A Cancer Researcher At The Scene

Good article Aditi. Nice analogy.

But what if a person has been brainwashed to the extent that he considers death as a step to 'paradise', and what if he feels extremely happy carrying out his merciless killings, and is PROUD of killing people he believes to be "scum" and "infidels" ? I think there are some people in this world who are brainwashed to the extent where compassion, reason and conscience deserts them - then they are like perfect killing machines.

With regards to cancer - Genetic mutations, I believe, are generally the result of radiation or toxic chemical based alteration of DNA in healthy cells. The key culprit here is the "radiation" and "toxic chemicals". Thus, to avoid cancer, I feel it is very important for people to recognize the various sources and types of toxic chemicals and radiation, and avoid them/eliminate them.

With respect to terrorism, the radiation and toxicity is racial/religious/ideological hatred and intolerance, along with economic poverty.
Unless we elimiate the sources of hate and eliminate poverty, new cancerous terrorists will keep on popping and spreading occasionally here and there..

Love and peace to all,
Ayan

Ayan, you make some good points, and I'd even say that poverty does play some part in recruiting those at the bottom of the pyramid. But there are also many instances where not poor and not illiterate Muslims have indulged in the same terrorist acts as their poor brothers.

excellent piece aditi. very well thought thru piece that is a good anti-dote to the "magic bullet" solution of separating the "good guys from the bad guys" and eliminating the latter. if only it were that simple, we wouldn't be in the mess that we are in.

thought i might as well add my voice here before the tread gets inundated with those who will surely accuse you being "soft on terror".

Aditi

When there is a Cancer in the body, what would you do with it? Would you appease it? Would you let it grow? Would you go look for root causes and blame them causes instead of doing something about the tumor cells? Would you treat Cancer tumor as dear part of the body needing tender loving care? Or would you remove the tumor at the first opportunity? Would you wait for 3rd stage to rescue patient from the cancer or do something about it right away? Think what a trained doctor would do. Now extrapolate that to the realm of another cancer - terrorism in the body politic of nation. Now re-evaluate what you have said in your post and see if it is science or Woodoo Frankensteinism. Me thinks your analogy is flawed. Behavioral fields are not amenable to scientific or deterministic precisions nor predictabilities of a science. Groups, nations, Cultures, ideologies, theologies and how they pursue power are not amenable to science or extrapolations.

I've thought long and hard on this topic, Aditi, and you write an excellent article, making excellent points. Preventive therapy is, in the end, the appropriate method - with heart disease, cancer, high blood pressure, arthritis, along with a whole host of diseases of society, including terrorism.

Based on what I've seen over the last fifteen years, it is education that makes terrorism possible. Control the inputs into a mind and soul, and you can program terror, just as you can program saintliness. Of course, the saintliness is a lot harder to program. And then there is the argument of what constitutes saintliness, etc. Let's stay away from that can of worms.

But if you can educate for terror, you are led to the topic of controlling the source of funding for educating for terror. This is the proactive solution to preventing other "tumors of terror" from developing.

The schools which appear to teach terror, murder and violence the most on this planet are the madrassas controlled by the Wahhabi. And since the Wahhabi are rolling in oil money, they have lots of money to invest in madrassas. It's the old story. The headmaster of a school has to please the funders of the school. The Wahhabi funders of the madrassas have a philosophy which essentially says, "my way or the grave".

And that is what the kids learn. So they come out primed to do "good deeds" in this faith of "my way or the grave". And most often, this means being a soldier for the faith - a terrorist.

This finally leads us to how to cut off the Wahhabi funding for the madrassa. This is, unfortunately, most effectively accomplished by cutting off the life of the Saudi monarchy, and returning Arabia to its rightful owners, the Hashemi clan, now ensconced in their residences in Amman.

I say "unfortunately" because it means war.

It is not poverty that drives people to terror, it is ideological commitment. So those who would teach the ideological commitment to kill all those who do not comport with the beliefs of the Wahhabi are those who must be gotten rid of. Realistically, this most likely means they must be killed. The costs of allowing this terror funding machine to exist grow each day.

Not only has it created a dominant philosophy that has allowed the Wahhabi to hijack Islam, it has provided a model for the Moslem Brotherhood, which has been long infiltrated by the Wahhabi ideas, it has provided a model for statehood for the Taliban which now rules the Pashtun in Afghanistan with the evil hand of oppression, and in addition to all this, it has provided a model for the Islamic Republic of Iran - both in governance, and in pursuing messianic politics combined with a reëstablishment of the Persian Empire.

This is not said to somehow "protect" Israel. Even if all of us Jews were driven out of our home here and an Arab Filastin established in place of our Jewish entity, there would still be the heavy hand of terror hanging over the all of the planet defined as dar-al-Harb by the Wahhabi.

I concentrate on Wahhabi terrorism as opposed to Russia or North Korea because its tentacles are world-wide. The disease, the cancer, is spreading daily.

Mumbai was just an exercise. It was a skillfully orchestrated attack on India's financial center, and on India, in part to show the world's most populous democracy that it has neither the tools nor the spine to crush Wahhabi-inspired terror.

I repeat. Mumbai was just an exercise. As the announcers on the "Tonight Show" like to say, "there is more to come".

An excellent article
My congratulations
The concept of Terrorism is far more complex which cannot be provided a valid reason or compared with intricacies of a carcinoma. I have friends in the medical science with whom I can't discuss as it inevitably ends in the loss of a great friendship.

Thank you all for your comments!

kerty: I am not sure what is worse, your understanding of terrorism or cancer therapy. :)

The issue isn't whether or not one can excise a tumor. The question is what is required in order to decide whether one can. Is it thoroughly distinguished from the surrounding areas? Similarly, how does one distinguish who the terrorist is? A nation that has a high number os terrorists? A nation that has a high number of Muslims? How do you attack one and know for sure that it is only the terrorists you are destroying and not innocent lives? If you kill say a few terrorists, do you know for sure that another terrorist attack would not happen? In this respect, cancer is very similar to the menace of terrorism. You never know if a tumor that has been surgically removed will return. Hence you have prophylactic (preventative) medication and routine diagnostics. One definitely does not mollycoddle a tumor, but one doesn't rush in with a scalpel either like a certain G.W.

Lastly: Analogy is not equal to Extrapolation! I had trusted my readers to know that an example should not be taken quite so literally as to then run after a terrorist with a scalpel.

Aditi

"The issue isn't whether or not one can excise a tumor. The question is what is required in order to decide whether one can. Is it thoroughly distinguished from the surrounding areas?"

Terrorism is such a black and white issue one would assume this is one area where we would have a consensus and not have to split hairs or put it thru complicated surgeries to diagnose it. Those commandos did not suffer any ambiguity as to who was a hotel guest and who was a terrorist. Those who want to fight it make it a point to find out, distinguish - its not a rocket science or cancer science.

kerty: you are talking about one contained attack at a hotel. my article is about the menace of terrorism, not just the mumbai attacks or 9-11 or 7-11. There is no guarantee that there will be no more terrorist attacks because the commandos managed to kill the ones who were in the hotels.

also, I will presume that the hotel guests weren't firing back at the commandos :) thats should allow easy distinction.

So what you are saying is, the only time we truly can distinguish between a terrorist and an innocent civilian is when one has an incursion similar to what happened in Mumbai last Wednesday?

All terrorists are moslems but all moslems are not terrorists - that is a common refrain offered against war on terror. Can we separate the two? How? Should it be done by Moslems or if moslems are not willing to do it, should somebody from outside do it for them? Should we even care to distinguish?

We hear any attack on terrorism as war on Islam and war on moslems. Even when war on terrorism is at local level, the whole Islamic world cries out in anger as if whole of global Islamic Umma is attacked. We can not target terrorists because moslems feel they are being targeted. We can not pass anti-terror laws because these laws are not viewed as laws aimed at terrorists, but aimed at moslems and Islam. The boogy of Islam-is-in-danger is raised. In a nut shell, moslems are unwilling to distinguish themselves from terrorists. At least moslem leadership is unable to do so. And if average moslem disagrees, we seldom hear their voices. One can argue that since all moslems are not flocking to be terrorists, that is proof enough of their voices spoken thru actions. But that is hardly convincing enough. Not everybody have to join the army to defend a nation, as long as enough of them do, job gets done. Not all moslems have to join the terrorist rank for jehad, as long as some of them do, the mission is accomplished. If this is a cynical view, it is for moslems to dispel it.
What makes one a moslem and what makes moslem a jehadi? Both are wedded to same religion, same Koran, same way of life. Than why one is good and the other one is not? What drives one to virtiuous life and other one to life of terror? We hear that Islam drives one to be a good moslem while jehadism drives moslem to be a militant terrorist. Is Jehadism inseparable from Islam? Jehadi ideology is attributed to Deoband and Wahabi sects of Islam. If that is the case, than every moslem belonging to Deoband/wahabi sect is a sleeper cell for jehad, and terrorism. Why would such moslems disassociate themselves from Terrorists? And why should our counter-terrorism care for such distinction? Let the chips fall wherever they might - it is up to moslems to get out of its way. Having tried all else and failed, that is what India needs, considering that Indian continent is the epicenter of Deoband/Wahabi sects of Islam that do not distinguish between terrorism, Jihad and Islam.

good luck aditi! not that "he" needs a soap-box to be handed to him....

Shaaaks!

Aditi

"the only time we truly can distinguish between a terrorist and an innocent civilian is when one has an incursion similar to what happened in Mumbai last Wednesday?"

The incursion did not just happen out of the blue. It went thru funding, recruitment, training, planning, reconnaissance, logistics, execution stages - any of these stages could have been intercepted to preempt the incursion and punish the actors. But our main problem is we could not have done anything about it even if we had intercepted them prior to execution of terrorist acts - because in the eyes of laws, no crime is committed as yet, and therefore everybody involved would have to be treated as innocent civilians at each of the stages of their operation prior to actual execution of terrorism. Our laws would not allow them to be treated as terrorists or suspects or guilty but as law abiding civilians falsely accused because they are moslems.

We need specially trained, specialized agencies armed with specialized laws and it is imperative that they be kept non-politicized because most people caught in their net will happen to be Moslems. And that is the hardest part for moslems, media and politicians who thrive on votebanks.

The main issue is not how to distinguish. It is lack of political will. When there is a will, it can find its way.

#10 reformatted to make it readble

All terrorists are moslems but all moslems are not terrorists - that is a common refrain offered against war on terror. Can we separate the two? How? Should it be done by Moslems or if moslems are not willing to do it, should somebody from outside do it for them? Should we even care to distinguish?

We hear any attack on terrorism as war on Islam and war on moslems. Even when war on terrorism is at local level, the whole Islamic world cries out in anger as if whole of global Islamic Umma is attacked. We can not target terrorists because moslems feel they are being targeted. We can not pass anti-terror laws because these laws are not viewed as laws aimed at terrorists, but aimed at moslems and Islam. The boogy of Islam-is-in-danger is raised.

In a nut shell, moslems are unwilling to distinguish themselves from terrorists. At least moslem leadership is unable to do so. And if average moslem disagrees, we seldom hear their voices. One can argue that since all moslems are not flocking to be terrorists, that is proof enough of their voices spoken thru actions. But that is hardly convincing enough. Not everybody have to join the army to defend a nation, as long as enough of them do, job gets done. Not all moslems have to join the terrorist rank for jehad, as long as some of them do, the mission is accomplished. If this is a cynical view, it is for moslems to dispel it.

What makes one a moslem and what makes moslem a jehadi? Both are wedded to same religion, same Koran, same way of life. Than why one is good and the other one is not? What drives one to virtiuous life and other one to life of terror? We hear that Islam drives one to be a good moslem while jehadism drives moslem to be a militant terrorist. Is Jehadism inseparable from Islam? Jehadi ideology is attributed to Deoband and Wahabi sects of Islam. If that is the case, than every moslem belonging to Deoband/wahabi sect is a sleeper cell for jehad, and terrorism. Why would such moslems disassociate themselves from Terrorists? And why should our counter-terrorism care for such distinction? Let the chips fall wherever they might - it is up to moslems to get out of its way. Having tried all else and failed, that is what India needs, considering that Indian continent is the epicenter of Deoband/Wahabi sects of Islam that do not distinguish between terrorism, Jihad and Islam.