It seems a little anti-climactic to say it, but given how long we’ve been arguing talking about M.I.A. here, it probably needs to be addressed: M.I.A’s “Paper Planes” has been nominated for “Best Record of the Year.”
She’s up against Robert Plant and Alison Krauss, on a groundbreaking country music collaboration, and Coldplay’s “Viva La Vida.” So she has no chance of winning (the Grammy’s usually favor established artists and veteran rock stars over rappers, even innovative rappers). Still, chica has come a very long way since she started out a few years ago.
I also wanted to take this opportunity to wish her and her fiancé the best for the child they’re expecting. There’s something profoundly humanizing and clarifying about becoming a parent, though it also changes how most people approach their work and career. (Whatever happens, I do hope that M.I.A. will show up on Noggin and do a song for Yo Gabba Gabba! like The Ting Tings recently did. Perhaps a child-friendly version of “Galang Galang”?)
Speaking of raising children, and on a somewhat more serious note, it seems worth saying that the story that moved me most this (terrible) past week was the story of the Indian ayah, Sandra Samuel, who risked getting shot by cocaine-snorting, steroids-injecting, Islamofascist psychos, to rescue little Moshe Holtzberg at Chabad House in Mumbai:
I was pleased to see that the Israeli government has given her a high honor for what she did. She deserves it.
I’ll start using “Islamofascism” as soon as I hear the tigers described as “Tamilofascists” IRL and nobody laughs.
outrage over acts of terrorism should be implicit in the assumption that most of us make when we meet strangers–that they do not support terrorism. This whole business of ‘making it clear’ that you’re ‘outraged’ and not ‘ceding’ it to the Kagans of the world is a complete failure of whatever critical thinking standards one might apply. Instead, it might be a bit more honest to say, “I was pissed and so it was. I didn’t exactly think it through but i’m not making a larger statement about how we should discuss terrorism”
I wish her and her family well, and I definitely enjoyed Paper Planes in Slumdog Millionaire (yeah, yeah, yeah for SMDM), but I am kind of bummed about that because I found her ‘anti-establishment’ chic and ‘freedom fighter’ vibe juvenile and ill-considered. That’s the world, though. The least thoughtful are often the most celebrated……
That’s because it’s people who claim their ideology is derived from that particular religion that we are talking about in the context of this situation!
I was also surprised that any blogger here other than vinod used the term “Islamofascist psychos” (but more at the Islamofascist part).
Manju:
I don’t think we need any adjective specifying what particular religion or idology the particular perpetrators of this barbaric act come from. Let’s just call them “terrorists” or “militants”. I like Nayagan’s analogy of “Tamilofascists”. No one would use that word seriously and yet “Islamofacism” is Ok. Zouf says that “Islamofascism” is not a coded way of saying Islam= fascism, yet the link is implictly being made in the very word (Amardeep as a literature professor and someone is sensitive to words probably knows this better than I do). Why don’t we throw around terms such as “Chriso-facism” and “Judo-facism”? The constant singling out of Islam as a “violent” or “fascist” religion is completely counterproductive. Anyway, that’s really all from me on this particular topic.
I wonder if MIA will be asked to perform the song and if she does, will it be a Letterman like edit of the gunshot sounds.
As far as the nanny story, hate to put a damper, but what exactly was heroic about what she did? Didn’t she just do as she was told. She must be commended for keeping a cool head and not doing something stupid tp prematurely invite further danger. BUt was there anything special she did?
32 · phillygrrl said
WHY SO SERIOUS?
well, i think your focusing too much on the terrorism. being a terrorist doesn’t make you a fascist, though it doesn’t help. “islamofacist” is an attempt to get at the underlying ideology, a task that challenges, though doesn’t necessarily negate, the favored narrative that these evildoers are a product of oppression and grievances and hegemony.
problem is those terms are used. colloquially, fascism has been used to describe right-wing collectivism, though this (islamofacsim) is the first time i can recall such a strident backlash, short of the Godard’s law backlash of describing right-leaning liberals (in the broadest sense of the word) like bush and cheney as fascists. arguably, hindu fascsim has gained even more traction, expescially in india but even in academia in the usa and europe. i suppose christo-fascism and judeo-fascism hasn’t gotten much press, though the terms certainly exist, because the targets of these labels haven’t gone as far, ideologically and in reality, as the taliban and al-qaeda. islamic authoritarism has simply reached a critcal mass, and isn’t as tempered by democratic leanings as say jerry falwell & co. ergo fascism.
“Islamofascist” is problematic both because of its political uses and its stupidity. For example, there are many kinds of fundamentalist Muslim ideologies; of the groups that espouse some of these many kinds a very few engage in political violence. Meanwhile, there are many people who engage in political violence who are neither Islamic nor fascist. None of this is conveyed by the term, which is probably why it’s usually used by dipshits and other people far dumber than you and helps reduce the world to an “us vs. them” which I hope was not your intention.
A sounder approach to expressing your anger is probably to use the Jon Stewart / John Oliver approach – the plus is that if you call people “motherfuckers” and “assholes” and generally just swear a lot, it comes guilt free and is not really problematic and you don’t have to deal with this other discussion when the post was (I think?) about M.I.A. getting nominated for a grammy?
It might be for you, but more broadly speaking, I think that it’s an attempt to emotionally link Al Qaeda to the Nazis and/or the Soviet Union and wrap the whole thing under the umbrella of Islam. This is stupid and grossly unfair, as noted above.
This would be a fair point as soon as you also start calling the Republican party from 1994 to 2008 “fascist.”
59 · Dr Amonymous said
well, there’s 2 argumentsm then. one is the motive of the labelers, the other is whether the label helps describe the underlying ideology of the terrorists. that the labelers are disingenuous or divisive is not mutually exclusive with the notion that the label is correct.
certainly those who label the bjp and modi neo-fascist may have ulterior motives, like to stop neo-liberalism, but that doesn’t mean they’re necessarily wrong.
What part of honest discussion got confused w/ “making it clear” and “display of outrage”?
How’s that a lesser charge? It implies he said something in anger which he’s normally too polite to say. Anyway, the good prof is more than capable of defending his POV. I was hoping to move the conversation in other direction. It didn’t, so I’ll quit derailing this music thread more than I already have.
60 · Dr Amonymous said
its a matter of degree. certainly churchil and fdr had similar “fascist” leanings (bombing civilians, internment of japanses-american) while simultaneously fighting fascism. likewise, the dem party often gets tarred as communist. silly season, as obama would say.
If we look again at Amardeep’s choice of words “Islamofascist psychos”, what would really have been lost if he had left out “Islamofascist” and simply called them “psychos”? Because that’s what they are, psychos, no matter what ideology they claim (or we believe) they represent.
As for Manju’s argument that “Judo-fascists” haven’t gone as far as “Islamo-fascists”, I think that is entirely debateable. The whole history of Israel’s anti-Palestianian actions and state apharteid would be a counter argument. Not one that I would whole-heartedly agree with, and we could certainly discuss their motives (defending themselves, their homeland, whatever), but it makes the point that deciding who is or is not “fascist” is entirely subjective, and doesn’t really clarify anything, and instead just serves to alienate people who are otherwise sympathetic to your argument.
So, Amol, do you think motherhood is going to change her sound, or her lyrics? And what’s on your playlist?!
The whole history of Israel’s anti-Palestianian actions and state apharteid
Apaherteid??????????? Seems like someone is misinformed.
54 · Kabir Altaf said
The LTTE or “Tamilofascists,” to consider that neologism, are not filled with grandiose delusions about global conquest and do not claim an agenda to take over the world like many fundamentalist Jihadis do.
Most people are not simply pulling this stuff out of a hat to single out Islam or insult Muslims. If you had civilians burning effigies over cartoons of Jesus Christ or marching in open places like central London with signs that say, “Behead those who insult Jainism!” or internationally syndicated Buddhist terrorists killing innocent people around the world in terror attacks in the name of Buddha then I’m sure you would start seeing charges against those religious. There is a clear and consistent pattern and its a lie to pretend otherwise. When you have prominent Muslim religious leaders taking the Koran too seriously and talking about actually dividing the world into the into the House of War (Dar al-Harb) and the House of Islam (dar al-Islam) then what do you expect the world to think? Religion is only sacred to a point and given that it crosses over to the political and ideological spectrum, it should not be above offense or criticism.
64 · Kabir Altaf said
well,its incorrect to say isteal hasn’t been called fascist (“jewish nazis” is popular). its just that those who call them that balk whenit comes to the taliban and al-quada. its not that its “entirely” subjective, but that there’s an element of a judgment call, a matter of degree. imo, israel’s leaning toward fascism (nationalism, theoretical jewish superiority, treatment of palestinians) is very tempered by their democratic institutions, as they are certainly to the left of iran and the sauddis, while the taliban is not.
so there’s a difference between denying homosexuals the right to marry, as bush does, and stoning them…though there //’s….ergo the judgement call as to whether to use the f-word in any meanigul way. same goes for communism, cuba isn’t exactly n.korea.
64 · Kabir Altaf said
“Psychos” are virtually by definition individuals suffering from subjective psychotic experience. That the Mumbai attacks was a strategic, collective “psychotic” act raises questions about what unified them to act as they did. That similar acts have happened over the years around the world also suggests something orchestrated, well-thought out and explicitly more than mere psychotic behavior. They were not just “psychos,” in other words. If historians just dismissed the Nazis or HakkÅ Ichiu Japanese as psychos, no real understanding would develop of their root motives and the greater narrative driving them.
There may of course be an argument for a collective psychosis or madness. Neuroscientists have linked intensely felt religious experiences with experiences of madness. The former PLO terrorist Walid Shoebat likens his extremist upbringing in the occupied territories to being indoctrinated into a mass hysteria. But he also still regards it in a political light and likens it to fascism: “Secular dogma like Nazism is less dangerous than Islamofascism that we see today … because Islamofascism has a religious twist to it; it says ‘God the Almighty ordered you to do this’…. It is trying to grow itself in fifty-five Muslim states. So potentially, you could have a success rate of several Nazi Germanys, if these people get their way.”
It also sounded very un Amardeep like. I associate Amardeep with intellectual/erudite/witty commentary of the highest order. So the appearance of “islamofascist psychos” was rather jarring to say the least.
In general I feel that usage of such a term is unnecessary, unhelpful, uninformative and does not advance the discussion. We can see evidence in this very thread that it alienates some of the very people we need on our side.
As far as expressing anger I think we can find far more creative ways for expressing our scorn for these “Osama-bedazzled murderous sons of Cthulhu” (that was just a first attempt)
Just a quick reply to Zouf’s analogy about civilians burning effegies over cartoons of Jesus Christ. Terrence McNally wrote a play called “Corpus Christi” which portrayed Christ and the apostles as gay men living in modern-day Texas. The playwright recieved death threats for writing this play. So, it is not just Muslims who get upset when their revered religious figures are made fun of. This opens up a whole another debate about freedom of speech and whether there are or should be limits to it… but the point I’m focusing on is that religious people (of whatever persuasion) get upset when things they consider sacred are ridiculed. It was in extremely bad taste to make cartoons of Prophet Muhammad. Not that the violent response was justified. Singling out Islam as the problem is unjustified and counterproductive. All religions have their violent and fundamentalist supporters. All religions are used for political and ideological ends. Let’s stop focusing on just this one particular religion that it is currently fashionable to bash.
Amardeep,
The term “fascism” was coined to describe the extreme nationalist movements. Like you’ve pointed out, you can find their common trends–insecurities over sexuality, masculinity, racial purity, racial strength, etc.–throughout extremist Hindu, Muslim, Nazi, etc. movements. This is something Juergensmeyer points to too and I don’t disagree with it one bit.
On a seemingly insignifacnt level, part of the problem comes with combining Islam and Fascism into one word: Islamofascism. It’s almost as if the term seeks to disconnect from the greater history of fascism in the world and focus on Islam. As Hitchens would probably ridiculously say, Islamofascism is the single greatest threat to the world civilization and all that. It’s taking a broader trend of fascism (which no doubt exists) and selectively talking about its occurrence in Islam. It throws out the global nature of fascism and points to Islam. Sure, you may talk about Hindu fascism or German fascism, but nobody says Hinduofascism. This may sound crazy, but I genuinely beleive it… there’s something to be said about connecting those words into one word. Extremist Islam vs. islamoextremism. One clearly carries a scarier, crazier vibe.
Secondly, a classic logical flaw: just because X shares characteristics with Y does not mean that X & Y have a concrete relationship. These terrorists probably didn’t like gays, Nazi Germany didn’t like gays — there’s a connection! Do we even know what the ideological characteristics of the Mumbai terrorists are yet? We can make some pretty strong inferences, but nothing strong enough. Furthermore, yeah, Islamic radicals have issues with sexuality and all that, but how does this play into their terrorism? I’d say it does to a certain degree–but then we also are not addressing things like, say, US dominance in Afghanistan, Israel’s relationship with Palestine, etc. This brings me to my third point…
Thirdly, the term “Islamofascism” paints the world with a thick brush. Unlike, say Nazism, Islamofascism is used to describe events in Kashmir, Iraq, Afghanistan, Algeria, Egypt, Palestine, and even the United States. As much as power globalization has had in unifying thoughts, a term like “islamofascism” ignores ruptures amongst Islamic radicals. AS much as Fox news and the Islamic nationalists would love to believe, there is no global Muslim conspiracy. The Taliban has its own resentments, as does the Muslim Brotherhood, as does al Qaeda — they have their similarities, but they also have crucial differences. This is what I meant by the term not describing things well — it throws out all complexity out the window, it ends the discussion. They’re Islamofascists — why try to understand anything beyond that.
Lastly, I am using a contextual approach because I think it’s a rational approach to use. Like I said, language derives its meaning from usage. Unless you define things otherwise, then we are to assume the socially-constructed definition.
This will be my last post — I tire of e-arguments.
what a leftofascist thread.
I think this is exactly the problem with the term. The term ‘Islamofascism’ is making a very sloppy analogy (Like Orwell, incidentally a major critic of fascism,, I do think that sloppy language promotes sloppy thinking. Fascism has been a nationalstic ideology, and Islamic terrorism of the variety we see now is concerned less with nationalism than with establishing a theocracy. It is socially conservative as fascism often is, but unlike fascists it has very little to say about economics (other than what is contained in the Quran). Fascism is often focused on a cult personality, Islamic terrorists seek to bring attention to their cause rather than the intellectual supremacy of a particular person.
The basic point is there are important differences, which this label fails to capture. All it does is that it associates one icky item to another, so that the reaction, the disgust is magnified. The point is not just to get an emotional rise, but to describe accurately and intelligently.
When the American government establishment responded to the Mumbai terrorist attacks by saying that a pre-Obama terror strike was expected, it made a similar mistake of mixing up two related but different issues. Connoting LeT- and ISI- sponsored terrorism with Al-Qaeda hatred against America is very clumsy and insensitive. Translating every event in the world into America-centric analogies grossly distorts what happened. LeT and JuD have different greviances against India (justified or unjustified) and it’s clear that the Mumbai terror attacks had little to do with the American presidential succession. Similarly, jehadi terrorists are a diverse lot who share certain ideological predilections with the fascists; nevertheless, ‘Islamofascism’ is a distortive portanteau that obscures important considerations.
i thought islamofascism derived its name from the express fervor of the groups to carve a pan-islamic caliphate. It is clearly a third-rail for some of the people railing on here about the term being stupid and what not.
It’s not often (actually, never) that I agree with Santorum’s conclusion on just about anything, but speaking of fascists, he has an excellent article here.
“Islamofascist psychos”
Yes well, the Tamil Tigers have produced more suicide bombers than any of the Muslim groups. They are the only group to have successfully assasinated two heads of state, and pioneer the use of pregnant suicide bombers. They have ethnically cleansed Muslims and massacred them in their mosques and villages:
DO NOT click if you are easily offended
They have killed Buddhist pilgrams and monks, bombed Buddhist shrines and the list goes on. All this because of religion. So why only target Muslims with the name calling.
No, it’s not because of religion. Religion may be part of it, but I think most people would agree that the LTTE claims more ethno-linguistic reasons for their brand of crazy. Don’t even try to paint the different conflicts the same way.
76 · hypertree said
And it seems to be a rallying dog whistle/litmus test (‘Do you agree that radical Islamic terrorists can be called ‘Islamofascists?’) for those embracing the term. I’m not denying the link between extremist Islam and terrorism, but I do think Islamofascism is inaccurate. But yes, by all means, just because I’m a namby-pamby arugula eater who cares about language, dismiss me as an ‘elitist’ and be done with it already.
78 · Fauj said
It’s not about religion but I understand that it serves your purpose to say so. The leadership and core is a mix of agnostics, Hindus and Christians. Despicable yes, driven by theology no.
Difficulty with quote tool, my comment was “It’s not about religion but I understand that it serves your purpose to say so. The leadership and core is a mix of agnostics, Hindus and Christians. Despicable yes, driven by theology no.”
just because I’m a namby-pamby arugula eater who cares about language, dismiss me as an ‘elitist’ and be done with it already.
just because I solved cold fusion and perpetual motion, dismiss me as a unparalleled genius and be done with it already. what’s that, i didn’t solve cold fusion?
Kabir, I suppose you mean the investigation in India. Why do you want Pakistan to wait until “the investigation is complete”? What exactly would the Pakistani Government be waiting for? If they wanted to cooperate, they should already be conducting a parallel investigation, since waiting allows any terrorist contacts to reorganize, and effectively serves to provide them cover. Much of the material is out in the press. Surely the Pakistani Army and ISI could close some gaps. It makes no sense to “condemn these senseless and barbaric acts of violence” if such pronouncements are the only way in which the Pakistani Government and Army and intelligence “unites” with the Indian Government and Army and intelligence services. While I’m not asking you to effect change in the Pakistani Government’s response, I hope you can see that the decision to hold back is itself a reason for others to worry.
She does a lot of that, but I don’t think she wants to look like a cheerleader or Britney Spears. I believe she’s making the point that using these cosmetic devices on a bronz base is look in itself, and wants us to adjust our vision.
It’s funny how many panties get into a bunch when the term Islamofascist is used. Do a google search on “sepiamutiny” and “Hindu fascists” and count how many people complain about the usage. And no one suggests it is alienating people “we need on our side”.
84 · Amrita said
Well, even on the first day of the attack before any concrete evidence was known, people immediately started blaming Pakistan. Prime Minister Singh said something about “neighboring nations” which everyone understands means Pakistan. I just find it worrying that even prior to any evidence it seems a gut reaction in certain sections of Indian society to blame Pakistan for every act of terror in India. They may turn out to be responsible, but wait till you have real evidence. Mudslinging and the blame-game doesn’t help anyone, it’s only counterproductive. Of course, Pakistan should cooperate with India and the international community, but threatening them is really not the best way to make them cooperate. If I were in charge of the military and I heard threats coming from India that we will take military action against you, I would start moving my troops from FATA to the Indian border as well. Yes, part of this can be seen as blackmail to the US/International community to keep peace or else, but it can also be seen as a legitimate self-defense move in the event it becomes necessary. Let’s hope it doesn’t, because a regional war would be extremely unfortunate for all concerned.
Do a google search on “sepiamutiny” and “Hindu fascists” and count how many people complain about the usage. And no one suggests it is alienating people “we need on our side”.
I did and got 1270 hits.. To be more specific, I selected the advanced search and specified the website name. I got 211 hits. It looks like Amardeep has used Hindu fascists indirectly in discussing Martha Nussbaum.
What’s the big deal with the term?. Call them whatever names you feel like, Nothing changes the fact that these folks are exploding bombs and shooting random people quoting Quran and the Hadiths.
kabir, your willingness to give pakistan the benefit of the doubt is touching. and misguided. dawood ibrahim roamed about freely in karachi planning lavish weddings for his daughter, and is accepted in the highest echelons of pakistan society marrying the son of a top influential cricketer like miandad. lashkar operates in plain sight in karachi in the guise of a charitable organization, and collects funds with its leader claiming plausible deniability on their cadres in kashmir. we are not even talking about these people being fugitive in nwfp or some lawless part of baluchistan, these people sit in karachi where the govt has control and are part of the legit machinery of the country. there is not even an inkling of cooperation in this case even with strong evidence, with the isi and the army refusing to take the fact that a major indian society was held hostage and close to 200 innocents massacred, seriously, and not even deeming it worthwhile to send an intelligence official, let alone the top isi chief. this continues a pattern of behavior of violating trust, such as kargil organized under musharraf’s auspices.
pakistan is a bad international actor, since its civil administration seems to be under the thumb of the military and the isi, which clearly have tons of bad seeds. of course, this behavior has been aided, abetted, and encouraged by the us for the past 50 years since the first military coup. the worm seemed to turn when harboring terrorists no longer became acceptable after the taliban and al-qaeda, which had been funded by pakistan and reagan, bit the hand that fed them, when evidence about aq khan selling nuclear weapons tech to iran and north korea mounted, and now when “western interests in india have been targeted” (as in, in the vast swath of indian casualties, a couple of soft targets where westerners stay were attacked), and the semi-bogus narrative of global islamofascism has taken hold (there is evidence that let operates in afghanistan, and trains in al qaeda camps). i don’t tend to think much either of tom friedman or the bjp, but his thought experiment in a recent nytimes column was interesting: After all, if 10 young Indians from a splinter wing of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party traveled by boat to Pakistan, shot up two hotels in Karachi and the central train station, killed at least 173 people, and then, for good measure, murdered the imam and his wife at a Saudi-financed mosque while they were cradling their 2-year-old son — purely because they were Sunni Muslims — where would we be today? The entire Muslim world would be aflame and in the streets. analogies can be poor tools, but would you be willing to tolerate the weak-kneed and callous vacillation that the pakistan govt is subjecting india to? it is also insulting to hear this jabbering from the pakistan intelligentia about pakistan being a victim of terrorism. would you be sympathetic if india went on and on about the godhra massacres by modi’s goon squad, and the bombings of samjhauta and malegaon, as sole evidence that india was a victim of terrorism? the bombings in pakistan are nothing but the result of isi funded extreme groups gone loose.
so let’s not try and put lipstick on a pig here. pakistan has a lot of ground to make up given its past behavior as well as the evidence on this one. as always, they show no inkling of seriousness, and forgive me for not being as generous as you are about their sensitivity about their “legit self defense” given their past war track record. realistically, i don’t see that india has sensible and meaningful military options against pakistan – will the army stand by if india bombs let camps in fata? (surely, that should be acceptable?) why is hafeez mohammed sayeed still roaming the streets saying the things he does? why isn’t he being questioned? even if india bombed let camps to curb their operation – something the pakistani military and the isi should be doing themselves – what would be the point when their funding and planning structure continues to operate unscathed?
the first step for pakistan’s reformation will be if pakistan citizens stop their denial and excuse-making for the bad seeds in their military organization and right-wing parties that have completely perverted their civilian government structure and actions.
will the army stand by if india bombs let camps in fata?
i mean let camps in azad/pakistan-occupied kashmir.
amardeep @14, i love hitchens. i usually admire his prolific, full-throated, and often precisely scathing articles and his ability to summon vast reserves of knowledge about history, politics, philosophy and literature in service of his arguments. however, his article defending the term islamofascism that you pointed to is really one of the best arguments i’ve seen against the use of the term. this is especially ironic given that this article is from the author of “why orwell matters”, where hitchens praises orwell’s razor sharp use of language and his consistently prescient option to three of the greatest evils of his times – imperialism, fascism, and communism.
hitchens identifies 4 traits of fascism, and arbitrarily dumps the absence of a state structure, one of the characteristics that many would argue defines fascism, because it does not fit into his meta-narrative about islamofascism. i could as well pick another set of 3 traits, arbitrarily dump the anti-semitism, and talk with absolutely no inconsistency about republicanofascism, which should rather be a mainstream concept by now, as mainstream as islamofascism, at the very least (btw, just because a label is largely used by bigots and idiots doesn’t make it necessarily wrong, but it should definitely give one pause.)
i say this as somebody who thinks that intolerance in many poor islamic societies, virulent strains of islam, and the absence of strong and infuential moderate muslim voices that are widely respected in middle eastern islamic communities, does create a structural problem with how islam is practiced in many of these countries. although maybe massive religious upheaval is in the cards for this world every millenium. constantine in 300 AD, the crusades roughly a millenium later, and now these battles we fight today. this is why i am very sympathetic to people of the ilk of dawkins and hitchens when they talk about the damaging effects of blind religious belief (even if they do often resort to easy targets in service of their goal – to their credit, religion offers many of these targets).
also, kabir, it is truly shocking that kayani hasn’t seen fit to say a single word about the terror attacks, given the evidence now that ex isi and military officials are involved, and the sordid history of both of these organizations in fomenting and supporting terrorism in india, as well as unprovoked acts of war like kargil. the only act of the military and the isi has been to prevent the weak zardari from sending the isi chief, shuja pasha, to india lest it be interpreted as weakness. disgusting.
87 · Kabir Altaf said
these statements were made based on evidence of the trawler and satellite phone calls going back to karachi.
Thank you Amardeep, for calling these people islamofascist. The people who are objecting to Amardeep’s quite accurate description of the terrorists sometimes themselves use completely over the top terms for US actions and feel it is OK to do so. Hypocrites !!! I am sick of these stupid and idiotic “terror has no religion” BS line. I mean, just try a little to be intellectually honest.
Those hypocrites opposing Amardeep’s wording are infact digging a deeper hole for themselves by providing a literary cover of sort to vicious killers.
BTW, that was heroic work by the Nanny. Totally deserves honors she has received. In the horrifying days in Mumbai a lot of heroism was seen. A spectacle of the best and worst of humanity !!!!
There is one, Aga Khan. Why don’t the so-called moderates use him as an example of good leadership? I wonder why none of the other jokers who claim to represent the Muslim community cannot be like him.
BTW, there is some suggestion that the Mumbai attacks was a fund-raising effort. The bankruptcy of Pakistan and the IMF knot is draining the militant coffers, and they were trying to raise cash using the ransom route. This explains their hopes of going back, and also the delayed NSG response. The “murderous response” came from frustration. If this is true, expect a rather fast unraveling of the militant groups into crime syndicates, and a resulting anarchy in Pakistan.
What ??? The Tamil Tigers are doing it for the religion??? WTF?? This type of apologist behavior from regular Muslims shows that the Jihadi mentality of quite mainstream and not some fringe thought.
96 · RC said
how do you know the commenter is a “regular Muslim”, whatever that means? don’t bring your biases to the table. or your over the top with-us-or-against-us rhetoric (“Those hypocrites opposing Amardeep’s wording are infact digging a deeper hole for themselves by providing a literary cover of sort to vicious killers.”)
Her makeup is horrendous. At first I could not tell if it was makeup or just dark circles around her eyes which are typical of desis. She needs to play that down, not up. It’s not one of our greatest features. Moreover, her pink blush and lip color is not suitable for her skin tone. We desis look much better in darker colors like browns, coppers, wines, etc. For desi makeup tips see here
MIA looks like 12 year old village clown, I must say.
The more interesting debate would be on freedom of religion and why there are no limits on it or why the whole notion hasn’t already been dumped in the gutters where it belongs.
Islamofascist – apt description. As others have pointed out, the same slur has been used on other religions and ideologies. I have a problem with the term “psychos” though. I found the life story of the surviving terrorist rather touching. In fact these people seem to have the same ethical considerations as any of us. They too are outraged by murder, rape, insult and injustice just like any of us. When they resort to terrorism, they believe they are doing something ethical – addressing injustice, or working for a larger cause. Somewhere, something goes terribly wrong. They fall into the wrong hands, get brainwashed, and become cogs in the giant (islamofascist) machine. Remember how young they mostly are, and how easily impressionable. They also seem to be an elite set – the ones who ultimately get chosen for such operations. All the more reason they cannot be called psychos even though they perform horrible criminal acts.
If you want to paint me as biased to prove your “liberal” bona fides, then go ahead. I have a history of more than 3 years of commenting on this board. I am not willing to engage in holier-than-thou-off with you or anyone. I dont feel the need to.
My comment was pointing out the hypocrisy of people who describe US actions in completely over the top terms while ask people to walk on egg shells to describe Islamist terror.