The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum

=> Re: Mr. Blair, let’s put Islam aside

Re: Mr. Blair, let’s put Islam aside
Posted by Jeff (Guest) jeff@attoz.com - Friday, July 15 2005, 23:23:46 (CEST)
from 69.14.30.71 - d14-69-71-30.try.wideopenwest.com Commercial - Windows XP - Mozilla
Website:
Website title:

Sorry guys, but I just had to copy and paste the text of this article here... it's very interesting.




Mr. Blair, let’s put Islam aside
by Abid Ullah Jan
(Thursday July 14 2005)

"Mr. Blair, you may argue that the “terrorists” inspired by “misinterpretation of Islam” are killing innocent civilians. The first point to ask is, can you come up with any of the literature attributed to “Muslim terrorists” which refers to the Qur’an or Sunnah for deliberately killing innocent civilians. If you don’t have any such reference, it means no portion of the Qur’an has been mis-interpreted."

Mr. Blair, you are trying to make us believe that the London bombing was “an extreme and evil ideology whose roots lie in a perverted and poisonous misinterpretation of the religion of Islam.” Let us put Islam aside for a moment and don’t let it become a blinder, obstructing our view to see the whole truth.

Let us ask if it was Islam whose misinterpreted ideology starved 1.8 million Iraqis to death. Let us calculate and see that Iraqis have been subjected to more than 42.6 September 11s and 2461.5 July 7s since you invaded the country in 2003. Has this extremism been the result of some “perverted misinterpretation of Islam” or Christianity? If your answer is no, we better stop dragging Islam in this affair because what can motivate you to kill millions abroad can motivate others to kill a few dozens at home.

Imagine it the other way round. Let us agree with you that Muslims have killed 52 Britons and they are responsible for 9/11 and Bali and Madrid bombings. Now think of a coalition of countries that starves 1.8 million Britons to death and then starts bombing to slaughter 128,000 of them in little over two years time.

Will you prefer to become British Iyad Allawi or Hamid Karzai and assist in consolidation of occupation or you would prefer to resist the occupation? If you chose to resist occupation of UK, will it be because you are a terrorist and insurgent, inspired by misinterpretation of your religion, or because you are just a simple straight forward British individual who just doesn’t like to live under oppression and occupation?

No matter how you and your fellow warlords may react to a foreign occupation of your country, it is less likely that your reaction would be inspired by misinterpretation of Islam or Christianity.

If you don’t believe, think of your forefathers who were killed, defeated and thrown out of many places, including the United States. They were kicked out by your co-religionists: Christians. The Americans didn’t accept you despite your ruling them for 2000 years. They were not inspired by Islam to stand up to the oppression of your forefathers. They just didn’t want your ancestors to unjustly rule them as colonial masters. The same is happening to you today in Iraq and Afghanistan where the blood on your hands is still fresh.

Even if we agree that London bombing was the handy work of Muslims, Islam has little to do with it. Muslims are living in every corner of the world. Even if a fraction of 1.2 billion Muslims become victims of the “perverted misinterpretation of Islam,” we will see a 9/11 every week in the Western world. Instead, it is the other way round. Iraqis alone have suffered to the magnitude of 42.6 9/11s since 9/11 at the hands of Christian armies.

Mr. Blair, you have to realize what others have realized long ago that the movements for liberation suggest the power of hope, of peoples' readiness to resist injustice and seek self-determination against seemingly impossible odds, invariably at extraordinary cost irrespective of the religious motivation. Religious motivation may play the role of fuel on the fire, but fire has to be there first, before any religion or its “misinterpretation” comes into play.

You would be only fooling yourself with selling us occupation as liberation. National liberation movements in all occupied lands are "peoples" movements seeking freedom, independence, and/or autonomy from what are perceived as oppressive and "alien" regimes. Oppressors and occupiers, with concentration camps for people resisting oppression, can never be liberators. What you are doing in collaboration with your buddy Bush is not something new. This process of world conquest by United Kingdome and other imperial states was very much part of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries as a result of the rise of capitalism in Europe and later North America.[1]

In the Nineteenth and first half of the Twentieth centuries Euro-American imperialism reached it's peak, and there were dozens of "national liberation wars" - mostly indigenous peoples trying to defend their freedom and traditional ways of life. Note that all this happened without any inspiration from the “perverted misinterpretation” of Islam.

Resistance is always born out of popular discontent, and emerge not only to combat oppressive conditions but simultaneously to express aspirations for a different and more just society.

Mr. Blair, you cannot hide behind your lies about the “poisonous misinterpretation of Islam.” Muslim or non-Muslims, every nation people will defend its identity and territory from breakup and eradication. Facing absorption and subjugation, many nations has had no other choice than to militarily resist the colonizing/conquering state.

This is a defensive reaction. To defend their nations from being annihilated, many peoples have taken up arms and engaged in wars of national liberation. However, to understand armed national liberation movements, it is necessary we strip away the camouflage terms and twisted explanations you give about Islam to hide the true nature of your deeds.

The very thing the oppressed are fighting for - the survival of their nation - is the focus of distortion and misrepresentation by terrorists like yourself and most journalists and academics. Don’t believe me. Read Nietschmann from 1987.[2] Or consult Robert Asprey’s work from 1975, where he states wars of national liberation are not acts of aggression or conquest, they are a defensive response to the aggression of the state.[3]

In his monumental two volume history of armed resistance against occupation, Robert Asprey highlights the paradox of conquering states accusing resistance movements of being "terrorists." He makes the important point that to define and condemn armed struggle by conquered and oppressed peoples as terrorism "is to display a self-righteous attitude that, totally unrealistic, is doomed to be disappointed by harsh facts."[4]

Mr. Blair, you may argue that the “terrorists” inspired by “misinterpretation of Islam” are killing innocent civilians. The first point to ask is, can you come up with any of the literature attributed to “Muslim terrorists” which refers to the Qur’an or Sunnah for deliberately killing innocent civilians. If you don’t have any such reference, it means no portion of the Qur’an has been mis-interpreted.

To see the reason for the civilians getting killed you will have to look into the mirror. How many are innocent civilians out of the 128,000 butchered in Iraq so far and more than 25,000 dead in Afghanistan? You may not know because your forces do not put a tab on it and you consider it “collateral damage.”

To answer your argument, let us go far back in history to the pre-Islam and pre-Christianity period. Remember Celtiberian slaves, who used to work in New Carthage silver mines. They regarded Roman legionnaires as weapons of terror designed to keep them in the mines. From time to time, these and other slaves secretly rose to attack the Romans, who, upon seeing a sentry assassinated or a detachment ambushed and annihilated, no doubt spoke feelingly about the use of “terrorist” tactics.

The question is: who had introduced this particular terror to this particular environment? The Romans. Had they options? Certainly: they could have kept their hands off the Iberian Peninsula, or they could have governed it justly and wisely. Instead, they came as conquerors ruled by greed, and, in turn, they ruled by oppression maintained by terror. What options did the natives hold either to rid them of the Roman presence or to convert it to a more salutary form? Only one: force. What kind of force? That which was limited to what their minds could evoke. Lacking arms, standing armies, training, and organization, they had to rely on wits, on surprise raids, ambushes, and massacres. Was this terror or counter-terror? Was this the result of misinterpreted Islam or the poisonous interpretation of freedom, democracy and liberation?

Mr. Blair, the same Roman paradox remained very much alive in the imperialist philosophy of your grand parents who invaded and occupied other people. By devious mental exercises conducted in the spiritual gymnasium of Christianity, your forefathers used colonizing powers and defended the double standard: force used by themselves to conquer and oppress became benevolence; counterforce used by natives became terror. Are not you following the same logic, only introducing misinterpretation of Islam as a new ploy to pit everyone against Muslims and Islam?

As you may have seen, Mr. Blair, from the above discussion that we can discuss the problem and reach a solution without maligning Islam or blaming its interpretation, it would be wise for you not to hide your crimes against humanity behind what doesn’t exist at all: “the perverted and poisonous misinterpretation of the religion of Islam.”

Notes:

[1]. For the last 400 years, most imperialism has been capitalist, but some socialist countries have also practiced it. Today, capitalist imperialism is struggling to survive.

[2]. NIETSCHMANN, B. 1987. The third world war. Cultural Survival Quarterly 11(3):1-16.

[3]. Please read "The Shadow" of Robert Asprey, edited by Double Day New York in 1975.

[4]. Robert Asprey , "The Shadow," edited by Double Day New York in 1975. pp. 279.


Source:

by courtesy & © 2005 Abid Ullah Jan



Jesus wrote:
>Link:



---------------------


The full topic:



Content-length: 10972
Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Accept: text/xml,application/xml,application/xhtml+xml,text/html;q=0.9,text/plain;q=0.8,image/png,*/*;q=0.5
Accept-charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7
Accept-encoding: gzip,deflate
Accept-language: en-us,en;q=0.5
Connection: keep-alive
Cookie: *hidded*
Host: www.insideassyria.com
Keep-alive: 300
Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf3/rkvsf_core.php?Mr_Blair_let_s_put_Islam_aside-Uflm.1XYa.QUOTE
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 Firefox/1.0.4



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9