Nobody's Fault.

[Viking]

NGONGE,

Maybe I, and everyone else who's been adressing you on this issue are just obtuse. What are you on about? Did I (or anyone here) claim to support the terror attacks in London? I don't fink so! So what is your concern (since no one seems to quite understand it)? Are you against the killing of innocent people? Good, then we are all on the same page.

 

You have written pages and pages on this issue and no one seems to get the gist of your argument; if anyone needs to implement some clarity then it is you sxb. Or are we all obtuse?

 

 

I reject the argument that what happened in London is a fair consequence to what has been happening in Iraq. I reject it on intellectual and moral grounds and have shown CLEARLY why and how.

Not really fair if we are talking about the role Britain played in the invasion or Iraq...over 25 000 innocent Iraqis have lost their lives since the invasion two years ago. But I hope you aren't naive enough to fail to see the connection between the foreign policy of Britain and the latest bombings.

 

 

It is duplicitous to try to apply the term collateral damage to deliberate blowing up of civilians and innocent people. Collateral damage implies a main target that is attacked with civilians being a lesser and unavoidable consequence of such an attack. Collateral damage is ALWAYS regrettable and undesirable by those that cause it.

The insurgents seem to be targetting the police and the army that has been set up by the invading army. Many civilians have been caught up in the blasts. Plus, regretting collateral damage doesn't make it moral sxb.

 

I sincerely wish that you would choose a moral stance and stick to it, saaxib. This position of condemning these actions, yet accepting how the insurgents having no big nuclear weapons and how they can’t penetrate the Green Zone would lead to collateral damage, is bent saaxib. The application of words like "sympathy out of helplessness†is also misleading and implies a implicit tolerance of such cases.

I thought I made my stance earlier, and I've stuck to it. I am against the killing of civilians by any party. Does that mean that I fail to see the obvious connection between the London bombings and Britain's foreign policy? Nope!

[Castro]

Originally posted by Viking:

Or are we all obtuse?

According to the Gaussian distribution (the bell curve), some of us are certainly obtuse.

 

I don't mean to trivialize your response, Viking, but we are not all obtuse and we're not all astute.

 

Ngonge has a point. He's been trying to hammer it in for weeks now. I think I got it and I appreciate his fervor. I personally believe he's off the point on some issues and certainly dead on on others. But what I believe is irrelavant in the great scheme of things. We should all cool off on this terrorism matter for we have discussed it till some of us are black and the rest are blue.

 

I think we should talk about sex. We will have far greater concensus on it than any other subject on earth.

[Viking]

Ngonge has a point. He's been trying to hammer it in for weeks now. I think I got it and I appreciate his fervor.

Fidel,

Would you please, in a few sentences explain what NGONGE's point is?

 

I think we should talk about sex. We will have far greater concensus on it than any other subject on earth.

The floor is yours!

[Pujah.]

you ask NGONGE'S POINT . Well he is against civilian casualties in the west but in Iraq, afghanistan, Bosnia etc its called colateral damage and cannot be avoided. there i think that sums up the three week lecture

[rudy-Diiriye]

i reckon what ngonge is saying! i will even go further to say that the root of this problems lies with western leaders who failed their ppl and guiding them to an endless abyss!!

 

e.g., how on earth can come up with shut to kill policy in uk! thats absurd to say the least!

 

america lost many more lives than uk in 911, but they didnt say, aye..... shot to kill...duh!!

 

and by the way, what does it take to secure an underground rail-road station. u got one entrance and one exit!! duhhhhhhh!

i am sure Britney spears could have u told to put a security door at both places!!!

 

besides, the brit govt has allowed all these yrs to house hardcore killer imbeciles and now they crying fowl!! plzzzzz! what do u expect from these ppl...! they killed their own and they should have been incarcerated from the get go!! and not treat them like celebrates!!

 

and wazzup with somalia, irag, palestine,etc s! didnt some declared victory in irag a long time ago! u see thats what i am talking! how come only ppl dying in wars are moslems! wazzup with that!! when did we become the black sheep of this planet!! i wanna know!!

 

this has not to do with islam but a group of brain washed losers who were played by hardcore criminals!!

 

i accuse these criminals and obtuser westerm leaders we have in this century! let us say it the way its and not blame islam!! say it aint so folks :confused: :confused:

[Kashafa]

Give it up, Ngonge. You put up a brave fight, but alas, your logic is twisted. You accuse others of using emotion-clouded reasoning yet you stand guilty of the same charge. What's with the "NOT IN MY NAME" rant ?. We, as Muslims, bear no responisblity for the actions of fanatics. We don't justify nor condone it. That's clear-cut. I guess you're having a tough time gettin' thru your main idea: Islam and the Muslims are at fault in this whole bloody mess.

Let us stop Jihad(or at least restrict it to Jihaad-ul-Nafs), forget about Palestine and Chechneya, and become docile law-abiding citizens of the 21st Century. Let us fix Islam.

 

Sorry, pal. That dog don't hunt

 

See, it really isn't complicated. I'll let the cousin of the dead Brazilian take over:

 

"It's not as if Jean has been killed by one of the bombings, but even if he had been, we, his family, would not blame the Muslims but blame the British government for starting all this ."

 

"I heard last week that there are 25,000 innocent people dead in Iraq, people who have paid the price for this war.

 

" Well, now the British are paying the price too. And now a Brazilian has paid the price for Iraq ."

 

Telegraph.co.uk

 

Cousin Brazil understands that there are consequences for transgression. You punch somebody in the face, chances are he'll punch back(unless he's Canadian).

Cousin Brazil gets it. You ,as of yet, don't.

[OG_Girl]

Hehehe @Arawello.

 

Well, just as the US/UK govts justify the killing of innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan by using the COLLATERAL DAMAGE excuse , so too can Al-qaeda lol... Al-qaeda can say that in the attacks in London were targeted at London's economy, and the people that died were collateral damages. We are sorry, very sorry

Just showing other point of views!!

 

 

Salam

[lol]

Xiin: I say bomb them all. Who gave the right to these Westerners to interfere the interior affairs of the Islamic countries? How come they are not interested in mending the problems of the other disturbed countries like West African countries where dictators commit more crimes than any Arab leader?

 

The muslims have the right to revolt. The right to defend their stand whichever way they know possible. And don't tell me, attacking innocent people isn't the solution, well in Islam an eye is for an eye and a corpse of a gaal is as good as the corpse of any. So I say bomb them.

 

As for the writer well, to me, he is just one smart man. Change the foreign policies, stay within ur borders and ur nation will be of terror free... otherwise,, Yaa weelak.. now that is the attitude of my Muslim brothers and I admire them.

[NGONGE]

Viking,

Consensus does not mean you’re not all being obtuse, saaxib. It really is no defence for the charge that I’m laying at your door.

 

You say:

 

What are you on about? Did I (or anyone here) claim to support the terror attacks in London? I don't fink so! So what is your concern (since no one seems to quite understand it)? Are you against the killing of innocent people? Good, then we are all on the same page.

Which sounds good and straight in my opinion. Then you go and spoil it all by saying something st.upid (as the song goes) like:

 

 

Not really fair if we are talking about the role Britain played in the invasion or Iraq...over 25 000 innocent Iraqis have lost their lives since the invasion two years ago. But I hope you aren't naive enough to fail to see the connection between the foreign policy of Britain and the latest bombings.

What is the point of explaining the link, the 25000 dead Iraqis and the invasion if not to play down the bombings in London? Do you see the duplicity in your argument at all, saaxib? Do you see how obtuse you’re being? You’re mixing your causes and moral positions, saaxib. Even when you try to explain the collateral damage concept, you still carry on with the twisted style of arguing:

 

 

The insurgents seem to be targeting the police and the army that has been set up by the invading army. Many civilians have been caught up in the blasts. Plus, regretting collateral damage doesn't make it moral sib.

I hate to fall into the vulgar style of arguments of listing incidents and occasions (because, frankly, it would be very obtuse of me). However, as a demonstration of what you’re doing yourself here, I’ll ask you what collateral damage can be found in mosques and markets where no police or army are to be found? The “insurgents†are blowing these places too, are they not? Collateral damage has a moral justification when COMPARED to the drivel you’ve been spouting, saaxib. Have you been paying attention to anything I wrote in the past three weeks?

 

When I asked you to take a moral stance and stick to it, you replied with the following:

 

I thought I made my stance earlier, and I've stuck to it. I am against the killing of civilians by any party. Does that mean that I fail to see the obvious connection between the London bombings and Britain's foreign policy? Nope!

That’s not taking a moral stance, saaxib. That’s being evasive and (you guessed it) obtuse. The people that bombed London did not do it out of a sense of fun. They did not randomly choose a city on a map and decide to bomb it. The WHOLE world knows that there is a link. Why repeat the obvious when condemning the bombings, saaxib? Does it make a difference to your moral stance on the issue? Would you have condemned it louder if there were no connection with Iraq? Do YOU make your moral judgments as a reaction to what Bush and Blair do? Is any of this making sense to you at all? AT ALL?

 

I beg your forgiveness, saaxib. If I’m being harsh in my words and very pushy, I’m only doing it because I KNOW you have the mental capacity to understand and comprehend what I’m getting it. If you’ve noticed, I have not replied to every nonentity that tried to take part in this discussion. I believe that I’m sensible enough to know that there is no helping some people. Those that I see a semblance of logic in their words, I’ll chase and pester until they present me with a coherent and fair argument (we don’t necessarily have to agree). All you need do is explain your moral position in this situation and how you’ve arrived at it. Some people decided that all this is a conspiracy theory and based their judgment accordingly. I disagreed with their conclusions but had no reason to question their moral stance. They were not being duplicitous in their analysis. I do wish that you would separate from the herd and do the same.

 

Kashafa ,

 

Still all over the place, I see? Stop juggling your values and choose a clear position (you’re a harder nut to crack than Viking but I still see some hope there too).

 

Here is what you’re saying:

 

 

Give it up, Ngonge. You put up a brave fight, but alas, your logic is twisted. You accuse others of using emotion-clouded reasoning yet you stand guilty of the same charge. What's with the "NOT IN MY NAME" rant ?. We, as Muslims, bear no responisblity for the actions of fanatics. We don't justify nor condone it. That's clear-cut. I guess you're having a tough time gettin' thru your main idea: Islam and the Muslims are at fault in this whole bloody mess.

Your position here is clear, concise and would withstand scrutiny. If only you stopped there and then., I would have agreed with you and even apologised for any misunderstanding you’ve had about my opinion of Islam and Muslims!

 

But could you stop? Heh! You continue by saying:

 

Let us stop Jihad(or at least restrict it to Jihaad-ul-Nafs), forget about Palestine and Chechneya, and become docile law-abiding citizens of the 21st Century. Let us fix Islam.

 

Sorry, pal. That dog don't hunt

You’re sending mixed messages here, saaxib. You seem to have one foot in each camp! Are you implying that what took place in London was Jihad? If it is, why didn’t you come right out and say it? If it is not, what’s with the obtuse (are you reading this Viking?) and unnecessary argument? Why at all mention any of that?

 

You finally lose yourself in a convoluted bubble of nonsense by quoting the cousin of the dead Brazilian guy! Do you really expect me to base my moral judgments on the words of a Brazilian? Oh! Maybe you’re still under the mistaken impression that he was Muslim!

 

You end by leaving me this gem of a comment:

 

Cousin Brazil understands that there are consequences for transgression. You punch somebody in the face, chances are he'll punch back(unless he's Canadian).

Cousin Brazil gets it. You ,as of yet, don't.

An eye for an eye it is then? RIGHT. But, I thought you didn’t justify or condone the bombings, saaxib? I bet that your Brazilian guru would call you dishonest for that, saaxib.

 

Once again, up your game and take a logical stand.

 

See what Hibo wrote there? I don’t agree with her of course. But at least she’s being logical and chose to base her moral judgment on the “eye for an eye†principle. Kill our civilians and we’ll kill yours, is her argument. It is a direct, unambiguous and clear position to have. If I morally disagree with her, it will only be from an Islamic angle and how she’s interpreting the Islamic doctrine when it comes to the “eye for an eye†code. I could neither call her duplicitous nor obtuse though.

 

It’s tedious. It’s boring. It’s offensive and at times even brash. But I believe we’re making some progress here.

[Viking]

NGONGE,

 

Originally posted by NGONGE:

What is the point of explaining the link, the 25000 dead Iraqis and the invasion if not to play down the bombings in London? Do you see the duplicity in your argument at all, saaxib? Do you see how obtuse you’re being? You’re mixing your causes and moral positions, saaxib. Even when you try to explain the collateral damage concept, you still carry on with the twisted style of arguing

It would be very ignorant of me (and others) to say that the events of London are an isolated incident that has nothing to do with what Britain is doing in the world. I responded to your question as to whether it is fair to say that the bombings in London was revenge for the invasion of Iraq. Blair and Bush (just like you are here) have tried to avoid discussing the link between the bombings to the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Get this through your skull sxb, although the bombings were immoral, brutal and wrong, they did not come as a surprise because the British govt knew that their actions in the Middle East might eventually bring the war to the home turf (or were you unaware of all the preparations they've been making, expecting this to happen anytime). This is no duplicity in my morality but it is a fact that, what goes around comes around (in this life or the next), even if we do not like it.

 

 

Originally posted by NGONGE:

I hate to fall into the vulgar style of arguments of listing incidents and occasions (because, frankly, it would be very obtuse of me). However, as a demonstration of what you’re doing yourself here, I’ll ask you what collateral damage can be found in mosques and markets where no police or army are to be found? The “insurgents†are blowing these places too, are they not? Collateral damage has a moral justification when

COMPARED

to the drivel you’ve been spouting, saaxib. Have you been paying attention to anything I wrote in the past three weeks?

The insurgents target civilians and so does the invading army, why are you giving one party the benefit of the doubt? There also were no bombings in Iraq before the invasion (besides the ocassional bombs dropped by the foreigners who imposed the "no fly zone" in the sovereign state) so the people who invaded Iraq should provide protection for the people.

 

 

Originally posted by NGONGE:

That’s not taking a moral stance, saaxib. That’s being evasive and (you guessed it) obtuse. The people that bombed London did not do it out of a sense of fun. They did not randomly choose a city on a map and decide to bomb it. The WHOLE world knows that there is a link. Why repeat the obvious when condemning the bombings, saaxib? Does it make a difference to your moral stance on the issue? Would you have condemned it louder if there were no connection with Iraq? Do YOU make your moral judgments as a reaction to what Bush and Blair do? Is any of this making sense to you at all? AT ALL?

You fail to understand what I've been saying all along; I do not condone the bombings but understand that they hapenned because the British are waging war in other countries, deposing govts and killing innocent civilians. I understand why the bombings hapenned but do NOT condone them, just as I don't condone the actions of the British and Americans.

 

 

Originally posted by NGONGE:

All you need do is explain your moral position in this situation and how you’ve arrived at it.

Quite simple sxb...the Qur'an says that anyone that kills an innocent person it is as if they have the whole of humanity. This applies to Muslims and non-Muslims.

[Paragon]

NGONGE,

 

Reading your posts regarding the recent London bombings and the discussions that they have sparked, you do come across as a poor imitation of Senator McCarthy of Wisconsin's 'Communist Witch Hunt' and the Americans whom he accused of carring out 'UnAmerican' activities in the 1950s. In those years, McCarthy placed his patriotic spotlight on influencial individuals prompting them to give Yes or No answers. In essence he was in a spate of implicating everyone and anyone who didn't clearly pronounce his/her patriotism and unquestioned loyalty to the national flag, just as he does. What this meant was that everyone would have to blindly be American and ask no questions about it. Nor shall one compare or contrast the activities of America to other countries' acitivies. If you do so, you are a communist.

 

McCarthy judged and accused people with inconclussive evidence or often times questionable evidence. He was a man taking advantage of the public American fear, which grew out of the 'Second Red Scare' of the 1940s. At times when the public is fearful or scared witless, it is widely known that phoney advocates promising salvation are likely to emerge, and will blatantly accuse anyone who is not of their opinion. Just like McCarthy, you are asking, repeatedly, in a similar mantra, the same question. In the place of 'are you a communist', its replaced by your subtle question of 'are you a terrorist supporter and sympathiser?' Which many of us arent.

 

Here in these pages, from which information has once been quoted by national papers, which are also likely being watched, as is the case with many Muslim forums, aren't you coming across as a man on a mission to write appeasing posts that portray the rest as supporters and sympathisers of suicide bombers? You portray anyone who doesn't speak like you or doesn't speak like an anti-terror government speaksman/woman, as being obtuse, and practising duplicity? Are you implying we're hiding something here? Or secretly supporting the terrorists?

 

It seems you are unhappy with the admittance that we all condemn the bombings of London, and that you require from us to avoid mentioning any wrongs done by the West, while allocating all blame to Islam and its adherants. What do you want us to do?

[NGONGE]

VIKING,

 

You’re still twisting and turning, saaxib. Your position is NOT clear and untenable. You condemn with one hand and condone with the other.

 

I asked you how you arrived at your moral stance, your reply was that the Koran states this, that and the other. Fine, why not stick with what the Koran says and leave Bush and Blair out of your moral judgment?

 

What has Bush and Blair got to do with what the Koran states and your understanding of it?

If you condemn the killing of civilians in London why are you then justifying it by talking about cause and effect, etc? You already condemn it, saaxib. You already think it is WRONG. However, what follows that is more of an attempt to prove it right than wrong! Do your words make sense to you? TAKE A MORAL STANCE, saaxib.

 

You either want to follow the Hibo way and argue with Bush and Blair along those lines; an eye for an eye. Or, you don’t argue with Bush and Blair at all and rather stick with what (as you already believe) The Koran says. To play one against the other is a dishonest position to have. You want to stay Islamic yet you also want to argue with Bush and Blair on their terms, leaving yourself as an undecided hypocrite. TAKE A MORAL STANCE, saaxib.

 

Jamaal,

 

Glad to have you with us, saaxib. Now you’re comparing me to that knee-jerk reactionary, Senator McCarthy no less? If it wasn’t way out of the mark, I would be honoured.

 

Here in these pages, from which information has once been quoted by national papers, which are also likely being watched, as is the case with many Muslim forums, aren't you coming across as a man in mission to write appeasing posts that portray the rest as supporters and sympathisers of suicide bombers? You portray anyone who doesn't speak like you or doesn't speak like an anti-terror government speaksman/woman, as being obtuse, and practising duplicity? Are you implying we're hiding something here? Or secretly supporting the terrorists?

No, Jamaal. In calling you obtuse, I’m implying worse than that. I’m implying that you DONT KNOW what position to hold. You condemn the bombings and I totally believe that you (and the you here is plural) are genuine in your condemnation, yet at the same time, you also sympathise with their actions, rendering your condemnation null and void.

 

There is no moral equivalency here (from an Islamic point of view- always from an Islamic point of view). The Iraq war was a war between the West and Iraq. Most Muslims opposed it and still do. It’s a clear unambiguous position. WE WERE AND STILL ARE AGAINST THE OCCUPATION.

 

The London bombings are also wrong. Again, most Muslims oppose and condemn them. However, here things get a bit twisted and complicated.

 

Is there a link between the two? There most probably is.

Does it make a difference to one’s decision making process when condoning or condemning them? NO.

Is there a necessity in mentioning Iraq when condemning the London Bombings? NO.

Why then do most people mention Iraq? Because of the link!

Is there a need to talk about that link when condemning the London Bombings? NO

Why then do most people mention Iraq? Because of the link!

Is there a significance in mentioning Iraq when condemning the London Bombings? NO

Why then do most people mention Iraq? Because of the link!

 

I shall stop repeating myself here and ask you to change the record. Reflect, ponder, think and analyse this whole thing. Reach a moral position and stick to it. Trying to walk this tight rope of duplicity will not do.

 

 

PS

Why do you always lower the tone of a discussion by talking about irrelevant things such as appeasement of invisible newspapers and what have you? It’s a very tasteless and meaningless attitude to have. Newspapers, security personnel or whoever else reads these pages have nothing to do with people’s thoughts. As far as I’m concerned, I’m yet to see anyone on this site that encourages and advocates the support of terrorists. Stop panicking, even if you suddenly discover that you sympathise with the bombers, it’s unlikely that anyone can do anything to you. You’ll still be within your ‘freedom of speech’ rights. Luckily, there is no Senator McCarthy in the UK.

 

Now, can we get back to our discussion and stop throwing about such vulgar and pointless accusations?

[xiinfaniin]

NGONGE,

 

I am really busy winning my bread and you are giving me more than I can chew. Nonetheless, I feel obliged to follow up on you and ask you simple question that’s easy to answer without resorting to your creative writing. Do you agree in principle that terrorism is, more often than not, political in nature and has NOTHING to do with religion, culture, and race? Unless you intentionally arrest your intelligence, I expect your answer to be affirmative. Then (I am not letting you off the hook yet) what is it that makes these incidents so different? Remember my argument is not about the causation of these incidents. Rather I take issue with your insistence that they are Islamic in nature (there is a problem with Islam!). I did not like how you scoffed my argument and resorted to evasive sophistry, saaxiib. Answer this question as direct as you could possibly be.

[Paragon]

No, Jamaal. In calling you obtuse, I’m implying worse than that.

NGONGE, let me answer you in three steps. Firstly, to call someone obtuse, you must have enough information regarding the discussed topic upon which to judge someone as obtuse. This is a generally agreed procedure. And to judge without enough information makes the judge hasty and 'obtuse' .

 

I’m implying worse than that. I’m implying that you DONT KNOW what position to hold.

Secondly , you cannot imply anything in my case (atleast for now), since I am yet to even suggest or declare my position. So far, between me and you, it is only you who took a position. To not know my position I must first present to you varying positions, in which I WOULDN'T KNOW one position to hold or chose. So when you accuse me of not knowing my position, you are a lying outrightly. This is not the first time I've seen you reach such a conlusion, and it is for this reason that I adress you with lowly remarks.

 

There is no moral equivalency here (from an Islamic point of view- always from an Islamic point of view). The Iraq war was a war between the West and Iraq. Most Muslims opposed it and still do. It’s a clear unambiguous position. WE WERE AND STILL ARE AGAINST THE OCCUPATION.

Let me try to show you something contradictory in what you wrote. In the above quote, you say:

 

1- The Iraq war was a war between the West and Iraq.

 

At first you create two categories or opposing parties that cannot be equal in comparison - the West and Iraq. While the West is a categorically a civilization, Iraq is one country. That is one point. In your writings you wrongly equal these two catogories. This is where your misunderstandings of the issue stem from. If the war was between Britain and Iraq then there wouldn't be a problem. But since the Western civilization is attacking a single country, isn't it atleast fair to ask, in which civilization does Iraq belong?

 

2 - WE WERE AND STILL ARE AGAINST THE OCCUPATION.

 

SXb, you cannot claim to have a 'WE' when you seperate Iraq from the 'we' in your first sentence, which have seen you unite the West. If we link terror acts to the mischiefs of the West in our lands, it is not something we've invented, we've learnt it from the West itself. When one fanatic terrorist attacks one of their cities, they link it to Islam and as a result to Muslim countries. Do you want us to refrain from doing so? We condemn the London bombings, but we shall only stop linking them to Iraq or Afghanistan, after Blair and Bush stop linking the attacks to civilization. What is the point of speaking of a civilization, when the terrorists do not represent another civilization? Qeylida orgiga ka weyn [wey] nagu khaldaayaane

 

The London bombings are also wrong. Again, most Muslims oppose and condemn them. However, here things get a bit twisted and complicated.

Yes, they were wrong, and I agree with on that point, but you should stop at that. If what you are interested is specifically the London bombings and nothing else, then you should concentrate on the immorality of suicide bombings. If you knew how to deal with this issue directly, you wouldn't find any twist or complication at all. Frankly, this issue is simply a beginners' debate.

 

Is there a link between the two? There most probably is.

Does it make a difference to one’s decision making process when condoning or condemning them? NO.

Is there a necessity in mentioning Iraq when condemning the London Bombings? NO.

Why then do most people mention Iraq? Because of the link!

Is there a need to talk about that link when condemning the London Bombings? NO

Why then do most people mention Iraq? Because of the link!

Is there a significance in mentioning Iraq when condemning the London Bombings? NO

Why then do most people mention Iraq? Because of the link!

Yes, and it makes alot of difference, unless that is, one is a hypocrite. If you tie a man to pole, brutalize him, gag him, walk all over him and when night comes leave him a candle light, which he then, due to his pain and anger, kicks it and burns the jail in which he was kept, and in the process die. Will you accuse him of criminality for effect his burning the jail down and ignore what he suffered? Or will you first address the cause and then effect, or visa versa? This is the case with condemning this suicide bombings. They are wrong but we cannot blantanly ignore its causes, which in this case Iraq is relevant.

 

Reflect, ponder, think and analyse this whole thing. Reach a moral position and stick to it. Trying to walk this tight rope of duplicity will not do.

Ask me to reflect on more meaningful topics rather than your poor attempt of deflecting your own ineptitude. As the saying goes 'doqon intaadan doqon oran beey doqon ku tiraahdaa'. This is the case with you, sxb.

 

PS: Remember, I did not equate you to McCarthy himself, if you read my post again, you will see I said, you are doing a poor imitation.

[NGONGE]

Xiin,

 

First of all, don’t let me distract you from doing your job. I’ve taken the day off today (got enough holiday and didn’t feel in the mood to go to work).

 

I wholeheartedly accept and agree to most of what you say. The bit I’m finding difficult to accept is the Islamic part. We’re looking at it from two different sides, and while I can see what you’re saying and where your reservations lie, I’m finding it difficult to make you see what I’m saying in turn.

 

First of all, let us not confuse ourselves with western measures and values on the subject. I am a Muslim and you are one. We are talking about an issue that (though not Islamic) reflects badly on Islam. Like I said, I agree that terrorism is political in nature and has nothing to do with Islam itself. However, those behind it, those using it and some of those that sympathise don’t see it that way. They claim to speak for Islam and Muslims (you only need to look at their declarations of Jihad and the rest of their rhetoric to see that). You’re very blase in the way you reject their claims to Islam and I’m not (I think this is really the only difference we have here).

 

Now, the London bombing took place and people started forming opinions about it and choosing moral positions on the issue. Some did so out of a sense of bitterness and anger; others out of a sense of vengeance and revenge and many more out of a sense of helplessness (note, that I did not differentiate between these positions on the basis of condoning or condemning the act yet).

 

A large number (regardless of agreement or disagreement) sought to link this whole thing to Iraq. The fact that it’s an obvious consequence of the war, did not stop them from saying it, mentioning it and banging on about it for three weeks! To what end exactly?

 

It’s like saying “ I condemn the rape of that prostitute but can’t help thinking that she brought it upon herself by wearing a short mini skirtâ€! It down plays the rape and amplifies prostitution and mini skirts! If the prostitute has no morals, it does not mean I also have to compromise my own by downplaying her rape. Surely rape is rape?

 

Now, if one half of Muslims make such excuses to avoid making an outright and unequivocal condemnation of such acts and another half condemns in a nonchalant and offhand way, wouldn’t you say there is something wrong with Islam here? (I don’t want to go over the word Islam and the way I’m using it here - suffice it to say, I’m not talking about Allah’s revelations here, so please spare me the usual obtuse argument and follow the point I’m making).

 

 

I’ll repeat once more, just in case you’ve been skimming through my words again:

 

I agree with you on the nature of terrorism. However I disagree when you say that Muslims do not have a problem of terrorism. I believe there is a problem with Islam (or the Islamic world if this will set better with you) because we’re allowing terrorists and political opportunists to direct the show and give the impression that this is Islam (and before you start a rant about how you don’t give a damn about the West, let me tell you I’m still talking about Islam and Muslims and not the West). Condemning, exposing and rejecting these people will not stop them from committing their politically motivated terrorist acts. What it will do though, is stop other Muslims from falling for their highly charged rhetoric and attractive Jihad message.

 

I hope this was a direct enough answer, saaxib.

 

Jamaal,

 

There was an amazing amount of waffle there that still leads to nowhere, saaxib. What exactly is your position?

If you decide to join the debate, you have to have a position, saaxib. Dancing around my words and talking nonsense is not a position.

 

Make your stand and spare me the simplistic arguments of “you can’t judge me because you don’t know my stance on thisâ€, etc. This will get us back to the reading comprehension issue, you see! Was it not you who just wrote about Senator McCarthy? Was it not you who asked why I was calling people obtuse? Are you going to deny your own words now? Go back and read them again. See if you can work out a position there. You’re still being obtuse and though I knew it from previous exchanges, I’m now only judging you on the strength of your two posts on this thread.

 

One of those days, I hope you would drop this fake way of conducting a debate, saaxib and engage me instead of dancing around me. Your above waffle deals with nothing that is concerned with the topic and contains nothing that I could really intellectually accept or reject. It’s waffle.