Thanks to my Salon subscription, whenever I want to, I get to read a publication I’d normally ignore —The New Republic Online. On the 8th, an article about the attack on London caught my attention. I’ve often said that the comments on this blog are what captivate me, that the discussions which spontaneously erupt under a post are the best part of the Mutiny. This week has proven no exception, as I am surprised and provoked by what some of you have said.
Your words made me think that a few of you might also want to read “Response Time”, by Joseph Braude, an essay about how Muslim groups responded to the terrorist attack on London, especially since SM regular Al Mujahid was repeatedly asked to provide “proof” that Muslim groups had denounced the terrorist bombing that rocked London’s transit system; he responded here and here. With that in mind, I found Braude’s piece even more salient.
Yesterday’s attack on the British people gave Muslims everywhere a chance to distance themselves from the radical Islamists who claim to have perpetrated it. While Muslim governments have taken the opportunity to speak out against the killing of innocents, Muslim Brotherhood offshoot groups failed to rise to the challenge. What they offered instead were statements full of equivocation–in marked contrast to other Arab politicians.*
Among Muslim heads of state, condemnation of the Al Qaeda “raid” was just as severe as the rest of the world’s. Jordan, the Gulf states, and Egypt as well as Syria and Iran all sent official condolences on behalf of the nation. Some went further: Egypt, whose ambassador to Iraq was also murdered by an Al Qaeda affiliate yesterday, called in its official press for seamless counterterrorist coordination between Arab countries and the West. In Europe and the United States, Muslim community organizations like Britain’s Muslim Council and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) were absolute in their condemnation: “barbaric crimes” which “can never be justified or excused,” according to CAIR; “hateful acts” which only “strengthen our determination to live together in peace,” says the Muslim Council.
The response from Hamas was predictable:
Hamas, on the other hand, laid ultimate blame for the attack on aggression against Arabs and Muslims. In an official communiqué from Gaza, the movement declared:
We call upon all states and influential international societal forces to bring about an end to all forms of occupation, aggression, oppression, and discrimination directed against the Arab and Islamic nation–particularly in Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan–because the continuation of these acts offers an environment of tension and repression which naturally leads to a continuance of the likes of these acts and explosions.
This echoes what a few of you wrote:
In other words, the killing of London commuters was a case of the chickens coming home to roost.
Indeed, in a discussion that proved that there’s no such thing as overusing cliches, one SM reader brought up the concept that “all is fair in love and war” and that disbelief was unnecessary because during war, your enemies will attack. Another comment went as far as to breezily state, “been there, done that”, making me sadly wonder if a past free of terror is a prerequisite for compassion.
I don’t agree with either of these sentiments, nor do I think that the attack was particularly “fair”; I think the worldÂ’s collective horror does stem from the fact that London is not a battleground, the people who died or were maimed were not soldiers, nor were they civilians who are unfortunate enough to be living in Iraq or Afghanistan, where terror is tragically a part of daily living.
Pointing out that innocent Iraqis also die and that they are basically on our side in the WOT/against Osama may be stating the truth, but I just don’t care for the notion that feeling heartache and sympathy is a zero-sum game. I’m against the war, I’m horrified that Iraqis are suffering– but I am equally appalled that a few dozen people in London are dead. Feeling sad for one afflicted group doesn’t preclude someone from feeling sad for ALL afflicted groups.
Getting back to the TNR “online exclusive”, you know itÂ’s the Jews or their American bitches who are behind it, right? Just like the WTC bombing, when all the Jewish people got fair warning:
In neighboring Jordan, the leader of the Sunni Islamist Al-Wasat party, Marwan al-Fa’uri, echoed another familiar trope: that the people behind the attacks were not Muslim, but anti-Muslim. After condemning the carnage, he told the Amman daily Al-Ghad yesterday, “Those who carried out these acts aim to vilify the image of the Islamic nation in British society–particularly after this image had improved among Britons–regarding Arab and Muslim causes.” In the Jordanian context, al-Fa’uri’s deliberate vagueness about the identity of the perpetrators invites the well-known speculation that Jews, or Americans, or some other adversary actually carried out the attack–not an Islamist group.
I guess that note from the cumbersomely-named al Qaeda-affiliate was a fake. Huh.
These two reactions–moral equivocation and diversion of blame–are not unfamiliar to Americans. In the weeks following September 11, they were on the lips of several Arab statesmen, including a powerful Saudi minister. Since that time, however, the scourge of Al Qaeda terrorism has visited many more countries, including Arab and Muslim ones, goading mainstream politicians in the region to separate themselves from the Al Qaeda phenomenon completely.
You know itÂ’s bad when the TalibanÂ’s response was more appropriate:
Over the past few months, much has been made of the need to foster the entry of Sunni Islamists into a more inclusive political process in their home countries–provided they disavow the use of force and cede a monopoly on weapons to the state. Yet the Islamist parties concerned have been less than reassuring about their good will toward a democratic process. In Egypt last month, the Muslim Brotherhood greeted Condoleezza Rice’s visit to Cairo with a quote from Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri on the front page of its newspaper, deriding American-style political reform as a sham. In Palestine and Jordan yesterday, Islamist responses to the attack on London were similarly retrograde. Rhetorically speaking, these groups have lately sounded less like pious opposition and more like the Taliban–although as far as yesterday’s tragedy is concerned, the Taliban happens to have been a bit more moderate. In an interview with the online Arabic magazine Elaph, Taliban spokesman Abdullah Latif Hakimi asserted that his organization was “neither happy nor sad” about the London attack, but at least noted the difference between civilian and military targets: “If these explosions had been directed against British military targets or had claimed losses in life among the British government, then we would have been very happy.” Even this basic distinction proved difficult for some Sunni Arab Islamists to express.
Sigh. If the TALIBAN gets it…
:+:
*My apologies, readers. I neglected to include the first paragraph of the TNR article this post quoted. I don’t think it changes things much, but in case it does in your opinion, I’ve added it. The article is now here in its entirety.
I’m no fan of Hamas, but it’s a little unfair to quote that part of their response without citing the other part–which I actually found surprising:
“Hamas condemns the bombings that took place in London and that resulted in hundreds of innocent casualties”
Anyway, that stuff (from everyone involved) is all pr–let’s see them all (Muslim and non-Muslim alike) back it up with action to restore a sense of civility in the world and not turn this into a self-fulfilling prophecy about a “war of civilizations.” It’s one thing to use the Iraq War to deflect blame from the London bombings, but it’s another to point out similarities in some of the tactics used (“Shock and awe”?) in war and private sector violence and reject all forms of violence (particularly against civilians) except as a last resort).
btw, you should think about reading The New Republic–they’ve long since ceased to be a liberal magazine and are basically a Clinton-democrat/McCain-Republican consensus rag.
saurav,
i promise i wasn’t trying to be unfair to hamas– the line you helpfully provided wasn’t in the TNR article.
btw, i have nothing against TNR…i just love Salon and about 100 of my bloglines feeds even more…so it’s a bit lower on my priority list when it comes to what i read. 🙂
Yeah, that’s my point about TNR. I’m really not a big fan, because they do $hit like this while posing as “sort of liberal.” Kind of like the DLC except with even less reason since they don’t need to worry about electoral credibility.
Anyway, not to get too off topic, but political mags are generally unreliable anyway–I’ll stick to business magazines for facts and journals like the new york review of books (and slate, i guess) for analysis 🙂
the new york review of books
the review is much weightier, but it too has a definite opinion orientation…in my opinion.
My heart too goes out to the victims and families of the London bombing.
But keep in mind that it is easier to feel sad about this because the media reports it more, and certainly in more gory detail, than they do about civilian deaths in Iraq, which they gloss over and thus we do not feel sad about. This is obviously a major problem.
And if we shed tears over every atrocity happening on earth, we would never have any time to smile.
I am less disturbed by those two comments (RC saying “all’s fair in love and war and Raj’s “been there, done that” attitude) than by Rahul’s comment “Maybe, it is because human life is less valued in India than in the west?” I’m not one for silly cliches, but generalizations such as that really bother me. Tell my anti-abortion mallu catholic friends that Indians do not value life, and you’ll get an argument that will last all day 🙂 We’re all humans, and we all cry when our family dies or our friends are blown up in some senseless attack. Unless they are psychopaths, people don’t just go out and kill for the hell of it, and generally don’t organize. Something is driving this : fear, desperation, the fact they have nothing to lose. It has less to do with life not being valued, I think, than the fact that life is a LOT more nasty, brutish and short in the developing world than in cushy old England or the US.
Raj’s comment is pretty typical of people who grow up around this stuff. They’re totally desensitized to it. My Indian and Pakistani students have said things like “the London bombing was really horrible, but if that happened in my country, nothing would stop for it.” There would be no shutdown of businesses (except those affected, of course), no colored ribbons, and no round-the-clock media coverage showing and re-showing the bodies of the dead and interviews on the street asking questions such as “so, will this make you stop using public transportation?” It’s like that other commenter said on a thread I forget… when this happens in London, it’s an outrage.. when it happens in Iraq, it’s just another Tuesday.
Instead of tears, I think Saurav is right – the best response is “action to restore a sense of civility in the world.” I feel less a sadness about this than I do anger – whoever did this must be brought to justice NOW, and steps should be taken by everyone with a shred of power to ensure that these bombings stop happening.
And that, I think, is where RC’s “all’s fair” comment comes in. I will give you that so many of those Londoners on that train that morning were opposed to the War On Terror, and for them to have to perish in such a thing is senseless and wrong… as if the world ever was full of sense and righteousness. But if GW and Tony Blair are going to declare a war, aren’t those on the “other side” going to see it as such as well? It’s a holy war if it’s fought elsewhere – we’ll buy our magnetic ribbons and our t-shirts to support the cause – but when it comes home, it doesn’t seem like such a good idea anymore. Declaring war on the terrorists was a mistake, as both sides will certainly suffer collateral damage. As RC was saying, that is the nature of war.
I hope this sounds more intellectual tending towards cynicism than heartless. I am angry that our world has come to such a place, and wish our leaders would learn to talk like grownups instead of fight like children.
Of course–almost every magazine has a perspective–even the outlets that try not to—like Time or Newsweek–or the ones that I think are more reliable for facts or at least broader coverage–like the Economist (or the news section of the WSJ). NYROB’s is just much more nuanced and intelligent than a lot of other magazines with similar politics (if they can even be said to have similar politics given that they tend to be a lot more knee jerk).
Not that I read anything anymore, so it’s kind of a moot point, for me at least. But maybe someone else is looking for news/opinion sources 🙂 (i would try harpers also–that’s definitely opinionated, but is far more readable than a lot of other magazines)
Not proof of denunciations, ANNA dear 🙂 That’s not what some of us were saying. And yes, I know you can play this game with anyone, really, not just moderate Muslims. Did I personally do enough to condemn the Gujurati riots as an Indian-American who is agnostic/Hindu? I was certainly horrified, but I didn’t march, did I? Saurav said on an earlier thread that the condemnation of Abu Ghraib was not as strong on the right as it should have been, and as someone who is to the right, I would strongly agree with that statement.
But that is not the point I was trying to make: what I was saying is that in my personal experience with the Arabs I do know (not to be extrapolated to everyone, although I suppose I am doing that, aren’t I? So I suppose I am being a very unfair, but I am heartsick today and I just have to say this), there is always a “yes, but” mentality. They’ll condemn the violence, and then say ‘but.’ I’m certainly not the first to point that out, it’s quite a famous phrase, really. “Yes, but….” and then you will hear some tortured justification, especially when the violence is ‘far away’ and directed against Israeli civilians or Indians in Kashmir, or Russians because of Chechnya. And you end up feeling that the announcements are just that: an announcement, although I’m sure that is not the case and they mean the denouncements. It just feels that it is fake. Because the sad thing is this – no one has suffered more at the hands of jihadis than Muslims themselves. The jihadis have destroyed, or are in the process of destroying, many societies. Pakistan comes to mind. And what drives me batty is when the middle class well-to-do Pakistanis I know want to blame everything on the West, obsess about Kashmir and India, and yet refuse to see that the elites and educated classes, the Bhuttos and the like, have completely failed their people. One of the medical residents I worked with in Chicago told me that there was a time when doctors were targeted in Karachi – it was a very scary time for him as a doctor when he lived there. He also said this, “if you don’t behave in a certain way then they say you are not a good Muslim.” And implicit in what he was saying was that even though he thought a lot of these people were crazies and hated them, he felt some sort of societal pressure to say nothing, not about the violence, but other areas where the more conservative types are involved. He liked to drink. He liked to be with women. But of course, he would never say this openly, he had to be ‘good’. He couldn’t just be honest. Why not just say it? He was doing nothing wrong. Of course the same hypocrisy happens with Hindu and Christian desis, absolutely. The utter hypocrisy.
The jihadi thing didn’t happen overnight. And yes, a part of it was fueled and financed by the West, but make no mistake, the fire was alsolaid by the Pakistani and Arab and other Muslim elites who wanted to use this sort of extremism for their own political or personal purposes. To make themselves filthy rich, basically. How’s that for imperialism? They thought they could ride the jihadi tiger. And the people of their own nations are paying by far the heaviest price. I would simply like some of the anger, or rather sense of responsibility, to be directed toward the educated classes who betrayed their people with false promises of nationalism, socialism, and Islamism. Why can’t women vote in Saudi? Why ever not? I mean, this makes me insane. Utterly insane. Shouldn’t it merit more anger among the elites I’ve met? They don’t like it, certainly. But I don’t see their eyes flash like when they talk about Israel and the Palestinians. And isn’t it against the Pakistani constitution to have a non-Muslim head the government? Isn’t that repugnant? All this talk of the US supporting Pakistan, but precious little talk of the fact that if Pakistan had run it’s affairs properly after partition, there would be nothing nefarious for the US to support.
Sorry guys. It’s not about ‘proof’ of condemnation. It’s about realizing that Arab pan-nationalism is a fools game that has led to nothing but sadness for the Arabs. It’s about realizing that promoting the Taliban as ‘strategic depth’ against the Indians was just down right stupid and led to some real evil. It’s about realizing that you could do more for the Palestinians if Israel were surrounded by Arab democracies with vibrant free market economies. It’s about bringing your own people here into the 21st century. At some point you have to stop saying: but look, this isn’t all our fault, we were pushed into this by history and circumstance. So what? I’m sorry your burden is greater as a Muslim at this time in history, but that is just the reality of the situation. I mean, at some point you just have to move forward. You have to say, for my children, for their future, I will forget the past and I will move forward.
Dont’ be too angry with me today: you know I love you all. Really. You are my brothers and sisters.
Muslim organizations regularly condem terrorist attacks.
To get an idea of just how common it is have a peek at this link.
Clearly lack of condemnation by Islamic Organization is not the problem, the fact that most major terrorist acts in and on ‘the west’ were commited by muslims is.
Anna, I am sure that your disgust for these terrorist act was genuine (Dont get me wrong.. I am also disgusted at the killing of the innocent) and you do care for %%% ALL %%% the victims of war and I have no doubt about it.
But when GWB makes a statement in televised speech to the nation and says the reason we are in Iraq is… “so that we dont want to fight them at home in our streets”.
So in short GWB chose Iraq to be a battleground and all the people who voted for him agreed. Did anyone ask the Iraqis before turning their nation into a battlefied ??? (unfortubately GWB’s excuse resonate with american people) but just think about it …
MD, I have no problem with what you are saying – but the fact is that the recent aggression of west against islamic nations have just made it a little difficult for the people to ‘move forward’. With every innocent man/woman dying in Iraq, a future criminal is born. It is hard to clean up the internal mess when the perception is that Islam is under attack. In my view, both Bush’s West and the Jihadists sort of reflect the two sides of the same coin. And the victims, of course, are the innocents whether they are in London or in Iraq.
Andrea, I will admit my statement was poorly worded. Your observation on the nasty, brutish and short nature of life is more to the point, and I was alluding to the fact that the consequence is a certain numbness to these kinds of death in numbers.
I was not implying that these attacks were due to the lower value placed on human life, or that personal losses impact people much less in India than in the West.
(Note to self: All generalizations are bad 🙂
MD, thank you for that comment. Your sincerity and emotion are kind of a wake-up call for me.
I think politicians and elites and people with power do the things you describe and will always do the things you describe–whether they run activist NGOs in the US or they sit on a panchayat and order a rape or they run the government of Saudi Arabia and pay off the mullahs or they make up the politial elite in the United States and order or go along with unnecessary wars or they repress their children’s sexuality within the context of a family–obviously with different effects and to varying degrees, depending on the specifics of the situation and how much power they have over how many people.
So here’s my challenge to you: what are you going to do about it? You care deeply about these issues–so what steps are you going to take?
You can make a commitment, gradually, to seeing yourself as part of a solution, rather than on the sidelines. There is no reason for you to be heartsick and angry at the national elites of these countries without feeling like your anger and upsetness can be translated into circumscribing or removing their power. You’re smart, compassionate, reasonable, and in a position of some privilege (I think)–that’s four advantages that most people don’t possess simultaneously–so there’s really nothing holding you back.
And lest I be accused of being too abstract, there are a million and one concrete things you can do–from helping people through providing services to them to learning and teaching people about the truth in an honest way to raising money or taking actions to support people like Mukhtar Mai or Tashnuba (the deported 16 year old Bangladeshi woman who still exists and is still in financial need) or organizations like Amnesty or Families For Freedom or MSF. It can start with something as small as just reading more about the issues you’re interested in.
I’m not saying you need to become a “socialist” or join the “left” or adopt some other label or become a paid activist or whatever (in fact, please don’t–see above in the section about people with power). You say you’re “to the right” (although I don’t really believe you fit so neatly into the label)–so engage some of the people on the right in the hopes that they become a little more responsible, a little more compassionate, a little more nuanced and informed…see where it takes you. The alternative is to sit around, do nothing, and let things fester, continuing on as they did before.
Anyway, I’m sorry to be sanctimonious, but I admire your passion and am furious that you’re wasting it on people like me 🙂
Muslims always form a Fifth Column almost anywhere they live.
Sounds a lot like Martin Peretz, as cited here. Peretz is part-owner and editor-in-chief of TNR. I wouldn’t look to it for any semblance of balance when it comes to Muslims (or Israel).
Hey Rahul, thanks for the clarification… and I think your comments on media coverage are spot on. Wanted to say that in my dissertation above but couldn’t fit it in. It’s embarrassing how the US government vomits headlines like “terror grips London” while the UK papers are concentrating on how people are getting people back to normal…
It seems current events are proving that there is more truth to that “Fifth Column” label…I suppose they will say they were all just learning how to weave rugs at a holiday camp.
Lodi Terror Suspects Say Six Others Attended Camp
Lodi Terror Suspects Say Six Others Attended Camp
POSTED: 11:30 am PDT July 8, 2005
SACRAMENTO — A father and son being held in a terror probe focused on the agricultural town of Lodi told the FBI that six other men from the area attended a terrorist training camp in Pakistan, according to classified documents obtained by a newspaper.
Hamid Hayat, 22, and his father, Umer, 47, both U.S. citizens, are charged with lying to federal investigators about the younger man’s time at an al-Qaida-linked camp in 2003 and 2004. Their arrests are part of an investigation in Lodi that also led to immigration charges against two Muslim religious leaders and a son of one of the leaders.
The father and son first denied any connection to the camp before cooperating with authorities, according to court records. The FBI says Umer Hayat admitted paying for his son’s flight to Pakistan and for the camp, which was run by the friend of Umer Hayat’s father-in-law.
The pair also told investigators that six others attended the camp, according to federal court documents obtained by The Sacramento Bee. There they were trained to target financial institutions and government buildings in the United States, according to the documents.
The newspaper’s report contained no details about who the six people might be or their possible connections to Lodi, an agricultural town about 35 miles south of Sacramento.
Most court documents related to the case remain under seal and away from public view.
Spokeswomen for the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s office declined comment, as did Hamid Hayat’s attorney, Wazhma Mojaddidi. Attorneys for Umer Hayat and the two religious leaders did not immediately return telephone messages left Friday.
The Hayats have pleaded not guilty.
anna, you’ve gone on one of your ‘holier than thou’ trips again……. people notice this bombing only becoz “they’ve struck in our own backyard” …..meaaning, its not some worthless ‘they’re so hard up we can use them to do our dirty work for us for pittance’ Iraqi lives that were lost, but (gasp!) white people. Its not only you, but everybody , including me. I certainly don’t recall an SM post put up just for any Iraq bombing – and hell, they’re just statistics, who’d want them on our feel-so-good ‘liberal desis who’re not afraid to laugh at ourselves’ blog, right? Frankly, I woudnt want it too, and neither would you. So let’s not pretend otherwise. We have been conditioned to think of arab lives as less valuable than white ones, and no amount of “IÂ’m horrified that Iraqis are suffering” is going to change that. And lets not blind ourselves to the fact that the war in Iraq does contribute to stuff like this. Pointing that out does not make anyone pro-terrorist.
no. no, i did not. filed under “musings”, THAT’S exactly what this post was and all it was meant to be, i promise.
oh and if by “holy” you mean my father was an altar boy who knew syriac and i was in church to witness him shaming the priest b/c of it, suuuure. i’m holy. you don’t know me, so i’m fairly sure you don’t know how holy i am…or am not. [hint: go with the NOT…which pretty much prevents me from being holier than anyone, ‘specially thou].
i appreciate the opportunity to say this to everyone: simply put, we are a desi-centric blog. THAT is why there weren’t posts for any Iraqi bombings. it’s a blog, NOT a paper of record. kindly try and remember that, y’all.
we know people go elsewhere to get the majority of their WOT news. we provide the brown angle that MSM doesn’t, that’s IT.
additionally, it’s interesting that you consider us “liberals”. as an erstwhile republican and current independent who is proud of the fact that SM spans the continuum from abhi to vinod, i know that’s a mischaracterization.
look, i think the war in Iraq is dangerously stupid, precisely b/c of your last point– it “justifies” tragedies like london. i also think most of the people who were slaughtered in london probably felt/feared the same way. THAT’S why i’m extra sad for them, not b/c they MIGHT have been white.
aiyyo and ende devum-ay, EVERYONE and EVERYTHING does not suck. sheesh!
I guess my comments aren’t going to sound very PC. But I can’t help wonder…
Quite a large number of innocent civilians die or are maimed/severely injured in Iraq. Even in India every other day you hear of bomb blasts in J&K (with many people dying or getting injured). But there is hardly a peep in the world media.
50 people die in a predominantly white country and suddenly there is a worldwide outpouring of grief. So life elsewhere is expendable?
As someone mentioned Bush’s comment about taking the war to Iraq so that it is not fought on American territory. So he argues that he is taking the fight elsewhere because human life at home is dear but the same is not true elsewhere?!
Obviously not. Looking at it in terms of race isn’t really appropriate. It’s more accurate to look at it considering our own individual situations. Most of us were raised and live in western nations, so an attack on another western nation in a situation (riding the bus or subway) that we are all familiar with is more likely to impact us and elicit a stronger reaction.
The UK might be predominantly white but i’m pretty sure there were more than a few brown, yellow and black bodies in the rubble… it’s a multi-ethnic society, just like most of Canada and the US. Maybe we react more strongly because London is more like New York or Toronto than Baghdad or Kabul are?
Can a Muslim who makes the claim that the London bombings are justified please explain to me what the difference is between your beliefs and those of the RSS who killed Muslims after the Godhra train fire?
Or why you wouldnt like it if Christians started bombing mosques in the West because of the millions of Christians who have been killed by Muslims in Sudan and East Timor?
If we are going to make this culpability thing shine, lets apply the logic all around, if you cant bing yourselves to face the truth that you have some extremely nasty ideology and people in your house.
Its time to wake up, Muslims!
There have been articles and statements in newspapers by Muslims in Britain with less than condemnatory intent over the bombings. There have also been interviews in which leading members of Muslim community have peppered their condemnation with the usual anti-semitic idiocy. There is a big big problem with this stupid ideology of hatred within Islam at the moment and its time for Muslims to wake up and stop blaming other people for their failures and look inside to sort out the mess of hate that infects some of the Muslims in the world and living in the West.
I’m sorry if that offended some of you, but I dont care, its about time it was said without any ifs and buts, without the disgusting Jew hatred spectre that is invoked all the time, the salivating hatred of America that is a constant across Muslim opinion, the self pity and superiority complex of some Muslims mixed with a tendency to violent rhetoric and hatred.
This needs to be said.
The latest figures are that the death toll will rise to around 75
Looks like other native born Islamic fanatics are scoping out targets in the US …
Muslim converts might be targeting local U.S. military facilities