Wednesday, August 03, 2005
EXCUSES, EXCUSES
From IC Wales:
And here we go:
So what we are dealing with here aren't "real Muslims", but "fake Muslims". Let's bear that in mind.
So he knows it is "no more than 10 or 20 people"? That's all? There are no others out there?
Well, then, what is he doing in Cardiff? He belongs at MI-5.
And we get the perennial attempt to compare situations that are not like for like.
The IRA is a nationalist organization that rooted its "revolution" in the politics of the nation-state and socialism. Yes, most IRA members were and are undoubtedly at least nominal Roman Catholics. However, referring to them as "Christian terrorists" would have been a major misnomer because their goal was never, say, to re-create the medieval "Papal States" on Irish soil, or to eject all "non-believers" from Italy and re-establish papal rule there.
On the other hand, had they called their group "Catholic Holy War", one could have reasonably labelled them Catholic (or Christian) terrorists.
By the way, "Islamic Jihad" rolls right off the tongue . . . because, wouldn't you know it, there is just such a violent group that roots (according to its very name) its "revolution" in Islam.
Interesting. He is supposedly a lawyer, but what on earth is he talking about here?
Media having the nerve to report, for example, that there are "fake Muslims" abroad who blow themselves up in the name of their faith is creating "fake Muslim" suicide bombers within Britain?
No? It is because they are "brainwashed"? But by whom?
By the media? The media can't get its head out of its you know what, so is hardly capable of "brainwashing" anyone. Or are we left to conclude that by "brainwashing" he means what "fake Muslims" are telling young people to do . . . because Islam demands it?
That those young people really urgently need to learn less about "fake Islam", and more about raising their own levels of tolerance in order to come to grips with the fact that in any liberal democracy one does not always get things all one's own way, seems to go without saying. Indeed, if they did so, they might find also that no longer would it "only take one thing to set them off". (Clearly, he cannot have meant it THAT way.) Yet, since there are "only 10 or 20 people" involved, and since most all have by now been captured, what's there to get excited about if those young people don't?
Stay with me on this one.
We appear to have here yet another Pakistani-descended British Muslim citizen who grants to himself the right to dictate to struggling Muslim Afghans and (mostly) Muslim Iraqis. One supposes that's not "imperialism"; it's just "religious solidarity". So let's just note again the increasingly obvious: based on their curious take on such "religious solidarity", the struggle to create free governments in Iraq and in Afghanistan appears to be anathema to himself and far too many other non-Iraqi and non-Afghan Muslims.
Similarly, the U.S. and Britain previously having ended the genocide of Muslims in Bosnia-Hercegovina and Kosovo and having fed starving Somalis also apparently meant and means nothing to far too many (especially) non-Bosnian, non-Kosovan Muslims. Regarding Somalia, it's worse: a Somali refugee who had lied about his nationality in order to get into Britain apparently tried to blow himself up on the London Underground on July 21.
And we know that in the wake of such attempts to aid Muslims (and likely also owing to, errrrr, non-existent Muslim prisoners not then being, errrrrr, "abused" in U.S. and British hands) "fake Muslims" suicidally killed 3,000 people in NYC and Washington while interestingly enough reciting in their and their hostages' final moments, "Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest".
Yes, how could we have failed NOT to understand how interpretations of Islam had nothing to do with such? It's baffling, our stupidity. Of course those who committed those attacks and most other suicidal attacks down through the London bombings aren't "really Muslims"; they are just terrorists.
Furthermore, U.S., British and other liberal democratic (including emerging democratic and mostly Muslim governments in Iraq and in Afghanistan -- yeh, that's right) attempts in recent years to fend off attacks by "not true Muslims, just terrorists" have driven still other "young Muslims" whom we must remember also DON'T base their actions on anything in the slightest that is Islamic . . . to blow themselves up on the London transport network.
Why didn't we see it sooner? Religion has nothing to do with it. The London Underground bombers were probably just extremely "frustrated" and "angry" over an inability to get the highest score on "Grand Theft Auto".
Lastly, that a few young American military people might have been so "traumatized" and "angered" over a sneak attack on September 11, 2001 that when they got a chance some of them went so far off the rails as to "abuse" prisoners is never considered relevant. (Neither do Americans try to muddy the waters by asserting that such people "aren't real Americans".) That's because for most others in the military, and in the American public at large, concocted, windy excuses are never permitted as a justification for a deviation from military professionalism. Simply, those who abuse prisoners face prison themselves.
Such is in dramatically stark contrast to how people like Mr Hayat evidently see things. They appropriate the "abuse excuse" as a veiled (no pun intended) justification for suicide bombing. Yet, imagine in response this justification DEFENDING "abuse":
Incidentally, back on July 23, the Telegraph told us (via ¡No Pasarán!):
Those numbers do sound like a bit more than "10 or 20 people". . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, August 03, 2005
From IC Wales:
Following the terrorist outrages in London, many members of the Muslim community are feeling victimised and anxious. Steve Tucker visited the Madina Mosque in Cathays, Cardiff, to talk to Islamic worshippers...
...Javed Javed, 52, works in the fashion industry and lives in Cyncoed, Cardiff.
He is married with three children and is originally from Pakistan.
Shahzada Hayat, 39, a lawyer from Newport.
He is single and was born in Cardiff. His parents are from Pakistan...
...Javed Javed, 52, works in the fashion industry and lives in Cyncoed, Cardiff.
He is married with three children and is originally from Pakistan.
Shahzada Hayat, 39, a lawyer from Newport.
He is single and was born in Cardiff. His parents are from Pakistan...
And here we go:
...Javed: They talk of Jihad or Holy War, but this has nothing to do with Islam, it is purely terrorism and they are acting purely for their own twisted reasons...
So what we are dealing with here aren't "real Muslims", but "fake Muslims". Let's bear that in mind.
...Shahzada: What must not be forgotten is that we are taking about no more than 10 or 20 people. There are around one million Muslims in total in the UK.
So he knows it is "no more than 10 or 20 people"? That's all? There are no others out there?
Well, then, what is he doing in Cardiff? He belongs at MI-5.
Constantly these men are referred to as 'young Muslims.' With the IRA or whatever, were they constantly called Christian terrorists?
And we get the perennial attempt to compare situations that are not like for like.
The IRA is a nationalist organization that rooted its "revolution" in the politics of the nation-state and socialism. Yes, most IRA members were and are undoubtedly at least nominal Roman Catholics. However, referring to them as "Christian terrorists" would have been a major misnomer because their goal was never, say, to re-create the medieval "Papal States" on Irish soil, or to eject all "non-believers" from Italy and re-establish papal rule there.
On the other hand, had they called their group "Catholic Holy War", one could have reasonably labelled them Catholic (or Christian) terrorists.
By the way, "Islamic Jihad" rolls right off the tongue . . . because, wouldn't you know it, there is just such a violent group that roots (according to its very name) its "revolution" in Islam.
I think it is the labelling, particularly by the media, which is constantly sending out this message.
Young people are being brainwashed and it can only take one thing to set them off.
Young people are being brainwashed and it can only take one thing to set them off.
Interesting. He is supposedly a lawyer, but what on earth is he talking about here?
Media having the nerve to report, for example, that there are "fake Muslims" abroad who blow themselves up in the name of their faith is creating "fake Muslim" suicide bombers within Britain?
No? It is because they are "brainwashed"? But by whom?
By the media? The media can't get its head out of its you know what, so is hardly capable of "brainwashing" anyone. Or are we left to conclude that by "brainwashing" he means what "fake Muslims" are telling young people to do . . . because Islam demands it?
That those young people really urgently need to learn less about "fake Islam", and more about raising their own levels of tolerance in order to come to grips with the fact that in any liberal democracy one does not always get things all one's own way, seems to go without saying. Indeed, if they did so, they might find also that no longer would it "only take one thing to set them off". (Clearly, he cannot have meant it THAT way.) Yet, since there are "only 10 or 20 people" involved, and since most all have by now been captured, what's there to get excited about if those young people don't?
We have seen British soldiers accused of war crimes and there's the way prisoners have been treated in American hands.
These human rights abuses do not help the situation...
These human rights abuses do not help the situation...
Stay with me on this one.
We appear to have here yet another Pakistani-descended British Muslim citizen who grants to himself the right to dictate to struggling Muslim Afghans and (mostly) Muslim Iraqis. One supposes that's not "imperialism"; it's just "religious solidarity". So let's just note again the increasingly obvious: based on their curious take on such "religious solidarity", the struggle to create free governments in Iraq and in Afghanistan appears to be anathema to himself and far too many other non-Iraqi and non-Afghan Muslims.
Similarly, the U.S. and Britain previously having ended the genocide of Muslims in Bosnia-Hercegovina and Kosovo and having fed starving Somalis also apparently meant and means nothing to far too many (especially) non-Bosnian, non-Kosovan Muslims. Regarding Somalia, it's worse: a Somali refugee who had lied about his nationality in order to get into Britain apparently tried to blow himself up on the London Underground on July 21.
And we know that in the wake of such attempts to aid Muslims (and likely also owing to, errrrr, non-existent Muslim prisoners not then being, errrrrr, "abused" in U.S. and British hands) "fake Muslims" suicidally killed 3,000 people in NYC and Washington while interestingly enough reciting in their and their hostages' final moments, "Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest".
Yes, how could we have failed NOT to understand how interpretations of Islam had nothing to do with such? It's baffling, our stupidity. Of course those who committed those attacks and most other suicidal attacks down through the London bombings aren't "really Muslims"; they are just terrorists.
Furthermore, U.S., British and other liberal democratic (including emerging democratic and mostly Muslim governments in Iraq and in Afghanistan -- yeh, that's right) attempts in recent years to fend off attacks by "not true Muslims, just terrorists" have driven still other "young Muslims" whom we must remember also DON'T base their actions on anything in the slightest that is Islamic . . . to blow themselves up on the London transport network.
Why didn't we see it sooner? Religion has nothing to do with it. The London Underground bombers were probably just extremely "frustrated" and "angry" over an inability to get the highest score on "Grand Theft Auto".
Lastly, that a few young American military people might have been so "traumatized" and "angered" over a sneak attack on September 11, 2001 that when they got a chance some of them went so far off the rails as to "abuse" prisoners is never considered relevant. (Neither do Americans try to muddy the waters by asserting that such people "aren't real Americans".) That's because for most others in the military, and in the American public at large, concocted, windy excuses are never permitted as a justification for a deviation from military professionalism. Simply, those who abuse prisoners face prison themselves.
Such is in dramatically stark contrast to how people like Mr Hayat evidently see things. They appropriate the "abuse excuse" as a veiled (no pun intended) justification for suicide bombing. Yet, imagine in response this justification DEFENDING "abuse":
Sounds inappropriate, right? Exactly.Robert Tumminello, still 39, blogger and general pain in the neck, living in London. He is married and was born in New York. His parents are from the United States also.
"We have seen some 3,000 mostly civilians slaughtered on U.S. soil, and there's the way captives have had their heads cut off when in Muslim hands.
These human rights abuses do not help the situation."
Incidentally, back on July 23, the Telegraph told us (via ¡No Pasarán!):
. . . YouGov sought to gauge the character of the Muslim community's response to the events of July 7. As the figures in the chart show, 88 per cent of British Muslims clearly have no intention of trying to justify the bus and Tube murders.
However, six per cent insist that the bombings were, on the contrary, fully justified.
Six per cent may seem a small proportion but in absolute numbers it amounts to about 100,000 individuals who, if not prepared to carry out terrorist acts, are ready to support those who do. . .
However, six per cent insist that the bombings were, on the contrary, fully justified.
Six per cent may seem a small proportion but in absolute numbers it amounts to about 100,000 individuals who, if not prepared to carry out terrorist acts, are ready to support those who do. . .
Those numbers do sound like a bit more than "10 or 20 people". . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, August 03, 2005
