After London, Tough Questions for Muslims

[drdon326]

In a classic example of laying blame everywhere but at our own door, Musawi actually criticized the Western media (for supposedly confusing frustrated young Muslims) rather than those scholars who had blessed suicide bombings as long as they targeted Israelis.

Suicide bombings are the Muslim weapon of choice not only in London and Israel but in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. They are killing Muslims and non-Muslims alike, and yet our imams and scholars cannot condemn them.

As I said, the London bombings did it for me. Or maybe it's the knowledge that the more these faceless cowards strike, the more Muslim men in the West like my brother are pushed onto the stage of suspicion. After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Ehab -- who spends virtually all of his time caring for his cardiology patients or fulfilling his role as husband and father -- was one of the 5,000 Muslim men questioned by the FBI; two years later he was among the thousands more who had to submit to being fingerprinted and photographed as part of a special registration.

But most of all, the London bombings rid me of all patience with the excuse that "George Bush made me do it." We don't know who was behind Thursday's explosions, but an Arab analyst told a satellite channel that if Blair hadn't learned the mistake of the Iraq war, these new attacks were a firm reminder.

I never bought the explanation that U.S. foreign policy had "brought on" the Sept. 11 attacks, and I certainly don't buy the idea that the Iraq war is behind the attacks in London. Many people across the world have opposed U.S. and British foreign policy, but that doesn't mean they are rushing to fly planes into buildings or to blow up buses and Underground trains in London.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/22/AR2005072201629.html

..................................................................

Mona Eltahawy is a New York-based columnist for the pan-Arab newspaper Asharq al-Awsat.http://


THIS is a great great person. Bookmarked .

[rooboy]

1. Replace the word "muslims" with "jews" in that headline

and you get a sense of how toxic the anti-islamic movement is becoming. Looks like nothing was learned from the holocaust.

[bemildred]

2. "Suicide bombings are the Muslim weapon of choice"

LOL. All of them? Did she do a survey?

1. What is your weapon of choice?
a. RPG
b. IED/VBIED
c. AK47 knockoffs
d. United Airlines
e. Blowing your ass up in the middle of a bunch of foreigners

[drdon326]

3. Excellent intelligent writer.

should be title "NO MORE EXCUSES......NO MORE TERRORISM"

I will contact her and alert her of this thread with a link of this thread. I will post her reply.

[pelsar]

4. whats with the veto on generalizations?....

i never did get it.....the lady is talking about her viewpoint of her fellow co religionists.

its true she didnt list the couple in thailand nor the muslim family in China that doesnt fit the above descriptions..and she probably forgot about that lovely young convert in Cuba.....so?

shes making some general observations about a religous cultural group that she belongs to. Seems to me I can recall just recently a poster wrote :"iraqi jews" .....which seemed perfectly fine....another poster wrote about "israelis becoming racists due to a proposed law." which i admit i found rather derogatory....still I find countless refrences to the IDF as if its some kind of monolithic single entity..and thats ok to write about in such broad generalizations.

how about "likudniks"..which is actually quite a diverse group..yet that gets by without a minor complaint"....shall i mention "neocons" as a broad derogitory generalization? zionists?

the lady is doing just fine. Shes writing her feellings about a subculture with which she belongs to that has been overcome by a minority and has subsequently painted her as well with their extremism.

she is doing what many many many muslims should be doing: fighting back, and thats a good thing. She should be congratulated and supported BY ALL progressives and pseuodo liberals...because she is doing that small step that is required by muslims to rid themselves of both the actual taint of extremists and the illusion of it..and shes taking responsabilitiy for it as well.

[drdon326]

6. Well said.....

Ihave posted a number of articles from a number of sources who have begun to speak out against terrorism by that small minority.

Maybe a trend will develop.

[bemildred]

22. Criticsim is not a "veto".

Generalizations can be well founded or not, depending on whether they do or do not reflect accurately the population one is generalizing about. This one is inaccurate and ill-founded, it takes a violent minority as the representative of all, and it smacks of bias that would not be tolerated were other groups the target.

[TomClash]

5. It's amazing how little people really understand about war

including Cosmic Tony, Uncurious George and this writer. Terror is an effective weapon for groups without tanks, aircraft, GPS and so on. Why should they stop using it?

The British made the same silly claim against the American militias in the Revolutionary War. Because the Americans hid behind trees and ambushed convoys instead of fighting in formation, "you don't fight fairly, like proper gentlemen." Of course, fighting in formation meant losing.

It is the same today. These groups use asymmetrical warfare because they have no other way to fight effectively. They're not going to give it up because "the imams and scholars condemn them" any more than the IDF or USAF will give up the "targeted air strikes" that routinely kill innocent men, women and children.

[pelsar]

7. they wont give it up....but

terrorist are cheap, cheap to make, cheap to use...whats not cheap is their infrastructure. Its not just the states that give them money.....it the immans that inspire within their mosques, its the regular guys that help, that hide them, pass on the money, listen to the extemist imans....thats the weak link.

get the guy who has a nice middle class life style, goes to a mosque where the guys scream their need for jihad and this guy will be hit for a donation....when he knows its wrong, when he declines....when he tells the police theres trouble brewing, thats when the change will occur and then there will be less cannon fodder for the suicide bombers.....

BTW who are they fighting?......in Iraq they are killing and targeting iraqi children....among others...in London they are targeting civilians killing as many as possible...so who exactly are they fighting?

i guess that lame excuse of killing all israelis because the children will grow up to be soldiers kinda fell through....

[TomClash]

11. Right back at you

Why are we fighting in Iraq? Who are we fighting and why?

[pelsar]

13. the suicide bombers....

are fighting iraqis...at least by the targeting and kill numbers..why they are doing that?.....guess they dont like iraqis

[TomClash]

19. Good point - I think that's tactically foolish

Obviously, they are trying to destabilize the Government, which they view as installed by the Americans.

[Coastie for Truth]

14. Go over to the "Peak Oil" and "Environment and Energy" Fora

Google "Lee Raymond" or "David O'Reilly" - now, add "OIL" to the query.

We are fighting in Iraq for Bush's oil buddies. The "Jooze and Israelis" are just a weapon of mass distraction and diversion from Oil, and GM's credit rating (junk bond) and soccer moms in SUV's.

[TomClash]

18. No disagreement there

Israel has very little to do with the invasion of Iraq.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TomClash]

10. That's it! I support war crimes!

You've got it spot on!

Tell me the difference between innocent civilians being killed by the IDF in Palestine or the US in Iraq and innocent civilians being killed by muslim terrorists in London. There isn't any.

I strongly condemn both. I understand why they do it though. You apparently don't. If you don't get it, you can't stop it. But then maybe that's not part of your agenda eh?

[pelsar]

12. HUGE DIFFFERENCE....

between targeting...actually looking for children to kill vs killing them unintentional...the person who goes out and looks for a women who is pregnant to kill is an individual who has no place in a modern wester society today...in fact i would even wonder if they can live anywhere on this earth in peace...the Apache pilot will accept his killing of kids but hes not looking for them, and in fact, in the IDF at least, many missles have not be shot do to too many civililans being in the area...hence the value of not killing for the sake of killing exists.... he may have nightmares later on in life, but he can return home and live a life within a western society.

given a choice of someone whos goal is to be a suicde bomber or an F-16 pilot for a neighbor...whos would you prefer to have your kids play with?.......

btw i resent being put in the same catagory as a suicide bomber..I dont look to kill palestenians civilians.....in fact i try to prevent both them and me from being killed by the suicide bomber who is trying so hard to kill me.

[TomClash]

21. But don't you see what you're doing

You're constructing a distinction without a difference, solely based on the technology used. If the Palestinians/insurgents/terrorists had F-16s they wouldn't need to target civilians. If they had 100 nuclear bombs, like Israel, the Palestinians wouldn't be suicide bombers. How do you retaliate consistently with a chance of victory against hard military targets?

Really, how different is "Shock and Awe" from terror? How different was the fire bombing of Tokyo, when 51% of the population was killed? How different was Deir Yassin? Are you telling me that the Irgun and Stern Gang did not employ terror tactics to try to drive the British out of Palestine? Please.

Your F-16 pilot/suicide bomber proverb is off the mark. The F-16 pilot rarely sees who he is killing so it's clean, efficient and technical and the suicide bomber kills barbarically. But the innocent are still dead whether it's by a guy who blows himself up in a restaurant or a guy who is in a plane playing a real life video game.

It's not about YOU. It's about who occupies the West Bank and Gaza, who occupies Iraq, who is addicted to oil and who is making money off all of it. And it's about war, the consequence of all these things.

[pelsar]

32. oh its about me.....

I am involved and when someone claims there is no difference between the military and the collateral damage vs a suicide bomber whos target is that collateral damage i take that very personal.....

tokyo, Deir Yassin etc may or may not have been "right".....those were very differernt times....as was the roman invasion of europe, Gengis Khan, and cave men eating each other.....are you saying that our values have never changed?

the F-16 pilot is not alone in what he does.....he is part of a larger system....we can replace him with the apache helicopter pilot, the machine gunner in a squad, the commando laying down targets with his laser designator....these guys all operate by the same rules, ...you dont look to kill civilans, you dont target school busses full of children...isnt that considered a war crime today?

so if I understand you, one group is now gets a "pass" from what is considered war crimes?

hmm now that is very very interesting. If they do..why cant I? why different values for differernt societies (does that include honor killings too?)...If i open up with my machine gun on a line of palestenians waiting to enter israel why will i be arrested vs a palestenians suicide bomber who can do the exact samething and you excuse him?

because he is "being occupied"....so that means if one is "occupied" you get a "get out of jail card" anything goes, are there other situations where that "pass" is also applied?

how about the bombers of the red sea resort in Egypt?..as I understand they consider Egypt "occupied"...(gosh that definition is getting slippery)....wasnt that why the twins were attacked..saudi arabia was being soiled by US troops

i bet the chechnians like that...remember that school they took over and subsequently 300+ kids died....i guess thats also ok, infact quite the successful operation. no war crime there!

the bottom line is that your telling me (yes me, a reserve soldier in the IDF) is that there is no diference between me and the sucide bomber...and I find that moral relativism to be quite disgusting actually. I dont spend hours looking through night scopes talking to other soldiers trying to discern if a palestenian crossing the fence is armed or not, trying to decide if we shoot or not (thats our norm).....I dont spend hours learning the norms of a particular area to learn which areas the kids are NOT involved and hence to be far more patient.....or which areas are far more dangerous....I dont spend hours peering through binoculars looking for a buldge in a palestenian jacket, a "sweaty face" in order to spot a bomber instead of just shooting them all......

i do that because I, and the army i am in, believes that shooting up civilians is a war crime and should not be part of this earth....sucide bombers and their cheerleaders believe other wise...and it is they who are WRONG. Targeting civilians has no excuse in this century no matter what your pissed off about

[Coastie for Truth]

33. You are 1 percent right

It's about ... <deleted> ... who is addicted to oil and who is making money off all of it.

I use notations and ellipses to indicate selective editing and quoting

It is all about the House of Saud. It is all about Arab young man, rightfully angry and frustrated at the exploitation of THEIR mineral birthright (oil) by THEIR rulers, the House of Saud (in the truest Czarist Romanov tradition) in league with the international oil companies.

The oil does not belong to the US or to the oil companies or to the House of Saud -- it is the birthright of the Saudi proletariat. And the Saudi proletariat is getting no real benefit from its exploitation. They are getting ripped off as surely as the Russian peasants.

If I saw my rulers stealing MY wealth (MY oil in the ground) and giving me theocratic academies - while they (MY rulers) lived in a decadent opulence unknown since the crowned heads of Muscovy lived in the Kremlin and the Hermitage - I would be madder then hades, too.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TomClash]

23. The British people seem to think it's because they are in Iraq

And I think they're right - it seemed to motivate the first band of bombers at least.

[drdon326]

25. I am sorry you didnt answer any of them.

so be it.

Its a shame you didnt read the OP.The article speaks to everything you said.

[TomClash]

28. Yes, I'm stupid and I can't read

Only you are intelligent enough to know.

There's no shame. I read the piece. It never addressed any of my questions. It is a nice piece against terror but proposes no solutions or explanations. It's not written by someone living in Fallujah or Gaza.

You don't propose any solutions or alternatives either. What a surprise.

[drdon326]

29. Only one thing left to say....

thank you.

[TomClash]

30. You're quite welcome

I'm glad to see you're man enough to admit you lack any constructive answers to the questions presented.

[Coastie for Truth]

16. Heck of a difference

A command and/or political decision to target a school bus or a commuter bus or a college cafeteria or a disco or a bridal shoppe is a decision to inflict civilian casualties is a war crime - or at least it was when I was in Officer Candidate School.

But I'm an old, geriatric fart -- and I was trained before Calley and North and Mai Lai.

[pelsar]

17. no change....

I cant recall a briefing when the officer said: today were going after school busses. We have information that 30 children will be on a bus leaving Gaza City Central square at 8:30 and will reach the outskirts of jebaliah at 8:50....there we will lay our ambush....

Pelsar: pick your best squad....appropriate weapons (we've just received some new light anti tank missles...)....and leave no child alive!

yes.....no difference between suicide bombers who look to kill children and myself......

[TomClash]

24. But after . . .

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Tokyo.

Why aren't these war crimes then?

[Coastie for Truth]

26. Good question

Why don't you and report back to us.

Seriously, I lived in Japan on assignment in the late 1980's. And while not an academic scholar of Japanese culture - I am an American Japanophile - and have lot of friends in Japan (including the children of one of the pre-Tojo Cabinet Ministers -- read about the November 1941 Coup d'tat -- and siblings of several Kamikazi pilots).

The Imperial Army (Tojo's faction) was prepared to fight to the last man. The Imperial Navy faction wanted to sue for peace if they could keep the Emperor as a symbol, and (here's the biggie) - if they could retain the "zaibatsu" without prosecuting these enterprizes as war criminals.

What I have been told by Japanese is that the Navy faction was told the Allies had a super weapon - that would be used against an industrial city target (Osaka-Kobe was not the target because of POW camps, neutral internment camps, and refugee camps near the harbor). Hiroshima (8/6) was a second tier industrial city.

My own opinion - again based on my Japanese friends is that if the attack on Nagasaki (8/9) had been postponed - Japan would have accepted the Potsdam Proclamation on 8/15 either way.

I think that Hiroshima was a military necessity. I am still troblied by Nagasaki.

I am still relieved that Osaka-Kobe and Kyoto were spared (as per the St. Sophia University "back channel"). I think that sparing Osaka-Kobe and Kyoto was a positive sign -- and a signal to the "Peace Faction" in the Imperial Cabinet.

As to fire bombing Tokyo - it was a tragedy. But as one who lived in and loves Tokyo (I lived in Shibuya within walking distance of the Hachiko statue) -- and lives in the suburbs of and loves San Francisco -- they are the two most fire prone and earthquake prone cities in the world -- with narrow streets impassable by fire trucks, on earthquake faults, with more then their fair share of wooden homes and old buildings (it ain't all the ANA Tower or the Transamerica Tower) - disasters waiting to happen - but the greatest cities in the world.

[pelsar]

31. hiroshima....

same reason gengis khan, the crusades, rome invasion of the middle east, cave man eating his neighbor arent considered "war crimes".....different times have different values.

btw you cant see the differerence between some plotting to knock over a school bus vs a pilot shooting at a specific target?....

i suspect if the latter group was given the assignment of shooting a school bus full of kids, and his being told that is why its being targeted....he probably would say no...as part of his training is what constitues illegal orders (as i would).

however your "first group"...well that is precisly one of their targets.... (er I believe its considered a war crime).....at least thats what the UN says

so if i am to understand correctly... war crimes are only considered war crimes if your from a western democracy within the military. If your from a western country but NOT in the military then you can blow up civilians as you wish and its "understood" and not a war crime?

did i get that right?

[IndianaGreen]

8. Another tragic consequence of Blair’s war policy

The only question about the London bombings is whether we should send Tony Blair to the Tower for plunging his nation into the criminal war in Iraq. He and he alone bears the responsibility for all of the violence unleashed by the Iraq war.

Police gun down worker in London subway: another tragic consequence of Blair’s war policy
Statement of the WSWS Editorial Board
25 July 2005

The public state execution of Jean Charles de Menezes in a London subway carriage on July 22 marks a watershed.

England, the country of the Magna Carta, is now one in which innocent civilians can be shot dead on the capital’s streets at the discretion of the police, without any explanation, much less justification, and with the only outcome being a brief statement of regret.

Eyewitnesses have provided horrific accounts of how the petrified 27-year-old Brazilian electrician “looked like a cornered rabbit” as he was pursued by three plain-clothes officers into the train carriage, before being pinned to the ground and shot five times in the head at point blank range.

At a press conference afterwards, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair claimed that the killing was “directly linked to the ongoing and expanding anti-terrorist operation” following the July 7 bombings of the capital’s transport network which killed 56 people, and an apparent failed attempt to detonate devices on July 21.

Not only did Menezes have no connection with the terror attacks, police had no grounds to suspect that he might be involved in such crimes, or any others, for that matter. That he was seen leaving a house that had been placed under police surveillance wearing “suspicious” clothes was enough for police to act as judge, jury and executioner.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jul2005/lond-j25.shtml

[Monkie]

20. latest from britian is only 12% agree with this view

and that from the rabidly leftwing mirror.co.uk

"EXCLUSIVE: 85% BLAME BOMBS ON WAR IN IRAQ
By Rosa Prince, Political Correspondent

AN overwhelming 85 per cent of people blame the Iraq invasion for the London bombings, a Daily Mirror/GMTV poll reveals today.

The survey is a hammer blow to Tony Blair, who insists Britain's role in the war had nothing to do with the 7/7 terror attacks.
~snip~
In all, 23 per cent said the war was the main reason for the London bombings. Another 62 per cent believe that while Iraq was not the principle cause, it did contribute to the reasons behind the atrocities.

Just 12 per cent said there was no real link. Yet the Prime Minister said after the most recent incidents: "The people who are responsible for terrorist attacks are the terrorists.""

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15775722&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=war-on-britain--85--blame-bombs-on-war-in-iraq--name_page.html

The british people have spoken.

[drdon326]

27. Sadly,The Aussies seem concered as well

Islamic leader wages war of words with Australian PM over terror

Australian Prime Minister John Howard and an Islamic leader have traded accusations of inciting hatred as the country feverishly debates new anti-terrorist measures against London-style suicide attacks.

Melbourne-based cleric Sheik Mohammed Omran said in an open letter to the prime minister published that Howard's remarks about the possibility of suicide bombers living in Australia were "inflammatory".

Howard had criticised Omran for what he called "appalling" comments suggesting that Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden "in effect is a good man and the attacks in London were the responsibility of the Americans".

There was an obligation on religious leaders "not to incite hatred, not to preach intolerance, and that is a responsibility Islamic leaders in Australia carry very heavily," Howard said.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050725/wl_asia_afp/australiaattacksislam

...................................................................

very sad.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. That's total bullshit. Howard does not = Aussies...

No more than Bush is 'the Americans'. When Howard first made that moronic comment about terrorist cells being here, he had to do a slimy backtrack, because ASIO said there was no evidence of cells here. If you want to believe the word of a right-wing politician over the intelligence experts, go for yr life, but it's a fools game. Howard's the last person to accuse anyone of making appalling comments - the disgusting remarks made by him in support of Bush induces nausea. Not to mention the appalling remarks he made during the Children Overboard fiasco, and some of us will never forget his gushing praise when giving the GG's job to a man who in his capacity as a church leader looked the other way when allegations of rape and abuse were made against priests or reverends or whatever the Anglicans call themselves...

As for Bob Carr, he'd say anything to take the heat off the fact that he's gotta get the trains running on time to start with. That's if the trains run at all, which sometimes they don't. And Kim Beazley - that obese sweaty 'opposition' leader - he's out whoring for headlines and he'd say anything to try to get his approval level up a few notches in the polls. He may as well be sitting on the government's side of the house, because I've yet to see him take a stand on anything and mean it...

Violet...