OPINION

Islamic Terrorism and the Injustice Myth, Part 2

November 18, 2006
Muhammad Hussain

In part 1 of this commentary, I have discussed Muslims' deafening foul-cries of a whole load of injustices against them in countries where they form a minority population as well as issues like Israel-Palestine and the Kashmir conflicts. It has been clearly demonstrated that there is hardly any injustice against the Muslim minorities anywhere in the world. Instead, it is Muslims who commit all sorts of injustice against the non-Muslim minority populations even in highly regarded moderate Muslim countries like Malaysia, Bangladesh and Pakistan. Whilst in Kashmir and Palestine, the problem lies in the failure or unwillingness of the Muslims to live in peace and harmony with the non-Muslim people.

Muslims' allegation of 'injustices' against them do not just end with countries where they are a minority. Muslims are also oppressed, in their claims, in countries where they are even a majority, such as in Afghanistan and Iraq that were invaded by the UN-approved coalition and the US/UK-lead multilateral coalition, respectively. It does not stop there; the Muslims are also oppressed in countries like Saudi Arabia because of it's hosting foreign troops for security and stability reasons. The foul cry of injustice of the latter type has received an overwhelming support from the entire Muslim community and their gullible non-Muslim allies and has been heavily exploited by extremist groups like Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda. I will dissect these issues in this current part of the essay.


Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

Following the bombings in Madrid and London, people worldwide have identified the recent US and Western foreign policies in Muslim countries as the underlying reasons for these acts of terrorism. After the 7/7 London attack, Muslim leaders of the United Kingdom immediately came out in force to blame the UK government's injustices in Iraq and Afghanistan to have resulted in this terrorist act. The arrested would-be suicide bombers, who failed to explode their bombs two weeks later on July 21, also affirmed the same reason for their attempt to bomb transportation systems in London. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have become the focus of Muslims' complaints now - away from the traditional pet issue of injustice against the Palestinians by Israel. Indeed, it has become an unshakeable belief amongst the leftists, communists and majority of the liberals in the West that 'the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the justifiable causes for the terrorist attacks in Spain and London.' But the question naturally arises as to why did those wars anger these suicide bombers to such an extent that they would be ready to sacrifice their lives? In other word, we must examine what good reasons were there for these specific individuals to commit those destructive acts of terrorism in Madrid and London!

There is no doubt that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have terribly angered the Muslims all over the world so much so that if let loose, they will bombard cities in UK, Italy, Spain, Australia and US with suicide bombs on every opportunity. Although the blame has been placed on those wars, yet we must ask what al-Qaeda and other extremist Islamist cells have been doing in many European countries, since long before the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Even long before the 9/11 attack in the US, Islamist terrorist cells had been present in countries like France and Germany, who vehemently opposed the war in Iraq. Which wars against or occupation of Muslim countries brought these Islamist terrorist cells to Europe years before the Iraq and Afghanistan invasion? France averted a plot to bomb Paris subway and airports, similar to 7/7 London attacks, by Islamic extremists and arrested 9 militants in this connection. On another instances, they have busted a terror cell that was plotting to shoot passenger planes using a surface-to-air missile in Paris. Yet, France has been the most vehement opponent of the war in Iraq and a strong proponent of the Palestinian cause. Occupation of which Muslim countries by France inspires these Muslims to launch terror attacks in France?

Why not Iraqis and Afghans? There are tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans living in Britain, USA and other Western countries. Until today, hardly any Iraqi or Afghani (if at all) has been arrested in Spain, UK, Italy or USA for allegedly planning terror attacks or for being part of al-Qaeda cells. It is the Pakistanis, Moroccans, Algerians, Saudis, Somalis, Sudanese, Jordanese and even the Caribbeans who have either been involved in the acts of terrorism in the West or arrested for complicity in such terrorist plots. Yet, it is the brothers, sisters and mothers of Iraqis and Afghanis being killed everyday in those countries, many of them by suicide bombers, mostly coming from other Muslim countries. Hence, the question simply arises: Don't the Iraqi and Afghan settlers in the West have any love for their own countries and for their mothers, sisters and relatives who are being killed because of these wars? Why aren't they joining the Jihad in UK, Italy, Spain and USA? Are the people of Pakistan, Saudi Arab or Morocco more compassionate for the mothers, brothers and sisters of the Iraqis and Afghans than the Iraqis and Afghanis themselves?

Saddam's Occupation of Kuwait in 1990: When Saddam Hussein sent his troops to occupy Kuwait and murdered hundreds of Kuwaitis and ravaged that country in 1990, where were these compassionate suicide-bombers to deter the atrocities of Saddam Hussein on their Muslim brothers and sisters of Kuwait? But instead, an overwhelming majority of the Muslims from around the world (definitely greater than 95%) vigorously supported the murderous killing of their Kuwaiti Muslim brethren by Saddam Hussein's invading army? When the US-led forces, under UN approval, got involved in the conflict in order to free the Kuwaitis from Saddam's murderous aggression; surprisingly, Muslims around the world prayed in mosques for Saddam's triumph against the UN forces. Instead of sending suicide squads to deter Saddam Hussein's murderous army, tens of thousands of Muslims from countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh had signed up for a suicidal mission to fight on the side of Saddam Hussein against the US-led forces such that killing, raping and ravaging in Kuwait by Saddam's army could continue.

Israel/Palestine conflict and the 9/11 connection: So much has also been said about a connection between the 9/11 and Israel-Palestine conflict - that is, it is the Israeli injustice against the Palestinians with the US support led to the retaliation attack of 9/11 in the US masterminded by Osama bin Laden. But was there is a single Palestinian in the brigade that drove airplanes into the WTC and the Pentagon on 9/11 or in any other terror acts and plots, despite the fact that tens of thousands of Palestinians are living in the US? The leftists, the communists and many liberals in the West quickly join the chorus with the Muslims in blaming the policies of Western countries in Iraq and Afghanistan, every time a bomb goes off anywhere. But the questions raised in this section, clearly indicates that these Muslims, who are perpetrating the acts of terrorism across the world under the excuse of oppression in Iraq and Afghanistan, have no reasons to do so.

How much the terrorists care for Iraqis and Afghans: It has already been made clear that it is not the Iraqi, Afghan or Palestinian settlers of the West who are committing the acts of terrorism against the Western countries in the name of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and oppression in Palestine. In stead, they come from countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Jordan, Syria and Morocco etc. Questions must be asked: how much do these perpetrators of terrorist acts really for the Iraqis, Afghans and Palestinians?

If Iraqis and Afghans die of hunger tomorrow, no Muslims are going to come to feed them - nor any of those suicide bombers. We have seen famine, hunger and terrible sufferings in many Muslim countries of Africa including Sudan, Somalia, Niger and Ethiopia in recent years resulting in tens of thousands of death. No Muslim country or individual has come forward with baskets of food and medicine. The same applies to Iraq and Afghanistan. When the Iraqi children were dying during the days of sanctions by the UN, never did the thought of providing food or medicine to save the Iraqi children ever crossed the mind of the Muslims. Similarly, when the Afghan people were suffering terribly during the Taliban regime's five-year rule, forcing a quarter of the population leave the country to become refugees in bordering countries mainly in Pakistan, Muslim countries never came forward with the baskets of food or medicine to alleviate the sufferings of their Afghan Muslims brethren.

UN disapproval of War in Iraq

There has been a great deal of talk, especially amongst the Western critics, about the lack of a UN mandate for the US-lead coalition's ouster of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The general impression one gets is that had the US gotten the blessing of the UN for the ouster of Saddam Hussein, the job for the US and her allies would have been all too easy in Iraq. These pundits seem to believe that there would not have been much suicide-bombing or resistance insurgency in Iraq, if at all, in such a case. Such thinking is nave at best.

One cannot deny the fact that we have heard relatively less condemnation of the war in Afghanistan from Muslim communities as compared to that of the Iraq war. That does not mean that the Muslim world overwhelmingly supported the war in Afghanistan. Indeed, the number of Muslims who supported the ouster of the Taliban in Afghanistan remain very negligible, maybe almost as few as those who supported the ouster of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. However, most Muslim countries had to keep quiet about the Afghanistan war under the extraordinary situation that arose following the dastardly attack of 9-11 in the US and also because of the unanimous approval of the superpowers at the UN for the Taliban's ouster. The fact that there are no troops from any Muslim countries operating in Afghanistan clearly shows the glaring lack of approval of the Muslim world in the UN-approved invasion of Afghanistan. When the former Malaysian PM Mahathir Muhammad vehemently condemned both invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq in his OIC meeting speech in Kuala Lumpur in 2003, he received an unprecedented applause by the Muslim delegates in the history of the OIC.

The apparently less anti-war reactions in the Muslim world regarding the invasion of Afghanistan must also be understood in the context of the Bush administration's change of focus on deposing the Iraqi dictator not much after the war in Afghanistan. This must have quickly diverted attention to Iraq obscuring Muslims' otherwise opposition and discontent to the Afghanistan war. So, the impression one gets that the Afghanistan invasion was approved by the entire world is clearly flawed. UN approval is totally irrelevant vis--vis the opposition of Muslims against the war in Iraq. Despite the UN approval, Muslims have resented the ouster of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan as much as the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

What if Iraq had not been attacked?

There is an overwhelming belief amongst the great majority of the non-Muslims, including the Westerners of Europe and America is that the attack in Iraq has enhanced the Islamic fanaticism and terrorism - especially against United and her allies. There is little doubt in the fact that the very intelligent Jihadists have exploited the worldwide unpopularity of the Iraq invasion by the US-lead coalition to get new recruits. However, it is equally naive to assume that had Iraq not been attacked, these Jihadists would have gone home and world would have been filled with peace and tranquility. Such thinking presents only half the truth, if not zero truth. If it were not for Iraq, these Jihadists would definitely have headed towards Afghanistan. Indeed, Afghanistan makes a more desirable battlefield for the Jihadists as compared to Iraq for two prime reasons:

- Firstly, the Jihadists want to create super kingdom of Islam (Islamic Khilafat modeled after the early Islamic empire/caliphate), styled after the Shariah-ruled Taliban regimes in Afghanistan, across the Muslim world which is to expand to all corners of the world. Indeed, the Taliban regime had a vision of expanding their type of purified Islamic kingdom to all over the world starting next with Pakistan . In reality they made a tangible progress in Talibanizing Pakistan in that the North-Western Province in Pakistan bordering Afghanistan is already being ruled by the Taliban-style religious regimes.

- Secondly, the secularist regime of Saddam Hussein was in sharp contrast to the Jihadi vision of a pan-Islamic kingdom and hence, Iraq made a less attractive destination for them.

Hence, the Jihadists who are coming from across the Islamic world to fight Jihad in Iraq, mainly the suicide bombers, are not there for the love of Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi people but for the cause and love of Islam and with the dream of instituting a Taliban-style Islamist regime in Baghdad. If these foreign Jihadists can successfully drive the US-lead forces and their Shiite and Kurdish allies out of Iraq, they in alliance with local Islamist Sunnis would exterminate the secular Baathists of Saddam Hussein's regime. Thus the Jihadists have little interest for the welfare of the Iraqis since a Taliban-style rule will not bring any good but only misery to the Iraqi people. The Jihadists aim is purely Islamic, not pro-Iraqi or pro-Saddam, neither pro-peace.

As founding and protecting the Taliban-style Islamic kingdom is the ultimate goal of the radical Jihadists, which is in direct contrast with the secular Saddamist regime of Iraq, the Jihadists would have felt doubly committed to fight in Afghanistan, instead in Iraq. Given these facts, these Jihadists, who are now fighting in Iraq, must have headed to Afghanistan with greater commitment and resilience. However, the rejection of the fanatic Taliban regime by majority of the weary Afghans made operations of the Jihadists more difficult there, especially during the early phase after the invasion. Of course, the majority of Iraqis (Shiites and Kurds) are also equally weary of Saddam Hussein's rule in Iraq which has been demonstrated in the courageous participation of the Iraqis under extraordinary situation in the elections for establishing an interim Government, then again in October 15, 2005 for approving the constitution and finally in January (2006) for a permanent Government. Yet there was some difference between the two regimes' disposition towards the cross-section of the people that have made managing the aftermath of Iraq war more difficult than the Afghan war.

The Taliban regime of Afghanistan had made the life of every ordinary citizen extremely miserable and difficult which had reduced their support at every level. A massive 25% of the total population had to leave Afghanistan to refugee camps in neighboring countries during the 5-year rule of the Taliban regime. However, because of the Saddam regime's special favor towards the minority Sunni population over the majority Shiites and Kurds, there have been a good deal of support for Saddam Hussein amongst the privileged Sunnis. It is evident that these privileged Sunnis are the ones fighting in Iraq for retaining their decades of domination over the majority Shiites and Kurds through brutal repression and injustice. But the Taliban regime failed to garner such tangible support from any section of the Afghan people. Thus, their struggle against the foreign forces has failed to create a momentum like that in Iraq in the initial phase.

Secondly, Saddam's huge army, well-trained in sophisticated weaponry and artillery plus the huge stockpile of modern weapons have made the resistance by a small number of Saddamist fighters, accounted to 20-30 thousands, quite effective. The Taliban did not have any major army or sophisticated weaponry and training to launch a lethal resistance against the US and NATO-lead foreign forces there. Thirdly, unlike the impoverished Taliban regime, the Saddamist fighters have a substantial financial and material (weapons etc.) support at their disposal to launch effective resistance which Taliban regime of Afghanistan failed to garner. And lastly, the addition of the suicide-bombing campaign mostly by the foreign Jihadists, have added lethality to the resistance in Iraq by multiple folds. This has been aided by the welcoming atmosphere for the foreign Jihadists amongst the Sunni communities in Iraq. But the Taliban's failure to garner substantial support amongst any community in Afghanistan has failed the suicidal Jihadists to create a substantial base for their suicide operation there. Naturally, the Jihadists have settled for the less desired but more convenient battleground of Iraq where they can cause serious casualties on the coalition forces. More importantly, a defeat of the US forces in Iraq would naturally mean a defeat in Afghanistan too, where also the US forces are engaged in difficult war-fronts against the Taliban insurgents.

Given these points, the idea that had Iraq not been attacked, Islamist campaign would have died down is naive in the least. These Jihadists would have redirected their efforts to enter Afghanistan. We would have seen much more devastating pictures in Afghanistan than what we see there today. The invasion of Iraq has only alleviated the sufferings of the Afghanistan people in the short term. The increased sufferings caused by the Jihadists in Iraq is not because of the increased anger of the radical Jihadists for lack of UN-approval in the invasion of Iraq but because of the reduced support base that they have received amongst the people in Afghanistan as compared to that in Iraq.

However, the Jihad is building momentum in Afghanistan, too. Fighters with training and expertise from Iraq are now helping the Taliban. Iraq-style suicide-bombing is in an upsurge. It is only the matter of time that the Taliban-lead insurgency in Afghanistan takes a similar shape as that in Pakistan. The defeat of the foreign forces is inevitable in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Time taken would be the only difference.

Part 3 will deal with similar occupations of non-Muslim countries by US/UN forces.

Muhammad Hussain is a researcher and freelance writer.
eXTReMe Tracker
Keep reading for comments on this article and add some feedback of your own!

Comments! Feedback! Speak and be heard!

Comment on this article or leave feedback for the author

#1
temporal
URL
November 19, 2006
04:31 PM

what a gem!

It has been clearly demonstrated that there is hardly any injustice against the Muslim minorities anywhere in the world.

ok boss...any more gems?:)

(another nominee for painting with broad strokes)

#2
Anamika
URL
November 19, 2006
06:14 PM

Thanks for the article. Reminded me a of a Palestinian poem which complained of the way the Palestinian cause has been treated by the rest of the Arab world - one line has remained in my mind "that the Palestinias are Usman's shirt" - bloody and ragged to be waved to fire up Muslims around the world but not to be helped or supported to overcome their misery.
Wonder if the jihadis ever consider that?

#3
Alamgir Hussain
URL
November 19, 2006
09:31 PM

Temporal,

I have made my points in the simplest of language. The issues I have placed in my articles are all in the public domain. Very little to do with the Koran as you blabbered in an earlier post. They need to be refuted point-by-point. If you are not interested, as you have suggested, you better don't poke your nose in with those one-liner insinuations. It's typical of Muslims and does not quite improve the image of the Muslims.

#4
Kannan
URL
November 19, 2006
11:29 PM

Alamgir,
I admire your forthright answer to Temporal's twisted comment.
We need people like you who can actually see the truth.
Thanks for your articles. will be waiting eagerly for the other posts from you

#5
Alamgir Hussain
URL
November 20, 2006
01:37 AM

Thanks Kannan,

I will post the last part of this series tonight. Probably more along the way.

#6
temporal
URL
November 20, 2006
01:41 AM

alamgir:

I have made my points in the simplest of language.

me too:)


if you are a serious writer you should select words carefully...after that start i quoted why should i waste my time? ( i did read it in full later)

my conclusion is ..let me put it in very simple words:

you appear to have made up your mind first and write later

want something more simpler?

this is agenda driven post...nothing original...sorry to have ruffled your feathers

#7
Alamgir Hussain
URL
November 20, 2006
02:00 AM

Hoo! made it real clear. And very intelligent response indeed! Keep it up.

#8
temporal
URL
November 20, 2006
02:05 AM

why, thank you sir:)

#9
Anamika
URL
November 20, 2006
03:30 AM

If you feel so strongly about the article temporal, why not let us know what those "injustices" are? And what is the "agenda" - I am honestly curious (and doesn't ALL writing have an agenda?)

For example, I struggle to understand why British-Pakistanis go to Israel as suicide bombers or students with LSE degrees murder American journalists. Or why people who get free education, live on the dole and take advantage of all the freedoms in the UK then talk about "bringing this country to its knees" or talk of jihad against the UK.

I dont agree with everything that Alamgir has said in his essay but his is a refreshing voice that doesn't implicitly try to condone Islamist terrorism by blaming it on "injustice" against Muslims on economic, political or military fronts.

He has made very good points about how Palestinians, Iraqis, Afghanis or Indian Kashmiris aren't attacking Madrid, NYC or London. In fact, most Palestinians detest the fact that their cause is bundled together with the greater Islamist cause because it makes things FAR MORE difficult for them.

Obviously you don't agree with him but why? I am honestly trying to understand - so could you be a little clearer please?

#10
Atlantean
URL
November 20, 2006
06:49 AM

Temporal,

Agenda? Where? What did Mr. Hussain say that qualifies as agenda?

Or are you just uncomfortable with this article?

From Wikipedia:

Denial is a defense mechanism in which a person is faced with a fact that is too painful to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.

Denial is harmful. The less denied, the better :)

#11
Aaman
URL
November 20, 2006
12:55 PM

One example to counter the statement 'It has been clearly demonstrated that there is hardly any injustice against the Muslim minorities anywhere in the world.' perhaps would be the Uighur Muslims in China, who've been designated a 'terrorist group' and effectively marginalized.

More importantly to the thesis of this essay, it is certain elements of certain societies that are anti-establishment, as in, anti-Western or anti-non-members, as opposed to all members of the society. Thus, it requires a more deft hand and a finer analysis to discern root causes of aggressive action than merely applying labels. I believe that is what temporal was trying to say, leastways, that is what I am saying:)

#12
Anamika
URL
November 20, 2006
01:07 PM

But most ethnic minorities in China have been marginalized and declared subversive, antipeople, antinational or terrorist. So have the Tibetan Buddhists - who not only have been massacred, hounded and destroyed, they are also now a minority in their own land thanks to "relocation" of ethnic Chinese to Tibet. So the policy is hardly Islam-specific.

And if we extend the Islamist logic, the Tibetans aren't attacking Beijing, London or New York although they would have equally valid reasons since they have been abandoned, their oppression aided and abetted, and their erasure from the world practically applauded, by major world powers.

I understand your emphasis on nuanced analysis and on not trying to draw too broad a brush stroke. At the same time, to decide that "oppression of Muslims" is the reason for Islamist terrorism in places ranging from Madrid to New Delhi is an equally facile logic. Yet that is is widely used and disseminated and accepted in most "liberal" intellectual as well as majority of Muslim fora. So is it then sauce for goose as well as the gander? :-)

#13
Aaman
URL
November 20, 2006
01:20 PM

No one is given free rein, at least on Desicritics, even (particularly?) the liberals:)

#14
Alamgir Hussain
URL
November 20, 2006
10:48 PM

Aaman, first thing is that it is unexpected that a standard human brain will be able to extract same message you have extracted from temporal's posts in this thread.

" Aaman: there is hardly any injustice against the Muslim minorities anywhere in the world."

I think you have failed to grasp my sentence. I did not say "absolutely no injustice". By nature a minority community would feel some disadvantage almost anywhere in the world. But these are nothing as compared to what happenes to nonMuslim minority in almost any Muslim country. If injustices against Muslims becomes the valid reasons for what is happening in Kashmir, Thailand, Chechnya etc, then non-Muslims in Muslim countries should have bruned those countries into ashes.

But we also have little idea of what the Uighur Muslims in China are doing. A number of them got landed in Guantanamo after being picked from Afghanistan where they were fighting Jihad. But make it sure that there's a new front of Jihad brewing in Uighur. It's only about time.

About marginalizations: Muslims are marginalized every where. In India, Thailand and Singapore, in Europe, Australia, Canada and USA and even in Muslim-majority Malaysia and Indonesia, and where not. It is nonsensical to accept any claim of marginalization against Muslims. It's better to study the case first before accepting such trash. What we conclude is that marginalization has become part and parcel of the Muslim community anywhere even where they are majority and holding the ruling machinery.

#15
Sujai
URL
November 21, 2006
12:35 AM

Alamgir:
You and I differ in our opinions. While I believe there have been certain injustices done to the Muslim World in the recent past (100 years) which contributed to terrorism on the global arena, you do not think such injustices have happened but that Muslims perceive it as such and hence justify their terrorists acts.

You say:
Indeed, it has become an unshakeable belief amongst the leftists, communists and majority of the liberals in the West that 'the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the justifiable causes for the terrorist attacks in Spain and London.'

I tend to disagree with this comment. We do not think that these wars are justifiable causes for terrorist attacks. We do not condone such attacks. However, we do believe that while 'trying to understand' the acts of terrorism, one has to include these wars as probable causes, in addition to many others that have transpired before. 'Trying to understand' terrorism does not mean justifying it, legitimizing it or condoning it.

You write:
...Islamist cells have been doing in many European countries, since long before the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Even long before the 9/11 attack in the US,...

This is not surprising to those analysts who have reasoned that certain injustices (or feeling of such injustices) have been there prior to Iraq and Afghanistan wars. For example, British and French division of Middle East, imposition of puppet regimes after WWI, Isreali-Palestine Issue, toppling Iran governments to install Shah, etc, preceded these wars.

More later. Thank you.


#16
Atlantean
URL
November 21, 2006
01:53 AM

...to decide that "oppression of Muslims" is the reason for Islamist terrorism in places ranging from Madrid to New Delhi is an equally facile logic. Yet that is is widely used and disseminated and accepted in most "liberal" intellectual as well as majority of Muslim fora.

Quite. While the "majority of the Muslim fora" and the leftist liberals "rationalise" Islamist terrorism with that logic under the banner "we're trying to find root causes", they dont realise, inadvertently or otherwise, that they are legitimizing, in the minds of the terrorists, the brutal killing of innocent people.

It is not so hard to imagine the Al Qaeda brainwashing their new recruit "See! Even some infidels like Naom Chomsky and Arundhati Roy think we are oppressed. Our jihad is justified!"

And...

If injustices against Muslims becomes the valid reasons for what is happening in Kashmir, Thailand, Chechnya etc, then non-Muslims in Muslim countries should have bruned those countries into ashes.

Quite. The Pakistani Army, a Muslim army, has raped 200,000 women, mostly Hindu, during the Bangladesh Liberation War in Bangladesh. That should be enough reason and fuel to burn the entire Muslim world many times over. We could start by hijacking a Fly Emirates airline and flying it right into the Kaabah at Mecca as "revenge for the oppression and injustice meted out to Hindus during the Bangladesh Liberation war at the hands of a Muslim army and bombing of a Hindu temple at the holy city of Varanasi in 2005." Alternatively, we can send suicide bombers to blow up Al-Masjid-Al-Haram.

Oh, no no no... I dont advocate all that. I'm just trying to apply the "we are oppressed, so we bomb the infidels" funda to the infidel-killers themselves, the Muslims and the leftist liberals, to see how it looks.

And it looks gross. The logic is almost nauseating.

#17
Anamika
URL
November 21, 2006
05:40 AM

Once again, rather strange logic Sujai as you state: "This is not surprising to those analysts who have reasoned that certain injustices (or feeling of such injustices) have been there prior to Iraq and Afghanistan wars. For example, British and French division of Middle East, imposition of puppet regimes after WWI, Isreali-Palestine Issue, toppling Iran governments to install Shah, etc, preceded these wars."

Lets see the Monroe doctrine rendered Latin America as USA's local fiefdom. Thousands of Chileans killed by US-backed Pinochet regime that overthrew the democratic Allende government. Justification and number of Chileans bombing Twin Towers? ZERO.

Same for Argentina, Venezuela, Peru, Colombia etc.

Move across a bit to Africa - colonial European divisions of Africa still cause poverty and conflict. Yet, number of Africans blowing themselves up in London and Madrid? ZERO.

Further eastward, shall we keep going? Hiroshima and Nagasaki - the greatest horror perpetrated on a defeated people. Yet Japanese attacking US embassies around the world? ZERO.

Or lets just come home. Minority Hindu populations cleansed and still being cleansed from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh (lets not even talk Kashmir). Yet number of those minorities blowing up trains in these countries? ZERO.

I think the liberal left logic has been exposed increasingly as hollow. And perhaps its time for people like Alamgir to be heard? Perhaps we need to start holding peoples responsible for bringing up their young men to be terrorist rather than trying to "understand" them?

After all other population groups are marginalised, cleansed, discriminated against, exploited, and yet few of them respond by turning self-destructive (both individually and collectively). And if they did, we wouldn't "try to understand" them but condemn that action and try to stop more of it (socially, politically, militarily - strategy is a separate issue). Why this special treatment of the jihadis?


#18
Anamika
URL
November 21, 2006
05:41 AM

Sorry Aaman - again that glitch where it eats up the name...the above post is mine. :-)

#19
Atlantean
URL
November 21, 2006
01:46 PM

Anamika,

Why this special treatment of the jihadis?

It's either:

A left liberal version of the Stockholm Syndrome

OR

You see, the guy is a naxalite sympathizer. He supports bloodthirsty extreme left gangs like CPI(Maoist), which is guilty of crimes like extortion, illegal possession of arms, terrorising innocent civilians and even killing many on suspicion of being "police informers" (mere suspicion, I wish to emphasize.) He has openly expressed support. These lines are from his href="http://desicritics.org/mt/mt-comments.php?mode=red&u=http://sujaiblog.blogspot.com/2006/04/telangana-new-state.html">blog:

# Aren't Naxalites fighting for Telangana using guns?

No. Naxalites have a different agenda. They fight for achieving equal social and economic status through redistribution of wealth and land, and ffering justice and opportunity to the backward classes. Their fight is valid wherever there is poverty and inequality in wealth- like Orissa, Chattisgarh, Karnataka, etc (most of these regions happen to be under Nizam before Independence).


Anamika, I come from the district of Nalgonda in Andhra Pradesh. It used to be a Naxalite stronghold (still is, though to a lesser extent.) When I was a child, my (joint) family became a target for extortion threats from a group of Naxals. My aunt was kidnapped twice. The first time, she escaped luckily but the second time, we had to pay ransom to secure her release.

That wasnt enough. They continued to harass my grandpa with extortion threats. Till that time, my grandpa didnt access police help because he feared for his life and the family. There were too many kids in the family, including me :)

But he thought enough is enough and complained to the police. He couldnt take this lying down. The Naxals got to know and one fine morning, while I was about to leave for school, they barged into the house and took control. They blocked all entrances and got my grandpa out. I thought it was all over. Thank God, they left him - with just a threat.

Now, what crimes did my grandpa commit to earn the wrath of the Naxalites? He runs a trust which awards scholarships to poor school/intermediate students, provides sewing machines to aspiring young women, provides hand driven tricycles for the physically handicapped. Lots of crimes those. As you can see, he's "a rich landlord who oppressed and exploited poor people."

If you ask Sujai, he'll tell you the kidnapping of my aunt twice and extortion threats (with death) made towards my grandfather by the criminal naxalites are valid because they come from a region where "there is poverty and inequality in wealth."

That should do Anamika? I think that answers your question "Why this special treatment of the jihadis?" I'm sure you can infer. There's a saying "Birds of the same kind flock together."

#20
Atlantean
URL
November 21, 2006
02:07 PM

PS Anamika,

They fight for achieving equal social and economic status through redistribution of wealth and land, and ffering justice and opportunity to the backward classes.

My family's caste counts as "backward class." You see the irony. Naxals claim they're fighting for the poor. Ironically, a large proportion of victims of Naxal violence are poor people. Many are executed on mere suspicion that they are "police informers." And there's a [EDITED] at Desicritics who thinks their fight (read terror) is "valid."

#21
Sujai
URL
November 21, 2006
03:01 PM

Atlantean:
You should grow up- to realize that these are opinions. Each of us are entitled to ours. However, you take them too personally. You keep on venting out your animosity towards me though we don't know each other personally. I don't talk about you specifically.

You write:
And there's a shameless idiot at Desicritics who thinks their fight (read terror) is "valid."

This is not even my article. I am not sure why it makes sense to bait me here, unless it gives you relief to vent out your hatred and venom on such blogs.

#22
Atlantean
URL
November 22, 2006
12:47 AM

Sujai,

You should grow up- to realize that these are opinions. Each of us are entitled to ours. However, you take them too personally.

Ditto!

Uncle, please realize that others, children like us, have opinions too. For instance, the opinion that

... there's a shameless idiot at Desicritics who thinks their fight (read terror) is "valid."

Nobody's forcing you to agree. Nobody's even asking you to read it. That was merely a reply to Anamika, not you. And at the end of the day, it's just an opinion isnt it? Everyone is entitled to one.

Relax now. Get some Complan :)

#23
Anamika
URL
November 22, 2006
06:57 AM

I agree with you Atlantean that the logic of "poor and oppressed" taken up guns is the one that leftists spout on a regular basis. As someone with roots in Eastern UP and Bihar, I also know just how spurious this logic is. The truly poor are too busy making ends meet to bother with taking up guns. Instead it takes people with relative amounts of money, education and power who prefer to establish "goonda raj" - be they Naxalites or RJD-style or indeed the killing, extortion and kidnappings by the Communist party in WB.

What is also interesting is that "poor and oppressed" logic does not hold for the jihadis either. Osama bin Laden cannot be considered poor OR oppressed by any standard. Same goes for the Saudis involved in 9/11 or the London bombers - one of whom was SOOO poor and oppressed that he had been given a Mercedes by his father as a gift. The killer of Daniel Pearl was also from a relatively stable background.

The problem comes in with the liberal establishment because they try to excuse what is obviously an ideological/religious motivation by passing it off as an economic and social one.
Am glad in any case to hear dissident voices on DC from within Islam. Most mainstream media relies on people like Tariq Ramadan to provide a moderate voice even though the man is a closet fanatic.

Ramadan's ideas of Dar-ul-Dawa and Dar-ul-Shahada are really the guiding principles for Muslim fanatics living in Europe and Western countries as well as gathering strength in other nonMuslim majority countries like India. Yet NO self-professed liberal is willing to talk about those. I wonder why?

#24
ravi
URL
November 22, 2006
10:22 AM

Can anyone answer this :
Does Islam forbid a convert to meet his kin, unless the kin also converts? A son's reason not to meet his father (60 years old man) after converting:
"Allah forbids us to talk to our Kin unless they embrace Islam."

#25
Alamgir Hussain
URL
November 22, 2006
10:35 AM

Yes Ravi! It is very clearly spelled in the Koran:

[Quran 9:23] O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers.

[Quran 58:22] Thou wilt not find folk who believe in Allah and the Last Day loving those who oppose Allah and His messenger, even though they be their fathers or their sons or their brethren...

#26
Sujai
URL
November 22, 2006
03:58 PM

One should understand the difference between an opinion and an aspersion.

Calling a specific author or commenter 'shameless idiot' is an aspersion, not an opinion.

There are many out there who are tiny in their minds, weak in their hearts, pusillanimous to the bone, not able to stand up for anything in their lives. They feel little and inadequate in their minds. They however vent their frustrations on forums such as these, hiding behind anonymous identities- resorting to casting aspersions, using invectives instead of providing reason, ridiculing people instead of refuting their opinions, employing abusive language, etc. They cannot maintain a civil argument and can therefore easily degenerate an argument using offensive and invective language. Unfortunately, this is their only way of relieving themselves off, compensating for their otherwise inadequate lives having no sense of achievements. Instead of making a rational and logical argument using saner and balanced tone and language, they resort to insulting and slandering the authors and commenters, by believing that such arguments have somehow compensated for their inferior position.

Jealous boyfriends throw acid on the faces of women who have spurned them, inadequate men resort to bullying on the streets to hide their cowardice, inferior husbands beat up their wives to relieve themselves of their incompetence, pusillanimous and chicken-hearted people hide behind anonymous identities to slander, insult and defame others on such blogs and forums.

Such weak minds are all pervasive but they resort to harming others when they get a chance or avenue where they don't have to stand up for their actions or words, where they don't have to face the consequences. Mobs in India react very savagely and brutally because the groups and chaos gives them a secure anonymity.

Anonymous identities give that avenue on such forums and this is grossly used to conduct a 'guerilla warfare' kind of debate- throw aspersions and then hide, not being accountable or responsible for anything that you say. It allows people to say anything they want without having to face the consequences or be held accountable. Blogs and online forums can work constructively only when the bloggers and respondents behave and maintain certain civility and decorum; otherwise it will become as murky and dirty as our Indian streets. No wonder India remains the way it is- there are so many out there who do not spare a minute to think or hesitate before throwing garbage or waste onto the streets, making India a big dumping ground for garbage. The same works for these blogs as well. Commenters do not bat an eyelid before writing offensive and abusive slanders against fellow commenters. It's unfortunate and sad!

#27
Atlantean
URL
November 23, 2006
02:43 AM

One should understand the difference between an opinion and an aspersion.

Calling a specific author or commenter 'shameless idiot' is an aspersion, not an opinion.


And what else is this gentleman going to define for me? Should I throw off all my dictionaries and start taking English classes from him?

Saying naxalism is "valid" is as much an aspersion.

It's an aspersion on the thousands of innocent people who have lost their lives to naxal bullets and bombs.

It's an aspersion on the hundreds of thousands of innocent, hardworking middle class people who have suffered extortion from naxals.

It's an aspersion on all those who value freedom - the freedom to live a peaceful life without being afraid of being killed or threatened by goondas like naxalites.

And it's an aspersion on all those who have lost that freedom or are in danger of losing it.

It's an aspersion on all civilized life.

Naxalism is terrorism... plain terrorism. Terror is what naxals seek to achieve from their attacks. Naxals execute anyone suspected to be "police informers." Its intended effect? To strike terror into the population of the village the "police informer" is from, so that they'll think twice before talking to the police. This is just one example.

The point I tried to make in #19 is that it isnt too hard to see why a person who opines that naxalism is "valid" in certain places has a soft corner when it comes to Islamist terrorists. Both naxalism and Islamist terrorism aim at violent revolution. Therefore, one shouldnt be surprised (as Anamika was at #17 - "Why this special treatment of the jihadis?") when a person with such a mindset becomes too apologist for Islamist terrorism under the dubious banner "trying to understand terrorism."

It doesnt make sense to discuss terrorism with such a person. It's like discussing rape control with the Sydney cleric, Al Hilali, who recently blabbered the apologetic words "Uncovered meat attracts rape." This explanation is similar to the "inequality and poverty attracts naxalism" and "oppression of Muslims brings terrorism" fundae that are favourites of the gentleman at #26.

Anamika points out quite rightly at #23:

Instead it takes people with relative amounts of money, education and power who prefer to establish "goonda raj" - be they Naxalites or RJD-style or indeed the killing, extortion and kidnappings by the Communist party in WB.

Omar Sheikh, the man responsible for murdering Daniel Pearl is a graduate of the London School of Economics. Osama Bin Laden is stinking rich.

And as readers here can infer, the gentleman at #26 is obviously very highly educated.

We're one of the poorest countries in the world, not only by percapita income but also levels of education. An education is still considered precious. Unfortunately, there are people in this country who use their education and knowledge to originate, propagate and promote violent ideologies. Almost always, these are targetted at their own countrymen! To make matters worse, there are many more who offer apologetic explanations, like the gentleman at #26. Such people pose a grave threat to individual freedom, civilized life, peace, tolerance, national unity, integrity and stability. This is not what either Gandhi or Nehru wanted from the educated young men of India. But alas! It is not so! This is sad and unfortunate!

#28
Atlantean
URL
November 23, 2006
02:51 AM

...resorting to casting aspersions, using invectives instead of providing reason, ridiculing people instead of refuting their opinions, employing abusive language, etc.

For an example of that, dear friends, I take you to comment #31 on this forum by that author:

Pankaj and Deepti:
Thanks for bringing another perspective to the argument.

I have never liked Francois Gautier's writings. He used to write at Rediff (may be he still does). He is a rabid Hindu fanatic unlike any Hindu fanatic.


Now, come back to #26:

Instead of making a rational and logical argument using saner and balanced tone and language, they resort to insulting and slandering the authors and commenters, by
believing that such arguments have somehow compensated for their inferior position.


Hmmm someone's explaining his own behaviour? Didnt someone say "people living in glass houses shouldnt throw stones"?

Anonymous identities give that avenue on such forums and this is grossly used to conduct a 'guerilla warfare' kind of debate- throw aspersions and then hide, not being accountable or responsible for anything that you say. It allows people to say anything they want without having to face the consequences or be held accountable.

People use anonymous identities for a reason. There's a whole funda behind the usage of anonymous identities. I dont have to explain. In any case, I leave my URL here, which leads to my blog, on which my email address is present.

Looks like the author of that rather unimpressive piece of prose needs an education on Internet anonymity. However, I dont expect old farts to understand the writings of us children with "inadequate lives having no sense of achievement." Our words dont carry any value, I warn hereby. People with extraordinary intellects may please stop reading what we kids write on these fora if they feel our writings dont measure up to their Intellectual Highness. They can quietly walk by.

Such weak minds are all pervasive but they resort to harming others when they get a chance or avenue where they don't have to stand up for their actions or words, where they don't have to face the consequences.

Why? Does the author want to send one of his naxalite friends over to kill me for speaking
out against naxalites and their illustrious comrade here? Please, spare me. I'm just a kid, with "an indequate life having no sense of achievement." I can as well be the beggar across the street. Spare me :)

#29
Abdallah
URL
November 26, 2006
09:57 AM

Let me put my two cents in here. Basically, there are two ways I could sum up this article, the long view and the short view.

The long view is that there is no way anyone can justify terrorism or suicide bombing of any kind in any place for any reason for any cause..!

You can't accept the argument that holds "because Muslims have been or are subjugated to horrendous acts of opperasions then they turn back and do the same and start killing innocent people in the name of Allah (SWT) that is a no starter with me.

The short view, as most of you know religion is a very powerful tool and anyone who want use it to his own advantage can always find good number of followers, one good example here is Osama Ben Laden all he needed was a cause he believed in and he had the resources and willing participants to carry out his evil agenda in the name of Islam and Muslims and he could do lot more damage and commit more killings if he is not stopped by the rest of us specially by us Muslims at large.

My points is this, thought it hurts and pains me very much to see what is happening to my fellow Muslims who are in reality my brothers and sisters everywhere from Palestine to Chechnya, but I will never under no circumstances accept that a Palestinian grandma blows her self up to kill one or more Israeli soldiers, this not because I'm passivist or weak but because if the rule of engagement was purely under Islamic teachings then what she did was wrong and Islam does not permit that. To begin if it war then all able Muslim men must be up arms in the front, not merely hapless and broken Grandma who had to die she believes what she is doing is right.

However, it's something most of the people in say America or elsewhere, particularly the so called Western Countries would never understand that if a Muslim is ill treated anywhere then it's the solemn duty of all Muslims to come to his or her aid without delay, now it depends what and how this aid is dispensed. Equally important is that, hate breads hate, killing will result irrational response and we all lose in the process.

It's my firm believe that any of the people who commit these terrorist crimes hardly understand the fact what they doing is wrong and immoral but they have a cause to fight and goals to fulfilled and using under the pretext of Islam to them is very well acceptable otherwise they would not want to die as Communist or under any other platform.

Said that, each situation does differ, for instant, in the case of Palestinians one can understand that drives these young and old people alike to carry out such a horrendous acts of terror, particularly where the receiving victims are none combatant civilians, they are faced with evils of occupation and ruthless opponent who does not care much for their lives hence, as we say in Arabic "On to me and my enemies" they carry out such acts again under the pretext of been martyrs..! And as they see their loved ones blown up and into pieces by 21rst century weaponry that they have no match for they end going after soft targets.
Will someone tell them otherwise, will anyone tell them, don't blow up yourselves because the world will brand you as Islamic terrorist, do they care.

Again, in my humble opinion, their means are questionable but there modus of operad is understandable, had they had an army to defend them, we would not have that grandma blowing her self up.

I think, because one wrong does not deserve another, yes they are wronged and in a big way and to put it simply and out in the open, they are the only people who live under total occupation by a state does is oblivious to their basic human rights and an army that is perhaps 1000 times more powerful then them. so is seucide bombs legitimate way to fight back, I' don't thing so but I'm not in their shoes and would not want be, honestly I just don't what I have done or to what extreme I would go if I was in their place.

Immorality is not calling the Palestinians suicidal killers but to question the occupation, it's evil powers and continues subjugations of the former by more powerful lot more supported later, the morality of western governments and media bewilders me when the death of 18 Palestinians from one family or two family are wiped out from the face of the earth by tank shell or fighter jet that provided and paid for and one an Israeli soldier gets killed or kidnapped the world stands still and their wrath descends on the Palestinians..!

So emotionally, no one in their right mind can ask me to condemn that old Palestinian grandma and what she did..! Here lies the real danger and that is when you are left in a corner and it becomes me against them..! Frankly that is what Ben laden and Al Qaidah do their best exploiting. And they do a good job at it.

As for the folks like Ben Laden and Al Qaidah members, well for this group I even don't have an excuse for them if even I tried since what they do, believe and stand for has no place in my Islam and has no meaning and has no objectives accept pure evil and total destruction of all that is good.

Look what is happening in Iraq today, What Zarqawi fellow terrorists and his predecessors are doing right know? what they have done in Amman, London, Madrid, Riyadh and Sharm El Sheikh and all these acts of genocidal -maniac terrorism has no place in Islam, otherwise they would be killing Muslims.

So if anyone tries to make you believe that all these some thing unique and tough and promoted by Islam then thing again, most of the dead are Muslims and logic demands that if a religion teaches such acts then at least it would put some defense mechanisms so to protect its own followers.

In a nutshell, terrorism is none Islamic, has nothing to do with Islam and has no place in Islam but those Muslims who practiced will always use the word of God and the tenants of Islam because it's the easiest and the best way they can stay ahead in the game..!
These folks I call them "preachers at the gates of hell"!


I very much despise Tony Blair and the British soldiers killing innocent Iraqis in Basra but that does not give me an inch of right to blow up buses in London and in the name of Islam.

That is all I ahve to say about the whole thing and anyone who does not like it can go and drink from the nearest sea..!

Abdallah

#30
Usman
URL
November 27, 2006
02:46 PM

Anamika, still waiting for your answer regarding 800 million... :)

#31
MA Khan
URL
November 27, 2006
10:12 PM

[In a nutshell, terrorism is none Islamic, has nothing to do with Islam and has no place in Islam...]

One just have to read Prophet Muhammad's biographies by Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa'd, At-Tabari et al. to understand whether he was Prophet or a terrorist mastermind. Reading the Koran and Sunnah would also help. In India, we can probably read the pious historical chronicles like Chachnama, Fawta-i-Alamgiri, and other history book by contemporay historians like al-Biladhuri, great (?) Sufi Abul Fazal et al. in order to make a grasp of the same thing.

Add your comment

(Or ping: http://desicritics.org/tb/3617)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.






Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!