[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *
Hey, I am only following the example of American's for whom quoting Al Jazeera has now become common place. Pity to see you using smilies, when people are discussing such a human tragedy.
[/QUOTE]
The smilie's are reserved for pathetic attempt's to assign blame for this tragedy before any evidence is found.
In defense of al Quaeda
Moderators. Please live in WA. I think this thread should deal with Islam as a socio-political bloc and not in this case a strictly religious one.
O.K. Here goes...
I'm going to put this as sincerely and earnestly as I'm able and hope to get into some honest exploration. I want to keep this thread focused if possible on this question.
Why do so many (Americans/Westerners) feel that there is almost no strong, organized internal (the Islamic community at large for this argument) opposition to terrorism committed by Islamic groups?
I fully understand that the vast majority of Muslims abhor the type of violence that occurred in Spain as most citizens across the globe do.
I will try to explain why I've come to what may be completely erroneous conclusions.
It's very difficult not to detect a pattern of "defensiveness" in the aftermath of a
large scale attack like the one in Spain. Even the most moderate on this board
take great care to caution against a rush to judgement that al Quaeda was
involved. Why is it important to defend al Quaeda? The conclusions range from:
a. Belief in their cause and support of any means in the advancement of it.
b. Sympathy with their cause.
c. All Muslims are in some way brothers and sisters and this bond supercedes
all other factors.
d. Tired of the implication that Muslim=terrorist in the West.
I'm pretty sure d is the answer for most, however, I still find it disconcerting that so
much time is spent in a defacto "defense" of al Quaeda. I don't know if they are responsible for the Spain attacks, but I know they've been responsible for similar crimes in the last decade. Why in thought or deed establish any emotional link to al Quaeda unless a,b, or c applies.
What about this "silent majority" thing I keep thinking about?
Let me start by saying there are millions of individual Muslims around the world
more educated than I, more caring than I, more anti-violence than I. In the
Spain thread it was indicated that there were large protests in Basque areas and
cities against this violence perpetrated in their name.
Is this type of protest possible right now in Muslim communities. Not in Syria,
Baghdad or Riyahd. But perhaps in the United States or Great Britain. A
protest unmitigated with blame or cause-one that simply condemns a horr-
endous attack against innocent people. We had them in the U.S. against
the Iraq War and our administration. They've had them in Northern Ireland
in the aftermath of Omagh, etc. There is clear evidence of a strong condemn-
nation of America's policy in the Middle East. One of the strongest voices of
opposition may be our next President.
So let me reiterate, I'm not questioning the committment of Muslims per se to
peace and non-violence.
My question is: Could you envision a mass protest organized and largely
attended by Muslims in the U.S. ,G.B. or Canada the sole purpose of which is
to condemn terrorist violence in the aftermath of some event perpetrated by al
Quaeda or other Islamic group? Why not?
Perhaps there have been some I don't know
about. I may be wrong or just plain dumb and I know this post will offend, so I'm
sorry.
O.K. let me have it.
Re: In defense of al Quaeda
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by storch: *
*It's very difficult not to detect a pattern of "defensiveness" in the aftermath of a large scale attack like the one in Spain. Even the most moderate on this board take great care to caution against a rush to judgement that al Quaeda was involved. *
[/QUOTE]
A couple of questions for you:-
1) Is the Spanish government and the United Nations being "defensive" when they are blaming ETA, and not Al Qaida?
2) Why is it that only the American guppies are quick to put the blame on AQ and not ETA, from the outset, depsite what the Spanish governement and even what your government have said?
Re: In defense of al Quaeda
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by storch: *
Why do so many (Americans/Westerners) feel that there is almost no strong, organized internal (the Islamic community at large for this argument) opposition to terrorism committed by Islamic groups?
My question is: Could you envision a mass protest organized and largely attended by Muslims in the U.S. ,G.B. or Canada the sole purpose of which is to condemn terrorist violence in the aftermath of some event perpetrated by al-Quaeda or other Islamic group? Why not?
Perhaps there have been some I don't know about. I may be wrong or just plain dumb and I know this post will offend, so I'm sorry.
O.K. let me have it.
[/QUOTE]
a few points
1) Events do not get covered appropriately.
2) the organizations and groups were not geared towards protests etc, but more for social interaction, education and have challenges executing this stuff from an activism perspective
3) Community at large has not been politically active in general. Think back, how many times did you see large protests by muslims in US against anything really.
4) Apathy
But there have been events organized, events that i have been part of but they did not really get much attention.
Re: In defense of al Quaeda
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by storch: *
Why do so many (Americans/Westerners) feel that there is almost no strong, organized internal (the Islamic community at large for this argument) opposition to terrorism committed by Islamic groups?
[/quote]
The trouble begins when the 'West' strats classifying Al-Qaida as a 'Muslim' joint rather than just a 'terrorist outfit'.
It could be that it's a problem not of the Islamic community's making.. they certainly didn't train OBL to be a terrorist.. why should they be held responsible for an agency's blowback?
[quote]
Why is it important to defend al Quaeda?
[/quote]
Start thinking grey instead of just black and white.. if someone questions their involvement they are not sympathetic.. but rather wary of a war gang already proven to lie to get what they want. Some people couldn't care less if it was the Easter Bunny who did it.. but this repeated use of 'Al-Qaida' as the boogyman is tiresome and repetitive and finally getting way too obvious.
As for protests, what should Muslims protest?? i haven't seen anyone else protesting AGAINST Al-Qaida, have you? Why should Muslims drop the axe on their feet? And even if they did.. even if they took out a million man/woman march.. . i can bet the corporate media outlets will ignore it cuz it goes against the current plan of keeping pressure on Muslims so more Muslims nations can be colonized.
Re: Re: In defense of al Quaeda
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *
A couple of questions for you:-
1) Is the Spanish government and the United Nations being "defensive" when they are blaming ETA, and not Al Qaida?
2) Why is it that only the American guppies are quick to put the blame on AQ and not ETA, from the outset, depsite what the Spanish governement and even what your government have said?
[/QUOTE]
To #1: No, I don't think they are trying particulary hard to deflect responsibility from ETA.
To #2: I don't know who is responsible, my post is just curious about nature of the immediate and vehement (in some cases) defense of al Quaeda and its potential responsibility.
Storch, I'd repeat what Fraudia said.. but the Al Sharpton kind of responses are still too common in the Muslim community when these things happen.. that really pisses me off.
Kaleem, the reason you don't hear about those other groups is cos we've already kicked their asses pretty soundly. Sure, they pop up every now & then.. but another swift kick in the ass and they hide away again. Did you have a substantive point?
Malik, I was going to point out to you that the UNSC vote was 15-0, meaning the US agreed to the ETA charge, but it seems you already understand that. If you're not railing against America, then who are you arguing with?!? Everyone in this thread has conceded that it is most likely ETA.. we just want confirmation before we give a solid answer.. y'know, we like to have all the facts before opening our mouths.
Re: In defense of al Quaeda
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by storch: *
*I'm pretty sure d is the answer for most, however, I still find it disconcerting that so much time is spent in a defacto "defense" of al Quaeda. I don't know if they are responsible for the Spain attacks, but I know they've been responsible for similar crimes in the last decade. Why in thought or deed establish any emotional link to al Quaeda unless a,b, or c applies. *
[/QUOTE]
And a question on this point. Why is there a de-facto defence among non-Muslims and American's particularly in believing that local terrorist groups can also carry out horrendous terrorist attacks? Not just ETA in Spain, but earlier I mentioned the IRA in the UK, and the white supremacists/militias in the United States? Do you remember how Muslims were very wrongly blamed for the Okhlahoma bombing, and how they suffered harrassment because of the hysteria the media had whipped up? The same thing may happen here, even though it maybe ETA that is confirmed as the bombers in the end, but the damage to Muslims will have been done.
Re: Re: In defense of al Quaeda
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
The trouble begins when the 'West' strats classifying Al-Qaida as a 'Muslim' joint rather than just a 'terrorist outfit'.
It could be that it's a problem not of the Islamic community's making.. they certainly didn't train OBL to be a terrorist.. why should they be held responsible for an agency's blowback?
Start thinking grey instead of just black and white.. if someone questions their involvement they are not sympathetic.. but rather wary of a war gang already proven to lie to get what they want.
As for protests, what should Muslims protest?? i haven't seen anyone else protesting AGAINST Al-Qaida, have you? Why should Muslims drop the axe on their feet? And even if they did.. even if they took out a million man/woman march.. . i can bet the corporate media outlets will ignore it cuz it goes against the current plan of keeping pressure on Muslims so more Muslims nations can be colonized.
[/QUOTE]
Is al Quaeda merely a picked upon bogey-man? They have not been responsible for their past actions? Rather, a dozen or so devastating attacks in the last decade makes merely for convenient scape-goating for an American agenda of Colonialism.
This is my theory on what happened, for what it's worth:
Quick & easy: the idiots that did this really didn't plan for the aftermath. They were just as shocked as everyone else.
Sticking with the ETA line, ETA's operations cells are very good at being disconnected.. one doesn't have a clue as to what the other is doing until it's done. That means it's fully possible that the few people it took to do this did so on their own--though still in the name of ETA. Maybe they we're trying to move up in the ranks, maybe they broke from the mainstream terrorists and went big on their own.. whatever. The thing is they're scared ****less now. This was too big. ETA doesn't want that monkey on their back so don't expect a confession. The perpetraitors are own their own totally now, so without ETA's support structure they'd be dead in minutes after claiming it as a new group. This was probably local, but even these terrorists who've done so much evil in the past can be turned off... Maybe this time the terrorists finally won some defections, in the wrong direction for them though.
Re: Re: In defense of al Quaeda
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *
And a question on this point. Why is there a de-facto defence among non-Muslims and American's particularly in believing that local terrorist groups can also carry out horrendous terrorist attacks? Not ju... [rambling] ...re, even though it maybe ETA that is confirmed as the bombers in the end, but the damage to Muslims will have been done.
[/QUOTE]
Fight back. Prove them wrong. It's hard fighting racism, but so long as they have material to confirm their stereotype they'll keep believing it. Fight that.
Hint: Whining a la Sharpton isn't gonna do it.
Re: Re: In defense of al Quaeda
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *
And a question on this point. Why is there a de-facto defence among non-Muslims and American's particularly in believing that local terrorist groups can also carry out horrendous terrorist attacks? Not just ETA in Spain, but earlier I mentioned the IRA in the UK, and the white supremacists/militias in the United States? Do you remember how Muslims were very wrongly blamed for the Okhlahoma bombing, and how they suffered harrassment because of the hysteria the media had whipped up? The same thing may happen here, even though it maybe ETA that is confirmed as the bombers in the end, but the damage to Muslims will have been done.
[/QUOTE]
I think this is the point, Malik. I guess I don't feel there really has been any rush to defend any types of terrorists who look like or share the same religion. Tim Mcveigh is dead and you'd have to go to racist websites to find his defenders. If your main concern is a backlash agianst Muslims, I understand that and would hope that would not happen under any circumstance.
The point of my post was really: "What if it is al Quaeda?" Could we see a mass protest against it in a Western Muslim community?
Re: In defense of al Quaeda
Storch, Don't worry about offending anyone. You asked in an extremely polite manner and those are valid questions.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by storch: *
**Even the most moderate on this board take great care to caution against a rush to judgement that al Quaeda was involved. Why is it important to defend al Quaeda?
[/QUOTE]
*
The 'moderates' on this board are not defending al Qaeda, i think. Just reminding to pass judgements on them with caution. It's like the whole judicial process - you presume someone is innocent until they are proven guilty; judges don't rush to judgement without having seen the evidence first. But that doesn't mean that a judge is out to defend the accused; the judge is simply trying to gather all the evidence first prior to reaching a conclusion.
Anyways, dumb analogy but that's all i wanted to share for now.
First, the simple answer is that no matter who did it, it is a horrible event. BUT, if it is the ETA, then it is a problem which is contained, and does not effect me. If it was AQ, then it is a significant event in terms of the health and strength of AQ as a global threat.
As for Oklahoma, and the quick trigger to blame Muslims, as I remember that , the finger was pointed at Muslims for about 24 hours until facts became clear. And was the "Arab Terrorist" fingerpointing without reason? No, After the first AQ attempt on the WTC, it was perfectly rational to believe that there might be some involvement, and the suspicions keep getting stronger with every AQ bomb.
Look, I don't blame you all for flinching everytime some commentator says "Muslim Extremeist", as a potential suspect. It must hurt like hell to be painted with a brush that none of you deserve. But, denunciations of AQ have not come from all quarters of the Muslim world. OBL still has dedicated sympathisers at radical mosques around the world. He is still being funded, protected, assisted and sheltered right in your back yard of Pakistan. (we think) You, as a community of Muslims can do far more about his future than I can.
In the mean time realize that with each additional attack over that past couple of years, AQ has established itself as a global threat. This is an order of magnitude different from the ETA, the IRA, some isolated moron in any given country, or some stupid white supremacist movement with three guys without teeth and a nasty hate filled web site. AQ is a legitimate threat, and deserves every bit of the attention it gets.
Rather than rail at those who simply recognize this threat, understand that discounting the possibility that Madrid could be the same as Istanbul, makes people look defensive and unrealistic. I beleive, given the facts that are out there today that there are many possible culprits.
BUT, if AQ has struck Europe, it is a far bigger deal than ETA changing tactics. Certainly for those of you living in Europe, the ramifications are far more profound....
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
You, as a community of Muslims can do far more about his future than I can.
[/QUOTE]
O.G.
elaborate, how exactly can I as a muslim living in US can do more about his future than you?
Re: Re: Re: In defense of al Quaeda
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by storch: *
*I think this is the point, Malik. I guess I don't feel there really has been any rush to defend any types of terrorists who look like or share the same religion. Tim Mcveigh is dead and you'd have to go to racist websites to find his defenders. *
[/QUOTE]
storch, my point is that countries in Europe i.e. Spain and the UK amongst others have suffered decades of terrorism at the hands of local terrorist groups who have murdered thousands of innocent people. I lived through that, and I have also seen what terrorists have done in Pakistan as well. Yet American's (at least in this thread) only want to blame one particular group for the Spanish bombings, ignorant of the local history and of what the Madrid government has said. If that is not being defensive, then it is irresponsible on their part, especially when all the evidence has not been brought forward.
On the question of mass protests, I will ask you a similar question. If an atrocity is perpetrated against Muslims, by an ostensibly non-Muslim force, will we see millions of people out on the streets in the west?
On the wider issue of ETA, I believe that if they carried out this attack, then they did not realise the scale of killing that it would cause, hence they are denying it.
Re: Re: In defense of al Quaeda
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
**Storch*, Don't worry about offending anyone. You asked in an extremely polite manner and those are valid questions.
**
The 'moderates' on this board are not defending al Qaeda, i think. Just reminding to pass judgements on them with caution. It's like the whole judicial process - you presume someone is innocent until they are proven guilty; judges don't rush to judgement without having seen the evidence first. But that doesn't mean that a judge is out to defend the accused; the judge is simply trying to gather all the evidence first prior to reaching a conclusion.
Anyways, dumb analogy but that's all i wanted to share for now.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks. I'm newly dedicated to civil discourse.
Perhaps I'm not as judicious or fair-minded, but when I heard they had captured a suspect for the Oklahoma bombing, I think I probably did rush to judgement and was happy to see someone caught. The basques apparently have not waited to ascertain guilt before taking to the streets.
While I appreciate the notion of reserving judgement, don't we all have our predjudices and fidelities?
I felt not an smidge of fidelity with Tim McVeigh. But forgive me, I feel a collective fidelity with fellow Muslims is more behind what appears to be an urgent response to exonerate AQ more than judicial process.
Re: Re: Re: Re: In defense of al Quaeda
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *
On the question of mass protests, I will ask you a similar question. If an atrocity is perpetrated against Muslims, by an ostensibly non-Muslim force, will we see millions of people out on the streets in the west?
[/QUOTE]
Yes. Absolutely. We've had them. Now many of us will debate what an atrocity is and who started what and who is and "innocent" victim, but there are millions in the West who feel exactly as you do. They have protested vigorously and in public against Bush in an attemp to affect change. As I said one of the protesters may be our next president. So now you answer my original question if you will.
Fraudia bhai,
I have no battleplan for you to rid the Muslim world of extremists. But as a white Christian American I can have little or no effect on those in Pakistan who have sheltered and promoted OBL.
I can assure you that two years ago, OBL was held up as a tainted hero, and those who allowed him to be sheltered by the Taliban had no idea of the backlash that would effect Muslims around the world. Unfortunately OBL has not become a universal embarrassment to the Muslim world, and the Muslims who are prone to support him and protect him simply do not listen to people like me. The solution to AQ will not come from the Christian world, as we will always be outsiders. He will be caught or killed when someone becomes disgusted enough with the killing to turn him in. Only universal revulsion in the Muslim world will bring down AQ.
OBL and AQ have had a much easier time operating in Europe, as Europeans have not seen a direct threat from AQ. Frankly AQ has been smart enough not to s*** where they eat. If this is indeed an AQ attack in Europe, then the backlash from Europeans will likely be much worse than the US and UK. If this is an AQ attack on a European nation, then it is a taboo that has been broken that will have far larger ramifications than a horrific attack from ETA. That is in part why there is far more fascination with the AQ prospect than that of the ETA, which has been losing credibilty and support for years, and represents a highly localized concern.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In defense of al Quaeda
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by storch: *
Yes. Absolutely. We've had them.
[/QUOTE]
When was the last large scale demonstration in the west when Muslims were killed by a non-Muslim force?
Plus you did not answer my question about why American's were so defensive or careless by blaming AQ for the Spanish bombings?