15 Nov 2005

My sense and my Repercussions

I am not a pious man but I understand the logic of the greater power that governs everything and anything. A power that is way beyond mortal comprehension but yet in its invisibility and unrealness, many of us believe in it, not only just believe but put our faith on this greater power.

A few days back, I wrote an article that I felt were under prepared but it was an article which I felt genuinely about and believe strongly in. My intent was a naïve one. I only wanted to put out an alternative standpoint regarding terrorism and what dynamics it can encompass as well as the kind of resolutions that might be available. In doing so not only did I put my integrity on the line but I too, put my credibility and pride in it as well.

Unfortunately for me, unlike myself, my English didn’t go to college and this showed in my written piece and I duly apologise to those who have read my article and “cringe with embarrassment for the author” . Not only did people cringe but a lot of people felt strongly for the article and lambasted me for its content and demanded that I defend what had been written and I should even consider of withdrawing it.


Soci has shortened this article because he feels that it should really belong in the comments section as it is a reply to comments made by other readers. To view the comments from Ian go here.

7 comments:

soci said...

please don't delete it. leave it up. Since when has humanity been so frightened of words. Next thing that will happen is that there will book burnings from 'unacceptabe' writers.

Leave it up, you have a write to freedom of speech.

Free speech is not a tea party but a screaming ranting shouting match at times.

strom said...

Ian: Yes, leave it up. I applaud your initiative in wanting to discuss more on this issue instead of quietly slinking away. And no, you don't have to apologize at all; one don't have to be overtly pedantic to express his thoughts coherently on a blog.

But still...

Your analogies of all those previous revolutions and the current "global war on terrorism" are fundamentally flawed. For example, how can you even draw parallels between Islamic terrorism and those historic revolutions when "a change of paradigm" for them extremists means Islamic facism - worldwide? Revolutionaries want a better deal, those revolutions you mentioned, they were all for the better; Muslim extremists, they just want to return to the stoneage.

Strom asked of what American’s action that prompted two civilians plane to be crashed into WTC in New York. Do I really need to tell you that? Have you been blind to some of America’s Foreign Policies? Its engagement with several countries both as a democratic country as well as a fundamental entity in the Security Council of the United Nation?

Yes, you really do need to enlighten me[us] on America’s Foreign Policies before 9/11, and what were they that justified and "prompted two civilians plane to be crashed into WTC in New York." Was it the Gulf War when Americans dared to encroach on Islam's Holy Land in a bid to defend Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? Or was it... Hell I can't remember. So do me a favor.

And I doubt by using stereotypical sarcasms such as “keeshas and pizzas “ reeks of maturity either. We, Muslims do eat other stuffs too.

First, I'm not talking about food here. And if you were offended by those "stereotypical sarcasms" I'm sorry, but they were meant to highlight your general indifference toward terrorism and dumbing down of it's gravity when you concluded "Al-Qaeda should come together as a group to discuss with the Arab nations, blah blah." I mean, do you think the Arab nations and the world will agree to that? Al-Qaeda should be wiped out. Period.

Yeah, so, you still want fries with that? [So you still sticking to your proposal?]

Another point which I would like to make about the analogy I’ve made. Well there are other solutions to solve the issue but Strom conveniently decided to use kill and bomb as suggestive acts to decipher the content of the analogy. Neither was I implying that America has no ground to retaliate when they were attacked. Just look at the amount of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) they found in Iraq.

What other solutions did you mention other than a fair amount of acerbic ones on western democracy? And isn't "kill and bomb" exactly the method terrorists have decided will solve all their problems?

Yes, I concur Bush and the White House probably didn't have concrete enough evidences of WMD, and they've also fucked up big-time in Iraq without an exit strategy. But however invalid the rationale for invading Iraq, removing Saddam and then constituting democracy in Iraq will remain a legacy, if the insurgency are rooted out first. You can't deny that.

All I wanted to imply on that analogy was the fact that a lot of us aren’t pro-active enough to put forward our views and our definitions in the local political realm. Local means Singapore because we fear that our views and suggestions might be seen as too extremist, too leftist, too pro-terrorist, too ‘reeks of Islamic extremist and having Jihadist mentality”, which I found out soon enough. It wasn’t an implication onto the justification of America and its allies. All I wanted was for us to be able to see out all the differences and embrace each other without fear or prejudice and I was called, “It's people like you that gives Islam such a bad name.”

You're free to think what you like, but I don't regret what I said about you because I'm just rehashing what my moderate Muslim friends said about Islamic extremism and overzealous clerics in general. You may not be an extremist, Ian, and I'm not implying that you are, but were I to be out and about in the Middle East, I may just want to stay away from people with similar ideologies like yours. Because you're not a moderate Muslim.

And have you ever been to America, Ian? Maybe you haven't but I'd just like to inform you Muslims here enjoy much more freedom than than they will ever have in an ideal world put forth by the Islamofacists.

i-cringe said...

I believe you have the right to express your thoughts, but I cringed because because I had come to expect higher literary standards and more insight in articles that appear on this blog. Your views are not new and they are not as ‘alternative’ as you might make yourself believe.

” What I meant when I wrote that section of the article was that. Instead of us hunting down Al-Qaeda like criminals as most of us would like to believe. Why don’t we engage them in a manner that will be more productive to conclusive peaceful solutions? Al-Qaeda is a movement or an organisation that will take ages if not forever to be dismantled. ”

I challenge your view of the AQ as an organisation that can be dealt with as an organsiation. Opinions differ as to whether they are really a well-organisaed group with clear leadership and communication, or (by now) fragmented cells operating on their own initiative.

”Islam didn’t ask to kill and hurt people. Islam is an act of surrender to god and nurturing and contributing towards everything that is good in man.”

That is the view ‘moderate muslims’ want people to see Islam as but it is a one-sided view of Islam. The reason why extremists manage to use the Koran to incite violence is because Islam was a militant religion in its early days and there are passages exhorting followers to acts of violence against the enemies of the faith. Such passages exist in the texts of other religions too, of course. The existence of such passages do not automatically make a religion a violent one, but to pretend that they do not exist and not address them is not honest or helpful.

“But I really would like everyone to stand still for awhile and just imagined that we were on the other side, that we were the “terrorists”. With the little “know hows” we have acquired, the dogmatic approach towards religion that we have cultivated, with the little choices that are available, the mortal struggles we have not only with the environment but also with the people around us, how then would we act? What are our priorities in life? To call this group of people are without reason, seems to be quite wrong. For a person not to have reason, then he has no brain to think, no heart to feel, no spirit to hold on to.”

I agree with you that terrorists do not resort to suicide bombings because it was the most convenient way to make themselves heard. They do so because they ‘think’ (or are led to ‘think’) there are no other alternatives. They also do what they do because terrorism ‘works’. Because terrorist leaders (NOT suicide bombers themselves, mind you) grow old to become presidents and have black-and-white photos of themselves put up at peace rallies.

Likewise, developed nations bomb and march their way into other nations because ‘it works’.

Violence breeds violence, like you have pointed out, but it doesn’t have to. There is an alternative. Gandhi taught us that, and he was leading a group of people who were similarly disenfranchised. All ‘revolutions’ involve the shedding of blood, but we don’t have to be the ones to cause it.

”We have to stand up for what is right and I believe that peace is right and that is the only way for us to come together and realise common grounds.”

You see, this is where your whole argument falls apart. You spent the first part of your essay explaining why the war on terrorism is unjust. You justify terrorism as as response to the inequality the Islamic nations are facing, and then you justify terrorism as a form of revolution, and you further justify the bloodshed as something integral to any revolution. You advocate that the best way to end this cycle of violence is to negotiate with terrorists, essentially making sure that this violence-reward pattern is reinforced.

Essentially your piece is:” We want peace, but we are willing to kill innocent people to get it as long as you are also killing innocent people, so you'd better negotiate with us.”

That sounds like it can come from either side of the war, but it sure doesn’t sound peaceful to me.

The Legal Janitor said...

While I did criticise your post, I never did ask you to take it down. I have always believed in free speech, and I definitely believe in yours. Accordingly, I also believe in my right to criticise. I hope you understand, my saying that what you wrote was 'bullshit' is not saying that you should remove it or stop posting.

The Legal Janitor said...

I say, let the people decide without fear and prejudice on what is freedom, what is secular, what is the life I want to lead.

The question is, how do the people decide, when a few masterminds can plan their bombings and assassinations? It is quite clear that certain groups and individuals DO NOT wish to see any form of secularism in Iraq, and would wish for THEIR dogma to be imposed upon those who DO wish to be secular or non-Muslim.

But you don’t need a terrorist to take away your human rights, such as women's rights, GLBT rights, the right to free speech etc. All you need is a screwed up government and maybe a Legal Act that authorise your detention without trail at the accordance of an authority.

This is not answering the question. What you are saying essentially, is: 'so what if Islam does not protect the rights of certain people, other religious or even secular authorities also don't what'. The fact is, as much as there may be varying levels of discrimination against gays in Western countries, there is only region in the world where you may be put to death for being gay.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Execution_of_two_gay_teens_in_Iran_spurs_controversy

I could provide more examples, but then I'm sure you understand where I'm going with this argument.

Its ok that Shianux have no respect for me, I have enough respect for myself that can last a lifetime.

I didn't say I have no respect for you. I said I have no respect for someone who whitewashes the actions of terrorists. That means that my respect is conditional upon whether you really do whitewash the actions of terrorists. It is your arguments which determine the respect, and not you personally.

akikonomu said...

It is quite clear that certain groups and individuals DO NOT wish to see any form of secularism in Iraq.

Interestingly enough America agreed to a key article in Iraq's new constitution, which stipulates that it is an islamic state and Islam is a primary source of law.

soci said...

The following is the large post in its entirity by Ian, shortly before he asked to be removed from the contributors list...

I have no qualms in withdrawing my article. It’s as easy as a click of button away but before I do that, let me defend to the antagonists who have deemed that my thoughts are unworthy for serious consideration. It seems that suddenly everyone forgot the sufferings of innocent people when other countries decided to do what were best for them.
Remember Korea, remember Vietnam, remember Cuba, remember Afghanistan, remember Palestine, remember Iraq, remember Sierra Leone, remember Somalia and maybe other numerous countries whose fates were affected but never reported in the atrocities that some of us called “in the pursuit of freedom”

So let me defend against the atrocities that were done to my thoughts, which I strongly feel didn’t contain “reeks of Islamic extremism”.
If there is one thing I am guilty of for writing what I did, I was guilty in believing of the existence of better rationale and open mindedness of men to options, no matter how faults-inclined they were. If it reeks of Islamic extremism which I am accused of, I would have written ”in the name of God, let us kill ALL the infidels” but not only did I NOT ask anyone to be killed but I clearly and strongly point out that the piece was meant for us to maybe, just maybe, hold on to our rigid definitions and open up to other solutions so that the process of eliminating fear can take precedent even more, Eliminating FEAR, not people.

Clyde responded to my article,

Clyde said...
"Al-Qaeda, as a group need to come to the table with all the representatives of the Arab States as well as the OIC (Organisation of the Islamic Countries) to talk about their struggles and demands of what they see as an ideal situation. This is because, where can there be struggles when there have been compromises."

There's no doubt about Bush and his administration having exploited the Middle East. But I highly doubt Al-Qaeda will ever gain credibility as a legitimate organisation representative of Muslims. Negotiation and talks of 'compromise' go out the window when you fly 2 planes full of civilians into one of their major cities. And you can never justify such an atrocity. Al-Qaeda and its derivatives are viewed as global criminals and will be hunted down like criminals.

Second, it is America's policy not to negotiate with terrorists. Remember that terrorists are not reasonable people. Their actions can never be logical or lie in the true spirit of Islam.

"There is one thing that is always common to any sort of terrorist action, wherever it happens and whoever performs it. It aims at death, not the death of anyone in particular, just death. It does not matter to the killers if their victims are Christian or Muslim, Hindu or Humanist; what matters is that they show that they can kill where they please." - Archbishop of Canterbury (England), Dr Rowan Williams.

What I meant when I wrote that section of the article was that. Instead of us hunting down Al-Qaeda like criminals as most of us would like to believe. Why don’t we engage them in a manner that will be more productive to conclusive peaceful solutions? Al-Qaeda is a movement or an organisation that will take ages if not forever to be dismantled. Yeah sure, Al-Qaeda as a group of criminals can be dismantled but what about the people who shared in the same belief as the organisation but are Not part of it? How can we be so sure that once Al-Qaeda is dismantled, there wont be another terrorist group that wish to terrorize?
So instead of in probability, be a catalyst towards a cloned Al-Qaeda movement, why don’t we bring these groups of people in a manner that would be more productive? I specifically said that only the Muslims countries should engage with them, not the world because the fact is that Al-Qaeda would only listen to arguments, impositions, demands from an Islamic standpoint, not a global one. The fact does remain that Al-Qaeda fundamentally believes that their actions are acts of revenge against the oppression against Islam and its agents.
The common word here is “Islam”. It is an Islamic world problem and only the Islamic community of the world must come together collectively and only they can and be able to come out with a resolution to tackle Al-Qaeda holistically. Just look at the other terrorist organizations especially HAMAS, whose acts of terrors have been accredited towards Israel’s reactions in killing Palestinian in the name of security towards their own people. It is a problem and the world did try their best to “dismantle” the organization through several ways but still HAMAS, exists.

Clyde also mentioned that “terrorists weren’t reasonable people” and their actions weren’t in true spirit of Islam. I definitely agree with Clyde that their actions of killing and bombing aren’t what Islam teaches to its followers. Islam didn’t ask to kill and hurt people. Islam is an act of surrender to god and nurturing and contributing towards everything that is good in man. But I really would like everyone to stand still for awhile and just imagined that we were on the other side, that we were the “terrorists”. With the little “know hows” we have acquired, the dogmatic approach towards religion that we have cultivated, with the little choices that are available, the mortal struggles we have not only with the environment but also with the people around us, how then would we act? What are our priorities in life? To call this group of people are without reason, seems to be quite wrong. For a person not to have reason, then he has no brain to think, no heart to feel, no spirit to hold on to.
However I would like to thank Clyde, for giving me the opportunity to rephrase my thoughts, explained myself even more and providing me with an optional standpoint.

Another remark that was lambasted at my direction was from Strom,

strom said...
"A couple of days ago, one of Asia wanted man, Azahari Husin, the so-called mastermind of several bomb attacks in this region allegedly blow himself up to pieces when he was caught in a crossfire with the local police in Indonesia. This somewhat prompted a lot of media to bravely announce that global terrorism took a heavy blow from his death and with Azahari demise, the local JI’s network will now be easier to be targeted and destroyed."

You seem to have a lot of sympathies toward this man. So you don't agree that JI's network "will now be easier to be targeted and destroyed?" Why would you think that? You didn't explain anything... but you went on to say:

"Personally I have a lot of views that I want to share regarding global terrorism. First and foremost, I never regarded this movement as a terrorist movement but more a revolutionary. First and foremost, I never regarded this movement as a terrorist movement but more a revolutionary."

So have you considered the implications of your preferred definition? Revolution against what? Against the Americans who your self-styled 'revolutionaries' flew two planes right into the WTCs? But what was it the Americans did that prompted those acts? Can you tell me?

But this is exactly the problem with terrorists and their mindsets, isn't it? It's all a revolution to them too. And suicide-bombing is just another weapon in the Revolution.

"For example, if your girlfriend was harassed by another person of influence, what would you do? Would you go all the way to report the act or just ignore it since it was done once and it might never happen again? If you were to report it, you have to go through the hassle of wasting your time, where your integrity and pride will be put on question, where your act of righteousness is seen as a hassle, bothersome, troublesome by others or you could just live with it, knowing that you might have just saved yourself from a lot of unnecessary problems."

So I suppose... you could also just kill the guy who harassed your girlfriend? Or bomb him to bits? You didn't explain anything here. Who's the protagonist and antagonist in your analogy Or are you implying that the US and the its allies should not have done anything after 9/11, and "just ignore it since it was done once and it might never happen again?"

"All these major conflicts in the world produce deaths, misery, hatred, vengeance, rages and anger but at the end of it all, the victor of each battles will always take precedent in creating a new world and this started because someone had an idea on how he see the world, and how he felt wronged living in a world where he has no say of.
What then is the difference of the battles we now faces as a global community in our fight against these so called terrorist?"

The difference is, if the Muslim extremists and terrorists ever win these 'battles'... [enter your own conclusions, people]

"Al-Qaeda, as a group need to come to the table with all the representatives of the Arab States as well as the OIC (Organisation of the Islamic Countries) to talk about their struggles and demands of what they see as an ideal situation. This is because, where can there be struggles when there have been compromises."

Oh, you want some keeshas and pizzas to go along with the roundtable talks? You don't think Al-Qaeda should be exterminated, do you? Get this: Al-Qaeda ain't just a group. They are a global terrorist organization!
While I agree with some of your talking points regarding S'pore, this post of yours, as a whole, is hopelessly inconsistent and reeks of Islamic extremism. It's just a bully pulpit to preach your jihadist mindset. You're not fooling anyone. Instead of condemning the acts of the terrorists and disseminating the peace of Islam, you are actually condoning their actions! What's wrong with you?! It's people like you that gives Islam such a bad name.

Your title in bold - Thoughts of an ignorant, peaceful, naive and simple man. Ignorance, Naive and Simple, yes; Peaceful, no; and APATHY - you got the worst case.

I went on to check my dictionary for the conclusive meaning of the word terrorism and revolution and my findings are as below,

revolution
2 a : a sudden, radical, or complete change b : a fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed c : activity or movement designed to effect fundamental changes in the socioeconomic situation d : a fundamental change in the way of thinking about or visualizing something : a change of paradigm

Terrorism :
the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

A thought came to me, that in a lot of revolutions especially those that involves force, means of terror was used. Terrors were used to extract fear from your oppositions. I bet a lot of us can think of many ways on how we can extract fear from our opponents, just ask your friendly neighbourhood bully but the difference in that of a bully is that his acts weren’t done to change a fundamental approach to politics or forms of governance.

In the recorded annals of history there were,
the American Revolution -- (1774-1783),
French Revolution -- (1789),
English Revolution -- (1642-1653),
Russian Revolution of 1905 -- (1905),
Mexican Revolution -- (1910),
Xinhai Revolution -- (1911) and many others.
Each and everyone of those revolutions, innocent lives were lost and let us ponder on this thought, don’t you think the government at present during those times would consider their oppressors as terrorists? Because if we were to follow closely to the definitions of terrorism, then these so called “oppressors” did apply “use of terror especially as a means of coercion” but history also did teach us that for each and every revolution, it brought about fundamental changes in its society. The question left is how good or bad were those changes.

I have used the term revolutionary to describe the battles that all of us is facing against Al-Qaeda and its agents simply because; I want to highlight the possibility that for every story, there is always a flipside to it. You either see the glass half full or half empty.

I do not reserve any sympathy towards the demise of Azahari Husin. If he was guilty for his alleged crimes, then he has to bear the just repercussions. I know by saying “alleged” in the previous sentence alone, can be used against me strongly again but have we forgotten the very principle of justice, “innocent till proven guilty”? Personally I feel that even with his demise, JI as a whole wont be dismantled easily because the very fact that JI is based in Indonesia where the majority of its people are Muslims and among that section of the population we cant ignore the possibility that they (JI) have managed to recruit more members, convinced more believers of their brand of theology. One man’s demise can be easily replaced and like a large network with several cores, one missing link, isn’t too much of a significance. Azahari was either played as a link or one of the cores, it’s basically up to us by what we were informed to either believe, which role was he in.

Strom asked of what American’s action that prompted two civilians plane to be crashed into WTC in New York. Do I really need to tell you that? Have you been blind to some of America’s Foreign Policies? Its engagement with several countries both as a democratic country as well as a fundamental entity in the Security Council of the United Nation?

These people whom most of us gladly called terrorists acted in a violent way, in a way against the fundamental teaching of Islam because they felt utter injustice. I am not trying to be Anti-American here but I am not blind either. I am a person with sense and rationality. I can decipher what is justice and what is inequality, and even if it were by people whom I loved and care for, a fact still remained as a fact. Did what America do justified the act of crashing two civilians plane? Of course not but go and tell the people who lost lives, loves and limbs because a country that is so ever powerful failed to act in a manner that is just.

So it’s a fact that Strom cant lived in a world that is controlled by Muslims extremist, hell so cant I but when I said, “What then is the difference of the battles we now faces as a global community in our fight against these so called terrorist?" it was more in referring in parallels towards the past battles and wars that History has so ever delightfully taught us. Why don’t you now imagine a world that is controlled by Communist? Or a world that is controlled by Leftist or a Racists. Fact is, we only have to imagine because we have already fought our battles with elements that we see as a threat and unfavourable and we won decisively.
And I doubt by using stereotypical sarcasms such as “keeshas and pizzas “ reeks of maturity either. We, Muslims do eat other stuffs too. I don’t have a Jihadist mindset. I never wailed a battle cry to kill all non-Muslims for the glory of god, heck I never even ask any of you to kill nor did I justified the actions of killing another person.

Another point which I would like to make about the analogy I’ve made. Well there are other solutions to solve the issue but Strom conveniently decided to use kill and bomb as suggestive acts to decipher the content of the analogy. Neither was I implying that America has no ground to retaliate when they were attacked. Just look at the amount of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) they found in Iraq.

All I wanted to imply on that analogy was the fact that a lot of us aren’t pro-active enough to put forward our views and our definitions in the local political realm. Local means Singapore because we fear that our views and suggestions might be seen as too extremist, too leftist, too pro-terrorist, too ‘reeks of Islamic extremist and having Jihadist mentality”, which I found out soon enough. It wasn’t an implication onto the justification of America and its allies. All I wanted was for us to be able to see out all the differences and embrace each other without fear or prejudice and I was called, “It's people like you that gives Islam such a bad name.”

Apologies again, for people who “cringe with embarrassment for the author”. If it was for my English, then yeah definitely you have grounds but if it was for something that you cant agree upon due to my “ignorance” of political issues, then I cant say much can I without running the risk of slander.

Another reader remarked,

Anonymous said...
i fully agree with Strom. Ian, i wont jump to conclusions, for I believe talks like these are needed so as to understand and learn the inaccuracies in life. Rather then labeling and comparing the WEST, we should find similarities amongst each other.

As for the PAP govt, this is solely another issue. I for one do not blame the govt. for the people's shortcomings, i blame the people. Practically all s'poreans are contented with what the govt. did, do and will do. Through its educational system - we have been programmed into believing that the PAP govt is and will be the best thing that ever happened on this little island that originally belongs to Indonesia. The people have to stand up for themselves and simply 'do the right thing' be it from a religious or humane point of view, but the question of 'by whose judgment' will be another issue. There is no such thing as a CORRECT system, but we shouldn’t give up on the hope of sanity and peace

Thank you for not being mean and sounding reasonable to me. I really appreciate that. I understand the need to educate and correct any inaccuracies that might have been transpired within the article and I am but truly appreciative should there be any inaccuracies in my arguments and all of you guys are willing to correct me. I am but ready to take on and understand new ideas and thoughts.
Thank you for not being mean and sounding reasonable to me. I really appreciate that. I understand the need to educate and correct any inaccuracies that might have been transpired within the article and I am but truly appreciative should there be any inaccuracies in my arguments and all of you guys are willing to correct me. I am but ready to take on and understand new ideas and thoughts.

We have to stand up for what is right and I believe that peace is right and that is the only way for us to come together and realise common grounds. Its just unfortunate that we are in an environment that are not susceptible to that cause.

Another reader left this remark,

shianux said...
what a load of bullshit. you make it sound like suicide bombers have an excuse because they feel that their 'brothers' are oppressed.
Do you know that majority of those who suffer from the attacks of suicide bombers in Iraq are Muslims themselves?
Do you know that the suicide bombers specifically target Muslims in Iraq who wish to have a secular government?
I agree with you on one thing though. There is no such thing as 'moderate Muslims'. There are only Muslims and crazy people. Those who choose to kill, maim and harm in the name of Islam are not Muslims. They are murderous nutjobs.

Let me say this as a libertarian. You cannot have peace if you do not have the means, the will and the power to protect that peace. These terrorists are not 'so-called' terrorists. They ARE. They wish to kill and destroy us because we do not live according to their dictates, and we do not wish to. For all those lefty-wingers, do not for a moment doubt that the terrorists wish to take away what those in the West can take for granted: women's rights, GLBT rights, the right to free speech etc.

I have no respect for someone who tries to whitewash the evil acts of these terrorists by trying to say that 'evil is a matter of perspective', or that 'its ok because they have an excuse'. 2 wrongs don't make a right, and your trying to make them sound like martyrs make it worse.”


When I wrote this piece, did I really want it to be called, “load of bullshit”? nor did I want it to be called a political masterpiece but I wrote it because like Shianux, I thought I was a libertarian as well, though it was hard to swallow for someone whom believe in free speech, doesn’t appreciate the fact that I spoke freely in a way that is free for me to define, no matter how right or wrong it were.

I really didn’t try to justify all the wrong doings in the world especially when innocent lives are at stake but seriously is there any wars that no innocent lives are killed and again the term “innocent” here are so diversified that it can resemble a lot of significant.

I know the crimes that were done to the civilians in Iraq from both sides of the war. Let it be from the terrorist movement or the Americans but fact is I am not just referring to these places alone. What I want to highlight was more towards a holistic approach. I am not trying to whitewash what is wrong or what is evil. I am merely trying to remind myself and people who cared enough to what is really happening and what are the causes to it.

It’s true that there have always been wars between the Sunnis Sect and the Shiite Sect in the Muslim World because both of them cant agree to each dogmatic definitions to Islam but is it right for a foreign power, to come in and decides to favour on one side and proclaimed secularity on the side it is in? I say, let the people decide without fear and prejudice on what is freedom, what is secular, what is the life I want to lead.

Seriously, do you really think the bullets or bombs from anyone are so technologically advanced that they can differentiate what is a “innocent lives” what is a “innocent Muslim” or what is a “bad person”? I do agree with Shianux and time and time again I have said, Islam does NOT ask you to kill anyone for its glory. It NEVER has and it NEVER will. Those who have done it, are misled in believing something which is wrong but what some of us can do is but to call them, “nutjobs”.

Shianux also mentioned that these terrorists without a doubt will rob all of us of our freedom. Whatever brand of freedom we believe in. This is as good as an assumption one can get. Why, even I, believe of such a predicament. Two wrongs didn’t make a right as well. Which is another correct and good moral/ethical statement and a statement which I have faith in as well. But you don’t need a terrorist to take away your human rights, such as women's rights, GLBT rights, the right to free speech etc. All you need is a screwed up government and maybe a Legal Act that authorise your detention without trail at the accordance of an authority.

Its ok that Shianux have no respect for me, I have enough respect for myself that can last a lifetime. I am NO leftist, nor extremist, or someone who is contemplating to be a Muslim terrorist. All I ask for, is that all of us take a time out and maybe, just maybe, for a tiny second acknowledge that there is a flipside to everything and just maybe, we can be a little more patient in our demands to the exterminations of Islamic terrorists.

All I want to is to embrace all without me having to fear and bear prejudice for never once I have failed in my faith to believe in the goodness of man.
And since there are called from my withdrawal from this site, a site where I have loved and come to believe in its purpose and ideals, I will duly obliged for my integrity and credibility will never again, be put out on trial.