London Targeted: Numbers Game

Re: # 32 DM
//... But where do the people who blew up the trains in Madrid or Tube in London get their mandate?....//

65% pakis support Osama and Al qaeda, probably that many saudis support him too. Is that ``mandate`` good for you?

Come on, who are you kidding? These people are doing what they are doing because of the widespread support they enjoy from muslims world over. This is a war - this is war between west and islam/muslims.

Who do you bomb now? ... what about the GHQ in pakiland? Prince Bandar`s palace in Saudi? That will do. It ain`t that difficult really.

Once again people are talking about moral equivalence where there is none. Yes, Bush’s war on Iraq is immoral as was his carpet bombing of Afghanistan. There was no reason to bomb Afghanistan and absolutely none to attack Iraq...not just immoral, that decision was plain stupid.

But let’s not equate the two. The first difference is the obvious one. The US bombers do not set out to kill innocent men, women and children although this is the inevitable consequence of what they do and they know it. The other lot deliberately targets innocent people and know fully well that only the innocents will be hurt by their actions.

But there is another and, in my opinion, deeper distinction. Bush operates in a system with its own checks and balances. He did what he did because his people gave him a mandate for it. More and more of them are thinking that it was a wrong decision and they will remove him from the office. But where do the people who blew up the trains in Madrid or Tube in London get their mandate? Not from any government; not from the people of Iraq who did vote in an election recently; not from the Organization of Islamic Countries or even a single ruler of a Muslim country.

Romair is right when he asks “Whom is the UK going to attack now? Where exactly does Al-Qaeda exist? It is not a country. It is not a city.” When you come right down to it, these people are inspired by an ideology based on their interpretation of what is in a sacred book and the precedents set by a man 1400 years ago. The man died long ago and the Book is claimed to be authored by God who is supposed to have forfeited His right to ever change it or even to send another messenger to tell humans what is the correct interpretation and the contexts of some controversial passages. Therefore, the crux of the problem is people believing in the immutability of the Book and it will remain so until some brave souls come along and rebel against this immutability.

If the purpose of such attacks is to persuade Bush and Blair to change their policies, they are quite counterproductive. Quite a few of us who are against Bush’s pig-headed policies would agree that withdrawal now would be capitulation to terrorism. I wonder if Nixon would have been forced to withdraw from Vietnam if communist gorillas had targetted New York subway.

This is what Indian PM Singh said of the Indian Constitution,while receiving a Doctor of Civil Law degree at Oxford, his alma mater, after attending the G-8 plus 5 summit in Gleneagles:

``The prime minister said the Indian Constitution, which emphasises on the principles of secularism, democracy, the rule of law and above all, equality of human beings irrespective of caste, community, language or ethnicity, has deep roots in the country`s civilisation``.

Why can`t middle eastern and pak muslims learn to respect their fellow human beings and get along?.Why can`t they learn from indian muslims?.Indian muslims did not have to register with the US authorities after 9/11, unlike the middle eastern and pak muslims.Indian muslims` citizenship was their passport to a new future.Not their religion.

All this stuff is so dreary, though!!.It is the weekend, and i have arrived in Chennai where i divide my time with Mumbai, due to the nature of my work.For all chennai-ites, a new dance club/bar named `Tek-Trek` has opened at the Trader`s hotel.I will divide my time between this club and ``Speed``, another great dance club/bar.India seems like an oasis of calm and serenity, Ayodhya notwithstanding, compared to the chaos in the world.Touch wood!!!.Let us keep it going on.Continuing with my links to pics of indian metros, two links to Chennai and Mumbai.........

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=232528

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=198981&page=7&pp=20

Have a good weekend, folks!!!.

Dost-mittar/Anil #: ``Once again people are talking about moral equivalence where there is none...........The US bombers do not set out to kill innocent men, women and children although this is the inevitable consequence of what they do and they know it.``

People are talking about a sane reasoning that ends violence. Not a rhetorical call to arms, which increases violence.

I discuss this subject with a lot of people. And there is something interesting I have noticed. Everyone makes their own moral equivalences. To you, the killings of the people ini Iraq are not intentional. Try telling that to the families of the people who are killed. I will not get into the details of how bombing is done, but you should study it. Those people would be alive had Iraq not been bombed. Targeting a whole country`s civilian population is as much of a crime as targeting a train. If not a bigger one. I have no idea how anyone can even attempt to not understand this.

Similarly, to many people the killings of those in London are counter-terrorism. They will provide, just as strong an argument as Anil has done, for their cause. And how they are not the guilty party. Who is right and who is wrong? Where does that leave the world?

In my opinion, both are wrong..........

If everyone keeps trying to prove that the killings they carry out are more moral than the killings that someone else carries out, then the world will be filled with violence. People have to set a standard for killings. A dead person is a dead person. It doesn`t matter if he was killed by a bomb from an F-16 or one in a train. Or if he was killed by State forces in Kashmir or an infiltrator`s bomb in Kashmir.........

Within this group, at least in my opinion, I and others like me are making the correct decision. We are describing all deaths of civilians, be they Muslim or Hindu or Christian or anyone else, regardless of the manner in which they are killed, to be terrorism. Too many poeple, including many on this site, unfortunately, see only throught the religious spectrum. And fail to accept the killings carried out by those of their own religion (this includes Hindus, Muslims, Christians)...........

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. Because violence begets violence. Someone has to stand up and say, both are terrorism.

And this is what I see lacking. And there is no argument that is ever going to convince me that only rich dead people or the deaths of citizens of rich nations, should be mourned, and those who are poor should just be statistics.

I am extremely glad that the leaders of ten nations have stood side by side, to condemn this. However, I would be really glad if they stood by side to condemn all such killings, including those their own forces carrying out. There has to be something more than ironic about Putin condemning killings of innocents, when he, himself, orders far higher killings by his own forces. Not to mention Bush himself, who has done the same.........

There need to be people who should have the courage to call the killiings in London, terrorism. And people who have the courage to call the killings in Iraq terrorism. In this case, at least according to the mayor of London and the organization that claimed it, they are connected. I call them both terrrorism. I hope both of you do, as well. If you don`t then I am afraid we have a completely different understanding of how the world operates and how to view it.

Anil #30: Perhaps you did not understand my reply. I, obviously, consider the killings in London to be terrorism. There is no justification for it. If you read my arguments, I tend to base my arguments on studies by human rights organizations.........

At the same time, I do think they are connected to Iraq. As does the Mayor of London. And the organization that claimed the attack. I don`t think those people would have been dead, had Blair not invaded Iraq. This is not a justification for the killing. Quite the contrary, it is an attempt to understand them........

Having said that, I have not found too many people acknowledge State terrorism. I thus cannot agree with your comment, about G-8 nations showing consolidarity against terrorism. I think they only show consolidarity against some terorrism. Not all. Some of them, have carried out much larger amount, themselves.........

I would, thus, be interested in your views about State terrorism. This includes State terrorism by Muslim countries also, as well as by those who are in the G-8. Are you willing to acknowledge State terrorism, as terrorism? Or do you feel that only Al-Qaeda`s terrorism is terrorism. And killing carried out by a State are mere statistics.......?

I am hoping to find, at least one other person on this site, who considers death of any innocent, be it by an F-16 or a car bomb, by a democractically elected President or an autocrat, by someone of their own religion or someone of another religion, all to be terrorism.........

Unfortunately I haven`t found anyone...........Everyone thinks their, ``people`` drop or place bombs that accidently kill others, or their, ``people`` are only carrying out revenge killings..........

There seems to be a very dangerous trend developing here (at least on this site). There can be nothing more dangerous than asking a whole religion to take blame for something carried out by one person.

The problem with such an approach is that there is no country in the world, which simply consists of people from one religion. Muslims are in a majority in one religion, but a minority in another. Hindus and Christians and Jews etc. are in the same positions.

Such a formula for placing blame is quite counter-productive. And attacks like the current one, are God-sent for people who want to promote such communalism. It gives them a perfect opportunity to isolate the minority communities in their localities and countries. Instead of giving in to such people, one should stand up to them.

What exaclty does Temporal sitting in Toronto, have to do with somebody killing someone in London? Why in the world should he be forced to march in the streets, to condemn the killings? What did he have to do with it? Other than the fact that he shares a religion with the person...........If he wants to march, he should. If he doesn`t want to, he shouldn`t........Now if he is the person who did the killing, that would be a different story........In such a case, he should face the music of the state..........

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. The current bombings of Iraq by USA and UK are two overwhelmingly Christian countries, with fully Christian leaderships (and in the case of the USA, the powerful influence of a Christian Right group), bombing a Muslim country. I doubt any of the pilots dropping the bombs are Muslims. I know of only Muslim fighter pilot in the USAF (a Pakistani who recently retired). They are nearly all Christians (with some Jews). While those being killed are Muslims...........This may not be portrayed as an attack of Christians on Muslims, in the West. But in the Arab world, it certainly seems to be viewed as such..........To quote an Arab commentator, ``I (he) doubt so many Iraqis would have been killed, had they been Jewish.``

The Christian community is Pakistan is quite vulnerable. Now, should I go to Pakistan, and force all the Pakistani Christians to march in the streets of Lahore condemning, what their co-religionist (Bush and Blair) have done in Iraq. After all killing 100,000 people is not merely, ``stupid.`` It is a massacre.

The last thing I would do is try to connect the Pakistani Christians with what I view as State terrorism, simply because they share a religion with those in another country. In fact, I would vehemently oppose such a connection. Such a connection would be nothing but an attempt to promote communalism.

A similar comparison can be made with the Gujrat killings. Should I demand of the Hindu community in Pakistan to march in Karachi condemning the killings by the Gujrat Govt. - someone they had nothing to do with..........

I certainly would not do that, either.........So people need to take it easy on the rhetoric. It is counterproductive. People should try to look at these things, outside the spectrum of religion. Or at least outside the spectrum of their own religion..........What is needed are people who stand outside all religions, and view all these issues through the spectrum of human rights and how each is linked with the other.............They should accept the fact that a dead person who is not of their religion or country is as dead as a dead person of their religion or their country.........

The other option, is to of course, start killing people wherever one is stronger than the other..........In which case, Vereesh could tell someone in Canada to try to kill Temporal, if the later does not march in the streets, and Temporal could tell someone in Pakistan to kill Patrick Masih if he does not march in the streets..........

Re: # 37

Romair:

You have asked me about my definition of State Terrorism. I already have a feeling you will not like my definition of the State Terrorism, and any discussion will delfect the attention away from my points and dilute them. Therefore, I would like to leave State Terrorism out for now. We can certainly discuss in another set up. 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, however brutal and however immoral they may be to invoke human rights trials of Nuremburg kind. In my student days, Vietnam war was its peak, and I used to be quite passionate and active like many others in anti war movements. Therefore, I realize there is always a struggle for or against the State, thus there are two sides. You can choose to call one Terrorism, and the other State Terrorism. I certainly would not.

The questions that I have asked you are serious and current. Something I ponder with very small knowledge of Islam that I have gathered thru talking and reading, and hence my questions to you. Please try and answer each separately you wish to answer, because I do not think any sane human of any shade or color would have wanted Islam to arrive as the 11th uninvited guest in this fashion. Why these acts be Islamic, and those calling as Islamic or in support of Islam be dealt sternly by people within the Islamic tent? 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?

Thank you.

Anil

Let it be, Romair.

You wouldn`t understand a few simple things.

However, I try. Try to say this like ``they`` would say it in the PG. ``As by Godh you are my Brudhter I try to tell you . . .``

a) Perception beats fact, always. So please don`t try to use both on the same plane. You can try to bury us with your ``facts``, right or wrong, they currently don`t matter. Eat your facts with your cornflakes,

b) Perception is that a particular breed of unwashed, hairy and cowardly (UHC) Muslims seems to be trying to hijack Islam. And that this lot is particularly active, lately, in some parts of the world. Many other non-UHC Muslims choose to keep quiet and ride along because it suits them.

c) Perception also is that this lot of ``quiet`` non-UHC Muslims has suddenly woken up to realise that all bets are now off, and that amongst other things they shall be poked as well as prodded even at Heathrow. This is the lot which is currently running around like cowards saying ``Enough, enough``.

d) World over, the trend is now for ``others`` to tell the UHC that payback is due.

So, whether it is T or Romair, you make your choices, and you stand up and be counted wherever you are.

+++

For the rest, your ``facts`` or ``non-facts``, what does it matter? Perception management is all that it is about, lately.

+++

And perception is that the UHC lot are the same as the lot running around crying into televisions about ``backlash``. I mean, have you seen the victims crying as yet, I haven`t.

+++

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.

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.

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.

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!