Naeem's Blog

Wow.

Of all the articles and posts I've read on the OBL kill, Chomsky's has been the MOST powerful.

No one but Chomsky could get away with saying these keepers:

"There is much talk of bin Laden’s “confession,” but that is rather like my confession that I won the Boston Marathon. He boasted of what he regarded as a great achievement."

"In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress “suspects.” In April 2002, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the FBI could say no more than that it “believed” that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, though implemented in the UAE and Germany."

"We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s, and he is not a “suspect” but uncontroversially the “decider” who gave the orders to commit the “supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole” (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region."

And finally, this golden quote really won it for me:

"Same with the name, Operation Geronimo. The imperial mentality is so profound, throughout western society, that no one can perceive that they are glorifying bin Laden by identifying him with courageous resistance against genocidal invaders. It’s like naming our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Tomahawk… It’s as if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes “Jew” and “Gypsy.”"

Here is an excellent article detailing the multiple layers of complexity that make up the American-Pakistani relationship.

Once you read this piece, you'll have a much better understanding of the different layers of deceit that pollute that region's politics.

And the writer finishes his article with a nice bang, calling out America's new policy of hiring private contractors who are beyond the accountability reach of the US Government.

Here's an excellent breakdown by Glenn Greenwald on the case against 19-year-old Somali-American, Mohamed Osman Mohamud.

His second and third points are most noteworthy.

Clearly these disillusioned schmucks aren't completely innocent, but the Muslim community in America needs to call out the FBI on their slimy tactics used to entice, entangle, and enable these misguided individuals (they freakin' gave the kid $3000 to pay his rent!!).

I've grown tired of this endless stream of entrapment cases by the US government. Not sure when American Muslims will finally take a stand against these PR stunts which are ruining lives of young Muslims.

Sadly, in the present political climate, American Muslims are in no position to make such demands. But hey, Muslims in America are more free to practice their religion than in the Muslim world.

Yaaayyyy?

Dear Imam Johari,

You probably don’t remember me. Actually, I’m certain you don’t. I think I’ve met you only twice; once at an MSA Iftar dinner we shared a table, and the other time I attended a campfire lecture you gave at Dar al-Taqwa, where, I might add, you displayed quite a beautiful voice in singing some nasheeds.

And eventhough we’ve only met twice, I’ve known you for quite some time, as is true for most of the American Muslim community. Your reputation precedes itself and I humbly acknowledge that your years of service at the national level for the cause of Islam dwarf my meager local community efforts of years past.

And that is why it has pained me to read your past few posts.

You started with an open declaration calling for Muslims to adopt the principle of non-violence. Surely, non-violence has its place in a larger movement of resistance, but it cannot be its sole strategy. There must be, as it always has been, space at the table for resistance by force. Surely, you are intimately aware of the American civil rights struggle with the existence of the black power effort in conjunction with the non-violence movement. Also, armed resistance played a significant role in the other example you cited, the South African anti-apartheid struggle.

And the same type of armed resistance has been playing a vital role in defying the authoritarian control of Israel over both the Palestinians as well as Lebanon. It can be argued that if not for the constant thorn-pricking by Hamas (in Gaza) and Hezbollah (in South Lebanon), Israeli forces would still be firmly established in those territories.

Dear Imam Johari, you would be well served to read this excellent piece by Max Ajl on the inability of a purely non-violent movement to affect positive change, especially in the I/P conflict.

“But the sort of non-violence Taylor supports is the sort that castrates resistance, and takes resistance out of the realm of history and into the realm of religion. What would Taylor have recommended to the Vietnamese? There is nothing nefarious about defending oneself from armed attack. Making it nefarious writes the Palestinian right to resist out of history, reserving righteous violence and force for the Western powers that already almost monopolize it.”

As the writer notes, look at the emasculated example of the MV Rachel Corrie, the June 5 ship that attempted to break the Gaza blockade. The IDF swiftly diverted the ship and the activists quietly complied with nary a cry. How effective was that?

In your call for non-violence you have mysteriously conflated the issue of illegitimate violence (e.g. suicide bombings of civilians) with the strategic usage of force employed by resistance groups. While the former is clearly indefensible, the latter is essential in opposing oppression.

It is a bit dispiriting to hear from a prominent American Muslim leader as yourself the unconditional call for non-violence by the Palestinians, as if such tactics have never been employed by the weaker side. For years, non-violence has played a leading role in the resistance against Israeli aggression, especially with the increased participation of foreign peaceful organizations.

So, for you to state your thoughts as you have, you are (unknowingly) bolstering the argument that Israel is justified in its actions to defend itself against this delusional ‘barrage of violence’.

Surely, that is not a sentiment you wish to express.

Ajl sums it up in the end of his article: “Those who resisted violently were brave. Those who resisted non-violently were brave. All were right. All were just. Solidarity organizations can agree in advance to resist or not to resist, as Taylor instructs us. But most oppression in human history has been thrown off by horrible violence. Frankly, if a man has a gun pointed at my head on my own territory and has shot the person standing next to me, and I can disarm that man, I will disarm him. And there is something surreal, if not pitiful, to demand not only that I abjure that basic human response, but furthermore, abjure it when the gun is pointed not at my head but at the person standing next to me. Writing about it admittedly makes for good copy and good employment for those living and writing in Western countries where power is eager to dissolve an internationally-sanctioned right to resist. For those living under the gun, Taylor’s prescriptions may seem a little odder.”

My other grievance is with regards to your blog post on the topic of Imam Anwar Awlaki. You write that Islamic bookstores and other businesses should stop selling his famous lectures, such as Lives of the Prophets, due to his recent calls in support of unIslamic acts of violence. You cite your concern that innocent Muslims who may be positively affected by his lectures, which you acknowledge as being extremely beneficial, could be led down the slippery slope towards his more recent lectures advocating unIslamic acts of violence.

How ironic is it that your warning of a slippery slope is itself leading you down another slippery slope. If we begin to advocate the censoring of Islamically legitimate material due to questionable views held by the author, where will this take us? You are creating a precedent that can be used in future calls to ban such revolutionary authors such Syed Qutb or Maududi.

Surely, that is not a precedent you wish to set.

As intolerable as Imam Anwar’s views on suicide bombing may be, it is equally intolerable to censor his legitimate work in fear of leading astray the ‘naïve’ and ‘ignorant’.

This reeks of paternalistic totalitarianism. Because lay-Muslims are too stupid to tell right from wrong, the Muslim leadership must censor the good stuff from the bad stuff.

Huh?!

While we’re at it, let’s get rid of all the Shia material. And all that goofy Sufi stuff as well. These books could really lead people astray, no?

I’m sure you realize that such an approach is inconsistent with the principles of a free society.

Many know you as a man of serious principle and strong leadership. But I must say that your past few posts have come off as someone trying to appease more than lead. I don’t think even Fox News has made such demands of the Muslim American community. So why would you? Also, what gives with you admitting that you've learned from Steve Emerson? The clown journalist has no interest in creating a working relationship with the Muslim community, as evidenced by his obnoxiously condescending response to you, yet you are touting his approval?

These past few posts seem like some ill-conceived PR campaign attempting to win over the distrusting American public. ‘Hey, look at us American Muslims. We understand you all are afraid of us, so watch us bend over backwards to prove our allegiance by cutting all relations with this new bogeyman, Imam Anwar, no matter how positive his work may have been to thousands and thousands of young Muslims. And we won’t stop there. We’ll throw in a complete rejection of all forms of violence resistance, choosing the more acceptable (to the American Empire) approach of non-violence. Now can someone please call Michelle Malkin so we can schedule a nice photo-op?’

In conclusion, while my letter is addressed to you, my thoughts are not solely restricted to you. They are more intended to address a trend I am fearful may be growing in the American Muslim community in specific, and the international Muslim community at large. That is why I chose to share my thoughts on my humble blog instead of writing to you in private.

Your brother,
Naeem

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.

Pilger is spot on with his definition of Americanism, especially the final sentence about a popular culture designed to distract and stultify the masses:

"Norman Mailer once said he believed the United States, in its endless pursuit of war and domination, had entered a "pre-fascist era". Mailer seemed tentative, as if trying to warn about something even he could not quite define. "Fascism" is not right, for it invokes lazy historical precedents, conjuring yet again the iconography of German and Italian repression. On the other hand, American authoritarianism, as the cultural critic Henry Giroux pointed out recently, is "more nuance, less theatrical, more cunning, less concerned with repressive modes of control than with manipulative modes of consent."

This is Americanism, the only predatory ideology to deny that it is an ideology. The rise of tentacular corporations that are dictatorships in their own right and of a military that is now a state with the state, set behind the façade of the best democracy 35,000 Washington lobbyists can buy, and a popular culture programmed to divert and stultify, is without precedent."

John Pilger, Have a Nice World War, Folks

what an agent provocateur looks like? Well, dear reader, wonder no more!

Yours truly has uncovered rare footage of not one, but TWO of these elusive creatures in the wild:



Seriously, these guys can't seriously expect us to take them seriously.

Seriously??

I don't even know where to begin. I could take the more serious route and present the Islamic argument on where they have strayed. Or I could simply treat them like Larry, Mo, and Curly and expose them for the stooges they really are.

Hmmmmm....that's a tough one.

I'll choose Entrapment Stooges for $300, Alex.

First off, the poor saps are trying their darndest to convince Joe SixPack of their Muslim extremist credentials. One of them swears his love for OBL, going so far as to declare that he loves OBL more than himself! (huh?!) And when the topic of Israel comes up, he's able to inject the famous Mahmoud Ahmadinejad line of wiping it off the map.

Impressive - both OBL and Ahmadinejad referenced in one interview. Bogeyman caricaturing has never been so easy. Oh wait, I forgot to mention their donning of the keffiyeh. No Muslim stereotype is complete without it!

Then his buddy goes on about how the Quran commands Muslims to terrorize all non-Muslims, even quoting the exact word in Arabic (with impressive pronunciation I might add). But I'm extremely disappointed that Agent McFly failed to quote the more fiery verse of 'slay them wherever you find them.'

Tsk, tsk. The researchers back at base must have slept on this one.

In their defense, they've done a respectable job in presenting themselves as 'real' Muslims to the larger Muslim community. With their smooth Arabic, requisite elements for the hardcore Islamic look (bushy beard, kufi and keffiyah), limited knowledge of the Quran and Hadith (I liked their twist on the famous hadith where Umar swears his love for the Prophet (saw) by stating that he loves the Prophet more than himself, but this goof instead swears by Allah that he loves OBL more than himself) - these guys present just enough a veneer of Muslim thugishness to bedazzle, bewilder, and be-stupefy* the masses.

Finally, one of them admits to having (coincidentally) known the young Muslims Americans involved in three separate cases dealing with plots to carry out terrorist acts. But he washes his hands of them when he declares "I would not do it myself."

Of course not. Your job is to entice, enlist, and entrap.

These jokers are the GWoT equivalent of IT honeypots - Fake computing systems designed to bait hackers so IT security surveillance teams can collect information on the latest hacking techniques.

The only fools who would take these schmucks seriously are naive Americans and even more naive young Muslims.

...(pause to think)...

Oh crap!
---

*My made up word. I couldn't think of another word starting with 'be'

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]

Before we begin hearing the usual calls for denunciation and condemnation, let's put this "extremely" dangerous plot into perspective.

First, let's look past the minor detail of the ringleader getting stoned before carrying out his havoc on civilized society (read the comments at the TPM link - hilarious!).

Based on a scientifically based algorithm, I've compared recent terror plots and I'd say this latest one is a bit more dangerous than the Miami Seven who were not so close to bringing down the Sears Tower (according to the FBI, their plot was "more aspirational than operational") but not as threatening as the pizza-delivery guys in Jersey who were insidiously planning on attacking an entire US Army base by their lonesome selves.

Of course, all these jokers pale in comparison to the evilness (and ineptitude) embodied by the Ghettoist Terrorist in history.

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. "

I just watched the 2008 movie Traitor, starring Don Cheadle, and I must say I was very disappointed.

It's a completely fear-mongering film. If you want to monger anyone's fear of Muslims, let them watch this piece of crap.

It features a seditious plot to simultaneously blow up 50 buses using terrorists who have secretly blended into American society. Said terrorists have been laying low for an extended period of time, waiting for their diabolical instructions. These normal folks include an upper middle-class fellow living in suburbia, a female college student, a young man working at a coffee shop, and a construction worker.

The implication is so very clear. But thank God movies don't affect people's behavior and thinking.

Oh wait.

So not only should Americans be afraid of the Bin Ladens and Zarqawis of the Muslim world, they should fear the new Muslim who just moved into the neighborhood or the Muslim co-worker who begins to pray five times a day (incidentally, the film had the Don Cheadle character getting fired from work due to that exact reason).

Even the hero of the film has questionable loyalties upto the end. So no worries Mr. Joe Sixpack, go ahead and question your fellow American Muslim's loyalties. It's completely understandable.

Nice.

And of course let's just totally forget about the legitimate threat posed by homegrown terrorists.

The other item that made me sick was the inference that the only good Muslim is the one who proves his allegiance by turning informant to the FBI. I've written on this before and coincidentally Suhaib Webb recently put up this related post on his site.

The movie comes off as some pseudo analysis of the inner conflicts faced by Muslims torn between their faith and country. But it fails. Miserably. Not only because of what I mentioned above, but in its 'analysis' the movie fails to once make mention of possible grievances that Muslims may have against the west such as Iraq, Israel, economic exploitation, etc.

Save your money, your time and your mind. Don't make the mistake I made.

On the bright side it could have been worse. I could wasted hours reading some stupid book.

Oh wait...

I hate conspiracies. Really, I do.

Conspiracies are by their very nature quirky and implausible. When the popular understanding of an event has more than satisfied the vast majority, the conspiracy theorist is keen to insert some deranged possibility ('we never really landed on the moon'). Conspiracies are conversational fodder for those situated at the periphery of society ('US government has alien remains stashed away in Area 51'). Sometimes, conspiracies are used by the weak and the weak-minded to explain away their failures ('the Jews are behind all the chaos in the world').

I hate conspiracies.

But more than that, I hate those of you who write-off plausible critical analyses to global occurrences as conspiracies. As if to say that any narrative not in sync with yours (which you've merely parroted from the media) must be some wacky conspiracy.

What freakin' arrogance.

So the point of view espoused by the talking heads and public officials and university professors and other gods of rhetoric and subsequently regurgitated by your not-so-discerning intellect is the one and only possibility? And anything to the contrary is laughed off as a stupid conspiracy?

Really?!

To suggest that the Iraq war was more about money, oil, and geopolitical strategy than about gifting the people of Iraq democracy and liberty is a conspiracy?

To suggest that Darfur is more than the Arab government of Sudan savaging poor African farmers is a conspiracy?

To suggest that Pakistan's endless spiraling into chaos is more than the handiwork of jihadis is a conspiracy?

To suggest that the war in DR Congo is fueled less by tribal wars and more by corporate greed for natural resources is a conspiracy?

All the above have been callously labeled as conspiracies because they don't chime with the 'official' explanation that you've swallowed lock, stock, and barrel. Have you become so lazy that you refuse to lift the confusing layers of deceit blanketing the daily news?

Repeat a lie enough times and it will be accepted as truth.

According to you it was a conspiracy to suggest back in the 80's that America was supporting the Afghan mujahideen and even had a hand in creating Al-Qaeda.

According to you it was a conspiracy to suggest that America had a hand in the short-lived coup against Hugo Chavez in 2002.

According to you it was a conspiracy to suggest that America had a hand in Ethiopian forces storming into Somalia and ousting the Islamic Courts in late 2006.

The list goes on with countless other 'conspiracy theories' that have been proven true (Gulf of Tonkin, Watergate, Iran-Contra, CIA renditions, etc.).

Simple minds accept simple explanations to complex situations.

Listen, I'm as skeptical of zany 9/11 theories as the other guy. Really, I am. But when serious geopolitical events take place around the world and the writing on the wall clearly suggests alternative narratives to the ones pushed forward by press releases and PR specialists, I'm more than a bit skeptical.

And my skepticism turns to outright anger when my suggestion of thinking outside the officially mandated box is written off by you as conspiracy. As if I'm being equated to the losers who believe that Elvis is still alive.

What the hell?!

You need to go back and re-read "Manufacturing Consent" by Chomsky and Herman. It talks about the techniques employed by corporations and governments - "techniques of regimentation of minds used by the intelligent minorities in order to make sure that the slobs stay on the right course."

[For lazy slobs like me, watch the Manufacturing Consent documentary. You can download the entire 700MB video here. For the even more lazier, here is a nice summary about how consent is manufactured in public opinion.]

This urge to marginalize alternative explanations (as if to prove to the powers that be 'hey, look at me, not only have I fallen for your explanation hook, line, and sinker, but I'm even crapping on those who suggest otherwise') has seeped into the Muslim community. Now, any and every terrorist event is apologetically attributed to the Muslims. Granted, the jihadi element within the Ummah have long crossed the line on decency and acceptable norms, but must you so quickly take the baton from the western media and despotic heads of state in attributing every evil deed to Muslim terrorists?

And then you flippantly denounce any other possibility as a conspiracy?

Have you become so intellectually inert that you simply rehash the media headlines as you see them and the governmental press releases as you read them? Is it so difficult for you to allow the rays of your intellect to burn through the propaganda-filled fog clouding your judgment?

The Guardian tells us of a leaked document from the UK government detailing their counter-terrorism strategy on isolating extremists in the Muslim community. The interesting part is where it details on how they qualify extremists:

"People would be considered as extremists if:

• They advocate a caliphate, a pan-Islamic state encompassing many countries.

• They promote Sharia law.

• They believe in jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world. This would include armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military.

• They argue that Islam bans homosexuality and that it is a sin against Allah.

• They fail to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan."

And from the looks of it, the defining characteristics are nothing new in this post 9-11 climate in which we find ourselves. Many of these qualifying traits have been used to describe extremists from day one of the war on terror, so its simply more of the same.

However, it does help us to see the long-term agenda in suppressing any form of political Islam. Its clear they wish for us to demarcate between religion and state thereby adopting secularism as an ideology.

And to boot, we mustn't support the defeat of their occupying, imperialistic ways!

What a sweet deal!

Now I don't agree with so much of the methodology adopted by many Islamists who advocate a global caliphate or the Jihadis fighting the US/UK forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I will never compromise my belief in the principles they are struggling for.

Am I wrong to believe that the majority of Muslims agree with me? The majority wants to live by the laws of the Quran and Sunna. The majority believes in Jihad as an essential component of Islam. The majority believe homosexuality is haram. The majority believe the foreign forces in Iraq and Afghanistan must leave.

Is it too much to ask that they understand the nuance between the majority of Muslims who believe in these basic Islamic principles and the minority who are going about achieving their goals in an unacceptable manner?

So basically, UK is telling us that for us to become accepted members of their society, we have to sell out on some of our basic principles.

No to Jihad, No to Sharia, No to Khilafa, and Yes to Homosexuality.

Yaay! Where do I sign up?

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. :-)

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.

So the Arab League has convened an "emergency meeting" to address the Israeli strikes on Gaza while the UN Security Council is debating a draft resolution demanding a cease-fire.

Nothing new there. These pompous, self-appointed organizations have to go through the motions to feign interest and maybe even outrage at the suffering in Gaza.

The new twist comes from the protesting masses who have traditionally targeted Israel and America but are now directing some of their anger towards their own leaders. I saw in Al-Jazeera some Egyptian lady yelling at the top of her lungs, with her face turning red, "Where are our Arab Leaders???"

And that is truly unfortunate.

Why are we so good at deflecting blame and looking for a scapegoat to our problems?

I previously wrote about this terribly ugly trait we have embodied as a defeated Ummah:

"And then we have the audacity to claim that the problem lies with our leaders, as if the mere act of replacing them will remove the infestation within us. It will not. We claim that if we cut off the head of the snake it will die. It will not.

Because our leaders are not like the head of the snake. They are more like the tail of the lizard. Cut off the tail and another will grow. More importantly, the lizard will always remain. We the masses are the lizard.

We blame them for controlling us with their iron fists. We blame the West for supporting them with their political backing. We blame the IMF and the World Bank for financing them. We blame and we blame.

But we never blame ourselves for failing to hold them accountable. And we never blame ourselves for failing to hold *ourselves* accountable.

We have become lizards."

Fellow blogger Izzy Mo said it well in her recent post:

"“Verily, God does not change the condition of a people until they change themselves.”

Until we get our act together, we will continue to be in this pathetic state."

How to address our pathetic state? Let's start with these time-tested suggestions.