The GUARDIAN wakes up -- Muslims have to tackle extremism

Lasting solutions will involve us all

Leader
Sunday July 17, 2005


A few bloody hours yesterday were sufficient to remind us of the global reach of terror. Outside Baghdad, a suicide bomber triggered the explosion of a petrol tanker killing dozens. In the Iraqi city of Al Amarah, three British soldiers were killed in a roadside bombing. In Turkey, five holidaymakers (including one British woman) whose only crime was to take a minibus to a nearby beach were killed in a suicide bombing. Back in London, victims of the recent bombings of the capital's transport network continued their fight for life.

These events, with differences of place, method and Islamic sect, are connected: the bomb has become the language of rage against all aspects of the Western world. The suicidal fury of young men is not a new phenomenon. We have seen it in Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen and Morocco. But we have refused to acknowledge that this violent and repugnant cult of death was certain to happen inside Britain. Now that it has, we find it almost impossible to comprehend why apparently integrated young Britons feel so much hate. The London bombings have marked a terrible shift in the onward march of Islamic extremism.

We have good reason to be pleased that so far the response of our leaders, our police, and the religious communities has been measured and intelligent. But we cannot go on congratulating ourselves for our forbearance, or Blitz spirit or reason in the face of madness. If we want to keep hold of a free and democratic society, then we must defend our values a little more actively.

Most of us, reading the testimonies of the bereaved and the maimed, would consider giving up some liberties and privacies to guarantee that the events of 7 July are not repeated. Some may have a change of heart on identity cards, for example, or accept the case for ever-increasing surveillance. But such measures are probably futile against determined suicide bombers. They only hand victory to the enemies of an open society. Long-term success will be harder, requiring well-targeted security measures such as those announced by the government last week. It is reasonable and appropriate to outlaw 'acts preparatory to terrorism' or travelling to jihadi training camps. By themselves, though, they are blunt weapons with which to challenge a form of fascist extremism which takes pride in its reckless extremism violent nihilism.

There are, though, ways forward. Firstly, the UK government, chairing both the G8 and the European Union, is well placed to seek unity among the advanced economies on how to isolate extremism both within its borders and beyond.

Britain also has one of the largest Muslim populations in Europe. This is not a problem, as we have been inclined to see it, but an asset. As the moving tribute of the parents of Shahara Islam, who died on the No 30 bus, reveals, most Muslims are stunned that a deluded minority of its youth has been so corrupted by extremists that they are ready to die for an essentially fascistic cause.

Real and lasting solutions have to come from Muslim communities themselves and need to be practical and immediate. Those who lament the brainwashing of their children must launch the fight for stricter controls of imams trained in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Muslim leaders in Britain have themselves complained that imams who speak no English cannot understand the pressures faced by young Muslims living in the West. If they are fearful of the bigotry and hatred coming from such preachers, they must make their feelings known. Should imams be registered with the Home Office, perhaps? Should the state fund an Islamic college to provide a new generation of British imams? These are debates that must be had among Muslims.

Nor should Muslims fear greater scrutiny of Islamic charities and of their foreign donations. Other religious, political and charitable institutions are subject to such controls. It is not rational for a multicultural, multi-faith society to allow anyone to incite others to murder and the fact that the incitement emanates from religious belief does not make it somehow acceptable. Where it is known that such incitement has become routine, closing down mosques must be an option.

There are risks. Such measures risk creating more young radicals. But it is young Muslims, in particular, who have most to gain from working to root out religious extremism. Their future, and ours, is bleak if they do not take up the challenge.

Do the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury denounce Northern Ireland?

Does the Orthodox church denounce Serbian ethnic cleansing?

So why are Muslims 'collectively' at fault here?

don't kill in the name of their religions -- those are purely national conflicts.

The muslim terrorists who hit the UK last week, explicitly do kill in the name of their religion.

That's why.

That's western spin.

Makes it easier to run a crusade, and talk about a 'clash of civilizations' when it's nothing like that.

This is purely national too.

Get out of their countries.

this attack took place in the UK, not Iraq.

There is no 'Crusade' though there is a WW extremist muslim offensive against Buddhists (Thailand), Hindus (India, Kashmir), Jews (everywhere), Christians (Chechnya, etc) and Atheists and secular humanisst (the Netherlands, the UK, France).

You need to get out of the States sometime and see the rest of the world.

Go home. MYOB.

Leave Iraq alone.

Stop your 'crusade'

And I'm not in the US hon.

you justify terrorism?

You really shouldn't be posting such crap. Gives all the wingnuts ammo. And it's reprehensible.

and just as justified as bombs dropped on unsuspecting innocents from 30,000 ft.

Or did you forget that bit?

Maple didn't say or even imply such a thing. Suggesting otherwise is a popular defense used by those who are unable or unwilling to debate this subject in a reasoned manner.

What is going on in the world isn't due to one factor. The problem is a combination of American interference in the Middle East, Israel's policies toward the Palestinians, and the inherent problems within Islam.

Of those problems, Islam's deficiencies are the most important. Muslim complaints about colonialism don't wash anymore. There was colonialism in the Far East and today those countries are thriving and even surpassing the West in some regards. Why is this? Because the culture in places like China, Japan, Korea, etc. have a long term time preference, emphasize hard work, education, and economic growth.

The Islamic culture simply doesn't do those things. The weakness of Muslim countries is due to the religion. Islam's failure has put them in the position of weakness in which they have been dominated by outsiders.

What do you mean by "Get out of their countries"?

Kashmir, Pakistan and Afghanistan were Hindu and Buddhist before being occupied by Muslims. Kashmir's Hindus have fled since the ethnic cleansing started in 1990s by the terrorists coming in from Pakistan.

Should the Hindus of india start becoming "Human Bombs" and kill muslims in Middle East (there is a sizeable number of Hindus who live in UAE)?

Terrorism by muslim fanatics started long before Iraq war. They will not stop if US/UK withdraw from Iraq now.

Your points are illogical. If I use your logic ("Get out of their countries")then the west can say the millions of Moslems living in the west should get out of the western countries.

of 200,000 people which resulted in 100,000 civilians being wiped out.

Get things into perspective.

Because CNN tells you?

because the leaders of the UK's main muslim organisations said so in condemning the attack. Beacuse it was reported as such in the BBC and every other news ourlet.

Honestly, do you think they were Methodists or Buddhists?

Have we invaded a Methodist country lately?

original statements by OBL about the root causes for 9/11 instead of buying into the simplistic, skewed media reports. Is the incitement for 9/11 or London in the Holy Scriptures? Hardly. It goes back all of 80 years, to the western conquest of the Arabian peninsula.
OBL after 9/11:

"What the United States tastes today is a very small thing compared to what we have tasted for tens of years.

Our nation has been tasting this humiliation and contempt for more than 80 years.

Its sons are being killed, its blood is being shed, its holy places are being attacked, and it is not being ruled according to what God has decreed.

Despite this, nobody cares."

<>

"But if the sword falls on the United States after 80 years, hypocrisy raises its head lamenting the deaths of these killers who tampered with the blood, honour, and holy places of the Muslims.

When these defended their oppressed sons, brothers, and sisters in Palestine and in many Islamic countries, the world at large shouted. The infidels shouted, followed by the hypocrites.

One million Iraqi children have thus far died in Iraq although they did not do anything wrong <due to sanctions>."

<>

"As for the United States, I tell it and its people these few words: I swear by Almighty God who raised the heavens without pillars that neither the United States nor he who lives in the United States will enjoy security before we can see it as a reality in Palestine and before all the infidel armies leave the land of Mohammed, may God's peace and blessing be upon him."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1585636.stm

becasue they know they can't let silence be taken as consent. eg IRA must disband says Primate



and they protested agains the inavasion of Iraq, for that matter:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2764997.stm

This is definitely a Muslim problem. Oh wait...weren't the Kamikazes in WWII Shinto?

Nevermind. But they're right that defending Iraq against a foreign invasion is just the ultimate in fascism.

Well I for one am glad to give up a little freedom, and I'm sure the imams won't mind being registered at the home office. After all, it's kinda their fault, isn't it?

Take up the challenge, Muslims! Root out evil in your midst! It's ALL UP TO YOU!! :puke:

'fighting the occupation in Iraq'?

Don't you see any distinction between civilians and military targets (what the kamikaze were hitting in wwii)? Or are you just being willfully obtuse.

Interestingly enough a number opf muslim politicians and clerics have been saying the same trhing as the Guardian editorial: that there has been way too much denial about extremist islam in the uk.

Of course, I wouldn't expect some American living safely away from bombings to know or even understand that.

Terrorism is a tactic. Part of guerrilla warfare.

Used when you're up against a bigger military.

If they had tanks and jet aircraft and nukes like the US and the UK they'd use them.

They don't though. So they use what they can.

Interestingly enough, any group under fire will say the same thing as the Overlords. Safer that way.

These guys aren't getting angry because they see some-one having a pint in the local pub. They see pictures of torture at Abu Ghraib and 100,000 people wiped out and 1000's more maimed in an illegal war. That's what makes them angry.

The solution is to get them to use political means to discuss their grievances.

And suggestions that the United States could translate to its own use, too, I believe.

I keep thinking that surely after THIS atrocity, after THAT bombing, after the latest slaughter of innocents by other brainwashed innocents, societies will wake up and take practical steps to curb the incitement where it is being freely practiced, at the very least.

Unfortunately, I have been disappointed so far. This article gives me some hope. We've learned from the Brits (and they from us) before; maybe if they accept the suggestions given here and demonstrate that they can work, it will be easier to convince Americans to do the same?

:patriot:

in Iraq.

Wake up. Smell the coffee. We're at war, and that's how they fight.

that Bush was right and that Iraq was somehow connected to terrorism. I don't believe it for a minute.

Are your really saying that the Londoners somehow 'had it coming'? What hateful rubbish.

Muslim fanatics blew up the Paris Metro in the 90s - there was no Iraq war. Muslim terrorism didn't start with Iraq. 9/11 happened before Iraq.

Odd that some people just can't bring themselves to condemn religious fascism and the tyerrorism it spawns.

blew up the Paris metro for no reason eh?

Just got bored one day and decided to bomb something?

France has never done anything 'anti-Muslim' of course. Cough

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Open a history book.

It's called 'war' babe...you declared it.

Blowback is a bitch ain't it?

has religious roots instead of political ones.

Read one of OBLs complete statements sometime. You'll find a hell of a more about Western imperialism and oppression than you will about Islam. Of course the Western press conveniently omits that part for television.
Wouldn't want to offend our delicate sensibilities.

Don't "straw man" me with suggesting I said the Londoners "had it coming". What I am saying is don't be surprised when these kinds of things happen with a murderous, self-serving foreign policy. Sometimes it comes back and bites you in the ass.

and intolerant as hell. Gotta keep westerners out of the "land of the two holy places" for example. Should we apply his demands on the west to Moslems? Tell me, should Italy keep all Moslems out of Italy because Rome/Vatican City is in Italy. Should we, the West, apply the same incredibly fucking intolerance on Moslems that the radical Moslems want to impose on the West?

Where does OBL say he wants every Westerner out of the holy lands? What you're arguing is that we should allow Moslems to OCCUPY Italy and steal Italy's natural resources. :eyes:

Are your really saying that the Londoners somehow 'had it coming'? What hateful rubbish.

Of course they didn't "have it coming." But neither did the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died at the bloody hands of Bush/Blair. but if you can't see the connection, it is you who are consumed by "hateful rubbish."

I agree with you

Title: Action & Reaction.

Let's say Joe the arsonist goes into another neighbourhood and burns down a bunch of houses.

In retaliation some-one from that neighbourhood burns down Joe's buddy's house.

Now Joe's buddy is gonna be angry at the guy who burnt down his house. But he might also wish that Joe had never gone into that neighbourhood and burnt down a bunch of houses in the first place.

Neither action is right but the retaliation is a predictable outcome of the first action.

Nobody bombs people on the spur of the moment, or for no reason.

Perhaps a search for root causes might be more productive?

when the nazis started slughtering jews and the kkk was killing blacks, catholics and anyone else who wasn't 'like them' do you think the appropriate response would have been to 'search for root causes'?

why such denial?

not Nazis and KKK or even Ghengis Khan

Do you normally apply the same solution to all problems??

I'm also trying to explain the concept of "action and reaction".

The British intelligence services understood the concept when they advised Blair that invading Iraq would significanlty increase the threat of terrorism. (Isn't it funny that when you pay attention to what the intelligence services say that you can predict things such no cakewalk, no WMD, blowback etc. I guess that's why they call them "intelligence").

It seems the London bombing and its relatively miniscule death toll plays well on the front pages in the US because all the victims are white. When I see them, I wonder where are the parallel stories about the tens of thousands of dead innocents we have created in Iraq?

Until I see such evenhanded handwringing pieces in the press, they will be nothing more than shameless cheerleaders.

The article basically proposes that muslims should welcome any prejudice against it.

"...we must defend our values a little more actively."

What values? Invading helpless countries and wantonly murdering and torturing its citizens?

"The London bombings have marked a terrible shift in the onward march of Islamic extremism."

Extremism? Again, is it extreme to take exception to the out-of-control criminal cabal of Bush-Blair on a murderous rampage?

"Some may have a change of heart on identity cards, for example, or accept the case for ever-increasing surveillance.

Here we have sheer propagandizing for the furtherance of a police state in the UK. In other words, Blair intende to exploit fear as a way of promoting fascism in the UK. He is learning well from his master Bush.

"Nor should Muslims fear greater scrutiny of Islamic charities and of their foreign donations."

Greater than other religions? Why? Because ... they're not white and christian?

It seems to me that the Guardian is turning into a propaganda organ.

is the most left-wing paper in the UK.

You post reeks of denial.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Never mind that anachronistic colonial war that the neocolonial plutocrats have instigated in the center of the Middle East. It's a sheer coincidence.

There's definitely a discussion to be had here about in whose eye the mote is and whose eye the fencepost.

get out of Iraq and Afghan and that will solve like 90% of the peoblems. As it is there is no moral ground for US and UK to stand on.
Spin talks lies not going to help. Reality is reality.
If the London bombers identity is true. It is very scary that such people can turn into bombers. The question is why? We all know the answer and as long as we dont address that we all are sitting on a big time bomb waiting for the next attack.

No one else can solve this. It is up to the people of US and UK, they are your leaders and you choose them.

"they are your leaders and you choose them."

No...we really DIDN'T "choose" them. Some computerized vote counting machines switched things at around 1:00 a.m. on November 3rd, and somehow, after losing BADLY, bush won the election....as did any number of "questionable" senate and house republicans' elections.

The election before that, 2002, the "strangest" things happened at key voting places, and on key elections, and somehow, republicans ended up with a majority in BOTH houses of congress.

And before that, in 2000, it took 5 justices on the Supreme Court to rule that counting the votes would somehow "harm" george bush, so they stopped the counting of votes. They further said that this case could not be used as a precedent for any future cases.

They're certainly not MY "leaders", nor those of a majority of people who THOUGHT they were voting in these elections. These are criminals who have destroyed democracy in the United States.

But you are correct on one point: it IS "our" fault...we have not taken to the streets with sticks and pistols to fight against this facist state, and throw the bastards out of their offices. Nor have we rebelled and taken back the airwaves that have been hijacked by self-serving members of the facist regime...those same airwaves (and printing presses) that have deluged the American people with lies and propaganda, 24/7, for the past 15 years.

Those are NOT "our" leaders. They are, however, our own home-grown jihad, and we need to face the extremists in OUR OWN midst.

Just like we will never root out Swaggart
or Bush or Van Impe or Cheney or Hatch
or Delay or Rove. Christian men, all of them.
Damned to hell, all of them.
Can we root them out... no fucking way.
The author of this unit needs to
look around and latch on to the real world.

First, the Muslims aren't collectively guilty of anything. Second, the vast majority of Muslims aren't in any position to root out extremism.

Third, those who decide to fight against the US and Britain have no alternative but to use the only most effective measures available to them. The one tactic that is "cost effective" for them is the suicide bombing. They would be immediately crushed in a conventional fight, so they do whatever it takes to inflict damage.

Fourth, we have a very selective definition of "terrorism" in the West. The slaughter of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians in an invasion based on lies is just an "unfortunate outcome" of war. There was NO DOUBT before the war started that thousands of innocents would die, so how is that not terrorism and murder? Killing innocent civilians is an inescapable part of modern warfare.

Finally, seeing the way their fellow Muslims are treated by the West (the US and Britain in particular) doesn't give them much incentive to do anything on our behalf, even if it were feasible.

I think that's the honest question you need to ask.

There are others who seem to have more of an agenda and a motivation to be engaging in such attacks and blaming them on Islamic terrorist.

It is probably a bit of both.

Remember the most important question. Cui bono? WHO BENEFITS (the most)? Who stands to gain financially?

US, France and Britain. The Moslems have freedom in these countries. Now if Americans, British or French want to live in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc., it is usually or only behind closed wall communities, women can't drive cars, etc. Is it a bit strange that the west allows Moslems to do what they want in the west but in their countries, the Moslems require all kinds of rules and closed communities for westerners. Does this tell you something? Why do so many Moslems want to live in the west if we treat them so badly?

There is no muslim homeland, no muslim pope, no archbishop. Trying to connect all muslims as some kind of borg mind is BS.

Is it your right to tell them what to do? No. Is it your right to use peaceful means to promote freedom and tolerance there? Absolutely.

There's a word for it: ethnocentrism. My way is not only the right way, it's the only way. :eyes:

I don't think we treat Muslims living in the West badly. We treat a lot of Muslims living in the Middle East abominably--that's the problem. That's what creates terrorists both there and here.

You are trying to inject a tangential point into the discussion.

Another waste of paper.

The Observer is the Sunday version of the Guardian,
& is a separate 'paper.

The editorial line of the Observer has pretty much been
consistently pro-war,so there is no instance of this
leader being a departure from previously stated editorials.

This is yesterday's leader from the Guardian,no absurd mentions
of *fascism*;


"Lahore to Leeds

Leader
Saturday July 16, 2005
The Guardian

It is hard to keep up with fast-moving developments in the investigation into the London bombings, but initial emphasis on the shocking discovery of "home-grown" suicidal jihadists has now given way to exploration of international links to England's worst ever terrorist atrocity, with an intense focus on Pakistan, ancestral homeland of three of the killers. History, religion and geopolitics have long conspired to give Pakistan a leading role in the drama of globalised terror. Its proximity to Afghanistan, support for the mujahideen fighting the Soviet occupation, cosy relations with the Taliban and problems with Kashmir and militant Islamists are as much a part of the story as Pervez Musharraf's help to the west in fighting al-Qaida. That assistance has won him weapons and cash as well as indulgence of his nuclear policy and failure to deliver democratic reforms.

But the Beeston bombers have thrown new light on more intimate and sinister Pakistani connections, including a putative mastermind who may have slipped out of Britain before the attacks. Shahzad Tanweer reportedly met a man later convicted of bombing a church when he was in his parents' hometown of Faisalabad. As recently as February he was in Lahore deepening his Koranic studies - an option that is increasingly popular with young British Muslims since Egypt and Saudi Arabia restricted access after the September 11 attacks. With members of many extended families living in Britain and Pakistan, links between homeland and diaspora are as natural and intense - and largely as innocent - as the Yorkshire-born Tanweer's love for cricket.

Much has been said about the role of Pakistani madrasas, Islamic academies that are widely blamed for being hothouses of militant fundamentalism. The truth is that the majority are harmless enough, if hardly enlightened or useful preparation for 21st-century life - though of course free or subsidised for the poor. President Musharraf has failed to fulfil his pledge to crack down on the small numbers teaching extremist Wahabbi or Deobandi doctrine, which zealots often interpret as sanctioning intolerance, martyrdom and cruelty.

Confused young men, torn between cultures, are easy prey for preachers of hatred. Britons must bind their own wounds and be more aware of the impact of their government's policies - on Iraq, Palestine etc - on Muslims everywhere. But Pakistanis must tackle their own problems. We live in one world: anyone who cares about what happens in Rochdale or Leeds needs to worry about Rawalpindi and Lahore as well."

Guardian Unlimited

_________________

Also,don't forget the DU rulebook;

"
>snip

4. Copyrights: Do not copy-and-paste entire articles onto this discussion forum. When referencing copyrighted work, post a short excerpt (not exceeding 4 paragraphs) with a link back to the original."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html