Got this from a comment over at Hell is Other People-
If the MCB et al are so concerned about - unwarranted, bigoted, unhelpful - attacks on muslims, they have a ludicrously simple way out: start a major campaign a la "make poverty history meets stop the war": have every mosque display a great big banner saying: "suicide bombing - not in my name." Perhaps someone could make nice white bracelets with that slogan. This would make their position very clear. Perhaps mosques could even fly a Union Jack?
How's that for a start?
I wonder how much support it would get? Or would the caveat "except those in Iraq & Israel" be added?
BTW, the commenter's blog is here.
5 comments:
Ooooh, where to start?
A campaign like that would be a tacit admission of some level of responsibility for the suicide bombings and probably won't achieve anything other than give additional ammunition to critics. The 'Not in my name' anti Iraq War campaign failed conspicuously and as for the anti poverty campaign well, er, we'll have to see about that one. But don't hold your breath.
And yes, such a campaign would have to include caveats. There is a difference between suicide bombings in occupied countries and terror bombing in unoccupied countries. Suicide bombing is a tactic that has been adopted by several cultures, not just Islamic ones, when faced with overwhelming military force. Do Kamikaze bombers ring any bells?
Your suggestion displays a fundamental refusal to accept the nature of suicide bombing. The vast majority are undertaken by people faced by hard targets in war zones. Those headline 'suicide' attacks that have taken place in the west - I guess you'd have 911 and 77 in mind, are conspicuous by the fact that we really don't know why they were undertaken. Of course you'd disagree with that but if you could link me to unequivocal evidence demonstrating that the attacks were undertaken for religious reasons please do.
Oh yes, and why pick out suicide bombing anyway - do the bombs hurt any less if the bomber doesn't die in the blast?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4694441.stm
Does that mean you're going to cut these guys some slack now or do what you accused them of doing and qualify your approval with exceptions and conditions?
1. The anti-poverty campaign could be called a success- a doubling in aid to African countries and the canellation of debt to something like 11 out of the 17 poorest nations, I believe.
2."there is a difference between suicide bombings in occupied countries and terror bombing in unoccupied countries" - there is? Exactly what is the difference between a suicide bomber blowing up people on a bus in London, and a suicide bomber blowing up people in a bus in Israel? Where's the difference? Because the victims are Jewish- does that make it okay?
What we're talking about here is the deliberate targeting of random civilians- men, women and children. Does it make a difference if those women and children are Iraqi or Iraeli or British? Or is it all murder? The people targeted by these attacks are invariably civilians. Murdering civilians in a deliberate campaign of terror is, plainly, wrong.
According to your reasoning the recent suicide bomb in Iraq which killed 24 children was acceptable.
3. Yes, the kamikaze pilots deliberately flew to their deaths. I don't deny the fact. In recent history however, can you identify other cultures which routinely carry out suicide attacks? Or who contribute so much to global terrorist actions?
4. "The vast majority are undertaken by people faced by hard targets in war zones." Really? Are you sure? How about this sampling of suicide attacks in Israel just pulled off Google-
a. Suicide bomber attacks Israeli shopping centre
b. Palestinian woman blew herself up inside a seaside restaurant, killing 19 people.
c. Suicide Bomber Targets Open-Air Market in Israel
d. Suicide Bomber Targets West Bank Shopping Mall
e. Palestinian 'targeted hospital'
f. 17 Killed as Palestinian Suicide Bomber Targets Israeli Bus
g. suicide bomber blew himself up Tuesday outside a falafel store in Jerusalem
Hard targets? Are you really sure you know what you're talking about? This is a variety of shopping centres, markets, cafes, buses, restaurants and a hospital. Sure, that's a random sampling but I think it's important to note that I didn't see a single mention of an attack on an Israeli military site. Not that they didn't happen- I just dispute your assertion that they are the dominant form of attack. Got any stats to back that up?
5. I guess for the motivation of 9/11 we only have Bin Laden's word to go on- he said it was retaliation against America, his chief grievance being the stationing of infidel American troops in Saudi Arabia. Of course earlier than 9/11 Bin Laden also issued a fatwa urging JIHAD against Americans. I guess those aren't religious terms? I guess that there was no religious element to his motivations and that was why he quoted the Koran?
Al Qaeda's words are religious and Bin Laden and Zarqawi both use the words of Islam to define and defend their actions, including the killing of other Muslims (Zarqawi says that's okay so long as infidels are also killed, btw). That's why the focus is on Islam here- we don't yet know of a global Christian or Buddhist terror campaign against free nations, but if it ever does begin (using religious justification), we'll also speak out against that and demand that the respective religious authorites denounce it.
The reason I posted my original article is because this attack was carried out by Islamic terrorists- whether you believe they were deliberately suicide bombers matters not- and they are guided in this terrorism by the teachings of that religion. Hence the need for religious leaders to speak out about it.
6. The reason we're discussing suicide bombing is because the 7/7 attacks are the first of their sort. We're also opposed to random bomb attacks but this was the topic at hand.
In response to your 9:12pm post I think I've already said on this blog that I welcome any effort by Muslim leaders to denounce terrorism and, yes, I do welcome this edict.
This is by a group of 500 religious scholars and so is obviously not the same group that the NY Times story referrred to.
"Islam's position is clear and unequivocal: murder of one soul is the murder of the whole of humanity; he who shows no respect for human life is an enemy of humanity."
And yeah, my question still stands- is that their opinion on all Islamic terror attacks, or just the one on London? I think that's a fair enough question because otherwise what they're saying is that terrorist attacks are okay, just not in their backyard. And they can't have it both ways for the reasons I've just given above. Either killing civilians indiscriminately is wrong or it's not.
If they believe some terror attacks are okay, when will the point be reached that they are okay here too?
I thought we had got past the point of equating understanding why someone would do a thing with supporting the things that people do.
Look if it's that important to you why dont you pop down the local Mosque and ask them about the difference.
Post a Comment