Declaration of Jehad #: 44

``[[pullu

The students ..............

The best thing for India is to cut off all diplomatic and any other relation with Pakistan. No more talks and no more candle lighting at Wagah.``]]



Pullu(PILOO)

Why babble in 420 unintelligible gibberish dilects of Indian so called regional languages

Whats stopping you Punk??

Go AHEAD,MAKE MY DAY U PUNK!!!Dont bother to communicate with us URDUDAAN,SHAREEF.by now u should know we only believe in ACTION not gibberish

Declaration of Jehad

#4

SAmeer Kumar

``[[....Oh, by the way, if President Bush declares jehad against Taliban, Pakistani textbooks also need to consider using term jehad for Raja Dahir`s defense; also Rana Sanga, Rajputs, Gakkhars, Shivaji and many others who waged jehad against medieval invader. ``]]`

Sameer Kumar,

DO YOU KNOW EVEN YOU ,WHO MIGHT CONSIDER HIMSELF ARYA SAMAJI WHO WAS RELUCTANTLY CONVERTED TO ISLAM,CAME AS INVADER & CORRUPTED THE TRUE DRAVIDIAN HINDUS, SUBJUGATING THEM WITH ARYAN CASTE SYSTEM NOT ORIGINAL IN HINDUISM.

BNP leading in Bangla polls

DHAKA, OCT. 1. Begum Khaleda Zia`s Bangladesh Nationalist Party-led four-party alliance is leading in the parliamentary elections held in Bangladesh today, reports said. According to preliminary results announced by the Election Commission in 66 of the 299 seats, the BNP was leading in 26 and its ally, the Jamaat-e-Islami, in four. And the former Prime Minister, Ms. Sheikh Hasina`s Awami League was leading in 15 constituencies.

- UNI

Violent Changes

Most Italians think Berlusconi comments on Islam ``insulting``

ROME, Sept 28 (AFP) - A majority of Italians -- 53 percent -- think comments by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi that Western religions were superior to Islam are insulting, according to an opinion poll which appeared on Friday.

Nearly a third -- 30 percent -- of the 1,000 people questioned by the CIRM polling institute said that Berlusconi was right in his comments, while 17 per cent said they had no opinion, in the poll published in La Repubblica on Friday.

Briefing Italian journalists during a visit to Berlin on Wednesday, Berlusconi said the West ``should be confident of the superiority of our civilization`` and he urged Europe to ``reconstitute itself on the basis of its Christian roots.``

His comments sparked a storm of controversy, coming amid US and European efforts to build support among Muslim nations for a global fight against Osama bin Laden`s fundamentalist extremist network in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States.

Rome has so far declined to apologise for the remarks, although the doyen of Arab ambassadors in Rome, Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf, will along with other Arab diplomats by received by the foreign ministry next Tuesday, giving an opportunity for a possible move to redress the situation.

On Thursday Berlusconi`s spokesman brushed off the criticism, saying he did not understand how one could accuse ``of insulting Islam, the head of a European government who is fighting for the participation of moderate Arab countries in the alliance against terrorism.``

Italy has one million Muslims but this community is not recognised by the state.

Violent Changes

To Civilisation, if I can Find Her



`First, find and punish the men responsible, Laden if it was him. Not by landing a gigantic force in a ravaged country, but by the same kind



of tight, focused operation that found gruesome



success on September 11,` says Dilip D`Souza.

Attack on the US: The Complete Coverage

WOW,Dilip ARE YOU SURE ,WE NEED TO BE COMPLIMENTING THEM SO SOON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dilip D`Souza

To Civilisation, If I Can Find Her

I hear there`s a war on the way. I hear it`s going to be between the civilised world and the rest. Between the free democracies of the world and the rest. Between barbarians and the rest. Terrorism, my Prime Minister Vajpayee said the other day, is a `great threat to our people, our values and our way of life.` The attack on America, he went on, `is a stark and terrible reminder of the power and reach of the terrorists to destroy innocent lives and challenge the civilised order in this world.` And in this coming war, President Bush announced, `you`re either with us or against us,` forgive me if not quite in those words. `Us,` it`s safe to assume, refers to this civilised world.



So as an ordinary human being, horrified and angered by the brutality of September 11, in the fond belief that I`m somewhat civilised, I`m anxious to choose my side. But I`m somewhat baffled as well. I look for this civilisation and I begin to wonder: just where is it?

When Chile`s elected leader Salvador Allende was murdered and one of the century`s worst dictators Auguste Pinochet, put in place to spend a generation molesting that country and killing its citizens, was that civilisation? When a vast Soviet army overran Afghanistan and reduced that once fabled country to rubble, its proud people so devastated and demoralised that they cannot rise to shake off the tormentors who drove out the Soviets, well, was that civilisation?

When Rwanda`s Hutus erupted in a hellish orgy of hatred and slaughtered their Tutsi countrymen for three months and the rest of the world preferred to look the other way, even quibbled over whether this genocide really was genocide, now was that civilisation? When, perhaps inspired by a hate-spewing figure whom a perverse Afghan cabal fiercely protects, maniacs with knives hijack planes and pilot them into two towering buildings and a squat one, taking 6,000 unsuspecting humans with them to fiery deaths, hey, is that civilisation?

When in the capital of the world`s most populous democracy, a prime minister is assassinated and that is excuse enough to slaughter 3,000 Sikhs, and the country -- India, of course -- has not for 17 years found the will to punish the powerful men who led that slaughter, hello, is that civilisation? When Russians and Chechens maul and murder each other in arguably the world`s most vicious war, look upon each other as just vermin to be exterminated, hmm, is that civilisation? When Israel elects a leader whose idea of negotiating peace is to shove ever more Jewish settlements down Palestinian throats, devoting ever more of his country`s armed forces to ``protecting`` these illogical and unsustainable enclaves, thereby spilling ever more blood in that Holy Land, tell me won`t you please tell me, is that civilisation?

I could go on, you know. South Africa, the Congo, Bombay, Turkey, Cambodia, Nicaragua: I could really go on and so could you.

So when this is the wealth of civilisation on display, year round, the world over, it`s enough to leave a man scratching a hairy scalp in despair. Just where are the values that are `under threat,` the `civilised order` that`s being destroyed? And what`s a man to do when he`s told `you`re either with us or against us`? Where does his revulsion at, for example, the American role in Allende`s murder and Pinochet`s regime place him: with or against? Is he `with us` because he thinks the hijacking pilots, the men who murder in Kashmir, are terrorist scum? Or is he `against us` because he thinks the murderers of the Sikhs are also terrorist scum?

Now I hardly mean to say that there are no principles of civilised life that are worth protecting. Nor that they suffer no threats today. Nor even do I want to introduce a meaningless moral relativism into the debates we are all wrestling with these days. The assaults on the WTC and the Pentagon were, as Robert Fisk says, crimes against humanity. Period.

But I do mean to say, let`s be careful when we rush to stake our claim to be good. Let`s be careful when we talk so easily of civilisational struggles between Good and Evil. Partly because we all have our dark little secrets that will come tumbling out. But mostly because this is an empty exercise in futility. It produces the grotesque scenario that is unfolding before our eyes: the massing of a mighty military machine to launch an assault on possibly the world`s most ruined and desperate society; and these preparations cheered on by my country. Such an assault will kill precisely the wrong people, ruin that society even more, and leave all the hatreds intact, ready to strike again in more spectacularly horrific fashion.

There`s no good there, and certainly no civilisation. That is no war against terrorism that I want to be part of, that I want my country to be part of, that I want fought at all. That is, to repeat, just futility.

It is futile because it can never stamp out terrorism, just as the mere spraying of pesticides never eradicates malaria. You do eradicate malaria by starving its carriers of the conditions in which they thrive. In much the same way, as so many have pointed out, you destroy terrorism by addressing the conditions that spawn terrorists.

Which means: no longer must we tolerate a world in which a minority lives pampered, wealthy, protected lives while the majority scrounges outside for the next gulp of water. That applies to the USA and Bangladesh just as much as it applies to Malabar Hill and the homeless beggars who roam its streets. (Why must a civilised world think it is acceptable that some of its residents sift through garbage for food?). No longer must justice be so selective that it is injustice above all. That applies to murdered Palestinians and disappeared Chileans just as much as it applies to the silent victims of riots in India. (Why must a civilised world think it is acceptable that riots ``just happen`` and so are normal?). No longer must corrupt or hate-mongering ``leaders`` be allowed to hold power, escape their crimes, just because they serve particular political purposes. That applies to Pinochet and Mobutu and Mubarak and Nawaz Sharif just as much as it applies to Thackeray and Jayalalithaa. (And yes, why must a civilised world think a Mobutu must be propped up only because he claims to be a bulwark against Marxism?).

In short, and we might as well face it: terrorism didn`t just arrive on our planet one recent morning. Oppression, poverty and injustice produce the hatreds that send terrorists to flight school in Florida. Tackling those enormous but never insurmountable problems, understanding that if they persist we are all threatened, will choke off terrorism.

In that sense, the planes that sliced into the WTC were true children of this globalization we hear so much about. With one cataclysmic explosion, they woke up America and the entire globe. Not just to the ``power and reach of the terrorists``, but also to the consequences of the illusion that ``we`` are safe behind our gates and barbed wire and security guards and immigration laws and eyes that are so firmly shut to the misery that wallows beyond their lids. Whoever ``we`` are, the misery now belongs to us all. It always did, but if we chose not to know it before, we know now. We can`t afford not to. `No man is an island,` John Donne did indeed write in 1623, but take more heed of what he wrote only a few words later:

Any man`s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

Yes: after the bell tolled so horribly in NYC and DC, let`s know that it tolled for us. How must ``we`` respond?

First, find and punish the men responsible, bin Laden if it was him. Not by landing a gigantic force in a ravaged country, but by the same kind of tight, focused operation that found gruesome success on September 11. I am no military man, so I have no idea how difficult that will be. But however difficult, it is the only way to get the culprits.

That done, open `our` eyes to all that`s around us. Free of political bias, free of hypocrisy, free of hollow words about ``our`` civilised values and their ``barbarity`` and everybody`s religion. Let`s understand that the way we live, the choices we make, the things we do, the policies we follow, cannot but leave their mark. In all humility, let`s each recognize our own mistakes and failures, whether religious, societal, political or personal. Let`s rebuild beginning from that foundation. I have no idea how difficult all that will be either. But however difficult, it is the only way to launch a successful assault on terrorism.

If it happens, that kind of introspection is far more than the way to eradicate terrorism, more even than the only possible silver lining to the sickness of September 11. It is the very meaning of civilisation.

Islams Challenge I can see SAMEER,Nasah,Jwahra,Al Talib,Id.Banjara,KKK,& others apologizing to ITALIAN PREMIER .

YOU KNOW WHY ALL THE ITALIANS ARE TONY ,FROM THE PUMMBER TO THE PARKING LOT ATTENDENT TO BOXER IN THE GYM.

ROMAIR WAS OPROPOGATING HIS THESIS THAT SOME CRAZY PTROFESSOR GENERALIXED THAT YOU COULD TELL BLUE COLLAR FROM THE NAME OF THE BOXING CHAMPION.

THE ITALIAN ,WITH THERE INTEREST IN BOXING ARE PROBABLY FOREVER BLUE COLLAR ,WHEN IRISH ,& EVEN BLACK MUSLIMS HAVE PAST MD.aLI GLORY DAYS.



Go to: Guardian Unlimited



Berlusconi breaks ranks over Islam



John Hooper and Kate Connolly in Berlin

Guardian

Thursday September 27, 2001

Italy`s prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, yesterday went out of his way to stress what every other leader backing America`s ``war on terrorism`` has been desperate to deny - that the looming conflict is, at bottom, a clash of civilisations.

On three occasions during a lightning visit to Berlin, Mr Berlusconi enthusiastically proclaimed views that will appal western leaders and be seen by many Muslims as confirming their worst suspicions. He boasted of the ``supremacy`` and ``superiority`` of western civilisation and called on Europe to recognise its ``common Christian roots``.

The Italian prime minister, who has been under pressure over the handling of demonstrations at this year`s G8 summit in Genoa, also used his trip to claim a link between Islamist terrorism and the anti-globalisation movement. He said there was a ``strange unanimity`` between them.

Both, said Mr Berlusconi, were the enemies of western civilisation.

Standing beside the German chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, at a joint press conference, he declared that he and his host ``consider that the attacks on New York and Washington are attacks not only on the United States but on our civilisation, of which we are proud bearers, conscious of the supremacy of our civilisation, of its discoveries and inventions, which have brought us democratic institutions, respect for the human, civil, religious and political rights of our citizens, openness to diversity and tolerance of everything.``

A broadly smiling Mr Berlusconi said his discussions with the chancellor had been carried out ``strong in this pride, this awareness``.

He had earlier told Italian journalists covering his visit: ``We should be conscious of the superiority of our civilisation, which consists of a value system that has given people widespread prosperity in those countries that embrace it, and guarantees respect for human rights and religion.``

As if to rub salt in the wound, Mr Berlusconi added: ``This re spect certainly does not exist in the Islamic countries``.

Heedless to warnings that the anti-terrorist coalition must make a clear distinction between the Taliban regime and the Afghan people, Mr Berlusconi congratulated the US and its allies on isolating ``the country - I`m not sure if you can call it a nation - of Afghanistan``.

The singer-turned-TV magnate-turned-politician`s views were launched on the world just as policymakers in the US and allied states had begun to hope they had limited the damage done by President George Bush`s description of the campaign as a ``crusade``.

In Tehran this week, the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, was at pains to reassure the Iranian government that the allies were not at war with Islam, nor with the Afghan people.

Mr Berlusconi began his eventful day with a surprise breakfast with Russia`s president, Vladimir Putin, who is also visiting Germany. The prime minister emerged to tell reporters that ``Europe must revive on the basis of common Christian roots``.

That remark will not only dismay ethnic minority leaders, but will also be seen as deeply offensive by Albanians, Bosnians, Kosovans and other European Muslims.

But Italy`s ebullient prime minister was not the only politician in the German capital yesterday to get into hot water over their choice of words.

The German culture minister, Adrienne Göhler, was under pressure to resign after describing the World Trade Centre towers as ``phallic symbols`` two days after they were destroyed on September 11. Ms Göhler said her remarks, made at a podium discussion in Berlin, had been taken out of context.







Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001

Violent Changes

There is a complex ,in genuinely decent ppl. that they cant say ``NO``.

ITS AS IF SOME PPL. FEEL GUILTY WHEN THEY SAY ..NO!!

How else can you explain Saudi ,Kuwaiti ,during Desert Storm ,when America pushed itself into their country & asked for permission later SO TO SAY .You understand what im saying by that.The gulf countries Qatar,Bagrain,UAE,& Doha have had to say forced YES too.

I feel for Pervaiz Musharaf bechara ,yes ,i dont envy his position ,leave alone volunteer for it as he has done.



Ever since the United States Army massacred 300 Lakotas in 1890, American

forces have intervened elsewhere around the globe 100 times. Indeed the

United States has sent troops abroad or militarily struck other countries`

territory 216 times since independence from Britain. Since 1945 the United

States has intervened in more than 20 countries throughout the world.

Since World War II, the United States actually dropped bombs on 23

countries. These include: China 1945-46, Korea 1950-53, China 1950-53,

Guatemala 1954, Indonesia 1958, Cuba 1959-60, Guatemala 1960, Congo 1964,

Peru 1965, Laos 1964-73, Vietnam 1961-73, Cambodia 1969-70, Guatemala

1967-69, Grenada 1983, Lebanon 1984, Libya 1986, El Salvador 1980s,

Nicaragua 1980s, Panama 1989, Iraq 1991-1999, Sudan 1998, Afghanistan 1998,

and Yugoslavia 1999.

Post World War II, the United States has also assisted in over 20 different

coups throughout the world, and the CIA was responsible for half a dozen

assassinations of political heads of state.

The following is a comprehensive summary of the imperialist strategy of the

United States over the span of the past century:

Argentina - 1890 - Troops sent to Buenos Aires to

protect business interests.

Chile - 1891 - Marines sent to Chile and clashed with

nationalist rebels.

Haiti - 1891 - American troops suppress a revolt by

Black workers on United States-claimed Navassa Island.

Hawaii - 1893 - Navy sent to Hawaii to overthrow the

independent kingdom - Hawaii annexed by the United

States.

Nicaragua - 1894 - Troops occupied Bluefields, a city

on the Caribbean Sea, for a month.

China - 1894-95 - Navy, Army, and Marines landed

during the Sino-Japanese War.

Korea - 1894-96 - Troops kept in Seoul during the war.

Panama - 1895 - Army, Navy, and Marines landed in the

port city of Corinto.

China - 1894-1900 - Troops occupied China during the

Boxer Rebellion.

Philippines - 1898-1910 - Navy and Army troops landed

after the Philippines fell during the Spanish-American

War; 600,000 Filipinos were killed.

Cuba - 1898-1902 - Troops seized Cuba in the

Spanish-American War; the United States still

maintains troops at Guantanamo Bay today.

Puerto Rico - 1898 - present - Troops seized Puerto

Rico in the Spanish-American War and still occupy

Puerto Rico today.

Nicaragua - 1898 - Marines landed at the port of San

Juan del Sur.

Samoa - 1899 - Troops landed as a result over the

battle for succession to the throne.

Panama - 1901-14 - Navy supported the revolution when

Panama claimed independence from Colombia. American

troops have occupied the Canal Zone since 1901 when

construction for the canal began.

Honduras - 1903 - Marines landed to intervene during a

revolution.

Dominican Rep 1903-04 - Troops landed to protect

American interests during a revolution.

Korea - 1904-05 - Marines landed during the

Russo-Japanese War.

Cuba - 1906-09 - Troops landed during an election.

Nicaragua - 1907 - Troops landed and a protectorate

was set up.

Honduras - 1907 - Marines landed during Honduras` war

with Nicaragua.

Panama - 1908 - Marines sent in during Panama`s

election.

Nicaragua - 1910 - Marines landed for a second time in

Bluefields and Corinto.

Honduras - 1911 - Troops sent in to protect American

interests during Honduras` civil war.

China - 1911-41 - Navy and troops sent to China during

continuous flare-ups.

Cuba - 1912 - Troops sent in to protect American

interests in Havana.

Panama - 1912 - Marines landed during Panama`s

election.

Honduras - 1912 - Troops sent in to protect American

interests.

Nicaragua - 1912-33 - Troops occupied Nicaragua and

fought guerrillas during its 20-year civil war.

Mexico - 1913 - Navy evacuated Americans during

revolution.

Dominican Rep 1914 - Navy fought with rebels over

Santo Domingo.

Mexico - 1914-18 - Navy and troops sent in to

intervene against nationalists.

Haiti - 1914-34 - Troops occupied Haiti after a

revolution and occupied Haiti for 19 years.

Dominican Rep 1916-24 - Marines occupied the Dominican

Republic for eight years.

Cuba - 1917-33 - Troops landed and occupied Cuba for

16 years; Cuba became an economic protectorate.

World War I - 1917-18 - Navy and Army sent to Europe

to fight the Axis powers.

Russia - 1918-22 - Navy and troops sent to eastern

Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution; Army made five

landings.

Honduras - 1919 - Marines sent during Honduras`

national elections.

Guatemala - 1920 - Troops occupied Guatemala for two

weeks during a union strike.

Turkey - 1922 - Troops fought nationalists in Smyrna.

China - 1922-27 - Navy and Army troops deployed during

a nationalist revolt.

Honduras - 1924-25 - Troops landed twice during a

national election.

Panama - 1925 - Troops sent in to put down a general

strike.

China - 1927-34 - Marines sent in and stationed for

seven years throughout China.

El Salvador - 1932 - Naval warships deployed during

the FMLN revolt under Marti.

World War II - 1941-45 - Military fought the Axis

powers: Japan, Germany, and Italy.

Yugoslavia - 1946 - Navy deployed off the coast of

Yugoslavia in response to the downing of an American

plane.

Uruguay - 1947 - Bombers deployed as a show of

military force.

Greece - 1947-49 - United States operations insured a

victory for the far right in national ``elections.``

Germany - 1948 - Military deployed in response to the

Berlin blockade; the Berlin airlift lasts 444 days.

Philippines - 1948-54 - The CIA directed a civil war

against the Filipino Huk revolt.

Puerto Rico - 1950 - Military helped crush an

independence rebellion in Ponce.

Korean War - 1951-53 - Military sent in during the

war.

Iran - 1953 - The CIA orchestrated the overthrow of

democratically elected Mossadegh and restored the Shah

to power.

Vietnam - 1954 - The United States offered weapons to

the French in the battle against Ho Chi Minh and the

Viet Minh.

Guatemala - 1954 - The CIA overthrew the

democratically elected Arbenz and placed Colonel Armas

in power.

Egypt - 1956 - Marines deployed to evacuate foreigners

after Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal.

Lebanon - 1958 - Navy supported an Army occupation of

Lebanon during its civil war.

Panama - 1958 - Troops landed after Panamanians

demonstrations threatened the Canal Zone.

Vietnam - 1950s-75 - Vietnam War.

Cuba - 1961 - The CIA-directed Bay of Pigs invasions

failed to overthrow the Castro government.

Cuba - 1962 - The Navy quarantines Cuba during the

Cuban Missile Crisis.

Laos - 1962 - Military occupied Laos during its civil

war against the Pathet Lao guerrillas.

Panama - 1964 - Troops sent in and Panamanians shot

while protesting the United States presence in the

Canal Zone.

Indonesia - 1965 - The CIA orchestrated a military

coup.

Dominican Rep- 1965-66 - Troops deployed during a

national election.

Guatemala - 1966-67 - Green Berets sent in.

Cambodia - 1969-75 - Military sent in after the

Vietnam War expanded into Cambodia.

Oman - 1970 - Marines landed to direct a possible

invasion into Iran.

Laos - 1971-75 - Americans carpet-bomb the countryside

during Laos` civil war.

Chile - 1973 - The CIA orchestrated a coup, killing

President Allende who had been popularly elected. The

CIA helped to establish a military regime under

General Pinochet.

Cambodia - 1975 - Twenty-eight Americans killed in an

effort to retrieve the crew of the Mayaquez, which had

been seized.

Angola - 1976-92 - The CIA backed South African rebels

fighting against Marxist Angola.

Iran - 1980 - Americans aborted a rescue attempt to

liberate 52 hostages seized in the Teheran embassy.

Libya - 1981 - American fighters shoot down two Libyan

fighters.

El Salvador - 1981-92 - The CIA, troops, and advisers

aid in El Salvador`s war against the FMLN.

Nicaragua - 1981-90 - The CIA and NSC directed the

Contra War against the Sandinistas.

Lebanon - 1982-84 - Marines occupied Beirut during

Lebanon`s civil war; 241 were killed in the American

barracks and Reagan ``redeployed`` the troops to the

Mediterranean.

Honduras - 1983-89 - Troops sent in to build bases

near the Honduran border.

Grenada - 1983-84 - American invasion overthrew the

Maurice Bishop government.

Iran - 1984 - American fighters shot down two Iranian

planes over the Persian Gulf.

Libya - 1986 - American fighters hit targets in and

around the capital city of Tripoli.

Bolivia - 1986 - The Army assisted government troops

on raids of cocaine areas.

Iran - 1987-88 - The United States intervened on the

side of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War.

Libya - 1989 - Navy shot down two more Libyan jets.

Virgin Islands - 1989 - Troops landed during unrest

among Virgin Island peoples.

Philippines - 1989 - Air Force provided air cover for

government during coup.

Panama - 1989-90 - 27,000 Americans landed in

overthrow of President Noriega; over 2,000 Panama

civilians were killed.

Liberia - 1990 - Troops entered Liberia to evacuate

foreigners during civil war.

Saudi Arabia - 1990-91 - American troops sent to Saudi

Arabia, which was a staging area in the war against

Iraq.

Kuwait - 1991 - Troops sent into Kuwait to turn back

Saddam Hussein.

Somalia - 1992-94 - Troops occupied Somalia during

civil war.

Bosnia - 1993-95 - Air Force jets bombed ``no-fly zone``

during civil war in Yugoslavia.

Haiti - 1994-96 - American troops and Navy provided a

blockade against Haiti`s military government. The CIA

restored Aristide to power.

Zaire - 1996-97 - Marines sent into Rwanda Hutus`

refugee camps in the area where the Congo revolution

began.

Albania - 1997 - Troops deployed during evacuation of

foreigners.

Sudan - 1998 - American missiles destroyed a

pharmaceutical complex where alleged nerve gas

components were manufactured.

Afghanistan - 1998 - Missiles launched towards alleged

Afghan terrorist training camps.

Yugoslavia - 1999 - Bombings and missile attacks

carried out by the United States in conjunction with

NATO in the 11 week war against Milosevic.

Iraq - 1998-2001 - Missiles launched into Baghdad and

other large Iraq cities for four days. American jets

enforced ``no-fly zone`` and continued to hit Iraqi

targets since December 1998.

These * *100 * * instances of American military

intervention did not include times when the United

States:

(1) deployed military police overseas;

(2) mobilized the National Guard;

(3) sent Navy ships off the coast of numerous

countries as a show of strength;

(4) sent additional troops to areas where Americans

were already stationed;

(5) carried out covert actions where American forces

were not under the direct rule of an American command;

(6) used small hostage rescue units;

(7) used American pilots to fly foreign planes;

(8) carried out military training and advisory

programs which did not involve direct combat.

U. S. Government Assassination Plots



Following is a list of prominent foreign leaders whose assassination

(or planning for same) the United States has been involved in since

the end of Second World War. The list does not include several

assassinations in various parts of the world carried out by anti-Castro

Cubans employed by CIA and headquartered in the United States:

LIST A: NON MUSLIMS

1949 - KIm Koo, Korean opposition leader

1950`s - CIA/Neo-Nazi hit list of numerous political figures in

West Germany

1955 - Jose` Antonio Remon, President of Panama

1950`s Chou En-lai, Prime Minister of China, several attempts

on his life

1951 - Kim Il Sung, Premiere of North Korea

1950s (mid) - Claro M. Recto, Philippines opposition leader

1955 - Jawar Lal Nehru, Prime Minister of India

1959 and 1963 - Norodom Sihanouk, leader of Cambodia

1950s-70s - Jose Figueres, President of Costa Rica,

two attempts on his life

1961 - Francois ``Papa Doc``Duvalier, leader of Haiti

1961 - Patrice Lumumba , Prime Minister of Congo (Zaire)

1961 - Gen. Rafael Trujillo, leader of Dominican Republic

1963 - Ngo Dinh Diem, President of South Vietnam

1960s - Fidel Castro, President of Cuba, more than

15 attempts on his life

1960s - Raul Castro, high official in government of Cuba

1965 - Francisco Caamanao, Dominican Republic opposition leader

1965 - Pierre Ngendandumwe, Prime Minister of Burundi

1965-6 - Charles de Gaulle, President of France

1967 - Che Guevara, Cuban leader

1970 - Salvadore Allende, President of Chile

1970 - General Rene Schneider, Commander-in-Chief of Army, Chile

1970s and 1981 - Gen. Omar Torrijos, leader of Panama

1972 - General Manuel Noriega, Chief of Panama Intelligence

1975 - Mobutu Sese Seko, President of Zaire

1976 - Michael Manley, Prime Minister of Jamaica

1983 - Miguel d`Escoto, Foreign Minister of Nicaragua

1984 - The nine commandantes of the Sandanista

National Directorate

1980`s - Dr. Gerald Bull, Canadian Ballistics Scientist

assassinated by Mossad in Belgium.

Partial List of Muslim Leaders Assassinated or

Attempted Assassinations

1950`s Sukarno, President of Indonesia

1957 Gamal Abdul Nasser, President of Egypt

1960 Brigadier General, Abdul Karim Kassem, Leader of Iraq

1980-86 Muammar Qaddafi, Leader of Libya, several plots and

attempts upon his life

1982 Ayatullah Khomeini, Leader of Iran

1983 General Ahmed Dlimi, Moroccan army Commander

1985 Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadllallah, Lebanese Shiite Leader

(80 people killed in that attempt)

1991 Saddam Hussein, Leader of Iraq

Reference: Blum, William, ``KILLING HOPE - U.S. Military and

CIA Interventions Since World War II,`` Appendix III

U.S. Government Assassination Plots, page 453,

Common Courage Press, Monroe, Maine 1995. ISBN 1-56751-052-3

Very likely Victims :

April 4, 1979 - Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Leader of Pakistan, for pursuing making

of

Nuclear Bomb.

August, 1988. General Ziaul Haq, Military Leader of Pakistan.

1995 - Murtaza Bhutto, Son of ZUlfiqar Ali Bhutto, Anti-American

would-be Leader - Pakistan.

March 25, 1975 - King Faisal of Saudi Arabia through his Nephew, Saudi

Arabia

for imposing 1973 Oil Embargo.

August 24, 1999. Mullah Mohammad Omar, in Kandhar, Afghanistan.

|

``À``List of Known Assassination Plots

1950`s Sukarno, President of Indonesia

1957 Gamal Abdul Nasser, President

2001 Since early this year more than 40 Palestinian leaders assassinated

through surrogate Israel.

Islams Challenge

Ever since the United States Army massacred 300 Lakotas in 1890, American

forces have intervened elsewhere around the globe 100 times. Indeed the

United States has sent troops abroad or militarily struck other countries`

territory 216 times since independence from Britain. Since 1945 the United

States has intervened in more than 20 countries throughout the world.

Since World War II, the United States actually dropped bombs on 23

countries. These include: China 1945-46, Korea 1950-53, China 1950-53,

Guatemala 1954, Indonesia 1958, Cuba 1959-60, Guatemala 1960, Congo 1964,

Peru 1965, Laos 1964-73, Vietnam 1961-73, Cambodia 1969-70, Guatemala

1967-69, Grenada 1983, Lebanon 1984, Libya 1986, El Salvador 1980s,

Nicaragua 1980s, Panama 1989, Iraq 1991-1999, Sudan 1998, Afghanistan 1998,

and Yugoslavia 1999.

Post World War II, the United States has also assisted in over 20 different

coups throughout the world, and the CIA was responsible for half a dozen

assassinations of political heads of state.

The following is a comprehensive summary of the imperialist strategy of the

United States over the span of the past century:

Argentina - 1890 - Troops sent to Buenos Aires to

protect business interests.

Chile - 1891 - Marines sent to Chile and clashed with

nationalist rebels.

Haiti - 1891 - American troops suppress a revolt by

Black workers on United States-claimed Navassa Island.

Hawaii - 1893 - Navy sent to Hawaii to overthrow the

independent kingdom - Hawaii annexed by the United

States.

Nicaragua - 1894 - Troops occupied Bluefields, a city

on the Caribbean Sea, for a month.

China - 1894-95 - Navy, Army, and Marines landed

during the Sino-Japanese War.

Korea - 1894-96 - Troops kept in Seoul during the war.

Panama - 1895 - Army, Navy, and Marines landed in the

port city of Corinto.

China - 1894-1900 - Troops occupied China during the

Boxer Rebellion.

Philippines - 1898-1910 - Navy and Army troops landed

after the Philippines fell during the Spanish-American

War; 600,000 Filipinos were killed.

Cuba - 1898-1902 - Troops seized Cuba in the

Spanish-American War; the United States still

maintains troops at Guantanamo Bay today.

Puerto Rico - 1898 - present - Troops seized Puerto

Rico in the Spanish-American War and still occupy

Puerto Rico today.

Nicaragua - 1898 - Marines landed at the port of San

Juan del Sur.

Samoa - 1899 - Troops landed as a result over the

battle for succession to the throne.

Panama - 1901-14 - Navy supported the revolution when

Panama claimed independence from Colombia. American

troops have occupied the Canal Zone since 1901 when

construction for the canal began.

Honduras - 1903 - Marines landed to intervene during a

revolution.

Dominican Rep 1903-04 - Troops landed to protect

American interests during a revolution.

Korea - 1904-05 - Marines landed during the

Russo-Japanese War.

Cuba - 1906-09 - Troops landed during an election.

Nicaragua - 1907 - Troops landed and a protectorate

was set up.

Honduras - 1907 - Marines landed during Honduras` war

with Nicaragua.

Panama - 1908 - Marines sent in during Panama`s

election.

Nicaragua - 1910 - Marines landed for a second time in

Bluefields and Corinto.

Honduras - 1911 - Troops sent in to protect American

interests during Honduras` civil war.

China - 1911-41 - Navy and troops sent to China during

continuous flare-ups.

Cuba - 1912 - Troops sent in to protect American

interests in Havana.

Panama - 1912 - Marines landed during Panama`s

election.

Honduras - 1912 - Troops sent in to protect American

interests.

Nicaragua - 1912-33 - Troops occupied Nicaragua and

fought guerrillas during its 20-year civil war.

Mexico - 1913 - Navy evacuated Americans during

revolution.

Dominican Rep 1914 - Navy fought with rebels over

Santo Domingo.

Mexico - 1914-18 - Navy and troops sent in to

intervene against nationalists.

Haiti - 1914-34 - Troops occupied Haiti after a

revolution and occupied Haiti for 19 years.

Dominican Rep 1916-24 - Marines occupied the Dominican

Republic for eight years.

Cuba - 1917-33 - Troops landed and occupied Cuba for

16 years; Cuba became an economic protectorate.

World War I - 1917-18 - Navy and Army sent to Europe

to fight the Axis powers.

Russia - 1918-22 - Navy and troops sent to eastern

Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution; Army made five

landings.

Honduras - 1919 - Marines sent during Honduras`

national elections.

Guatemala - 1920 - Troops occupied Guatemala for two

weeks during a union strike.

Turkey - 1922 - Troops fought nationalists in Smyrna.

China - 1922-27 - Navy and Army troops deployed during

a nationalist revolt.

Honduras - 1924-25 - Troops landed twice during a

national election.

Panama - 1925 - Troops sent in to put down a general

strike.

China - 1927-34 - Marines sent in and stationed for

seven years throughout China.

El Salvador - 1932 - Naval warships deployed during

the FMLN revolt under Marti.

World War II - 1941-45 - Military fought the Axis

powers: Japan, Germany, and Italy.

Yugoslavia - 1946 - Navy deployed off the coast of

Yugoslavia in response to the downing of an American

plane.

Uruguay - 1947 - Bombers deployed as a show of

military force.

Greece - 1947-49 - United States operations insured a

victory for the far right in national ``elections.``

Germany - 1948 - Military deployed in response to the

Berlin blockade; the Berlin airlift lasts 444 days.

Philippines - 1948-54 - The CIA directed a civil war

against the Filipino Huk revolt.

Puerto Rico - 1950 - Military helped crush an

independence rebellion in Ponce.

Korean War - 1951-53 - Military sent in during the

war.

Iran - 1953 - The CIA orchestrated the overthrow of

democratically elected Mossadegh and restored the Shah

to power.

Vietnam - 1954 - The United States offered weapons to

the French in the battle against Ho Chi Minh and the

Viet Minh.

Guatemala - 1954 - The CIA overthrew the

democratically elected Arbenz and placed Colonel Armas

in power.

Egypt - 1956 - Marines deployed to evacuate foreigners

after Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal.

Lebanon - 1958 - Navy supported an Army occupation of

Lebanon during its civil war.

Panama - 1958 - Troops landed after Panamanians

demonstrations threatened the Canal Zone.

Vietnam - 1950s-75 - Vietnam War.

Cuba - 1961 - The CIA-directed Bay of Pigs invasions

failed to overthrow the Castro government.

Cuba - 1962 - The Navy quarantines Cuba during the

Cuban Missile Crisis.

Laos - 1962 - Military occupied Laos during its civil

war against the Pathet Lao guerrillas.

Panama - 1964 - Troops sent in and Panamanians shot

while protesting the United States presence in the

Canal Zone.

Indonesia - 1965 - The CIA orchestrated a military

coup.

Dominican Rep- 1965-66 - Troops deployed during a

national election.

Guatemala - 1966-67 - Green Berets sent in.

Cambodia - 1969-75 - Military sent in after the

Vietnam War expanded into Cambodia.

Oman - 1970 - Marines landed to direct a possible

invasion into Iran.

Laos - 1971-75 - Americans carpet-bomb the countryside

during Laos` civil war.

Chile - 1973 - The CIA orchestrated a coup, killing

President Allende who had been popularly elected. The

CIA helped to establish a military regime under

General Pinochet.

Cambodia - 1975 - Twenty-eight Americans killed in an

effort to retrieve the crew of the Mayaquez, which had

been seized.

Angola - 1976-92 - The CIA backed South African rebels

fighting against Marxist Angola.

Iran - 1980 - Americans aborted a rescue attempt to

liberate 52 hostages seized in the Teheran embassy.

Libya - 1981 - American fighters shoot down two Libyan

fighters.

El Salvador - 1981-92 - The CIA, troops, and advisers

aid in El Salvador`s war against the FMLN.

Nicaragua - 1981-90 - The CIA and NSC directed the

Contra War against the Sandinistas.

Lebanon - 1982-84 - Marines occupied Beirut during

Lebanon`s civil war; 241 were killed in the American

barracks and Reagan ``redeployed`` the troops to the

Mediterranean.

Honduras - 1983-89 - Troops sent in to build bases

near the Honduran border.

Grenada - 1983-84 - American invasion overthrew the

Maurice Bishop government.

Iran - 1984 - American fighters shot down two Iranian

planes over the Persian Gulf.

Libya - 1986 - American fighters hit targets in and

around the capital city of Tripoli.

Bolivia - 1986 - The Army assisted government troops

on raids of cocaine areas.

Iran - 1987-88 - The United States intervened on the

side of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War.

Libya - 1989 - Navy shot down two more Libyan jets.

Virgin Islands - 1989 - Troops landed during unrest

among Virgin Island peoples.

Philippines - 1989 - Air Force provided air cover for

government during coup.

Panama - 1989-90 - 27,000 Americans landed in

overthrow of President Noriega; over 2,000 Panama

civilians were killed.

Liberia - 1990 - Troops entered Liberia to evacuate

foreigners during civil war.

Saudi Arabia - 1990-91 - American troops sent to Saudi

Arabia, which was a staging area in the war against

Iraq.

Kuwait - 1991 - Troops sent into Kuwait to turn back

Saddam Hussein.

Somalia - 1992-94 - Troops occupied Somalia during

civil war.

Bosnia - 1993-95 - Air Force jets bombed ``no-fly zone``

during civil war in Yugoslavia.

Haiti - 1994-96 - American troops and Navy provided a

blockade against Haiti`s military government. The CIA

restored Aristide to power.

Zaire - 1996-97 - Marines sent into Rwanda Hutus`

refugee camps in the area where the Congo revolution

began.

Albania - 1997 - Troops deployed during evacuation of

foreigners.

Sudan - 1998 - American missiles destroyed a

pharmaceutical complex where alleged nerve gas

components were manufactured.

Afghanistan - 1998 - Missiles launched towards alleged

Afghan terrorist training camps.

Yugoslavia - 1999 - Bombings and missile attacks

carried out by the United States in conjunction with

NATO in the 11 week war against Milosevic.

Iraq - 1998-2001 - Missiles launched into Baghdad and

other large Iraq cities for four days. American jets

enforced ``no-fly zone`` and continued to hit Iraqi

targets since December 1998.

These * *100 * * instances of American military

intervention did not include times when the United

States:

(1) deployed military police overseas;

(2) mobilized the National Guard;

(3) sent Navy ships off the coast of numerous

countries as a show of strength;

(4) sent additional troops to areas where Americans

were already stationed;

(5) carried out covert actions where American forces

were not under the direct rule of an American command;

(6) used small hostage rescue units;

(7) used American pilots to fly foreign planes;

(8) carried out military training and advisory

programs which did not involve direct combat.

U. S. Government Assassination Plots



Following is a list of prominent foreign leaders whose assassination

(or planning for same) the United States has been involved in since

the end of Second World War. The list does not include several

assassinations in various parts of the world carried out by anti-Castro

Cubans employed by CIA and headquartered in the United States:

LIST A: NON MUSLIMS

1949 - KIm Koo, Korean opposition leader

1950`s - CIA/Neo-Nazi hit list of numerous political figures in

West Germany

1955 - Jose` Antonio Remon, President of Panama

1950`s Chou En-lai, Prime Minister of China, several attempts

on his life

1951 - Kim Il Sung, Premiere of North Korea

1950s (mid) - Claro M. Recto, Philippines opposition leader

1955 - Jawar Lal Nehru, Prime Minister of India

1959 and 1963 - Norodom Sihanouk, leader of Cambodia

1950s-70s - Jose Figueres, President of Costa Rica,

two attempts on his life

1961 - Francois ``Papa Doc``Duvalier, leader of Haiti

1961 - Patrice Lumumba , Prime Minister of Congo (Zaire)

1961 - Gen. Rafael Trujillo, leader of Dominican Republic

1963 - Ngo Dinh Diem, President of South Vietnam

1960s - Fidel Castro, President of Cuba, more than

15 attempts on his life

1960s - Raul Castro, high official in government of Cuba

1965 - Francisco Caamanao, Dominican Republic opposition leader

1965 - Pierre Ngendandumwe, Prime Minister of Burundi

1965-6 - Charles de Gaulle, President of France

1967 - Che Guevara, Cuban leader

1970 - Salvadore Allende, President of Chile

1970 - General Rene Schneider, Commander-in-Chief of Army, Chile

1970s and 1981 - Gen. Omar Torrijos, leader of Panama

1972 - General Manuel Noriega, Chief of Panama Intelligence

1975 - Mobutu Sese Seko, President of Zaire

1976 - Michael Manley, Prime Minister of Jamaica

1983 - Miguel d`Escoto, Foreign Minister of Nicaragua

1984 - The nine commandantes of the Sandanista

National Directorate

1980`s - Dr. Gerald Bull, Canadian Ballistics Scientist

assassinated by Mossad in Belgium.

Partial List of Muslim Leaders Assassinated or

Attempted Assassinations

1950`s Sukarno, President of Indonesia

1957 Gamal Abdul Nasser, President of Egypt

1960 Brigadier General, Abdul Karim Kassem, Leader of Iraq

1980-86 Muammar Qaddafi, Leader of Libya, several plots and

attempts upon his life

1982 Ayatullah Khomeini, Leader of Iran

1983 General Ahmed Dlimi, Moroccan army Commander

1985 Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadllallah, Lebanese Shiite Leader

(80 people killed in that attempt)

1991 Saddam Hussein, Leader of Iraq

Reference: Blum, William, ``KILLING HOPE - U.S. Military and

CIA Interventions Since World War II,`` Appendix III

U.S. Government Assassination Plots, page 453,

Common Courage Press, Monroe, Maine 1995. ISBN 1-56751-052-3

Very likely Victims :

April 4, 1979 - Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Leader of Pakistan, for pursuing making

of

Nuclear Bomb.

August, 1988. General Ziaul Haq, Military Leader of Pakistan.

1995 - Murtaza Bhutto, Son of ZUlfiqar Ali Bhutto, Anti-American

would-be Leader - Pakistan.

March 25, 1975 - King Faisal of Saudi Arabia through his Nephew, Saudi

Arabia

for imposing 1973 Oil Embargo.

August 24, 1999. Mullah Mohammad Omar, in Kandhar, Afghanistan.

|

``À``List of Known Assassination Plots

1950`s Sukarno, President of Indonesia

1957 Gamal Abdul Nasser, President

2001 Since early this year more than 40 Palestinian leaders assassinated

through surrogate Israel.

Islams Challenge

Islams Challenge

WILL U.S.A GIVE RISE TO NEW FORM OF COLD WAR ,BETWEEN ,THE ISLAMISTS & THE IMPERIAL CAPITALIST FORM OF ECONOMY.

There have been accounts of members belonging to affluent families from Saudi Arabia, Sudan, UAE and Egypt participating in the armed struggles in Chechnya, Kosovo and elsewhere, thinking that they were performing a religious obligation. Many of these individuals belong to Akhwan-e-Muslemin, which has gained support in Sudan, Algeria and Egypt and is making inroads into West Asia.

A Call to Moderate Islamic Institutions

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *





The ongoing war of attrition between the United States and Taliban over terror in America has made the whole Islamic world edgy wondering about its aftermath.

Last Friday, mosques all over India and abroad tried to deal with this unprecedented situation. The khutbas (address) after juma prayers pleaded to Allah to protect Muslims all over the world. While every Imam condemned the attack, there was no clear view on how to respond to the near certainty of a global, violent retaliation underlining the deep-rooted confusion in the Islamic world on how to deal with terrorism and jihadis.

Muslims are asking themselves -- Is jihad (fight for religion) a sixth religious obligation for a Muslim after Tauhid (one of God), Namaz (prayers), Roza (fasting), Haj (pilgrimage) and Zakat (charity)? If so, who decides the conditions under which jihad can be fought? Muslims all over the world want religious leaders to issue a fatwa on terrorism and jihad to clear widespread confusion that blurs the line between humanity and anarchy.

Muslim scholars are unanimous that there is a provision in Islam that allows jihad, as Prophet Mohammad and his associates known as Khulfa-e-Rashideens participated in many such wars. But in 21st century nation-states, that brand of jihad has become obsolete. Thus, who has the locus standi to coin the term jihad?

Prominent Islamic institutions in India like Nadwa (Lucknow), Deoband (Saharanpur), Darul-Mussanfeen (Azamgarh) and religious leaders in Delhi, Bhopal, Hyderabad, Calcutta, Lucknow want Al-Azhar (Cairo, Egypt), Rapta-Islami (Saudi Arabia), Mecca-centric Da`wah International and other prominent, apolitical, religious schools in West Asia to take a lead in defining terrorism and jihad worldwide so that innocent youth are not lured into religious fervour against national governments across the globe.

According to G.M. Banatwala, Syed Shahabuddin, Mufti Mukarram, in the absence of clear guidelines, many religious schools are accused of becoming breeding grounds for jihadis, fundamentalists and cults of violence. “There should be an end to this world-wide confusion,” said Banatwala, condemning the attacks on US.

The Mecca-based Da`wah, which prepares quality literature about Islam, made a strong case for `exemplary` punishment for perpetrators of the World Trade Center killings and said, “May Allah help us in these very trying times and may He bring to justice all those involved in this act of terrorism, whoever they may be.” While there is all round condemnation of the attack on America, the Muslim society is anxious over its aftermath.

There is a widespread feeling that the killings in New York and the unprecedented attack on Pentagon could trigger an international backlash against Islamic groups, leading to some sort of `reaction.` If the world comes against terrorism, it is alright but some ground rules should be prepared and application should be universal and not selective, said Banatwala.

At present there is no Muslim umbrella organisation that commands worldwide respect in matters such as issuance of fatwas or defining conditions for jihad. Since the fall of the Ottoman empire when a Caliph also had the title of Amir-ul-Momineen (head of Muslims), the Islamic society is sharply divided into dozens of groups who differ on almost every issue. Even in civil matters like divorce, there are no universal norms about application of triple talaq or maintenance. When Ayotollah Khomeini had issued a fatwa against writer Salman Rushdie, there was muted criticism about Khomeini`s locus standi but in the absence of a proper forum, Muslims remained divided. Muslim scholars in India and abroad want the US and other Western powers to hold constant dialogues with moderate Islamic institutions to isolate radical and often violent groups that have mushroomed almost everywhere.

Moderate Muslim leaders like Mufti Mukarram of Delhi`s Fatehpuri mosque are alarmed over the rise of the new breed of Islamists who have been advocating inclusion of jihad as the sixth obligation for every Muslim, as in West Asia, and in Afghanistan by the Taliban. There have been accounts of members belonging to affluent families from Saudi Arabia, Sudan, UAE and Egypt participating in the armed struggles in Chechnya, Kosovo and elsewhere, thinking that they were performing a religious obligation. Many of these individuals belong to Akhwan-e-Muslemin, which has gained support in Sudan, Algeria and Egypt and is making inroads into West Asia.

Though the concept of Akhwan`s brand of jihad is completely alien to India, Muslim leaders want religious seminaries like Nadwa, Darul-Ulum and others to take a view on it so that the cult is nipped in the bud.

Islams Challenge

Islams Challenge

Challenges Of Islam

If language is a mode to express things and communicate with fellow human beings, then perhaps linguistics and lexicons know better how difficult and inadequate they find themselves when they have to translate and understand the meaning of a word from the text to the context, from one language to another, or elicit the implicit meaning from within a word itself into an explicit, distinct, appropriate unambiguous form. The task remains challenging yet never achievable, not because we lack the means and method to do it, but because of the very nature of its usage. Its growth in a given culture and society in which it is used keeps the perennial challenge alive as to how to interpret it in the light of changing circumstances and with the growth and development of society.

This very difficulty of interpretation of language, more particularly religious texts, has been the root of all misunderstanding. Not only have the subjective elements of individuals or groups colored their own interests while throwing light on the meaning of the text, but this was and is still being surreptitiously distorted, misinterpreted by the `other` in their race for dominance and superiority and for serving their own interests. It is due to the limitation of human language that, more often than not, the meaning of the religious text has got lost in the encyclopedia of its own school of interpretation.

Realizing this paradoxical dilemma of not having a consensus on the meaning of its own text, radical elements within and outside the Semitic religions had zealously and relentlessly tarnished and damaged its counterparts for its own sustenance and existence. It has become the maxim of Semitic religions that “misunderstandings to be followed as a rule with others.”

Very often we have seen through history that the basic, inherent tendency of Semitic religions like Islam, Christianity and Judaism is to exclude the `other` from itself and by implication it means to attract within its fold as many people as it is possible to maintain its superiority over the others. And to be superior in the material world is to be in control of at least the resources, economy, technology, trade and all other things attached to it that would give to its followers dignity, better living standards and a superior value system.

Since there was no uniformity in the process of bringing within its fold new groups of believers, they had to face each other within the same ethnic cultural groups of people like the Arab Muslims and the Arab Christians. Because of the change in their belief systems and religion, they started having more in common and felt alike with those who shared their beliefs and their new religion than with those with whom they had shared ethnically the same world view earlier. This paved the way for more complicated reorganization of people in terms of their religious world views within the Semitic religions, and as such an urgency for adjustment of each other`s interest arose wherever confrontation had to be avoided.

This situation arose within the same ethnic groups, where Semitic religion came to take its root together and also where different ethnic groups who were completely under the fold of one Semitic religion had to encounter the other Semitic or non-Semitic religion. So long as there was some internal understanding and balance of interest within the Semitic religion for protecting their own interest either through debate, dialogue or conciliation, we witnessed periods of peace in history. But the day disgruntled elements decided to subvert the balance and attempted to annihilate the `other` or retard the growth of the other, we have umpteen examples in our pages of world history that speak volumes about the destruction and tragedy that both sides had to suffer.

So what is happening in the world today is nothing new; it should neither shock nor surprise us. It is the logical extension of the same attitude that has ramified into our political and social ideology. However, only the backdrop has changed. The attitude is colored now with the complicated network of science, technology, economic development, world security, human rights, terrorism, free state, etc., which in its intrinsic sense has nothing to do with religion or religious beliefs, but has its own inherent values and forces that it generates by itself.

The western world in general, and America in particular, though finding itself still deep-rooted in its religion and its belief systems, was farsighted and more practical in its approach when it realized that it was impossible to resolve multiple religious aspirations in the light of its own emerging social realities, created by a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic set up, and complicated further by the advancement in science and technology. They relegated religion into the personal sphere of life realizing the practical existential difficulties they would have to resolve if this was not done.

But applying religious meaning would be suicidal to these new realities. This is not because the values adhered to within religions cannot explain the modern phenomena, but because of the diverse opinions within itself about -- what is religion? What is the value attached to it? Whether religion should regulate our total life? Do all religions have something universal, etc. These are so vexatious and complicated that anybody and everybody could use God or Allah as a pretext for justification of his personal or collective deeds or misdeeds.

We are all civilized and cultured during times of peace when we are in total control of our interest and when there is no immediate threat to the same, but in a crisis, our rationality takes a back seat. Instinctively human beings try to incite a sense of arousal in their surroundings to generate a mass support, identifying their personal problems with the sympathy of the overwhelming collective. Rationalizing, justifying cannot arouse this common excitement. Even if it does, we have seen that the impact is miniscule because of the difference of opinion that it always creates in the process of arriving at any understanding. And the limitation of people or groups that would react would always depend on the level of education and the political or social ideology they subscribe to.

As such human emotion becomes the most potential victim of vested interest groups and radical elements in Semitic religions. And if the subject matter to which emotions would be directed is divinity, then history is a witness as to how “rationality” has been time and again imprisoned or brutally murdered for revealing the misdeeds of rulers, administrators, powerful nations who had taken religion for a terrible ride, when their economic crises had to be averted, political justifications were to be given and when lust for power and dominance were driving them to hell.

Why equate Islam with terrorism then? It is a fact that Islam has been misused by elements within itself for furthering their own interests. But this is also true with the vested interests in all the religions. The danger in equating Islam with terrorism would amount to committing a serious mistake. This is because Islam is geographically and politically distributed throughout the globe and amounts to one third of the global population and the aggrieved elements happen to be within the Islamic countries. These aggrieved elements are reacting to the incapability and complacency of their own respective governments to protest against the Western military and economic dominance over their land and oil. It is this peculiar situation that all Islamic countries are unable to face. The growing dissenting voices within these countries actually fuel small connected groups of people who find it easy to identify with each other in religious terms to fight against the western dominance. The fact that even Islamic countries have joined the world forces against these isolated groups proves that even they want world peace. The real issue involved here is the vast disparity between the techno-haves and the have-nots, between monopolization and self-assertions, between nuclear powers and non nuclear powers, between extra-territorial domination and no territory and between the exploiter and the exploited.

How do we manage our natural resources that are unequally distributed in diverse geographical locations? How do we reach the benefit of scientific knowledge to the remotest parts of our society? How do we bridge our ideological differences and economic inequalities? There is no denying the fact that our social scientists, environmentalists, economists, NGOs and other social bodies are working extremely hard in understanding and giving practical shape and direction to resolve this. If left unaddressed and unresolved, this will sooner or later destroy our social and economic structure and chaos would be imminent. No religion, ethics, morality or values can save us then. We will have to be doomed to live in a perennial state of insecurity, dread, poverty exploitation, terrorism and deprivation.

Terrorism in any form is bad. The pulse of terrorism lies deep rooted in our society. It is created out of inequality and deprivation. The motivating force of terrorism is mutually generated by the perpetrator and the victim. This drives the aggrieved sections of the society to resort to all possible means to fight against the powerful aggressor by any means. But, the moment we start justifying any act of violence, we know it opens up a plethora of questions along with it. Why is there terrorism? Who should define terrorism? What type of terrorism we talking about? Is the society itself responsible for creating it? What is the remedy? There are diverse opinions among intellectuals and they are yet to arrive on any common understanding about it. But they do agree that the issue is about people, technology, agencies, radical elements and vested groups who have capabilities to generate terror cutting across all man-made boundaries.

The medium to transmit this terror can be religion, culture, technology, and ideology. As such it is a human problem, an issue of our society which involves the security of our nation. And we all know that human beings are as diverse as the universe itself. The society in which we are living and the world that is emerging is made up of a cross section of people, culture and values. And our nation itself is a fragile man-made entity, where its general health depends upon how every section contributes to adjusting and balancing its respective interests, irrespective of its own religious, cultural and ethnic background. So it would be suicidal on the part of any aware individuals or groups who know that they are living in the multi cultural, religious and multi ethnic society, where progressive mindsets and radical elements play hide and seek every now and then, to generalize any act of violence in terms of religion, ethnicity and culture on any particular group of people.

Scientific attitude towards life itself has brought out a class of people in every society. These people, irrespective of their religious or cultural background, participate and identify themselves with each other more zealously than with their own ethnic or religious counterparts. As such this progressive group of people will have to play a vital role in reforming their own society. Our society has made great sacrifices in reaching a state where it maintains a delicate balance between the progressive mindset and the radical elements.

No irrational mind should be allowed to disturb this balance. This again is because we don`t have a choice. If we want to live peacefully and if we aspire for progress and development then balancing the needs and aspirations of our society is a necessity and not something which we can luxuriously afford to discuss and desire.

It is this balancing of interests that is relevant in maintaining global peace in terms of resources, technology and information. The accountability question lies more on the western world and America in particular because they are at the vanguard of all the scientific, technological advancement in the world today. Have they been maintaining the balance of interest in the world today? Certainly not! Do they have the moral strength and character to admit to the duality of their foreign policy? And have we ever objected to that? No, we were complacent! Will they be civilized enough to admit that they had their share in the creation of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban to neutralize the Russian factor during the Cold War. Certainly they must be regretting it now. Should the price for being opportunist, indifferent and complacent to rights, justice, deprivation and forced occupation be so colossal that thousands of lives of innocent civilians had to be taken in the most horrifying manner to wake up the conscience of humanity that under the garb of Globalization and Free World something wrong was being seriously committed? Certainly not!

Post Your Comments

Read 11 Comments Posted So Far



Top of Page

Previous Random Next

Send this

Page to

a Friend

Post Your

Comments

About the

Author

Email the

Author

Printer

Friendly

Version





© Copyright 1998-2001 Khalid Khan. All Rights Reserved. Internet publishing rights granted to Sulekha. This column may not be transmitted or distributed by others in any manner whatsoever without the permission of Khalid Khan. The author is solely responsible for the contents of the column. General site copyright is owned by Smart Information Worldwide.







Share your views on this article... Now you can use the form below to write and post your comments to Sulekha in addition to sending an email to the author. Please make sure you type in your correct email address so that the author and others can send you a reply. Sulekha reserves the right to edit or remove comments that contain personal abuse, gratuitous obscenities or other forms of offensive speech. We welcome constructive criticism and helpful suggestions.

Islams Challenge

I have had the [pleasure of having met ,him,almost 10 yrs ago .He is multilinguist with fluent in ARABIC

The unfolding scenario, as Chomsky sees it

Eminent scholar and analyst Noam Chomsky answers some of the most frequently asked questions about the September 11 terror attacks in Washington and New York.

Question: Why do you think these attacks happened?

Answer: To answer the question we must first identify the perpetrators of the crimes. It is generally assumed, plausibly, that their origin is the Middle East region, and that the attacks probably trace back to the Osama Bin Laden network, a widespread and complex organization, doubtless inspired by Bin Laden but not necessarily acting under his control.

Let us assume that this is true. Then to answer your question a sensible person would try to ascertain Bin Laden`s views, and the sentiments of the large reservoir of supporters he has throughout the region. About all of this, we have a great deal of information. Bin Laden has been interviewed extensively over the years by highly reliable Middle East specialists, notably the most eminent correspondent in the region, Robert Fisk of the Independent, London, who has intimate knowledge of the entire region and direct experience over decades.

A Saudi Arabian millionaire, Bin Laden became a militant Islamic leader in the war to drive the Russians out of Afghanistan. He was one of the many religious fundamentalist extremists recruited, armed, and financed by the CIA and their allies in Pakistani intelligence to cause maximal harm to the Russians - quite possibly delaying their withdrawal, many analysts suspect - though whether he personally happened to have direct contact with the CIA is unclear, and not particularly important. Not surprisingly, the CIA preferred the most fanatic and cruel fighters they could mobilize. The end result was to ``destroy a moderate regime and create a fanatical one, from groups recklessly financed by the Americans,`` in the words of the London Times correspondent Simon Jenkins, also a specialist on the region.

These ``Afghanis`` as they are called (many, like Bin Laden, not from Afghanistan) carried out terror operations across the border in Russia, but they terminated these after Russia withdrew. Their war was not against Russia, which they despise, but against the Russian occupation and Russia`s crimes against Muslims.

The ``Afghanis`` did not terminate their activities, however. They joined Bosnian Muslim forces in the Balkan Wars; the US did not object, just as it tolerated Iranian support for them, for complex reasons that we need not pursue here, apart from noting that concern for the grim fate of the Bosnians was not prominent among them. The ``Afghanis`` are also fighting the Russians in Chechnya, and, quite possibly, are involved in carrying out terrorist attacks in Moscow and elsewhere in Russian territory. Bin Laden and his ``Afghanis`` turned against the US in 1990 when they established permanent bases in Saudi Arabia - from his point of view, a counterpart to the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, but far more significant because of Saudi Arabia`s special status as the guardian of the holiest shrines.

Bin Laden is also bitterly opposed to the corrupt and repressive regimes of the region, which he regards as ``un-Islamic,`` including the Saudi Arabian regime, the most extreme Islamic fundamentalist regime in the world, apart from the Taliban, and a close US ally since its origins. Bin Laden despises the US for its support of these regimes.

Like others in the region, he is also outraged by long-standing US support for Israel`s brutal military occupation, now in its 35th year: Washington`s decisive diplomatic, military, and economic intervention in support of the killings, the harsh and destructive siege over many years, the daily humiliation to which Palestinians are subjected, the expanding settlements designed to break the occupied territories into Bantustan-like cantons and take control of the resources, the gross violation of the Geneva Conventions, and other actions that are recognized as crimes throughout most of the world, apart from the US, which has prime responsibility for them.

And like others, he contrasts Washington`s dedicated support for these crimes with the decade-long US-British assault against the civilian population of Iraq, which has devastated the society and caused hundreds of thousands of deaths while strengthening Saddam Hussein - who was a favoured friend and ally of the US and Britain right through his worst atrocities, including the gassing of the Kurds, as people of the region also remember well, even if Westerners prefer to forget the facts.

These sentiments are very widely shared. The Wall Street Journal (Sept. 14) published a survey of opinions of wealthy and privileged Muslims in the Gulf region (bankers, professionals, businessmen with close links to the US). They expressed much the same views: resentment of the US policies of supporting Israeli crimes and blocking the international consensus on a diplomatic settlement for many years while devastating Iraqi civilian society, supporting harsh and repressive anti-democratic regimes throughout the region, and imposing barriers against economic development by ``propping up oppressive regimes.

Among the great majority of people suffering deep poverty and oppression, similar sentiments are far more bitter, and are the source of the fury and despair that has led to suicide bombings, as commonly understood by those who are interested in the facts.

The US, and much of the West, prefers a more comforting story. To quote the lead analysis in the New York Times (Sept. 16), the perpetrators acted out of ``hatred for the values cherished in the West as freedom, tolerance, prosperity, religious pluralism and universal suffrage.`` US actions are irrelevant, and therefore need not even be mentioned (Serge Schmemann). This is a convenient picture, and the general stance is not unfamiliar in intellectual history; in fact, it is close to the norm. It happens to be completely at variance with everything we know, but has all the merits of self-adulation and uncritical support for power.

It is also widely recognized that Bin Laden and others like him are praying for ``a great assault on Muslim states,`` which cause ``fanatics to flock to his cause`` (Jenkins, and many others.). That too is familiar. The escalating cycle of violence is typically welcomed by the harshest and most brutal elements on both sides, a fact evident enough from the recent history of the Balkans, to cite only one of many cases.

Q: What consequences will they have on US inner policy and to the American self perception?

A: US policy has already been officially announced. The world is being offered a ``stark choice``: join us, or ``face the certain prospect of death and destruction.`` Congress has authorized the use of force against any individuals or countries the President determines to be involved in the attacks, a doctrine that every supporter regards as ultra-criminal. That is easily demonstrated. Simply ask how the same people would have reacted if Nicaragua had adopted this doctrine after the US had rejected the orders of the World Court to terminate its ``unlawful use of force`` against Nicaragua and had vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on all states to observe international law. And that terrorist attack was far more severe and destructive even than this atrocity.

As for how these matters are perceived here, that is far more complex. One should bear in mind that the media and the intellectual elites generally have their particular agendas. Furthermore, the answer to this question is, in significant measure, a matter of decision: as in many other cases, with sufficient dedication and energy, efforts to stimulate fanaticism, blind hatred, and submission to authority can be reversed. We all know that very well.

Q: Do you expect the US to profoundly change its policy towards the rest of the world?

A: The initial response was to call for intensifying the policies that led to the fury and resentment that provides the background of support for the terrorist attack, and to pursue more intensively the agenda of the most hard line elements of the leadership: increased militarization, domestic regimentation, attack on social programs. That is all to be expected. Again, terror attacks, and the escalating cycle of violence they often engender, tend to reinforce the authority and prestige of the most harsh and repressive elements of a society. But there is nothing inevitable about submission to this course. (To be concluded)

Islams Challenge

September 25, 2001 at

The naughty are rewarded in US`s foreign policy shift

By Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - Much as the United States used to judge countries by whether or not they supported Washington in its anti-communist crusade during the Cold War, it appears that foreign governments will now be rewarded or punished for whether or not they become part of the war against terrorism, particularly of the Islamist kind.

That was the crux of Thursday night`s address by President George W Bush to the US Congress nine days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. As Bush put it, ``Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: either you are with us or you are with the terrorists``.

``That will be the first question the US has for any country,`` according to Thomas Donilon, former Secretary of State Warren Christopher`s chief of staff. ``What we`ve seen is a real paradigm shift in foreign policy in which the central organizing principle will be the effort against terrorism.``

If true, the implications of this sudden shift in US foreign policy priorities are enormous, not only for the United States itself but for the rest of the world as well. This is because of the unrivalled US economic and military power and its influence in international institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Virtually overnight, a country`s performance on human rights, efforts against government corruption, support of democratic institutions, and environmental protection - issues which national and international non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have spent years trying to move up the Washington foreign-policy agenda as anti-communism faded into history - has been kicked down at least one step on the ladder of US policy priorities to make way for the new anti-terrorist agenda.

Even the pursuit of market-friendly economic policies - the core of the so-called Washington Consensus, which increasingly determined what countries would benefit from the largesse of the World Bank and the IMF throughout the 1990s and what countries would be denied it - may now be subordinated to the overriding goal of smashing Islamist terrorism.

Already, major aid packages are being prepared for Pakistan and Uzbekistan, frontline states in the battle against Osama bin Laden`s Al-Qaeda organisation. Bilateral US economic and military sanctions imposed against Islamabad for developing and testing nuclear weapons are to be eased, according to Congressional aides who have attended recent briefings.

Washington may even be willing to waive and soften aid sanctions against Pakistan that were imposed under a law that bans non-humanitarian aid to governments that come to power through a military coup d`etat, if Islamabad continues to cooperate with US efforts, according to the same sources.

More distant enlistees in Washington`s new war also will be rewarded. That was made clear last week during the visit of Indonesia`s new president, Megawati Sukarnoputri, who left meetings with Bush not only with pledges of increased economic and trade assistance, but also the easing of curbs on military ties.

The administration has acknowledged that the human rights performance of the Indonesian military, which has refused to cooperate with national and international efforts to hold officers accountable for the devastation they caused in East Timor in 1999, has only worsened in recent months, particularly in Aceh and West Papua.

During most of the Cold War, Jakarta was one of Washington`s staunchest anti-communist allies, a status that earned it billions of dollars in economic and military assistance.

Officials also have said Washington will be eager to embrace authoritarian governments from which it has until now kept a discreet distance. These include Algeria and the Central Asian states, especially Uzbekistan. Both Algeria and Uzbekistan face Islamist insurgencies which their own human rights and anti-democratic practices helped provoke, according to the International Crisis Group, a think tank specializing in conflict resolution.

``The risk, of course, is that, by embracing these regimes - particularly providing them with police and military aid - we may actually bolster hard-line elements that will just make matters worse,`` observed one State Department official who asked not to be identified.

Even some countries that Washington has charged with backing terrorism may now stand to cash in if they turn on their erstwhile allies.

Human rights activists and others were shocked last week when, reportedly acting on orders from the White House, Speaker of the House of Representatives Dennis Hastert intervened to prevent action on the so-called Sudan Peace Act. The act, supported by a broad coalition of rightwing Christian groups, labor unions, the Congressional Black Caucus, and several human rights NGOs, is designed to put pressure on the Arab-dominated National Islamic Front (NIF) government in Khartoum to end an 18-year war against the Sudan People`s Liberation Army, a rebel group which has been fighting for self-determination for the mainly non-Muslim, African inhabitants of the southern part of the country.

Until September 11, the Bush administration, while it opposed certain capital market sanctions contained in the act, had strongly denounced the NIF for its ruthless conduct of the war. The NIF, which sheltered bin Laden from 1991 to 1996, also is still believed by Washington to provide a safe haven for a number of the alleged terrorist`s associates and business interests. However, US officials now say that, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, Khartoum has suddenly become very cooperative on the counter-terrorist front, providing information on some 26 key figures related to bin Laden and promising concrete steps to bring at least some of them to justice.

``If you take the 11th of September as the beginning of the new world order, they`ve signaled they want to be on the right side of this particular fence, `` said one official. ``This is productive right now; we`re not going to screw it.``

Said one stunned activist: ``I can`t believe that they would be so cynical as to leave millions of southern Sudanese to their fate, just because a regime, which has worked hand in glove with bin Laden, says it`s opening files and may hand over a few suspects.``

This, however, looks to be the new realpolitik of US foreign policy.

Administration officials insist they will still press Sudan and other abusive countries to clean up their acts. But, by making counter-terrorism the top priority in bilateral relations, argue analysts, the administration here is effectively handing them cards which will trump other US concerns - at least for the duration of

Bahr-e-Zulmaat #: 18

harimau

Ref scout #: 4

[Muslim lives and livelihood just aren`t as precious.]

Is that why your mullahs tell your folks to go fly a plane into a skyscraper?

Does that mean the mullah himself is NOT a Muslim, since he values his own life at a higher price than that of the ordinary everyday Muslim?



Haria,

SHUT UP,

You have no argument favouring you.If you have the guts then produce Mullah calibre hindu who can achieve that or be brave enough to put your life where your damn lying mouth is.Liars wont trust himself to act on his conviction only true believers.

There is one thing to hunt an animal in the zoo ,which killing minorities means ,restrined & overnumbered AND ANOTHER THING TO KILL THE ANIMALS IN THT JUNGLE AS HUNTER.

Scout was complaining about your cowardice not your non existent empathy.

America #: 21

tahmed321

Bijli

Thats right .Thanx for the suggestion.Its working pretty good.I think we need to give credit to understanding American(the middle class ones),for they need very little effort to convince or get across.It is diabolic that ,American with little orNO previous contact qwith Islam ,understand much easily better than some ppl. who supposed to have been neighbours for 1000 years in indian subcontinent.

Black Tuesday: The View From Islamabad Jay,Gowardhan,Manoj,

The 9-11Tragedy was as much Muslim on Muslim Violence as it is Anti American terrorism.Mind you Anti American Violence & terrorism is not invariablly Islamic .Remember Waco Texas stand off,Ruby Ridge Stand Off,Murrow Federal uilding OK,im McVeighterrorism,.Not to leave out kids blowing up schools friends in Columbine & across the country .Almost everymonth ,disgruntal American turning against there own Postal dept.,IRS.,Investment institution for losing lifes saving in risky investments,,,,,,,,,

Next time some Hindian ,refers this 9-11 Tragedy ,as if i owe them there mothers milk ,CAN IT .If its too much to bear for me ,ask for help ,there are volunteer doc offering anger management clinic & correct way to grief,

Muslims -Islam Pakistan,are not obligated to understand Hindians anymore after this.



Saudi pilot named as US hijacker alive in Tunis:

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Beirut, September 18



A Saudi pilot named by Washington as one of the suspects in last week`s suicide plane bombings is alive and well and living in Tunisia, an Arabic newspaper reported on Tuesday.

Said Hussein Gharamallah al-Ghamdi has been in Tunis for nine months training with colleagues from state carrier Saudi Arabian Airlines, the London-based Asharq al-Awsat paper said.

It said he had seen his own photo on CNN after being fingered by the United States as a suspect in the September 11 attacks and contacted the embassy in Tunis.

US officials said he was believed to have hijacked United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania apparently before reaching its intended terror target in Washington.

The FBI said it had gotten his photo from a flight school where he supposedly trained in Florida.

Asharq al-Awsat said al-Ghamdi has twice visited the United States -- studying there for a year beginning in October 1998, and for around six weeks after August 2000.

The paper published an interview on Monday with another alleged Saudi suspect, Abdelaziz al-Omari, who said he too was alive and well, and that he was an engineer who had no idea how to fly a plane.

He said his passport was stolen in the United States in 1995.



Indiagifthouse.com