Tweet
Until Soldat Amir blesses us (perhaps curses us since we lose brain cells with each sentence we read) with the sources, we will have to investigate the authors of his poorly cited references that were pitched like cow dung onto a fallow field.
I will start with Sushant Sareen, a source I had already been familiar with.
Here is a paper by Mr. Sareen clearly showing where he stands on the issues:
http://indiaright.org/storyd.asp?id=109
I will high light some parts that moderates one each side will take exception to for its simplistic analysis of a complex issue:
Here is statement 1 by Mr. Sareen:
"But the implicit justification offered by the so-called moderate Muslims to acts of Islamic terrorism by pointing out at the root causes begs the question: does the root cause of Islamic terrorism lie in social, political, and economic conditions in Muslim societies, or do they lie in the religion itself? Do the root causes lie in the ‘grievances’ of Muslims, or do they lie in the way Islam is perceived, taught, and imbibed by its followers?"
Followed by Statement 2. Ironically, Mr. Sareen believes that a Pakistani Army Brigadier's word on the subject matter is ipso facto acceptable as the Islamic ruling on the subject. He decides to ignore all the complexities in Islamic law. This would not be dissimilar from me or any person here referring to Jerry Falwell or George Bush's view on Judeo Christian theology or the American Law Codes and then stating that these interpretations were either acceptable to the letter of the law or mainstream.:
"In the case of Islam, there is enough religious sanction available to justify terrorism. In Pakistan, for example, terrorism is an essential part of military strategy and derives inspiration from the Quran. In his book Quranic concept of War, Brig S.K. Malik writes, “Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is an end in itself.” He finds justification for this in the Quranic verse Anfal (Sura 12) which reads as “Remember, the Lord inspired the angels (with the message), ‘I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers’.” Thus, for every Quranic verse that preaches love, brotherhood, and equality of man, there is another verse that preaches the opposite.
Therefore to say that suicide-bombing is an Un-Islamic act is simply a matter of how someone interprets and understands the religion. Those who tie bombs around their bodies and blow themselves up actually believe that they are waging war in Allah’s name. Those who blew up the Bamiyan Buddhas also thought they were doing God’s work. The problem in Islam today is that the ruling paradigm is increasingly gravitating towards violence and intolerance. The moderate and enlightened voices are getting snuffed out by their failure to take an unambiguous stand against terrorism. Every time they mention ‘root causes’ in the same breath as they condemn an act of terrorism, they effectively end up providing a tacit justification for terrorism. What is more, this state of denial prevents a deeper soul searching within the community on the direction the religion is taking and prevents any course correction. An example of this is the position Pakistani leaders take on the issue of Jihad, which they consider (probably for political reasons) to be obligatory in their religion. Of course, for political and diplomatic reasons again, they will put a spin on what constitutes Jihad. But the signals this sends out are to say the least ambiguous.
He goes on to ignore complexities even more when discussing the art of warfare, and what the American militaries capabilities and intentions are. He completely ignores the fact that the American military unecessarily invaded Iraq in the first place. Its assinine to on the one hand state that the American military does all it can to avoid exerting force on civilians, but then ignore the elephant in the room: the civilian deaths would not have occurred in the first place had America not created Saddam Hussein and had America not invaded Iraq to have to make the decision of whether or not to shoot at civilians.
"The Pakistani press and TV channels like Al Jazeera have been in the vanguard of using these casualties to implicitly justify terrorist acts in Iraq and Afghanistan and indeed in rest of the world. But there is a great difference between the ‘collateral damage’ in Iraq and Afghanistan and terrorist attacks on civilian targets."
And finally of course, he makes light of the fact that the attacks on NYC and a host of others do have a root cause in legitimate grievances. For instance, America's open support of sudanese seccession and its view on East Timor contrast sharply with its stated support for China and Russia on their seccessionist issues. For that matter, he fails to address Operation Ajax in Iran, documented thoroughly by the Central Intelligence Agency, in which the CIA terms the after effects as "blow back" from the Muslim world.
After Dr. Scheuer examined thousands of pages from Mr. Bin Ladin's paper work, why were his conclusions in stark opposition to what Mr. Sareen has to say on the subject? Why is the first time the CIA officially used the word BLOWBACK used in the same paper they released on their intervention in Iran? Why did Hezbollah's first strike against the Americans occur in Marine Barracks in Lebanon????
It seems he is rather duplicitious in glossing over the facts and his work is laced with agenda as proven by the above.
A serious analyst will weigh all the information concurrently, with hindsight, forsight, and in tandem.
Basically, what Crusty Soldat has provided us is the equivalent of Mr. Emerson's meanderings here:
Go to about 3 minutes and 22 seconds in and watch Emerson, Sareen's American blood brother get owned.
Emerson vs Scheuer - YouTube
I will start with Sushant Sareen, a source I had already been familiar with.
Here is a paper by Mr. Sareen clearly showing where he stands on the issues:
http://indiaright.org/storyd.asp?id=109
I will high light some parts that moderates one each side will take exception to for its simplistic analysis of a complex issue:
Here is statement 1 by Mr. Sareen:
"But the implicit justification offered by the so-called moderate Muslims to acts of Islamic terrorism by pointing out at the root causes begs the question: does the root cause of Islamic terrorism lie in social, political, and economic conditions in Muslim societies, or do they lie in the religion itself? Do the root causes lie in the ‘grievances’ of Muslims, or do they lie in the way Islam is perceived, taught, and imbibed by its followers?"
Followed by Statement 2. Ironically, Mr. Sareen believes that a Pakistani Army Brigadier's word on the subject matter is ipso facto acceptable as the Islamic ruling on the subject. He decides to ignore all the complexities in Islamic law. This would not be dissimilar from me or any person here referring to Jerry Falwell or George Bush's view on Judeo Christian theology or the American Law Codes and then stating that these interpretations were either acceptable to the letter of the law or mainstream.:
"In the case of Islam, there is enough religious sanction available to justify terrorism. In Pakistan, for example, terrorism is an essential part of military strategy and derives inspiration from the Quran. In his book Quranic concept of War, Brig S.K. Malik writes, “Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is an end in itself.” He finds justification for this in the Quranic verse Anfal (Sura 12) which reads as “Remember, the Lord inspired the angels (with the message), ‘I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers’.” Thus, for every Quranic verse that preaches love, brotherhood, and equality of man, there is another verse that preaches the opposite.
Therefore to say that suicide-bombing is an Un-Islamic act is simply a matter of how someone interprets and understands the religion. Those who tie bombs around their bodies and blow themselves up actually believe that they are waging war in Allah’s name. Those who blew up the Bamiyan Buddhas also thought they were doing God’s work. The problem in Islam today is that the ruling paradigm is increasingly gravitating towards violence and intolerance. The moderate and enlightened voices are getting snuffed out by their failure to take an unambiguous stand against terrorism. Every time they mention ‘root causes’ in the same breath as they condemn an act of terrorism, they effectively end up providing a tacit justification for terrorism. What is more, this state of denial prevents a deeper soul searching within the community on the direction the religion is taking and prevents any course correction. An example of this is the position Pakistani leaders take on the issue of Jihad, which they consider (probably for political reasons) to be obligatory in their religion. Of course, for political and diplomatic reasons again, they will put a spin on what constitutes Jihad. But the signals this sends out are to say the least ambiguous.
He goes on to ignore complexities even more when discussing the art of warfare, and what the American militaries capabilities and intentions are. He completely ignores the fact that the American military unecessarily invaded Iraq in the first place. Its assinine to on the one hand state that the American military does all it can to avoid exerting force on civilians, but then ignore the elephant in the room: the civilian deaths would not have occurred in the first place had America not created Saddam Hussein and had America not invaded Iraq to have to make the decision of whether or not to shoot at civilians.
"The Pakistani press and TV channels like Al Jazeera have been in the vanguard of using these casualties to implicitly justify terrorist acts in Iraq and Afghanistan and indeed in rest of the world. But there is a great difference between the ‘collateral damage’ in Iraq and Afghanistan and terrorist attacks on civilian targets."
And finally of course, he makes light of the fact that the attacks on NYC and a host of others do have a root cause in legitimate grievances. For instance, America's open support of sudanese seccession and its view on East Timor contrast sharply with its stated support for China and Russia on their seccessionist issues. For that matter, he fails to address Operation Ajax in Iran, documented thoroughly by the Central Intelligence Agency, in which the CIA terms the after effects as "blow back" from the Muslim world.
After Dr. Scheuer examined thousands of pages from Mr. Bin Ladin's paper work, why were his conclusions in stark opposition to what Mr. Sareen has to say on the subject? Why is the first time the CIA officially used the word BLOWBACK used in the same paper they released on their intervention in Iran? Why did Hezbollah's first strike against the Americans occur in Marine Barracks in Lebanon????
It seems he is rather duplicitious in glossing over the facts and his work is laced with agenda as proven by the above.
A serious analyst will weigh all the information concurrently, with hindsight, forsight, and in tandem.
Basically, what Crusty Soldat has provided us is the equivalent of Mr. Emerson's meanderings here:
Go to about 3 minutes and 22 seconds in and watch Emerson, Sareen's American blood brother get owned.
Emerson vs Scheuer - YouTube
. You are a very hateful, loud, aggressive individual. No one at this forum comes close. Like most of your ilk, you're in the minority so you seek to impose your personal views and ideology on others through constant social agitation and if that doesn't work-brutal force. You perpetuate direct conflict and hostility with anyone and everyone who may possibly disagree with you at every opportunity, you feed it on like a drug. There's people here that may allow you to control them and actually waste time responding to all your posts like a feral child that loses control of their emotions. I'm not the one. I'll rarely use my time or energy to respond to your nasty, aggressive, hateful rhetoric or feed your anti social ego. As to your comment, I'm not "loud mouth over the internet" and I certainly don't "act all tough"
. It is not within my nature. Anyone that knows me would find these comments bizarre and hilarious. But this is all a component of your rogue, aggressive, anti-social behavior designed to provoke Muslims here, otherwise existing in peace and create social upheaval and chaos amongst normal members of this forum. Lastly, I do not "sit in the west" in the sense that you imply. It's not wise to make assumptions about the private lives of strangers and then present them as fact without reasonable proof or foundation. I've been around tovarish 
and have the scars amongst other things to prove it and I'm still here. The difference is I don't do what you previously accussed me of, sit around on the internet telling big stories to feed my ego. Maybe this is common in your circle. Decent intelligent individuals don't behave this way. In summary my life doesn't consist of spreading negativity, dissent, social unrest and provoking everyone whose views don't conform with mine. I'd prefer to be a positive force and influence on people when possible.
Comment