Let me first express my anger and dismay at the terrorist’s attempt.
Yet, There’s a huge flow of misinformation and blown up information out there. That seems to take even sensible people hostage.
Three or four related news came up very close-
1. Australia admitted that they invaded Iraq for oil- (crores of people were taken hostage by the invasion, thousands dead and dying, thousands homeless)
2. Lal Masjid in Pakistan- (a thousand people or more taken hostage)
3. Glasgow bombing (nobody injured, except the attackers)
4. Countless dead in Iraq, Afghanistan.
Where are we putting the emphasis? We are talking of 2 and 3; overlooking 1 and 4. But they are linked. Deeply.
And that brings me to the second point. The Glasgow bombing attempt may have been committed by Muslims, but the motivation was not Islam . The motivation was political- created by anger and helplessness vis-a-vis an immensely powerful west.
Why is the motivation never presented to us as political? Simple. If people know that these “(horrendous) activities are results of atrocious foreign policy, you lose your legitimacy. But, if you can somehow impute that muslims are inherently violent, and they commit violence because of their religion, then nobody questions your motive.
//Why is the motivation never presented to us as political?//.
This is exactly my point Manas. This could not be religious because they are hurting people from own their faith more than anybody else. Suicide bombers die, their families suffer and people from their own faith get a bad name. Violence is helping nobody except for some who are instigating people from a distance and some of them try to run away from the scene in a Burqa( I need not name the person). In Iraq for every US casuality there are at least 10 Iraqi casualties. I don’t want either of them to die. Shias and Sunnis are killing each other, ain’t they all followers of the Prophet, whose name they malign by taking part in bombings of innocent civilians. I have read a few things from the Koran and I know that Prophet Mohammad wanted the good of mankind and so did all religious people. It is a handful of people who bring bad name to the whole faith.
Political or otherwise, the taking of innocent life simply cannot be condoned. Anyone who is a perpetrator of this crime should be held to trial.
Fair enough, IMeMy. The criminals should be held to trial.
That is the problem. The actual reason behind these crimes are being misinterpreted. Deliberately.
Those who do such things are criminals, and just that- criminals. Even though they may think that they are working for some country, they are actually worsening their case.
Using pretext such crimes to instill more fear is the politics of fear. There are many advantages for the leaders of a country when the population is in fear. Therefore, the powers that be exploit such incidents to maximum possible.
In this way, they hurt the sanity of their own people, and make scapegoats of others.
great post
Thank you, Salahudin.
[...] is not clear to me why a failed terrorist attempt in the UK, in which nobody is hurt, should make headlines [...]
Manas,
You raise some excellent points, and I agree that Western foreign policies and their thirst for oil do not get enough press as contributing factors. But, I would like to point out that USA, UK and European countries have seen huge protests against war in Iraq, and as you know, both the Labor party in UK and Bush in the US are currently hugely unpopular.
The way people register their protests at these government actions is through processions, letting their elected officials know their views and voting them out at the next elections. Yes, these actions are slow and take time, and democracy is by no means a perfect system, but I’m for such a process rather than protesting injustices through violent means.
Also keep in mind that the media in the West is controlled by a few powerful corporations that have a huge influence on what people read or hear. But there are also independent media sources, and gadflies like Noam Chomsky who are very critical of US foreign policies, and there are a good number of people (though not a majority) who listen to voices like his.
Yes, the West has a hand in creating these problems, but it would not have succeeded without the help of Muslim rulers and leaders who suppress their own people. Maybe the disaffected Muslims should focus some of their efforts on changing that.
Problems that were started almost 60+ years ago cannot be solved in a few years, and may not be solved in our lifetimes. But, our commitment to peaceful and democratic means should remain firm.
Meanwhile, more solar panels, renewable energy sources and compact fluorescent light-bulbs will reduce our dependence on oil.
Cheers,
-Amit
Amit
It is good to see such sincere and well thought out comment post.
I agree with you mostly. I too do not agree with violent protests, especially when they serve no purpose other than creating menace.
However, one can not discard all the protests as crazy. Very often the grievances are real. But the method of conveying them are not.
That is, of course, no excuse for creating trouble.
Manas, you said:
“Those who do such things are criminals, and just that- criminals.”
So what exactly is the definition of a terrorist? It’s just a word for a special kind of crime, just as we have murderer, rapist, thief etc. I don’t see anything wrong with calling someone who commits (or attempts) an act of terrorism a terrorist.
Let’s not go into the politically-correct mode or split hairs over word meanings here. There are many in the US who already do that (PC talk).
Calling a terrorist a criminal will not change or lessen the impact of his actions.
Cheers,
-Amit
It is not only the word. It is the occidental idea of terrorism that I am talking about.
Terrorism is something that threatens the ‘free life’ of the ‘civilized’ west. It has something to do with Islam. It has no socio-political context- just the religious context. They have misinterpreted Islam and that guides them to terrorism.
It is this idea I am against.
The Musilm terrorists have misinterpreted Islam, no doubt. But that is not their motivation. The motivation is anger- political and possibly social anger. They, the terrorists want to feel that they are right. To self assure them that what they are doing is right, they misinterpret Islam.
They are criminals. A man who tries to avenge his family’s death is also a criminal. Both actions can not be supported. True.
You see, the cause is misplaced by putting too much emphasis on the ‘Islam’ thing.
Manas, you wrote:
Terrorism is something that threatens the ‘free life’ of the ‘civilized’ west.
Everytime I hear Bush say that, I roll my eyes. The books I’ve read on these issues that quote OBL clearly say that all he says is USA should move out of holy land (SA). The threats to “free life” are lies invented by the politicians here, just as there are lies at the other end.
I believe that Mirza Faisal and others have already written enough on this issue on the IM blog that reflect some of my views and answer your questions, so I won’t repeat myself.
I understand that the terrorists are probably frustrated, but my question (which I’ll ask again) is: Why don’t they direct this anger and frustration toward the rulers of countries like Saudi Arabia and other dictatorships who are equally responsible? If those Muslim rulers had not agreed, there’s no way USA would be there.
And, I’ll state again that violence is not justified to solve the problems in the world. I’ll remind you that it took India almost 100 years to get rid of British (that’s what – 4 to 5 generations?), and while the movement was not 100% free of violence, Gandhi-ji remained firm on his principles of peace, non-violence and non-cooperation in spite of many challenges. Many of those freedom fighters died without seeing the fruit of their labors in 1947. While we all cannot be like him, we can try.
Cheers,
-Amit
Well written. I agree with you there.
The motive is certainly not political.
If the reason for this attack is the policy of UK on Iraq and Afghan, then only those nationals should have involved.
India is not invaded, then why should a Indian Muslim involved in this? The reason is that he is a Muslim.
So, the motive is absolutely religion.
Manas,
thanks.
But, you still haven’t answered my question that I asked in the message:
“Why don’t they direct this anger and frustration toward the rulers of countries like Saudi Arabia and other dictatorships that are equally responsible?”
It’s pretty obvious to all (and more so to the residents of those countries) that their Muslim rulers/dictators are in league with US. So, why not take action there?
-Amit
Amit
As far as I know these terrorists did not attack western countries before they realized that west lent their support to these despotic regimes.
If you analyze OL’s lectures, at first he says- save the holy land. Then he gradually adds the west to the picture and urges fight against west.
Shivakumar
Had the attack on Iraq not happened, such attempts would not have happened. It is political incidents that trigger such attacks.
You are assuming that the Indian fellows are guilty, assuming.
However, that is not impossible, and yes, the common religion is what brings him to the act. However, it could be any religion. ( http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/khaled_diab/2007/07/a_history_of_violence.html )
Moreover, it was committed in spite of Islam. Islam forbids such actions.
The black hole is still there.
I’m not very sure what you mean.
The black hole (caused by the jeep ramming itself into the terminal and catching fire) at the airport terminal (had to go pick smeone up from the airport to got a good gander at it)