The ubiquity of modern political violence

Topics: Conflicts And War, Government And Politics, Iraq Views: 3782
3782

Even by modern standards, the last month has been spectacularly bloody in the scale of the political violence seen. It opened with the Ashura killings in Iraq and Pakistan, in which several hundred Shi'a were slaughtered. Later in the month we also had the terrorist attacks in the Spanish capital, Madrid, in which over 200 commuters were killed by bomb explosions on trains during the morning rush hour. We have also seen huge bloodletting in Palestine, where Israeli troops killed over 70 people during March, even before the assassination of Shaikh Ahmed Yassin (March 22). In Kosova, we have a re-emergence of tension and violence between the Serb and Kosovar communities, sparked by the killing of three Kosovar children by Serbian youths. In Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Kashmir and many other places, the day-to-day violence that is now the norm continues unabated.

Some might argue that all these are different cases; but what they have in common is that they are indiscriminate attacks on people, the like of which cannot possibly be justified. A number of these atrocities, including the highest-profile ones, have been blamed on Muslims. In the case of the Ashura and Madrid bombings, it probably is true that Muslims are responsible; unfortunately there are Muslim groups with a record of committing such atrocities, however much we might wish that these atrocities could be blamed on others. It goes without saying that all right-minded Muslims must condemn such indiscriminate and mindless slaughters, even (or perhaps especially) if other Muslims are responsible. Those who seek to make excuses for the perpetrators of atrocities are seriously misguided. 

What we can say with absolute certainty is that the Muslims perpetrating these acts are marginal and almost insignificant elements within the 1.1 billion Muslim Ummah. The vast majority of Muslims, even as they might share some of the world view held by these marginal groups, such as their understanding of the modern West (and the US in particular) as malign forces whose power needs to be opposed, understand that such acts are totally beyond the pale and need to be opposed with all the force at our disposal.

This is in stark contrast to the forces responsible for political violence in the modern West. The West routinely uses violence in pursuit of its interests, with absolutely no moral scruples. The examples of the US's military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan are before us. Conservative estimates put civilian casualties in Iraq as a result of the US invasion at more than 10,000. Another example is Israel's brutal repression of the Palestinians. One can point also to Chechnya, Kashmir, Algeria and other examples. There are many forms of the violent, ruthless exercise of power, apart from the military. Political power can also be violent; consider, for example, the US's exploitation of its dominance over international institutions to impose and enforce economic sanctions on Iraq for over a decade. Conservative estimates suggest that several million Iraqis, many of them children, may have died from hunger, lack of clean drinking water, the lack of medicines, and illness and other causes. Not bombs in trains, perhaps; but the political use of power and terror, no less. 

Similarly the West has never hesitated to promote and support the most repressive governments provided they are pro-Western; governments which routinely killed thousands or more of their own people to remain in power. Nor has the West ever hesitated to support violent opposition movements against popular, democratic governments that happen to be anti-American in their outlook. Again these policies have caused death and suffering beyond measure in countries in Latin America, Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Today we are seeing concentration camps established by the West in places like Guantanamo Bay, the Bagram Airbase in Kabul and several places in Iraq, where political dissidents are subjected to physical and psychological torture for daring to demand the freedoms that the West claims to champion. Terrorism? Maybe not, strictly speaking, but there is more than one way to destroy life.

Political violence is ubiquitous in the modern, west-created world. If some Muslims are guilty of adopting methods that are totally alien to Islam because they see them working for our enemies, they must be opposed. But the Ummah has at least a moral framework demanding that we do not accept or condone these atrocities. Behind the rhetoric, it is clear that the West has no such framework, indeed is happy not to have one, preferring instead the benefits a powerful hegemon can obtain from the amoral exercise of its power.

Source: Crescent International



  Topics: Conflicts And War, Government And Politics, Iraq
Views: 3782

Related Suggestions

 
COMMENTS DISCLAIMER & RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
The opinions expressed herein, through this post or comments, contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. These are offered as a means for IslamiCity to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization. The IslamiCity site may occasionally contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. IslamiCity is making such material available in its effort to advance understanding of humanitarian, education, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and such (and all) material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.


Older Comments:
NASERUDEEN FROM INDIA said:
THE ARETICLE IS QUITE CLEAR AND INFORMATIVE OF THE CONTEMPERORY STATE SPONSORED TERRORISM ALL OVER THE WORLD. HERE ONETHING MEDIAS FORGET OR PRETEND TO FORGET THAT WHAT EVER ABUSE DOING AGAINST PEOPLE IS DESCRIBED AS PART OF LAW AND ORDER IF THOSE THINGS COMING FROM THE STATE BUT SAME WAY THE DOWNTRODDEN REACT AGAINST IT WILL BE INTERPRETED AS TERRORISM, AS WE SEEN IN PALESTIN, IRAQ, CHECHEN OR KASHMIR.
2004-05-03

HUDD D'ALHAMD FROM CANADA said:
Dear Nick Cameron. There is the general concern for a human toward human, when the more fortunate human acknowledges that, "It's not right for the Ethiopian children to starve to death." Saying this, he relizes that the double cheese-hamburger he ordered was just too much, so he tosses the half left in to the garbage can. It doesn't mean that he didn't care. I see you that person. I am sorry if case I misjudged you, but you want me to be at least honest, don't you? And there is the person who really CARES. I didn't see you that. Why? Because of statements like this:"1)Islam is a good religion. Many Muslims are not good people. 2)The worst of your brethren constitute a palpable threat to my friends and loved ones. 3)Therefore, I support those governmental policies that directly address and confront those threats. 4)Whether said threats root from a popular ideology or are isolated to certain groups, the ultimate goal remains clear. We must boldly elimate terrorism through the most effective means available." I will give you my version of your truth, if you will. 1)Islam is indeed a good religion and Muslims are just people. Americans are far worse than the worst of the Muslims. 2)Muslims do not have the history of sex and serial killers like USA. Isn't that terrorism for the victims? If you think not, I will pray that either your wife or your daughter should be victims of such an American good Christian, like the Zodiac killer, maybe that would change your mind about what terrorism is, my friend! 3) So you endorse state terrorism, only because is done by a country that has no oponents doesn't mean that is right. For this I dispise you Nick. For your selfishness and arrogance. For somebody that has not a bloody history of murder like US rednecks, it is sad and revolting. 4)There is no effective way in eliminating terrorism with terrorism. If it is an ideology, US has a problem beyond her capacities of containtment. Ideologies do not need passports to travel.
2004-04-26

NICK CAMERON FROM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA said:
Peace Hudd D'Alhamd!

I just spent the last 1/2 hour meticulously reading your last comments and answering them point by point, because I genuinely believed each one warranted a frank and conciliatory response. But I decided to delete them when I came to this remark:

"I don't believe that you really care about the Uighurs. You brought it up to deter the hotspot off the main issue."

Here I was opening my heart to you only to have you render my efforts at rapproachment moot by calling me a liar. My attempts at constructive dialogue with you will never bear fruit as long as you dispute my sincerity. Therefore, instead of wasting further efforts I've decided to leave you with the following thoughts:

Islam is a good religion. Many Muslims are not good people. The worst of your brethren constitute a palpable threat to my friends and loved ones. Therefore, I support those governmental policies that directly address and confront those threats. Whether said threats root from a popular ideology or are isolated to certain groups, the ultimate goal remains clear. We must boldly elimate terrorism through the most effective means available.

Peace out!
2004-04-26

HUDD D'ALHAMD FROM CANADA said:
What's up, Nick, still mad at my brethren? Come on, you know that my brethren speak out of dire frustration. My brethren and myself are as guilty for 9/11 as you are for the massacres of the Muslims in Bosnia. You see, Muslims are hurt all over the world, they would need help not in military intervention but in an honest approach of the Western powers to their shortcomings and offering the help the Muslims ask for in the manner they want it. This would dignify them, not humiliate them.
My experience in South Africa would help you understand my deep resentiment with the Christians. I do not hate Christians, just let live, I get the least involved with them as possiple on personal relationship. I dislike their bigotry and hypocracy of peace-makers and love for mankind. My opinion.
As regarding 9/11, USA should address the root problem and concentrate her efforts on the country's overall security system. They went after al-Qaeda? That's not the answer to her grievance. al-Qaeda is an ideology that feeds itself on Western inequity. As long as US promotes agression and unjust solutions to paramount problems(even solely vetoing UN?!), al-Qaeda will thrive and grow. Once these problems would be addressed and hopefully solved in a dignified manner, al-Qaeda would become obsolete.
I know quite a bit about the Uighurs. Since my maternal grandfather was a Crimean Tatar(a true Mongol Muslim, closer to the Uighurs than Turks), I follow those developments. Extremely tragic. I don't want to call you any bad name before I have the certitute that your intentions are not kosher. Begging your pardon, without downplaying on the tragedy of the Uighurs or other Muslim nations in the world, as long as a Palestinian problem exists, any attrocity agains Muslims will be overlooked, simply because if UN or US would try to intervene, they would be asked by China, India, etc., "what about your doings in Palestine?" Palestine is the Holy Land. East Turkestan is not.
2004-04-25

NICK CAMERON FROM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA said:
Peace Hudd D'Alhamd!

Why do you say "finally agree on something"? We actually significant common ground on a number of issues. In fact, many of your brethren who have attacked me would find that I agree with them on a number of issues. Unfortunately, they've jumped to the conclusion that I hate Muslims just because I oftenj disagree with them. Of course, their misconceptions about me are their own problems rather than mine.

Sorry to hear about your experiences in South Africa, though at least you're doing better now in Canada. Bigotry is a pain in the arse, no? But as long as we don't let it consume us, we can claim victory over it.

I view much of what happens on the global stage through the 9/11 lens. Probably many Americans see things this way as well. That doesn't mean that I disregard the suffering of others, but I do recognize my government's duty to put the lives of Americans before the lives of others.

Anyways, regarding Palestine I believe that the Muslim world needs to get its priorities straight. Not to say that Palestine is unimportant, but there are Muslims in other parts of the world that are hurting much more than that. You've heard of the Uighurs of China, right? Imagine the the worst allegations of atrocities levelled against the Israelis. They would pale in comparison to what the People's Republic of China has done to your Muslim brethren in East Turkistan. (Do a search on the Uighurs and you'll find out what I mean.)

And yet you don't hear from any OIC member states. Not even the supposedly great Mahatir Mohammed has ever spoken on behalf of Uighurs, as far as I know. Here you have Muslim leaders boasting about the "Ummah" being like a single body that collectively feels the pain of any of its parts without doing a damn thing about those Muslims who need their help the most.
2004-04-24

HUDD D'ALHAMD FROM CANADA said:
Peace Nick. We finally agree on something. It's a beginning. How on earth did you know that I was a tea lover, nay, a tea nerd! I have tea from all over the world, but not Sumatra. Black, green, oolong, smoked, name it, I have it!
You are not alone experiencing racism. I grew up in the famous country of apartheit, South Africa, don't you think they wrote me in "white" on my ID. My definition there was, "Asian", religion was the main determining factor. My looks are Aryan or Caucassian, if you will. I got much of racial remarks, like "raghead", "sand-nigger", "hubba-bubba" and of course the vernacular, "kaffir". I learned to double on their insults as a coping mechanism, while a teen-ager. I got my mug bashed in a couple of times, but then I joined professional boxing for a while, that gave me enough edge later on in life to take care of big-mouthed bullies. Now I am too old for that and thanks God I live in Canada where nobody could freely spew on me his unchecked racism.
I am hurt for what is going on the world. The article is stressing on this rise of violence. You know, it shouldn't be here. Especially, today we can inflict far more casualties than, 1000 years ago. When you mention the 9/11 victims, no disrespect for them and their bereft families, but the Muslim world has to cope with hundred times that number. In the end, numbers do not mean much. If I lost my loved one in such a disaster or in a US bombing, personally it won't matter how many died in the process. The difference would be the death of my beloved one. Nick, you cannot uphold the validity of the tragedy of 9/11 by disconsidering the losses on the side of the innocent population of the Middle East. This is a great concern. These losses create sentiments of revenge, vendetta, if you will. Invading, bombing, occupying and trying to impose American ways on a different culture won't solve the conflict. I admit, the American vision of democracy might seem great, but do the Iraqis want it?
Peace
2004-04-22

NICK CAMERON FROM UNITED STATES said:
Hudd D'Alhamd, dearest of all my friends! (A cup of Sumatran tea for ya if you get the reference, lol.)

I have no problem agreeing with you that Western culture is at times a cesspool of immorality. Hell, even Jerry Falwell and Franklin Graham would agree with you on that count. So I'll concede that you might be right that Islam as a religion is more moral than Western civilization.

Regarding the "Filipinos are dogs" comments, I do not consider it "bearing a grudge" so much as taking notice of a potential danger. I've encountered too much racism directed at me both in America and abroad to dismiss it as a mere joke. And that's why I'm sensitive to its presence, and I do my darndest to resist my own darker urges whenever they even hint at arising.

I believe that within each person lies the capacity for both good and evil. For me, the most important part of living a moral life is my struggle to conquer the evil in my heart by doing good even at the most difficult times. That's what I believe, and that's why I cannot respond to bigotry with bigotry. For whenever any of us give in to the temptation of sin, evil wins.

As for your apology, I accept it without condition. No one's perfect, and for all I know I could be the worst of all men. But just so you know, I posted comments to you in another part of this website before I read your most recent post here. Feel free to disregard those comments, because I wrote them thinking that I was speaking to a racist.

Peace out!
2004-04-22

HADD D'ALHAMD FROM ONTARIO said:
Peace, Nicko buddio old pal! True that, about bad history and still in process. However, I was referring to probably a different kind of morality. Define moral!? Is it moral to prostitute, to have same sex partner, to extort(even under the cover of titles like CEO), to legalize pot(Canada), to move out when you are 16, to be allowed to drink and smoke when you are 19, to kill a people only because they view you as invaders when you relly think yourself as a benefactor? The list is too long, Nick, I don't know what morality is any more in the West. It is not what the bible says, and the constitution keeps on changing to fit man's wildest whims! Considering these, I still consider that Islam is on a higher ground on morals than the West. My opinion, take it or leave it.
Definitely. I just cannot digest the suicidal bombers. It is relly sad that some of the Muslims resume themselves to tactics of some predecessors not even from the Middle East(kamikaze) that caused US to nuke. Not if that would be the moral thing to do though. Stop declaring the irradication of Israel as the general opinion of the Palestinian people. That opinion is voiced though through the media in order to motivate the Zionist aggression. Hypocracy and bigotism, but that's politics, pal.
Come on, Nick, don't tell me that you really bear a grudge on me on the issue that the Philipinoes were dogs?! Are you serious? Calling me a racist and all? Let me break the knews on you, we all are dogs, man! Why, don't you greet down south, "What's up, dog?" Don't hip hop stars call themselves dogs? Snoop-Dogg, Hot-Dog, Cool-Dog, whatever-dog?! We all are dogs and niggas! Pawns in the system. We can shout, or bark for that matter, but who will listen? You & I.
If it makes you feel better, accept my apologies, the "dog" epithet attached to the nation of the Philipinoes was a slip of wrath and not racially intended.
Peace out!
2004-04-21

NICK CAMERON FROM UNITED STATES said:
Well Hudd, I do not believe that the Muslim world has a cultural moral highground over the West. Both sides have bad history, and history is still in the making.

Anyways, why do you keep trying to debate with me over Israel's conduct? I already declared on this site that I disagree with it and that Palestine should be a sovereign state. However, my opposition Palestinian terrorism has not changed. And I do not support those who wish to eradicate another sovereign state. But even you said that you don't support terrorism and that you would agree to a two-state solution.

Now, what are you arguining about again? Oh yeah, Filipinos are dogs. ;)
2004-04-20

HUDD D'ALHAMD FROM CANADA said:
Nick, your:"the Muslim world can claim no historical moral highground over the West." Oh yes it can. I said, if I were a Christian I would kill myself. Practically, I couldn't live with the crimes my people commited. But you already know that. Constitution? Bible? Who follows them? USA follow their own interpretation of Christianity that doesn't match with that of the original Christians and the Constitution is a mockery of justice, since it allowed the black slavery. Stop being a bigot, Nick, I expect more from you. Nick, what Rantisi said is child's talk as agaist what Israeli statesmen said and did. Don't be a hypocrit. Try to be serious and honest, Palestine map? Is there a Palestinian state? As long as there isn't, the whole of Palestine is Palestine. Why, Nick, how do the Israelis represent Israel? Without Gaza and the West-Bank? Look again. Once we have 2 states, neither one can claim the other without an international conflict with UN intervention. It would be like the Republic of Ireland would claim and represent in her map Northern Ireland. Mind you threre would be groups to claim the whole of Palestine and vice versa for Israel, but we would have a rule of international law to stand by. Now we have the law of the jungle. As regarding OBL, he is hardly the ummah. Anybody can claim the ummah. Ummah would be like Christiandom for you. Now, is the Christiandom occupying Iraq? Did the Christiandom bomb Serbia? If US is immoral and bigoted, it doesn't mean that so is Christiandom?! So again, is OBL the ummah?! If you want peace, Nick, persuade your govenment to stay out from other nations affairs. Because, if you killed, expect to be killed. Somebody has to stop. The one with the most body counts won't stop. The reason is simple, it lost too much to make a damned difference any longer. The onus is on USA to stop. She has a lot to lose. OBL, al-Qaeda, have nothing to lose. $500 billion, could have worked miracles in saving of lives, world hunger irradicate, e.g.
2004-04-20

NICK CAMERON FROM UNITED STATES said:
I did not last year's decision to go to war in Iraq. As Hudd stated, the time and effort spent on the war would have brought more benefit if spent on other matters. At the same time, the Muslim world has no monopoly on morality when it comes to international politics.

I oppose this article because it excessively villainizes the West, even though it'd be more helpful to call for all sides to come together in the spirit of shared values to promote peace.

But such is the nature of rhetoric presently heard from the Muslim world.
2004-04-19

NICK CAMERON FROM UNITED STATES said:
Well johanes, I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm a "closet neocon". For me, the neoconservative philosophy is too idealistic to operate as a reliable foreign policy framework. Contrary to the neocons, I believe that it's not for America to reshape the world in our image. Therefore, we should spend less time and energy trying make everyone else like us and more of our efforts to furthering our national interests through globalization, strategically allocated aid to other countries, and military prestige.

The Muslim world is not a "syndicate", but it does have certain qualities that suggest a singular identity. Several millena ago, the Greek philosopher Socrates compared a well-ordered community to a single human body. As you know, a pinprick in one part of the body can be felt throughout. Similarly, an entire community can feel the pain of a single member.

Many Muslims seem to agree with this Socratic metaphor when referring to groups like the Chechens, the Palestinians, and the Bosnians. In that sense, it is as if the Muslim world views itself as a single entity, or "syndicate" as you put it, that shares characteristics with a single human body.

I hope that clarifies things for you, my brother!
2004-04-19

NICK CAMERON FROM UNITED STATES said:
Peace Hudd D'Alhamd!

I don't think I did miss the article's point, which I believe it summarized in the following excerpt:

"But the Ummah has at least a moral framework demanding that we do not accept or condone these atrocities. Behind the rhetoric, it is clear that the West has no such framework, indeed is happy not to have one, preferring instead the benefits a powerful hegemon can obtain from the amoral exercise of its power."

And as I have demonstrated through various historical examples during the past few weeks, the Muslim world can claim no historical moral highground over the West. Furthermore, America does have a moral framework, and that moral framework is our Constitution.

Getting back to the topic of Israel and Palestine, do I believe that a fair, two-state solution is the answer to the Israel-Palestine issue? Absolutely. Do the leaders in Palestine agree? Abdel Aziz Rantisi once stated, "I swear we will not leave one Jew in Palestine." Moreover, in many offices of the PA one can find symbols of Palestine encompassing an entire area that is currently Israel, suggesting the dissolution of the Israel. Seems to me that Palestinian leaders really don't want a two-state solution as a bottom line so much as a starting point from which to eliminate Israel.

And now OBL has vowed to "retaliate" against people like my friends and family, who clearly have nothing to do with this mess, for the alleged misfortunes of the Palestinians. So why does the author of this article suggest that the Ummah has a superior moral "framework"? I want peace, but I'm unwilling to sacrifice my loved ones in its pursuit.

Peace out!
2004-04-19

JOHANNES FROM STANKONIA said:
magnus - interesting. i'm sure closet neocons running amok in these forums - insert nick - will disagree, though its hard to deny it considering the overwhelming truism that we arent bombing others to liberate them, rather to make them resemble us - which is innately christian isnt it? the notion that we're made in god's image..

also, i'd like to know of this "muslim world" - "islamic world" syndicate. this monolithic organization thats supposed to be the spokesperson for every muslim alive. nick cameron, kindly tell me when the spokesperson comes on the tele. i'd really like to know what the 'muslim world' thinks.
2004-04-19

HUDD D'ALHAMD FROM CANADA said:
I generally agree with with the article. Nick C., do I sense a comparison in your comments? Like the morality of the West versus that of the Muslim world? You are missing the point Nick, and I don't mean to offend you. The Islamic world became an "enemy" to the Western powers, especially, UK & US after the ignominious formation of the state of Israel in the ancient land of Palestine and with the unsolved resolution of a state for the indigenious population. Moreover the continuous support of US for Israel and the marginalization of the Arabs in the process. The terrorism in Middle East started with Irgun, Stern, Hagana, etc. It didn't get a very quick response from the Arabs, it lapsed quite a time untill the first Intifada broke out and then the second. The Muslims are not the generators of terrorism, they are the patsies in the Israeli-US God-playing process. All what would be needed is the UN original solution for a 2 state in Palestine and getting the hell out from Middle East, period. The Muslims do not challenge Western values or style of life. The Muslims want to rule themselves and live the life style that is suited for them. In other words they want to be left alone. Doesn't US have what to care of in their own backyard? Wasn't there any better way to use the $500 billion but kill US soldier in a foreign land? All this seems to me, not only evil but insane as well and a total disregard for human life and interests. Say what you want, but I believe that if you were the president of US you would have acted differently. You would have used $500 billion for the benifit of America at home and less bloody foreig intervention. Or am I wrong, buddy?;)
Peace out
2004-04-18

NICK CAMERON FROM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA said:
mebrocky:

I agree with you 100%. The problem is that judging by the articles published on Iviews as well as the responses from many Muslims here, the Muslim world is not yet ready to fully accept the idea of self-critique. Until that day comes, America will frequently come into conflict with the Muslim world regardless of what we do. That's just how things are for the time being.
2004-04-18

M. PAPSWORTH FROM UK said:
I have a very interesting question to ask. Considering that just about every major corporation and country that supposedly benefited from the "free-labour" provided by the Jews suffering under Hitler, have been forced by the US, on the threat of economic sanctions and/or boycott of their goods and services, to compensate the survivors of these unfortunate victims of Hitler's madness to the tune of billions of dollars, are we to now to assume that the US will now take an equally moral high ground and compensate the Palestinians, Afghans, Iraqis, Japanese, Chileans, Panamanians, Iranians; in short all those who suffered horrible persecution under some tin pot murdering nutter placed in power by the US for "National Security" reasons? Also why is the US opposing the migration of Palestinian families to the US? After all the US openly advocates the confiscation of their lands and the mad hatter Bush has made it clear that he neither supports the return of stolen Palestinian lands by the Jews, nor the return of Palestinian refugees back to their home lands? One last thing, for all the American hate and vitriol directed against the French can we expect the Americans to return the Statue of Liberty back to the French? After all, as probably Americans do not know, or care to know, the Statue of Liberty was a gift from France. So when can the French expect delivery of their statue?
2004-04-18

IAN OSBORNE FROM OKLAHOMA, USA said:
Its becomes very clear to me that we have been hoodwinked into fighting battles for the Jews. Why I ask? What have the Jews ever done for us? In fact I see their ambitions to dominate Middle East, flat out dangerous to not just that region, but to us too. They have shown by murdering our sailors in torpedoeing USS Liberty that once in power they will threaten us too. Our churches and priest are totally blind and stupid not to see this. I say leave the Arabs alone to run their countries according to their own rules. I just do NOT want my tax dollars supporting Israel's murder and mayhem. What I simply can not understand is how Arabs and Muslims can stand by and watch their own be wiped out. I guess they have no respect for themselves or their religion. I know that if I believed in something so bad there is no way some outsider could come into my community and blow my family and friends away without me wiping them out too. I guess money talks and Muslims are in trouble because they have no real belief in their religion or respect for their culture.
2004-04-17

MAGNUS CHRISTIANSOHN FROM NORWAY said:
If one studies the history of American roots, one can understand their actions. America was the dumping ground for Europe's criminals and misfits. In an effort to cleanse Europe, our forefathers would send off every scoundrel, cutthroat, rapist and madman off to this new land called America. Hard criminals being sought after by the law in Europe found refuge in America. Even European dominated communities in South America witnessed a migration of their wretched refuse to this land where only the most murderous survived. Soon these new "Settlers" discovered that with sheer brute force they could "ethnically cleanse" the new lands of their indigent Red Indians. The new Americans mindless cruelty found religious legitimacy in these massacres; after all these were "Non-Christian Wild men". The great campaign of slaughter began and before late only a few scattered villages and a few defeated Indians were left to be looked upon with wonder, as you would view wild animals at the zoo. Upon subjugation and almost complete annihilation of the Red Indians the Christian White man then set upon finding labour to till and work these stolen lands. The solution was easy enough, kidnap and enslave more "wild Non-Christians". Enter the Black man in US history. Having reached their apex of power in the modern era and not satisfied with their trappings, the "American" decided that yet another "Non-Christian wild man" needed to be civilized. Hence they dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and outright slaughtered close to a million innocent Japanese civilians. Now it's the turn of the new bad guys, the "Non-Christian, Non-Jewish wild men-the Muslims. What makes it easier to kill and massacre these people is that after all they are neither Christian nor Jewish and since that is all you can be in "God's Kingdom"- kill them all and let God sort them out. Yes?
2004-04-17

MEBROCKY FROM USA said:
This is the same old stuff. The author writes," Those who seek to make excuses for the perpetrators of atrocities are seriously misguided." Then he goes on to say that the moral-less West has forced the poor Muslims into this. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY has the right to declare the high moral ground in this world. Muslims have been slaughtering other Muslims by the thousands, for thousand of years. If the Prophet Muhammad did not have the protection of his Uncle in the early years, he would never have been able to receive God's message. As a "western" Christian, I am very aware of our unbelievably bloody history. The USA has only been a country for 200 some years. In this time we have made horrible decisions, but some terrific ones too. Why don't we ALL get off the "we are the best, we are the righteous", bandwagon, and start offering some solutions!!!!!
2004-04-17

JESSICA ROWAN FROM USA said:
I am deeply saddend by the events of the past two years, It brings me to tears to think of terrible loss of life that has been suffered. My pain is only deepened by my helplessness to stop it.
I beleave that we are all children of God, all of us, brothers and sisters. Please know that this war is not the doing of all Westerners, this is the doing of a powerful government over which I have no control. People in the US are basically good, some are just confused, angry and uninformed. I see what is happening and my heart aches. I pray for us all.
2004-04-17

YAHYA BERGUM FROM USA said:
Assalamu alaikum. I agree with the author, on what appears to be the main point of the article. In my opinion, Muslims should renounce any form of slaughter that has proven "less productive" than doing nothing at all, in attempting to avert oppression (as in Quran 2:191,193) or attempting to oppose oppression (as in Quran 2:217).

Also, it might be worth considering how many Iraqis the current U.S. administration has killed, compared to the previous two U.S. administrations. Whenever "non-believers" appear (for some reason) to be heeding Al Quran and ahadith, "believers" typically appear to be in denial regarding that, too.

(Wassalam)
2004-04-17

SUHAYB FROM CANADA said:
absolutly. and yes it is state terrorism happening in Chechenya, Iraq, Israel or India (forgetting so many others). how to be sure, well people are terrorised just by the sound of armored vehicules coming around the corner.if one is terrorised then one terrorises, simple math. however we must remember that 40 000 people die of hunger everyday, a little more than 10 000 of which, die directly from the capitalist economy the way it's done...lets get to work!...but for the right boss...
2004-04-17

NICK CAMERON FROM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA said:
What a fascinating article. The author writes:

"Political violence is ubiquitous in the modern, west-created world. If some Muslims are guilty of adopting methods that are totally alien to Islam because they see them working for our enemies, they must be opposed. But the Ummah has at least a moral framework demanding that we do not accept or condone these atrocities."

If this is true, then why is the Muslim world is not so vocal (to put it mildly) when Palestinians, Pakistanis, and Chechens kill non-Muslims as they are when the reverse happens? I think it is intellectually dishonest to suggest that the Muslim world has consistently condemned the use of violence to further interests of Muslim regimes. Did the Muslim world ever condemn the Ottoman Turks for 1915? (http://www.armenian-genocide.org/) We don't hear much about this.

If the Ummah has a "framework" against atrocities, then one is forced to wonder why we can find so many deviations from this "framework" throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. I believe that the Muslim world, for all of its ideals, has not moral high ground over the West at this time. Dig deep enough, and we can see moral weakness on both sides.
2004-04-17