Terrorism is Nobody's Monopoly

#63 by SR

The Mamluks of Egypt despite desperate attempts on their part to negotiate peace.

I wonder where you got this. This is incorrect. There is no disagreement over the detail that Sultan Qutuz had rejected Hulagu`s demand of an unconditional surrender and had the Mongol envoys beheaded and their heads hung outside the city gates. Noone had previously dared to do that with Mongol emissaries. Thereafter, Hulagu started preperations to invade Egypt and the Mamluks decided to take the war to the Mongol camp instead, completely destroying the Mongol army, and clearing the way for defeat of the last crusader empire 30 years later.

The battle of Ain Jalut (The `Spring Of Goliath`) was a decisive turning point in history and carries many parallels with today. It is also not insignificant for some that Ain Jalut is situated in the present day Palestine.

Re: # 53
Salim Sahib,

{The key thing to remember is that Muslims traditionally don`t cooperate in well-defined, wars with definite beginnings and endings - yes, they don`t play the 9 inning game, the ODI, the 5-day Test Match, the 15 round match, or the 1 hour game with four well-defined quarters. To them the struggle goes on until either they succeed or they disappear}

The same can be said for any other major civilization, why should we Muslims wear it as a feather in our cap? Chinese, European, Latino, American (pre-independence), African, christian, jewish, hindu, athiest they have all shown their displeasure of being subjugated by a foreign or evil force. Muslims have no monopoly over honor or bravery.

#70 Zeemax sahib,

To keep things in perspective this is what u stated earlier:

{Least of all, Muslims do not tolerate oppression and conquest. It is true that their religion inculcated that in them. They will indeed bomb their oppressors tiil either is vanquished}

I have given historical evidence refuting your above statement. Muslims have ruled and have been ruled, they have conquered and been conquered, they have been guilty of oppression at the same time suffered oppression. To claim otherwise would be foolish and arrogant, and you have admitted this in your last post.

{It is quite futile to argue that Muslims were defeated in battle many times, because which empire has never been defeated in war?}

And which civilization has not stood up against opression or occupation? Your statement implies that only muslims have demonstrated the ability to retaliate and fight for their honor which is clearly incorrect, reeks of self-righteousness and religious arrogance.

100+ plus years of British raj in India, occupation of Muslim lands extending from the far east to europe if that is not good enough proof then there is no need to argue cause you clearly do not have the capacity to comprehend history or reality. Your continued tirade against everything that is western and false perception of muslim history epitomizes muslim state of mind which wishes to bring back their glory days and ignore reality.

Lastly, if one is to use proper language they will be responded with the same courtesy but if they wish to indulge in sarak chhap lingo then there is no dearth of insults and profanities. Meaning, do not initiate something which you cannot tolerate or manage. Having said that, and not knowing of what iam being accused, please accept my apologies.

cheers.

#72

And which civilization has not stood up against opression or occupation?

The Hindu civilization of the Indian sub-continent. This was my point all along.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

You are right, Qasmi Saheb. Muslims are not the only terrorists, nor indeed are they the pioneers in this field. And yet, right now they have the misfortune of being profiled as potential terrorists. Why?

This was not so until recently. The modern chapter of terrorism perhaps started with the SLA and their famous kidnapping of Patty Hearst, which gave rise to concepts like Stockholm syndrom. Various extremist Marxist organizations took up arms and kidnappings. Hijacking by such groups gave rise to jokes like ``fly me to Cuba`` as early hijackers tended to go to force the planes to go to Cuba. The poster child of kidnappers, Leila Khalid, was a Christian. The most celebrated terrorist, Carlos, the Jackal, was a also a Christian. However, they never invoked their religion in their fight. There had been Muslim terrorists before without Islam being associated with terrorism: Indian revolutionaary struggle, started by Bengalis, did have Muslim revolutionaries/terrorists/freedom fighters. The PLO led a struggle for Palestinians without ever being labelled as Islamists and won respect and recognition form all quarters. The Bosnian Muslims won support for their struggle because they based it not on a religous but ethnic identity. Even JKLF kidnappings in India were not regarded as Islamic terrorism.

If terrorism today is associated with Islam, the blame for it, in my opinion, should go to those fighting the US hedgemony in the world and especially its Middle Eastern policies. Whether it is hamaz, hezbollah or Al Qaeda, they have all invoked Islam, in particular the concept of jehad and martyrdom, to fight their battles (The US, too, is responsible for this because they are the ones who exploited the Islamic concept of jehad to mobilise non-afghans to fight their enemy in Afghanistan and had no problem in praising Mujahids when it suited them). Even though the root cause was political, the response has been couched in religious terms and, from all accounts, has proved a large receptive constituency in the Muslim world. It was then inevitable that the religon would get associated with the type of acts we call terrorism.

#75 dm now that is called doing a hand stand on a pin-head. No not sitting on a fence!

#75 by dost-mittar

An excellent analysis and cinclusion:

Even though the root cause was political, the response has been couched in religious terms and, from all accounts, has proved a large receptive constituency in the Muslim world. It was then inevitable that the religon would get associated with the type of acts we call terrorism.

Just to add to the above: The loss of individual nation-state identities due to huge disenfranchisement created a vacuum in the identity of the struggle itself. The invoking of religion was natural to fill that vacuum. It happened of its own accord and quite effortlessly. The transition to Hamas from the secular PLO is an example.

#77, #75 did pakistan lose its identity? Did the arabs theirs? This argument is hog-wash, and excuse for the crimes committed. What about the Sri lankan Tigers?

lets face it is incompetence amongst the leadership to deliver that takes the populace towards terrorism. If there was some thought and thinking terrorism would not be resorted to.

DM, #75

Nothing can mobilize masses like religion does. Al Qaeda clearly knows that. If it did not invoke ``Islam`` it will get nowhere with the masses. If no Islam, Al Qaeda will die an unsung and quiet death, just as all other ``secular`` terrorist organizations.