So to reiterate the brunt of my previous post, I think that the attacks that occurred in London a week ago are horrendous in nature. I also believe that the perpetrators of the attacks are among the most despicable entities walking the face of the earth. There is no reason for such tyranny at all. We indeed suspect that some group connected to al-Qaeda is responsible for the attacks (al-Qaeda is the United States’ central foe in its War on Terror).
As I stated, I do think these terrorists should be fought, but I do not believe that the methods the USA has taken are the best way to do it. First and foremost, education about the religion that the terrorists claim to be a part of would be a great idea in my opinion. Also, honesty about our successes and failures thus far in the War on Terror (as well as honesty about Iraq) are necessary in the coming days from the Bush Administration.
And I’ve got a dozen other thoughts on this topic, but here’s a thought:
All my peace-lovin’, non-violent, “these people don’t represent Islam” Muslims, where you at??? If Bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization don’t represent the religion, then why aren’t there loud, powerful voices from Islamic Nations and Institutions pushing the virtues of Islam by opposing al-Qaeda on every front? And it might be argued that it is not incumbent upon the average Muslim or Muslim Leader to say anything, but consider this, in instances where a group is wrongly abusing another, it often takes members from the “abusing group” to stand up against one another to end the wrongful behavior.
That last sentence may have been a little confusing, so let me break it down for you with this example. Despite the valiant efforts of Mamie Till, Rosa Parks, MLK, Medgars Evers, Thurgood Marshall (and many others), it took prominent, powerful (as well as everyday, common) white people (mainly white men) to stand up against the KKK, white supremacists, and racist Jim Crow Laws in order to abolish slavery, desegregate society, and grant Black people the Civil Rights they deserve.
There would be no Civil Rights equality if there was no Abe Lincoln, JFK, or LBJ, no matter how many marches on Washington went down. If it had not been for the average white citizens who went to the polls with Black people and registered Blacks to vote, the Black voice may never have been heard. White people had to tell other white people that slavery, lynchings, and racism are wrong before progress was made. And there are countless other examples I could point to on many different fronts including education, corporate America, as well as foreign conflicts (consider the major Wars of last century).
So where are the Cleric’s, the Imam’s, the Ayotollah’s? Where are the protests for peace, where is the NY Times Islamic op/ed column statement of condemnation, where's the resolve to undermine Bin Laden at all costs? Where is the Fatwa?
One significant criticism I have of Islamic States is that they rarely take on such causes. For example, when Slobodon Milosevic was committing genocide against Muslims in the former Yugoslavia 10 years ago, very little aid (monetary, military or other) came from Islamic Nations to stop the crisis. In the Sudan right this minute, there are Arab Muslims committing genocide against Black Muslims in Darfur, yet nearby Arab countries have been virtually silent on the issue. And finally, when the December 26 Tsunami hit Indonesia (home to the largest Muslim community in the World), only a pittance of aid was pledged by Islamic nations until well after multitudes of non-Islamic nations pledged gratuitous amounts of physical and monetary aid (it’s worth noting that many Islamic nations are among the richest in the World simply because of the oil fields that they sit on, including Saudi Arabia and the UAE).
On the flipside of the coin, let a non-Islamic, Democratic Nation like the USA breath the word “Democracy” in the direction of an “Arab land,” and nations that most people have never heard of start uprisings and stage major protests (not that I agree with the way the USA goes about doing things, but to keep things in perspective and to be equally objective).
I think that if this al-Qaeda group is going to be stopped, then they need to be held accountable by Muslims worldwide (and certainly held accountable by Islamic States and religious leaders). And one sure-fire way to improve the image of the religion on a major scale in ignorant Democratic nations like the USA is to have Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Pakistan, for example, truly condemn such actions in more than just mere words (though at this point, any word condemning al-Qaeda would be a good start).
I do feel that there are some instances in life where silence is akin to agreement. I personally know that many Muslims are in total disagreement with al-Qaeda’s tactics if not their ideologies. Unfortunately, many people are not as aware as I am. Through ignorance, when Muslims don’t immediately and boisterously come out and condemn al-Qaeda’s handywork, it lends itself to making people think that “all Muslims are terrorists,” or at least that "they" all agree with al-Qaeda's tactics. And if you don’t believe me, just listen to talk radio (like Bill O’Reilly’s radio show for example), and listen to the comments that citizens phone-in.
Point being, it’s high time for major condemnation of Bin Laden from Islamic States.
Now I do not believe that Bin Laden will stop his tyranny simply because Muslims Worldwide don’t back him. However, the louder the voice from the Islamic world is against him, the less likely it is that Bin Laden will be able to indoctrinate and recruit young radicals. And after a while, if the voice against him remains firm, he will become a nuisance and a sideshow, having lost all of his pull. And that is what I hope for, and that is why I believe that it is absolutely incumbent upon peace-loving Muslims that they stand boldly in his face and denounce his treachery.
Just my opinion
-Maelstrom
Here’s a link to an article that CNN posted the other day that I found interesting:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/08/london.muslims/index.html
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Monday, July 11, 2005
London and Terror (Part 1)
I was going to post something else today, but I cannot ignore the bombings that occurred in London late last week. So I will join my millions of cohorts in the blogosphere in discussing the event and its significance as I see it.
My mind set is normally one that expresses frustration at the Bush Administration for inconsistencies that have, in my opinion, fostered the growth of terrorism; especially the unwarranted “Shock and Awe” we administered on Iraq. Some might deem such comments as anti-American or voice concern that I’m giving the terrorists a “pass” of sorts. So let me set the record straight.
The people that committed this horrendous atrocity in London are crazy, sick in the head, demented, diabolical, wicked and downright evil. We pretty much all assume that al-Qaeda is behind this (and I’d bet my lunch money that they are), and we are well aware of the destruction they have caused around the world-especially in the last 8 years. I totally disagree with their tactics and do think its worth fighting them where ever they are found.
I understand that the War on Terror is an ongoing saga and that we must always be prepared for more potential attacks, however, look at the impact these guys have by just succeeding once a year. It has been said that the terrorists only have to be successful once in order to make a major impact. That assertion seems to be holding true. No major attacks in over a year, then this, and now look at the reverberations. We’ve raised the Terror level, shifted all news focus to London, and all of us have become a little wearier with the concept of Terror.
Can we continue on like this? Can we keep making blanket P.R. statements asserting that we will be strong and vigilant and move on in courage because we don’t want the terrorists to have their victory? Is the notion that we are going to fight the terrorists “there” (where ever there is) so that we don’t have to fight them here still valid considering that one of the “here’s” was certainly Great Britain?
I mean honestly, if they haven’t won the war, in many ways they win all the minor battles. As soon as the London bombings occurred the USA raised the terror alert on trains and buses from Yellow to Orange. Throughout the nation’s major cities right now (Philly, NY, Chi-town, etc.) the police presence has noticeably increased, especially at places of mass transit.
And why?
Because the terrorists succeeded once. We saw the same phenomenon after 9/11. Since those attacks, airport security has been greatly increased.
And when they make that 1 successful attack, they cost “us” so much; lives, money, sanity. Unfortunately, that’s they’re goal. Think back to 10 Ramadan (late October). Osama Bin Laden released a tape outlining what he intends to do. Destroying the finances of Western nations is at the top of his list. One of the most striking statements he made was that for every dollar that his organization spends on attacking “Western sights,” the USA spends something like 1,000,000 dollars on fighting it. So, it is no surprise that the bombs in London were dispersed throughout its financial district.
I won’t pretend that I know how to handle the threat of terrorism. However, I do think that we are approaching it all wrong. The first error is the concept of “Fighting Terror.” I recall sitting in South Quad’s cafeteria (at my alma mater) for lunch in October of 2001 rhetorically asking a friend, “how do you fight terror?” The point I made was that you can’t fight terror because it is an intangible object. You can no more fight terror than you can see the wind. Terror will always exist, and when it hits, it will make a monster of an impact.
I also think that it’s time for honesty from the Bush Administration about Iraq, about the War on Terror, and it’s time out for the foolish P.R. statements that carry less water than the desert. Iraq was no imminent threat, nor was it a hotbed for terror. The USA has successfully turned Iraq into a hotbed for terror, and has not made good on many of its promises to Iraq monetarily speaking. Little of the Iraq funding that Congress has allocated is evident in Iraq’s rebuilding process. For example, there have been several weeks that much of Baghdad has gone without running water. Ok, rewind and read that last sentence again and think about the magnitude of it for about 7.3 seconds.
Yes, Baghdad, the Capitol of Iraq, the American stronghold, the home to over 5 million people. That city, that place, frequently goes without clean running water for weeks at a time. Kind of makes you wonder what we’re really doing with that $300 Billion that has been allocated to the War and rebuilding process.
I also think that education about Islam would be great. For starters, I think people fail to realize that Islam is a religion, not a people. And like all religions that I’m aware of, there is a wide range of thoughts in it and perspectives on it that are evidenced in its followers. After all the prejudices that we’ve seen in this country you’d think that you wouldn’t have to remind people of such obvious realities. Unfortunately, as I realized in a conversation with some acquaintances of mine, people just don’t get it. I was appalled to hear my acquaintances’ perceptions of Muslims. It was as if Muslims weren’t human beings at all; devoid of urges, passions, desires, free thought, independent aspirations. How silly!
I’ll stop there for today, but tune in for the second part that I’ll post later on this week (maybe tomorrow). I’ve already written it, and I recognize that it may be a little controversial, but I think it is a valid perspective.
Ponder this in the meantime: When a group, like Muslims, have been either misrepresented or misunderstood because of the actions of a few in their "group" in the past, what major occurrences surrounding that group turned the tide in understanding. There are several answers, but I'll focus on one major answer in the 2nd part.
-Maelstrom
My mind set is normally one that expresses frustration at the Bush Administration for inconsistencies that have, in my opinion, fostered the growth of terrorism; especially the unwarranted “Shock and Awe” we administered on Iraq. Some might deem such comments as anti-American or voice concern that I’m giving the terrorists a “pass” of sorts. So let me set the record straight.
The people that committed this horrendous atrocity in London are crazy, sick in the head, demented, diabolical, wicked and downright evil. We pretty much all assume that al-Qaeda is behind this (and I’d bet my lunch money that they are), and we are well aware of the destruction they have caused around the world-especially in the last 8 years. I totally disagree with their tactics and do think its worth fighting them where ever they are found.
I understand that the War on Terror is an ongoing saga and that we must always be prepared for more potential attacks, however, look at the impact these guys have by just succeeding once a year. It has been said that the terrorists only have to be successful once in order to make a major impact. That assertion seems to be holding true. No major attacks in over a year, then this, and now look at the reverberations. We’ve raised the Terror level, shifted all news focus to London, and all of us have become a little wearier with the concept of Terror.
Can we continue on like this? Can we keep making blanket P.R. statements asserting that we will be strong and vigilant and move on in courage because we don’t want the terrorists to have their victory? Is the notion that we are going to fight the terrorists “there” (where ever there is) so that we don’t have to fight them here still valid considering that one of the “here’s” was certainly Great Britain?
I mean honestly, if they haven’t won the war, in many ways they win all the minor battles. As soon as the London bombings occurred the USA raised the terror alert on trains and buses from Yellow to Orange. Throughout the nation’s major cities right now (Philly, NY, Chi-town, etc.) the police presence has noticeably increased, especially at places of mass transit.
And why?
Because the terrorists succeeded once. We saw the same phenomenon after 9/11. Since those attacks, airport security has been greatly increased.
And when they make that 1 successful attack, they cost “us” so much; lives, money, sanity. Unfortunately, that’s they’re goal. Think back to 10 Ramadan (late October). Osama Bin Laden released a tape outlining what he intends to do. Destroying the finances of Western nations is at the top of his list. One of the most striking statements he made was that for every dollar that his organization spends on attacking “Western sights,” the USA spends something like 1,000,000 dollars on fighting it. So, it is no surprise that the bombs in London were dispersed throughout its financial district.
I won’t pretend that I know how to handle the threat of terrorism. However, I do think that we are approaching it all wrong. The first error is the concept of “Fighting Terror.” I recall sitting in South Quad’s cafeteria (at my alma mater) for lunch in October of 2001 rhetorically asking a friend, “how do you fight terror?” The point I made was that you can’t fight terror because it is an intangible object. You can no more fight terror than you can see the wind. Terror will always exist, and when it hits, it will make a monster of an impact.
I also think that it’s time for honesty from the Bush Administration about Iraq, about the War on Terror, and it’s time out for the foolish P.R. statements that carry less water than the desert. Iraq was no imminent threat, nor was it a hotbed for terror. The USA has successfully turned Iraq into a hotbed for terror, and has not made good on many of its promises to Iraq monetarily speaking. Little of the Iraq funding that Congress has allocated is evident in Iraq’s rebuilding process. For example, there have been several weeks that much of Baghdad has gone without running water. Ok, rewind and read that last sentence again and think about the magnitude of it for about 7.3 seconds.
Yes, Baghdad, the Capitol of Iraq, the American stronghold, the home to over 5 million people. That city, that place, frequently goes without clean running water for weeks at a time. Kind of makes you wonder what we’re really doing with that $300 Billion that has been allocated to the War and rebuilding process.
I also think that education about Islam would be great. For starters, I think people fail to realize that Islam is a religion, not a people. And like all religions that I’m aware of, there is a wide range of thoughts in it and perspectives on it that are evidenced in its followers. After all the prejudices that we’ve seen in this country you’d think that you wouldn’t have to remind people of such obvious realities. Unfortunately, as I realized in a conversation with some acquaintances of mine, people just don’t get it. I was appalled to hear my acquaintances’ perceptions of Muslims. It was as if Muslims weren’t human beings at all; devoid of urges, passions, desires, free thought, independent aspirations. How silly!
I’ll stop there for today, but tune in for the second part that I’ll post later on this week (maybe tomorrow). I’ve already written it, and I recognize that it may be a little controversial, but I think it is a valid perspective.
Ponder this in the meantime: When a group, like Muslims, have been either misrepresented or misunderstood because of the actions of a few in their "group" in the past, what major occurrences surrounding that group turned the tide in understanding. There are several answers, but I'll focus on one major answer in the 2nd part.
-Maelstrom
Saturday, July 02, 2005
Exit Strategy
Two weeks ago, a bipartisan group of Congressmen (4 in total) proposed that President Bush offer up a time frame for the US military to exit Iraq. Their proposal doesn’t seek a specific day and time like “December 13th, 2007 at 12 noon,” but rather follows a schedule based on certain progressions or steps. The proposal has been met with much opposition and criticism. The sound byte that we continuously hear from the Right is that setting a tentative date for US troops to exit Iraq would “send the terrorists the wrong message.” I happen to believe, however, that setting a tentative time schedule for our troops to come home is the logical thing to do.
Before I get too deep into this topic, let me set one thing straight. Many of these terrorists that we would be “sending the wrong message” to are only “terrorists” because we (the US troops) are there in their country. These people are more accurately known as insurgents, and even more specifically identified as Iraqi Nationals. These are people that are just pissed off because when they wake up in the morning, they see US tanks strolling down their streets, patrolling their neighborhoods. What the Bush Administration has successfully done is thrown these people in the same pot with the real terrorists that are only there to wreak havoc on whomever they will. It is important that this distinction is made because these people will not continue fighting once the US leaves. Therefore, by setting a schedule for US troops to exit Iraq, we would be sending the “right” message to this brand of insurgent.
Now let’s take a brief history lesson. The USA didn’t set a tentative schedule for moving out of Vietnam during the Vietnam War until the late 60’s. During that period when an exit date was given and troops began to pullout of Vietnam (1968-1972), the resistance by the Vietcong (what we’d call insurgents today) began to recede. So if it worked then, why wouldn’t it work now? And I know that may seem like a silly question to ask, but seriously, “staying the course” in Iraq doesn’t seem to be perturbing the insurgents anymore today than it did 2 years ago.
Our history lesson need not be so far-reaching in years. Let’s take this current War in Iraq for example. Two specific dates have been set for major changes in Iraq to occur, and both went off without a hitch. The 1st happened just over a year ago, when the USA turned over control of Iraq to the Iraqi people. The 2nd instance happened 6 months ago, when the USA set a specific date for free Iraqi Elections.
In both instances, the specific date was set months in advance. Virtually everyone feared that a major bloodbath was going to occur at the hands of the insurgents and terrorists-especially during the elections. No mighty battles occurred despite the fact that the terrorists had the chance to wait in the wings and prepare themselves to cause destruction because a specific date was indeed set. So if a time table (and a specific date) worked before during this current War, why wouldn’t it work again with respect to pulling out our troops?
Finally, I’d just like to ask this simple question: What mission has the military EVER performed where they had no idea of when they wanted to have it completed? For that matter, what conscious person just tries something new without an idea of when they might want to end it? For example, you don’t start a career job and never give thought to what age you want to retire by. One doesn’t just enter College and not have an idea of when they want to graduate. Why not? Well, there are many reasons, and probably the biggest reason has to do with money. It costs too much money to just sleepwalk your way through college. Likewise, it is costing the US hundreds of Billions of dollars to fight this “no-end-in-sight” War in Iraq.
And, if not naming a move-out of Iraq date sends the wrong message to the terrorists, what kind of message is it sending to the Iraqi citizens? Isn’t that sending the message that we’ll stay in your country and leave when we feel like it? Isn’t staying in Iraq indefinitely diametrically opposite of the originally stated mission as outlined by Bush in his 2003 State of the Union address? Weren’t we supposed to be in Iraq for 2 years and then done?
See, here’s the problem: The longer we’re there, the more it’s going to cost us financially and casualty-wise. We have the highest budget and trade deficits in our history, and the value of a dollar is diving. Daily our troops are being targeted by insurgents and the death toll keeps rising. So, I will go farther than the Congressmen that think there should be an outline to follow that will give us a time schedule of when to leave Iraq. I think we should set a specific date to leave Iraq by. This will force the USA to push harder to train the Iraqi security forces while limiting the number of tours our servicemen have to make. Ultimately, it will prove to the Iraqi people and the rest of the world that our reasons for being there in Iraq are truly magnanimous, and once our mission is done, we will return sovereignty to them.
I also think we should set a specific exit date because in my opinion, any terrorists that are going to wait in the wings for the USA to leave are going to wait no matter if we leave tomorrow or if we leave in seven and a half years. Plus (here’s the other completely stupid implication that the Bush administration makes when they say we shouldn’t set a date to leave Iraq), whenever the US does decide to leave Iraq, the terrorists and insurgents (and the whole dang planet) will know it. It’s not like we can just one day “poof” and disappear from Iraq without the terrorists knowing it. So at some point we’ll have to announce that we’re leaving anyways. And even if we could, don’t you think the insurgents will know it when we do? I mean, how stupid an implication to make.
So you ask yourself this question: Can we really afford to blindly wander our way to an exit from Iraq? Considering the Billions of dollars we are spending (upwards of $300 Billion), and the thousands of US lives we have lost (not to mention the tens and tens of thousands of Iraqi citizen casualties), can we move on aimlessly like this?
Is it worth it?
-Maelstrom
Before I get too deep into this topic, let me set one thing straight. Many of these terrorists that we would be “sending the wrong message” to are only “terrorists” because we (the US troops) are there in their country. These people are more accurately known as insurgents, and even more specifically identified as Iraqi Nationals. These are people that are just pissed off because when they wake up in the morning, they see US tanks strolling down their streets, patrolling their neighborhoods. What the Bush Administration has successfully done is thrown these people in the same pot with the real terrorists that are only there to wreak havoc on whomever they will. It is important that this distinction is made because these people will not continue fighting once the US leaves. Therefore, by setting a schedule for US troops to exit Iraq, we would be sending the “right” message to this brand of insurgent.
Now let’s take a brief history lesson. The USA didn’t set a tentative schedule for moving out of Vietnam during the Vietnam War until the late 60’s. During that period when an exit date was given and troops began to pullout of Vietnam (1968-1972), the resistance by the Vietcong (what we’d call insurgents today) began to recede. So if it worked then, why wouldn’t it work now? And I know that may seem like a silly question to ask, but seriously, “staying the course” in Iraq doesn’t seem to be perturbing the insurgents anymore today than it did 2 years ago.
Our history lesson need not be so far-reaching in years. Let’s take this current War in Iraq for example. Two specific dates have been set for major changes in Iraq to occur, and both went off without a hitch. The 1st happened just over a year ago, when the USA turned over control of Iraq to the Iraqi people. The 2nd instance happened 6 months ago, when the USA set a specific date for free Iraqi Elections.
In both instances, the specific date was set months in advance. Virtually everyone feared that a major bloodbath was going to occur at the hands of the insurgents and terrorists-especially during the elections. No mighty battles occurred despite the fact that the terrorists had the chance to wait in the wings and prepare themselves to cause destruction because a specific date was indeed set. So if a time table (and a specific date) worked before during this current War, why wouldn’t it work again with respect to pulling out our troops?
Finally, I’d just like to ask this simple question: What mission has the military EVER performed where they had no idea of when they wanted to have it completed? For that matter, what conscious person just tries something new without an idea of when they might want to end it? For example, you don’t start a career job and never give thought to what age you want to retire by. One doesn’t just enter College and not have an idea of when they want to graduate. Why not? Well, there are many reasons, and probably the biggest reason has to do with money. It costs too much money to just sleepwalk your way through college. Likewise, it is costing the US hundreds of Billions of dollars to fight this “no-end-in-sight” War in Iraq.
We can lay out a time schedule for something as insignificant as how long our
summer vacation is going to be, or how much time we plan to spend at the grocery
store. But you mean to tell me that we aren't going to have a tentative
time table concerning something as major as a War?
And, if not naming a move-out of Iraq date sends the wrong message to the terrorists, what kind of message is it sending to the Iraqi citizens? Isn’t that sending the message that we’ll stay in your country and leave when we feel like it? Isn’t staying in Iraq indefinitely diametrically opposite of the originally stated mission as outlined by Bush in his 2003 State of the Union address? Weren’t we supposed to be in Iraq for 2 years and then done?
See, here’s the problem: The longer we’re there, the more it’s going to cost us financially and casualty-wise. We have the highest budget and trade deficits in our history, and the value of a dollar is diving. Daily our troops are being targeted by insurgents and the death toll keeps rising. So, I will go farther than the Congressmen that think there should be an outline to follow that will give us a time schedule of when to leave Iraq. I think we should set a specific date to leave Iraq by. This will force the USA to push harder to train the Iraqi security forces while limiting the number of tours our servicemen have to make. Ultimately, it will prove to the Iraqi people and the rest of the world that our reasons for being there in Iraq are truly magnanimous, and once our mission is done, we will return sovereignty to them.
I also think we should set a specific exit date because in my opinion, any terrorists that are going to wait in the wings for the USA to leave are going to wait no matter if we leave tomorrow or if we leave in seven and a half years. Plus (here’s the other completely stupid implication that the Bush administration makes when they say we shouldn’t set a date to leave Iraq), whenever the US does decide to leave Iraq, the terrorists and insurgents (and the whole dang planet) will know it. It’s not like we can just one day “poof” and disappear from Iraq without the terrorists knowing it. So at some point we’ll have to announce that we’re leaving anyways. And even if we could, don’t you think the insurgents will know it when we do? I mean, how stupid an implication to make.
So you ask yourself this question: Can we really afford to blindly wander our way to an exit from Iraq? Considering the Billions of dollars we are spending (upwards of $300 Billion), and the thousands of US lives we have lost (not to mention the tens and tens of thousands of Iraqi citizen casualties), can we move on aimlessly like this?
Is it worth it?
-Maelstrom
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)