Surely even a child can understand the difference between good and evil.
Dad ... what's a terrorist?
Well, according to the Oxford dictionary a terrorist is "a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims". Which means that terrorists are very bad men and women who frighten ordinary people like us, and sometimes even kill them.
Why do they kill them?
Because they hate them or their country. It's hard to explain ... it's just the way things are. For many different reasons a lot of people in our world are full of hate.
Like the ones in Iraq who are capturing people and saying that they'll kill them if all the soldiers don't leave?
Exactly! That's an evil thing called "blackmail". Those innocent people are hostages, and the terrorists are saying that if governments don't do what they want the hostages will be killed.
So was it blackmail when we said we'd attack Iraq and kill innocent people unless they told us where all their weapons were?
No! Well ... yes, I suppose. In a way. But that was an "ultimatum" ... call it "good blackmail.
Good blackmail? What's that?
That's when it's done for good reasons. Those weapons were very dangerous and could have hurt a lot of people all over the world. It was very important to find them and destroy them.
But Dad ... there weren't any weapons.
True. We know that now. But we didn't at the time. We thought there were.
So was killing all those innocent people in Iraq a mistake?
No. It was a tragedy, but we also saved a lot of lives. You see, we had to stop a very cruel man called Saddam Hussein from killing a great many ordinary Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein stayed in power by giving orders that meant thousands of people died or were horribly injured. Mothers and fathers. Even children.
Like that boy I saw on TV? The one who had his arms blown off by a bomb?
Yes ... just like him.
But we did that. Does that mean our leaders are terrorists?
Good heavens, no! Whatever gave you that idea? That was just an accident. Unfortunately, innocent people get hurt in a war. You can't expect anything else when you drop bombs on cities. Nobody wants it to happen ... it's just the way things are.
So in a war only soldiers are supposed to get killed?
Well, soldiers are trained to fight for their country. It's their job, and they're very brave. They know that war is dangerous and that they might be killed. As soon as they put on a uniform they become a target.
What uniforms do terrorists wear?
That's just the problem ... they don't! We can't tell them apart from the civilians. We don't know who we're fighting. And that's why so many innocent people are getting killed ... the terrorists don't follow the rules of war.
War has rules?
Oh, yes. Soldiers must wear uniforms. And you can't just suddenly attack someone unless they do something to you first. Then you can defend yourself.
So that's why we attacked Iraq? Because Iraq attacked us first and we were just defending ourselves?
Not exactly. Iraq didn't attack us ... but it might have. We decided to get in first. Just in case Iraq used those weapons we were talking about.
The ones they didn't have? So we broke the rules of war?
Technically speaking, yes. But ...
So if we broke the rules first, why isn't it OK for those people in Iraq who aren't wearing uniforms to break the rules?
Well, that's different. We were doing the right thing when we broke the rules.
But Dad ... how do we know we were doing the right thing?
Our leaders ... Bush and Blair and Howard ... they told us it was the right thing. And if they don't know, who does? They say that something had to be done to make Iraq a better place.
Is it a better place?
I suppose so, but I don't know for sure. Innocent people are still being killed and these kidnappings are terrible things. I feel very sorry for the families of those poor hostages, but we simply can't give in to terrorists. We must stand firm.
Would you say that if I was captured by terrorists?
Uh ... yes ... no ... I mean, it's very difficult ...
So you'd let me be killed? Don't you love me?
Of course! I love you very much. It's just that it's a very complicated issue and I don't know what I'd do ...
Well, if somebody attacked us and bombed our house and killed you and Mum and Jamie I know what I'd do.
What?
I'd find out who did it and kill them. Any way I could. I'd hate them for ever and ever. And then I'd get in a plane and bomb their cities.
But ... but ... you'd kill a lot of innocent people.
I know. But it's war, Dad. And that's just the way things are. Remember?
Monday 14 March 2011
AGGRESSION ON IRAQ AS AN EMOTIONAL EXPERIENCE FOR MUSLIMS
AGGRESSION ON IRAQ AS AN EMOTIONAL EXPERIENCE FOR MUSLIMS
By Dr. Ahmad Shafaat
The American attack on Iraq created in me and many other Muslims almost every type of emotion – sadness, anger, hope, faith, and a desire to act frustrated by a feeling of helplessness.
Sadness was felt for those thousands of Iraqi children, women and men who were either killed or crippled for life. Everyone has heard of the example of the twelve-year old boy who lost both his parents and both his arms, but there are hundreds of similarly tragic stories that the media simply did not have time to cover, especially in the USA and Britain where governmental propaganda and other more “important” issues of war took priority.
Anger was felt at the fact that the mightiest and wealthiest country in history first imposed a dictator on a small country, then weakened and impoverished it by sanctions and weakly air raids for more than a decade and then without any valid reason and in disregard of the international law and world public opinion attacked and devastated it. A seemingly quick end to the war, although seen by some as a vindication of Bush-Blair aggression, in reality only proves that Iraq posed no real threat to the USA or Britain and hence that the war was a violation of international law.
There was anger also at the fact that the Anglo-American invaders were quick to secure the oil fields but did nothing to safeguard the museums and libraries containing priceless artefacts and books, hundreds and even thousands of years old.
There was anger because there is promise that Iraq will be democratic, but when the question arises, what if the Iraqis choose to become an Islamic state, many Americans talk of preventing such an eventuality.
There was also anger at Muslims themselves. Why for the past few centuries have we been so inactive and devoid of foresight that while nations around us were moving from strength to strength, we have been moving from weakness to weakness, as a result of which other countries keep attacking us? And why did we allow traitors to become our rulers and kings who would sell Islamic and Muslim interests to maintain their rule and who would often help the Americans and the British -- by making their lands, sea ports, and airspaces, and sometimes even money available to them -- to attack any Muslim country that will not appease the imperialists?
Finally, there was anger at those Iraqis who seemed to welcome the Anglo-American invaders and waving the foreign flags. It is not blameworthy that Iraqis should feel relief at the fall of a dictatorial regime, but to welcome the invaders is as shameless as to accept dictators, especially invaders from those countries who have been responsible for the death and disease of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children through sanctions.
Along with feelings of sadness and anger, there was also feeling of hope.
Hope was felt because a vast majority of Iraqis did not welcome Anglo-American invaders any more than they accepted Saddam. Tens of thousands demonstrated saying “No to America, no to Saddam”. They instead wanted Islam. The British and the Americans have used these demonstrations to their advantage by saying that they are a manifestation of the freedom that the Iraqis now have. What they will not say is that there is another infinitely better alternative to bloody, expensive, and illegal wars for promoting democracy in the world: do not support the dictators. But I doubt very much that the Americans and the British will learn this lesson. Indeed, I venture to predict that other Arab dictatorial regimes, far from being next targets for change, are now safer than ever before because the Americans and the British have seen what comes out when you remove a dictator from a Muslim country: dreaded religion of Islam.
Hope was felt also because humanity demonstrated that it has at least as much potential for good as for evil. It not only produced the war mongers in Washington and London, but also protestors for peace and good sense, even in Washington and London. From east to west tens of millions came out to call on the Americans and the British governments to stop their crazy war machines and respect the international law. And as the common people opposed war, so did some of the governments that traditionally go along with whatever the USA says: France, Germany, Russia, and even Canada.
I also felt some hope at the thought that just as centuries ago the Mongols, after devastating Baghdad became Muslims, the time may not be too far when the “modern day Mongols” will also submit to the message of God. The present world order rests on very weak foundations. The United Nations may have a reasonable charter but it cannot improve or enforce it and the mighty nations have just reinforced in a powerful way the principle that might is right. The world needs a strong international order built on justice and rule of law. To this end it needs the message of the Qur`an.
Accompanying hope, I felt feelings of faith arising in my heart. A little sober reflection showed me the power and wisdom of God at work in the recent Iraqi affair. I was God creating a collision between a hard-headed national dictatorship and an equally hard-headed international dictatorship in order to provide means for the destruction of both. The dictatorship of Saddam has of course already fallen. The international Anglo-American global dictatorship has also sowed the seeds of its own fall by acting in defiance of the international law and of the will of almost the whole of humanity. These seeds must come to fruition at the appointed time set by God.
This working of the power of God is visible in another way. Remember the Islamic revolution, about two decades ago? Saddam was prompted by the Americans and their allies among the Arab dictators to attack Iran in order to defeat the revolution or at least to stop it at the Iranian borders. The Arab rulers provided or promised money and the Americans helped him acquire weapons including chemical weapons – yes the same weapons of mass destruction that seemingly lie behind the latest aggression against Iraq. War did not go well for Iraq until the use of chemical weapons that Saddam acquired with American knowledge and help. After the death and maiming of millions of people Iranian advance was halted and Saddam was saved. But now by the hands of the same Americans and Arab rulers for whom Saddam once fought against Islam God has brought him down and the Islamic revolution may have finally crossed the borders where it was once meant to be stopped. Such is the amazing working of the power and wisdom of God.
Another emotion experienced by Muslims is desire to do something. This emotion was, however, frustrated by a feeling of helplessness. Our rulers, who derive their strength from outside, have not left the people with avenues for any actions aimed at defending our lands, culture and religion and as a result desire to act does not get channelled in meaningful directions. But it is of paramount importance that we overcome this feeling of helplessness and create our own avenues of constructive action. Such action should be of two types: 1) action that makes Islam and Muslims stronger, e.g. helping those Muslims who need help, pursuing knowledge and research in all fields etc; 2) action to oppose the Anglo-American hegemony through peaceful political means.
This second type of action is required even if the Americans and the British fulfill their promise of creating a democratic Iraq. Hegemony is wrong in itself even if once in a while it does some good. Indeed, even the greatest evil can have some very good consequences. For example, for the West the worst example of evil is probably Hitler. But Hitler’s actions expedited the development of science and freedom for Asian and African countries from colonial powers.
It should also be remembered that if the Americans will move to real freedom for the Iraqi people, it would be only because the war was fiercely opposed by the rest of us and because they are still under a close scrutiny by the world , so that they have a real need to justify their actions before the international community. This opposition and scrutiny should continue with undiminished vigor if some good results of an evil aggression are to be ensured.
Note: This article is copyright to © Dr. Ahmad Shafaat. It may be reproduced for da'wa purpose without making any changes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1Saddam is Bush as a national dictator; Bush is Saddam as an international dictator. The only difference between the two is that since the world is much larger than Iraq, Bush’s global power is more limited than was Saddam’s power within Iraq. True, Bush has been chosen by a certain percentage of the Americans, a very tiny fraction of the world population upon whom he imposes his will. But Saddam also had the loyalty of a fraction of the population of Iraq whom he rules by decree. In fact, the percentage of Iraqis supporting Saddam was probably much higher than the percentage of the world population supporting Bush.
By Dr. Ahmad Shafaat
The American attack on Iraq created in me and many other Muslims almost every type of emotion – sadness, anger, hope, faith, and a desire to act frustrated by a feeling of helplessness.
Sadness was felt for those thousands of Iraqi children, women and men who were either killed or crippled for life. Everyone has heard of the example of the twelve-year old boy who lost both his parents and both his arms, but there are hundreds of similarly tragic stories that the media simply did not have time to cover, especially in the USA and Britain where governmental propaganda and other more “important” issues of war took priority.
Anger was felt at the fact that the mightiest and wealthiest country in history first imposed a dictator on a small country, then weakened and impoverished it by sanctions and weakly air raids for more than a decade and then without any valid reason and in disregard of the international law and world public opinion attacked and devastated it. A seemingly quick end to the war, although seen by some as a vindication of Bush-Blair aggression, in reality only proves that Iraq posed no real threat to the USA or Britain and hence that the war was a violation of international law.
There was anger also at the fact that the Anglo-American invaders were quick to secure the oil fields but did nothing to safeguard the museums and libraries containing priceless artefacts and books, hundreds and even thousands of years old.
There was anger because there is promise that Iraq will be democratic, but when the question arises, what if the Iraqis choose to become an Islamic state, many Americans talk of preventing such an eventuality.
There was also anger at Muslims themselves. Why for the past few centuries have we been so inactive and devoid of foresight that while nations around us were moving from strength to strength, we have been moving from weakness to weakness, as a result of which other countries keep attacking us? And why did we allow traitors to become our rulers and kings who would sell Islamic and Muslim interests to maintain their rule and who would often help the Americans and the British -- by making their lands, sea ports, and airspaces, and sometimes even money available to them -- to attack any Muslim country that will not appease the imperialists?
Finally, there was anger at those Iraqis who seemed to welcome the Anglo-American invaders and waving the foreign flags. It is not blameworthy that Iraqis should feel relief at the fall of a dictatorial regime, but to welcome the invaders is as shameless as to accept dictators, especially invaders from those countries who have been responsible for the death and disease of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children through sanctions.
Along with feelings of sadness and anger, there was also feeling of hope.
Hope was felt because a vast majority of Iraqis did not welcome Anglo-American invaders any more than they accepted Saddam. Tens of thousands demonstrated saying “No to America, no to Saddam”. They instead wanted Islam. The British and the Americans have used these demonstrations to their advantage by saying that they are a manifestation of the freedom that the Iraqis now have. What they will not say is that there is another infinitely better alternative to bloody, expensive, and illegal wars for promoting democracy in the world: do not support the dictators. But I doubt very much that the Americans and the British will learn this lesson. Indeed, I venture to predict that other Arab dictatorial regimes, far from being next targets for change, are now safer than ever before because the Americans and the British have seen what comes out when you remove a dictator from a Muslim country: dreaded religion of Islam.
Hope was felt also because humanity demonstrated that it has at least as much potential for good as for evil. It not only produced the war mongers in Washington and London, but also protestors for peace and good sense, even in Washington and London. From east to west tens of millions came out to call on the Americans and the British governments to stop their crazy war machines and respect the international law. And as the common people opposed war, so did some of the governments that traditionally go along with whatever the USA says: France, Germany, Russia, and even Canada.
I also felt some hope at the thought that just as centuries ago the Mongols, after devastating Baghdad became Muslims, the time may not be too far when the “modern day Mongols” will also submit to the message of God. The present world order rests on very weak foundations. The United Nations may have a reasonable charter but it cannot improve or enforce it and the mighty nations have just reinforced in a powerful way the principle that might is right. The world needs a strong international order built on justice and rule of law. To this end it needs the message of the Qur`an.
Accompanying hope, I felt feelings of faith arising in my heart. A little sober reflection showed me the power and wisdom of God at work in the recent Iraqi affair. I was God creating a collision between a hard-headed national dictatorship and an equally hard-headed international dictatorship in order to provide means for the destruction of both. The dictatorship of Saddam has of course already fallen. The international Anglo-American global dictatorship has also sowed the seeds of its own fall by acting in defiance of the international law and of the will of almost the whole of humanity. These seeds must come to fruition at the appointed time set by God.
This working of the power of God is visible in another way. Remember the Islamic revolution, about two decades ago? Saddam was prompted by the Americans and their allies among the Arab dictators to attack Iran in order to defeat the revolution or at least to stop it at the Iranian borders. The Arab rulers provided or promised money and the Americans helped him acquire weapons including chemical weapons – yes the same weapons of mass destruction that seemingly lie behind the latest aggression against Iraq. War did not go well for Iraq until the use of chemical weapons that Saddam acquired with American knowledge and help. After the death and maiming of millions of people Iranian advance was halted and Saddam was saved. But now by the hands of the same Americans and Arab rulers for whom Saddam once fought against Islam God has brought him down and the Islamic revolution may have finally crossed the borders where it was once meant to be stopped. Such is the amazing working of the power and wisdom of God.
Another emotion experienced by Muslims is desire to do something. This emotion was, however, frustrated by a feeling of helplessness. Our rulers, who derive their strength from outside, have not left the people with avenues for any actions aimed at defending our lands, culture and religion and as a result desire to act does not get channelled in meaningful directions. But it is of paramount importance that we overcome this feeling of helplessness and create our own avenues of constructive action. Such action should be of two types: 1) action that makes Islam and Muslims stronger, e.g. helping those Muslims who need help, pursuing knowledge and research in all fields etc; 2) action to oppose the Anglo-American hegemony through peaceful political means.
This second type of action is required even if the Americans and the British fulfill their promise of creating a democratic Iraq. Hegemony is wrong in itself even if once in a while it does some good. Indeed, even the greatest evil can have some very good consequences. For example, for the West the worst example of evil is probably Hitler. But Hitler’s actions expedited the development of science and freedom for Asian and African countries from colonial powers.
It should also be remembered that if the Americans will move to real freedom for the Iraqi people, it would be only because the war was fiercely opposed by the rest of us and because they are still under a close scrutiny by the world , so that they have a real need to justify their actions before the international community. This opposition and scrutiny should continue with undiminished vigor if some good results of an evil aggression are to be ensured.
Note: This article is copyright to © Dr. Ahmad Shafaat. It may be reproduced for da'wa purpose without making any changes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1Saddam is Bush as a national dictator; Bush is Saddam as an international dictator. The only difference between the two is that since the world is much larger than Iraq, Bush’s global power is more limited than was Saddam’s power within Iraq. True, Bush has been chosen by a certain percentage of the Americans, a very tiny fraction of the world population upon whom he imposes his will. But Saddam also had the loyalty of a fraction of the population of Iraq whom he rules by decree. In fact, the percentage of Iraqis supporting Saddam was probably much higher than the percentage of the world population supporting Bush.
Arsalan Tariq Iftikhar: Bush ignores Israeli terrorism
Arsalan Tariq Iftikhar: Bush ignores Israeli terrorism
WASHINGTON
ELEANOR Roosevelt once said, "Justice cannot be for one side alone. It must be for both sides." President Bush's speech Monday made it predictably clear that in the context of the Holy Land, justice would not present its elusive countenance to the beleaguered men, women and children of Palestine today.
On a day when many Israeli groups went into raptures over the president's "superb" and "visionary" address, the Palestinians and those who support their plight felt further marginalized by an administration that seems to assign more value to an Israeli life than to that of a Palestinian.
"Terrorism" is to President Bush as "communism" was to Sen. Joseph McCarthy. Since that fateful Sept. 11, "terrorism" has become a bloody term that arouses a painful reminder of the towers crumbling in New York. But why is the word "terrorism" only used for the Palestinians and not for the Israelis?
Before President Bush's address, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak continuously used the word "terror" to refer to the Palestinians.
The president followed suit a few minutes later by using the word "terror" 10 times in his address. Of those 10, how many times was he referring to the Israelis? Not once.
According to Amnesty International, in the first 408 days of the current Intifada, 570 Palestinians were killed, compared with 150 Israelis who died. Out of those figures, 150 Palestinian children were killed to Israel's 30. Amnesty reported that "Israeli forces have killed Palestinians unlawfully by shooting them during demonstrations and at checkpoints, although lives were not in danger. They have shelled residential areas and committed extrajudicial executions. All Palestinians in the Occupied Territories -- more than 3 million people -- have been collectively punished. Almost every Palestinian town and village has been cut off by Israeli army checkpoints or physical barriers. Curfews on Palestinian areas have trapped residents in their homes for days, weeks or even months. In the name of security, hundreds of Palestinian homes have been demolished."
Just going by Amnesty's casualty count, if President Bush used the word "terror" for Palestinians 10 times in his address, the number of associations between Israelis and "terror" should have numbered around 50.
But documented figures from the pre-eminent international human-rights organization aside, let us get back to the transcript. Although the Israeli government is responsible for five times as many murders as its Palestinian counterparts, the condolences only went to Israel. The president looked somber as he emotionally stated that he understood that Israelis have "lived too long with fear and funerals, having to avoid markets and public transportation, and forced to put armed guards in kindergarten classrooms."
Let me state in the most categorical terms that I can that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is as much of a terrorist as Yasser Arafat, if not five times more.
That is saying quite a handful, given that I really cannot stand Yasser Arafat either. I believe that he has recently been a detriment to his people. If a suitable replacement for Arafat would rise up from the ashes to uphold the democratic ideal of the Palestinians, I would be his ardent supporter.
Unfortunately, President Bush has now created a scenario that is a nonstarter. He has called for the "provisional" state of Palestine, on the condition that the "terror" cease. Many were hoping that he was referring to both the Israelis and the Palestinians, but unfortunately, our held breath was knocked out of us yet again.
By setting so many parameters, he made it easy for this straw house of a Palestinian state to collapse. If Palestinians do not approve of the Bush plan, all they have to do is commit an act of "terror" to prevent any formation of Palestine on the president's terms.
Sharon has vowed not to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza until the "terror" ends. The Palestinian zealots are smiling at Sharon's covert invitation to let them kill two birds with one stone. With another attack, they can prove the Palestinian Authority's ineffectiveness for the Palestinians, while creating fear and havoc in Israeli life.
I somberly conclude that this mockery of a proposal may play right into the hands of the extreme zealots.
I concede that there were some good proclamations in President Bush's speech. And I know that there will be a slew of opinion pieces commending the president for his "visionary" and "courageous" address.
I also note that this is the first time an American president has ever called for swift creation of a Palestinian state, with the same constitutional guarantees and legislative powers as in any other democracy. Unfortunately, like the Israeli settlement policy, there is too much Swiss cheese in the president's proposal. With so many holes and so little substance, it seems that this process may fail even before it begins.
All we can do now is pray. I gravely fear that this proposal has too many flaws to succeed. Although President Bush strongly empowered Israelis with his address and weakly tried to rectify the wrongs committed against the Palestinians, the endgame will play into the hands of people like Ariel Sharon, Yasser Arafat and terrorists from both sides.
Arsalan Tariq Iftikhar is Midwest communications director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. He also attends Washington University School of Law, in St. Louis.
WASHINGTON
ELEANOR Roosevelt once said, "Justice cannot be for one side alone. It must be for both sides." President Bush's speech Monday made it predictably clear that in the context of the Holy Land, justice would not present its elusive countenance to the beleaguered men, women and children of Palestine today.
On a day when many Israeli groups went into raptures over the president's "superb" and "visionary" address, the Palestinians and those who support their plight felt further marginalized by an administration that seems to assign more value to an Israeli life than to that of a Palestinian.
"Terrorism" is to President Bush as "communism" was to Sen. Joseph McCarthy. Since that fateful Sept. 11, "terrorism" has become a bloody term that arouses a painful reminder of the towers crumbling in New York. But why is the word "terrorism" only used for the Palestinians and not for the Israelis?
Before President Bush's address, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak continuously used the word "terror" to refer to the Palestinians.
The president followed suit a few minutes later by using the word "terror" 10 times in his address. Of those 10, how many times was he referring to the Israelis? Not once.
According to Amnesty International, in the first 408 days of the current Intifada, 570 Palestinians were killed, compared with 150 Israelis who died. Out of those figures, 150 Palestinian children were killed to Israel's 30. Amnesty reported that "Israeli forces have killed Palestinians unlawfully by shooting them during demonstrations and at checkpoints, although lives were not in danger. They have shelled residential areas and committed extrajudicial executions. All Palestinians in the Occupied Territories -- more than 3 million people -- have been collectively punished. Almost every Palestinian town and village has been cut off by Israeli army checkpoints or physical barriers. Curfews on Palestinian areas have trapped residents in their homes for days, weeks or even months. In the name of security, hundreds of Palestinian homes have been demolished."
Just going by Amnesty's casualty count, if President Bush used the word "terror" for Palestinians 10 times in his address, the number of associations between Israelis and "terror" should have numbered around 50.
But documented figures from the pre-eminent international human-rights organization aside, let us get back to the transcript. Although the Israeli government is responsible for five times as many murders as its Palestinian counterparts, the condolences only went to Israel. The president looked somber as he emotionally stated that he understood that Israelis have "lived too long with fear and funerals, having to avoid markets and public transportation, and forced to put armed guards in kindergarten classrooms."
Let me state in the most categorical terms that I can that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is as much of a terrorist as Yasser Arafat, if not five times more.
That is saying quite a handful, given that I really cannot stand Yasser Arafat either. I believe that he has recently been a detriment to his people. If a suitable replacement for Arafat would rise up from the ashes to uphold the democratic ideal of the Palestinians, I would be his ardent supporter.
Unfortunately, President Bush has now created a scenario that is a nonstarter. He has called for the "provisional" state of Palestine, on the condition that the "terror" cease. Many were hoping that he was referring to both the Israelis and the Palestinians, but unfortunately, our held breath was knocked out of us yet again.
By setting so many parameters, he made it easy for this straw house of a Palestinian state to collapse. If Palestinians do not approve of the Bush plan, all they have to do is commit an act of "terror" to prevent any formation of Palestine on the president's terms.
Sharon has vowed not to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza until the "terror" ends. The Palestinian zealots are smiling at Sharon's covert invitation to let them kill two birds with one stone. With another attack, they can prove the Palestinian Authority's ineffectiveness for the Palestinians, while creating fear and havoc in Israeli life.
I somberly conclude that this mockery of a proposal may play right into the hands of the extreme zealots.
I concede that there were some good proclamations in President Bush's speech. And I know that there will be a slew of opinion pieces commending the president for his "visionary" and "courageous" address.
I also note that this is the first time an American president has ever called for swift creation of a Palestinian state, with the same constitutional guarantees and legislative powers as in any other democracy. Unfortunately, like the Israeli settlement policy, there is too much Swiss cheese in the president's proposal. With so many holes and so little substance, it seems that this process may fail even before it begins.
All we can do now is pray. I gravely fear that this proposal has too many flaws to succeed. Although President Bush strongly empowered Israelis with his address and weakly tried to rectify the wrongs committed against the Palestinians, the endgame will play into the hands of people like Ariel Sharon, Yasser Arafat and terrorists from both sides.
Arsalan Tariq Iftikhar is Midwest communications director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. He also attends Washington University School of Law, in St. Louis.
A Veil on the Truth
A Veil on the Truth
By Cynthia Peters
A few privileged Afghan women have been caught smiling for AP cameras, but many Afghan women, men and children are silently dying behind the burqa of U.S. deceit.
The facts are simple. Massive food distribution programs put in place prior to 9-11 in response to widespread famine were derailed by the anticipation of and then the actual U.S. bombing campaign, and have been even further set back by the Taliban's retreat. According to the New York Times (11/30/01), "In the past two weeks, the tonnage [of aid] delivered dropped to a pace less than half of what it had been in the previous two weeks." The problem is that the "towns and cities are so chaotic that relief agencies cannot safely operate. Many roads are off limits because of lawlessness and banditry."
Those of us who opposed the U.S. war in A fghanistan nevertheless saw its apparent rapid resolution as an opportunity to at least get much needed supplies into the country. Having routed the enemy, perhaps the United States would stop the bombing, allowing food trucks to move in from across the border. But, instead, the opposite is true. As of this writing (December 5), the bombing continues, civilian populations are left at the mercy of marauding gangs, and food aid dwindles.
There are a few simple things we could do that would immediately turn down the torture in Afghanistan.
First, the U.S. should stop bombing. There is no real accounting yet of the civilian casualty rate, but reports in the last few days claim that U.S. bombs hit four villages near Tora Bora, possibly killing hundreds (NYT 12/3/01). This is an unethical and illegal use of U.S. firepower. If it's Osama bin Laden who we are still after, it is never too late to apprehend him in a manner that accords with international law -- present proper evidence and allow the UN to mount a prudent, ground-based multilateral campaign to capture him. In any case, since there is no Afghan enemy mounting any kind of defense or engaging in battle, there is no excuse for large-scale bombings -- whether directed by the U.S. or the UN.
Second, the bridge to Uzbekistan, which is a key passage for aid trucks, should be secured. And we should meet Uzbekistan's demand that an international force provide security at their Afghan border. Instead American military officials are saying that although they "recognize the urgency of opening the bridge from Uzbekistan, [U.S.] troops will not be protecting the border."
There is callous disregard for human life in this casual acknowledgement of the urgency. American officials understand the consequences of their inactivity, but are blithely sitting back and saying they want Afghan forces -- not foreign troops -- to police the roadways, when the only Afghan forces that exist in the country are "lawless bandits," and it is American officials themselves that installed them. Having destabilized the country to the point where it is not even safe for aid trucks to travel, it seems the U.S. is washing its hands of the disaster.
If only that were the case.
Instead, the U.S. is actually blocking efforts to bring in the very peacekeepers that might secure the roads and borders, and facilitate the transport of life-saving aid. Buried in an article about how the Northern Alliance, during negotiations in Bonn, finally relented on allowing foreign peacekeepers into the country, the Boston Globe
(11/30/01) reported that some U.S. officials believe peacekeepers will be a nuisance to their unilateral conduct of the war. "Citing Bush Administration officials, the Washington Post reported that `the U.S. Central Command, which oversees the war in Afghanistan, is opposing the imminent deployment of peacekeepers in areas freed from Taliban control out of concern this could encumber U.S. military operations.'"
In a New York Times article (12/3/01) about the Bonn negotiations, a brief aside mentions the "Pentagon's unwillingness to take part in any peacekeeping force or to favor placing peacekeepers anywhere where they could get in the way of the war against Al Qaeda." Specifically, since November 12 when the Northern Alliance took Kabul, the Pentagon has blocked proposals by France and Britain to send thousands of troops to secure Kabul, the northern half of the country, and aid routes. On December 4, the Pentagon said it would "not object to peacekeepers confined to Kabul and its immediate vicinity" -- a concession that is mostly symbolic (only 200 peacekeepers will be admitted) and is nonetheless entirely irrelevant to ensuring open channels for aid (NYT 12/5/01).
Third, the U.S. should reconsider food airdrops. Dropping "Humanitarian Daily Rations" -- bright yellow packages, decorated with the American flag and containing 2200 calories worth of peanut butter, shortbread, and fruit pastries -- is counterproductive. Airdrops undermine the work of neutral aid organizations by turning humanitarian assistance into an attempt to win "hearts and minds." They ignore the special needs of malnourished children who require a specific diet. "If you would give peanut butter to a severely malnourished child, you are likely to do more harm than good," says Lucas Van den Broeck of Action Against Hunger (Boston Globe 10/25/01). And the airdrops bypass crucial distribution methods, which ensure food gets to all who need it, not just to those nimble enough to gather the yellow packets as they drop from the skies, assuming, that is, that they land where people can reach them and not among land mines (10 million of which litter the Afghan landscape). According to at least one UN report (Boston Globe, 11/30/01), two children have already been killed "when they stepped on mines running across a field trying to pick up food packets."
We won't see pictures of their exploded bodies in the morning newspaper because those images are a theat to the Pentagon's ongoing prosecution of the "war on terrorism." Those images must stay safely shrouded from public view. While the media showcase the newly revealed faces of Afghan women, the innocent victims of the U.S. war are still thickly veiled.
This is a veil that U.S. citizens have the power to lift, and the consequences of doing so are immense. We should expose and demand an end to a war that has turned Afghanistan into a world stage for the theatrical display of U.S. might and banal disregard for human life.
By Cynthia Peters
A few privileged Afghan women have been caught smiling for AP cameras, but many Afghan women, men and children are silently dying behind the burqa of U.S. deceit.
The facts are simple. Massive food distribution programs put in place prior to 9-11 in response to widespread famine were derailed by the anticipation of and then the actual U.S. bombing campaign, and have been even further set back by the Taliban's retreat. According to the New York Times (11/30/01), "In the past two weeks, the tonnage [of aid] delivered dropped to a pace less than half of what it had been in the previous two weeks." The problem is that the "towns and cities are so chaotic that relief agencies cannot safely operate. Many roads are off limits because of lawlessness and banditry."
Those of us who opposed the U.S. war in A fghanistan nevertheless saw its apparent rapid resolution as an opportunity to at least get much needed supplies into the country. Having routed the enemy, perhaps the United States would stop the bombing, allowing food trucks to move in from across the border. But, instead, the opposite is true. As of this writing (December 5), the bombing continues, civilian populations are left at the mercy of marauding gangs, and food aid dwindles.
There are a few simple things we could do that would immediately turn down the torture in Afghanistan.
First, the U.S. should stop bombing. There is no real accounting yet of the civilian casualty rate, but reports in the last few days claim that U.S. bombs hit four villages near Tora Bora, possibly killing hundreds (NYT 12/3/01). This is an unethical and illegal use of U.S. firepower. If it's Osama bin Laden who we are still after, it is never too late to apprehend him in a manner that accords with international law -- present proper evidence and allow the UN to mount a prudent, ground-based multilateral campaign to capture him. In any case, since there is no Afghan enemy mounting any kind of defense or engaging in battle, there is no excuse for large-scale bombings -- whether directed by the U.S. or the UN.
Second, the bridge to Uzbekistan, which is a key passage for aid trucks, should be secured. And we should meet Uzbekistan's demand that an international force provide security at their Afghan border. Instead American military officials are saying that although they "recognize the urgency of opening the bridge from Uzbekistan, [U.S.] troops will not be protecting the border."
There is callous disregard for human life in this casual acknowledgement of the urgency. American officials understand the consequences of their inactivity, but are blithely sitting back and saying they want Afghan forces -- not foreign troops -- to police the roadways, when the only Afghan forces that exist in the country are "lawless bandits," and it is American officials themselves that installed them. Having destabilized the country to the point where it is not even safe for aid trucks to travel, it seems the U.S. is washing its hands of the disaster.
If only that were the case.
Instead, the U.S. is actually blocking efforts to bring in the very peacekeepers that might secure the roads and borders, and facilitate the transport of life-saving aid. Buried in an article about how the Northern Alliance, during negotiations in Bonn, finally relented on allowing foreign peacekeepers into the country, the Boston Globe
(11/30/01) reported that some U.S. officials believe peacekeepers will be a nuisance to their unilateral conduct of the war. "Citing Bush Administration officials, the Washington Post reported that `the U.S. Central Command, which oversees the war in Afghanistan, is opposing the imminent deployment of peacekeepers in areas freed from Taliban control out of concern this could encumber U.S. military operations.'"
In a New York Times article (12/3/01) about the Bonn negotiations, a brief aside mentions the "Pentagon's unwillingness to take part in any peacekeeping force or to favor placing peacekeepers anywhere where they could get in the way of the war against Al Qaeda." Specifically, since November 12 when the Northern Alliance took Kabul, the Pentagon has blocked proposals by France and Britain to send thousands of troops to secure Kabul, the northern half of the country, and aid routes. On December 4, the Pentagon said it would "not object to peacekeepers confined to Kabul and its immediate vicinity" -- a concession that is mostly symbolic (only 200 peacekeepers will be admitted) and is nonetheless entirely irrelevant to ensuring open channels for aid (NYT 12/5/01).
Third, the U.S. should reconsider food airdrops. Dropping "Humanitarian Daily Rations" -- bright yellow packages, decorated with the American flag and containing 2200 calories worth of peanut butter, shortbread, and fruit pastries -- is counterproductive. Airdrops undermine the work of neutral aid organizations by turning humanitarian assistance into an attempt to win "hearts and minds." They ignore the special needs of malnourished children who require a specific diet. "If you would give peanut butter to a severely malnourished child, you are likely to do more harm than good," says Lucas Van den Broeck of Action Against Hunger (Boston Globe 10/25/01). And the airdrops bypass crucial distribution methods, which ensure food gets to all who need it, not just to those nimble enough to gather the yellow packets as they drop from the skies, assuming, that is, that they land where people can reach them and not among land mines (10 million of which litter the Afghan landscape). According to at least one UN report (Boston Globe, 11/30/01), two children have already been killed "when they stepped on mines running across a field trying to pick up food packets."
We won't see pictures of their exploded bodies in the morning newspaper because those images are a theat to the Pentagon's ongoing prosecution of the "war on terrorism." Those images must stay safely shrouded from public view. While the media showcase the newly revealed faces of Afghan women, the innocent victims of the U.S. war are still thickly veiled.
This is a veil that U.S. citizens have the power to lift, and the consequences of doing so are immense. We should expose and demand an end to a war that has turned Afghanistan into a world stage for the theatrical display of U.S. might and banal disregard for human life.
Bravado fades away as rebels prepare for last stand in Benghazi
Bravado fades away as rebels prepare for last stand in Benghazi
Gaddafi's demoralised foes are in retreat. Kim Sengupta reports from Brega
Monday, 14 March 2011
Share Close
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Comments
Print Email Text Size
NormalLargeExtra Large
AFP/GETTY
Libyan rebels prepare to leave the town of Brega yesterday
enlarge Sponsored Links
Ads by Google
HSBC Offshore
Living Abroad Can Be Challenging -
Find Out How HSBC Can Assist You.
Offshore.HSBC.com/Expat-Experts
Expat? £60K+ UK Pension?
Free Expert Advice To Access Your
Personal Or Occupational UK Pension
yourQROPS.expatra.com/HMRCapproved
New Model for Middle East
Using Business to Promote Peace,
Prosperity and Freedom
www.sellingavisionofhope.org
Employee for your Company
Advertise Your Company and Seek
Potential Candidates on Quikr Now!
www.Quikr.com
The sandstorm added to the terror and panic; one could hear the shrill sound of the shells and rockets coming in but had no idea where they would land until the shattering noise of the explosion and orange flames lit up the swirling dust.
All around the rebel fighters were in flight, with screeching tyres on trucks and cars, some piled on a mechanical digger, others running beside the vehicles desperate for a ride to safety. Anti-aircraft guns and rocket launchers had been abandoned. A few were on fire. Brega was lost, and the road to Benghazi lay wide open.
With the rebel forces in disarray and Muammar Gaddafi's forces pressing ahead, only Western action would now save what was briefly "Free Libya". And that, most of the opposition are convinced, is now a forlorn hope.
Related articles
Fighters and residents flee eastwards as Gaddafi forces advance
Patrick Cockburn: Arab League call for a no-fly zone may be too little, too late
Leading article: Meanwhile in Libya...
Search the news archive for more stories
With their hold on Brega, which had followed the capture of Ras Lanuf, the regime now controls two key oil ports, putting them in a position to shut down power to the rebel-held east of the country. The two towns are also key points on the coastal route, putting Gaddafi's forces within three hours' drive of Benghazi, with just one other town, Azdabia, on the way. Taking Brega will also bring with it an airport, allowing the military to bring in reinforcements.
The exodus of rebel forces from Brega began on Saturday evening. It was complete by yesterday afternoon, with convoys of fighters outstripping the few residents trying to make a getaway along the road.
Some of the locals who stayed behind paid a terrible price. Dr Suleiman Refadi found four bodies lying on the road, a couple in their fifties, and two men in their early twenties. "They had been shot many times. They were civilians. Why were they murdered?" he asked. "The fighting should be limited to soldiers, not these innocent people."
The soldiers were no longer in the mood to fight. Just a week ago these men were dreaming of a triumphant entry into Tripoli. Now they were a beaten army, fear and uncertainty replacing the bravado.
Yassin Mawafaq, a 22-year-old baker and revolutionary volunteer, had been posing with his Kalashnikov assault rifle for the cameras, firing off round after round into the air and vowing he would rather be a martyr than fail in his mission. Now the only thing on his mind was how to stay alive. Hunched in the back of a battered Toyota Corolla, he whispered: "A rocket landed near us. I saw a man with half his body blown off. We need to get away. We cannot stay here, we need to get away."
Standing by the roadside, Ibrahim Husseini was still carrying his anti-tank missile launcher. He was tired and resigned. "I want to stay and fight, but the others are going. They have much better weapons than us, we could not match them. Too many people have been killed. We need to find out why it went wrong."
Some of the questions could be addressed to the rebel leadership in Benghazi. On Saturday, General Abdel Fattah-Younis, a former regime interior minister whom William Hague had consulted before sending the mission which ended with British special forces soldiers being arrested, said there would be a counter-attack, which would rapidly reclaim lost ground. "Yes, the Gaddafi men control Ras Lanuf and the oil terminal, but this is only temporary. We shall recover them. We shall take back Ras Lanuf, at the latest by Sunday," he said. "We have got a plan and we are carrying it out."
On Saturday evening a group of shivering rebel fighters standing at a checkpoint in Brega got a fleeting visit from a commander in Benghazi. "Do not worry, we have 50 tanks now in Azdabia, they are coming up. We shall attack as soon as they arrive."
Yesterday the same officer, who refused to give his name, was at the main gate of Azdabia, loudly claiming that Gaddafi forces were fighting among themselves in Misrata and some had switched sides to the rebels. These tales have been coming since the uprising began and many were by now openly sceptical.
"I do not think I believe any of this any longer," said Khalid Bugaighis. "If all these soldiers are changing sides, then why are we in this position? No, it is finished here now. We need to go back to Benghazi and try and defend there. We can do street-fighting there. Maybe, in the meantime, [the international community] will bring in this no-fly zone. That will be our last chance."
But in Benghazi Gaddafi loyalists who have been lying low have become emboldened and are now carrying out attacks. "I understand that there are problems in Benghazi," said Mr Bugaighis. "But what choice have we got? That is the place of our last stand."
Gaddafi's demoralised foes are in retreat. Kim Sengupta reports from Brega
Monday, 14 March 2011
Share Close
Digg
del.icio.us
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Comments
Print Email Text Size
NormalLargeExtra Large
AFP/GETTY
Libyan rebels prepare to leave the town of Brega yesterday
enlarge Sponsored Links
Ads by Google
HSBC Offshore
Living Abroad Can Be Challenging -
Find Out How HSBC Can Assist You.
Offshore.HSBC.com/Expat-Experts
Expat? £60K+ UK Pension?
Free Expert Advice To Access Your
Personal Or Occupational UK Pension
yourQROPS.expatra.com/HMRCapproved
New Model for Middle East
Using Business to Promote Peace,
Prosperity and Freedom
www.sellingavisionofhope.org
Employee for your Company
Advertise Your Company and Seek
Potential Candidates on Quikr Now!
www.Quikr.com
The sandstorm added to the terror and panic; one could hear the shrill sound of the shells and rockets coming in but had no idea where they would land until the shattering noise of the explosion and orange flames lit up the swirling dust.
All around the rebel fighters were in flight, with screeching tyres on trucks and cars, some piled on a mechanical digger, others running beside the vehicles desperate for a ride to safety. Anti-aircraft guns and rocket launchers had been abandoned. A few were on fire. Brega was lost, and the road to Benghazi lay wide open.
With the rebel forces in disarray and Muammar Gaddafi's forces pressing ahead, only Western action would now save what was briefly "Free Libya". And that, most of the opposition are convinced, is now a forlorn hope.
Related articles
Fighters and residents flee eastwards as Gaddafi forces advance
Patrick Cockburn: Arab League call for a no-fly zone may be too little, too late
Leading article: Meanwhile in Libya...
Search the news archive for more stories
With their hold on Brega, which had followed the capture of Ras Lanuf, the regime now controls two key oil ports, putting them in a position to shut down power to the rebel-held east of the country. The two towns are also key points on the coastal route, putting Gaddafi's forces within three hours' drive of Benghazi, with just one other town, Azdabia, on the way. Taking Brega will also bring with it an airport, allowing the military to bring in reinforcements.
The exodus of rebel forces from Brega began on Saturday evening. It was complete by yesterday afternoon, with convoys of fighters outstripping the few residents trying to make a getaway along the road.
Some of the locals who stayed behind paid a terrible price. Dr Suleiman Refadi found four bodies lying on the road, a couple in their fifties, and two men in their early twenties. "They had been shot many times. They were civilians. Why were they murdered?" he asked. "The fighting should be limited to soldiers, not these innocent people."
The soldiers were no longer in the mood to fight. Just a week ago these men were dreaming of a triumphant entry into Tripoli. Now they were a beaten army, fear and uncertainty replacing the bravado.
Yassin Mawafaq, a 22-year-old baker and revolutionary volunteer, had been posing with his Kalashnikov assault rifle for the cameras, firing off round after round into the air and vowing he would rather be a martyr than fail in his mission. Now the only thing on his mind was how to stay alive. Hunched in the back of a battered Toyota Corolla, he whispered: "A rocket landed near us. I saw a man with half his body blown off. We need to get away. We cannot stay here, we need to get away."
Standing by the roadside, Ibrahim Husseini was still carrying his anti-tank missile launcher. He was tired and resigned. "I want to stay and fight, but the others are going. They have much better weapons than us, we could not match them. Too many people have been killed. We need to find out why it went wrong."
Some of the questions could be addressed to the rebel leadership in Benghazi. On Saturday, General Abdel Fattah-Younis, a former regime interior minister whom William Hague had consulted before sending the mission which ended with British special forces soldiers being arrested, said there would be a counter-attack, which would rapidly reclaim lost ground. "Yes, the Gaddafi men control Ras Lanuf and the oil terminal, but this is only temporary. We shall recover them. We shall take back Ras Lanuf, at the latest by Sunday," he said. "We have got a plan and we are carrying it out."
On Saturday evening a group of shivering rebel fighters standing at a checkpoint in Brega got a fleeting visit from a commander in Benghazi. "Do not worry, we have 50 tanks now in Azdabia, they are coming up. We shall attack as soon as they arrive."
Yesterday the same officer, who refused to give his name, was at the main gate of Azdabia, loudly claiming that Gaddafi forces were fighting among themselves in Misrata and some had switched sides to the rebels. These tales have been coming since the uprising began and many were by now openly sceptical.
"I do not think I believe any of this any longer," said Khalid Bugaighis. "If all these soldiers are changing sides, then why are we in this position? No, it is finished here now. We need to go back to Benghazi and try and defend there. We can do street-fighting there. Maybe, in the meantime, [the international community] will bring in this no-fly zone. That will be our last chance."
But in Benghazi Gaddafi loyalists who have been lying low have become emboldened and are now carrying out attacks. "I understand that there are problems in Benghazi," said Mr Bugaighis. "But what choice have we got? That is the place of our last stand."
Bahrain protests spread to financial centre
Bahrain protests spread to financial centre
* Police clash with demonstrators trying to occupy Manama’s banking centre
* Regime loyalists armed with knives, clubs fight university students
MANAMA: Bahraini police on Sunday clashed with demonstrators trying to occupy Manama’s banking centre, as protests spread from a peaceful sit-in to the heart of the strategic Gulf state’s business district.
Witnesses said police fired tear gas and rubber bullets at around 350 activists who had sealed off the Financial Harbour business complex with road blocks and a human chain. Some 200 people were overcome by the gas which wafted through the heart of the wealthy harbour side area, while the interior ministry said 14 policemen were injured. Thousands of protesters however returned to the area later in the afternoon, residents said.
Regime loyalists armed with knives and clubs meanwhile fought students at the university, and police fired tear gas at protesters occupying Pearl Square, which is a short distance from the financial district, witnesses said. “The regime is using thugs,” said Khalil Marzooq, who is a member of the main Shia opposition group.
King Hamad bin Issa al-Khalifa reiterated an offer of dialogue with the main opposition groups, which have refused to negotiate until the government resigns and dissidents are released from jail. “I call all parties to meet quickly around the table and be open-minded and well-intentioned to reach a national consensus,” he said in a statement quoted by the BNA state news agency, after a meeting with Jordan’s foreign minister.
Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa, who joined King Hamad in talks on Saturday with visiting US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, has also urged the opposition to come to the negotiating table. “I’m hopeful that they will join the dialogue without preconditions. We have given them the best deal they can hope for,” he told reporters Saturday.
Meanwhile, Bahrain’s main trade union announced an open-ended strike starting on Sunday to protest the use of force against protesters. “This is in violation of human rights and international conventions ratified by the kingdom of Bahrain,” said the General Federation of Workers Trade Unions.
The Iranian-backed Shia Lebanese movement Hezbollah condemned “the excessive use of violence to suppress peaceful demonstrations by the people of Bahrain who are seeking to secure their legitimate political rights.”
Bahrain — home of the US Fifth Fleet — has become a regional financial hub as it seeks to diversify its economy away from a dependence on diminishing oil revenues. Protests in Shia-majority Bahrain, which has been ruled by a Sunni dynasty for more than 200 years, broke out after popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia ousted those countries’ long-time autocratic rulers. The main opposition groups have stopped short of demanding the toppling of the king, but more extreme hardliners have been vocal in calling for the end of monarchy.
Gates said he told Bahrain’s leaders to quickly adopt far-reaching reforms or risk being swamped by the tide of democratic change sweeping the Arab world. He also warned that Shia-led Iran would likely work to use Bahrain’s sectarian tensions to its advantage. The US defence chief said he came away encouraged the country’s leaders king were prepared to accommodate anti-government protesters.
With unrest sweeping the Middle East and North Africa, the United States has struggled to balance its long standing ties with Arab regimes with support for protests demanding democratic reform. afp
* Police clash with demonstrators trying to occupy Manama’s banking centre
* Regime loyalists armed with knives, clubs fight university students
MANAMA: Bahraini police on Sunday clashed with demonstrators trying to occupy Manama’s banking centre, as protests spread from a peaceful sit-in to the heart of the strategic Gulf state’s business district.
Witnesses said police fired tear gas and rubber bullets at around 350 activists who had sealed off the Financial Harbour business complex with road blocks and a human chain. Some 200 people were overcome by the gas which wafted through the heart of the wealthy harbour side area, while the interior ministry said 14 policemen were injured. Thousands of protesters however returned to the area later in the afternoon, residents said.
Regime loyalists armed with knives and clubs meanwhile fought students at the university, and police fired tear gas at protesters occupying Pearl Square, which is a short distance from the financial district, witnesses said. “The regime is using thugs,” said Khalil Marzooq, who is a member of the main Shia opposition group.
King Hamad bin Issa al-Khalifa reiterated an offer of dialogue with the main opposition groups, which have refused to negotiate until the government resigns and dissidents are released from jail. “I call all parties to meet quickly around the table and be open-minded and well-intentioned to reach a national consensus,” he said in a statement quoted by the BNA state news agency, after a meeting with Jordan’s foreign minister.
Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa, who joined King Hamad in talks on Saturday with visiting US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, has also urged the opposition to come to the negotiating table. “I’m hopeful that they will join the dialogue without preconditions. We have given them the best deal they can hope for,” he told reporters Saturday.
Meanwhile, Bahrain’s main trade union announced an open-ended strike starting on Sunday to protest the use of force against protesters. “This is in violation of human rights and international conventions ratified by the kingdom of Bahrain,” said the General Federation of Workers Trade Unions.
The Iranian-backed Shia Lebanese movement Hezbollah condemned “the excessive use of violence to suppress peaceful demonstrations by the people of Bahrain who are seeking to secure their legitimate political rights.”
Bahrain — home of the US Fifth Fleet — has become a regional financial hub as it seeks to diversify its economy away from a dependence on diminishing oil revenues. Protests in Shia-majority Bahrain, which has been ruled by a Sunni dynasty for more than 200 years, broke out after popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia ousted those countries’ long-time autocratic rulers. The main opposition groups have stopped short of demanding the toppling of the king, but more extreme hardliners have been vocal in calling for the end of monarchy.
Gates said he told Bahrain’s leaders to quickly adopt far-reaching reforms or risk being swamped by the tide of democratic change sweeping the Arab world. He also warned that Shia-led Iran would likely work to use Bahrain’s sectarian tensions to its advantage. The US defence chief said he came away encouraged the country’s leaders king were prepared to accommodate anti-government protesters.
With unrest sweeping the Middle East and North Africa, the United States has struggled to balance its long standing ties with Arab regimes with support for protests demanding democratic reform. afp
A Memo to American Muslims
A Memo to American Muslims
"It is time that we acknowledge that the freedoms we enjoy in the US are more desirable to us than superficial solidarity with the Muslim World. If you disagree, then prove it by packing your bags and going to whichever Muslim country you identify with."
In the wake of September 11, Dr. M. A. Muqtedar Khan calls for soul searching, reflection and reassessment among US Muslims.
In the name of Allah, the most Benevolent and the Most Merciful. May this memo find you in the shade of Islam enjoying the mercy, the protection and the grace of Allah.
I am writing this memo to you all with the explicit purpose of inviting you to lead the American Muslim community in soul searching, reflection and reassessment.
What happened on September 11th in New York and Washington DC will forever remain a horrible scar on the history of Islam and humanity. No matter how much we condemn it, and point to the Quran and the Sunnah to argue that Islam forbids the killing of innocent people, the fact remains that the perpetrators of this crime against humanity have indicated that their actions are sanctioned by Islamic values.
The fact that even now several Muslim scholars and thousands of Muslims defend the accused is indicative that not all Muslims believe that the attacks are unIslamic. This is truly sad.
Even if it were true that Israel and the US are enemies of the Muslim World, wonder what is preventing them from unleashing their nuclear arsenal against Muslims, a response that mercilessly murders thousands of innocent people, including hundreds of Muslims is absolutely indefensible. If anywhere in your hearts there is any sympathy or understanding with those who committed this act, I invite you to ask yourself this question, would Muhammad (pbuh) sanction such an act?
While encouraging Muslims to struggle against injustice (Al Quran 4:135), Allah also imposes strict rules of engagement. He says in unequivocal terms that to kill an innocent being is like killing entire humanity (Al Quran 5:32). He also encourages Muslims to forgive Jews and Christians if they have committed injustices against us (Al Quran 2:109, 3:159, 5:85).
Muslims, including American Muslims have been practicing hypocrisy on a grand scale. They protest against the discriminatory practices of Israel but are silent against the discriminatory practices in Muslim states. In the Gulf one can see how laws and even salaries are based on ethnic origin. This is racism, but we never hear of Muslims protesting against them at International fora.
The Israeli occupation of Palestine is perhaps central to Muslim grievance against the West. While acknowledging that, I must remind you that Israel treats its one million Arab citizens with greater respect and dignity than most Arab nations treat their citizens. Today Palestinian refugees can settle and become citizens of the United States but in spite of all the tall rhetoric of the Arab world and Quranic injunctions (24:22) no Muslim country except Jordan extends this support to them.
While we loudly and consistently condemn Israel for its ill treatment of Palestinians we are silent when Muslim regimes abuse the rights of Muslims and slaughter thousands of them. Remember Saddam and his use of chemical weapons against Muslims (Kurds)?. Remember Pakistani army’s excesses against Muslims (Bengalis)?. Remember the Mujahideen of Afghanistan and their mutual slaughter? Have we ever condemned them for their excesses? Have we demanded international intervention or retribution against them? Do you know how the Saudis treat their minority Shias? Have we protested the violation of their rights? But we all are eager to condemn Israel; not because we care for rights and lives of the Palestinians, we don’t. We condemn Israel because we hate “them".
Muslims love to live in the US but also love to hate it. Many openly claim that the US is a terrorist state but they continue to live in it. Their decision to live here is testimony that they would rather live here than anywhere else. As an Indian Muslim, I know for sure that nowhere on earth, including India, will I get the same sense of dignity and respect that I have received in the US. No Muslim country will treat me as well as the US has. If what happened on September 11th had happened in India, the biggest democracy, thousands of Muslims would have been slaughtered in riots on mere suspicion and there would be another slaughter after confirmation. But in the US, bigotry and xenophobia has been kept in check by media and leaders. In many places hundreds of Americans have gathered around Islamic centers in symbolic gestures of protection and embrace of American Muslims. In many cities Christian congregations have started wearing hijab to identify with fellow Muslim women. In patience and in tolerance ordinary Americans have demonstrated their extraordinary virtues.
It is time that we acknowledge that the freedoms we enjoy in the US are more desirable to us than superficial solidarity with the Muslim World. If you disagree than prove it by packing your bags and going to whichever Muslim country you identify with. If you do not leave and do not acknowledge that you would rather live here than anywhere else, know that you are being hypocritical.
It is time that we faced these hypocritical practices and struggled to transcend them. It is time that American Muslim leaders fought to purify their own lot.
For over a decade we have watched as Muslims in the name of Islam have committed violence against other Muslims and other peoples. We have always found a way to reconcile the vast distance between Islamic values and Muslim practices by pointing out to the injustices committed upon Muslims by others. The point however is this – our belief in Islam and commitment to Islamic values is not contingent on the moral conduct of the US or Israel. And as Muslims can we condone such inhuman and senseless waste of life in the name of Islam?
The biggest victims of hate filled politics as embodied in the actions of several Muslim militias all over the world are Muslims themselves. Hate is the extreme form of intolerance and when individuals and groups succumb to it they can do nothing constructive. Militias like the Taliban have allowed their hate for the West to override their obligation to pursue the welfare of their people and as a result of their actions not only have thousands of innocent people died in America, but thousands of people will die in the Muslim World.
Already, half a million Afghans have had to leave their homes and their country. The war has not yet begun. It will only get worst. Hamas and Islamic Jihad may kill a few Jews, women and children included, with their suicide bombs and temporarily satisfy their lust for Jewish blood, but thousands of Palestinians then pay the price for their actions.
The culture of hate and killing is tearing away at the moral fabric of the Muslim society. We are more focused on “the other” and have completely forgotten our duty to Allah. In pursuit of the inferior jihad we have sacrificed the superior jihad.
Islamic resurgence, the cherished ideals of which pursued the ultimate goal of a universally just and moral society has been hijacked by hate and call for murder and mayhem. If Bin Laden were an individual then we would have no problem. But unfortunately Bin Laden has become a phenomenon -- a cancer eating away at the morality of our youth, and undermining the spiritual health of our future.
Today the century old Islamic revival is in jeopardy because we have allowed insanity to prevail over our better judgment. Yes, the US has played a hand in the creation of Bin Laden and the Taliban, but it is we who have allowed them to grow and gain such a foothold. It is our duty to police our world. It is our responsibility to prevent people from abusing Islam. It is our job to ensure that Islam is not misrepresented. We should have made sure that what happened on Sept. 11th should never have happened.
It is time the leaders of the American Muslim community woke up and realized that there is more to life than competing with the American Jewish lobby for power over US foreign policy. Islam is not about defeating Jews or conquering Jerusalem. It is about mercy, about virtue, about sacrifice and about duty. Above all it is the pursuit of moral perfection. Nothing can be further away from moral perfection than the wanton slaughter of thousands of unsuspecting innocent people.
I hope that we will now rededicate our lives and our institutions to the search for harmony, peace and tolerance. Let us be prepared to suffer injustice rather than commit injustices. After all it is we who carry the divine burden of Islam and not others. We have to be morally better, more forgiving, more sacrificing than others, if we wish to convince the world about the truth of our message. We cannot even be equal to others in virtue, we must excel.
It is time for soul searching. How can the message of Muhammad (pbuh) who was sent as mercy to mankind become a source of horror and fear? How can Islam inspire thousands of youth to dedicate their lives to killing others? We are supposed to invite people to Islam not murder them.
The worst exhibition of Islam happened on our turf. We must take first responsibility to undo the evil it has manifest. This is our mandate, our burden and also our opportunity.
"It is time that we acknowledge that the freedoms we enjoy in the US are more desirable to us than superficial solidarity with the Muslim World. If you disagree, then prove it by packing your bags and going to whichever Muslim country you identify with."
In the wake of September 11, Dr. M. A. Muqtedar Khan calls for soul searching, reflection and reassessment among US Muslims.
In the name of Allah, the most Benevolent and the Most Merciful. May this memo find you in the shade of Islam enjoying the mercy, the protection and the grace of Allah.
I am writing this memo to you all with the explicit purpose of inviting you to lead the American Muslim community in soul searching, reflection and reassessment.
What happened on September 11th in New York and Washington DC will forever remain a horrible scar on the history of Islam and humanity. No matter how much we condemn it, and point to the Quran and the Sunnah to argue that Islam forbids the killing of innocent people, the fact remains that the perpetrators of this crime against humanity have indicated that their actions are sanctioned by Islamic values.
The fact that even now several Muslim scholars and thousands of Muslims defend the accused is indicative that not all Muslims believe that the attacks are unIslamic. This is truly sad.
Even if it were true that Israel and the US are enemies of the Muslim World, wonder what is preventing them from unleashing their nuclear arsenal against Muslims, a response that mercilessly murders thousands of innocent people, including hundreds of Muslims is absolutely indefensible. If anywhere in your hearts there is any sympathy or understanding with those who committed this act, I invite you to ask yourself this question, would Muhammad (pbuh) sanction such an act?
While encouraging Muslims to struggle against injustice (Al Quran 4:135), Allah also imposes strict rules of engagement. He says in unequivocal terms that to kill an innocent being is like killing entire humanity (Al Quran 5:32). He also encourages Muslims to forgive Jews and Christians if they have committed injustices against us (Al Quran 2:109, 3:159, 5:85).
Muslims, including American Muslims have been practicing hypocrisy on a grand scale. They protest against the discriminatory practices of Israel but are silent against the discriminatory practices in Muslim states. In the Gulf one can see how laws and even salaries are based on ethnic origin. This is racism, but we never hear of Muslims protesting against them at International fora.
The Israeli occupation of Palestine is perhaps central to Muslim grievance against the West. While acknowledging that, I must remind you that Israel treats its one million Arab citizens with greater respect and dignity than most Arab nations treat their citizens. Today Palestinian refugees can settle and become citizens of the United States but in spite of all the tall rhetoric of the Arab world and Quranic injunctions (24:22) no Muslim country except Jordan extends this support to them.
While we loudly and consistently condemn Israel for its ill treatment of Palestinians we are silent when Muslim regimes abuse the rights of Muslims and slaughter thousands of them. Remember Saddam and his use of chemical weapons against Muslims (Kurds)?. Remember Pakistani army’s excesses against Muslims (Bengalis)?. Remember the Mujahideen of Afghanistan and their mutual slaughter? Have we ever condemned them for their excesses? Have we demanded international intervention or retribution against them? Do you know how the Saudis treat their minority Shias? Have we protested the violation of their rights? But we all are eager to condemn Israel; not because we care for rights and lives of the Palestinians, we don’t. We condemn Israel because we hate “them".
Muslims love to live in the US but also love to hate it. Many openly claim that the US is a terrorist state but they continue to live in it. Their decision to live here is testimony that they would rather live here than anywhere else. As an Indian Muslim, I know for sure that nowhere on earth, including India, will I get the same sense of dignity and respect that I have received in the US. No Muslim country will treat me as well as the US has. If what happened on September 11th had happened in India, the biggest democracy, thousands of Muslims would have been slaughtered in riots on mere suspicion and there would be another slaughter after confirmation. But in the US, bigotry and xenophobia has been kept in check by media and leaders. In many places hundreds of Americans have gathered around Islamic centers in symbolic gestures of protection and embrace of American Muslims. In many cities Christian congregations have started wearing hijab to identify with fellow Muslim women. In patience and in tolerance ordinary Americans have demonstrated their extraordinary virtues.
It is time that we acknowledge that the freedoms we enjoy in the US are more desirable to us than superficial solidarity with the Muslim World. If you disagree than prove it by packing your bags and going to whichever Muslim country you identify with. If you do not leave and do not acknowledge that you would rather live here than anywhere else, know that you are being hypocritical.
It is time that we faced these hypocritical practices and struggled to transcend them. It is time that American Muslim leaders fought to purify their own lot.
For over a decade we have watched as Muslims in the name of Islam have committed violence against other Muslims and other peoples. We have always found a way to reconcile the vast distance between Islamic values and Muslim practices by pointing out to the injustices committed upon Muslims by others. The point however is this – our belief in Islam and commitment to Islamic values is not contingent on the moral conduct of the US or Israel. And as Muslims can we condone such inhuman and senseless waste of life in the name of Islam?
The biggest victims of hate filled politics as embodied in the actions of several Muslim militias all over the world are Muslims themselves. Hate is the extreme form of intolerance and when individuals and groups succumb to it they can do nothing constructive. Militias like the Taliban have allowed their hate for the West to override their obligation to pursue the welfare of their people and as a result of their actions not only have thousands of innocent people died in America, but thousands of people will die in the Muslim World.
Already, half a million Afghans have had to leave their homes and their country. The war has not yet begun. It will only get worst. Hamas and Islamic Jihad may kill a few Jews, women and children included, with their suicide bombs and temporarily satisfy their lust for Jewish blood, but thousands of Palestinians then pay the price for their actions.
The culture of hate and killing is tearing away at the moral fabric of the Muslim society. We are more focused on “the other” and have completely forgotten our duty to Allah. In pursuit of the inferior jihad we have sacrificed the superior jihad.
Islamic resurgence, the cherished ideals of which pursued the ultimate goal of a universally just and moral society has been hijacked by hate and call for murder and mayhem. If Bin Laden were an individual then we would have no problem. But unfortunately Bin Laden has become a phenomenon -- a cancer eating away at the morality of our youth, and undermining the spiritual health of our future.
Today the century old Islamic revival is in jeopardy because we have allowed insanity to prevail over our better judgment. Yes, the US has played a hand in the creation of Bin Laden and the Taliban, but it is we who have allowed them to grow and gain such a foothold. It is our duty to police our world. It is our responsibility to prevent people from abusing Islam. It is our job to ensure that Islam is not misrepresented. We should have made sure that what happened on Sept. 11th should never have happened.
It is time the leaders of the American Muslim community woke up and realized that there is more to life than competing with the American Jewish lobby for power over US foreign policy. Islam is not about defeating Jews or conquering Jerusalem. It is about mercy, about virtue, about sacrifice and about duty. Above all it is the pursuit of moral perfection. Nothing can be further away from moral perfection than the wanton slaughter of thousands of unsuspecting innocent people.
I hope that we will now rededicate our lives and our institutions to the search for harmony, peace and tolerance. Let us be prepared to suffer injustice rather than commit injustices. After all it is we who carry the divine burden of Islam and not others. We have to be morally better, more forgiving, more sacrificing than others, if we wish to convince the world about the truth of our message. We cannot even be equal to others in virtue, we must excel.
It is time for soul searching. How can the message of Muhammad (pbuh) who was sent as mercy to mankind become a source of horror and fear? How can Islam inspire thousands of youth to dedicate their lives to killing others? We are supposed to invite people to Islam not murder them.
The worst exhibition of Islam happened on our turf. We must take first responsibility to undo the evil it has manifest. This is our mandate, our burden and also our opportunity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)