reader, your Muslim source, New Trend, was way ahead of heavily funded non-Muslim sources. If we had the money, New York Times would be no match for us.
Agony of Shi'ism: Who Killed Ayatollah Baqir al-Hakim along with 124 others?
By Buut Shikan (Idol Breaker)

The bloodcurdling bomb attack on August 29, 2003 which killed Ayatollah Baqir al-Hakim and 124 others and wounded 500 others raises the question: why? And who did it?

No one has claimed responsibility. Twelve people have been arrested but these seem to be arrests carried out to show that local authorities are trying to catch the culprits.

My purpose is to analyze the situation so that the reality comes out or that at least my analysis should be as near the reality as is possible. This report DOES NOT TAKE SIDES. This is not propaganda meant to support or oppose any of the forces at work in Iraq.

My thesis has two aspects to it. We can understand the massacre on two levels: Internally as the result of internal Shi'ite conflict and externally as a response to the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

For the INTERNAL CONFLICT, we need a bit of history:

1. When Imam Khomeini led the successful revolution in Iran and the Iranian army melted away with the departure of the Shah, Iraq under Saddam Hussain took advantage of the situation to invade Iran.

2. The invaders reached the oil fields of Abadan but were beaten back owing to heroic resistance put up by the Revolutionary Guards.

3. Inside Iran, a segment of the Shias known as Mojahedine Khalq rose in armed revolt against the Islamic revolution and were brutally crushed. Thousands of them fled and later mobilized in Iraq.

4. After several years of fighting, Iran not only pushed the Iraqis back but actually entered Iraq and called on the Iraqi Shias to rise up against Saddam. Iraqi Shias were advised by their leader, Ayatollah al-Khui, to remain neutral in the battle. Waves of Iranian Revolutionary Guards attacked Basra and were slaughtered by the Iraqi defenders. THE SHIAS OF BASRA DID NOT RISE UP.

5. However, segments of the Iraqi Shias, led by the al-Hakim family, were sympathetic to Iran. They were brutalized by Saddam regime. Members of the Al-Hakim family were tortured and executed. Some of them escaped to Iran, including the target of the current bombing, Baqir al-Hakim.

6. Most Iraqi Shias did not support the Al-Hakim family and remained neutral or did not oppose Saddam owing to nationalistic reasons.

7. Iraqi prisoners captured by Iran were sometimes interrogated by Al-Hakim supporters working for Iran. This created great bitterness in Iraq against them, just as Saddam's support for the MKO created bitterness in Iran against Iraq.

Soon after the U.S. occupation of NAJAF, an ugly incident occurred inside the Imam Ali mosque in which Ayatollah's Khui's son and inheritor of his leadership was murdered, ostensibly by pro-Iran elements loyal to Baqir al-Hakim.

The U.S. WORKING WITH IRAN, permitted Ayatollah Baqir al-Hakim to return to Iraq under U.S. protection.

A nationalist Shia Iraqi leader Moqtada al-Sadr differed sharply with Baqir al-Hakim and wanted Shias to focus on the expulsion of U.S. forces rather than the building of a pan-Shia world movement led by Iran.

BAQIR Al-HAKIM appointed his representative to the Ruling Council formulated by the U.S. occupation forces to legitimize the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
EXTERNALLY the massacre of August 29 should be seen as part of a series bomb attacks which have hit groups seen as sympathetic to or working with the U.S.

First the JORDANIAN EMBASSY was hit as symbolic of a regime which works for the CIA.

NEXT, the attackers, seeing the U.S. preparing to bring in the United Nations to legitimize the occupation, bombed the UN headquarters in Baghdad killing the chief of the UN in Iraq and 21 of his associates, including the U.S. political officer coordinating with the U.N.

Third came the attack on the most important Shi'ite personality who had just signaled support for the U.S. plan for Iraq by sending his representative to the Ruling Council. This time the assailants were ruthless enough to kill and wound large numbers of innocent people.
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE and WHY are Such Attacks Possible?:

It appears that the U.S. had underestimated the level of Iraqi resistance to the occupation. Other than two segments of Kurds, tiny enclaves of westernized Iraqis with relatives in America and a few Shi'ite collaborators like Chalabi, the U.S. has no support in Iraq. The only important segment of support for the U.S. which the U.S. could not control entirely came from pro-Iran, pan-Shi'ite clerics like Baqir al-Hakim. It seems that Baqir al-Hakim was seen as particularly dangerous by anti-U.S. forces because he could not be placed in the same category as Chalabi. He was genuine with an agenda of his own. From the point of view of the resistance, this pan-Shi'te agenda intersected with the U.S. agenda and created a COMMUNITY of SHARED INTERESTS.

The attack was probably carried out by Saddam loyalists working with Shia nationalists opposed to the U.S. A tape from Saddam Hussain has surfaced denying a share in the attack. This could be a propaganda tape sent out because the death of so many innocent people has created horror among the general population as witnessed in the mass funeral of Baqir al-Hakim attended by more than 300,000 people.

However, such attacks in an occupied country cannot be carried out without the support of large segments of the population providing safe passage, intelligence, resources and explosives to the assailants.

IRAQ HAS SEEN MUCH SUFFERING. More than a million children died SLOWLY owing to U.S. sanctions supported by the UNO. Iraq was bombed relentlessly in 1991. For years the U.S. kept attacking Iraqi forces under the pretense of preserving "no fly zones." Then the helpless country was bombed and occupied in 2003 by the U.S. which killed another 7000 civilians. NONE OF THESE LOSSES WERE MOURNED BY IRAN although they affected most Iraqis.

When AFGHANISTAN was attacked, Iran supported the "northern alliance," and its groupies among the Hazarajat people have been used to hunt the Taliban. The massacre of 3000-plus Taliban prisoners by the "northern alliance" under U.S. supervision at Qila Jhangvi did not touch Iran's conscience. For the Islamic movements of the world, Iran is also collaborating with Russia (SILENT on CHECHNIA) and with INDIA (silent on rape and murder in Kashmir).

SADDAM HUSSAIN is a ruthless operator and is willing to match Iranian ruthlessness with his own. If he is planning a come back, the emergence of a pro-Iranian Shi'ite leader installed in Baghdad would be the ultimate outrage.

Will peace return to IRAQ? It can be achieved if the foreigners withdraw. Foreigners are not the Islamic fighters reportedly volunteering to fight U.S. forces in Iraq. The Islamic Ummah is one Ummah. Fighting against occupiers and aggressors is ordained in the Qur'an.
Finally, to understand the situation, one must look at the speech of Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khame'inai and the statements of supporters of Ayatollah Baqir al-Hakim. These leaders are NOT calling for battle against the occupation forces. They are complaining that the U.S. has failed to provide sufficient security, has not guarded the borders of Iraq properly and hence should let them do it.

Thus on the one hand these leaders are giving the impression to ordinary Iraqis that they are against the U.S. and yet they do not want to join the fight against the U.S. directly or indirectly

2003-09-07 Sun 15:33ct