War & Terrorism

War & Terrorism (48)

“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" (Mahatma Ghandi)

Much has been said about the political dimension to this issue in terms of motive, and I will address that later, first I want to focus on the justification given behind the act, which may explain how these home-grown ‘terrorists’ arises in the first place, and help to bring forward a solution to the problem. Had this been debated ‘honestly’ post 7/7, this killing may well have been avoided.

Editor's comments I disagree with some of the points in the article, especially author’s understanding of the issue of targeting civilians in the context of modern warfare, which has an implication on the meaning of collateral damage. I also disagreed on the culpability of the citizens in a democracy. War is fought collectively is a fact, and this is regardless of the opposition or support expressed through the ballot box, because the citizens concur on its outcome, they obey the government’s decision as law; hence we as a nation were represented by the criminal Blair. This is the point about the collective guilt; it is sanctioned by the outcome of the system in place – not by votes or popular opinion.

However, in the context of the murder in Woolwich, the most pertinent point is the issue of “covenant of security”, since it was carried out by a British citizen – and here I fully concur with the author’s view that as citizens we are forbidden to carry out such actions. The counter argument from the Jihadi camp is that the covenant has been broken by the nation pursuing the war (Afghanistan and Iraq), but that is only applicable to the one who believes that to be the case here in the UK. Yet, we see them living here peacefully and making no effort to renounce their covenant and by implication their passport and citizenship! If one believes there is no covenant of security then he must inform the authorities that no peace exists between him and the state, and that he is in a state of war alone, since individuals cannot speak for the community. This would also minimize a backlash and help absolve the rest of the community here in the UK in the eye of majority non-Muslims. Anyway, enjoy the article, it is concise and a good read.

For the past four days I had been working on the following article, which I intended to post yesterday evening. However, I then heard about the vile and sadistic act of violence carried out by two men with knives and a meat cleaver in Woolwich. So I thought it best to review the blog post in light of the event, to see if I should develop it in any way. But barring a few edits here and there, I am posting the article more or less as it was originally written.

If a Muslim wrote this, it would be classified as evidence of radicalization, justifying terrorism etc. All the current analysis on the media is confined to condemning the act - and ignoring the causes behind it. And Glenn exposes that propaganda campaign with the example of how the term "terrorism" is defined and used:

"Put another way, the term at this point seems to have no function other than propagandistically and legally legitimizing the violence of western states against Muslims while delegitimizing any and all violence done in return to those states."

What definition of the term includes this horrific act of violence but excludes the acts of the US, the UK and its allies? Two men yesterday engaged in a horrific act of violence on the streets of London by using what appeared to be a meat cleaver to hack to death a British soldier. In the wake of claims that the assailants shouted "Allahu Akbar" during the killing, and a video showing one of the assailants citing Islam as well as a desire to avenge and stop continuous UK violence against Muslims, media outlets (including the Guardian) and British politicians instantly characterized the attack as "terrorism".

A short video on the horrific attack in Woolwich, and this young man raises some interesting points for us to consider in this short video.

Editor's Comment A succinct analysis giving reasons for the change of policy over Syria, the main reasons are – a) the US and west are reluctant to deploy troops, cost is an issue in times of economic crisis b) Russia has stepped up its effort to bolster the Syrian regime by sending in warships to the region c) The recent Israeli raids has heightened tension of escalating the conflict involving regional powers (Iran, Turkey and the Jihadist from the Islamic world)

The forthcoming Friends of Syria conference in Amman indicates a policy shift on the crisis from both the Arab world and the international community. The first meeting was held in Tunisia two years ago; at that gathering, and at subsequent meetings in Istanbul and Paris, around 100 countries from all over the world participated. Just eleven nations are expected to attend in Wednesday's meeting, being: Britain, Egypt, France, Germany, Italy, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and the United States. The opposition Syrian National Coalition (SNC) has not been invited to send delegates.

A video showing a Syrian rebel eating the heart of a fallen enemy has gone viral. But I wonder whether this barbarian is aware of his deed’s echoes in the history of his religion. Has he heard of Hind?

Hind Bint Utba was the wife of Abu Sufyan, a chief of the Quraysh, the Meccan tribe bitterly inimical to Islam’s Prophet. Her father and brother being slain in battle fighting the Muslims, Hind thirsted for revenge. Tradition has it that she paid an Abyssinian slave adept at the javelin, Wahshi, to kill Muhammad’s uncle, the valiant Hamza. Ibn Ishaq’s Life of Muhammad relates how the slave saw Hamza fighting like a lion at Uhud, cutting down men with his sword. Then Wahshi threw his lethal spear. It ‘pierced the lower part of his body and came out between his legs’. The indomitable warrior staggered on but tottered and fell down dead. Victory went to the Meccans.

Page 2 of 3