Jesus Iscariot

The day Abdelazziz Rantissi accepted to replace Cheikh Yassin, little did he know that he was also replacing him on the crosshairs of Mossad. As far as the Israelis are concerned, the one replacing Yassin is less important, than the avowal to pack Israel out of where it stands, and to adopt the Palestinian negotiating style of All-Or-Nothing.

Declaring war on Israel, gives the Israeli state the opportunity; if not the right to defend itself at all costs. That includes elimininating all potential threats. Tsahal is the champion par-exellence of pre-emptive strikes. But in this story of strike and counter-strike the two parties do not have the same chances. I say it again, a dictatorship cannot defeat a well-established democracy. While Israeli governments reason in cycles of 4year mandates, Palestinian leaders react in terms of my-turn-till-I-die.

Scenario: The chances are not not the same. Every new Israeli government tries a new peace plan hoping that if it works....FINE. Towards the end of their mandates, they all take a more radical stance as a means to placate the ever-present Jewish Right Wing in the Knesset. In between, if an American election looms, Israeli goverments test the power of the American Jewish lobby by an action that will be internationally condemned except by the USA. But one thing remains clear, war-weariness might set in only on the Palestinian side because the people, the message, the objectives and the tactics never change ... except when Israel gives them a chance to. Like now. Killing Rantissi is a chance for the Palestinians to reflect and change. if they don't FINE!.

Despite all this, I am still convinced that killing someone who is planning to kill you, is no news. God has been trying this on Satan forever. Jesus was his suicide bomber ... and he failed. How do the Palestinians, living in the land where all this happened think they'll succeed? Are they better than the God they "believe" in? That was the Old Testament.

Comments to: axacha@yahoo.com

It is not out of the extraordinary for the Israeli governement to assassinate Cheikh Yassin. It is less extraordinary for the operation to be personally supervised by PM Sharon. On the contrary, it is most extraordinary that; Hamas did not expect it, or that Yasser Arafat thinks the Israeli government makes a difference between him and the like of Yassin and that in a war there are no lesser nor greater victims.

Cheikh Yassin may not have been a physical threat to Israel for the past decade, but just like Osama Bin Laden for the Americans, if actions are going to be carried out in his name, with his benediction or inspired from him, he becomes as great a threat as the idiot who blows himself with bombs. When Terrorism becomes a means to a political end, all perpetrators become potential victims. Hamas has adopted terrorism as a means to deal with Israel. For the past 10 years, Arafat and Hamas do not realise that Israel has every interest to be at war with the Palestinians. It gives room for all possible excesses. In this light, the imminent assassination of Arafat is not enough to Give Sharon sleepless nights. It is justified by war. I don't understand how Israel is expected to show restraint when war is declared against her. On the other hand, I do not expect Hamas to show restraint ... except if they plan to lose.

Terrorism is a political option, no doubt. Suicide is not. All political activity have a planning, executing and assessment phases. Suicide bombing has just planning and executing ... you'll never be there to assess.

Comments to: axacha@yahoo.com

The bomb blasts in Madrid have been interpreted as extreme Islam's answer for Spain's support in the Iraq war. Did Spain give more support to the US than the British did?

Since the end of open hostilities in Iraq there are 20 times more American dead than British, despite the presence of more than 50 thousand British troops in Southern Iraq. One thing I know is that the British come with 35 years of urban terror experience, thanks to the IRA. Every career military man in the UK with more than 5 years duty, has been to Northern Ireland once; even if just for a beer and the smell. The Spanish on the other hand have some experience with ETA, but it is limited to Anti-Terror units of the Policia.

Does this explain the relative security in the British controlled parts of Iraq? No. Generally, there is a different perception of the English by Arabs (compared to the Americans). The most sought after Islamist radicals or political opponents to Middle-East regimes are based in the UK. The most virulent Europe-based pro Arab/Islamist newspapers are published in the UK. So in general, before September 11, the UK looked more tolerant to Islamic fundamentalism - as a political movement - than the Americans did. Look at this example, Al Qaeda declarations are made either through Al-Arabiya and Al Jazeera Satellite TV's based in the Middle-East, or Al-Quds a London based newspaper. The British do not sympathise with Islamists but endeavour to understand them. Meaning that Tony Blair is less of an enemy in the eyes of extremist Islam than Bush is. Spain was just an easy terror target. The message was to George Bush ... Aznar's party, and the dead are collateral damage.

Comments to: axacha@yahoo.com

He is the 19-year-old Serbian student who assassinated Archduke Francis Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914, which ignited the conflagration of World War I, which yielded the Treaty of Versailles, which deeply embittered an Austrian corporal named Adolf Hitler, who in response booted up the great horror of World War II, which yielded the Treaty at Yalta, which divided up Eastern Europe in such a way that another Serb named Slobodan Milosevic felt the need to ethnically cleanse Kosovo.

What is the threat caused by the Islamic veil? None. You might say in public places, like schools, it is a problem. Possibly. I have simple way of seeing this issue in schools.

As a school teacher I will not accept that a pupil comes to my class with his ears all covered under layers of cloth. A school is an institution of learning where, above all, we need the contribution of all our senses - including hearing. It has nothing to do with whether or not Islam has a place in the French Republic. But as we all know with the French, since the French Revolution, all that is legal is fair. So they want to pass a law to "legalise" the use of the Islamic veil in public. That will be fair to them. What about the Christmal tree? and the Cross. My neighbor thinks the Christmas tree is not the same issue because nobody comes to school wearing one on his head.



Comments to axacha@yahoo.com

Mouammar Kadaffi does not shock me.

In fact he has proven that he is the most pragmatic of Arab leaders...He could afford to be an open enemy of the West 15 years ago. But now things are changing and it seems like he is the first of Arab leaders to realise. The rest of the other Arab leaders, like their religion, are hopelessly stranded within the corridors of social regression and political irrealism.

Saddam proved that he wanted to live...He's not suicidal at all.

Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas resigned because he was "never given full responsibility over security issues" within the Palestinian Authority.

Analysis
Saying that Abbas was never given full authority over security issues actually means that somebody could give him that authority. In other words Arafat.

Mahmoud Abbas could not have staked his tenure of office on the security issue if he did not have a card up his sleeve. On the other hand, Arafat could only refuse to relinquish such authority only because he knew that Abbas could effectively do something with it. So we are faced again with an Arafat who has put himself in position to share the blame for the failure of the Roadmap for Peace. The other parties to be blamed of course are Israel, the US and the armed groups.

To my mind the change of Palestinian PM has no bearing with the outcome of negotiations that are supposed to culminate in the creation of a Palestinian State. These are the stakes...

Arafat at his age, and his baggage of resistance cannot the reality of accepting that somebody else takes credit (even partially) for the creation of the Palestinian state. Mahmoud Abbas may be a long time compagnon to Arafat but that does not make him an equal. Summarily, I am saying that relationships within the Palestinian Authority have boiled down Ego-Politics. No Palestinian State if it's not Arafat doing it. But then who holds real power in the Palestian Authority?

Hamas, Fatah and the lesser armed groups have proven lately (and Tsahal too) that they can derail any peace move with yet another strike. I begin to think that Arafat really has no power but is hidding behind the striking force of Hamas. Hamas and Fatah meanwhile, are hiding behind Arafat's status and predicament to justify their acts.

On the Israeli side, I am surprised that all the Generals (mostly trained in Sandhurst and Fort Bragg) haven't looked at the way the the Biafran Insurgency was brought to an end. Cordon off the territory...stop arms from going into Palestinian hands. Or maybe the Israeli's prefer to wear out the Palestinians in a long bitter fight? Until we know how arms get into Palestinian hands...peace is not for tomorrow.

Comments to axacha@yahoo.com

One might try as much as possible not to judge men from thier origins or color, for fear of being tagged a racist. But what is the stance to be adopted when a people from a particular origin persistently and consistently prove to be what they are because of where they come from. I will not tarry to say that I am talking about the French...from France

The international system of conflict resolution is finally coming to a deal with the Libyans about the Lockherbie Bombing...and suddenly the French are proud to announce that they might veto the proposal.
Frankly, where is the problem with the Libyans accepting moral responsibility for the Lockherbie bombing? Oh the French have a case too against the Libyans.

Now I get to my characteristic racism...since the French Revolution - during which the French legalised terror as a form of government - I have not been capable of not thinking that the French cannot make the difference between the legal and the fair. Look at it this way, for the French "if it is legal, it is fair". As such the French culture has never been capable of producing a gentleman...or Lady since before the French Revolution. Anyway being male or female in France is an Act of Parliament.

Who is a gentleman? Think about a Gentleman's Agreement The capacity of forgetting written down law and agreeing on a common acceptable solution for parties to a conflict. Challenge my definition. The Lockherbie deal is illegal? in that it is not prescribed by any law, but it is fair in the sense that the families of the Lockherbie victims are ready to accept it. So what is the French stance...VETO?

"only the hand which feeds may carry the poison" Ax. Conversations - 1999

What's the similarity between Charles Taylor and Bin Laden. I am interested in three:
- they have worked with the CIA
- they are being tracked by the CIA
- they are embarassements to the US

If you don't see the link between Taylor and the CIA, look at it this way...
Q - how did Taylor escape from a US jail?
A - With help

The major difference between Taylor and Bin Laden...Bin Laden will never be President. Count on the Bush. Arabs so far have not realised that Bin Laden and Co. going underground is as much a foreign policy determinant as it is a foreign policy objective for the Bush Administration. I have the impression that Americans want to cut the umbillical cords that link them with certain "embarrassing friendships". About Liberia, the US never thought it necessary to ask the opinion of the AU - African Union. WHY?

The AU is a syndicate of Heads of States...the AU has to do only with the Heads, not the States. But the US desperately needed a pretext to do away with an embarrassment. Think about Bin Laden, Savimbi, Taylor, Saudi Arabia? Who's next? Israel? Possibly!

Comments to axacha@yahoo.com

"Racism has always been both an instrument of discrimination and a tool of exploitation. But it manifests itself as a cultural phenomenon, susceptible to cultural solutions, such as multicultural education and the promotion of ethnic identities.

Tackling the problem of cultural inequality, however, does not by itself redress the problem of economic inequality. Racism is conditioned by economic imperatives, but negotiated through culture: religion, literature, art, science and the media.

... Once, they demonised the blacks to justify slavery. Then they demonised the "coloureds" to justify colonialism. Today, they demonise asylum seekers to justify the ways of globalism. And, in the age of the media, of spin, demonisation sets out the parameters of popular culture within which such exclusion finds its own rationale - usually under the guise of xenophobia, the fear of strangers."

axacha@yahoo.com

Terrorism is a political choice and so is fueled by ideology. The question of whether the ideology is morally tenable and justifiable is a matter of academic debate. One may call it extremism, but don't we all have the right to express our thought...to the extremes? Just as everybody has a natural right to self-expression, so to do others (victims) have the rigth to rebel tooth and nail. As such, George Bush and the "Axis Of Evil" are ideological adversaries with equal rights and responsibilities. We are talking of an ideological struggle for dominance between Democracy and Extremist Islam. Leave out North Koreans whom i think are a band of overzealous idiots with misplaced priorities.

Extremist Islam must be combatted as an ideology first. If not, the mass media will have the tendency to move from one violent event to the next that will finally replace the possible attainable ideological victory for a semantic debate. Afghanistan has proven that individuals the-world-over can adher to Extremist Isamic ideologies.

Terrorism or Liberation Struggle?
Guerilla warfare has a similar dictionary definition with terrorism. I do not think that contemporary terrorism is worse than or more efficient than Nazism. You just need to look at the terrorists' ideals. Countering terrorism is not to be conditioned by which one is worse than the other or whom it affects...but by building contrary ideologies. That is how Nazism by Hitler was defeated. That is how Russian Communism came apart. Neo-Nazism will follow.

Comments to axacha@yahoo.com

border=0 width=41 alt="">

A tale of weapons of mass destruction massively destroyed

Comments to axacha@yahoo.com

"Bad ideas flourish because they are in the interest of powerful groups" -- Paul Krugman

Politics in the name of the Prophet
by ERIC ROULEAU
November 2001
Translated by Luke Sandford

The West, in ignorance and suspicion, has confused and simplified the many kinds of political Islam, and presumed a false link between terrorism and the religion of Islam.

Western leaders' calls to distinguish between Islam and terrorism may not be enough to check the spectre of racism. The real risk is that racist sentiment, conscious or not, will grow among ordinary people who are frightened and bewildered. The general feeling is that the West and the "civilised" democracies are waging a war (if not a crusade) against totalitarian and fanatical Muslims. Terrorist calls for jihad against "infidel crusaders" determined to subjugate Muslims have made that feeling more plausible. These worrying parallels have carved a dangerous gulf between two civilisations and two worlds, setting the well-to-do against the powerless and their pent-up frustrations and resentments.

With some notable exceptions, Western leaders and media luminaries are feeding this polarisation in two ways: they downplay the terrorists' political motivations and instead emphasise their religious identity, drawing on the muddled terminology they profess to avoid. The indiscriminate use of terms such as Islam, fanaticism, terrorism, fundamentalism, Islamism – as if they were interchangeable – leads at best to confusion and may even serve to exacerbate anti-Muslim racism. According to a survey conducted by the polling firm IFOP, 50% of the French public admit equating fanaticism with Islam (1).

Dangerous misunderstandings are inevitable when people talk about "fundamentalism" – something foreign to Islam – or even when they refer to "Islamism", which some Islamic scholars have adopted for want of a better term, although more cautious observers talk of "political Islam". Generalisations about Islamist movements and parties cause similar confusion and absence of distinction. Islamist political parties are, in fact, quite dissimilar: often they have nothing in common but their references to the Prophet and Islam, which they interpret in a number of conflicting or contradictory ways, and they span the political spectrum from left to far right.

Iran provides a prime insight into such inter-Islamist conflicts. The strongest opposition that Ayatollah Khomeini faced after his rise to power in 1979 came not from secular parties but from Islamist groups. Some of these groups were liberal (supported by the leading ayatollahs), while others were inspired by social democratic or Marxist beliefs. Following the elimination of those who opposed Khomeini's line the conflict has, in recent years, crystallised into two tendencies: the totalitarianism of the Supreme Guide, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in the minority; and the majority democratic, secularist faction led by President Mohammad Khatami (2). Reflecting the divisions within broader society, the Iranian clergy are also deeply split between conservatives and reformers, with both camps relying on contradictory readings of religious texts.

In Turkey, another non-Arab Muslim nation, the Islamist movement has been politically active in various guises for half a century. Respectful of the legal system established by Kemal Atatürk, the Turkish Islamists accept the secular state but condemn the government for not observing religious neutrality, as is the practice in France and the US. Turkey's "Islamic democrats", as they are sometimes known, drawing on the European Christian democratic analogy, are widely represented in Turkey's parliament and municipal councils, and their historic leader, Necmettin Erbakan, served as prime minister in a coalition cabinet in 1996-97 before his civil rights were suspended. The "Islamic democrats" see themselves as victims of discrimination: paradoxically, they are leading the fight for Turkish human rights and democracy in the hope that Turkey will be admitted to the European Union.

Egypt has several Islamist organisations with divergent viewpoints and objectives. With only one or two exceptions, these groups advocate non-violent reforms. The oldest and largest of these is the Muslim Brotherhood, which condemns violence, whether it is the Islamist "dictatorship" in Sudan or the "crimes" committed by Algeria's Armed Islamic Group (GIA). Some of the Brotherhood's younger members left the movement, however, regarding it as too conservative, to form the Wasat party (the "middle way"), which advocates political pluralism and human rights (3). Al-Wasat has a woman and a Christian on its central committee, setting it apart from other Islamic groups. In contrast to the moderation of these groups, the militant Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led by Ayman al-Zawahiri, joined Osama bin Laden's terrorist organisation.

There are plenty of other examples of the diversity of political Islam in the Arab and Muslim countries, from the Atlantic to the Persian Gulf. Indeed, the Islamic movement has undergone various notable transformations from the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in 1928, which grew into a huge mass movement and, in its heyday, expanded throughout the region. The routing of the Arab armies during the Six-Day war in June 1967 was a defining moment, leading, as it did, to the collapse of a number of nationalist and socialist groups that were blamed for the catastrophic loss. To ease the distress and humiliation, local populations turned to their religious faith out of desperation. Forced by most regimes to meet clandestinely, the Islamists used the mosques as a political forum; and their charitable and corporate organisations provided the bearers of the Islamist message.

An outlet for protest and action

Whether out of conviction or opportunism, the Islamists shaped their political discourse to match that of their vanquished rivals. Islamic rhetoric became an instrument of mobilisation, serving as a cover for nationalist and anti-imperialist objectives. But it also had a social component, and included denunciations of the injustices, corruption, and tyranny that characterised the reigning oligarchies. Political Islam thus became one of the few outlets for protest and action. Ayatollah Khomeini's pronouncements, minus their theological references, were virtually indistinguishable from statements from Third World leaders such as the late Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser. The leader of the Iranian revolution thus came to occupy that part of the political spectrum that the Shah of Iran bequeathed to him after having overseen the destruction of the democratic opposition parties of both the left and the right.

Although demagogic in nature, the Islamists' political and social programme gained more favour with the public than their religious message, which was primarily reactionary, misogynistic and morally repressive. This is the sole explanation for the Islamists' success following, and not before, their transformation into militant nationalists. They undoubtedly benefited from wide-ranging assistance (especially financial) from states that claimed Islamic roots, such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, which sought to strengthen their own bases after the fall of regimes hostile to their interests. It later became clear that this support was not reciprocal, since these governments did not realise that political Islam, as a brand-new phenomenon, was not necessarily sympathetic to their interests.

Faced with this threat, the Arab regimes tried to neutralise the Islamists, either by pursuing them with extraordinary brutality or by integrating them within state institutions, retaining the ability to co-opt them. The Islamists were successfully co-opted in countries such as Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait and Yemen, where they have representation in parliament, and in some cases in government. By contrast, the Islamists suffered appalling massacres in Syria and ruthless repression in Tunisia and Iraq. In Algeria, those who seek to stamp out the Islamists have only succeeded in prolonging a particularly bloody conflict.

It would be wrong to conclude that clashes between the established regimes and the Islamists pit supporters of secularism against its opponents. Some states opposed to political Islam have constitutions and legislation that conform to the teachings of the sacred texts. Other states fight so passionately to become more Islamic than their opponents that they have come to resemble them.

Saudi Arabia and Egypt are both examples of this phenomenon. With rare exceptions, their governments have at times colluded with the Islamists in the fight against even more fearsome rivals. Former Egyptian president Anwar Sadat protected them in the 1970s to neutralise the left-leaning Nasserists and the communists; ironically, Sadat was assassinated by an Islamist in 1981. His successor, Hosni Mubarak, stopped pursuing the Islamists after they signed up for the anti-Soviet campaign in Afghanistan, yet Mubarak himself became the target of an assassination attempt in 1995. Jordan's King Hussein often relied on Islamist support in combating opponents of his reign. Yemen's President Abdallah Saleh won over the Islamists in clashes with Marxists in South Yemen. Sudan's former president Gaafar Numeiri took similar steps to win over political parties opposed to absolute rule and to help him overcome separatist, Christian and animist rebels in the south of Sudan.

The case of Israel is virtually identical. Successive Israeli governments discreetly supported the Muslim Brotherhood in the Occupied Territories while the Brotherhood was exclusively attacking Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), which it viewed as a gang of nationalists and Marxists, all traitors to Islam. The Israeli leadership realised its short-sightedness during the first intifada, begun in 1987, when the Brotherhood gave birth to Hamas, dedicated to the liberation of Palestine through armed struggle and terrorism.

Good versus evil

United States policies have been no different from those of Israel and the Arab states. Washington has always viewed the Islamists as natural partners, implacably opposed to "communist atheists" and strongly supportive of market economics. Washington believed the Islamists would eventually take their place within the free world. The US alliance with Saudi Arabia, home to rigid Wahhabism, has continued since the second world war. In the 1950s and 1960s Muslim countries and Islamist movements fought alongside the US against Nasserism and the evil Soviet empire. It was a struggle of good versus evil, version one.

The Soviet retreat from Afghanistan, the Gulf war and the collapse of the Soviet empire changed the picture radically and brought about a new sort of Islamism, which grew in the mountains of Afghanistan. The mujahedin did not see themselves as mere back-up troops for the US; they believed, along with Osama bin Laden and his future supporters, that they had liberated Islamic land through valour, sacrifice and, in many cases, martyrdom. Their disappointment in the aftermath of victory was commensurate with their self-styled role. They had no jobs or resources, nor did they receive gratitude, compensation or inclusion in any future plans for the country.

The US, grateful nonetheless, did exert discreet pressure on reluctant governments, urging them to repatriate fighters who would go on to devote themselves to violence in Algeria, Kashmir, Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt, then Bosnia and Chechnya. When Egypt repeatedly refused to welcome back Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, who was implicated in President Sadat's assassination, the US granted him a visa in 1990, followed by permanent resident status. In 1993 the sheikh masterminded the first attack on the World Trade Centre and was given a life sentence.

The 1990-91 Gulf war sparked demonstrations and protests throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds, not out of sympathy with Saddam Hussein as some claimed, but in protest at Washington's bias and double standards. Indignant nationalist and Islamist media asked why only Iraq faced sanctions for its invasion of Kuwait when Israel had occupied Arab territories for decades with impunity. And in the wake of the Gulf war, why did the US set up bases in several Gulf countries, most notably in the holy land of Saudi Arabia, if not to protect various unpopular and/or unstable regimes? The world's sole superpower became the favourite target of Islamists of all persuasions, including those who went on to adopt the Bin Laden label.

Is this a case of knee-jerk anti-Americanism? Hostility toward US foreign policy is not an intrinsically Arab or Muslim phenomenon, as some observers imply; in fact, there is now worldwide resentment in Africa, Latin America, Asia and Europe, within Muslim and non-Muslim communities alike. But anti-American sentiment is not irreversible; indeed, the US has been highly popular among Arab peoples at various points in recent history. Witness President Wilson's calls for the emancipation of all colonised peoples following the first world war. In 1945 President Roosevelt, together with Saudi Arabia's King Ibn Saud, sought to resolve the Palestinian problem with the cooperation of the Arab states; after the second world war the US was thought to be opposed to British and French colonialism. And during the 1956 Suez crisis, President Eisenhower called on the United Kingdom, France and Israel to end their military action against Egypt and withdraw their troops forthwith. At such moments, a Bin Laden would have had no grounds for existence.

A new historical phenomenon

Is terrorist activity inextricably linked with Islam? Terrorism is actually a worldwide scourge that has reared its head under diverse conditions and in countries as dissimilar as Germany, Japan, Italy, Argentina and Greece. Before it assumed its recent "Islamic" form, it was successively or simultaneously Palestinian, Israeli, Egyptian, Yemeni. It was also endemic, occasional, individual, nationalist or governmental in nature, and it primarily targeted local populations.

Founded by Osama bin Laden at the end of the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan, the al-Qaida brand of terrorism is an entirely new historical phenomenon, quite different in its make-up. Targeting US interests almost exclusively, it is transnational in its recruitment and identity since it claims to act on behalf of the umma, the Muslim nation, which is spread over five continents. This is a global phenomenon insofar as al-Qaida operates on a worldwide scale – in more than 50 countries according to the US State Department – and makes use of practices and technology made possible by globalisation.

Often influenced by Western culture, al-Qaida's members are recruited among the middle classes and work in small semi-autonomous cells even when inspired by directives from the "centre". This nebulous organisation is not the direct tool of any state; for financial and logistical support, it relies on private collaborators, charitable associations and wealthy backers. Unlike the previous generation of terrorists, who acted on behalf of organisations that also (simultaneously) engaged in non-violent political activities, Bin Laden's disciples apparently do not have any structured popular support. They are in some ways marginalised, yet they claim to speak and act on behalf of some 1bn Muslims of all religious persuasions.

Islam's highest authorities, both Sunni and Shia, condemned – almost unanimously – the suicide attacks of 11 September, although their denunciations did not receive widespread coverage in the Western media. In solemn declarations from their pulpits, they have made clear that the murder of innocents is contrary to the letter and the spirit of the holy books, as were the actions of the suicide pilots (suicide is expressly forbidden by all three monotheistic religions). What value can be ascribed to the fatwas of Bin Laden and his jihad-hungry cohorts, whose religious authority is dubious, if not non-existent?

With some exceptions, the Islamist movements of the Arab world have spoken out as well. For example, al-Nahda, the clandestine Tunisian party of Rashed Ghannoushi, issued a communiqué stating that it "unreservedly condemns the terrorism … behind these unjustifiable barbarous acts, which cannot be attributed to Muslims". Less explicit but equally categorical, other Islamist organisations have repudiated "all forms of violence, whatever their source".

Rather than focusing on Islam and its alleged relationship with fanaticism and terrorism, it may be wiser to question the sanity of the killers of 11 September, as well as Bin Laden's emerging cult of death, which parallels various infamous sects in Europe and the US. Indeed we may do well to contemplate the morbid sense of jubilation exhibited by the perpetrators of the suicide attacks.

Branded a heretic and repudiated by Islamists and Muslim leaders alike, Bin Laden appears to have earned the indulgence and sympathy of many people, both Muslim and non-Muslim. This is not as paradoxical as it may seem. In their quest for justice and recognition, the victims of globalisation also see themselves as suffering at the hands of arrogant US hegemony. Even though they show little tolerance for overbearing theologians or al-Qaida's unspeakable methods, these people have proven receptive to Bin Laden's political message. Having chosen to ignore this reality, those waging the Enduring Freedom military campaign risk lending credence to the notion of a religious war.



(1) Le Monde, 5 October 2001.

(2) See ?ric Rouleau, "Islam confronts Islam in Iran", Le Monde diplomatique English edition, June 1999.

(3) See Wendy Kristianasen, "Islam on message for modernity", Le Monde diplomatique English edition, April 2000.



axacha@yahoo.com

THE LANGUAGE CIRCUS


Then came 9/11! You know, I really don´t know what
qualifies as war these days. As for George Bush.Jr.,
9/11 was a declaration of war, no more, no less. He
and his friends then proceeded to wage war on
Afghanistan(or on the Taliban and Al-Queda, as they
prefer to stress)what they concede is a war. The rest
you know: spectacular detonations with Rambo-like TV
coverage; bread and bombs; 'collateral damage' and so
on and so forth. A handful of 'people'( for lack of a
better word) get arrested and taken away to some
obscure colonial relic called Guantanamo Bay. Though
some ejaculation of ingenuity, these war captives are
categorised neither as prisoners of war nor as
civilians. A 3rd category is invented for them: "Enemy
combattants". The reasons for this coinage, as the
gentle war hero Powell claims, include the fact that
these captives had neither uniforms nor serial numbers
and ranks in a regular army. Bo (friend), since when did
anyone´s understanding of war, war crimes, prisoner of
war, or war-whatever-you-like depend on the
availability of uniforms and serial numbers? At this
rate we may end up with arguments like: A man is a man
because he is dressed. Naked, he ceases to be a man!
Or are we now confronted with the global
westernization of the meaning of war? Or maybe it´s
just the logical outcome of 'asymmetrical warfare'.
And now a 'soft' quiz!
How do we characterise the victims of the twin-tower
attacks? 2 types of answers are possible. First, the
politically-correct answers: I assume the vast
majority of people across all civilisations consider
the twin-tower victims as non-military targets. I also
assume that these victims were innocent civilians 'par
excellence' in the eyes of virtually all westerners.
And those who buy neither of the above answers? NOW
the politically-incorrect answers: Those victims may
just have been 'Enemy profiteers'. After all, profit
corrupts; absolute profit corrupts absolutely. If you
can´t understand 'Enemy profiteers', how can you
understand 'Enemy combattants'? I call it
"asymmetrical reasoning", though unlike the MIGHTY,
I have no 'freedom' to invent new phrases or new
meanings.
You see, in the end it´s all the same, whatever labels
politicians here, there and everywhere decide to
parrot around.

Adeso Stefan ZUI

The (AU) African Union Summit ended over the weekend with Alpha Omar KONARE (AOK) voted as first president.

Points of note: He is the former president of MALI - he came to power by free and fair democratic elections, got re-elected once, and handed over power to Amadou Toumani Toure last year. Thats a scoop in Africa.

Back to reality: This is quite interesting cos AOK was elected by Presidents Biya, Bongo, Sassou, Ould Taya, Kadaffi, Eyedema, Nguema etc. Intersting...! These presidents cumulatively share 140 years of power...at least 20 years each. How is AOK going to work with them? Is he going to work with them at all? There are only two outcome: Revolutionary or Stooge.

Talking about mandates, who hasn´t got a mandate?
Arafat!? If I recall correctly, Arafat, after publicly
dropping (or handing over?) the mantel of terrorism,
transformed himself into a "democrat" by way of
western-style and western-forced elections. But such a
debate drags us into a moral circus, which is
precisely what the entire Middle East doesn´t need.

Leave out categories like "mandate" or "no mandate",
"terrorist" or "freedom fighter". Consider only the
power configuration on the ground: gone are the days
when intractable race, ethnic or national differences
could be solved through the extirpation of one people
by another. This applies especially to the middle east
scenario, which is the most internationalised hotspot
on earth. Nobody would sit back and relax if one of
the two sides attempted to "auschwitz" the other.
Limited warfare in the form of suicide bombings,
sporadic incursions and street fights is the only
conflict option open to both Israelis and
Palestinians. The international community (whatever
you want it to mean!)quietly accepts this scenario,
since they can secretly afford to see the cycle of
violence as a balancing act: No side exterminates the
other; no side wins; outsiders get involved but keep
their hands "clean" by saying: "It´s a draw!"
I think the radicals on both sides have to be tamed,
since a Hitler-style final solution is out of the
question for both sides. The world police wouldn´t
allow it. If they are not contained, then the no-win
monkey business will simply go on forever. Perhaps the
most important question is: Who is responsible for a
de-radicalization process on both sides? I can tell
you the Palestinians have to do it themselves on their
own side while the Israelis do it themselves on their
own side. Israeli tanks in Gaza produce, rather than
stamp out Palestinian radicals. Palestinian suicide
squads simply produce the same effect in Israel.

If Abbas can get Hamas and countless others like Hamas to
understand this, then that mandate of his will make a
positive difference. And then of course, there´s the
personal bit. Will our friend Yassir let himself be
shoved into the dustbin of history while Abbas becomes
a new-found messiah? Very slippery territory! To say
the least, Abbas must wish Arafat a massive cardiac
arrest if he really means peace and wants to go it
alone!!

From Adeso STEFAN ZUII

The way I see it, it is because of the advances made
by the jews in the "holocaust compensation drama" that
the whole world is today preoccupied with "paying the
price of history". Maybe the Aborigines in Australia
will follow suit; then the Red Indians of north
America. Frankly, I don´t know how far back this game
can be drawn. In any case, I won´t have a heart attack
if I hear that the Tunisians(carthaginians) start
pressing for compensation from the Italians(Romans) as
a result of what happened during the last Punic war.
As you know, the whole thing is tied in with the "war
crimes mentality" which flourishes today. Don´t ask me
what a war crime is! From Göring in Nuremberg to
Milosevic in the hague, war crimes tribunals remain in
my view a process whereby the winners celebrate and
disseminate their victory. It is of course also the
way in which "the Big" dictate the conduct of war to
"the Small". All that the Americans had to do was
throw a few coins to the new guys in Belgrade, and
Milosevic was sold off like a barrel of crude oil.
More dollars, and Karadij or Mladic will follow. So
much for sovereignty!!
Concerning reparations to Africa, you know already
it´s a new language for the same old dance:
"Development via philanthropy" (or international
begging). "Philanthropy" because you don´t see the
political/military muscle with which they can extract
it. So when it comes (if it comes), it will be nothing
but a "dash". Then Europe will even "advise" Africans
on how to use the "dash" profitably. That "advice"
will somehow result in the "dash" being refunnelled to
Europe etc etc etc. And when you die, your children
will discover that the "dash" was a trap. We already
know how these things work, don´t we? Every policy
geared towards economic autonomy only proves economic
dependency. And no matter the fine phrases used, there
is a truth that can hardly be disguised: for 400 years
today, Africa´s contribution to the world market
remains banana, timber, coffee, cocoa and of course
cheap labour. (check out the brothels in Moscow,
Berlin, Antwerp etc)
Bo, we go yarn after!!
What do you think of Gadafy´s new Africa scheme? More
fine phrases, eh???

When Ariel Sharon starts talking peace, please Arabs, "pack the luggage" or accept peace there shall be no coming back. The real differencee between the Arab Israeli and the Non-Arab Israeli is poverty. Poverty created that Aab despots. How do we explain the Jewish Lobby in the US is all-so powerful, when an Arab lobby does not even exist. WhereasArabs control 71% of the world's proven oil reserves.

Sharon understands this. Now is the time...I am sure he wonders why Arafat was ever given a Nobel Prize for Peace; cos Sharon's goin to have it. Sharon has finally cornered Arafat. But what did Arafat expect? That for almost 50 years elected Israeli official will keep on staking their careers on peace talks? Should we think Arafat has been right for 50years? Or that all Israeli Prime Ministers are wrong? The USA by warring against IRAQ and withdrawing from SAUDI ARABIA has created a new political equilibrium in the Middle East. It might not be balanced, but none of the old leaders will survive. Not even MUBARAK...anyway he's been there since SADAT's death. Maybe he needs to be killed too?

Endless negotiation and systematic pacifism is over...GIVE WAR A CHANCE

Frankly, what is this talk about Chimps to be put in the same group as humans on the ''evolution'' tree? Because they share 99.4% of our gene pool? Or 94.6% or 96.4%. Its the same old game. Figures to blur the mind. I really want to know what Dr. Boris thinks about this.

Dr. Boris is one of a kind. Born and bred a Christian, MD by training and survived the daily pangs of a Jewish state. We talked lengthily about evolution, and all I remember him telling me is that ''evolution'' as you say Darwin's Theory is about genetics. I agreed for one night and three hours. By 9am next day I was back to this...''a monkey is a monkey, and I am what I am''. I neither refute nor reject evolution...I just think that evolution takes place within species-Man becomes a better man. Not across species-Monkey becomes man!

If you think that man evolved from a monkey then you are saying that a monkey is a species of its own...also capable of evolving. So has the evolution stopped? If the process is still going on how will man end up? Is the process equal for everyone? Why do some look more monkey-like than others? I have tried to fathom th possible mistaken link. Are we desperately trying to link humans to a history that does not concern them...at all? Or we are just trying to justify human excessess by claiming historical lineage?

God and the Political Plan

I finally came to the "process" (not conclusion) yesterday that religious belief is the sum total of human imagination. Therefore we are all partners in this quest. We are equal shareholders in our search for a GOD. It is a process and we got no rights to declare victory...yet! Except for purposes of political submission.

This makes me think that the quest for a GOD is the only act of faith I am capable of associating with. I find it hard to reconcile that a GOD may have already been "found". By WHOM? What justifies the fact that a GOD be found now when the human species still has a long way to go. What will those to come be looking for? I will respect the limitations of Muslim thought or of Christian Romance; Bhuddist pragmatism and Jewish stagnations are all just manifestions politic. It is convenient...

I got a mail from Rowan in Singapore who wanted to know why I write mostly on Christianity and Islam. Answer: These to "conclusions" or faiths if you want, are so similar yet their adherents are so apart that i find them collectively responsible for all contemporary violence. In fact no two "faiths" have confronted themselves so permanently for as long as these two have. But i accept that their means are different, but objectives the same - the death of reason.

Mail me at or if your browser acts up here is it again axacha at yahoo.com

Creed

Nobody has yet been banished to hell
Hell is a reward by invitation.
If Hell is hot, Heaven must be cold.

We are responsible for our means of transport
Take a bus
Take a train?
Time is the variant
But destinations constant.
Everybody has the right to go to hell
If you cant make it you end up in Heaven.

Some made their choices in Gethsemane
Others did the same at El Alamein
The difference is not survival

TODAY and TOMORROW

On the 14th of February 1776, Thomas Paine (while others were having their love rendezvous) wrote:

''the cause of America is the cause of the whole world''

I guess anyone who is going to be doing politics with the USA has got to read Common Sense by Thomas Paine. It all started from there. As such, since 1776, all US leaders have this is mind consciously or unconsciously. All European leaders too...even UK Preime Ministers 'cos Common Sense was a critique of UK colonisation of the US. Putin is pretending he too knows Common Sense. I do remember that Putin was head of international Anti-Terrorism in the KGB, in those good old days that meant USA. So Putin is schooled on American private and public mentality. But what is the point? But it looks like President Chirac and a major part of the French political establishement totally missed out Thomas Paine.

Lets take Iraq for example. Are the French serious about trying to be involved in postwar Iraq? Seriously, the French since the French Revolution have never been able to make the differencee between the legal and the fair. There is only one difference between "REVOLUTION" and EVOLUTION". As you may have noticed, The French need to take off the ''R''...and change. The war in Iraq is not going to be the last, but about wars i know this:

''the spoils of war depend solely on the winners'' - Protesters do not have a role in post war isues. Lets look at the UN.

The UN is a creation of those who invested and won WWII (China, Russia, UK, US and their cohort of colonies and dominions) - San Francisco June 1945 - France is technically still under German occupation but France is a member of the UN and has a seat in the SC Security Council - I call it the Shareholders' Committee. The french do not know that it was a common accord by the UK and the US for it to have a seat, if not the would have been no Shareholder in Central Europe...guess what Russia would have done? So from the unset France, the UK and the US have never been equal partners in the SC. The same situation is playing out today. Poland has been called to take part in the SC (Shareholders Committee) over Iraq - Does that make Poland equals with the US and the UK? Even a drunken Pole can give you the right answer to this.

TERRORISM

There is nothing wrong with Islam or Christianity. Like the King of Jordan said in a recent interview on BBC-TV,
''there is no moderate Islam or extremist Islam''
At a certain level he is right but how does he explain the fact that most of modern day terrorism is committed by people who are Muslim. Of all reknowned international terrorists of the 20th Century (anyway it started in the 20th Century) only Sanchez Illych Ramirez a.k.a CARLOS has been non-Muslim and not of MidEast origin. But interestingly enough thats where he sought refuge.

For academic reasons i want to find out the root causes of ''TERRORISM'' - Interesting word-eh? What is Terrorism? Looks like many of the other big words Mysticism? Truism? ITS AN ISM...a theory. It has been defined only by its victims. So for now it is still seen as a crime by the victims. What is the definition for its perpetrators??

But i begin to think it is a political tool. Infact, it is an extension of politics...It is the only chapter of Political science that was defined and imposed by the Third World. As a political tool I sympathise with terrorism. Its is as good as Communism...It will not last, anyway that's why it is terror if not it would have been called war - WARISM. So the problem of terrorism is not the act, not the rationale but the actor. Lets get this clear with this Mideast guys. You got 78percent of the worlds proven OIL RESERVES. What more do yu want? Or is it Islam? Christianity? There is nothing wrong in believing in ALLAH/GOD but there is a calamity in thinking that ALLAH can do everything for you or the reverse you can do everthing for ALLAH. When Jesus and Mohamed waalks the sands of Palestine preaching what they retained of what GOD told them there where no Apaches...i mean the Gunship type. Lets be a little bit pragmatic...it helps.

I am vee>
<$BlogItemBody$>


- posted by <$BlogItemAuthorNickname$> @ <$BlogItemDateTime$>