As more and more Muslims - including women and children - are killed, maimed and injured by Americaa bombs and missiles in Afghanistan the war itself needs analysing.

According to the Americans, it is a war "against terrorism". They accuse the Taliban of "aiding terrorists", and have publicly stated, many times, that those who are not on the side of America, "are against us and our enemies".

The Taliban's only fault seems to be that they refused to do exactly what the American government demanded. The fact is that America gave the Taliban an ultimation: do what we want or we'll kill you. Taliban refused, quite rightly (for to do otherwise would have been to have given in to the bullies threatening them) and so the US just like a bully, attacked them knowing it had vastly superior military forces not to mention the fact that it knew it could afford a prolonged war. So the strongest military power in the world attacked one of the poorest countries in the world.

To any rational, honourable, person what the Americans demanded, and what they have done, is not only totally unjustified, it is also barbaric and cowardly. And they have gone further because they with incredible arrogance repeat their new mantra time after time after: "Our opponents are evil and we have justice on our side and are fighting for freedom and democracy."

No Evidence:

The Americans and their allies have still not released any credible evidence linking Osama bin Laden with the attacks in New York and Washington.

Even the British government admitted that the so-called "evidence" it has against Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda would not stand up in one of its own Courts of Law, and the dossier of so-called "evidence" which it did produce was openly derided in the British press.

The so-called evidence which has been presented is insinuation, rumour, hearsay, propaganda or very circumstantial. Knowing this, the government of the United States has taken refuge in the mantra of "we cannot make our real evidence public since it is secret and of a sensitive nature...". That is, we are expected to accept their word that such evidence exists. It is as if, at a criminal trial with the defendant facing the death sentence, the Prosecutor says: "I cannot present my real evidence for reasons of national security, you'll just have to take my word for it." The Judge and Jury then accept "his word" and sentence the defendant to death. Would such a trial be considered fair? Is this the moral, the honourable, thing to do?

Judge, Jury and Executioner:

The United States has set itself up as Judge, Jury and Executioner, in flagrant violation even of its own legal standards. Thus, it has found Osama bin Laden guilty, without a trial, as it has passed a sentence of death on him, with the officials of the US government insisting their military forces have the right to kill Osama bin Laden, and with the President of the US saying that he regards Osama bi Laden as "an evil man" who should be killed.

War Illegal Even By Western Standards:

Even though many Muslims - myself included - regard such Institutions as the UN as kuffar organizations, and as such a tool of Western hegemony created and maintained to enforce the Western so-called "democratic" way of life upon the world, let us judge the war by Western law, especially what is called "International law", which of course means the law made and upheld by the UN.

1) UN law:

a) The Montreal Sabotage Convention. The US is a signatory of this agreement which details the legal procedure to be followed when civil aircraft are used in acts of sabotage or are sabotaged.

The US government ignored these procedures - which involve discussions with the relevant governments (the Taliban) - and instead opted to begin an aggressive war.

b) UN Security Council: The US asked for a special resolution authorizing the US to attack another sovereign State. The Security Council refused, but did agree, after pressure from the US and its allies (such as Britain) to issue a resolution (on September 12) which called the attacks in the US terrorist acts.

Acts of terrorism are acts by individuals, or organizations, and as such the correct (Western) procedure to deal with them is by criminal investigation, via law enforcement agencies, and subsequent individual criminal trials.

Ignoring the distinction between acts of terrorism done and planned by individuals, the US went ahead with its war against the government, the State, of Afghanistan.

To try and hide its naked, illegal (by Western standards) aggression, the US government has made repeated reference to Article 51 of the UN Charter, thus invoking the so-called "right to self-defence".

However, in this instance (the September 11 attacks) this Article does not apply. Article 51 merely gives a government the right to defend itself against an attack that is ongoing or imminent as a temporary measure until the UN Security Council can formally issue a general resolution.

Clearly, the war against Afghanistan is not an "act of self-defence" by the strongest nation on the Earth against one of the poorest nations on Earth. Was the Taliban threatening and planning to invade America? Had the Taliban - officially the government of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan - issued a declaration of war against the United States before the United States began its attacks with bombs, missiles and ground troops?

Further, to cover its defiance of the laws and standards it claims to uphold, the US government repeated ad nauseum, its claim that it did not recognize the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan, and so in effect claim that this denial of recognition of the Taliban, by them, gives the US the right to begin a war in Afghanistan. Which, of course, is both unethical and uncivilized, especially as the Taliban made repeated offers of negotiation, offers which the US government contemptuously rejected, which American officials saying things like: "There can be no negotiations. Your choice is to surrender, or die."

2) American law:

Bush and his cronies tried to get their law-making body (Congress) to issue a formal Declaration of War, which would have meant allowing him to rule America as a virtual dictator. Congress refused, but did issue what was called a War Powers Resolution Authorization (referring to legislation passed in 1973) which gives Bush authorization to use military force against any individual, organization, or State anywhere in the world that he alleges - note: which he alleges - was or might be involved in the September 11 attacks, or which sheltered, harboured, or assisted any of the individuals alleged to be involved in those attacks.

No actual proof of involvement is required; no limits are set; no references are made to UN Resolutions or Articles. In reality, this Authorization allows the American government to do exactly what it wants even if it means violating Western "International Law".

Thus, even according to the standards which the governments of the Crusader nations say they believe in and uphold, this war is not only illegal, but uncivilized.

To try and cover-up their naked unethical aggression and their bullying ways, the US government keeps repeating - again ad nauseum - that it is engaged in a world-wide war "against terrorism". But even many Western journalists see through this American propaganda facade:
�

There is no "war on terrorism". If there was, the SAS would be storming the beaches of Florida, where more terrorists, tyrants and torturers are given refuge than anywhere in the world. If the precocious Blair was really hostile to terrorism, he would do everything in his power to pursue policies that lifted the threat of violent death from people in his own country and third world countries alike, instead of escalating terrorism, as he and Bush are doing. But these are violent men, regardless of their distance from the mayhem they initiate. Blair's enthusiastic part in the cluster bombing of civilians in Iraq and Serbia, and the killing of tens of thousands of children in Iraq, is documented. The Bush family's violence, from Nicaragua to Panama, the Gulf to the death rows of Texas, is a matter of record. Their war on terrorism is no more than the continuing war of the powerful against the powerless, with new excuses, new hidden imperatives, new lies. (John Pilger)

Uncivilized Attitude:

And many, many US citizens - and others - are now gloating about the Taliban and the Afghans "getting what they deserve", and say the killing of women, children and civilians by US bombs and missiles is really "the fault of the Taliban" because they have "harboured the terrorist bin Laden".

Here are a few of the typical comments made in the Western Media:
�

The response to this unimaginable 21st century Pearl Harbor should be as simple as it is swift: kill the bastards. A gunshot between the eyes, blow them to smithereens, poison them if you have to. As to cities or countries that host these worms, bomb them ...

This is no time to be precarious about locating the exact individuals directly involved in this particular terrorist attack. We should invade these countries, kill their leaders ...

With the war having begun, civilians were, and are, being injured, killed and maimed by US bombs and missiles. The reaction of the US government, the Western Media, and many Western people is along the lines that they are acceptable and "collateral damage":
�

Civilian casualties are part of the grim price that must be payed by a populace that tolerates a terrorist takeover...

Furthermore, the Taliban are even blamed for the deaths caused by American aggression:
�

The bombs may come from American planes but the responsibility belongs to the Taliban and bin-Laden, for they are the ones that are destroying the children and families....

There's an easy way to prevent this. Turn over Osama Bin Laden and the rest of his Al Queda cronies....

This is typical, once again, of the attitude of an arrogant, dishonourable bully: "do as we say and we will stop hurting you", and "it's not my fault I killed those people: it's your fault for not doing exactly what I demanded you do....."

Conclusion:

The attacks in US do not justify such killings and destruction because people who did those attacks are dead.

That the majority of people in the Western world support this unjust war by an arrogant government and its arrogant allies is appalling, and reveals just how uncivilized these people are and how easily they are manipulated and brainwashed by government-sponsored Media mantras and propaganda.

The government of the United States - and its allies - are acting like cowardly, dishonourable bullies, and striving to usurp those things which rightly belong to Allah (SWT) alone. That is, they are setting themselves up in opposition to Allah (SWT) and as such any Muslim who aids them or is in alliance with them has committed Shirk:
�

"Verily, All�h forgives not that partners should be set up with him in worship, but He forgives except that (anything else) to whom He pleases, and whoever sets up partners with All�h in worship, he has indeed committed a tremendous sin. "� 4:48 (Interpretation of Meaning)

Abdul Aziz

Shaban 1422