Untitled Document

They want to destroy our freedoms

Abu Khalid

Iraqi's killed in Fallujah by Americans. Americans used napalm to bomb Fallujah, a banned weapon. 60% of the casualties in Fallujah were women, children, elderly and unarmed civilians (Source)

Introduction

7th July, 2005. 3 bombs rip apart carriages in the London Underground. Another bomb onboard a London bus destroys it. 49 people are confirmed dead. The bombing parallels the Madrid train bombings and to a lesser extent, September the 11th. They bring back horrible memories of the death and destruction meted out to innocent people simply getting on with their lives. The killings are indeed to be condemned and find no sanction in Islam whatsoever. Tony Blair and George W. Bush make the familiar statements that these groups, allegedly acting in the name of Islam, simply want to destroy the freedoms enjoyed in the Western countries. Day after day, these statements are repeated throughout the media, without any critical enquiry as to the veracity of these statements. We are told Al-Qaeda and similar organisations espousing Muslim causes want nothing more than to simply kill and maim people in an attempt to destroy the freedoms enjoyed by the West. We are told these groups have no other cause. We are told that they simply detest the freedoms of the West and are motivated by a mixture of religious fanaticism, anti-democracy and anti-freedom beliefs and anti-semitism. But do these statement hold any credibility?

"We hate freedom, that's why we attack you, we hate you and your freedoms"

Does the above sound like anything a human being would say? Of course not, but if we are to believe what these politicians and media pundits say in Western countries, we are obliged to believe in the above nonsensical statement. But how does it compare with reality? Allow me to compare the statements of these politicians and groups like Al-Qaeda and see whether the statements of Tony Blair and George Bush really reflect reality.

"It is important... that those engaged in terrorism realise that our determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than their determination to cause death and destruction to innocent people in a desire impose extremism on the world. Whatever they do it is our determination that they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear in this country and in other civilised nations throughout the world." - Tony Blair speaking about the London Bombing [1]

Tony Blair makes the point that these groups are determined to cause "death and destruction to innocent people in a desire impose extremism". He further elaborates:

"I think we all know what they are trying to do, they are trying to use the slaughter of innocent people to cow us, to frighten us out of doing the things we want to do, of trying to stop us going about our business as normal as we are entitled to do and they should not and must not succeed. When they try to intimidate us, we will not be intimidated, when they seek to change our country, our way of life by these methods, we will not be changed. When they try to divide our people or weaken our resolve, we will not be divided and our resolve will hold firm. We will show by our spirit and dignity and by a quiet and true strength that there is in the British people, that our values will long outlast theirs. The purpose of terrorism is just that, it is to terrorise people and we will not be terrorised." - Blair on Bomb Blasts [2]

He firmly blames these London attacks and attacks similar to them committed by Al-Qaeda and groups like them on a supposed desire on the part of these groups to impose death and destruction and are acting in the name of Islam, albeit a perverse form of Islam.

In an earlier speech made in 2003 at the US Congress, he gave a detailed explanation of his theories as to the genesis of this form of violence:

"And the threat comes because in another part of our globe there is shadow and darkness, where not all the world is free, where many millions suffer under brutal dictatorship, where a third of our planet lives in a poverty beyond anything even the poorest in our societies can imagine, and where a fanatical strain of religious extremism has arisen, that is a mutation of the true and peaceful faith of Islam. And because in the combination of these afflictions a new and deadly virus has emerged. The virus is terrorism whose intent to inflict destruction is unconstrained by human feeling and whose capacity to inflict it is enlarged by technology." - Transcript of Blair's speech to Congress 2003 [3]

He draws attention to his theory that this form of terrorism, often unfair called "Islamic terrorism", has it's genesis in poverty and a perverted form of Islam.

How does his statements about Al-Qaeda and groups espousing causes similar to Al-Qaeda compare with the actual statements of Al-Qaeda regarding their causes and their intent?

The leader of Al-Qaeda says regarding the charge that Al-Qaeda are fighting because they detest freedom and democracy:

"Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom. If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example - Sweden? And we know that freedom-haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 - may Allah have mercy on them. No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours. No one except a dumb thief plays with the security of others and then makes himself believe he will be secure. Whereas thinking people, when disaster strikes, make it their priority to look for its causes, in order to prevent it happening again. But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11th, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus, the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred." - Full transcript of bin Ladin's speech [4]

If it was indeed the case that Al-Qaeda and other groups espousing Muslim causes only fought because they were opposed to the Western way of life, freedom and democracy, why did they not attack Sweden? Or The Netherlands? These are countries with far more liberal traditions that the USA or the UK, which, according to the convention Western theory, should make them prime targets for Al-Qaeda attacks. Yet they were not targeted, nor are they in the sights of groups like Al-Qaeda. We must ask why Bush, Blair and the Western media sources always repeat this discredited notion that Al-Qaeda are fighting against freedom and democracy and want to impose extremism on us. Bin Ladin reveals the answer:

"I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind. The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced. I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy. The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn't include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but it didn't respond. In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors. And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children. And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. Destruction is freedom and democracy, while resistance is terrorism and intolerance. This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children - also in Iraq - as Bush Jr did, in order to remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to assist in the pilfering of Iraq's oil and other outrages. So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs, should a man be blamed for defending his sanctuary? Is defending oneself and punishing the aggressor in kind, objectionable terrorism? If it is such, then it is unavoidable for us. This is the message which I sought to communicate to you in word and deed, repeatedly, for years before September 11th. And you can read this, if you wish, in my interview with Scott in Time Magazine in 1996, or with Peter Arnett on CNN in 1997, or my meeting with John Weiner in 1998." - Ibid

Bin Ladin refers to the atrocities the USA, in league with the UK has committed or supported on innocent Muslims. The murder of thousands of innocent Lebanese by the Israeli's supported by the USA, the 2 million dead innocent Iraqi's who were even denied the right to purify dirty drinking water due to US/UK sponsored sanctions [5], with it's support for dictators like Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan who boils people alive, with the US and UK hypocritically proclaiming that they are bastions of freedom and democracy, who want to give freedom to others, while at the same time denying freedom to millions of others because it's in the their interests to do so. The near complete destruction of Fallujah with half the buildings and homes destroyed. The deaths of 100,000 Iraqi's with the US/UK led war. The kidnapping and rape of Iraqi women. Millions of Palestinians who are denied their human rights because the racist state of Israel continues to discriminate in favour of Jews over Palestinian Arabs, even though Israel was created by ethnically cleansing nearly a million Arabs from their homes, all the while Israel continues to recieve money to the tune of $3 billion per annum from the US and while the US continues to unreasonably vetoe UN resolutions in favour of Israel even though these UN vetoes are meant to uphold the human rights of Palestinians which was being deprived from them by Israel:

"This became very clear when the next U.S. veto was cast a year later, on July 26, 1973. It had nothing to do with terrorism. The draft resolution affirmed the rights of the Palestinians and established provisions for Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories as embodied in previous General Assembly resolutions.6 Nonetheless, Washington killed this international effort to end Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands."..."The two other vetoes during Kissinger’s reign also were cast in 1976. One, on Jan. 26, killed a draft resolution calling for recognition of the right of self-determination for Palestinians. The other, on June 29, called for affirmation of the “inalienable rights” of the Palestinians.9 The Carter administration cast only one veto. But it had nothing to do with terrorism. It came on April 30, 1980, killing a draft that endorsed self-determination for the Palestinian people.10 The all-time abuser of the veto was the administration of Ronald Reagan, the most pro-Israel presidency in U.S. history, with the most pro-Israel secretary of state, George Shultz, since Kissinger. The Reagan team cynically invoked the veto 18 times to protect Israel. A record six of these vetoes were cast in 1982 alone. Nine of the Reagan vetoes resulted directly from Security Council attempts to condemn Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, and Israel’s refusal to surrender the territory in southern Lebanon which it still occupies today. The other nine vetoes shielded Israel from council criticism for such illicit acts as the Feb. 4, 1986, skyjacking of a Libyan plane." - U.S. Vetoes of U.N. Resolutions on Behalf of Israel [6]

It becomes apparent that groups like Al-Qaeda did not appear in a vacuum. Their motivation does not stem from a desire to destroy Western freedoms and democracy. Al-Qaeda has as it's call the legitimate right to demand security and safety for the millions of people who are being oppressed directly or indirectly by Western governments such as the US and UK. It is in such conditions that they give an ultimatum to the US and UK that so as long as these countries continue to oppress millions of Muslims, then Al-Qaeda will retaliate by inflicting the same atrocities in those Western countries; "No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours". The equation is clear, stop killing and helping in the killing and oppression of Muslims, and the US and UK will recieve safety in return. The goals which Al-Qaeda and other Muslim groups engaging in Jihad espouse and are legitimate, and are not restricted in their support from only extremist groups, indeed, to desire freedom for your people from oppression and genocide does not necessitate one being a religious fanatic. In fact, the desire for freedom which these groups espouse is an entirely secular notion. You don't have to be a Muslim fanatic to demand that Israel allow your people to return to the land from which your people were ethnically cleansed from. You don't have to be a religious fanatic to demand the promised UN-sponsored plebiscite in Kashmir, nor do you have to be a fanatic to fight against the US/UK led occupation of Iraq. In fact even a cursory examination of the conflicts in which Muslims are involved in would reveal Muslim people fighting for their human rights against an occupation force. It is this resistance which is unfairly characterised by Western politicians as terrorism and religious fanaticism, even though the goals which the Muslims espouse, freedom from tyranny and oppression, are entirely secular in nature. It must be noted though that while the goals of Al-Qaeda are legitimate, the manner in which they seek to achieve these goals are haram in Islam and condemnable. It is not permissable to kill innocent people.

It is enraging that Western societies ignore the millions of non-Westerners, mostly Muslim, who are killed on an industrial scale by their own governments, they reserve their lamentations only for their dead who were killed in response. This happens because their is an understanding between Western governments and their media to stay silent on most of these issues, thus leaving the people ignorant about the genesis of these conflicts. [7]

It is this refusal to acknowledge the deaths of innocent people around the world, and to characterise their struggle as being borne out of religious fanaticism and hate for the Western way of life, which is most harmful to the entire world. Politicians who are responsible for this suffering are shirking their responsibility for these issues and instead blaming the victims by accusing them of being religious fanatics. Furthermore, to portray this conflict as a black and white issue of good versus bad is extremely dangerous as it leads to a misunderstanding of why the other side fights, and a resultant perpetuation of the conditions which lead to the creation of groups like Al-Qaeda.

There is also a strange tendency in some quarters to blame a form of Islam wrongly known as "Wahhabism". To any impartial observer who has knowledge of Islam, their is no sect known as the "Wahhabi's". This is a derogatory term invented by their opponents in reference to the founder of this reform movement, which only seeks to reform Islam into the Islam which was practised by the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). It can be demonstrably shown that "Islamic terrorism" does not originate in the creed of the Salafi, because most cases wrongly referred to as "Islamic terrorism" has perpetrators who follow other Islamic creeds. September the 11th was an exception. [8]

It must be strongly emphasised that the primary goals which most Muslim groups espouse are entirely secular in nature, to defend their homelands from oppressors and occupiers. The fact that they use Islamic terminology is quite irrelevant since Muslims use Islamic terminology for most daily actions in their life. A secondary goal, arising from the consequences of occupation and genocide results in Muslim thinkers debating the need of an Islamic union which can defend Muslim nations from being singled out and destroyed, as we see with Iraq. This takes the form of an Islamic Khilafa (Caliphate) which works to protect the interests of Muslims. This parallels the reasons for the creation of NATO, the EU and the EU common defence force. After all, safety comes in numbers. So they theorise that in order to stop what is happening in places like Palestine, Iraq, Chechnya, Kashmir etc, it is necessary to aquire the status of a world power, which would leave the majority of the worlds Muslims free from persecution. This however should not be seen as a threat, and is a logical consequence of a need for common defence.

Acknowledging faults

"But this is no Cold War. We call it a war on terrorism ¯ but Muslims in contrast see a history-shaking movement of Islamic restoration. This is not simply a religious revival, however, but also a renewal of the Muslim World itself. And it has taken form through many variant movements, both moderate and militant, with many millions of adherents ¯ of which radical fighters are only a small part. Moreover, these movements for restoration also represent, in their variant visions, the reality of multiple identities within Islam. If there is one overarching goal they share, it is the overthrow of what Islamists call the “apostate” regimes: the tyrannies of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, and the Gulf states. They are the main target of the broader Islamist movement, as well as the actual fighter groups. The United States finds itself in the strategically awkward — and potentially dangerous — situation of being the longstanding prop and alliance partner of these authoritarian regimes. Without the U.S. these regimes could not survive. Thus the U.S. has strongly taken sides in a desperate struggle that is both broadly cast for all Muslims and country-specific. This is the larger strategic context, and it is acutely uncomfortable: U.S. policies and actions are increasingly seen by the overwhelming majority of Muslims as a threat to the survival of Islam itself"...."of information to “huddled masses yearning to be free.” Today we reflexively compare Muslim “masses” to those oppressed under Soviet rule. This is a strategic mistake. There is no yearning-to-be-liberated-by-the-U.S. groundswell among Muslim societies — except to be liberated perhaps from what they see as apostate tyrannies that the U.S. so determinedly promotes and defends"...."An acceptance of authoritarian regimes as long as they were anti-communist. This could be glossed over in our message of freedom and democracy because it was the main adversary only that truly mattered. Today, however, the perception of intimate U.S. support of tyrannies in the Muslim World is perhaps the critical vulnerability in American strategy. It strongly undercuts our message, while strongly promoting that of the enemy." - Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication [9]

The above is an acknowledgment from a US government funded task force which is attempting to explain the tasks ahead for US foreign policy. It is interesting that the US government has not acted upon advice given to it by it's own task force. So what forces within the US and UK governments stop them from using the common sense approach to dealing with these conflicts? This underlines the need for the US and UK governments to engage in retrospection and to honestly deal with these situations which they themselves have created.

"We know what took place. A group of people, with no regard for law, order or our way of life, came to our city and trashed it. With scant regard for human life or political consequences, employing violence as their sole instrument of persuasion, they slaughtered innocent people indiscriminately. They left us feeling unified in our pain and resolute in our convictions, effectively creating a community where one previously did not exist. With the killers probably still at large there is no civil liberty so vital that some would not surrender it in pursuit of them and no punishment too harsh that some might not sanction if we found them. The trouble is there is nothing in the last paragraph that could not just as easily be said from Falluja as it could from London. The two should not be equated - with over 1,000 people killed or injured, half its housing wrecked and almost every school and mosque damaged or flattened, what Falluja went through at the hands of the US military, with British support, was more deadly. But they can and should be compared. We do not have a monopoly on pain, suffering, rage or resilience. Our blood is no redder, our backbones are no stiffer, nor our tear ducts more productive than the people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those whose imagination could not stretch to empathise with the misery we have caused in the Gulf now have something closer to home to identify with. "Collateral damage" always has a human face: its relatives grieve; its communities have memory and demand action." - Blair's blowback [10]

Conclusion

Groups like Al-Qaeda and other Muslim groups fighting "Jihad" are not fighting because they want to impose a totalitarian state on others, they are not fighting because they are motivated by a perverted form of Islam. They are fighting because of oppression and destruction meted out to them by the US/UK and other governments. The goals which they espouse are based on notions of revenge and retaliation, thus refuting the absurd claim that they are acting in the name of Islam, implying that Islam has a degree of responsibility for their actions. While their goals are commendable, the manner in which Al-Qaeda seeks to rectify the problem is wrong and must be condemned. However, and most importantly, the goals which they espouse must not be tarnished because of Al-Qaeda. They are still legitimate goals.

Western politicians and the media must share a lot of the blame because both have been complicit in perpetuating the false notion that these groups only fight to main, kill and cause destruction. To any person who has undertaken even a cursory examination of these conflicts, they would know that the situation is not so black and white, good versus evil, us versus them. In most cases the Muslims are the ones who are the victims and this must be acknowledged and acted upon, otherwise we will see a perpetuation of this conflict. Tony Blair, George W. Bush, other politicians and the media collectively engage in red herring arguments stating that the problem lies in a perverted form of Islam being the motivation for these bombers, brazenly ignoring the causual link between the destruction of over 100,000 innocent Iraqi's due to the "Coalition of the Willing" invasion of Iraq and the attacks which took place in Madrid and London.

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4661627.stm

[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4659953.stm

[3] http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/07/17/blair.transcript/

[4] http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

[5] http://www.iacenter.org/ctglil.htm

[6] http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/p-neff-veto.html

[7] More information of media censorship:

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/coveragetrends.shtml

http://www.ccmep.org/ccmep/american031902.html

[8] http://www.thewahhabimyth.com/

[9] http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2004-09-Strategic_Communication.pdf

[10] http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/comment/story/0,16141,1525755,00.html