On dealing with terrorism
The current edition of Prospect Magazine has an extensive article by Shiv Malik titled My Brother the Bomber.
It’s an illuminating insight into the life of Mohammed Sidique Khan (MSK), the ringleader of the 7/7 terrorists. A humane picture almost. The full article is well worth reading.
I have two issues with this article: the first on the nature of terrorism and the second on the solution.
Shiv Malik’s thesis is essentially that MSK was driven to terrorism through a mixture of Wahhabist fundamentalism and inter-generational conflict. MSK’s parents wouldn’t let him marry the woman of his choice and he eventually got quite sick of the community’s apparent hypocrisy of paying lip-service to Islam while being stooped in caste-based Pakistani culture. So, to what extent is culture an issue?
This is a bit complicated. Two years ago Navid Akhtar wrote this article, saying that the constrained Biraderi system in created frustration amongst youngsters and made them somewhat likely to turn to extremist groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir to voice their anger. But writing last week for Prospect, Yahya Birt says, “while extremist recruiters seek to exploit a common concern, arranged marriage is only a circumstantial and not a necessary driver of extremism.”
I feels both are half right. Let’s compare this to another group. I recently pointed out in Catalyst magazine that religiously observant young Sikhs are also frequently frustrated with Gurudwara committees. They also face inter-generational conflict with parents frequently trying to ensure their kids marry someone of the right religion/race/caste.
So it is easy to overstate the impact of culture and inter-generational tension in creating terrorists. At the same time, young British Sikhs have also seen somewhat of a revival in religiousity. This hasn’t created terrorist groups but does sustain political campaigns such as the annual 1984 remembrance rally as well as limited support for the Khalistani movement (especially in Birmingham).
Youngsters, especially those religiously inclined, sometimes get involved in political movements for varying reasons. Poverty, drugs and inter-generational conflict may be some but they not explain why so many Hizb ut-Tahrir members are middle-class and well-spoken. In that sense they’re no different to many of the white radicals who join hardcore socialist/communist/libertarian/racist movements.
What Muslim radical preachers can do however is exploit various factors that make them more successful than the Khalistanis were in circa 1984: conflicts around the world (such as Afghanistan/Iraq) where Muslims are being killed, for propaganda purposes; an extensive network of preachers and recruiters that have been allowed to operate in Britain for a long time; being able to incubate and brainwash potential suicide bombers in places like Pakistan and then bring them back here.
Capacity for evil
Let’s get one thing straight - anyone can be turned into an ‘evil monster’, it’s just a matter of circumstances. Sikh militant groups used to hunt down and kill Hindus during the height of the Khalistani movement; Hindus are responsible for a huge amount of suicide bombing in Sri Lanka and the Gujarat massacres of 2002 of Muslims. Christians? Well they have a history of religiously inspired (and non-religious) conflict as long as my arm.
In an interesting interview with the New York Times not long ago, Dr Zimbardo is asked: “You keep using this phrase ‘the situation’ to describe the underlying cause of wrongdoing. What do you mean?
He says:
That human behavior is more influenced by things outside of us than inside. The “situation” is the external environment. The inner environment is genes, moral history, religious training. There are times when external circumstances can overwhelm us, and we do things we never thought. If you’re not aware that this can happen, you can be seduced by evil. We need inoculations against our own potential for evil. We have to acknowledge it. Then we can change it.
So it’s difficult to pinpoint which one factor is the root-cause of terrorism. There isn’t likely to be one. Blaming forced marriages or Wahhabism alone won’t be the answer. Neither can Iraq since many of these people were radicalised before that war started. So rather than try to pinpoint an issue, my solution would be to focus on the other aspects - the preachers, recruiters, incubators and extremist organisations that facilitate suicide bombings.
Way forward
The other problem follows on from this. After building a portrait of Mohammad Sidique Khan, Shiv Malik isn’t really able to point a way forward in resolving the problem of terrorism. He says the problem looks “depressingly intractable”.
He adds: “But maybe all that we can do now is remain vigilant and wait for the tide in the battle for Islam’s soul to turn in the west’s favour.” I think this is also a cop-out.
The solution will take time but for others reasons. Muslims themselves are becoming increasingly vocal of problems that their families face and are becoming innovative in tackling them. That will take time to manifest itself. As I pointed out a year after 7/7, things have already changed a great deal.
The response from Labour, police and intelligence services will also take a few years to get on the right track. They started by inviting the MCB over every week and belatedly realised this wasn’t going to get them anywhere. The government response, while far from perfect, is moving in the right direction. The police have spoken out against media sensationalism and leaks, funding is slowly moving towards grassroots and womens organisations and the the intelligence services are building a better picture of potential terrorists.
Over the long term there can only be one response: to fully embrace British Muslims (and other minorities of course) as British citizens. As Yahya Birt points out: “…it is only the extremists who argue for absolute choices between Islam and the west.”
While British Muslims are trying to resolve their identity conflict issues, along with British Sikhs and Hindus (though they don’t feel conflicted as much since there’s no sign of a British attack on Sikhs / Hindus elsewhere), I believe Labour should facilitate this process by pushing through with the ‘Britishness project’, to ensure that British Muslims feel a sense of belonging and civic identity. That is the only long term solution to the schism that extremists want to create. I should really expand on this but I’ve gone on for too long already…
[...] Original post by Sunny [...]
So it’s difficult to pinpoint which one factor is the root-cause of terrorism.
One common factor in all _successful_ terrorism is either some kind of hands-on, face-to-face training in explosives, or direct supply of working weapons. Downloading a recipe off the internet and building a working bomb seems to be a lot more tricky than you might think.
On a wider scale, the ‘how-to’ question is key. Economics and external circumstance place people in a particular situation, religion or philosophy explains to people how to live well within that box. If you get the instructions for the wrong box, you won’t know how to make use of it, so will either abandon the instructions or buy another box.
MSK seems to have been in the unfortunate situation of the man who bought a cheap Korean stereo that had instructions in bad english for how to use a washing machine. When someone tried to sell him some white goods where the diagrams actually matched up with buttons on the front of the unit, that was such a revelation to him he bought it on the spot.
There are strands of Islam that teach:
1. how to be a 3rd world peasant
2. how to be a citizen of a modern(ish) Islamic state
3. how to be a subject of a Muslim King
4. how to be a roving religious warrior.
A strand that would teach how to live as a citizen of a modern and majority non-muslim country exists, or at least is coming into existence. But it is less prominent, less proven and reliable, less self-confident as a brand, less advertised in books, films and stories.
Labour? You’ve been using the L word a bit lately…shouldn’t this be directed at the government and any future one irrelevant of which party is in power?
“the ‘Britishness project’, to ensure that British Muslims feel a sense of belonging and civic identity. ”
…except that islam already offers just that, and the particular forms of islam followed by terrorists offer much a much stronger a sense of belonging and identity. At least as mportant to an identity as those who are included are those who are excluded.
Dr Zimbzrdo is miostaken in making such a clear distinction between external and internal environments. What is important is the interaction between them- indeed, lumping together “genes, moral history, religious training” as the internal environment is wrong. Moral history and religious training are parts of what Popper called World3, a kind of external heredity. It is the interaction between the different aspects of that and the external environment that inspires actions- all actions, not just bad ones.
i hear what you are saying sunny and you raise some good points.
i would think that Shiv Malik is right about the importance of the marriage thing in making them vulnerable to the Islamists. i also hear your comparison to young Sikhs ( and i guess it would also in theory apply to young Hindus) because lets face it, when it comes to conflict with our older generation, us indian subcontinental types have the same social dynamic.
and there is never any one factor that determines anything - it is never that simple and anyone who tries to think there is obviously some kind of simpleton.
having said all that and agreed with the main thrust of your post, however there is the issue that is always sidestepped.
for me religion is no different to some kind of belief in nationalism - the way i see it, religions tend to point to some God in the sky as king - so an invisible one -and nationalism tends to be about leadership as well - and giving up your life for your country should you need to - but its all terrestrial - no pie in the sky. both sets of ‘loyalties’ require a belief in your group being right, and the idea that as a loyal member one must defend the group when under threat. Now various groups will define this in various ways, i.e. when are you under threat, when should you fight etc. but the root problem is there - i feel.
So of course if you have a religion, or a ’cause’ you feel is ‘right’ - and if you feel you have the right to take life to further the cause, then there will be trouble.
the problem islam has - which no one seems to admit to - is that if you accept that the Prophet had the right to kill all the pagans in Mecca and the one or so Jewish tribe that ‘persecuted’ them then personally i can’t see why everyone thinks its so odd that some messianic figure like Bin laden could come along and say ah well we’re persecuted now, join with me to fight. where’s the big difference? i don’t mean to say that all people who accept the Meccan activities will turn into murderers - of course not -seeing as most people won’t accept any further messiahs - but the potential is always there. People in Mecca accepted Mohammed’s claim to divinely inspired warfare - so what i mean is - why should anyone be surprised if centuries later someone uses a similar argument to inspire other forms of what they consider warfare. same social dynamic isn’t it - and same sort of belief.
of course, just to remind everyone, in my view, this sort of thing is no differen to the kind of patriotic loyalties nation-states try to create. religion as a kind of manifestation of uber-nationalism with God being the leader in the sky, and nations having some Leader down here. if the Leader says Kill - then we’ve got trouble.
so i see religion being kind of like an uber-nationalism which posits our leader is a Divine Being in the sky ( but apart from that just like any other nasty despotic leader)
So this really - is what religious people ( of any sort of religion) naturally don’t want attention to be brought to. Or nationalists. All religions, causes, or nations have the potential to require, and demand, and get surprisingingly enough) people willing to die for that cause.
So that’s why the debate on “terrorism” is mostly one full of diversionary and deflecting tactics. because it would require us to understand ourselves better than we do - or admit to a lot more than we do.
And i don’t believe in ‘evil’ -by the way.
Leon’s got a good point in no. 3 - I cannot understand either why Sunny keeps saying Labour this and Labour that. this sort of thing is surely a) aimed at anyone who will be in power and b) not just even aimed at “Government” i.e. our current model of governance - its the sort of thing WE all need to understand - in fact its precisely the sort of reasons why we need a different model of governance
all this Leader business is crap. and that’s why this is all round and round the rose bushes. Sure let’s have our leaders in the meantime seeing as that’s our model and im not one of these Revolutionistas - but let’s not fool ourselves into thinking they’re doing much positive Leading.
Oh and I should point out that i think Labour “pushing through the Britishness project” - whatever that means - or anyone else for that matter - will just as likely caus e lots of trouble. How is that solving the problem here? If we take the Shiv Malik marriage and intergenerational conflict theme as an example: so say we transplant it to a situation where mummy and daddy are both 2nd gen British Asians - say Muslims. They see themselves as british, no issues there, they see themselves as conservative muslims - so we don’t go to the pub or go clubbing. no conflict there. they can bring up their 3 kiddies who also grow up thinking, yes we’re good british muslims we are, just like mummy and daddy, we also dont go pubbing or clubbing. so no intergenerational conflict right\? Perhaps, but say one of them thinks well actually im british and im muslim but i want to go to the pub and club and mummy and daddy say we’re british but we’re not white and we’re not like them - or insert less racist family - we’re muslim and not like them - so we don’t go to the pub. We also dont have boyfriends and girlfriends and I want one. Or something along those lines. so there you can have some intergenerational conflict - “within” the Britishness thing .and everyone’s got a Britishness thing happening. so how is this going to be resolved by the national identity? in countries where people have the same national identity but different religious ones - you hear this sort of thing from parents - like only Hindu people do this, we’re muslim. or only muslims do that - we’re hindu. Whatever, take your pick.
As long as kids are going to be brought up feeling like they cant do this and they cant do that ( which frankly i dont know about anyone else but Muslim parents seem to be feel obsessed with) which they see people around them doing - there’s intergenerational conflict right there.
With Leon @ 3(and Sonia) on this one.
it’s also reflective of a belief in Authority -that ‘they’ are supposed to know what they are doing - so let’s ask them how they are going to fix ‘IT’. Well yeah sure - its the ‘governments’ fault for looking like they are in Charge of things - but frankly, there’s no point looking to Government when they don’t really understand what the hell is going on with anything - never mind this.
Pull my finger.
The common view is that terrorists, much like Blofeld, goes to bed with an evil laugh as he concocts up another dastardly plan to destroy the world. I think that just makes them into caricatures, which hardly helps anyone’s understanding of what drives them.
More than the obvious glory that comes with being freedom fighters and martyrs, I really believe they see themselves as underdogs, modern day Travis Bickels that refused to stand for injustice any longer. While their actions are evil in any sane person’s eyes, the important thing to consider is that they don’t see that in the mirror.
The new age terrorists (and by that I referring to those beyond the Irish and the Tamil Tigers) were borne out of the fact that the west were waging a one-sided war where they had the big bombs and big planes and the muslim world didn’t seem to have a soldier in sight fighting back.
So they, in their minds, did what little people under fire from a superpower did. Instead of using might against might, they used dirty tricks. It worked in Vietman against USA, it worked in Afghanistan against Russia. Except back then, they had a better name for themselves. Guerillas.
Now that they’re known as terrorists, everyone thinks they don’t have a point like the guerillas and freedom fighters did, which makes them increasingly alienated and doubly vicious. They’re left feeling they are the only ones, the lone rangers, who can make a stand against the scum of the universe.
Wannabe heroes never emerge on the street if they see the police doing something about it. In the same vein, these men (and make no mistake, they think their actions are heroic) wouldn’t take the law in their own twisted hands if they weren’t faced with the news of thousands and thousands of innocent people being killed in the name of civilisation/democracy/whatever the west wants.
You want to know how to stop terrorists? Fight fair.
The route cause of terrorism is the west’s colonial foreign policy which is, invade then occupy the land, exploit the resources of the nation regardless of the effect this has, even if thousands of innocent civilians are killed, are left starving or homeless, its all good so long as it makes a profit/ benefits their economy, insert their own despot who speaks the same language and looks the same as the people of the host nation, maybe at some point move out leaving a mess, and continue to exploit that nation via their agent. The bias support of some nations over others even though they are open tyrants who oppress their neighbour state, the support of dictators who oppress people of their own nations and torture their political opponents, in summary have a large part in radicalising Muslims, as to the argument that Islam is to blame for this is false because even non Muslims are radicalised by the foreign policy. Thats where the criticism needs to be.
[...] at his Pickled Politics site, Sunny Hundal has written his own response to [...]
Yeah, Usman, spot on. But people don’t want to hear it. I wrote at length about this on my blog:
http://anask.wordpress.com/2006/10/11/its-the-foreign-policy-stupid-part-1/#more-6
I quoted Chomsky, and that quote isn’t any less relevant now:
“[Those who want to reduce the threat of terror] will also distinguish carefully between the terrorist networks themselves and the larger community that provides a reservoir from which radical terrorist cells can sometimes draw. That community includes the poor and oppressed, who are of no concern to the terrorist groups and suffer from the crimes, as well as the wealthy and secular elements, who are bitter about US policies and quietly express support for bin laden, whom they detest and fear, as “the conscience of Islam” because at least he reacts to these policies, even if in horrifying and disastrous ways.”
So Anas, the west invades a country whose inhabitants happen to share your faith. This justifies an individual of the same faith who happens to be a citizen of the invading nation killing innocent people who happen to be sharing the same railway carriage?
Its always someone elses fault isn’t it? Why are you unable to acknowledge that these terrorists have their own agenda, one that is not influenced by the actions of the west?
Anas even if you drained the swamp you will not kill all the mosquitos.
kismet makes some good points. terrorists see themselves as soldiers, standing up for something.
the problem is that in a society where nations have earned the legitimacy to have wars, similarly, others feel they have legitimacy to do their dirty tricks version. me i don’t like nation-state wars, or these dirty tricks. both lot seem to think they have the right, there’s the problem.
the current foreign policy situation exacerbates the situation and provides fodder for Islamists, or anyone looking for fodder
Anas
Do I, as an ‘angry young Sikh’, have legitimate justification for turning up at the Badshahi Mosque at Lahore and blowing myself and the Friday prayer crew to smithereens….given that Pakistan, a colonial entity created by the British, and propped up by the US, stole mine and millions of other Sikhs’ homes and ‘occupied my land’?
kismet,
Outside of ritualised combat ‘fight fair’ is an oxymoron and always has been. If anyone ever entered a war with fairness higher on their scale of priorities than winning then they have been written out of history.
Usman/Anas,
Clearly your key point that exploitation leads to resistance is correct, and the history of the strong exploiting the weak is the history of our world. But surely the key passage in Anas’s Chomsky quote is ‘…the poor and oppressed, who are of no concern to the terrorist groups and suffer from the crimes…’.
Violent resistance to callous exploitation has a long and (sometimes) admirable history, whether it be slave revolts, the early Fenians or whatever. But the distinguishing feature of our current crop of high profile mass killers is that they feel a vicarious outrage on behalf of an abstractly defined group towards whom they ascribe a formal identity. But they have no apparent qualms about butchering large numbers of those same exploited and oppressed in the name of the self-righteous ideology they have constructed.
Anas, we’ve covered this area so many times. But it’s chicken and egg isn’t it. You blame colonialism, they blame religious extremists who want to use any excuse to recruit and launch terrorist attacks.
MSK was radicalised before Aghanistan and Iraq. The terrorists will use any excuse to recruit. Your shallow analysis gets us nowhere constructive. Just read what MSK said in his video speech. It wasn’t just about retaliation for Iraq (barely mentioned). It was about his deep contempt for western society. He blows a hole in your own theory.
Do I, as an ‘angry young Sikh’, have legitimate justification for turning up at the Badshahi Mosque at Lahore and blowing myself and the Friday prayer crew to smithereens….given that Pakistan, a colonial entity created by the British, and propped up by the US, stole mine and millions of other Sikhs’ homes and ‘occupied my land’?
Err, no dickhead, I never said terrorism was justified, in any case, Muslim, Jew, Sikh, or Christian. Anyway, it’s clear that there’s a difference between past injustices and ongoing attrocities in terms of its effect in motivating angry young men and women.
So Anas, the west invades a country whose inhabitants happen to share your faith. This justifies an individual of the same faith who happens to be a citizen of the invading nation killing innocent people who happen to be sharing the same railway carriage?
LOOK I NEVER SAID IT WAS JUSTIFIED! But, if you want to understand why it happens and why it’s likely to happen rather than feeding yourself nice little fairy tales about psychological factors, etc, then it’s clear as the nose on your face, FP is the main factor.
Errr, Sunny, to quote MSK:
Your democratically elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world, and your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters. Until we feel security, you will be our targets, and until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment, and torture of my people, we will not stop this fight…We are at war, and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation
Pretty straightforward I’d say.
Shezad Tanweer says:
For the non-Muslims in Britain, you may wonder what you have done to deserve this. You are those who have voted in your government who in turn have and still continue to this day continue to oppress our mothers and children, brothers and sisters from the east to the west in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq and Chechnya. Your government has openly supported the genocide of more than 150,000 innocent Muslims in Fallujah.We are 100 per cent committed to the cause of Islam. We love death the way you love life. I tell all you British citizens to stop your support to your lying British government and to the so-called war on terror. And ask yourselves: why would thousands of men be ready to give their lives for the cause of Muslims?What you have witnessed now is only the beginning of a series of attacks which will intensify and continue to until you pull all your troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Again, pretty clear what was bothering him.
And yes people were radicalised before Afghanistan and Iraq — anyone who brings that up clearly doesn’t understand Western FP of the last century and more.
LOOK I NEVER SAID IT WAS JUSTIFIED! But, if you want to understand why it happens and why it’s likely to happen rather than feeding yourself nice little fairy tales about psychological factors, etc, then it’s clear as the nose on your face, FP is the main factor
Rather than go over old territory constantly Anas I’m going to try a different approach. Most people when confronted with such injustice don’t blow themselves up. Why? Because their own moral compass tells them it is a bad idea and will not get them anywhere.
There’s 1.8 million Muslims here. Most haven’t blown themselves up. We can only assume they have much more sense than the 4 who did. Now, let me try and explain this better. There is a whole process that takes place where you take one guy who is angry and frustrated, and turn him into a suicide bomber. That whole process has been well documented and requires lots of brainwashing and propaganda. People don’t just get up one day and decide to blow themselves up and kill innocent civilians. Yes?
Now we’re talking about the process here. Chomsky, who you are quoting, alludes to this process too. The people behind that indoctrination don’t really care about the injustices. They are interested in political goals and they will use pawns such as MSK to achieve that goal.
Read what Chomsky is saying again until you get that point…. That community includes the poor and oppressed, who are of no concern to the terrorist groups…
Now, my point is this. Even if we get deal with the our unethical foreign policy, which should be dealt with and evaluated on its own merit rather than what some suicide bombers want, the point is it doesn’t stop or destroy those networks of recruiters. They will use other excuses to recruit people. Try and understand what I’m getting at here.
Sikh militancy in Punjab wasn’t killed off just by placating the Khalistanis. They actively went after the trouble-makers and took them out. Once you no longer have the trouble-makers who will use any excuse to create a schism, then we can have a sane conversation.
That has to happen here as well for long term peace.
Anas meet Muzumdar aka Hannibal.
Do work with our resident joybinger.
Just picture him singing to himself as strokes his keyboard:
I bring joy, and I can take you through,
All those days when people seem to get to you.
I bring joy, and I come here to you.
I bring life, and I can take you where
You can see, and feel, and breathe, and touch the air.
I bring life and I can take you there.
Feelings inside that we keep
Out of sight and out of reach
Bring us to the things we seek
Take your time, remember when you do
There are days when people feel the same as you.
I bring time, and I can take you through
I bring joy…
Anas It doesn’t take much for muslims to get radicalised ask Sir Salman.
I’ve heard plenty of proposed explanations for home-grown terrorism, but I’ve rarely if ever heard anyone mention the culture of Britain.
In reading newspapers and clicking around the internet, I’m always stunned to discover that Britain is an immoral country sinking into a quagmire of crime, depravity and degradation.
Then I walk down the High Street and it looks like any other day. Why are we so quick to portray ourselves as degenerates, when we’re really a decent and generous people?
It strikes me that this continual condemnation is eerily similar to the message of radical Islamists - is it crazy to consider that our constant doom-mongering and hatred of modernity is preparing the ground for the growth of poisonous fruit?
Contempt for fellow humans + contempt for modernity + self-righteousness = radicalisation, or have I got my maths wrong?
Anas - Regulars here know you, and know that you are completely agains terrorist activities, but by quoting MSK and his acolyte, Shezad Tanweer, visitors here could think that you are supporting them.
Please make it absolutely clear that although you were quoting them, there is no way that you condoning them.
This is said from friendship and auntie-ji affection.
yeah and to ensure the rest of us here don’t get hauled off to jail with you!!
flying rodent makes a good point
usman no. 14 - are you talking about terrroism through the ages or terrorism now?
are you suggesting that muslims should only be offended by the dodgy actions of the ‘west’ - or dodgy actions on the part of everyone? and if not the latter - why not?
and those in the past as well or just now?
what is so particular about ‘the west’ - why is ‘it’ an ‘other’ - might that view have something to do with a particular mindset? there have been plenty of dodgy empires in history ( arab expansion being one of them - persians - moghuls- turkic groups - you name it, us ‘easterners’ were no worse than ‘the west’) and human rights now is apalling in many countries, and certainly in the ‘east’ again if you want to use such dichotomies.
So i repeat: ( and i ask anas this as well) why is it not about what is going on everywhere, that we are doing to each other, in the past, in the present, and no doubt in the future? Why is it that the discourse and rhetoric uses the same kind of ‘othering’/enmity thing that Muslims complain of? why is it that people are buying into the clash of civilisations thesis so easily?
Is it perhaps because there is some rhetoric, from a ‘dying’ empire mindset - which wants ‘glory’ and power again? which sees the ‘west’ in ascendancy now and wants that position back? See of course that is why Huntington’s thesis appeals to so many people - it is written from the perspective of thinking of civilisations as competitive, of wanting that glory and power of being the civilisation. the ones in charge.
what about thinking about collaboration instead of competition? thinking of ourselves as individuals who have some agency - and if we collaborate and try and channel that agency collectively - instead of seeing ourselves as victims and taking ‘deadly’ ways out of the problems we collectively contribute to.
but anyway Yahya Birt’s comment about arranged marriage being ‘circumstantial’ dismisses its central role in intergenerational conflict in asian communities.
let’s ignore terrorism for a minute. its pretty central thing in life if your parents think they can choose your partner, and you think of a relationship as something your choice and not your family’s to make. anyone who thinks that isn’t central to a family relationship - they haven’t found themselves in that situation and are ignoring how serious it can be. Now if you cant’ resolve this with your parents i.e. if your parents are intractable then often that is the end of the relationship. if you are still quite young then this can make you very vulnerable - now that’s what leaves you open to all sorts of things. some kids might leave home and be fine, some might leave home and become homeless, a drug addict, whatever ‘ills’ you can think of or are usually represented as a ‘bad thing’. Now in a certain environment, one of those ‘ills’ could be dodgy Islamist Mullahs floating about trying to get hold of you ( or some other cult) . So yes it is ‘circumstantial’ in as much as anything is circumstantial - the vacuum left by family if that’s happened, the dodgy cult wandering around trying to find vulnerable people to manipulate…
and the reason why arranged marriage is a potentially big conflict is that the traditional (south)asian parental perspective is that pretty much you as a child are there to do what the parent/family unit wants - because its not about the individual, its about the collective. so naturally - in the same way they didnt have much of a choice, because it was about what was in the family’s interest, so they don’t see why the kids want something different. Wanting to have the right to choose your own partner, and wanting to have your parents to be simply happy for you - - is about wanting your family to see it as something YOU want to do. And so many families just think of that as some kind of ‘insult’ to the family unit. And very often i have heard from friends here that their parents thought they wanted to do their own thing because they had become too ‘western’.
so it is highly central when considering the conflict between parents and their children in an immigrant society.
Sonia - Good points.
With respect to Yahya Birt’s comments, I think, that like me, his understanding of the cultural implications of arranged marriages is limited, as we weren’t brought up in societies where it is the norm (and I know he wasn’t, because his father and the late Chairman were in the same class at school, where his father’s nickname was ‘Trib’, oh the original inventiveness of it).
thanks Chairwoman auntie - and the background info on yahya birt!
let’s say - when i had this same sort of ‘conflict’ with my parents, they were like you young people nowadays you’re too “modern”. they didn’t say it was because i had become ‘western’ which i think they may have done if i’d grown up here, and ‘western’ was the thing parents don’t want their kids to be, the ‘other’.
because so many young people in bangladesh ( and in the indian subcontinent in general) who want to do their own thing and the older generation realise this - even if they grumble and don’t like it, they realise change is inevitable and not ‘western’.
Didn’t Ed Husain also identify the relatively liberal views on marriage of the vocal salafis as an important reason that young people were attracted to them? I don’t know for sure about this, but it is worth considering along with the other things (Kismet Hardy #13 on identification with victims of injustice, soru #2 on brands of Islam and how cool they are in presentation, sonia #5 on the acceptance of apparently brazen cruelty in mainstream tradition).
I like the focus of the top article, because what is most important is to understand our capacity for evil and how to disarm it. For me it is also important that we do not disarm it selectively, because it is easy to be aware of evil in others, but our own is usually invisible to us, cloaked behind certainty of our own virtue.
If we look into the mirror we see someone who wants to do their best in a harsh world full of evil. Just like the suicide bomber does. We have our own defences to understanding the impacts of our self-righteous behaviour just as much as the suicide bomber. So I need the help of others, and I will trust them enough to accept their help, if they would be willing to trust my help in return.
Firstly I want to make it perfectly clear the Islam forbids the killing of innocent lives regardless if it is muslims, non muslims, jews, blacks, white etc.
My comment at 14 is specifically is in reference to the atrocities committed by western governments against Muslim people because
1) This is the topic of discussion, and
2) Unfortunately the major conflicts in the world happen to be with Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Somalia to name a few (I wish it were otherwise).
The point at issue is that western foreign policy is either directly or indirectly responsible for much of the blood shed so naturally this will breed resentment against the aggressors. This does make Muslims angry in the case of the 7/7 bombers they became so angry the decided to take their own lives, which I do not condone but until the issue of foreign policy is highlighted this problem is not likely to go away.
When I say this I say it as a Muslim myself and am speaking from personal experience, foreign policy does grieve me and grieves Muslims even though Mr Blair on the one hands thinks Muslims have a false sense of grievance and then at the same time acknowledges that Muslims are grieved but shouldn’t be. Even non Muslims are angry at the foreign policy so the notion that Muslims shouldn’t be grieved is ridiculous.
Some may sense that Muslims are more sensitive to aggression against Muslims which is true, (not to say that atrocities against non Muslims is not felt, I am grieved also when people in Africa starve to death daily as a result of western colonial foreign policy) reason being for this is that Muslims see them selves as one single body, a Muslim is a brother to another Muslim (or sister) even though they have no blood relation but it’s the creed of Islam which bonds the Muslims together and it is the creed which defines the identity of a Muslim and not race or location, naturally you will grieve more when your own brother or sister is hurt and killed.
As to the claim that Islam is responsible for terrorism and that they will find any excuse to murder like the rhetoric of Tony Blair and sunny do not have any credibility firstly because Blair is a know liar (maybe sunny couldn’t think of anything original of his own to say and so jumped on the band wagon) and secondly terrorism isn’t unique to any creed, religion, race etc, but what most have in common is that it’s a reaction to something or some one. Continuing in denial of this is not productive.
And one final point before I end, that things should be kept in perspective, yes there was a terrorist act on 7/7 which was a bad thing and shouldn’t have happened but also don’t forget that the war in Iraq has claimed the lives of more that 600,000. Its clear to me that Mr Blair is victim of following an evil ideology, and this is the crux of the matter, foreign policy can not change because it is ideologically driven regardless of who is in power, Britain has a long history of colonial foreign policy and is here to stay for the future.
Anas - Regulars here know you, and know that you are completely agains terrorist activities, but by quoting MSK and his acolyte, Shezad Tanweer, visitors here could think that you are supporting them.
Please make it absolutely clear that although you were quoting them, there is no way that you condoning them.
This is said from friendship and auntie-ji affection.
Yes, non-regulars, the lovely Chairwoman is absolutely right. I don’t condone.
I believe Labour should facilitate this process by pushing through with the ‘Britishness project’,
I take your point, but I cannot help imagining running such a project in Ulster. And what would happen afterwards.
Such a project is clearly an attempt to destroy every ethnic or religious community in the UK, and absorb them into the monoculture.
In the long term - if it works - it reduces sources of conflict. In the short term, the leaders of such communities - at the very least - will surely resist.
OK, work with me here…so you admit that the theft of Sikh property and land and the merciless slaughter of Sikh men, women and children to make way for Pakistan was a ‘past injustice’.
Will you, as a good Muslim boy, petition the government of Pakistan for the right of return for Sikhs to their homes? This means all those houses and all those farms and all those canal colonies given back….
I’ve no doubt that injustices were committed against Sikhs — just as grave and bloody injustices were committed against Muslims on an at least comparable scale. However I’m not sure these were not just the usual South Asian communalist savagery which erupts given any excuse, rather than an official part of making way for Pakistan.
Now, my point is this. Even if we get deal with the our unethical foreign policy, which should be dealt with and evaluated on its own merit rather than what some suicide bombers want, the point is it doesn’t stop or destroy those networks of recruiters. They will use other excuses to recruit people. Try and understand what I’m getting at here.
Again this is a criticism I deal with in the piece I wrote. The short response is that the recruiters will have a hard time recruiting anyone without having Western FP to exploit. And yes psychological factors do play a role, but it doesn’t overturn the fact that pretty much every expert says Iraq, for example, has fuelled/will fuel terrorist recruitment — that there is a very important cause and effect relation there.
Anyway, you say something interesting above, namely:
While British Muslims are trying to resolve their identity conflict issues, along with British Sikhs and Hindus (though they don’t feel conflicted as much since there’s no sign of a British attack on Sikhs / Hindus elsewhere)
Is it me or are you not conceding the primary importance of FP here in alienating young Muslims and driving them to in extreme cases terrorism?
Anas
You are also a fan of Adam Curtis in his documentary the power of nightmares he makes clear that one of the primary motivation behind Qutbs ideology was a contempt for the immoral,degenerate west. Baby its cold outside.
Also Tanweer was blaming his victims. Don’t do the same with this FP causes terrorism crap as that is what it is.
Yeah, okay, I’ll come back another day.
Is it me or are you not conceding the primary importance of FP here in alienating young Muslims and driving them to in extreme cases terrorism?
Anas, FP has exacerbated the threat we face from terrorism. Have accepted that loads of times. But changing FP won’t solve the problem because those recruiters will use another excuse to recruit people. Ultimately, the only way is to destroy those networks, not just have a strongly ethical dimension to our FP.
Good Heavens! I agree with Sunny!
“But changing FP won’t solve the problem because those recruiters will use another excuse to recruit people.”
Really sunny? What excuse is that then if you don’t mind me asking? You and Blair keep mentioning this but its just a slogan really, what’s this excuse you keep going on about maybe you could share it with the rest of us rather than just regurgitating Mr Blair’s words.
“Ultimately, the only way is to destroy those networks, not just have a strongly ethical dimension to our FP.”
Sunny are you denying that foreign policy is making people angry? Are you saying that people should not be angry?
Ethical foreign policy? Is this possible? A foreign policy which does not benefit the economy?
“If someone was to insult your mother would you be angry dear boy?”
Being angry if one thing, calling for the death of someone is a different matter as is killing someone. Perhaps muslims should turn the other cheek.
Now were getting somewhere its the reaction to the provocation that does Muslims harm.
Stop playing the islamophobia card.
What I find interesting about this discussion is the phrase ‘foreign policy’.
‘foreign policy’ can mean sending aid, refusing aid, trading, boycotting, lecturing, silence, meeting, avoidance, buying weapons, selling weapons, agreeing, criticising, protecting dissidents from extradition, arresting bombers, arming bombers, sponsoring a coup, training an army, funding an insurgency, regime change, occupation, invasion, breaking international law, enforcing international law, and a hundred other things.
It also, crucially, gets used to mean ‘have done any of those things at some time in the past’, or ’stood by and let others do them’, and even ‘have been rumoured by some guys on the internet to have done them’.
It’s so universal and transcendant a grievance, it’s unimaginable that it could ever go away. There is is no need to think of a replacement, at least until the day every country is Denmark, or perhaps there are no countries. There will always be 40 or so areas in the world where thousands of people die each year. And every so often, there will be areas where more die. All those deaths will be a result of ‘foreign policy’, as defined above.
If the complaint were about specific issues, Kashmir, Iraq, or whatever, then you could imagine it being resolved one day. Which is why those who make a living from that sense of grievance, rarely make specific demands, talk about specific issues, for fear of them being met and them having to find another line of work.
It is not necessarily the case that FP which angers muslim extremists to the extent that they can convince themselves it justifies indiscriminate murder is always a morally wrong FP.
The (understandable) focus on Iraq - which most people here would agree was a morally indefensible screw-up - can mask the fact that even a foreign policy decision many would find fully supportable, such as Australian support for East Timor, can cause the same reaction (the Bali bombings were as clearly identified as a response to that as Iraq was by MSK.)
To most of us the immorality of Iraq lies mainly in the unnecessary suffering it has caused. To the extremists its immorality lies in not accepting their agenda. As the earlier Chomsky quote made clear, the suffering of the innocent is of no concern except as propaganda - after all much, or even most, of that suffering is inflicted by the extremists themselves.
Usman,
Your #46 seems to imply an equivalence between a cartoon, a novel and a war.
Could you indicate - say, on a scale of 1 to 10 - how angry you feel about each? It might give an insight into where your sense of proportion lies.
It has been stupid and decidly irresponsible of successive British governments to expect, after generations of encouraging and creating Bantustans in all the major cities of England, that FP would not have a galvanising effect on minority communities. But how else should the wholly shoddy business of Iraq, which as been a moral fuck up from top to bottom, be perceived as anything otherwise? It should galvanise all people and not just those morally skewed by ideology.
That there us a propaganda value of the disaster is a boon to the extremists, there’s no argument. But perhaps that is because Blair and Bush goverments, incapable benefitting from any propaganda credit on Iraq themselves, benefit from a specious gloss that we all view the Iraqi aftermath with. Or perhaps it’s just moral-disaster fatigue.
sorry, bantustan is not a proper noun.
sid,
Do you really believe that government has conciously set about creating bantustans?
I don’t doubt that in some cases that has been a consequence of fumbled response to a challenging situation inadequately met or even understood, but a policy?
Don, perhaps not a policy but a slow drip recession of universal values over the encouragement of regional ideologies and worst of all, other pseudo-universal values (”Khilafa State” etc). Not sure what to call this slow, gradual generational phenomena. I’m not versed in the technicilities or the arcano of local government legislation, but the creation of bantustans, if not formally created then passively encouraged, bringing us to this present state.
sid,
I see what you mean, just cautious about the intentionality behind it.
Usman
Foriegn Policy is like the cough caused by the flu virus.
FP does not cause terrorism, just like the cough did not cause the flu. the virus caused the flu.
The virus, is islamism.
Lets face it, true muslims, who follow the message delivered by gabriel to muhhamed, are very few. its islamists who dominate the muslim world, therefore more terrorism is inevitable, as islamists love death dont they? whereas the infidels love life!
there is no solution, there will be more and more terrorism, until eventually the non-muslim world declares war on the islamist regimes, especially saudi arabia and iran and pakistan and then we will have a royal blood bath.
Well we’ve reached a stalemate. I’ll leave you folks to think about this.
After 7/7, Tariq Ramadan, who I find the best speaker on these issues, said that there needed to be two responses: 1) a political response to the Iraq war (lobbying the govt to pull out, holding it to account etc) and a
2) a religious response to 7/7 (making sure the Islamists don’t keep being able to justify suicide bombings).
It seems to me that despite all the fatwas and the statements that suicide bombings should not be condoned, there hasn’t been a proper religious response to 7/7. Islamists still keep justifying and carrying on with suicide bombings without much of a guilty conscience. The consensus still seems to be that in certain circumstances suicide bombings is still viable and ok. Well then, for a potential suicide bomber, the answer lies in simply adjusting those circumstances to suit himself. So the bombings will carry on regardless.
In which case, the government has to instigate a military response.. so if those Islamists cannot be persuaded to pursue more democratic or non-violent ways to suit their agenda, then you take them out. It’s that simple.
Jini
“Foreign Policy is like the cough caused by the flu virus.
FP does not cause terrorism, just like the cough did not cause the flu. the virus caused the flu.”
On this point I will agree with you, Foreign policy is the cough and the virus is capitalism as it’s the basis that shapes foreign policy. A foreign policy which serves its vital interests with other nations, i.e. exploiting resources etc regardless of the loss of life.
“Lets face it, true muslims, who follow the message delivered by gabriel to muhhamed, are very few. its islamists who dominate the muslim world”
Jini, what do you actually know about Islam or Islamic history apart from what you hear on the media? Why don’t you go and learn about these things, go do some research from the source, and I’m not saying this with the intension to insult you, honestly. Also Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan are not islamist/Islamic regimes.
And sunny Tariq Ramadan is a farce and that’s how Muslims view him, a vending machine scholar employed by the government to serve their agenda, he may be the best speaker for you but to ordinary Muslims he’s a sell-out we see straight through him, he’s not fooling no one nor any other sell-out scholars the government has on a payroll. These moves along side all the other plans like trying to change Islam to a British Islam will back fire badly.
“It seems to me that despite all the fatwas and the statements that suicide bombings should not be condoned, there hasn’t been a proper religious response to 7/7.”
How many times do you want it to be said sunny? Islam does not condone the killing of innocent lives, this has been repeated time and time again. What is it that you want exactly?
In terms of “suicide bombings” in places where there is conflict, you can’t be seriously trying to imply that the locals of those lands shouldn’t retaliate because that is a really daft statement to make, to expect a man not to defend himself.
Look sunny, you can completely disregard what I’m saying and knowing you, you will no doubt disagree, but your attitude and the plans of the government will back fire, because you have completely misunderstood the problem, and as a result your solution will be incorrect and will further anger the Muslims.
Usman, you’re not reading me properly.
You first say: Islam does not condone the killing of innocent lives, this has been repeated time and time again.
then you say: you can’t be seriously trying to imply that the locals of those lands shouldn’t retaliate
What I’m referring to is the “retaliation” towards innocent civilians of course and the racist propaganda that continuously accompanies it. Why should anyone be convinced that Hamas, going by its charter, is not just dedicated towards liberating Palestine but actually eradicating and killing all Jews? I’m sorry to tell you this but actually those people “retaliating” don’t inspire much sympathy when they’re blowing up innocent people.
I also made the point about a “religious response”. You illustrated my point perfectly by talking about retaliation (which can, and often is, against innocents, and therefore immoral). So you don’t condone taking of innocent lives but you’re ok with people retaliating by killing innocent people? I guess it depends on how you define as innocent eh?
A foreign policy which serves its vital interests with other nations, i.e. exploiting resources etc regardless of the loss of life.
Every country’s foreign policy is designed to serve its own interests. Welcome to the real world. The question is, how many innocent people end up dying during that. Funnily enough, most Muslims like you are angry at FP of western countries, but don’t say much on how Muslim-majority countries treat others.
and as a result your solution will be incorrect and will further anger the Muslims.
At which point I’m tempted to ask what isn’t going to make people like you (and I don’t mean most Muslims since in general they still seem to like this country) angry at anything. You don’t have solutions, only complaints.
No need to comment, Sunny said it already. And if myself and Sunny are in agreement, you Usman, are in the wrongest place you can be.
I am least likely to agree with Sunny than any person, bar the commies at lenin’s shit hole.
And the Pope isn’t Catholic and the Dalai Lama isn’t Buddhist. And the Queen isn’t the head of the Church of England. And so and so forth. You get my point.
Whether the aforementioned countries really are based on the “true” message of Islam is a different matter. The point is that they sure as hell think they are, and they behave accordingly.
“I’m sorry to tell you this but actually those people “retaliating” don’t inspire much sympathy when they’re blowing up innocent people.”
According to you they don’t have the right to retaliate though do they sunny, they should shut up and take it while they lose their lives, families, land, farms and all the rest of it, hey sunny? The Israeli state can kill as many as it likes do what ever it wants but the Palestinians shouldn’t fight back? Its these kind of double standards where the victim is demonised that really makes the blood of Muslims boil.
“Every country’s foreign policy is designed to serve its own interests. Welcome to the real world. The question is, how many innocent people end up dying during that.”
Nice on sunny im glad you picked that out, maybe you could elaborate on what the vital interests are of a capitalist nation like Britain and America are, and if you get stuck you can look up history and find your answers there. The same reason 600,000 innocents have dies in Iraq alone.
“Funnily enough, most Muslims like you are angry at FP of western countries, but don’t say much on how Muslim-majority countries treat others.”
Oh those Muslim majority countries that are supported by western governments you mean, yeah that is bad sunny, the west should stop supporting them. For the record these are not Islamic countries they are secular states run by dictators with the blessings of their Colonial masters.
“You don’t have solutions, only complaints.”
Its all irrelevant to you isn’t it sunny, after all the Muslims don’t have the right to complain do they? Conveniently you ignore the solution because you know the solution is something that this country can not compromise on as it would affect their vital interests abroad, namely stealing the natural resources of other nations, supporting their agents who kill and torture their own populations etc.
Usman
Go away. I have had enough of your impotent rage.
Usman - Killing yourself seems to be a pretty silly and useless way to retaliate.
You’re dead, and all your act has achieved is to harden your enemy’s resolve.
Chairwoman,
It’s a shame that the Iraqis, Palestinians, Afghani’s are blowing themselves up, it’s a shame they don’t have helicopter gun ships, tanks, F16 fighter jets and all other modern military hardware that the ones who occupy their land and murder them with have.
Usman, you conveniently ignored the main part of my response. Just to jog your memory I’ll copy and paste it below.
“What I’m referring to is the “retaliation” towards innocent civilians of course and the racist propaganda that continuously accompanies it. Why should anyone be convinced that Hamas, going by its charter, is not just dedicated towards liberating Palestine but actually eradicating and killing all Jews? I’m sorry to tell you this but actually those people “retaliating” don’t inspire much sympathy when they’re blowing up innocent people.
I also made the point about a “religious response”. You illustrated my point perfectly by talking about retaliation (which can, and often is, against innocents, and therefore immoral). So you don’t condone taking of innocent lives but you’re ok with people retaliating by killing innocent people? I guess it depends on how you define as innocent eh?”
No one said people don’t have the right to resist occupation of their lands. South Asians of all colours did it when the British ruled. But their plan wasn’t to come here and blow up innocent white men/women in retaliation. And neither would I support such action.
So, answer my points above.
The Israeli state can kill as many as it likes do what ever it wants but the Palestinians shouldn’t fight back?
Poor Sunny, he gets it in the neck from all sides. As if he’s ever said anything like that. You are an idiot, Usman.
“Why should anyone be convinced that Hamas, going by its charter, is not just dedicated towards liberating Palestine but actually eradicating and killing all Jews?”
So does that justify state terrorism by Israel? Does this terrorist state kill innocents? Are they driving Palestinians out of their homes, destroying their olive groves? All this is taking place and the world turns a blind eye to this and is justified as collateral damage. Double standards sunny that’s what this is. So there is resistance, there is retaliation, why are they retaliating?
Forget for a moment that they are Muslims for a second, they are human beings and other human beings should also be outraged, this is an injustice done against humanity. And that includes non Muslims also but keep things in perspective, yes 7/7 was wrong, innocents dying is wrong but then look on the other side of the fence and see what is going on there yeah.
Usman - There are plenty of other people, including Muslims (and Jews), both on and off this site who feel as strongly about the Palestinians as you do. Their compassion encompasses suffering peoples other than Muslims.
Yours appears not to.
Anas
You are also a fan of Adam Curtis in his documentary the power of nightmares he makes clear that one of the primary motivation behind Qutbs ideology was a contempt for the immoral,degenerate west. Baby its cold outside.
Also Tanweer was blaming his victims. Don’t do the same with this FP causes terrorism crap as that is what it is.
Well I wasn’t too hot on his last series, but yeah I did like the Power of Nightmares. But I think maybe you’ve missed something out here. Qutb did indeed feel disgust for what he say as the permissiveness and decadence of the West. However, his solution, at least in the short term, wasn’t to target the West, but to attempt to stop these immoral trends from catching hold of Egypt and other Islamic societies.
In fact, Qutb’s primary aim was to transform Islamic society — the rest would follow. The idea of targeting the West came later when the Islamists found they were getting nowhere with their murderous campaigns in the Muslim world– and that was done in the name of FP. Indeed, Bin Laden, himself give as his (ostensible) justification for attacking the West in 1998 the following :
“[The] call to wage war against America was made [when it sent] thousands of its troops to the land of the two holy mosques over and above… its support of the oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical regime that is in control. These are the reasons for the singling out of America as the targets.”.
Indeed, ZZ, you may think the idea that FP is the primary cause behind the increase of so called “Islamic” terrorism, or the threat thereof is crap, but like I say most terrorism experts and intelligence agencies don’t.
Anas, FP has exacerbated the threat we face from terrorism. Have accepted that loads of times. But changing FP won’t solve the problem because those recruiters will use another excuse to recruit people. Ultimately, the only way is to destroy those networks, not just have a strongly ethical dimension to our FP.
Again I feel that if you took the bloody ramifications and greivous injustice of most Western FP (here I’m thinking of Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kashmir, all the tyrannies in the Muslim world supported by the West) out of the equation it’s unlikely that apart from a few isolated cases anyone would feel motivated, angry enough to blow himself up in a crowded place — regardless of the “brainwashing” you think goes on. Indeed, I think the threat would be close to null.
IMHO, it’s because the recruiters can play on legitimate grievances that there is a real threat that they will recruit impressionable young people. Now that’s just a point about human psychology and motivation. And, it’s pretty obvious, the best way to fatally weaken the networks is to remove sympathy for them amongst the wider community.
Think about it, what material do the recruiters use? It’s not wedding videos of miserable looking young men in arranged marriages, I’ll tell you that for a start — tho maybe that might work.
Also, I understand some Muslims went apeshit over Rushdie, Danish Cartoons, etc, but then so did some Hindus over MF Hussain’s paintings, and some Sikhs over Bezhti. I think that’s a somewhat separate if not unrelated issue from people joining organisations with the expressed intent to cause widespread destruction, murder, and terror — ostensibly in the name of FP. Actually I think if events like the Danish cartoons do increase the threat of “reprisals” that’s only because they come where there’s a general background of intense anger over FP. Read my blog piece, I explain my point in a lot of detail and have probably anticipated most of your responses there anyway.
I think I’ll paste a quote from there because, not to big myself up too much, I make an important point here re “terrorism” and some Muslims attitude towards it :
“But wait a minute, you might ask, how can Muslims, or indeed anyone justify supporting terrorist actions even if carried out in the name of a just cause? In order to understand that you have to appreciate the extent to which many Muslims perceive the term “terrorism” itself to have been devalued by persistent American/British misusage. Indeed when many Muslims hear American or British politicians apply the term “terrorist” to label some person, group, or state, they automatically assume that the usage is primarily determined by whether the “terrorists” in question are perceived to be threatening US (legitimate or illegitimate) interests than by any more objective definition of the term — what Noam Chomsky calls a term’s “operational definition” as differentiated from its ideological definition.
“And it’s easy to accord for this all pervasive cynicism especially when across the world America is itself regarded as the single greatest instigator, (ideological and diplomatic) supporter, funder and beneficiary of terrorism; that is if terrorism is defined more objectively, as in the Encyclopedia Britanica, as “the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.” Accusations of terrorism against others by the foremost (obviously un-self-acknowledged) perpetrators of the same inevitably have for most Muslims, who understandably given their history see themselves the primary victims of US imperialism, the stench of rank hypocrisy.”
I mean, it’s like when Sunny calls Hamas or Hezbollah a terrorist organisation. Fair enough, they have used terror in the past. But take Israel’s strike against Lebanon last year. An act of terrorism that resulted in the loss of at least a thousand innocent lives and the maiming and injury of many more. And yet, Sunny never calls Israel a terrorist state and I appreciate why — no doubt he’d be called an anti-Semite and I guess he doesn’t need that hassle.
Anas Curtis Last series was a dogs dinner on that I believ we can agree?
Curtis did set out Qutbs ideas quite neatly and your description is apt. Qutbs ideology aimed for an Islamic renewal that sought to expunge the influence of the west. He also thought of muslims who did not share his ideas as lesser muslims, infected as they were by western ideas. Thus excusing their murder when his followers used violence to pursue his aim of an islamic utopia.
No wonder Qutb and his ilk are hated by many muslims.
Its worth noting that when Anwar Sadat was assasinated by one Qutbs supporters he did it because he was an apostate ruler. His assasin shouted “I’ve Killed pharoah”. We can put to bed the idea that the camp David agreement sealed his fate.
FP exacerbates but you must not ascribe that as the sole reason behind the actions of Islamic terrorism. They must be seen on their own terms. The FP angle could be described as soft racism as it treats muslims as unthinking barbarians reacting wildly to any action by the west. Anas just acknowledge that they have their own aims and objectives and that its not just FP.
FP exacerbates but it does not cause terrorism. A church dance on the other hand….
No Usman, you’re not answering my question! Again, you keep avoiding it.
So does that justify state terrorism by Israel?
I’m not justifying anything by Israel. I made the point about Hamas. Why not answer my question?
So there is resistance, there is retaliation, why are they retaliating?
So in retaliation is it ok to kill innocent people or not??
but then look on the other side of the fence and see what is going on there yeah.
You’re all over the place. I want one set of rules for everyone yeah, so let’s agree with them first. You’re screaming about Israeli aggression but then on that basis you’re justifying Hamas retaliation. Then it only comes down to who is stronger isn’t it? If Hamas had bigger weapons it would be killing more Israelies. Morally they’re the same.
My question to you is: is it ok to kill innocent people under any circumstances? Is it ok to kill civilians in the act of retaliation? Those two questions do no mention Israel or Hamas, nor Jews or Muslims. Those questions should apply to everyone.
Answer that first and we can move forward.
Anas: I mean, it’s like when Sunny calls Hamas or Hezbollah a terrorist organisation. Fair enough, they have used terror in the past.
So they’ve killed innocent people in the past too. You accept that. If you want to then call Israel a terrorist state, by your own standards you shoudl also be calling Hamas and Hizballah terrorist organisations or not?
Sunny
How many times have I said killing innocent people is wrong, I’ll say it again for you so you understand, Killing innocent people is wrong, there, happy or do you want me to say it again?
Hamas? Now you’re banging on about Hamas? The state of Israel has been inflicting state terror on the Palestinians long before Hamas come on the scene.
“So they’ve killed innocent people in the past too. You accept that. If you want to then call Israel a terrorist state, by your own standards you shoudl also be calling Hamas and Hizballah terrorist organisations or not?”
So would you say that Britain is a terrorist state for killing so many innocents in Iraq and everywhere else? Apply your own logic to that one. You yourself are guilty of what you accuse me of.
You like to ask a lot of questions but not answering any yourself, let me cut and paste it for you.
“Nice one sunny im glad you picked that out, maybe you could elaborate on what the vital interests are of a capitalist nation like Britain and America are, and if you get stuck you can look up history and find your answers there. The same reason 600,000 innocents have dies in Iraq alone.”
Answer that first and we can move forward.
And if your still having trouble with it you can find the answer at the bottom of comment 62
So would you say that Britain is a terrorist state for killing so many innocents in Iraq and everywhere else?
I think it depends on the intention of what the state is trying to achieve. In my belief the state should be the only body allowed to kill people though it should be held legally accountable if it does so illegally and immorally. You’ll see from my previous threads I’m not a fan of Israeli or British foreign policy.
Hope that answers your questions.
I’m banging on about Hamas because you’re not addressing my point, repeatedly. Doesn’t matter if Israel has been around for longer. I didn’t ask you if killing innocent people was wrong. I asked you if killing innocent people in retaliation was wrong? And would you see normal Israeli people as “innocent” or not?
on what the vital interests are of a capitalist nation like Britain and America are
That’s like asking what the vital interests of Pakistan are. Every state has many different interests. What answer do you want here?
One could say, sponsoring Kashmiri groups to target innocent Hindus in Kashmir and drive them out is part of Pakistan’s foreign policy. Which it is.
You want to keep talking about capitalist Britain or the USA, but they’re not different to, say, Pakistan or Indonesia (both of which, as Muslim-majority countries, have slaughtered 100s of thousands of people in Banda Aceh and Timor and Bangladesh). Though there’s more accountability in the UK/US and these states are militarily stronger. Is the recent history of these countries any less violent?
I’ve never supported Britain’s excursion into Iraq so I don’t know what question you want me to answer. Name me a few states where they have a very ethical foreign policy.
Incidentally, you keep blaming the west for funding dictatorships in the Mid-East. But what about the huge number of imams and mufits who live in those countries? Why are they not leading a rebellion against those dictatorships or forcing their people to rise up against unethical foreign policy?
It seems to me that most Saudis seem quite happy with their US-sponsored dictatorship.
“I think it depends on the intention of what the state is trying to achieve. In my belief the state should be the only body allowed to kill people though it should be held legally accountable if it does so illegally and immorally. You’ll see from my previous threads I’m not a fan of Israeli or British foreign policy.”
Most people will agree that the Iraq war is illegal and immoral, personally I don’t have much confidence in the perpetrators being held to account, if history is anything to go by the whole thing has been a joke from the very beginning, WMD’s, sexed up dossiers, complete disregard of UN veto’s, etc the ones responsible will justify their actions one way or another and walk away, so in theory they are accountable but in reality it doesn’t come into fruition. No surprise people lose faith in the whole thing.
In terms of Hamas, firstly I’m no fan of Hamas or fatah, to you sunny you may see the average citizen of Israel as innocent, do the Palestinians views it that way? I doubt it very much, Israel was never formed by legitimate means from day one, now I don’t have a problem with Jews, just because someone is against Zionism doesn’t make them anti-Jew, even orthodox Jews are against Zionism, so going back to your question, depends what you would define as innocent. Put yourself in the shoes of a Palestinian, does he see the ones that drove him and his family out of his home, killed his people, destroyed his farms and then developed their own settlements on his land as innocent? Would you? I’ll be perfectly honest with you, I wouldn’t.
Today Palestinians are asked to recognise this illegal state, yet David Ben-Gurion the first Israeli Prime Minister admitted.
“If I were an Arab leader I would never accept the existence of Israel. This is only natural. We took their land. True, God promised it to us, but what does it matter to them? There was anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was it their fault? They only see one thing: we came and took their land.” [Nahum Goldmann, A Jewish Paradox: A personal memoir, 1978]
“That’s like asking what the vital interests of Pakistan are. Every state has many different interests. What answer do you want here?”
True, vital interest can be multiple, but the point I’m trying to make is the main vital interest of a capitalist nation can not be ethical because the measure of what is morally good would be that which benefits the economy by any means necessary by exploitation of the nations wealth regardless of how many people die in the process, and history will testify that this is the case with mainly Britain and America. So Britain has never had, doesn’t have, will not have in the future an ethical foreign policy.
“Incidentally, you keep blaming the west for funding dictatorships in the Mid-East. But what about the huge number of imams and mufits who live in those countries? Why are they not leading a rebellion against those dictatorships or forcing their people to rise up against unethical foreign policy?”
Sunny the prisons in these countries are full with political prisoners, sadly the ones who rise up against these western backed dictators pay with their lives.
Anas Curtis Last series was a dogs dinner on that I believ we can agree?
Yeah, and it started out well too.
Anas just acknowledge that they have their own aims and objectives and that its not just FP.
If you read what I write carefully you’ll see I don’t assume that.
So they’ve killed innocent people in the past too. You accept that. If you want to then call Israel a terrorist state, by your own standards you shoudl also be calling Hamas and Hizballah terrorist organisations or not?
Well, my point was that you had to apply the term consistently (I did say it was fair enough to call Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist orgs).
BTW, I completely disagree with Usman in his post 57. I personally really admire Tariq Ramadan, and I think a lot of other Muslims do too.
Also, I made a deliberate error in my last post, the current disaster in Kashmir is not directly a result of Western FP (altho if you wanna go back 60 or so years…).
Usman:
“Firstly I want to make it perfectly clear the Islam forbids the killing of innocent lives regardless if it is muslims, non muslims, jews, blacks, white etc.”
yes - the operative word here being INNOCENT. People disagree on this. No doubt the terrorists and their propaganda leaders have all sorts of ways of deciding ‘innocence’. i bet the 7/7 blokes thought they weren’t killing innocent people - they probably thought by association, we all weren’t ‘innocent’ you know.
So its not much good saying ‘ah well Islam forbids killing innocent people’. I mean the Prophet killed lots of people ‘ah well they weren’t innocent then were they’. So there you go. You can justify it if you inculcate enough people that others aren’t innocent because they are ’standing by while innocent people are murdered’. So where does that leave us?
its like ‘foreign policy’ is “one thing” nowadays. and as if every country in the ‘West’ has the same ‘foreign policy’ and as if even if we refer to the UK, foreign policy is all bad. lots of bad things, i absolutely agree, but equally, there are other aspects to ‘foreign policy’ than just bombing other people.
and going around bombing people is stupid - whether or not you’re a nation-state - any idiot knows that. it makes it easy if someone is hitting you - to say -oh look they’re hitting me, im going to hit them back, especially if you wanted to do that anyway cos you were PISSED OFF.
in any case, one set of killings doesn’t justify another set. nor does it imply there weren’t some other factors linked in. obviously if one goes for the linear model that might seem so, but that’s crap anyway.
Sonia asked:
I answer, it leaves us here;
Guilty of collective crimes, collective culpability, and morally appropriate targets for being turned into lumps of dead meat, bone, splatter and gristle on bus and train windows and platforms and pavements in order to consummate the darkness inside small man-children and their ideological ghettoes and evil.
And also post-mortem discussion fodder for apologists and those who deny individual agency and exculpating an ideological virus of hate over ‘phoren paaalicy’
Sonia ya really impress me sometimes.
The point Sonia makes in despair and anger of where this leaves us is of course that those who anoint themselves judge, jury and executioner have appointed every single one of us as guilty and deserving of death. In that respect you’re sifting through a load of propositions that mean nothing in the face of such implacable hate and darkness. The innocent are not innocent ultimately because they say the innocent are not innocent. And if you can demonstrate that their reasoning is wrong it does not matter because, they’re not innocent, because I say so.
One way of reaching this point is to create a vision of the world in which there are no individuals, and identified groups are engaged in a narrative of destruction and conspiracy, an undifferentiated mass of ‘enemy’, common in intent and guilt and culpability.
For an early example of this procedure read Mein Kampf. To trace the roots of a more topical issue, refer to the collected works of Maulana Mawdudi, Syed Qutb, and their epigones amongst us who inculcate and inebriate minds with their trash.
Sonia
On your point about who is innocent depends on how one would view things from their perspective, I agree with you. Today I was reading in the sun newspaper a article about a British soldier that got killed in Iraq who was described as a hero, on the other side of the fence the Iraqis who killed him saw him as an aggressor, and even on the issue of what is morally good and bad you can apply the same logic, what one views as morally good may be seen by someone else as morally bad and vice versa.
So where does that leave us.
There is no morality, it could be argued the war in Iraq is good morally, and the war in Iraq is bad morally depending on how you view it.
Foreign policy is decided by what the state views as its vital interests, from what I can sense is that in a capitalist nation those vital interests are defined as that which benefits your economy regardless of the consequences it has on others, and this is not isolated to the Iraq conflict alone but even in history this seems to be the case.
Is this basis the correct basis to form foreign policy? To benefit your economy even though you may end up killing thousands, the attitude that murder is justified because we made a profit?
Should humanity accept this?
I’m going to turn the following around, in light of this thread’s primary topic:
In a jihadi mindset, those vital interests are defined as that which benefits your Ummah regardless of the consequences it has on others.
Is this basis the correct basis to form theology-based policy towards those of a different religious affiliation, particularly in matters concerning warfare ?