[iwar] [fc:Who.says.it's.not.a.war.on.Islam?]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2001-10-13 15:18:59
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:NRC.Web.Site.Remains.Shut.for.Information.Review]"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "Re: [iwar] EMP and other questions"
Next in thread: Leo, Ross: "RE: [iwar] [fc:Who.says.it's.not.a.war.on.Islam?]"
Maybe reply: Leo, Ross: "RE: [iwar] [fc:Who.says.it's.not.a.war.on.Islam?]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Message-Id: <200110132218.PAA07760@big.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 15:18:59 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iwar] [fc:Who.says.it's.not.a.war.on.Islam?]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

[FC - Anonymized for your protection]

[Note from XX: Notive how carefully the writer ignores the Sept.  11
attacks, speaks of a western pre-meditated attack, on the innocents of
Islam and attempts to raise the specter of history with the raising of
Turkey's Attaturk.  The accurate definition of what occured is not a war
by the West on Islam and is accurately a war by Islam on the West.]

Who says it's not a war on Islam?
               by
          Abid Ullah Jan
<a href="mailto:abidjan2@psh.paknet.com.pk?Subject=Re:%20(ai)%20[Fwd:%20"Who%20says%20it's%20not%20a%20war%20on%20Islam?"]%2526In-Reply-To=%2526lt;3BC6E926.F68B3DC7@speconsult.com">abidjan2@psh.paknet.com.pk</a>)
      Weekly Nida-e-Khilafat
         www.tanzeem.org

It is painful to watch old news-reels of Adolf Hitler and Benito
Mussolini making speeches and crowds cheering. Mussolini's  posturing
seems so transparent that one wonders how adults could have taken him
seriously. With Hitler, what comes across is crude, passionate
intensity and the rapture of his audiences, sharing his feelings, with
minds turned off. What is chilling is knowing how many tens of
millions of human beings lost their lives because of these almost
musical-comedy performances. The seemingly shallow stuff can have deep
roots as well as deep consequences. Few things today are more shallow
than the reasons most people have for supporting Bush and Blair war on
"terrorism" and accepting their claims that it is not a war on Islam.
To understand if it is a war on Islam, we need to honestly and
impartially scan the horizon since 1990.
Apart from the massive air strikes, commando raids and a prolonged
"dirty war" against Islamic movements, the police repression,
deportation, torture, censorship and death squads that we are
certainly going to face are certainly not planned after the September
11 attacks. The US "war on terror" is no more than translation to the
physical level, of the systematic approach that started with (1)
introduction of the rancid notion of "Islamic fundamentalism," (2)
classification of Islam; (3) equating "fundamentalism" with extremism
and then terrorism; (4) removal of governments, like Mr. Erbakan in
Turkey, for having affiliations with Islam (5) support of governments'
cracking down on "Islamic extremists" such as Egyptian and Algerian
regimes; (6) development of agendas for government's like Musharraf;
(6) initially supporting the Taliban and then demonising them to show
the world the failure of Islam. The coming physical horror is simply
execution of the judgments passed by the western intellectuals upon
Islam in the past decade or so.
Just have a look at how the ground has been prepared for the coming
"dirty war." Musharraf came to "moderate" religious schools and take
Jihad related Quranic verses from school curricula in 2001. However,
the Economist sensed "The Islamic Threat" way back in its March 13,
1993 edition whereby it declared: "It is the mightiest power in the
Levant...Governments tremble before it. Arabs everywhere turn to it
for salvation from their various miseries. This power is not Egypt,
Iraq, or indeed any nation, but the humble mosque." Mosques would
probably be the next targets after dealing with madrassa. Similarly,
since the establishment of Israel, no one had talked about
"fundamentalism," yet Yitzhak Rabin suddenly started calling the world
in December 1992, "to devote its attention to the greater danger
inherent in Islamic fundamentalism. [W]e stand on the line of fire
against the danger of fundamentalist Islam."
Mr. Bush with a slip of tongue tells his mind in 2001 by describing
the US recent missions in the lands of Islam as "crusade." Peter
Rodman, senior editor of the National Review, however, saw in 1992
that the West being challenged from the outside by a "militant,
atavistic force driven by a hatred of all Western political thought,
harking back to age-old grievances against Christendom....the rage
against us is too great..." (May 11, 1992). Charles Krauthammer summed
up the expected resistance by the Islamic civilisation to the
hegemonic designs of the US in one word: "Global Intifada,"
(Washington Post January 1, 1993). He tried to suggest that the world
is now "facing a mood and a movement...a perhaps irrational but surely
historic reaction of an ancient rival against our Judaeo-Christian
heritage, our secular present, and the worldwide expansion of both."
The New York Times went one step ahead and confirmed on January 21st,
1996: "The Red
Menace Is Gone. But Here's Islam." The open war against it, however,
had to be delayed until a perfect excuse like the September 11
attacks.
Intellectuals like Samuel P. Huntington played a key role in making
Islam an enemy of choice. He declared: "Islam is the only civilisation
which has put the survival of the West in doubt." Web page of the
Montclair State University in New Jersey reads: "The West today is
losing irretrievably its former global hegemony and is increasingly
challenged economically and
culturally by East Asian and Islamic civilisations." Irving Kristol,
Council on Foreign Relations, wrote in the Wall Street Journal,
editorial August 2, 1996: "With the end of the Cold War, what we
really need is an obvious ideological and threatening enemy, one
worthy of our mettle, one that can unite us in opposition."
Bernard Lewis In his influential essay, "The Roots of Muslim Rage,"
writes: "Islamic fundamentalism has given an aim and a form to the
otherwise aimless and formless resentment and anger of the Muslim
masses" (Atlantic, September 99). Islamic "fundamentalism," according
to Amos Perlmutter (Insight in the News, February 15, 1993), is "a
plague" which has infected the entire Islamic world and whose goal is
to topple secularist military regimes in Egypt, Syria and Algeria and
replace them with [unacceptable] Islamic states."
Daily Express, ran an article "Islam Is a Creed of Cruelty" on January
16, 1995, which concluded that the spectre of Islamic fundamentalism
was haunting Europe and the world power should enter into a holy
alliance to exorcise this spectre. The underlying assumption has
always been that Islam is primitive, underdeveloped, retrograde, at
best stuck in the memory hole of a medieval splendour out of which it
could not disentangle itself without a radical transformation; and
this could only be based on Western, "rational", "progressive" values.
The long proposed "holy alliance" is now in making.
A above mentioned examples show that during the past 11-12 years
systematic efforts have been directed to relegated Islam from its
holistic perspective, encompassing all facets of human conduct and
behaviour to a mere set or rituals, something what the west has done
to Christianity itself. According to Lt-Col Trinka of US Army,
"[Muslims] must work to fashion the shariah into a modern blue print
for change." In a similar vein, one of the CIA experts counselled that
those Muslims who do not believe that world of God is law, should be
found and supported. "The Arab rulers," he thinks, "have
to create a new identity of [Muslim] seductively fusing Islam and the
West."
This so-called expert added: "Though the Saudi rulers may be guilty of
ugly authoritarian behaviour and consistent stupidity in foreign
affairs, they are at least fervent hypocrites, and that [in] Middle
East Affairs, a fervent hypocrite is always safer than a fervent
puritan." He had the audacity to make such humiliating remark because
there was truth in it. These are in fact general policy guidelines
that we see in operation during lifting of democracy related sanctions
against Pakistan and visit of the British Prime Minister who could not
bear an undemocratic government in Pakistan at any cost.
Over the last decade the western propaganda successfully divided
Muslim into "Moderates," "Liberals" and "Fundamentalists" for whom
there is no basis or justification in Islam. There has been no
definition offered even in the Western propaganda. Salman Rushdie,
however, lists in his October 2, article in Washington Post what he
believes fundamentalists are against: "homosexuals, pluralism,
secularism, short skirts, dancing, evolution theory, sex." He believes
such "fundamentalists are tyrants, not Muslims...yes, even the short
skirts and dancing -- are worth dying for." He further argues,
"kissing in public places, bacon sandwiches, cutting-edge fashion,
movies, music, freedom of thought, beauty, love," should matter and
"these will be our weapons." The moderates among us should decide for
themselves as to what kind of Islam allows kissing in public places,
bacon sandwiches, homosexuality, etc.
Besides mass propaganda, efforts were underway to support Hosnie
Mubarak like regimes for their crackdown on Islamic opposition and
remove Erbakan like elected governments for exactly the same reasons
for which the US wants to support religious groups in China. With
false propaganda, the Taliban have been demonised to the extent that
even majority of the Muslims who have never set a foot on the Afghan
soil to verify the grand lies, speak in the anti-Taliban, CNNised
language. The US has established that a country can never be ruled
with Islamic principles. Now the war is only left to be carried out by
individual Muslim countries by collecting information on its citizens
as to who is involved with the banned religious parties, who is the
extremist, how to arrest and try the fundamentalism and if necessary
remove them from the scene.
Apart from the above-mentioned factors, the US, UK recent moves are
part of an undeclared war on Islam because:
1. Jonathan Steele, Ewen MacAskill, Richard Norton-Taylor and Ed
Harriman reported on September 22, 2001 in the Guardian that attacks
on Afghanistan were planned before September 11. The US planned the
attacks as soon as it considered it's demonising the Taliban project
as complete.
2. Islam is the only challenge to American hegemony with its claims to
be a complete code of life with panacea for ills in economic,
political, moral and spiritual systems, and thus only Islam can pose a
threat to the civilisation considered superior by the West.
3. The West reasons that the source of terrorism is not its terrorism
but Islamic teachings and history. Naturally, the real campaign is
against the teachings of Islam from the original sources at Madrassa.
Mustafa Kamal destroyed Islamic teachings 85 years ago in Turkey and
dried up the swamp. We however are expected to follow the suit sooner
than later.
4. The US is planning to impose its brand of democracy or autocracy -
whichever may be suitable -- on Muslim countries by force. The US put
forward many symbolic personalities over the years to undermine the
roots of Islam. These advocates preach unconditional assimilation
into, support of, sympathy toward, and whole-hearted participation in
the social and political system espoused by the US.
5. Transmissions of BBC and CNN testify to the fact that it is a war
on Islam. On their part they put forward unqualified individuals or
groups as representatives of Islam who may be unethical, deviants, or
outright heretics from the religion with no subjective measures being
used to ascertain the qualifications of such people. Rushdie's recent
article in the Washington Post is an excellent example. They present
Islamic Shariah as antiquated, irrelevant, authoritarian,
unsophisticated, and limited.
6. By making public statements like: Taliban are not the real Muslims,
the American leaders, like Karl Inderfurth, have long been creating a
nationalistic or ethnic view and approach to Islam, or more
accurately, creating a new religion that cannot truly be called Islam
but rather has some outward aspects of it. It will certainly be one
that would not pose a challenge to the US domination or offer anything
that will make Islam seen as a viable alternative to the US uni-polar
world.
7. The evidence suggests that it is the US government that has been
playing a leading role in the media crusade against Islam. As early as
fall 1994, PBS aired a documentary by journalist Steve Emerson Titled
"Jihad in America." Evidence within the programme suggests that
Emerson has access to official government intelligence. Some clips
appear to be from home videos confiscated from Muslims in FBI sweeps.
A decade of this kind of programming has set the climate for a war on
Islam.The facts do not change with the denials of Bush and Balir. The
strength of Islam lies in the fact that despite having far less
military and economic power, the western war-makers do not have the
courage to declare it an open war on Islam. They would certainly fail
as long as they want to cover their ulterior motives and undermine
Islam under the guise of looking for "infinite Justice." Ending
terrorism through eradicating its root causes may not take more than a
few months. However, defeating Islam may cost them many generations
before finally realising that it was a wrong war.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Pinpoint the right security solution for your company- Learn how to add 128- bit encryption and to authenticate your web site with VeriSign's FREE guide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yQix2C/33_CAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:NRC.Web.Site.Remains.Shut.for.Information.Review]"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "Re: [iwar] EMP and other questions"
Next in thread: Leo, Ross: "RE: [iwar] [fc:Who.says.it's.not.a.war.on.Islam?]"
Maybe reply: Leo, Ross: "RE: [iwar] [fc:Who.says.it's.not.a.war.on.Islam?]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-12-31 20:59:55 PST