London Targeted: Numbers Game

hamidm mian#58: `` it is a horrible crime against humanity, but ...``

Please do not put words in my mouth. I don`t put any, ``buts`` around this. I think it is a horrible crime against humanity. End of story.

The only person who puts, ``buts`` around killings is you. And I think it is about time, individuals of your ilk were taken to task. And they started taking the blame for some of this violence.

The individuals in London would be alive today, had you and others of your group, not been waving your war flags. I think deep down inside you know that. At least, I hope you do. Many of us had been warning that this violence would spread. However, individuals like yourself, were immune to such advice.

Many of us are still warning that violence like this will spread furthur. It is not happening in isolation. The individuals who carried out the attacks themselves, are assocaiting this with Iraq. The mayor of London warned against this. However, there are too many people with your views, who could care less.........

Luckily, now, even before this attack, 60% of Americans have realized that this violent circle needs to be stopped. And are starting to accept what people like me have been saying from day one, i.e. this Iraq escapade will not make the world, including their world, safer. It will make it more dangerous. Now if individuals like yourself, could be isolated, maybe sanity can return.........

Anil #39: ``I would only ask you to think if you would have considered bombing of Baluchistan by Pakistan and brutality of Pakistani Army in East Pakistan as State Terrorism.....I give you my answer now so that there is no doubt where I stand. I would NOT consider them as State Terrorism,``

I do not know the details of the bombings of Baluchistan. So I cannot comment there. But, East Pakistan, was definitely, beyond a shadow of a doubt, a case of State terrorism. I believe most Indians and all Bangladeshis consider it, as such..........I believe this was the official stance of India and Indira Ghandi also......If it wasn`t, then I am not sure under what precedence India attacked Pakistan...........

``Why these acts be Islamic, and those calling as Islamic or in support of Islam be dealt sternly by people within the Islamic tent?``

They should be dealt sternly by people, within Islam. I know they are being dealt sternly by Pakistan. Pakistan has, infact, faced far more violence than UK. And has lost far more soldiers than UK.

``Why these acts be not called Al Qaida-ism or Binladinism and perpetretors of these acts be called the followers of Al Qaida or Binladin, and not believers of Islam? Why?``

I am not clear what the question is here. The perpertrators of these attack are believers in Islam. The perpetrators of any attack are belivers in some religion. And they have committed terrorism. I think everyone should acknowledge that. I certainly do........In fact, the biggest problem I have had is trying to convince other to acknowledge State terrorism.......

This cycle will only break, if people stop looking at these attacks in isolation. I certainly don`t think the person attacked London did so to plant the flag of Islam on London. I seriously think he attacked London because he feels that the UK is committing State terrorism against Iraq............

This cannot be used to justify the attack, at all. But one has to at least accept the relationship. One should, at least, consider the fact that all these attacks in Europe seem to be occuring against countries that had troops in Iraq. And seem to stop, the moment the troops are taken out............

Thus, the only solution I can see is for the UK to take its troops out of Iraq. So far, no one has offered any other solution, on this site. Other than emotional rhetoric, on more resolve, and getting tougher and not weaker. If the demand had been, declaring UK and Islamic state or something, I could understand people being resolute, and not accepting. But the demand is for UK to get out of a country, it shouldn`t have been in, in the first place. Even its own citizens didn`t want it to go there.........

In this whole circle of violence, the Brits have killed innumerable innocent Iraqis, for no reason whatsoever. None of whom had ever killed a single Brit. Whose country was not involved in any terrorism againsg Britain. And Al-Qaeda has killed innocent Londeners, none of whom had killed anyone in Iraq.............

I thus fail to see and understand the logic behind not leaving Iraq........If for, no other reason, to make London safer.

This does not mean that the UK should stop hunting Al-Qaeda. Pakistan is hunting them, far more than UK, and I am all for it. But I certainly would not want Pakistan to invade Iraq for no rhyme or reason. Especially if I knew it would blowback to Karachi and Lahore........

Re: # 62
Romair:

I am quite familiar with the bogey of State Terrorism and also know when it is used. Honestly I can discuss it with you in great details, however, as mentioned in my previous interact I do not wish to right now, because I want to develop our dialog into something that is more relevant to the unanswered questions that I have.

On the side issue of bombing of Baluchistan by Paksitan enough was written by Tariq Ali to Najam Sethi in 70s as I recall. You probably can google it.

``They should be dealt sternly by people, within Islam. I know they are being dealt sternly by Pakistan. Pakistan has, infact, faced far more violence than UK. And has lost far more soldiers than UK.``

I also believe that now Pakistan is dealing with the terrorism. Therefore, it now has the support of the West and its relations with India are changing. In fact the change is quite dramatic and fast, that in the words of one of my friends in senior Indian diplomatic circles, that even Chinese and the U.S. are bewildered.

Like I have said elsewhere on this board, it is a cancer that Pakistan due to its previous life style, like India in Kashmir due to its lifestyle, acquired it. Cancer cells can only be killed and accepting the fact that other healthy cells will get killed too is the price of such treatment. The treatment is not pleasent, the alternative is too ghastly for modern Pakistan to accept.

Blair when he said vowed to go after and remove this terror from its root, he talked such a treatment and not appeasement or desire to sit down with the terrorists. History of Brits is very clear. They dealt with Malayasian communist insurgency more directly and with overwhelming force than the U.S. dealt in Vietnam. Brits treatment of communist Malayasia, and their treatment of those Indian freedom fighters in Kalapaani who would not talk on their terms and innocents in Jalianwalabagh was more direct and brutal too. What I am saying is that let there be no doubt that Brits will now deal with this situation with or without French, Germans and Italians more directly and more forcefully. Spainairds will be there with them and the U.S. This act only awaken the British Lion and filled it with even more terrible resolve.

The demarcation is now clearer than ever. That is probably why many here are saying either you are unequivocally on side or the other.

Now not only the west but the east too will not leave - the oil - their life line oil in the hands of those who according to you will give up everything for their perceived cause and their perceived way of doing things. I also know neither you nor Binladins of the world would leave the jugular vein in the hands and mercy of someone who would give everything up also. Otherwise Binladin would not be hinding in the mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan. At least one consequence of accepting jugular vein or life line in such hands, is deadly.

````Why these acts be not called Al Qaida-ism or Binladinism and perpetretors of these acts be called the followers of Al Qaida or Binladin, and not believers of Islam? Why?``

I am not clear what the question is here. The perpertrators of these attack are believers in Islam. The perpetrators of any attack are belivers in some religion. And they have committed terrorism. I think everyone should acknowledge that. I certainly do.....``

Or are they believers of your religion, your Islam?

Then where is the peaceful Islam that is also touted, at least in their belief system?

Why believers like you are not standing up claiming your Islam?

Has the control your Islam has taken over thinking and mind so mcuh to make the vison of Islam so myopic and so intense that people like yourself are unable to see what is wrong in your own statement?

When Salman Rushdie wrote something, as Yenta in Fiddler on the roof would say ``you understood`` - I do not know if you agreed or accepted it - and Fatwa was issued to kill him.

When a band of terrorists rise out of very narrow definition of Islam, why would not you within the Islamic tent rise out and disown them and issue a fatwa against them and in fact call a Jihad against them?

Why would you not say it is NOT Islam they are practicing?

Why would not say that it is something different (hence I suggested Al Qaidaism, and Binladinism) and certainly NOT your Islam, the peaceful Islam, the progressive Islam?

Even better, why would you not say that it just simply is NOT ISLAM?

Why this message be not delivered within the Islamic tent, to expel this fringe minority out as non-believers of Islam, and believer of Al Qaidaism and Binladinism?

Haven`t believers of Islam have done it before to Ahmadiyas, and probably to others too?

Thank you.
Anil Kapuria

What’s transpiring on this board (as well as ozer’s) really goes to the heart of the problem plaguing muslims. We’re unable to even agree amongst ourselves. So how can we possibly project a united front on any issue? There is no uniformity of practice, beliefs, or ideals. Heck, on most days we can’t even agree on what islam is.

No one is disputing that scores of muslims have died, but this can’t be about evening the score. Someone has to take the first step. We can’t get involved in an interminable battle of wits or a “you first, no you first” game. Too much is at stake here.

All I know is that taking a stand and being counted isn’t just about condemning the acts of terror. It’s also about muslims aligning themselves with the larger communities they inhabit, instead of scurrying into their homes. Separating ourselves from the communities we live in only perpetuates the “us” vs “them” divisions the terrorists want to enforce.

dost-mittar #53: ````But you did not respond to the crucial comment, namely, that now is the time for Muslims against such attacks to be counted and go on the streets and burn effigees as was done by those who did not agree with Bush and Blair.``

You and I will have to agree to disagree, on this...........

I answered your question in reply #51. Kindly go back and read it.

You are arguing with the wrong person on this. I don`t believe in your concept of pressurizing others, on the basis of, ``guilt by religious association.`` As I stated earlier, this is the basis of communalism. And I would try to stop anyone practicing this concept, in any capacity. Not encourage it......

This is a slippery slope. If I accept your comments today, tomorrow you will be asking me to march in the streets for what happened at Godhra...........I never attempted to associate you with the Gujrat killings, just because you are a Hindu........Did I? And I find it quite offensive that you are trying to associate me with what happened in London, just because I am a Muslim........

Frankly speaking, I am upto my ears with you first associating me with murderers and then with rapists, and now with terrorists, just because of my religion.........Do open your eyes and see what you are doing.......For a person who keeps arguing for religious tolerance and acceptance, you certainly have strange standards and beliefs..........

However, if you are truly concerned about what happened in London, and are not just trying to use it to score political or communal points, I would be more than happy to organize a march with you, on this issue, on the basis of humanity.........So you have my open invitation. If you would like to organize a march on this, as a fellow Canadian, I would be more than happy to pass on my email to you. And we can organize it together......I can come to Ottowa, if you prefer...Or you could come south......

Romair:
``One saw the reaction in Spain, after it became a target. ``

you are just as wrong like everyother commentator in the media - the difference is subtle but Important. Right after the bombings, Spanish PM went public and blamed Basque separatists ETA for the bombings - it turned out to be way too premature and what perceived to be a deliberate obfuscation claimed his head in the Election.

romair says it all for the the ummah ...........

........ as unbeliveable as it sounds, he does represents a significant majority of the ummites - primitive creatures who are either in denial or are too stupid to understand the difference between deliberately killing civilians and killing insurgents who would blow themselve up anyway ........... in the past couple of days i have met many ``educated professionals``, right here in the usa , who refuse to believe that muslims are responsible for the bombings in london : ``only the mossad can organize something like this`` or, better yet, `` it has to be the french - you know they hate the british !``...............

.......... and then they are those who, like captain clueless, are a little bit more reasonable, and who wring their hands and somberly declare, `` it is a horrible crime against humanity, but ......`` .......... but what ? you pieces of toilet flotsam ! ............``but, they are killing muslims in afghanistan and iraq``............. now, how the heck do you argue with fools like this who still think that mullah omar and osama are the prophet and abu bakr incarnate ! ........... they talk about killing muslims in afghanistan as if the afghans were smothering each other with love under the taliban - i guess they think hanging people from the goal post at half-time is part of the game of soccer and tumbling walls on adulterers is prime time entertainment ...........

............. until and unless the muslims get their heads out of the sands of arabia they are destined to be the pariahs of the world

dost-mittar #53: ``You are living in a fool`s paradise if you think that this act will make the British put pressure on their govt. to withdraw from Iraq; indeed, the effect is likely to be quite the opposite.``

I don`t agree. I think the British people (if not their leadership) are more sane and balanced than that.

I think there will be more pressure on Blair, to disassociate himself from the USA, in Iraq. Eurpeans were never in favor of this war. They got dragged into it by the USA. I am glad Canada did not get dragged into it. Otherwise, I am 100% convinced there would be bombs going off in Montreal and Toronto.

One saw the reaction in Spain, after it became a target. There was already a lot of pressure on Blair. This was shown in the election results. The majority of the British population was against this war. And I am pretty sure one of the reasons they were against it was becuase they knew that events like this would occur.

I am not sure what kind of resolute action you are refering to, which it already hasn`t taken. Every action Blair has taken seems to have put the UK under more risk and not less. I still fail to see what advantage Blair has gained by invading Iraq. There was no terrorism against the UK, from Iraq. Or related to Iraq. Now there is. I am truly suprised that you do not see the logic behind this relationship.

I suppose Britain could start bombing Iraq even more. Or bomb another country. Though the British military is too small to do that on its own. And it has far too many business deals with countries like Saudi Arabia etc. The only other thing they could do is to start attacking Arabs or Muslims in UK, through guilt by association. That, itself will destroy their own society, and will not be too easy, since 1 out of 8 Londeners are Muslims...........

So please highlight some solution that the British can use to make London safer. I can only think of one, i.e. Blair should listen to his own population and get out of Iraq. At which time, I have a feeling that London will become as safe as it was before...........

Re: # 48

Beejay:

``#30 by anil
[You can see the result of what happened to Soviet Union when the ante was being upped in the game of circle of violence through cold war.]
The Soviets were a definable entity, not an elusive one! They also had a desire to LIVE on! ``

Cancer cells, much like the terrorism / sleeper cells, are not definable entity as other body parts are, and when cancerous cells are attacked and eradicated from the body to save the body, other healthy cells do it too. The treatment no doubt is radical. Some healthier bodies (like some healthier nations) handle the treatment while others cannot. The west certainly can handle the chemotherapy and radiation treatment that it will administer in its body politic to rid itself of the cancer. Pakistan is in a more delicate situation, and therefore, would need support. I am confident that the West and even India will provide that support to Pakistan if it commits to treating its body politic of the cancerous cells of treatment.

Anil Kapuria

Romair

You are an imbecile of you think your boyfriends who slaughtered over fifty Londoners will make the British Government alter their course. The world is waking up to the nasty black hearted evil contained in the double-speak of your repulsive type, the death and congealed blood that leaks from your nostrils whenever you talk of peace yet become aroused at the thought of dead infidels.

Britain has steel in its soul and does not bend over like Pakistan to the Arabs and the Americans. Adolf Hitler bombed London for five years and the Nazis did not land a scratch on the British soul. Do you think four bombs by Nazis supported by you will alter a thing?

You pitiful, demented, clueless idiot.

numbers game should not have had an apostrophe in it.

unless it is a game of one particular number.

Romair#51:

By ``no one``, I was referring to this thread and chowk in general, some exceptions like tahmed and stuka notwithstanding.

But you did not respond to the crucial comment, namely, that now is the time for Muslims against such attacks to be counted and go on the streets and burn effigees as was done by those who did not agree with Bush and Blair.

You are living in a fool`s paradise if you think that this act will make the British put pressure on their govt. to withdraw from Iraq; indeed, the effect is likely to be quite the opposite. The difference from the US will be that you will hear less talk and more action.

Romair, please try to understand this simple ``thing``:-

A beats up B in the school yard, so B goes outside and beats him up in return.

A bombs B, so B blows his trains apart.

A steals oil from B, so some part of B starts sharing the loot with A.

Now other part of B doesn`t like A & mini-B stealing oil, so big-B starts blowing up stuff all around.

Now comes the part you need to read carefully:-

Why, at this stage, do all parts of B go crying to A, who is, meanwhile, still getting away with the oil?

+++

Means, by all means fight to save your honour or property or whatever, but why then do the Arabs specialise in going crying to the people they are fighting with in the first case?

I have seen this all my life and can not understand.

+++

And you want to be like the Arabs?

+++

Even now there is time, Romair, admit it, you would make a good Indian. Talk to me, I can ensure they make you, at least, a Brahmin of some sort?

Dost-mittar #45: ``Now, it is the turn of those in whose names the bombs were blasted in London to raise slogans and burn the effigies of those who sponsor such attacks. This is necessary to avoid guilt by association syndrom.``

This is extremely dangerous line of thinking. And I am quite sad that you hold such views. It is such views that are the basis of communalism. No one should ever, ``have`` to do anything, under threat to avoid, ``guilt by association.`` Guilt by association is something that should be avoided by by person making the association. Not by the individaul(s) being associated........

I am also quite surprised (not to mentioned confused) that you hold such views, since you normally push secularism and not relgion. And you are usually on the forefront of assocaiting with one`s cultural civilization and not one`s religious civilization.

Using my previous example, should I expect all Christians to line up in Lahore to avoid guilt by association with the Christian Evangelist-supported killings of George Bush against Muslims. I would never do that. In fact, I would oppose others who did it.

Do keep in mind that there were millions of Brits who supported Blair`s attacks also. What category do you put them in? Are you willing to put them in the same category as those Arabs (or Muslims) who supported these attacks on London? I am sure you will find a lot of Arabs, who had similar views on the London attacks, i.e while the are sad for the invidual deaths, they are more than willing to write them off as, ``collateral damage,`` for a bigger cause.......

People in London should march against the attacks on Iraq, because it was their government and their country that was carrying them out. They should do so irrespective of their religion. However, Christians in Lahore should not be forced to march in the streets of Lahore, for the same attacks, to avoid, ``guilt by assocaition`` just because it was Western Christians terrorising Mulsim Arabs.........

Similarly I should march in the streets if my country (Pakistan, or even Canada now) attacks London or my govt. carries out terrorism in London. I should also march in the streets if a fellow Pakistani kills Daniel Pearl, while he is in my country of birth. A Pakistani Christian should also march in the street of Lahore, with me, if his country (Pakistan) carries out an unprovoked attack on London. Or for Daniel Pearl........

However, neither I, nor any Christian in Pakistan, nor Muslim in India, nor Hindu in Pakistan, nor Jew in Turkey etc. should ever be forced, expected, threatened or even encouraged to march in any street, just to avoid, ``guilt by association`` based on something they or their country had nothing to do with, just because the perpetrator had the same religion as them.......

If your view became the rule, then every religious minority in any country - be it Pakistan or India or Canada or UK etc. - will live in constant fear of becoming a target of the religious majority, through, ``guilt by association``..........

Dost-mittar #46: ``Nobody is justifying an F-16 bombing, at least not I.``

Frist of all, around 75% of the population of the USA did, ``justify`` those attacks. As did about 35% or so, of the European population. So one has to take your, ``no one`` with a grain of salt.

The second part is that this is a question is not of merely, ``not justifying.`` It is a question of accepting the acts as acts of State terrorism. I am not only not justifying the acts of OBL. I accept them as terrorism. However, I am not sure whether you accept the acts of George Bush as State-sponsored terrorism.

``There is a difference between state sponsored acts and those by uncontrolled groups and you yourself had pointed out that difference in your earlier post.``

Yes. But in a different way. State-sponsored acts are much worse, because they are, generally, done with the support of the majority of the people in the country. Not by some random citizen. A country has to and should take the responsibilty for them. And the leaders of the country should be sent to justice for it.

For those folks who are of the opinion the ``terrorists`` are misinterpreting Quran, the following verses from the Quran would clarify any doubts..

008.012
YUSUFALI: Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): ``I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.``

008.065
YUSUFALI: O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding

009.005
YUSUFALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

009.014
YUSUFALI: Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers

009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Reference:
Holy Quran