Explaining it to an American Friend

saminashah #189 ``Some theorists have argued that growing Islamic fundamentalism is a response to what is perceived as an endless onslaught of the cultural, materialistic, and labor and enviromentally exploitative values of multinational corporations, complicit governments and IMF/World Bank hegemonies. ``

You are right in attributing fundamentalism as another aspect of globalization. I think the key word is your sentence above is ``perceived``: the fundamentalists perceptions are very narrow and conter-productive however. The fact is that without modern medicine, for example, bin Laden would by the laws of probability have died a natural death before he hit 40. The fundamentalists, rather than attempting to understand the world would rather drag the world down to their own level. There are no easy solutions - ultimately the solution has to be peace in all corners of the world, and human development so that mankind starts thinking as rationally as the technology within it`s control dictates. E.g., the mullah would need to think rationally before using the loudspeaker.

Ref Scout #: 188

[It isn`t Islam that has brought Afghanistan to it`s current state. Unless to a thick headed person like you, Islam is equal to the Taleban?]

Okay, it is not Islam; it is Pakistan who trained the Taliban and the ISI which funded them. Are you happy?

[Half the US and it`s Christian/Jewish leaders know that Islam is not about terrorism, except a few Indians on Chowk.]

Well, they didn`t have to live through a 1000-year occupation of their country by Islamist thugs. We have first-hand experience.

[Just as educated people know that Hinduism is not all about caste, dowries, satti, and hare-krishna orgies, educated people also know that Islam is not about terrorism.]

Is that why the Pakistani pigs talk about casteism all the time and how they escaped it by becoming Muslims?

[So quit being a racist pig.]

Just read what your own AAmir has posted

AAmir Reply #: 187

Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien said on Saturday that he felt ashamed over attacks on Muslims in his country.

No if`s and`s or but`s. A straightforward `I am ashamed.` No attempt to rationalize.

Have one of you pigs ever said `I am sorry` about the WTC terrorist attack without adding justification in the form of trampled Palestinian rights, the plight of Kosovars, Chechnya, Kashmir or a whole lot of other Muslim grievances? In which of course there NOT ONE MENTION of the plight of the Uighurs (Muslims, your Ummah, halal meat-eaters, Allah worshippers, panch-waqt namaazis, in case you have forgetten it).

You come to America, your dad runs a Section 8 apartment complex, taking money from the US government to let in the handicapped and you claim you are doing a great favor to Americans (I would like to visit one of those apartments to see what it is like), and you have the unmitigated gall to rationalize the attack on the WTC.

As somebody else said to Sarwari, there is a limit to namak-haram.

Why don`t you walk up to lower Manhattan and discuss with the rescue workers there your rationalization of the WTC attacks?

Why the war on Terrorism is going nowhere, but has the potential to become a war on Islam:

``Would-Be Allies Use U.S. War on Terrorism for Their Own Ends

George W. Bush`s impolitic call for a ``crusade`` by the civilized world against terrorism won more diverse support than he expected, but for reasons he did not anticipate.

Los Angeles Times Syndicate.

William Pfaff Sept 24, 01

PARIS

President George W. Bush`s impolitic call for a ``crusade`` by the civilized world against terrorism won more diverse support than he expected, but for reasons he did not anticipate.

The reason was that nearly everyone has his own ``terrorism`` problem, and each would like to invite the United States into his fight. They would at least like the United States to turn its official gaze away while they deal with their ``terrorists`` by using methods of which Washington in the past would not have approved.

Russia`s Vladimir Putin endorsed Mr. Bush`s call because he wants Washington`s crusade to incorporate the brutal, but as yet unsuccessful, Russian attempt to crush the Chechen nationalists. Moscow has consistently identified the Chechen problem as a case of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.

Ariel Sharon launched a battering of Palestine Authority sites during the hours that followed the attacks in New York and Washington, and described Yasser Arafat as a second Osama bin Laden, whom America and Israel should cooperate in crushing.

Washington rejected the comparison, knowing that if it wants Arab cooperation in dealing with Mr. bin Laden, Prime Minister Sharon has to be locked in a box.

Mr. Arafat had equal pressure put on him by Washington to become a blood donor, unconvincingly condemn terrorism and to call off the Palestinians` gunmen, all of which he did.

China explained that its troublesome minorities and dissident provinces - such as Taiwan - are ``terrorists and separatists.`` They should be condemned by the United States, China said, in exchange for China`s support for Washington`s anti-terrorism campaign.

India said that separatists in Kashmir are terrorists. Sri Lanka says the same thing about its Tamil insurrection. Turkey identifies Kurd national resistance as terrorism. Serbia says that Mr. bin Laden`s organization has branches in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo and in Albania itself.

Even the Irish Republican Army, whose stalwarts were recently caught instructing Colombian rebels, and whose own record includes skyscraper bombings, saw that it was expedient to deplore the Trade Towers and Pentagon attacks.

The White House was eventually forced on Sept. 18 to clarify the matter. U.S. policy, it said, is to ``eliminate`` terrorism around the world, but only ``when it threatens the United States.``

Your nationalists are my terrorists. My freedom-fighters are your terrorists. This is not a cynical observation, nor the judgment of a political relativist; politically, it simply is the truth.

What in principle distinguishes terrorism is indiscriminate violence. Civilians are considered legitimate targets in terrorist campaigns meant to achieve what otherwise might be defensible goals: democratic self-determination for Kashmir; an independent Kurdistan; Britain out of Northern Ireland; Israel out of the occupied territories.

The terrorist justifies terror as the only weapon available to the weak. He claims for himself (or herself; terrorism is an equal-opportunity enterprise) an expedient morality: that terror works - as frequently it does.

Mr. bin Laden, if indeed he is responsible for what happened on Sept. 11, has well and truly succeeded in getting the attention of Americans. Vengeance is cried now. Who is to say that the World Trade Towers and Pentagon attacks may not, in the long run, turn out to have influenced the U.S. government to pull back from the Middle East?

It took a single act of terrorism in 1983 to get American troops out of Lebanon. President Ronald Reagan had sent them to sponsor order and democracy, but there were no complaints in Congress when he abruptly ordered home the survivors of a car bomb at U.S. military barracks.

Rhetorical excess about crusades and ``eliminating`` terrorism-sponsoring nations is not only a political error, opening the situation to the exploitation and opportunism of others, but it confuses the issues for Americans themselves.

For the attacks were not, as Mr. Bush and his colleagues say, aimed ``at Western civilization`` or ``at those who cherish liberty.`` They were aimed specifically at the United States of America, for specific reasons.

They were meant to harm the United States, and no one else. They were retaliation for specific things done by the United States, and for specific American policies carried out over the years.

Americans may think those policies and those acts were entirely right and justified, or they may not. But Americans have to take responsibility for them, and accept their consequences.

We Americans need to be lucid about what has happened. Logically, this terrible experience should lead us to a new and serious reflection on what we have done in the past, and should do now. But that will not happen until the dust has cleared, and vengeance has been had. The troubling thought is that it might not happen even then.

Los Angeles Times Syndicate. PARIS President George W. Bush`s impolitic call for a ``crusade`` by the civilized world against terrorism won more diverse support than he expected, but for reasons he did not anticipate.

The reason was that nearly everyone has his own ``terrorism`` problem, and each would like to invite the United States into his fight. They would at least like the United States to turn its official gaze away while they deal with their ``terrorists`` by using methods of which Washington in the past would not have approved.

Russia`s Vladimir Putin endorsed Mr. Bush`s call because he wants Washington`s crusade to incorporate the brutal, but as yet unsuccessful, Russian attempt to crush the Chechen nationalists. Moscow has consistently identified the Chechen problem as a case of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.

Ariel Sharon launched a battering of Palestine Authority sites during the hours that followed the attacks in New York and Washington, and described Yasser Arafat as a second Osama bin Laden, whom America and Israel should cooperate in crushing.

Washington rejected the comparison, knowing that if it wants Arab cooperation in dealing with Mr. bin Laden, Prime Minister Sharon has to be locked in a box.

Mr. Arafat had equal pressure put on him by Washington to become a blood donor, unconvincingly condemn terrorism and to call off the Palestinians` gunmen, all of which he did.

China explained that its troublesome minorities and dissident provinces - such as Taiwan - are ``terrorists and separatists.`` They should be condemned by the United States, China said, in exchange for China`s support for Washington`s anti-terrorism campaign.

India said that separatists in Kashmir are terrorists. Sri Lanka says the same thing about its Tamil insurrection. Turkey identifies Kurd national resistance as terrorism. Serbia says that Mr. bin Laden`s organization has branches in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo and in Albania itself.

Even the Irish Republican Army, whose stalwarts were recently caught instructing Colombian rebels, and whose own record includes skyscraper bombings, saw that it was expedient to deplore the Trade Towers and Pentagon attacks.

The White House was eventually forced on Sept. 18 to clarify the matter. U.S. policy, it said, is to ``eliminate`` terrorism around the world, but only ``when it threatens the United States.``

Your nationalists are my terrorists. My freedom-fighters are your terrorists. This is not a cynical observation, nor the judgment of a political relativist; politically, it simply is the truth.

What in principle distinguishes terrorism is indiscriminate violence. Civilians are considered legitimate targets in terrorist campaigns meant to achieve what otherwise might be defensible goals: democratic self-determination for Kashmir; an independent Kurdistan; Britain out of Northern Ireland; Israel out of the occupied territories.

The terrorist justifies terror as the only weapon available to the weak. He claims for himself (or herself; terrorism is an equal-opportunity enterprise) an expedient morality: that terror works - as frequently it does.

Mr. bin Laden, if indeed he is responsible for what happened on Sept. 11, has well and truly succeeded in getting the attention of Americans. Vengeance is cried now. Who is to say that the World Trade Towers and Pentagon attacks may not, in the long run, turn out to have influenced the U.S. government to pull back from the Middle East?

It took a single act of terrorism in 1983 to get American troops out of Lebanon. President Ronald Reagan had sent them to sponsor order and democracy, but there were no complaints in Congress when he abruptly ordered home the survivors of a car bomb at U.S. military barracks.

Rhetorical excess about crusades and ``eliminating`` terrorism-sponsoring nations is not only a political error, opening the situation to the exploitation and opportunism of others, but it confuses the issues for Americans themselves.

For the attacks were not, as Mr. Bush and his colleagues say, aimed ``at Western civilization`` or ``at those who cherish liberty.`` They were aimed specifically at the United States of America, for specific reasons.

They were meant to harm the United States, and no one else. They were retaliation for specific things done by the United States, and for specific American policies carried out over the years.

Americans may think those policies and those acts were entirely right and justified, or they may not. But Americans have to take responsibility for them, and accept their consequences.

We Americans need to be lucid about what has happened. Logically, this terrible experience should lead us to a new and serious reflection on what we have done in the past, and should do now. But that will not happen until the dust has cleared, and vengeance has been had. The troubling thought is that it might not happen even then.``

Sameer,

Thanks for the kind words and insightful input, which resoante well with my own thoughts. As I have said many a time before (perhaps this board was not the most appropriate to repeat this) much of the Muslims` discontent with the West stems from their not being the ones in positions of influence. But, as you point out (I think), while such discontent may give rise to a perverse glee at the sight of towers crumbling, it scarcely motivates one to CAUSE such carnage.

As for the moral smugness of many Western Muslims (I know the ``Look-at-those-beysharm-loose-women`` type only to well -- and there are MANY -- just visit NJ, Queens or Missaugua to see -- I have long been calling for stricter `quality-control` of immigration.

regards,

PM

Question for harimau and Gowardhan,

Would you be able to suggest that Christianity was NOT a religion of Peace, living in the thirteenth century?

I understand Islam is more problematic, what with words in the inerrant book calling for the death of unbelievers, but there are other words that prohibit the spilling of any innocent blood.

regards,

PM

My duh duh duh Gowardhan,

You write: ``When some people tell the world that there is no difference between throwing acid on the faces of women who dont wish to wear burqa is the same as expecting everyone to wear clothes in public, no difference between killing 6000 people by hijacking airplanes and crashing them into buildings and responding to such crime, someone has to stand up and call their bluff.``

When people start twisting other people`s words to suit their agendas of hate --or, alternatively, when they are so dense or prejudiced as to be rendered incapable of comphrension-- it`s time to stop responding to them altogether -- unless of course, they can come up with some credibe evidence for what they claim.

Good Luck!

PM

From Molko`s reprint of Christopher Hitchens article, #176:

``In one form or another, the people who levelled the World Trade Centre are the same people who threw acid in the faces of unveiled women in Kabul and Karachi, who maimed and eviscerated two of the translators of The Satanic Verses, and who machine-gunned architectural tourists at Luxor....But the bombers of Manhattan represent fascism with an Islamic face, and there`s no point in any euphemism about it. What they abominate about ``the west``, to put it in a phrase, is not what western liberals don`t like and can`t defend about their own system, but what they do like about it and must defend: its emancipated women, its scientific inquiry, its separation of religion from the state.``

As tempting as this thesis is for its simplicity, it seems to be flawed. The people who flew the planes into the WTC buildings, by many accounts from neighbours and acquaintences, did NOT fit the stereotypical image of religious extremists. They were hardly the types to throw acid on unvieled faces. Gun down tourists in Luxor? Maybe, but that`s as much a political agenda as a theological one. Strange that the author should lump it in with acid throwing.

Yes, many Muslims settled in the West secretly disdain liberal Western values, (as do a growing number of Westerners themselves), and even dream of the day the West turns Islamic. But to suggest that such Muslims are willing to create this Utopia through acts of terrorism is just plain nonsense.. It takes a LOT more to fly a plane into a building. It takes being really really pissed off and desperate.

``And I think I can claim to have been among the first to point out that Clinton`s rocketing of Khartoum - supported by most liberals - was a gross war crime, which would certainly have entitled the Sudanese government to mount reprisals under international law. (Indeed, the spectacle of contented Clintonoids on TV, applauding the ``bounce in the polls`` achieved by their man that time, was even more repulsive than the sight of destitute refugee children making a wretched fiesta over the nightmare on Chambers Street.) But there is no sense at all in which the events of September 11 can be held to constitute such a reprisal, either legally or morally.``

Is he kidding?!? In no sense can the WTC attacks be a reprisal? What would he needed for the mt oindeed constitute a reprisal? Another A-bomb on Nagasaki??

Shahgul 185

You should be ashamed you are free to write this crap being in the West. Probably you will be out there supplying him bomb, telling him Bible was all lies, Quaran is all right, go kill those kafirs. Shameful hypocracy.

Brad Cruise 191

Dalai Lama said right thing. But interesting he said that it is worse in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir.

Obviously India has not thought properly about emotional needs of Kashmiris which outsiders with their own strategic depth plans have exploited.

Anny 194

I dont hate you. I hate people willing to kill for religion and the sponsorers of these religious murderers. These killers will not stop after they have killed your tamed saheb, eklavya, scoutie and hamidm. They will go after you, me, everybody. Love is fine but love never stopped relgious murderers. We must be ready to fight them hard.

If we make a policy we will *never * tolerate anybody killing for religious beliefs, imagine how much safer everybody will be. Minorities will be safer in Pakistan, India, all over. Everybody is part of some minority. Do we kill all of them? People will prefer to be safe than loving terrorists till they are shot in their loving head. Time for everyone to think and make a clear choice, not play both sides. I do hate people playing both sides. From them finally support for terrorists comes even if they are fools not realizing that.

I make strong statements against Pakistan because it has made a policy of creating, supporting, exporting terrorists. Only a fool will doubt what game Pakistan has been playing. It may change for better now, even for english speaking Pakistanis who think they are representing Pakistan. These people should take their heads out of sand and be as much worried as victims of Pakistan exported terrorism among other countries. Crying about past injustices is sickening. Everybody suffered injustices, feels they suffered most. Complaing about Kashmir when worse things happen and are happening in Pakistan is also pathetic. If Pakistan kept its nose in its own place itself I would not want to hate it. Anyhow doesnt matter what people think of me.

Thank you for your lovingly comment.

Dear Anny#194

``akash annoy me really bad``

I am sorry if I annoy you. I have made it clear time and again that I hate(no hypocrisy!) Pak establishment and the way it has acted like an unscruplous enemy to ruin India. However I was always careful to make this distinction between Pakistanis or Muslims(Indian Muslims are better than Pakistanis:-)) and the state of Pak. I bear no ill will against any individual Pakistani and I have also interacted with many of them. Show me a single post of mine on the Chowk where I have attacked a Chowkie personally calling him names or where I have called Islam/Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) by unsavoury names. It is okay to have different opinions on things, we can agree to disagree.

anNy #194, ``you stop saying these bad things now or i`ll whip out my brand new wand and cast a spell on you and turn you into a bright pink toad with painful pimples and a yellow nosie to match..hmmn?:)``

How could you change him into something he is already? ;)

I like being mean sometimes.

Mr.gowy # 179 on pakistaniz in general

``Your whole life is hate. Your country was created in hate. *Of hate you will die. *``

hawwwww no :)im going to die acting cute and spreading silliness and being as outrageous as i possibly can and loving painful people like unkal jay and nice people like elavya and tahmed sahab and scoutie and even you sometimes...no hate (unless hamidm and akash annoy me really bad)...:).you stop saying these bad things now or i`ll whip out my brand new wand and cast a spell on you and turn you into a bright pink toad with painful pimples and a yellow nosie to match..hmmn?:)

lovingly,

anNy potter

Rsaxena,

I see that human catastrophes and tragedies have once again failed to invoke any human response.... but as always a nazi one... You are not only a disgrace to humanity, but a disgrace to India itself.

Stuka

You have debased yourself to the standard of Ali1. This makes me sad.

Hindustan(Bharat) lose one more vote of Confidence from the Buddhist leader Dalai Lama .

First ,the USA,recovering from case of Amnesia remembered what position Idia had taken in 68 against Chekoslavakian invasion by Indias friend & ALLY soviet union, remembering the PIVITOL role Pakistan has played in combatting Communism in whole of ASia .A little appreciated ,fact ,now tha suddenly India trying to rub off its Commie Red stain of innocent blood .HAS HINDIAN,EVER STOPPED TO THING HOW BIGOTED THEY ARE PERCEIVED BY REST OF THE WORLD??Haria,Jay,Gobar,Sux Sena ..any one of you

Dalai rakes up J&K again

Poornima Joshi

(Dharamshala, September 22)





Tibetan spiritual leader Dalai Lama has stirred the Kashmir controversy again. And this is the second time in a matter of months. If there were a slew of denials earlier, this time the pitch was high. Moreover, he didn`t stop short of just rubbing India`s Achilles heel, the Lama subtly criticised India`s ``over-cautious`` approach to Tibet.

As if to underline that when he talks about freedom, it`s not in the context of Tibet alone, the Dalai Lama told a group of journalists that India should have tackled the Kashmir problem through dialogue ``much earlier``. Replying to a question on Pakistan`s activities in Kashmir, the Dalai Lama said, ``If you first talk about autonomy and change the position later, it becomes a problem``. He said though Kashmir has an elected government and living standards are better than in Pakistan occupied Kashmir, the common Kashmiri is unhappy.

``Ideally, they should have been satisfied. But, it is clear that somewhere, emotionally, they are not. And that is a problem,`` he said. ``I remember meeting Pandit Nehru in 1963. Sheikh Abdullah was also present with his son Farooq. Some serious discussion was on. Perhaps, reconciliation could have been sought,`` he said.





OTHER STORIES



Nation’s shame: Starving Orissa family sells children * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *