I can imagine the Afghans in Kabul saying ‘Get a small taste of your drones’ , as they look at the images of the Boston bombings on television. In their minds, the marathon maybe the equivalent of the Afghan wedding celebrations that gets bombed, the perpetrators were targeting American terrorists hiding among civilians thus inflicted collateral damage. If you want to know how others feel, put yourself in their shoes is the proverb. It is amusing to see the frenzied Americans pouncing on anyone who remotely looks like an Arab or a Muslim as a suspect. A Saudi national was already identified by the media mob, who in reality turned to be one of the victims; the lessons of Oslo and Oklahoma have already become distant memories.
You hear the media scream “innocent civilians”! The crusader brigades led by the likes of Mr Erik Rush at Fox News have already pronounced the contradictory edict: “Muslims are evil, kill them all”. Isn’t the act of killing everyone, which would include women and children, the epitome of evil? If Mr Erik Rush was intelligent enough to prod, he would see that many fellow conservatives around Fox News privately view him with a level of disdain, due to his mixed racial heritage; but coolies are useful as colonial British found out in India. His tweeter feeds are full of expletives, a male version of Pam Geller, spewing out hate and zero content; this reflects the crass nature of the American conservatives wrapped up in ignorance.
As usual, the limits of selective empathy, the rush to blame Muslims, and the exploitation of fear all instantly emerge. There's not much to say about Monday's Boston Marathon attack because there is virtually no known evidence regarding who did it or why. There are, however, several points to be made about some of the widespread reactions to this incident. Much of that reaction is all-too-familiar and quite revealing in important ways:
1) The widespread compassion for yesterday's victims and the intense anger over the attacks was obviously authentic and thus good to witness. But it was really hard not to find oneself wishing that just a fraction of that compassion and anger be devoted to attacks that the US perpetrates rather than suffers. These are exactly the kinds of horrific, civilian-slaughtering attacks that the US has been bringing to countries in the Muslim world over and over and over again for the last decade, with very little attention paid. My Guardian colleague Gary Younge put this best on Twitter this morning:
I am up for all us being Bostonians today, but then we can all be Yamenis tomorrow and Pakistanis the day after, that's how empathy works
Sources close to Arab and Gulf decision-makers suggest that serious – maybe even critical – developments in Syria, are likely in June. While there are no specific details as yet, several indicators give credibility to the chatter.
First of all, British army scientists have found evidence of chemical weapons used during the two-year Syrian conflict. The Ministry of Defence says that soil samples taken near Damascus have proven the use of chemical weapons, although nobody has directly implicated either the regime or the opposition. Then, CNN has revealed that the US administration will revive plans to intervene militarily in Syria, in response to pressure from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress.
Editor’s Comment – Whilst I endorse many of the points raised by the author, but the overall analysis is ironically sectarian based; the very thing she argues against. The title should have read Zionification of Sunni Islam, however, I assume the author wanted to come across as impartial and appeal to the Sunnis and lacked courage to be that candid. All the examples cited are to show the Zionification has exclusively taken place within the Sunni world, as if the Shias are fault free. I presume, it is because they are guided by the invisible infallible Imam roaming round the stratosphere of the earth!
Take Iraq as an example which the author cites, was it not Sistani who gave the fatwa not to resist against the US forces? If the Sunni world was infiltrated by Zionists, why would the US have allowed a Shia dominated Iraq to come about? The basic facts show the analysis is a poor one. Then she criticises the latter period of the Ottoman State when Freemason did infiltrate but conveniently forgets that Sultan Abdul Hamid did not hand over Palestine to the Zionists. It was the Shias who caused problems for the Ottoman State for centuries. During the Abbasid era, Nasiruddin Tusi invited the Mongols, like the Fatimids in Egypt collaborate with the Crusaders. If one is really impartial, then one should acknowledge that there are faults on both sides (Shias and Sunnis), there are and were collaborators from both sides.
The abuse at Abu Ghraib where Muslim detainees were raped, sodomised, forced to lie on one another naked, forced to masturbate, urinated on by US prison guards standing around with Alsatian dogs taking pictures were all part of Americas policy of ‘exporting democracy and western values’ to Iraq.
The horrendous abuse that was carried out by soldiers following the orders of Zionist Neo-cons like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld did not discriminate when it came to detainees being Shia or Sunni, a fact that should be noted by those Wahabi Salafi groups who see Shias and Iran as a threat to world peace and are working with Israel, on its Oded Yinon plan to divide the Middle East on ethnic and sectarian lines.
Editor's comment -
I fully concur with the author that the movie is essentially a propaganda film to justify the torture used by the US government. One expects such material from rouge dictatorships; hence the analogy with the pro-Nazi film maker, Leni Riefenstahl, has some merit. The moral and legal aspects are discarded, using the false pretext that the information acquired from torture led to the capture of Bin Laden; the end justifying the means. This is what is often argued against those who commit acts of ‘terrorism’ in desperation, against the US and its allies like Israel.
However, what if the information did result in the capture of Bin Laden; would that make a difference to the argument of employing torture? This critical point the author has not done enough justice to. If torture can be justified on those basis, then one if giving it a semi-legal status, and implicitly endorsing that the US captives can also be subjected to torture, and I am sure, then torture would become an issue! From the tone of the article, it seems the author actually opposes the use of torture as a fundamental principle, thus, she should have stressed the point that regardless of quality of the information acquired - the act itself has no justification.
On Monday, the BBC's flagship investigative programme, Panorama, aired a report about the lies and cynical deception that were employed to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq. As I watched I became more and more convinced that we, as Arabs, were and remain victims of a series of conspiracies against our countries and that, by allowing these to succeed, we are also to blame.