if we are animals, so were they

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
21

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Ravage:
Sadly, you are missing the point of some recent posts you refer to. I second OhioGuy's thoughts and would like to add a few of my own.

There is a proclivity of many/some on Gupshup to take every death of a Muslim that can by any stretch of the imagination be deemed inspired by Americans or Jews and make it a war crime, an atrocity, a genocide, and evidence of a generalized hatred and bigotry directed at Muslims. Regarding the Palestinians, a revisionist history has been born that the plight of the Palestinian lays ** solely ** at the doorstep of the US and Israel. There is an overwhelming need to politicize in an anti-American context every death and to actually applaud, overlook, excuse, forget, and cheer death and murder so long as the deaths and murders can be twisted by small minds into a defeat of American interests or were perpetrated by Muslims.

Frankly, if Muslims can kill Muslims and it is not evidence of a generalized hatred and bigotry directed at Muslims, so too can non-Muslims kill Muslims without it being part of a generalized hatred and bigotry directed at Muslims. If Muslims can slaughter Palestinians at Sabra and Shatila without it being evidence that Muslims are just like the Nazis and are practicing genocide, then so too can Jews slaughter them without Jews being equated with Nazis and performing genocide.

The posts regarding Muslim on Muslim violence do not in tone or content attempt to excuse or justify any conduct by Israelis or Americans. My own recent post on the Shiite slaughter of Palestinians at Sabra and Shatila expressly references my horror at the 1982 massacre for which Sharon and Israel must accept responsibility. Just don't take a holier than thou attitude and argue that Sharon and the Jews are genocidal nazi war criminals for what happened in 1982 when you are willing to forget, forgive, ignore, or excuse the Shia slaughter 3 years later. I have noticed that some have stated that the deaths in Fallujah are the biggest example of genocide of Muslims since Sabra and Shatila. Really? Isn't it fair to ask: Which massacre at Sabra and Shatila are you talking about? The one perpetrated by the Muslim Amal militia in 1985 or the one in 1982? Whatever is happening in Fallujah, it most definitely is not a genocide. It may or may not prove to be a massacre.

Many of the recent posts in Gupshup by the usual American bashing suspects are like the Elephant Man pointing at someone saying "Gee. You sure are ugly." Hey fella, look in the mirror.
[/QUOTE]

You make some very good points.

I agree that Muslims have been terribly monstrous against their own people, the Muslim world is rife with sectarian violence.

Whereas the reaction is not quite as dim as you make it, and you'd find that our religion forum is rather lively, particularly when it comes to sectarian-significant times and incidents, we certainly should pay a lot more attention to it than we currently do.

Life is precious, whether killed at the hands of a Muslim or an American.

Furthermore, we should express a lot more anguish at inter-Muslim violence..

However, you can make these points at other times. Opening counter threads demeans the significance of these ones. We need to decouple that atrocity with this.

You should be telling the elephant man how ugly he is when he commits his ugliness, not merely in reaction to when confronted with your ugliness.

22

"I merely asked why people felt it necessary to bring up other massacres when faced with their own country's responsibilities."

Because, I believe the words "massacre, genocide, atrocity' are being misused and cheapened. Jenin, Fallujah and other locations are "conflicts" men fighting men in dangerous circumstances where there are bound to be causualties. I am not ducking the responsibility at all. Fallujah is a terrible fight, and there are many injured and killed, combattants, and innocents.

The propaganda of conflict is very clear. If the US claims that 300 people in Fallujah have been killed, and that 90% have been fighters, then the numbers tend to reinforce the US view that the fight is being done with as much precision as is humanly possible while still fighting in an Urban envionment. If there are 600 killed and only 100 are fighters, then this gives credence to thos e who have already prejudged the conflict, and can then politicize the event to their advantage.

But the threshold in general for an "Atrocity", or a "Massacre" seems to lack some historical perspective. While this conflict is important in the here and now, the scope of the conflict, and the numbers of dead and injured in the conflict are a fraction of wars past. That also argues for the US view that while obtaining a military objective, loses are held to a practical minimum. This conflict is not bloodless, but it is less bloody....

23

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
"I merely asked why people felt it necessary to bring up other massacres when faced with their own country's responsibilities."

Because, I believe the words "massacre, genocide, atrocity' are being misused and cheapened. Jenin, Fallujah and other locations are "conflicts" men fighting men in dangerous circumstances where there are bound to be causualties. I am not ducking the responsibility at all. Fallujah is a terrible fight, and there are many injured and killed, combattants, and innocents.

The propaganda of conflict is very clear. If the US claims that 300 people in Fallujah have been killed, and that 90% have been fighters, then the numbers tend to reinforce the US view that the fight is being done with as much precision as is humanly possible while still fighting in an Urban envionment. If there are 600 killed and only 100 are fighters, then this gives credence to thos e who have already prejudged the conflict, and can then politicize the event to their advantage.

But the threshold in general for an "Atrocity", or a "Massacre" seems to lack some historical perspective. While this conflict is important in the here and now, the scope of the conflict, and the numbers of dead and injured in the conflict are a fraction of wars past. That also argues for the US view that while obtaining a military objective, loses are held to a practical minimum. This conflict is not bloodless, but it is less bloody....
[/QUOTE]

What then is your threshold for an atrocity? 25000 based on your Assad thread? But then that would reduce 911 to a saddening incident (for the lack of a better word), but not that horrific, when viewed in historical context.

24

What we have in Iraq is a low intensity conflict, a fouth generation war, or simply a war. (You may consider war in and of itself an atrocity, but that is not really my point).

Atrocities within the context of war may occur. The Japanese using 25,000 POW's for bayonet practice would be an atrocity. (yes this actually happened). If the same bayonetting of soldiers had occured on the field of battle, it would not be an atrocity, it would simply be a conflict. Conversely, the bayonetting of only one POW is an atrocity, and a crime of war, it is not the number, but the purpose and intent of the combatant.

The Geneva conventions accept that there will be civilian casualties of war, it is never bloodless. Due caution must be taken, but wide latitude is given to the combatants, otherwise the conventions would become useless. Thus rules were created like "a mosque and other religious sites must be avoided", of course this is rendered moot by another rule which says that "if a protected site is used by one side for combat, it loses it's protected status.

Somehow everyone here thinks that this is the first war, and that they are the first to confront the definitions that have been part and parcel of the Geneva conventions for years. 9/11 for example is not a "saddening incident", it was an act of war where civilians (by every standard of civilization except OBL and radical Islam) were INTENTIONALLY targeted. The Geneva conventions give great credence to INTENT, not just the outcome. If you are intending on killing the opposition, and have taken due care to avoid civilians, it is not a war crime, atrocity or massacre. It is simply war and it's natural byproducts.

So, protest the war if you like. Protest the deaths caused by war, but study the historical usage of words, and preserve the sanctity of of those words for times when they are really appropriate.

25

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
9/11 for example is not a "saddening incident", it was an act of war where civilians (by every standard of civilization except OBL and radical Islam) were INTENTIONALLY targeted. .
[/QUOTE]

There ahve been other intentional targetting of civilians, so its not just OBL and radical islam's standards. IRA attacks in the UK have hurt and killed many innocent people, including those that I know.

so lets not limit this to OBl and islamic radicals..gracias

26

DId IRA declare a war on the Brits? DId they SHoot first and ask questions later?

27

I suppose by targetting innocent brits they did declare a war on Britain.

saying that this barbaric action of intentionally targetting innocent civilians is unique to extremists of one sort is factually incorrect.

Sadly the talking heads of sinnfein and IRA routinely made stops to the US for fund raising..never could understand that.

28

No, did they declare a war. Did they site religious decrees and issue edicts that followers of their faith took as justification? Did catholic preachers in Spanish Harlem remind people of their fard to liberate Northern Irish? Did spaniards and french leave their homes and bomb buses in Manchester? Did the Goans hijack BA flights and ram them into Buckingham palace or WM abbey?

Just curious...drawing parallels, ya know.

29

the only parellel I am drawing here is that other extremists have targetted innocent civilians in their quest for control as well.

thats it. Although they did get tons of funding from their cathlolic brethren in the US. NOraid comes to mind as one, not to forget the IRA ppl training FARC folks in colombia

continue drawing

30

Fraudz,

I do not remember the IRA actaully taking the step of publishing and announcing their intent on commiting, by any standard, an atrocity.

OBL has:

"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim."

Terror is terror, IRA, or whomever. But clearly the statement above would violate every form of combat condoned under the Geneva conventions.

31

O.G

IRA has threatened to strike in UK time and time again and if you want I can post a chronology of their attacks.

OBL is a jackass, but to say he is the ONLY jackass is incorrect, that arsewipe Gerry Adams who was wined and Dined right here in US and who raised fund for SinnFein and IRA, real provisional, continuity or whatever those punks want to call themselves.

Are there differences, sure, but the similarity is in targetting innocent civilians as a mode of their war. Do one's actions legitimize the others, No.

32

Fraudiya, the difference is tremendous. Americans gave money to the IRA because of their Irish descent. Americans didn't give the money because Gerry Adams (who is an idiot) declared that God had decreed all catholics around the world to slay Britishers and quoted the bible to find the passage where a lot of uneducated and educated catholics can find reference to.

33

whether they use religion, ethnicity or a fondness for bugs bunny cartoons is not my point,

the point is that other groups have intentionally targeted civilians, and that they have enjoyed support from other quarters who are not directly involved in the situation just because of common ties. They have thus been part of killing innocent civilians.

There may be differences, but the similarities in lack of regard for innocent civilian lives and appealing to others who share something (ancestary, faith) is the same.

34

Fraudiys if you are trying to state the obvious that innocents have been targeted and that is wrong, Yes, Innocents were targetted by the maachu Piccu liberation force in teh Incan empire and also by the chinese gangs in Flushing queens.

Yes we all agree, targetting of innocents is wrong.

Where there is no comparison is that the war was brought by OBL and his ilk. His misguided theories obvously resonate with a lot of folks. TO me it si a displacement of blame for their inability to better their own lives. It is not an excuse or justfication for hiojacking a plane and flying it into office towers because their leader sitting with some cleric offers them salvation because he can get justification in that heinous act in a religous book and people actually fall for it. There is a huge difference here.

35

misguided approach of IRA resonated with a lot of folks too did it not?
people will fall for it, there are many examples of people falling for some line somewhere, whether al qaeda types, the nazis, the IRA types, followers of PAt robertson and that whole looney toon, the brutal mass murders during partition in 1947, ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. People used some thing to justify killing of innocents in all these cases.

36

Agreed a 100%. However,

The IRA mantra and the Islamic terrorist mantra is quite different. One is leaving notes and calling in Bombings. The other is Bombing and then sending video tapes.

37

well for leaving notes and calling in they sure have managed to kill about 2000 innocent people. Guess they dont call ahead.

In the end innocent people get killed..does not matter to soemone who had lost a loved one whether there was a note after the attack or just before the attack so the news crews had time to film it.

38

So you are telling me that OBL is the same as Gerry Adams. Great! :k:

We have already agreed that killing of innocents is wrong. Let’s see, root cause maybe… IRA wanted a united Ireland. OBL wants a khilafah. WHo do you think stands a greater chance? :slight_smile:

39

They are both behind the killing of innocent people, that is a pretty big similarity.

Who cares what they want and what the motives are, innocent people that were butchered were just that innocent ppl who were butchered.

as far as what is more realistic, extremists views are so lopsided that their visions are never realized the way they want it. whether its OBL, adams, RSS or Hamas