London Targeted: Numbers Game

the imam of orange county told aaron brown on cnn tonight that ``muslims in america are alienated from the american people...the american govt should do more to reach out to the muslims...``

when asked why the prominent muslim religious leaders have not condemned/issued a fatwa on bin laden, the imam said ``it has already been done 1400 years ago...if you read the koran, verse 5:...and verse 7:.... condemn attacks against innocents, so there is no reason to condemn this any further....``

aaron brown closed the interview by saying ``well, doing so won`t hurt``

re: M # 31

Whether or not people take a clear stand, the kind of stand they take, and the circumstances under which they take different stands, tell a lot more about individuals than they would like to reveal. It is useless to complain that what is revealed may not be factual. For other people, facts about us exist only as they perceive them.

For the world beyond, it is rational to severely discount our words, and focus almost exclusively on the patterns of our actions and inactions, successes and failures, and finally, sympathies and apathies.

Once people accept that simple general truth, a great deal of misplaced bitterness will be removed, and a common understanding will be facilitated.

#38 by Romair on July 8, 2005 3:46pm PT
Let me put it in another way. There is a significantly higher number of Christians in Pakistan than there are Muslims in USA, Canada and UK combined

.........This is a bold faced lie.It would apply to India.Not to Pakistan.And, we all know the plight of christians in Pakistan.Roadkill is accorded better status.

actually what someone is doing in toronto does have quite a bit to do with what is going on in baghdad. or teheran. or london. or new york, whether it is violent, or non-

a thesaurus would list blame and responsibility as synonyms, as would most of us. but it is not that we should blame an entire community for the murder of a group of people. we do have a responsibility as citizens of a world community however, to speak up and against that which we feel is damaging to our community as a whole. murder, be it sponsored by a ``state`` or by a group of people is damaging to our communities and has everything to do with us, as do other things like the environment for example.

we are not all ``at fault`` for what is ongoing in iraq. or for what has happened in london. but when we are consumed by fear for our own communities in terms of ``backlash`` rather than realizing what our responsibilities are as citizens of a greater community. . . no matter what our creed is, there is a problem.

ana#44
Yes. Hundreds of thousands of Londoners came on the streets to protest against Blair`s policy of sending troops to Iraq; films were made against Bush in the U.S, politicians raised voices and an election was fought against such policies; effigies of Bush and Blair were burnt in several countries. 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.

Romair:

``This is not a moral equivlance. It is an consistent definition. As long as people keep trying to justify the bomb from an F-16 or the bomb in a subway, there will never be peace.``

Nobody is justifying an F-16 bombing, at least not I. When those bombings take place, many of us do condemn them and even those who support them feel guilty enough to hide their guilt by coining euphemisms like collateral damage. We do not at that time try to justify or ``understand`` such bombings. Now is the time for similar outrage with protest marches, slogans, effigy burnings and declaring fatwas against those who sponsor such acts.

The objective is not to malign a whole religious community but the opposite. Only massive demonstations and unqualified condemnation of such acts would show that the whole community should not be tarred; otherwise, you would have politicians making politically correct statements while the security apparatus will conitnue their profiling of the community with greater vigour. And this includes Canada.

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. If a state had declared war against the US/UK, even a declaration of a jihad by a muslim country, one could negotiate or fight with them. But you can`t with these people. Even if you can negotiate with OBL, someone could declare a fatwa against that compromise and the fight will continue.

Re: # 45 DM
//...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....//

But that not going to happen - never has, never will. We all know that.

The reality is that - muslims at large identify the ``causes`` these terrorists claim to be fighting for. The violence is deemed necessary as a revenge for perceived sins committed by the West against muslims. And increasingly, it`s also considered a deterrent - that such violence is necessary to deter western gov`ts from commtting the ``sins``.

........ So ``official`` condemnations from Imams and other community ``leaders`` are perfunctory - done more out of fear of possible backlash rather than any heartfelt fellow-feeling. And the latest report is that the london attack was done by local muslims, not foreigners.

Even if it`s politically incorrect to say so - in many ways, entire muslim communities are responsible for this terrorism. There is widespread community support for these activities and activists - in terms of money, shelter, ideology and acquiescence. This is a fact and proved again and again by the fact there is no community action whatsover to stop or discredit these so called ``small minority`` of muslims who do terrorism.

Tempo Bhai;

Sorry to get here a bit late! A poem like this would (and did) generate the type of extensive political discussion that we see here – I’m not sure whether that was your intent. I personally see this more as an expression of sadness at what happened while making a plea for breaking out of the “spiral”. Certainly noble intentions! Who is the intended target, though, and is it even here?

I don’t buy this stuff about AIDS that you make. That problem has been around long enough and well-understood enough that people know what to do to avoid catching it, and it certainly does not need the same focus as terrorism at this time.

Leaving aside the sentiment and good intentions contained in the poem, I must state that as a reader I find its flow to be a little awkward – some words flow smoothly but still feel like sand particles whereas others tend to get stuck in my mouth like concrete chips. Also, putting in astrixes and footnotes in a poem kind of gives it the look and feel of an article – at least the way I feel!

Also, I believe the term is “Slam, Bam, Thank you, Ma’m”. and what about the following counterparts.

slam...
...andy
bang...
...brian
thank...
...charlie
you...
...david
ma`m...
...edward
slam bang thank...
...and franky, georgey, harry...

#4
[Wild men
Who kill
Have Karmas
Of ill]

But those who will
Must pay the bill

#6 temporal
[laikin yara who listens to you or me?... ]
Me and you, of course! :)

#various Veeresh
It’s unfair to beat up on the poets, simply because of their religion! A lot of things that you ask him to do, you can do too!

#14 by cayenne
Why do you needle the Britishers so?

#16 by hamidm2
[...... i honestly believe that man was pre-programmed to self destruct - it is simply a matter of time ...........]
Hopefully, a LONG time! Good point, though!

[...... nothing a few stiff martinis cannot fix ........]
Ah, the solution to ALL of the world’s problems! If only it could work for teetotalers like me!

#20 by miriamk
[…we are the wilderness.]
Or just the wild bunch!

#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!

[The rest of the humanity is trying to say ``own the violence and fight`` or ``disown the violence of OBL / Al Qaida and join``. ]
I believe Tempo bhai is saying the same in his own way! After all, he did not INVENT Islam and certainly not these fundamentalist elements! A fatwa is only of symbolic value, unless someone decides to go about enforcing it. Accordingly, a fatwa by Tempo bhai against OBL won’t get us any further.

#31 by miriamk
[This is a call to ALL muslims to take a stand because the terrorists have made it so.]
With you leading the pack, willing to take the first bullet, of course!

#37 by Romair
[Having said that, I have not found too many people acknowledges State terrorism.]
You don’t seem to get the obvious part – if the state is legitimate (i.e., a democracy – with checks and balances) then its policies reflect the will of its population, so “state terrorism” is an oxymoron for those countries! A LOT of individuals on this site use that artificial fig-leaf to apologize for the terrorists!

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

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.

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``..........

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?

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.

numbers game should not have had an apostrophe in it.

unless it is a game of one particular number.

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.

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