The real war rages on

0
51

Some Muslims were labeled as “Islamists” for their views that the “war on terror” is, in fact, a war on Islam. The rejectionists consoled themselves with Bush’s retracting his reference to “crusade” in a speech.

It is now encouraging to see that truth, at least, is overcoming lies and deceit. Politicians from both parties in the US, staunch supporters of Bush administration, and a majority of political analysts are now feeling confident to come out and truthfully define the war in exactly those terms.

It is an utter humiliation for those who now find it impossible to live in denial and hide the reality behind rhetoric. Now not only facts are speaking for themselves but also they are clueless in an environment in which the actual war lords admit to their real intentions.

The Intentions

Let us look at the intentions: Buried in the heart of The 9/11 Commission Report is a shocking conclusion. In the chapter entitled, “What to Do?,” the Commission concludes the enemy is not just terrorism, what it terms “some generic evil,” but specifically Islamist terrorism [report’s emphasis].

With the stroke of a pen, the authors of the 9/11 report appear to have not redefined the War on Terrorism, converting it into a War on Islamist terrorism alone ­ it was so from day one. What they have actually done is slapped all those in the face who have refused to come out of their denial.

Three days before the 9/11 Commission released its report, the Committee on Present Danger (CPD), a group founded in the early days of the Cold War, announced its reactivation.

In describing “The Nature of the Global Threat,” CPD explains on its website (www.fightingterror.org) that it has been reactivated “because of the threat posed to America–and democracy everywhere–by Islamist terror organizations.” Their posted Mission Statement reads in part: “Our mission is to educate the American people about the threat posed by a global Islamist terror movement; to counsel against appeasement and accommodation with terrorists.”

In a Washington Post op-ed published on July 20, 2004, the same day as the CPD press conference, Senators Kyl and Lieberman argued “the world war against Islamic terrorism is the test of our time.”

To support these intentions, it is not the only the Americans such as Daniel Pipes and David Brooks of the New York Times, who wrote: “We are facing, the [9/11 Commission]report notes, a loose confederation of people who believe in a perverted stream of Islam that stretches from Ibn Taimaya to Sayyid Qutb. Terrorism is just the means they use to win converts to their cause.” [1]

There are their British counterparts. The leading British paper, Sunday Telegraph, published an article by Will Cummins, which also warned of Islam’s "black heart", which he said should be the focus of our fear, rather than its "black face". He also claimed that "all Muslims, like all dogs, share certain characteristics" – among which is the desire to eradicate, one way or another, all those who do not share their faith.

Substitute any other religion and ethnic or religious minority for "Muslims" and "Islam" to get a sense of not only the consequences but also the reality that the total silence shows who is the target and why is this approving silence. Instead, others like Anthony Browne kept on breaking new Islamophobic grounds. Anthony Brown’s cover line was: "The Muslims are Coming."

In Italy the country’s biggest-selling newspaper, Corriere della Sera, published a book by a veteran journalist which warns of an Arab invasion of Europe. In the book Oriana Fallaci makes sweeping criticisms of authorities for failing to stop Europe becoming "Eurabia" and "a colony of Islam." [2] The newspaper hails Fallaci as "a woman who has the courage to write the truth.”

Nicholas Kristoff wrote in NY Times (August 04): “Muslim fundamentalists regard the Koran – every word of it – as God’s own language, and they have violently attacked freethinking scholars as heretics. So Muslim intellectuals have been intimidated, and Islam has often been transmitted by narrow-minded extremists.” Please note the bottom line: Those who believe Qur’an as the word of Allah are “fundamentalist” and all transmission of Islam so far has taken place at the hands of “extremists.”

The Reality

Now look at the facts: Enumerating Islamophobic comments, instances and intentions will never end in the space of an article or a book. So let move to the facts.

According to the U.S. Department of State’s annual repot, Patterns of Global Terrorism 2003 (www.state.gov), released in April 2004, there are 76 organizations listed as either “Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations” or “Other Terrorist Groups.” Of the total, only 36, less than half, are Islamic in orientation and membership. The remaining 40 groups, 53% of the total, have nothing to do with Islam at all. Examples of the latter are the Cambodian Freedom Fighters, Irish Republican Army, and Peru’s Sendero Luminoso.

Of the remaining 36 organizations, 29 of them–or 80%–are country-specific, which have nothing to do with the US. If a group is struggling to establish Islamic State in Algeria, what has it to do with terrorist attacks on the US? At least six of the organizations in this category are merely focused on the liberation of Kashmir, and another three are working from independence of Chechnya. Five of the organizations are trying to coerce the Israeli government into ending it occupation, ethnic cleansing, state terrorism and apartheid policies.

In short, while most of the 29 country-specific groups look for justification of their struggle in the principles of Islam, their goal is to persuade tyrannical establishments of the concerned governments to make significant political and territorial concessions to the oppressed populations. None of them have declared a war on the US. And in Ronald Bruce words in his latest article in Foreign Policy in Focus, “while many of these groups sympathize with al-Qaida, area specialists agree that almost none of them appear to have command-and-control ties with the Osama bin Laden organization.”

The most important thing to note is that as a result of changing the slogan from a "war on terrorism" to a "war on ideology," the list of "Islamic terrorist" organisations will grow from a few today to hundreds in a short period of time because on this basis every Muslim organisation -” whether that is ISNA or ICNA; IANA or IONA; IIIT or III&E, CAIR, TINA, CIC  -” becomes a potential terrorist threat. Names are irrelevant. Just name any on the long list of Muslim organizations and there you will find a flavour of Islamic ideology behind it, making it eligible to appear on future U.S. Department of State’s annual reports on Patterns of Global Terrorism.

Actually, the basic principle for banning these organizations has already been officially set in place by the 9/11 Commission’s report. No one could think of such a development on September 12, 2001. Very few may now believe that that the days of Muslim organizations, in whatever name and in whatever form they may be, are numbered as well.

It is time for these organizations to come out of their obsession of shinning their own little shops and chalk out a comprehensive strategy for facing the onslaught of unimaginable magnitude. They have to speak with one voice, promoting a single agenda. If they could not stand together, they will definitely doom together because in the new scheme of things, Muslims need organizations only to promote secularism. Anything other than that is for promotion of "Islamic ideology," which is illegitimate from now onwards.

The question is:

Why has the war on terrorism boiled down to the war on Islamic ideology? Just as terrorism was not fully defined, Islamic ideology is also left vague until the next phase of the war when everything related to Islam will be declared as evil and banned.

Chapter 12, the proposed strategy of the 9/11 Commission’s report, the commissioners confuse the wrong root cause with the real root cause of the problem that, "The enemy is not just ‘terrorism,’ . . . . It is the threat posed by Islamist terrorism. . . . [Extremist Islam] is further fed by grievances stressed by Bin Ladin — against the U.S. military presence in the Middle East, policies perceived as anti-Arab and anti-Muslim, and support of Israel. Bin Ladin and Islamist terrorists mean exactly what they say: to them America is the font of all evil, the ‘head of the snake,’ and it must be converted or destroyed."

Osama is not the root cause. He is absolutely irrelevant -” just a name. The situation would have come to this anyway and anyone could have been in his place. The real root causes are not just “perceived” as “US military presence,” “support of Israel” and its “policies.” These are the real root causes. This is what Muslims really feel. This is what Muslims have been experiencing. They are bearing the consequences of these causes for more than half a century -” irrespective of Osama’s listing and repeating these to everyone ear or not. And this is what non-Muslims, formerly working with the CIA have come to realize that 9/11 Report is “blinkered on causes of terrorism.” [3]

As long as this simple truth is not accepted, many among Muslims and non-Muslim will live in denial that this is a war on Islam. They may not accept it until they witnessed the unparallel holocaust of Muslims on global level. By then, it will definitely be too late to realize the reality of the raging war.

We, as human beings, are left with just two options:

a). Accept that this is a war on Islam because humanity does not care about the message from its creator to do what is required of it. In this case the US and its allies will have to end all their occupations and let Muslims live by Islam without any outside interference. or

b). Get ready for the holocaust of Muslims and global chaos towards the ultimate tragedy of human history.

Notes:

[1]. David Brooks, “Defining the enemy: The real enemy is not terror, it’s an ideology,” NY Times, July 24 http://iht.com/articles/531183.htm

[2]. Sophie Arie, “Anti-Islamic books’ success fuel fears of racism in Italy,” The Guardian, August 7, 2004.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/
0,,1278177,00.html

[3]. BILL and KATHLEEN CHRISTISON, “The 9/11 Report and Its Weak-Kneed Consensus, Dodging the Issue of Palestine-Israel; Blinkered on Causes of Terrorism,” Counterpunch, July 27, 2004.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.