Appropriately beginning with the day of amnesty at the infamous Abu Ghreib prison when Saddam Hussein released all the prisoners, the new book Night Draws Near is an illuminating look into the ordinary lives of Iraqis during not so ordinary times. From this day on, author and Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Anthony Shadid gets his first peek into deep-seated complaints and the long history of Iraqis, hardened by modern events but always proud of their identity.

Shadid, a 36-year-old Washington Post correspondent who chose not to be embedded with the military when the 2003 war was launched, embarks on a journey into the lives of numerous Iraqis. From the young girl Amal who writes a diary about the war and death she doesn't understand to Iraqi sculptor Mohamed Ghani who laments the looting and destruction of Iraqi historical artifacts to the clairvoyant Islamic mystic Hazem who provided comfort to Shadid's friend, Nasir Mehdawi, Shadid helps us to understand a society that was clearly misunderstood by the architects of the Iraq War. Not only does Shadid humanize the conflict, but he also explores the intersection of Eastern and Western cultures at a time of conflict.

Political Islamic activism and the differences between Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and junior Shia clerk Muqtada Sadr are simplified, as is the ascent of the latter. Undoubtedly, it is clear that the Iraqi's history of intensely resisting foreigners dampens the shock at the resistance to American occupation we see on the daily news.

An American of Lebanese descent, Shadid speaks and reads Arabic - skills that offered him an insight into the conflict not available to most Western journalists working in the Middle East.

Sherri Muzher: You've said that the longer you are in Iraq, the less you understand this story. Why is this situation so complicated?

Anthony Shadid: I think as we understand a place better and as we learn more about it, we realize how much deeper the story is, how much deeper the history, the background, the conflicts themselves are. Before I went to Iraq, I didn't know a lot about the country. Like most people, policy makers, officials, readers, anyone: there was this notion that it was all about the repression, dictatorship and tyranny. And it was at a certain level. Saddam's dictatorship was incredibly overwhelming to the country. But that's not all that was there. As a I spent more time there and spent all those months as a reporter, I started to peel back the layers that were there, to understand the deeper forces that were at work, and to see the broader context of the country. As the process went on, you realized how much left there was to learn.

SM: In your book, you talk about the increasing effectiveness of spreading Islamism by combining these Islamic movements with offering social services for populations that are in need. Can you talk about this?

AS: I see the pliability of political Islam in two different ways. There was one phenomenon that you saw with Muqtada Sadr's movement that developed trademarks of political Islamic activism which I saw elsewhere in the region played out over the years and even decades. And Iraq under Sadr, it played out over weeks and sometimes months. In other words, the use of social services, the building of iconography, the cultivation of support in the streets, all of these things were happening really quickly. In a lot of ways, the Sadr movement was the first popular movement to emerge after the fall of Saddam. The other side is the way political Islam was tailored toward insurgency that grew in Western and parts of Northern Iraq, in terms of the message and ideology. It was an ideology that tailored itself very well with an anti-occupation message, and in some ways an anti-American message. It often served as a very powerful rallying cry to fuel that insurgency and to push it forward.

SM: How much of a role has the perceived humiliation of the Arab and Islamic world by colonialists contributed to the increasing support?

AS: The feelings of powerlessness, the feelings of historic grievances, the accumulation of resentments - I think they play a decisive role often. Understanding the occupation is the key to understanding all this. I think when we understand the conflicts that go on in the Middle East, and I think in much of the world, the question of identity is at the heart. Who we are, how we defend who we are, what threats we are . . . understanding those questions would explain a lot about the evolution of these conflicts.

SM: A mid-Michigan Catholic priest returning from post-war Iraq compared the Sunnis and Shia to Catholics and Protestants. He jokingly said they don't agree with each other but they have found ways to co-exist, intermarry, and so on. He felt that the US was actually instigating the sectarian divide between Sunnis and Shia. An Iraqi professor on the lecture circuit recently echoed the same sentiments.

AS: I think that's an important point. I don't think the United States is necessarily doing that consciously but I think before the war, the US saw Iraq as a country of Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. One of the biggest legacies of the occupation and the aftermath is how our preconception became a reality, and politics is exclusively defined by communities at this point, by being Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd. But Iraq is a lot more complicated than that. There's a lot of intermarriage, people reluctant to identify themselves as solely Sunni or Shiite . . . The legacy we're leaving is this kind of exclusive identification that wasn't necessarily there before the war.

SM: The statement British Major General Stanley Maude made back in 1917, "We came as liberators, not as conquerors" has proved to be memorable even if the author is not, because the British remained for decades. Are Iraqis worried about deja vu happening?

AS: I think very much so, in fact. When President Bush said those words that we're coming in as liberators and not occupiers and not as conquerors, he meant what he said and was sincere in what he said. But he also didn't realize that we, in a sense, echoed the words of the British 85 years before. Post-war Iraqis understood the echo of those words and I think they drew conclusions of what happened to them when the British entered Iraq. There is a similar ambivalence and anxiety over American intentions given that history.

SM: According to a recent Knight Ridder article, there is an e-mail circulating about the unsung gains in Iraq since the War. Reaction?

AS: I find it delusional. Can people really see what's happening in places like Baghdad and much of Iraq today and say it's a good situation? I think of Karima Salman's family who I visited in the summer. They had three days of no electricity and it was 120 degrees outside; no running water and they had to carry buckets of water up two flights of stairs; one daughter was almost kidnapped; three car bombs went off in front of their house; and I wonder from their perspective - where's the good news?

Are some things better than they were under Saddam? No question about that. There's not Saddam's tyranny. But there is something different that's also menacing. Maybe not as menacing, but still menacing. And it's not a present that most Iraqis would choose.

Why do we have to see this through good news and bad news? Why can't we just appreciate the situation as it is, and then go forward from there?

SM: If President Bush was sitting in front of you right now and you could tell him anything about what you've seen in Iraq, what would you tell him?

AS: Reporters take great personal risk to write about what's going on in the country. We do it to help inform the people of this country about what's happening there, and we hope that people take the time to read it.

SM: When all is said and done, what do you believe the future of the Iraqis will be?

AS: I see a lot of futures. I see one future where there might be a relatively stable government where there's a functioning democracy. There might be some kind of recovery propelled forward by old revenues. I think there's another future of what is a civil war turning into a full-fledged civil war. If somebody were to ask me what's going to happen in this short medium term, I guess I see Iraq more and more controlled by men with guns. I see not necessarily a war that pits Sunnis against Shiites or Shiites against Kurds but instead a war that pits rival militias, sometimes within communities against each other. And they vie for territory and they vie for power. They vie for control of their respective communities. That's my fear. You might have a functioning government in Baghdad with ministries and with a legislature and a lot of debate, but once you get out in the hinterland, you see men with guns in control.


Related links:
Purchase Night Draws Near on Amazon.com

A graduate of the Michigan State University College of Law and founder of the Michigan Media Watch, Sherri Muzher is a media and political analyst residing in Mason, Michigan

John Bryant engages Kevin McDonald and Richard Lynn Re. his controversial new book
Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Jews But Were Afraid to Ask Because You Thought You'd Be Called 'Antisemitic'
John Bryant - author of 40 books can be contacted here: john@thebirdman.org

Bigot: One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain. --Ambrose Bierce

Dear Kevin,
Let me begin by saying that, if writing a review or a blurb for my book is going to put you in professional or personal peril, then I don't want you to. I would never ask anyone to do that for me. However, when you tell me that there are some things in my book that you are 'uncomfortable with', that doesn't sound like you are talking about professional or personal peril. So let me put things to you this way:

Above virtually all other men, you know that the Jews, or more properly Organized Jewry, pose a major threat to Western civilization. (If you DON'T know that, then you are a very different man than I thought.) Now if you think that my book is just an intellectual exercise, like some obscure scholarly treatise on quaternions, then I could perhaps understand how you would object to writing a foreword or even a review, despite your expertise. ON THE OTHER HAND, HOWEVER, if you see my book as more than just an arid intellectual exercise, that is, if you see it as an attempt to deal with a real threat to the civilization that we both hold dear, and further, if you are aware of the fact that there are very few men of any intellectual capability who are sufficiently knowledgeable and sufficiently strong to actually stand up and try to oppose this threat, then I ask you, Isn't it appropriate for you to set aside your 'uncomfortableness' and give the book all the honest support you can possibly muster? I am not perfect, and my book is not perfect, and it may very well make you 'uncomfortable' in parts, but of the very few seriously capable men who see the threat, if no one has the courage to stand up and be counted, then there is simply not much hope for Western civilization. I mean, when are you planning on speaking out beyond the confines of academe? It may be tough today, but it is going to be a LOT TOUGHER tomorrow, and it may be virtually IMPOSSIBLE just a few years down the pike. If we are dealing with more than something academic, then we had better start banding together -- just like the Jews do, I might add -- if we don't want our civilization and our race to become extinct.

How about it, Kevin? John Bryant

Hi John: I think it's a good book but there are some things in it that I did not feel comfortable with. So I am sorry, I can't write a foreword. Sorry, KM
...........................................................................................

On Receipt pf Bryant's book Prof. Lynn wrote:I am afraid your book is a bit too controversial for me to be associated with. As a controversial figure myself, I have to be careful of my associations. I hope you will understand. RL

Dear Prof Lynn:

I appreciate that you are controversial and that this makes you a target for political correctees. But your desire not to be 'associated' with my book (or me) does raise some significant questions in my mind: First, if you accepted for possible review a copy of a book entitled "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Jews But Were Afraid To Ask Because You Thought You'd Be Called 'Antisemitic'", then you accepted a book whose title virtually SCREAMS controversy, so how could anything in the book be MORE controversial than what the title promised? I would really like to know what it was that you found.

Second, (1) in view of the fact that I am not asking you to endorse the book's conclusions, but only hoping -- in view of your declaration that you found the book enjoyable -- that you will tell readers that it may be a worthwhile read, and
(2) in view of the fact that it is perfectly possible for you to qualify any kind of endorsement of my book by saying "While I find numerous points of disagreement, I think that ...",
I therefore fail to see in view of the above points what it is that you are so afraid of in giving me a review or blurb, and would really be most interested to know.

Third, as I told Prof Kevin MacDonald, to whom I also sent a copy of my book for review, if even the best and most powerful men of the intellectual community -- a group which certainly includes MacDonald and yourself -- do not have the courage to stand up and make criticisms of what they very well know needs to be criticized, then what hope is there for Western civilization? Indeed, by being an emeritus professor, you are apparently quite free to speak your mind without fear of losing your job or emoluments. So why are you acting so reluctant? Are you afraid that the British hate crime laws would get you for endorsing my book? If I thought you would have to take a serious personal risk in reviewing my book, I would never have asked you to do so, and you, undoubtedly, would never have accepted. So what is going on here? I think that, at the very least, you owe me a full and frank explanation. I would very much appreciate your response on these points.

Respectfully, John Bryant

Lynn responded:

There are only so many battles one can fight & this is one I feel I have to duck Best wishes Richard Lynn

JOE BRYANT SUMS UP

I believe that when these men accepted a copy of my book, they accepted an obligation to me -- an indefinite one, I will grant, but nevertheless an obligation which I strongly feel they have not fulfilled. More important than the unfulfilled personal obligation, however, is the unfulfilled obligation to -- what shall we call it? the Politically Incorrect community? Western civilization? the white race? I feel this particularly acutely with MacDonald, who has made a career out of what could be called 'Jewish skepticism', ie, warning people about the Jewish threat, yet he will not bother so much as to lift his little finger to help someone who has also dedicated a good part of his life to warning of the Jewish threat. It would be one thing if MacDonald were just an ordinary guy, but he is one of the leaders of Jewish skepticism, and in this position he has both special power, and also special obligation to use that power in favor of the community. I do not see him doing that.

POSTSCRIPT:I said that character was the issue here, but I might well have said that character is the biggest issue that the Movement has to face. Whites used to be Christians, and Christianity taught character -- and morals, to which character is intimately related. But now we are all atheists -- we have discarded Christianity because it was irrational, but we also lost the important lessons it had to teach us, and for that reason our race may well go the way of all flesh. Character and morals are all about getting along well with others, ie, creating a wholesome and workable society. When character and morals break down, the social fabric is rent asunder. And character and morals are products of inner-directedness, or conscience. They cannot be enforced. The police might be able to arrest criminals, but they can usually do nothing against the man who does not keep his word; and it is the gossamer of word-keeping and other filagrees of character and morals upon which society so perilously hangs. A society may perhaps survive if most of its members are other- or outer-directed, but the society will fail if the members who do the directing are not themselves inner-directed. And here is where the Jews are way ahead of us. They may regard gentiles as cattle, but they treat their own in what can only be described as a Christian manner. www.thebirdman.org

'9/11 The Big Lie'

http://www.currentconcerns.ch/archive/20030103.php

Thierry Meyssan, French political scientist and journalist, investigates in his book ‘9/11 The Big Lie’ the attack on the World Trade Center towers and Pentagon and comes to astounding conclusions. The author has collected a vast quantity of information and compared it to the official portrayal of the 9/11 events. His results are shocking and show how official policy in union with the media disinforms and manipulates the public. One can well imagine that a similar situation exists in connection with Iraq and its alleged weapon arsenals.

In the preface of his analysis, Meyssan unambiguously says that the official version does not stand up to critical analysis. His book aims to prove that this version was nothing but a fabrication. The pieces he has gathered help to reconstruct some aspects of the truth. Other questions of his concerning the September events still remain unanswered—which, however, is no reason to continue to believe the lies of the authorities. The file that Meyssan and his co-authors have put together enable one to challenge the legitimacy of an American counter strike in Afghanistan as well as the war against the axis of evil.

GALILEE FLOWERS BY iSRAEL sHAMIR

Galilee Flowers (new updated edition) is out! If you haven't got the book yet, now you can buy this new updated edition on http://www.booksurge.com/product.php3?bookID=GPUB02699-00003 and soon via Amazon. The French publisher of this book is under trial, while the first print (in French) was burned on the instigation of LICRA, a French Jewish organisation. This is the original English-language version. The new edition is of pocket-size, costs less ($17.99) and includes some new essays as well as the original ones. The book has also a new subtitle: if the book of Dershowitz is called "The Case for Israel", and a new book of our good friend Michael Neumann is called The Case against Israel, this book is called The Case for Palestine and Israel united in love to the Holy Land.