oh no but we wouldn’t be able to blame one thing that way. Much as i’d love to, i’d like to blame one or two mullahs, or mullahs themselves, or someone like Mohammed for starting it all off, but realistically, whilst it might be very satisfying, there have been so many things along the way that go towards creating a situation where someone has such a fucked up idea of their agency that they feel blowing themselves up is somehow great. similarly, how you can’t just point to one poster which would explain why a sane human being would volunteer to be fodder for an impersonal, ungrateful ( most likely) nation-state.

I reiterate that Islam does not allow the harming of innocent civilians. Unlike the leaders of the ‘war on terror’, Islam teaches to value the lives of all innocent civilians whether in London, Glasgow, Beirut, Baghdad or Kabul.

In recent years, Muslims have had far greater experience of being the victims rather than the perpetrators of terror. The deaths of over 80 civilians in Afghanistan in recent days are the latest shocking reminder of this. Despite this, Muslims should never stoop to the level of the adherents of the insidious neocon ideology that has unleashed terror on Iraq and Afghanistan. It is these policies that are the root cause of worsening instability the world over.

The continued dialectic about moderates and extremists, that tends to label those who criticise Western foreign policy or advocate the political tenets of Islam as extremists, is extremely counterproductive.

in any case, what amuses me is the ‘direct causality’ model of explaining things people like anas seem to be stuck in.

OK, David Hume, what’s so wrong with it? Please describe your new model that explains Islamist terrorism and does away with references to this antiquated concept of direct cause and effect?

But I’m very unhappy with you calling me an apologist, because that’s just full of shit.

I said you were doing this inadvertantly, not deliberately.

How am I dangerously close to excusing anything when I repeatedly point out my opinions on the terrorist’s actions?

It’s the “but this” and “but that” caveats which achieve this. Especially when you state that there is littled difference between the terrorists’ negative actions and those committed by some Western countries’ governments & militaries.

Like I said before, you may not realise it, but you’re doing the extremists’ dirty work for them. It may be accidentally, but the end result is the same.

Regarding the following:

My take

Much of what you said there was facetious and immature — not to mention highly paranoid — so I’m not going to dignify it with a response.

All asians are tarred with the same brush to the extent that they’re assumed to be Muslim.

Congratulations Einstein, I’d never realised that.

Let me take this back to one of your comments in #260:

Not really, Jai. I mean wouldn’t it be a good thing to have different points of view in a discussion? and I think a lot of people would enjoy pulling apart your arguments.

Firstly, I don’t necessarily support the examples I gave in the post concerned — I was using it as an analogy, by flipping some of your own arguments around and applying them to the West.

And secondly…..

Why would that kind of post be a bad thing?

If you don’t understand why it would be inappropriate, insensitive, and horrendously counter-productive for a person to keep writing such posts on the hypothetical blog I described, especially in the context of the wider hypothetical discussions concerned and with regards to the specific audience on that blog, then that’s the fundamental cause of the problem.

You also need to be a little less self-centred and not assume that whenever I say something like “FP does not justify terrorism against British civilians” during any discussion attempting to identify root causes, I’m specifically accusing you personally of having such a stance.

You should also consider that while FP may be a major motivator behind the actions of many terrorists, it may not be the only cause or even the major one, and in many cases it may not really have anything to do with FP at all. There’s also a difference between something being a “reason” and an “excuse”, and again that’s going to depend on the specific individual.

I’ve said all I wish to on this thread, so this will be my last post here.

Question: What’s motivating the terrorists ?
Anas: Foreign Policy to a great extent.
Jai: That doesn’t justify them trying to kill British civilians.
Anas: For reasons x,y, and z, they think it does. And they will continue with this attitude until and unless the UK changes its policies towards Muslim countries.
Jai: No British government will ever do that, at least in response to actual-and-threatened attacks against British civilians, and most of all if it’s perpetrated by homegrown jihadis.

My take

Anas: What’s the best recruitment tool that the terrorists have to recruit young alienated Muslims and to convince them that there’s not just a clash of values between Islam and the West but an actual attack on Islam? Why it’s obvious, it’s FP.

Jai: Sorry, you’re just an apologist for terrorism. You’re suggesting the terrorists aren’t to blame, you’re saying it’s really our fault.You should always combine your criticism of the West’s actions — many of which you and the rest of the world might consider terrorist but which I refuse to do so — with condemnation of Muslim terrorists. Even though no one feels obliged to do that the other way round, i.e., when discussing Muslim terrorism. Foreign policy is just incidental to terrorist recruitment despite the fact that their literature seems to focus heavily on that, their propaganda justfies their attacks on that basis, MSK and Tanveer excused their actions on that basis, bin Laden has explained his actions on that basis (might be lies but why would he be saying that in the first place?). What would happen if some terrorist blew up your family? Eh? Eh? Eh? You’re just making excuses?

Anas: What? How did you read all that into what I said? I deny all of the accusations you’ve made against me.

Jai: Sorry, you might not know it yourself, maybe you’re just too dense but that’s what your words are *obviously* implying. What if someone who wasn’t a regular inadvertently read your posts and didn’t notice you condemning terrorism every other line, it’s obvious they’d think you were endorsing it?

Anas: Huh? That has never happened. Anyway, like I say if you want to know the primary reason why anyone would feel angry enough to blow themselves up…

Jai: Apologist! Why consider their motivations, they’re evil that’s all you need to know. No one’s going to change their foreign policy just because they’re scared of reprisals!

Anas:…well maybe if we were more aware of our immoral foreign policy and there was enough public outcry, the government would be forced to change not on the basis of fear but anger at *our* actions, isn’t that what happened in the 60s in the US with Vietnam? Anyway, why would you want to understand any terrorist’s motivations? Why are people so scared to face up to the fact that FP might be the base cause, even if the security services seem to be saying it? Why is there such a culture of denial, why are we afraid to confront these issues, even discuss them without demonising people who bring up these questions accusing them of justifying the terrorist’s actions…

Jai: No. It’s simple. The terrorists are evil, they blow people up, all the suicide bombers have been brainwashed by an evil Islamist sect (which may or may not actually represent the true Islam that Muslims try and hide, depending on which part of the Islamaphobic spectrum you lie on) that’s all you need to know. The rest is just apologism — and as a Muslim you must make clear everytime you approach this topic that you wholeheartedly condemn these terrorists and do not identify with them, preferably every other sentence. OK, now shut the fuck up.

I don’t know what part of Britain you live in or how much contact you have with non-Muslim Asians, but here’s some breaking news on life here in London: all Asians have been tarred with the same brush, and we’ve all become suspect.

All asians are tarred with the same brush to the extent that they’re assumed to be Muslim. Haven’t you noticed the little campaign the BNP have been waging to enlist the support of Hindu and Sikh groups (thankfully on the whole they’ve had little success)?

ZinZin, I think Sunny pulled the question you asked about Hezbollah. I will still answer it — and Sunny can delete the answer or the whole post or the whole thread, it’s his site! Firstly, there is serious dispute about whether some of the anti-Semitic quotes attributed to Hezbollah/Nassrallah are actually genuine. Secondly, even if they were, and like Hamas they had a disgusting anti-Semitic streak, I would still not disown my support for Hezbollah against Israel in the Lebanese war — even though I acknowledge they have committed terrorist actions and will condemn them as well as condemning any form of anti-Semitism or racism. Simply because if Hezbollah had lost to Israel in that conflict the consequences would have been extremely dire for Lebanon, so in my opinion there was no other option but to be on Hezbollah’s side

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

Katy,

Thank you very much for clarifying my own actions and motives in this discussion — you’re spot-on. Greatly appreciated.

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

Anas,

Again, there’s a little thing called international law that should stop the kind of reaction you’re talking about from taking place.

I think the events of the last few years should have demonstrated that that particular ship sailed a long time ago, buddy.

Is it my attempt to explain and rationalise their actions that is so offensive? Isn’t that what any one investigating a murderer or any kind of criminal would try and do, to figure out the motivations for the crime, especially in order to stop it happening again?

There’s “explaining and rationalising”, and then there’s “dangerously close to excusing”.

Here’s the situation, in a nutshell:

Question: What’s motivating the terrorists ?

Anas: Foreign Policy to a great extent.

Jai: That doesn’t justify them trying to kill British civilians.

Anas: For reasons x,y, and z, they think it does. And they will continue with this attitude until and unless the UK changes its policies towards Muslim countries.

Jai: No British government will ever do that, at least in response to actual-and-threatened attacks against British civilians, and most of all if it’s perpetrated by homegrown jihadis.

Anas: Agreed, but the jihadis obviously have different ideas.

Jai: So what’s the point of continuing to discuss their motivations if we agree that their actions and motivations are unjustified ? And, furthermore, what the hell does “foreign policy” have to do with wishing to kill large numbers of what they apparently regard as “dancing slags” ?

And so on and so forth.

all Muslims get tarred with the same brush to some extent, we all become suspect

I don’t know what part of Britain you live in or how much contact you have with non-Muslim Asians, but here’s some breaking news on life here in London: all Asians have been tarred with the same brush, and we’ve all become suspect.

And furthermore…..

there’s that memorable phrase: not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims

Something I’ve heard repeatedly from English people here in the capital is “Not all Asians are terrorists, but most of these terrorists are Asians”.

So bear in mind that this has now wreaked havoc in the lives of Asian communities and families who are not Muslim and actually have absolutely nothing to do with “Muslim anger against foreign policy and Western decadence”. We’ve all been dragged into this unholy mess, and are having to deal with the repercussions of a) problems amongst some elements of the British Asian Muslim population and b) reciprocal suspicion and prejudice by members of “the indigenous population”, purely because we share the same ethnicity as most British jihadis.

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

Mazumdar,

By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the ‘Blair’s bombs’ line did our propaganda work for us.

Exactly. Thank you very much.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2115832,00.html

Extract:

‘By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the ‘Blair’s bombs’ line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.’

Lets put it this way. The so-called West, and really we’re talking about the United States, and to a lesser extent its pathetic puppy dog in England, have a real problem on their hands. Regrettably, it’s payback time for the Americans and they have a problem because all the other enemies since the end of World War Two that they pretended to contend with .. were basically fabricated enemies. The Soviet Union was a conservative bureaucracy by the end of World War Two, which apart from the sphere of influence it carved out–mostly for defensive reasons–was plainly in retrospect a stabilising force in international affairs. Then the enemies that the US conjured up as the Soviet Union fell into decline beginning in the early 1980`senemies like Libya, Iraq, narco-terrorists and so forththese were basically enemies created by the United States to–among other things–justify repressive policies around the world, and to inflate its military budget. Now they do have a problem on their hands, and its going to exact a cost from Americans. The American elites can talk about honour and creativity until the cows come home, but it’s not going to be like the Iraq shooting fish in a barrel situation, like they did when they destroyed Iraq in 1991. Frankly, part of me says – even though everything since September 11 has been a nightmare–’you know what, we deserve the problem on our hands because some things Bin Laden says are true’. One of the things he said on that last tape was that ‘until we live in security, you’re not going to live in security’, and there is a certain amount of rightness in that. Why should Americans go on with their lives as normal, worrying about calories and hair loss, while other people are worrying about where they are going to get their next piece of bread? Why should we go on merrily with our lives while so much of the world is suffering, and suffering incidentally not with us merely as bystanders, but with us as the indirect and direct perpetrators. So that I think that you can summon up all the heroic and self-aggrandizing rhetoric you want, but there is a problem facing all of us now, and maybe it’s about time that the United States starts having to confront the same sort of problems that much of humanity has had to confront on a daily basis for God knows how long.

But my point is this. MSK and Tanweer may see their actions as reprisal for Iraq. Are you saying that you don’t necessarily accept that as the main reason but are saying that is what they think?

I haven’t seen much evidence to the contrary myself, so I think there’s a strong case that it is what they think.

If it’s the latter, then I’m not sure why we should accept that reason as legitimate. Would you try and sympathise with a KKK member?

Sympathise with him in what respect? OK, take the BNP. Many of its members make valid criticisms about how many poor white communities have been ignored by the government rather disgracefully. I would sympathise with that. But then when they start talking about immigration and the existence of immigrant communities being at the root of it, I find that repugnant.

Read your posts objectively, try to consider how you may be coming across to people who do not necessarily understand your motivations for seemingly trying to repeatedly rationalise and “explain” Islamist terrorists’ actions and attitudes, and it’ll help you understand my own point.

Is it my attempt to explain and rationalise their actions that is so offensive? Isn’t that what any one investigating a murderer or any kind of criminal would try and do, to figure out the motivations for the crime, especially in order to stop it happening again?

Understand that I wouldn’t support the above course of action, because I do not believe in either deliberate attacks on civilian populations or “collateral damage”; however, launching an attack against a nuclear-armed country (itself pretty much a declaration of war) is either an act of suicide, or an act where one knows that the other party will hesitate to retaliate against you with the full force at their disposal.

Again, there’s a little thing called international law that should stop the kind of reaction you’re talking about from taking place.

and, most of all, demonstrate a stubborn refusal to place the primary blame where it belongs, ie. with the terrorists themselves — you are an apologist for them, to all intents and purposes.

If I don’t do that overtly it’s because it’s so obvious that the terrorists are primarily responsible that there’s no real need to constantly repeat something so redundant. I don’t even believe that stuff about brainwashing. I think these people are murderers, pure and simple, in my eyes there’s no justification for anything they do. I come at this issue with an aim to understanding why it happens and the most effective ways of stopping it happening. But on the other hand I also like to use the opportunity to point out that the West itself has also been and is also guilty of terrorism, because like it or not when these “Islamic” terrorists strike, all Muslims get tarred with the same brush to some extent, we all become suspect, Islam becomes a religion of terror and of hate. Pointing out that terrorism is not just an “Islamic” thing (there’s that memorable phrase: not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims) is a way of striking at that perception and of helping people become aware of the actions that are being committed in their names across the world that have enormously bloody consequences and that are in fact terrorist themselves (again I repeat that Albright example which almost no one knows about). In fact, there’s an important moral point to be made that if we are going to attack terrorism we have to do it consistently.

But the primary blame — the bulk of the blame — lies with a) the sectarian forces within Iraq opportunistically using the situation to further their own agendas via violence, and b) foreign jihadist fighters similarly exploiting the situation.
Yes or No ?

The primary blame is obviously with those carrying out the killings, but the blame for causing the whole situation lies with the coalition who are also responsible for the numerous “collateral” deaths that have occurred at their own hands.

And if the answer is “Yes”, surely our homegrown jihadis should be targetting their “anger” primarily towards the two groups above, instead of threatening to kill large numbers of British civilians ?

I think they might be angry at the war and the occupation in the first place: that a sovereign country could be invaded on a flimsy pretext with zero thought for the cost in lives and then occupied with all the obvious resulting consequences that occur when occupying a country where most of the people don’t want you there. But again, for me, THIS DOESN’T JUSTIFY MURDERING ANYONE. If anything it justifies having Blair and Bush and the other war criminals up in court for war crimes, nothing more.

This topic isn’t about the legitimacy of the invasion of Iraq. We all know the answer to that question.

I was making a point about the responsibility in an important sense of the coalition forces for the safety of Iraqis.

Your energies would be more constructively utilised by focusing on identifying why such individuals think their “anger” justifies plotting acts of mass murder against the rest of us, and how this should be effectively dealt with.

Obviously, part of it is that they had become adherents of a poisonous, IMO completely, un-Islamic ideology that justified such terror attacks, I’m not denying that. And as has been said Muslims especially have to attack that ideology.

The wests actions cause terrorism, but terrorists also have their own reasons for their actions that have nothing to do with the west.
Anas You would benefit from reading Alaistair Horne’s A savage war of peace: Algeria 1954-62. After reading only a few chapters you would understand the mentality of the terrorist, his aims and motives. The first aim is to polarise and squeeze the centre which the FLN did with great success.

Yes, I agree with that, who knows what bin Laden and the other leaders’ real motivations are, and yes, people do commit terrorist actions for a variety of reasons. But the networks seem to recruit other people primarily on the basis of anger at FP, that’s what the experts seem to say. That there is a very important cause and effect relationship between FP and terrorist strikes against the West.

That is not what Anas is about. Anas seems to me to think that getting inside the mind of evil people might let us understand it and put a stop to it.

YES!

One particular pitfall is trying to understand empathically, rather than intellectually – to think ‘what kind of thing would make _me_ consider doing that’, instead of ‘what made _them_ do that’.

But in many cases thinking the former is a way of trying to understand the latter, depending on what you have to go on.

I trust I’ve sufficiently clarified my point

Not really, Jai. I mean wouldn’t it be a good thing to have different points of view in a discussion? and I think a lot of people would enjoy pulling apart your arguments. Why would that kind of post be a bad thing?

He quickly withdrew when challenged but supporting a terror organisation and taking into consideration his blame FP for terrorism line makes you wonder.

Where? I never withdrew anything. I supported Hezbollah in the Lebanese war and I haven’t taken that back.

He claims to be well informed about their motivations but in the article that spawned this entire thread, Shiv Malik’s, MSK and Tanweer are clearly quoted (via their video address) stating their longing to re-conquer lands like the Islamic Imperialists of old.

Nice point, Muzumdar, yes as Islamic militant nutters they obviously wanted a caliphate and to conquer Andalucia, etc. But I think my point still stands, do either of them *justify* their actions in terms of wanting a caliphate, or do they actually justify their violence and murder in terms of retribution for FP? Again I come back to their own words, to the terrorists actual public justifications of why they do what they do, and you know what they always mention Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, etc. (MSK”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”, Tanveer:”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.”)

Douglas I love you. You’re spot on. And I thought Jagdeep’s post was in very poor taste but it was hilarious.

I thought that it was quite important to point out that imperialism is a human trait and not a specifically Western one, and I was also rather upset to have been accused of curtailing someone’s freedom of speech when I thought it was quite clear that I wasn’t doing anything of the kind. But I am happy to keep my mouth shut on this and indeed all other issues from now on.

Re post 256. At least there is something we can agree upon.

Oh – as long as I’m not curtailing anyone’s right to freedom of speech by saying that.

Argh! Yes it is just you! What was I not “supporting”? Did I say that Anas shouldn’t be allowed to post on here? What on earth is your problem with what I said?

I am just frustrated at your refusal to say “I’m sorry, Katy, I misunderstood what you said”, rather than just edging away from “You are in the wrong” to “Oh well I knew what you meant but I just thought it was a bit mundane”, whatever that means.

For fucks sake to you too.

I am also capable of irritation. You wrote that Anas was open to misinterpretation. I do not disagree with that. I just find it a bit mundane coming from someone who has engaged with him over the years, and should know better. That was lukewarm support at best. But maybe that’s just me.

I am no longer interested in this arguement, for that is what it has decended to. Perhaps you and I do read different nuances into what is said here? Maybe we could agree on that?

Maybe not.

Probably not.