Naeem's Blog

MM posted this amazing debate on the Freedom Flotilla massacre between Ahmed Bedier and the Israel consul general in Florida. I can't put into words how impressed I am by Ahmed Bedier.

Azra put up a flashy ad by a SA telecom in support of the World Cup. As I commented on her blog, these types of ads truly disgust me. They deify sports and athletes as objects of worship. The world stops when the game begins. It was done with Jordan many years ago and it's being done today.

Judge for yourself:



File this under 'News to me' - it's illegal to send money to the Taliban. Not just for American citizens, but for Emiratis.

Seems that these folks sent money to the Afghan Taliban and in return got beat up by UAE police, who also threatened to sexually abuse them or a family member, and eventually were sentenced for three years for financing a terrorist organization.

The arm of the American legal system is very long indeed.

For too long, we have all heard the American government, as well as the puppet media, making loud declarations about the Taliban funding its operations by trafficking opium. Such propaganda* serves to present the Taliban forces as not only barbaric terrorists, but also evil drug dealers. And to boot, it places into disrepute the image of their insurgency in the Muslim world.

But a 2009 report by UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), as broken down in this FPIF article, paints a picture quite divergent from the disinformation being spread by the occupying forces. The FPIF article does an excellent job in breaking apart the arguments that the opium drug trade is being fuelled by the Taliban.

First of all, the UNODC report estimates that only 10-15% of Taliban funding is drawn from drugs, the rest coming from private sources outside the country.

The FPIF article continues:

“The total revenue generated by opiates within Afghanistan is about $3.4 billion per year. Of this figure, according to UNODC, the Taliban get only 4% of the sum. Farmers, meanwhile, get 21%.

And the remaining 75%? Al-Qaeda? No: The report specifies that it "does not appear to have a direct role in the Afghan opiates trade," although it may participate in "low-level drugs and/or arms smuggling" along the Pakistani border.

Instead, the remaining 75% is captured by government officials, the police, local and regional power brokers and traffickers — in short, many of the groups now supported (or tolerated) by the United States and NATO are important actors in the drug trade.”

Yeah, let’s not forget the allegations that Karzai’s brother is involved in the heroin drug trade.

Another factor often conveniently overlooked is how the Taliban generate revenue by taxing ALL farmed land under their control, regardless of which crop is grown on those fields. So if the farmers are paying the Taliban taxes on cultivated poppy seeds, this is twisted and presented as the Taliban are active in trafficking opium.

Finally, and I believe this is most critical in understanding the dynamics of the sinister opium trade in Afghanistan, is the transformation of opium poppies into heroin. This process cannot take place without a special chemical precursor called acetic anhydride, which is not found in Afghanistan.

The FPIF article states:

“The report identified "Europe, China, and the Russian Federation" as "major acetic anhydride sources for Afghanistan." For instance, 220 liters of acetic anhydride were intercepted this year at Kabul airport, apparently originating from France. In recent years, chemicals have also been shipped from or via the Republic of Korea and UNODC's 2008 Afghan Opium Survey pointed to Germany as a source of precursors.”

Obviously, the Taliban have nothing to do with the smuggling of this chemical from Europe into Afghanistan. The answer to who is bringing in this precursor can be answered by the old adage ‘Follow the money’.

Besides the incredibly corrupt Afghan government, many stand to benefit from a thriving drug trade originating out of Afghanistan. It's worth noting that the CIA doesn't have a clean history when it comes to covert drug trafficking.

“In other words, intelligence agencies, powerful business, drug traders and organized crime are competing for the strategic control over the heroin routes. A large share of this multi-billion dollar revenues of narcotics are deposited in the Western banking system. Most of the large international banks together with their affiliates in the offshore banking havens launder large amounts of narco-dollars.

This trade can only prosper if the main actors involved in narcotics have "political friends in high places." Legal and illegal undertakings are increasingly intertwined, the dividing line between "businesspeople" and criminals is blurred. In turn, the relationship among criminals, politicians and members of the intelligence establishment has tainted the structures of the state and the role of its institutions including the Military.” [Source]

This role played by Western banks is repeated in the FPIF article:

“The report says that over the last seven years (2002-2008), the transnational trade in Afghan opiates resulted in worldwide sales of $400-$500 billion (retail value). Only 5-10% of this is estimated to be laundered by informal banking systems (such as hawala). The remainder is laundered through the legal economy, and importantly, through Western banks.

In fact, Antonio Maria Costa [UNODC Executive Director] was quoted as saying that drug money may have recently rescued some failing banks: "interbank loans were funded by money that originated from drug trade and other illegal activities," and there were "signs that some banks were rescued in that way."”

It becomes very clear when the dots are connected that the argument of Taliban drug trafficking is a classic red herring when it comes to America's Afghan policy.

=====
*I wrote before about the disinformation campaign employed by the American occupying forces in attempts to defend their losing ways in Afghanistan. This drug-trafficking myth is merely another example of this strategy.

While it is definitely in vogue to publicly denounce the 'brutal actions' of the Afghan Taliban, the few who try and proffer an alternative narrative are seen as "retarded Muslims" who are intent on blindly defending the indefensible.

Why are people so digital? Analog is not so bad.

It needn't be an either/or situation.

I support them in their resistance against occupation forces. I don't support them in their attacks on civilians.

Is that so complicated?

It bears repeating that reports on Taliban atrocities must be taken with a grain of salt, especially when it's been reported that US forces are aggressively employing "strategic communications" (read disinformation) to counterweigh their losing military strategy in Afghanistan.

Like in the aftermath of the May 2009 drone bombing in the Farah province that killed almost 100 civilians:

"The U.S. military tried desperately to spin the story, initially denying that any significant civilian casualties had resulted from the air strikes. Carefully placed leaks in the media suggested that the Taliban themselves had killed dozens of innocent people with grenades to make it appear that they had been killed by U.S. bombs.That "message" failed to gain traction, and was quietly abandoned.

When doctors and public health officials began to speculate on the reasons for the horrendous burns suffered by the Farah victims, the U.S. military circulated reports that the Taliban had been known to use white phosphorous. That, too, was not substantiated." [source]

So unless you are reporting from the battlefield, please spare me the blanket denunciations against the Taliban (or any other resistance for that matter).

I prefer not to base my judgments on press releases and government officials, especially when it's in their blatant interests to obfuscate the truth.

It's understandable that the vast majority of non-Muslims would not know the difference - after all, their primary source of information (Corporate Media) chooses to overlook such 'nuances'.

But I'm more worried about us Muslims and how we're slowly falling into the same confusion.

Most of us will label our Chechen brothers fighting against Russian aggression as Mujahideen. Same with our Palestinian brothers. As long as their efforts are utilizing legitimate means, directed towards legitimate targets.

Fine.

But are we as clear in our convictions when it comes to our fellow Iraqis and Afghanis? As Western Muslims, are our perspectives affected by the fact that they are resisting American and European forces?

It's funny how so many of us were so vocal in support of the Afghani jihad when it was the Russian in the 80's, but when the same resistance is taking place against NATO forces, we've turned silent.

OK, let's say that we support our brothers in Afghanistan, as it's their right to resist foreign occupation. What then do we think of outside Muslims who travel to Afghanistan to join the resistance?

Just because these folks are constantly termed as foreign fighters linked with Al-Qaeda, are we to blindly condemn them? Or should we look upon their struggles and sacrifice as praiseworthy and admirable?

These are the questions that we all need to ponder over as we read this recent story of a group of European Muslims who traveled to Afghanistan to join the jihad.

The story chronicles the strange journey of a group of Muslims from France and Belgium. This group had no gripe with their adopted nations (as they weren't looking to carry out terrorist activity in Europe). They simply felt the need to support their brethren in Afghanistan. Of course, as the story details, their struggle was not rewarded:

"After getting ripped off in Turkey and staggering through waist-deep snow in Iran, the little band arrived in Al Qaeda's lair in Pakistan last year, ready for a triumphant reception.

"We were expecting at least a welcome for 'our brothers from Europe' and a warm atmosphere of hospitality," Walid Othmani, a 25-year-old Frenchman from Lyon, recalled during an overnight interrogation in January.

Wary of spies, suspicious Al Qaeda chiefs grilled the half-dozen Belgians and French. They charged them $1,200 each for AK-47 rifles, ammunition and grenades...Then the trainees dodged missile strikes for months. They endured disease, quarrels and boredom, huddling in cramped compounds that defied heroic images of camps full of fraternal warriors."

So I'm left wondering, should we be supporting them or denouncing them? As citizens of the West, are we to sacrifice our loyalties to our faith in order to save face in our local communities?

I guess we can always fall back on the fail-safe method of denouncing them for 'attacking civilians' and carrying out 'indiscriminate bombings', as reported to us by the occupying forces and their media henchmen.

Yeah, that would seem most safe.

[Inspired by this TalkIslam exchange]

I've kept quiet over the past few weeks with all this crap flying around about the countless problems plaguing Pakistan. But I really need to let out some steam.

It's such BS how the image of Pakistan succumbing to extremist forces is being paraded around in the MSM. This recent piece* by a NY Times writer really set me off.

The main themes you'll find in most reports are these three:

"Oh my, look at how close the Taliban forces have gotten to Islamabad - only 100 miles away!"

"The Pakistani nukes are in danger of falling into the hands of Al-Qaeda."

"Pakistan has given up control by signing over the Swat valley to the Shariah. The Shariah is taking over the world! "

Outright fear mongering at its worst.

Look, I'm no fan of the Pakistani government. They are crooks to the highest degree. They've stolen from the population as well as from the international community. Shame on them and shame on the world for continuing to support them.

And I'm also no fan of the nation of Pakistan, as so many Pakistani nationalists who live and die for the nation. Zaid Hamid is one character who at first impressed me, but recently I'm getting very tired of his pro-Pakistani, pro-army stance riddled with Zionist and Indian paranoia. These folks have gone off the deep end, referring to Pakistani forces as the real mujahideen.

But let's get real here folks. Pakistan is (and sadly always will be) the same useless country of corrupt feudal lords and army generals. The country is not losing control to anyone. The army is the seventh largest in the world. They have an established federal infrastructure with semi-stable governmental services. Police run the streets, not gangs or warlords. Legal cases are settled in courts, not by local mafias.

So what's with all this propaganda painting Pakistan with the same brush as failed states Afghanistan and Somalia?

First, I'm convinced the powers-that-be desire for a more controllable Pakistan. And the best way to achieve said desire is to either break it up or declare it a failed state. Both options would result in an outside presence needed to oversee the nation.

The other possibility is along the lines of Pepe Escobar's theory that all eyes are on the main prize: resource-rich Baluchistan. This theory includes the chess-game going on between the US, Russia, and China.

Regardless of the various theories posited to explain the outside presence, it's painfully clear that America is screwing things up, what with the careless drone bombings and the recent findings of them using white-phosphorous.

And that's why I love how this picture of a US soldier in Afghanistan perfectly sums up America's poorly planned presence in Af-Pak. Just like this fool who didn't consider using a weight clip to hold the plates. Idiot.

It's really too bad that so much international politics is hamstringing this region. I really would've liked to have seen how far the Afghan Taliban could have gone with their project from the late 90's.

======

*The author basically served as a mouthpiece for the liberal elites of Pakistan. Fearful of losing their lavish secular lifestyles, they're coming up with this crap:

"All the world's achievements for the past 500 years are at risk"

"Once you bring Islam into politics, it's hard to handle..You don't have the tools to control it."

For them (Islamists) "laughter is not permitted, not even a full smile"

"This is really a war for the soul of Pakistan"

Huh? You mean the soul of Pakistan was never threatened by the gross economic disparity that you thrive off of? The soul of Pakistan was never threatened by the institutionalized cronyism fueled by your greed? Ya, it's just now that some folks up north are fed up with the ineffective local government and are calling for Shariah courts that you fear for the soul of Pakistan.

Get real you losers.

While its obviously ludicrous how the self-appointed leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Baitullah Mehsud, claimed responsibility for the shooting spree that killed 13 in New York, it does bring up the interesting question: For how many other terrorist incidents have people like him falsely taken credit?

FWIW, the FBI has dismissed Mehsud's claim.

Basically it's the practice of provoking terrorist groups into action, for the purpose of allowing the 'tickler' to respond with great force in cracking down on the 'tickled'. And that's where initiatives such as the Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG) come into play. A 2002 LA Times article describes this US Intelligence Agency:

"Among other things, this body would launch secret operations aimed at "stimulating reactions" among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction—that is, for instance, prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing themselves to "quick-response" attacks by U.S. forces.

Such tactics would hold "states/sub-state actors accountable" and "signal to harboring states that their sovereignty will be at risk", the briefing paper declares"

Stimulating reactions?? Interesting how that's exactly what the CIA Chief admitted to being the purpose of the drone attacks in North Pakistan that are regularly massacring civilians and enraging the locals.

And clearly it served its purpose with the recent spate of terrorist attacks in Pakistan and the surprisingly convenient threat by Baitullah Mehsud of an impending attack on Washington DC.

It goes without saying that Pakistan's "sovereignty will be at risk" if ever an attack were to be carried out on American soil. Heck, who needs an actual attack when the mere threat of an attack has proven to be quite sufficient? (lookup Iraq in case you've forgotten)

This same tactic of terrorist-tickling is used by the Israelis when things get too quiet and the need arises to justify their $3billion annual aid from the US. An assassination here or a bombing there and Voila!, instant Palestinian reaction immediately followed by jet fighters and tanks, a PR campaign demonizing the blood thirsty Palestinians, and even more restrictive economic embargoes.

Similar tactics were found to be taking place in Iraq where it didn't take much to incite sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shias. Once tickled, these groups consisting of freedom fighters and terrorists alike provided the fodder for America increasing their presence in the region.

Chris Floyd breaks down the nuts and bolts of such pernicious actions even better:

"In other words – and let's say this plainly, clearly and soberly, so that no one can mistake the intention of Rumsfeld's plan – the United States government is planning to use "cover and deception" and secret military operations to provoke murderous terrorist attacks on innocent people. Let's say it again: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush and the other members of the unelected regime in Washington plan to deliberately foment the murder of innocent people – your family, your friends, your lovers, you – in order to further their geopolitical ambitions.

For P2OG is not designed solely to flush out terrorists and bring them to justice – a laudable goal in itself, although the Rumsfeld way of combating terrorism by causing it is pure moral lunacy... No, it seems the Pee-Twos have bigger fish to fry. Once they have sparked terrorists into action – by killing their family members? luring them with loot? fueling them with drugs? plying them with jihad propaganda? messing with their mamas? or with agents provocateurs, perhaps, who infiltrate groups then plan and direct the attacks themselves? – they can then take measures against the "states/sub-state actors accountable" for "harboring" the Rumsfeld-roused gangs. What kind of measures exactly? Well, the classified Pentagon program puts it this way: "Their sovereignty will be at risk."

The Pee-Twos will thus come in handy whenever the Regime hankers to add a little oil-laden real estate or a new military base to the Empire's burgeoning portfolio. Just find a nest of violent malcontents, stir 'em with a stick, and presto: instant "justification" for whatever level of intervention/conquest/rapine you might desire. "

Allow me to begin with two anecdotal tales:

1.) I was talking to my son's second grade teacher from last year and he told me about a Pakistani national curriculum project he's working on, commissioned by one of Pakistan's largest publishing houses, Ferozsons Ltd. The Pakistani government, he told me, had hired some consultants from Germany to revamp their nationwide curriculum in attempts to modernize archaic teachings found in their outdated education system.

They submitted their proposal and one of the members of some governmental board wasn't too happy with the additions, which included subjects such as the celebration of Diwali (Hindu holiday) as well as taboo topics such as dating. This eventually led to Ferozsons getting involved and hiring my friend.

2.) My wife's friend teaches at King Saud University here in Riyadh at a newly opened English prep program that has been subcontracted to a British educational company. Their textbooks (and I read them myself) are filled with references to pop culture completely foreign to local Saudi culture (dance clubs, mixed social gatherings, Britney Spears, Bruce Springsteen, and many more cultural icons).

I was floored by the blatant message being pushed in their texts. It wasn't even subtle. Conversations discussing Xmas parties and social mixers. Vocabulary focused on attire specific to western society (tank tops, shorts, etc.).

I figured that since the program is new, the school administration hasn't gotten the chance to review the material, but boy was this stuff explosive. I would seriously have a difficult time exposing my children to such cultural propaganda (the Disney channel is bad enough).

I share with you these two tales to introduce my post on censoring education, especially as is being practiced in Pakistan/Afghanistan.

I'm seriously beginning to get upset with Muslims so callously denouncing the actions of ultra-orthodox traditionalists in the tribal areas of Pakistan - all based solely on the media's misrepresentation. But its a bit too much when respected teachers in the (online) community take a public stance without due diligence in getting all the facts.

For sure, I haven't traveled to northern Pakistan and gotten all the details, but based on my limited experience and personal reactions to disturbing trends in Western educational material being presented to our children, I can *begin* to understand what drastic measures an uber-conservative people (as found in Pakistan and Afghanistan) would carry out in order to counter such garbage.

Let's keep these factors in mind when reading about stories on girls education in northern Pakistan/Afghanistan:

1. These places are extremely poverty-ridden. The dynamics of such a society differs from ours. Education, for both sexes, is not necessarily seen as a way out of poverty. The boys normally drop out in order to help the family make ends meet, while the girls end up either staying home to help the extended family or they get married off. So when the school is seen as a source of questionable teachings, introducing thoughts and practices not only foreign to the society but antithetical to it, the result is a closing down of the schools.

2. The tension in the north of Pakistan has less to do with implementing Islam and more to do with the failure of the Pakistan government. The insurgency has used Talibanization as its vehicle to counter the gross incompetency of the national leadership. Sadly, education, seen as a propaganda tool for passing along the government's curriculum, is collateral damage in this war.

3. The other side of the story as told by the pro-Taliban folks is that the schools being blown up by them are in reality being used as base camps by the Pakistani army. They aren't targeting schools in order to shut them down, but as military tactics in their battle against Pakistani forces.

4. There is a major propaganda war going against militant Islam and one of the main weapons against them is the issue of educating girls. Just as apostasy, honor killings and FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) were the favorite topics of yesteryear, girls education is the hot topic of today in countering Islamism.

Such sensationalism is so widespread that CNN has even ascribed shutting down girls schools to the recent implementation of Shariah in Somalia. Such a phenomenon (of preventing girls from attending school) was never advocated under the Islamic Courts nor has the more radical Shabab ever promoted it. CNN's attempt at cross-over demonizing is pure disinformation at its best.

So before we start criticizing these movements in Afghanistan and Pakistan for taking away the God-given right of education, let us introduce some perspective into our dialogue as well as get our facts straight.

Since I'm travelling to Pakistan this week (no, I'm not moving to Swat valley. I prefer my religious freedoms offered me here in KSA thank you very much*), and I don't have much time, I'll take a page out of Dunner's book on posting comments made on other people's blogs.

I had this interesting exchange with fellow blogger ThinkingMuslim on the issue of terrorism and how we so callously condemn every Jihadi group, naively taking our orders from oppressive governments and their biased media.

He commented on a recent Mumbai-style attack in Afghanistan attributed to the Taliban and I responded to his questionable conclusion.

I'll let you be the judge on who is right and who is wrong, but seeing that you are loyal readers of MY blog, it's safe to say that you all will side with me. :-)

===========

AA- ATM,

I think its worth noting that you are basing your opinion solely on the presentation of the facts from an obviously biased perspective.

You haven't questioned one bit of the narrative that is being fed to you.

At least the article you cited was more cautious in differentiating between the Haqqani/Al-Qaeda group and the Taliban than you care for:

"The group counts a number of foreign fighters among its ranks and is generally considered more extremist than the Taliban in their tactics and political outlook"

Secondly, while your calls for rallies and khutbahs against such tragic acts are warranted, where were your calls for similar action against the daily fitnah caused by the US invasion and the ensuing Karzai government?

Yes, let us not be duplicitous.

And at the same time, let us question our sources...


ThinkingMuslim said...

It probably doesn't matter to you, but "defense" of the sort you have provided has been used for centuries by people who commit heinous acts. From colonial rulers in centuries past, to nazis in the earlier part of the last century to zionists brutes in Israel and militant hindus in India. It is called OBFUSCATION and it consists of the following:

- Call the source "obviously biased"
- Blame the other side of some vague "daily fitnah"

Such defense is dangerous because it feeds in to the lifeline for the actions of such monsters.

Bottom-line: There were several explosions in Kabul and innocent people have died. I have read first-hand accounts of people who are on the ground there. So I suggest we stop with this "have you questioned the media" bit already - it's gotten old. Instead, tell us if these reports of explosions are fabricated, if the Taliban claiming responsibility is a lie.

Secondly, no government in the world is perfect, nor will it ever be. There is some good and some bad in them. If the Taliban don't like something Karzai is doing, there has to be a better way to bring it to the world's attention than terrorism.

If we keep pointing to the past, insanity will never end.

People protested when the US invaded Afghanistan. Let's not use that to justify or pause to criticize the insanity of the Taliban.

In one friendly yet very emphatic tone: Please stop making excuses to justify or condone acts of terrorists. This culture of settling conflict/dispute with random explisions is taking too many innocent lives. Don't wait till it hits one of us very close to home to have an awakening. What is wrong in principle must be condemned no matter who is doing it.


Naeem: said...

AA-

"Please stop making excuses to justify or condone acts of terrorists."

Really? I ask for some balance in perspective and you accuse me of justifying/condoning acts of terrorism? How very Dick Cheney of you.

"I have read first-hand accounts of people who are on the ground there."

And *that* is your idea of getting the facts? I read the same articles. The Afghan Intelligence Service doesn't come off as the most reliable of sources. My doubts remain until I hear more than a statement of responsibility by Mr. Zabiullah Mujahid.

I have no love loss for Al-Qaeda who have shown themselves to be more anarchists than freedom fighters. To lump them with Taliban who have a better track record than most wish to recognize seems convenient and intellectually lazy.

In one friendly yet very emphatic tone: Please stop being a mouthpiece for America's imperialistic aspirations.


ThinkingMuslim said...

> Please stop being a mouthpiece for America's imperialistic aspirations.

Imperialism and America? Where did that come from? Bro, I think the word is TRIBALISM (not imperialism) and in your case, it will cause you to drag everything else into this debate instead of simply calling a spade a spade, err...a terrorist a terrorist.

If balance in perspective means pretending that TWO wrongs make a right, I am happy with my slanted perspective.

Look, can we agree on at least the following:
- That explosions occurred in Kabul?
- That people died as a result of those explosions?
- That no matter who did it (which seems to be your big issue), such actions are criminal in Islam?
- If Taliban or Muslims were behind it, shame on them.
- If imperialistic America did it, shame on America?

One more request. 8 years of the world's most intellectually lazy man as our president and I may have caught a case of that myself. So enlighten us with the virtues of the Taliban, will you? If you post on your blog, please let me know and I will come to get enlightened, IA.


ThinkingMuslim said...

> I have no love loss for Al-Qaeda who have shown themselves to be more anarchists than freedom fighters.

I wish you could hear yourself. It's called pussyfooting. You sound you're afraid to call these sick people sick. With use of phrases like "love loss" and "more anarchist than freedom fighters" you're betraying the struggle many Muslims face despite overwhelming evidence.

Say it out loud - "Al Qaeda is a bunch of monsters. They have brought suffering to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Their agenda has nothing to do with Islam." Say it, bro, you won't be hit by lightening.

I am afraid you will read the above and see more Imperialist American agenda. Don't worry, I am used to it by now. Step 1 ("acknowledging you have a problem") in most 12-step recovery programs is the hardest and it takes some time to get there. I respect your struggle... :)

America: Imperial, the satan!
Taliban: Better track record than most wish to recognize...
Al Qaeda: Umm, maybe freedom fighters but really, err, anarchist sort of, you know...
Iraqis who're still running suicide missions: Could be CIA, you never know! Right, one never does know!


Naeem: said...

AA- ATM,

You know what's gotten really tiring? The GWOT paradigm where its us vs them, good vs evil, lovers of democracy vs lovers of terrorists. I thought that bipolar view of the world left with Bush and Co.

I don't buy that narrative where I must either vociferously denounce the terrorists or else I'm a secret supporter. Its not as black and white as you wish to present it. Its very disappointing to see you peddling such an overly simplistic perspective.

And what's even more disappointing is that you have to ask me for my stance on the Taliban, especially after having written two recent posts on my blog on said topic.

I guess its my fault that I haven't been able to captivate you with my writing as you have done me. I will try harder.

When it comes to the Taliban, the key difference between us is the ease with which you accept all media reports on them as the sacred truth, while I question everything they report based on the countless misreports they have passed along from that region of the world.

I agree that any indiscriminate killing of civilians is deplorable, no matter who carries it out. I include in that suicide bombing, drone missiles, economic embargoes, and crony IMF deals wreaking of economic oppression. I choose to define terrorism myself instead of taking my cue from the world's sole superpower. I humbly suggest you do the same.


ThinkingMuslim said...

> ...I must either vociferously denounce the terrorists or else I'm a secret supporter.

I didn't say that. But I believe this menace of terrorism could have been kept outside the fold of Islam if the community had been more vigilant. We let our guard down and it came in, I would say, even thrived. Given everything we call Islam, this menace should never have found a breeding ground in the house of Islam.

> you have to ask me for my stance on the Taliban,

By failing to be unquivocal on terrorism I think we opened the door for it to come and stay. It's time to shut that door tight. No more "yeah, they're bad, but..." - too many of our young children's lives are at stake. This is not some theoretical issue or some amusing debate, we're talking about lives.

> I guess its my fault that I haven't been able to captivate you

I promise to read your posts on Taliban. Your previous point about lack of curiosity may have more to do with it, my apologies.

> I agree that any indiscriminate killing of civilians is deplorable, no matter who carries it out. I include in that suicide bombing, drone missiles, economic embargoes, and crony IMF deals wreaking of economic oppression

THERE YOU GO AGAIN. Introduce ambiguity. Confuse our children. Not cool.

There will be a time to talk about drone missiles, "smart bombs" and IMF. By equating this with the other stuff, the listening you create is, since so much wrong has been done against Muslims, we are therefore justified in responding through terrorism. I hope but don't expect to be able to get this point across. I didn't think it was so subtle, but it's killing our future.
==============

*That remark is funny on so many levels that I won't even go there. :-)

Not to belabor the point from my previous post, but I wanted to share one more thought on our very telling relationship with groups like the Taliban or Al-Shabab. I'll start by quoting from a Jonathan Lyons piece over at Juan Cole's site:

"Central to this narrative (referring to Huntington's clash of civilization theory) is a series of familiar ideas across the political arena, on the Internet, on talk radio, in the mainstream media, and, all too frequently, in academia. Such notions include: Islam is a religion of violence; ... Muslims are “medieval” and fearful of modernity; Muslims are sexually perverse – either lascivious polygamists, repressive misogynists, or both; and, finally, they are caught up in a jealous rage at the West’s failure to value them or their beliefs.

Today, such assertions still echo: We love liberty, They hate freedom; We are rational, They are not; We are modern, They are medieval; We are good, They are evil."

The West (and Western Muslims who have fallen for their empty rhetoric) needs to constantly prop up and tear down the actions of groups that feed the above stereotypes. It's no coincidence that the exact qualities that Lyons lists above are the qualities that are constantly publicized in media reports demonizing these groups.

They are the Lex Luthor to our Superman. This narrative is so W Bush and we've got to move beyond it. Our analysis must be properly informed and respectfully objective.

For starters, if you want a fresh perspective on the Taliban as they exist in north Pakistan, this Asia Times Online series is a good place to start. The reporter tries to present a balanced view of the situation.

Sadly, too many will find it long and boring. Quick soundbites reporting the closing of girl schools or lashing of criminals are much sexier.

It's time we inject some much-needed perspective into our discussions of groups like the Taliban and Somalia's Al-Shabab. Too many Muslims living in the West have gotten sucked into the efforts to demonize these groups. While I'm not here to defend them, I must clearly state that I don't believe they are evil, as some fellow bloggers have declared them to be.

Sure, these groups are peddling a version of Islam that is foreign to our sensibilities (as reported by Western media) - enforcing the hudood, restricting women's rights, oppressing minorities, etc.

However, it just seems that so many of us are bending over backwards in denouncing these "deviant" groups to appease our compatriots. In either trying to prove our allegiance to liberal, democratic ideals or establishing our credentials in the ongoing war on terror, we're ok with the collateral damage caused by throwing these groups under the bus. All the while conveniently overlooking the societal context in which they came to existence - extreme warlordism, civil war, foreign occupation, rampant crime and rape, and so on.

For all the negative hoopla surrounding these groups, people forget one most essential consideration: they have succeeded where countless others have failed - establishing peace and stability. Western media is quick to focus on the undoubtedly extremist views they impart, but overlooks a more critical benefit that is welcomed by the local population - peace of mind.

My father traveled to Afghanistan back in the 90's as part of a medical support team and the overwhelming sentiment shared by the population was their collective sigh of relief with the safety situation established by the Taliban. After years of war with Russia and the ensuing warlord-based government, the Afghan on the street was finally able to feel some sense of safety and security. Sure, many didn't take kindly to the harsh interpretation of Islamic law, but they found that a small price to pay for a relatively crime-free, stable society.

Exactly the same feelings were expressed by Marian Zeila, chairperson of the Somali Media Women's Association, in this BBC report:

"Sharia law is a part of Islam, it's in the Koran. But it's their interpretation of the law that I disagree with. They are turning Islam into a harsh religion, which I don't believe it actually is...While the transitional government was in charge there was insecurity in Baidoa, they were unable to protect civilians. At least the al-Shabab have restored stability - for the time being."

So before we decide to get on our high horses and offer up our knee-jerk condemnations of these groups for misrepresenting or distorting Islam, let us try and understand the socio-political context of their rise. Or at the very least, as some have suggested, let's simply leave them alone.