Update: A lot of people seems to have misunderstood the post. It isn’t about Islam or Hinduism or any other religion. What I am trying to explain here is why Islamic terrorism gets so much prominence. It isn’t about right or wrong or moral or immoral; it’s about how the West sees the world. One need not condone it to understand it. Though I have no hesitation is saying that nation states are accountable for the safety of their own citizens: everything comes after that.
George W Bush may be thoroughly incompetent but that doesn’t mean the War on terror wouldn’t have been fought if a Democrat would have been the president. No American president could have avoided attacking Afghanistan or going after Osama Bin Laden after 9/11. Sure, the war could have been fought in a far more efficient way, but it would have still been fought. If you think other wise, then you neither understand American politics nor American psyche.
One of the frequent gripes Muslims have is that only their name is dragged in terror attacks. What about non-Muslim groups like ULFA or L.T.T.E which are no less vicious than any Muslim terror organizations? Yet, what the world discusses is Islamic terror, why not Hindu terror? The simple answer would be that none of these organizations kill in the name of religion (which doesn’t mean they are less reprehensible), and since Muslim terror groups kill in the name of Islam, that is what is highlighted.
But there is a bigger point: who is the target group? Neither U.L.FA nor L.T.T.E or any other such terror groups are targeting the West. They are not trying to blow up airplanes over the Atlantic or kill people in London. On the other hand, the primary target of Muslim terror groups is the West. Their fight is with the Western civilization or imperialism–depending on where you stand.
Unfortunately for them, West is the richest and the most powerful society in the world which places a huge premium on the lives of its citizens. It is isn’t India where people get routinely blown up and neither the government nor the general population gives a damn. So if you target West, then be prepared for a huge backlash. The West will come out swinging and use all the force at its command to destroy those who wish to destroy it. That’s why a failed Glasgow bombing gets far more headlines than the Mumbai train blasts which killed 200. The guy in New York doesn’t give a damn how many get blown up in Mumbai or Karachi or Colombo. He cares for his own safety and he holds his government accountable for that.
Hold on, this isn’t anti-Western tirade but just a matter of fact statement. We all do the same. How much is Africa covered in the Indian news papers? CNN-IBN has hosted multiple debates on the failed Glasgow attacks, how many debates it has hosted on Darfur which has killed hundreds of thousands of people? None. Because Indians don’t give a damn how many killed get killed in Darfur as it doesn’t affect them.
Muslim terrorists have simply chosen the wrong target.
One more point. I am also tired of hearing how Muslims are daily insulted and discriminated against in the West. If this is true, then why do Muslims still want to come to the West? How many Muslims have given up their citizen-ships and gone back to their native countries?
This needs to be said loud and clear: West gives far more rights to Muslims than any Muslim majority country (with the possible exception of Turkey) gives to non-Muslims. Sure, it isn’t perfect in the West and ordinary Muslims have to bear the brunt of every terror attack: failed or successful. But the degree of persecution is vastly exaggerated.
Assimilation is not a one way street. If the West needs to do more to assimilate Muslims and build a more inclusive society, the same is equally true for Muslims especially in countries like Britain.
Filed under: Views On News






No.
Vivek, i have seen 4 girls, very close friends of mine, those four sisters, their altered lives after gang rapes for 2 days during masjid riots in bhopal. If they were dead, maybe i would not have been so resentful.
I rest my case.
Cinammon,
Hindus are supposed to suffer all that and much worse, dont forget… its secularism.. a muslim who suffers a fraction of that has gone through “ghor atyaachaar”..
A Hindu life is 1/8th of a muslim as per islamic laws… (Yes its even a law in Saudi Arabia !! I wonder what our external affairs departments are doing about this.. Would they ignore terrorists like Haneef for a while.. )
After all , we deserve this because we are filthy idol-worshippers
(I wonder what are those muslims.. who worship some stone slab covered with a dirty ugly green rag… is it not idol-worship ?? )
@Cinamon:
I understand. I would rather not air my personal losses, but I come from a district that sends the maximum number of soldiers to the Army. So you can perhaps do the maths.
But if a discussion on terrorism disturbs you, then I sincerely think that you should not read posts like this one (unambiguously titled) and the subsequent comments.
>>> But if a discussion on terrorism disturbs you
Well, sorry to come in again – but its not the discussion that is so disturbing as compared to the moral preaching.. I find it rather strange that its ok to break all civility and cross the line by a mile if you have proved your secularism, while its absolutely not good for a “communal” person to even cross by an inch ! Doesnt matter much if on neutral ground – both would be free – but then this is Confused’s space .. .. and he doesnt like me responding in kind
>>> But if a discussion on terrorism disturbs you
Vivek,
I think the secular commentators were much more disturbed.. Maybe you should not read this discussion if you dont like what others think about terrorism..
Thats why the responses like your “dont read this post” comment earlier, and Ruchira and Mohib started bad-mouthing me instead of refuting what I said.. (and LOLzz.. I dont respect Gandhi/Nehru, so I am bad..
)
Freedom of speech should be both ways… speech as in viewpoints as well as slur..
@shadows:
My reaction to what you find strange is the same as well. So I agree with you on that.
Having said that, if one has a problem with someone’s comments, it is better to address that person directly.
If you look at Cinamon’s original comment about intellectual self-gratification and the comments that preceded it, most of the discussion was between “Shadows, Ruchira Paul, Confused, Jyothsnay, Barbarindian & Amit” (whom I thanked in my earlier comment) and myself. I didn’t (and don’t) think that any of those comments fell in the category of intellectual self-gratification. So my conclusion was that Cinamon (for reasons that she has now outlined) is not comfortable with any discussions on terrorism. Hence my response. If there is something wrong with this line of reasoning, I am completely willing to withdraw my comments.
I have no problems with what others think “about terrorism”, as the discussion shows. If I did, I wouldn’t be on this comment thread. My problem was only with Cinamon’s comment asking people to stop the intellectual self-gratification. She didn’t say what it meant, and she addressed it to everyone in general. That is what caused my confusion.
This is a personal blog of Confused, so “freedom of speech” arguments don’t really apply as they would in a public place.
Anyway.. I think there has been a misunderstanding at some point in this comment thread. My apologies if I have contributed to it in some way.
Shadows,
Can you lay it off. Vivek was not rude. Seriously if someone feels that disturbed by just a discussion (which is reasonable and sensible by standards of blogosphere), perhaps that discussion is not the right place for that person. Because frankly speaking barging and then telling everyone that since they have not lost their kins due to terrorism or riots they should STFU, is not just rude, it is also abhorrent and despicable.
>>>
Because frankly speaking barging and then telling everyone that since they have not lost their kins due to terrorism or riots they should STFU, is not just rude, it is also abhorrent and despicable.
========
I never did that.. I was responding to personal remarks against me.. Read that comment thread again..
>> That is what caused my confusion.
Vivek,
Yep, there is some confusion.. After all, this space belongs to Confused
so ….
I was generally talking about this holier-than-thou approach.. of some commentators.. Its just that freedom of speech and the rules of a fair discussion are conviniently forgotten, in case someone is against their idea of secularism. It just diverts the thread onto some other topics, creates confusion, etc.
I give up
Shadows:
Don’t be paranoid.
Who denied you the freedom of speech here? Did anyone ask you to go away or shut up? Your contrary point of view in fact was acknowledged by everyone. No one asked Confused to “delete” or “block” you. You made yourself amply clear as to what you think of secularism and of Islam. I didn’t see anyone here engaging you on either issue at length. Indescrib and Mohib said that they felt hurt by your comments about Islam and the Quran and they have a right to say that.
Yet you made it out as if the liberals are responsible for terrorism. You are wrong. We hate and fear terrorism just as much as you do. The solution we seek to the danger may be different from yours but that doesn’t make us either “terrorists” or “terrorist sympathizers.” You are actually the one denying us the right to express our opinions by constantly using adjectives like “holier than thou.”
As for bad mouthing you, you keep bringing my name up. All I said was that you don’t like “secular liberals” like me. Is that the truth or not?
And yes, Ruchira is a “girl’s” name as it can also be that of a “woman’s.” A “girl” becomes a “woman” when she grows up.
Cinamon @ #122:
I am deeply and sincerely sorry for their loss and can understand to some extent your stand. I hope you will appreciate though, that this is universal and doesnt matter as to what religion/caste/community those girls belonged to.
Perhaps the point your are trying to make is that such atrocity can be used to justify terrorism by Hindus? (my assumption but couldnt link to Confused’s post in any other way) in which case you surely agree how that would end up just creating more victims like those you mourn for.
Also as Dilip D has stated, the violence by the myriad Hindutva organizations is just as terrifying to its victims as the bomb blasts. Its terrorism pure and simple and aggravated to my mind by the fact that often times the perpetrators can stay overground and cock a snook at the system.
Vivek @ #124:
I agree with you, Amit and the others at ~#50-64 but surely there is no equivalence between civilians – women being raped in what I presume they expected to be a safe place and soldiers taking casualties on duty.
Do you really want to do the math that way.
regards,
Jai
@Jai_Choorakkot: I was not suggesting an equivalence of incidents. The feeling of “personal loss” is the same, regardless of circumstances, especially when both incidents are classified as terrorist acts.
Since you have taken the trouble of reading the thread, I am sure you would agree that I don’t want to do the math of victimhood at all. I am not asking anyone to establish their victim credentials before they express their opinions about terrorism. I hinted at my own loss (at comment 124) only to assure Cinamon that I can understand where she is coming from.
dear friends,
1. came across the thoughts/ views of fellow humans! am encouraged to read on and analyse the expects highlighted by all friends here.
2. I now will reassess a few theories developing in my own mind after having traveled the major affected areas in India and abroad.
3. . I would like to re-read. the view points must be expressed but not be taken as the last word — each one of us has one.
thanks
Hi,
I liked your thoughts a lot.
Visiting your blog after very long.
Love
Snigdha
This is the single most stupid and insane commentary on Islamic Terrorism I have ever seen.. first of all, you claim that the West is ONE SINGLE BLOCK… are you dead certain about that, given that feuds between this “united” west has resulted in two World Wars? Are you certain that Chirac’s erstwhile govt and Bush were on the best terms? Are you blissfully unaware of the tensions that exist in Cyprus? Or will you just be an open racist and say” Hey what the heck… all these westerners are just the same?” Why dont you say that? At least that way it will be obvious how inane your remarks are… By the way, Islamic terrorism receives more attention that Darfur, LTTE or ULFA because it is a GLOBAL phenomenon: it is a “movement” that links Bangalore to Glasgow! Islamic terrorism strikes everywhere… that’s why its such a big problem… that is why we give attention to deaths in terrorist attacks instead of alleged disappearances in the Bermuda Triangle.
Snigdha,
Thanks. Do come back.
Well, actually I haven’t claimed that, and incidentally the last world war happened about sixty years ago. Anyway, the point is that when it comes to terrorism, the differences in the West are superficial. Trying bombing anything in Paris and see how quickly they react.
LOL.
.
Errr, so its either Islamic terrorism or its Bermuda triangle. If you could stop frothing for a moment, maybe you would be in a better position to think?
Dude, the Islamic terrorism has been around for a long time. how much attention it received before 9//11? How many articles, how many op-eds were written? In fact, many were said to be freedom movements. It is only in the post 9/11 environment when America was hit, it has come to the fore. More people died in Kashmir before 9/11 than since then.
14/08/07
I want to clear certain matters here:
> Islamic jihadi attacks on USA were way back in 18th century. The conclusion is easily drawn and is also politically correct; it is, however, devoid of an honest appraisal of the situation. It is like treating cancer with penicillin; it is puerile. How will one explain the following. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, then serving as American ambassadors to France and Britain, respectively, met in 1786 in London with the Tripolitan Ambassador to Britain, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja. These future American presidents were attempting to negotiate a peace treaty which would spare the United States the ravages of jihad piracy—murder, enslavement (with ransoming for redemption), and expropriation of valuable commercial assets—emanating from the Barbary states (modern Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, known collectively in Arabic as the Maghrib). During their discussions, they questioned Ambassador Adja as to the source of the unprovoked animus directed at the nascent United States republic. Jefferson and Adams, in their subsequent report to the Continental Congress, recorded the Tripolitan Ambassador’s justification:
… that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.
Thus as Joshua London’s Victory in Tripoli elaborates in lucid prose, an aggressive jihad was already being waged against the United States almost 200 years prior to America becoming a dominant international power in the Middle East. Moreover, these jihad depredations targeting America antedated the earliest vestiges of the Zionist movement by a century, and the formal creation of Israel by 162 years—exploding the ahistorical canard that American support for the modern Jewish state is a prerequisite for jihadist attacks on the United States.
> There are two Islams – Political Islam (PI)and Militant Islam (MI). MI is the one that resorts to terrorist acts, violence and killings etc. PI is more methodical, more realsitic and less ostentatious. PI enters into a compact and cohesive non muslim society, say European France, as a minority and increases its size disproportionately vis a vis the host community. Democracy, based on numbers and the politial correctness of secularism and multiculturalism of the socialist scoundrals, the host society succumbs to the pressure tactics of the muslim minority and starts withering. This is happening all over Europe and there is a fond hope that Eurabia will blossom in 2050. MI on the other hand creates a problem for PI by inviting unwanted attention and scrutiny.
> Let us be clear. Unlike LTTE or ULFA, the aim of Islam is world domination and universal imposition of shariaat. Islam is incapable of integration; its theology is such that muslims will assiduously avoid integration and remain away from the mainstream. Islam, like Communism, is an evil theology and should be defeated.
> I detail four attributes for a good muslim to live in the globalised village:
i) that he should consider all religions as equal
ii) that he should genuinely practise gender equality
iii) that he should adopt the laws and policies of the host country, like family planning
iv) that he should eschew all ideas of world domination and universal imposition of shariaat
You ask and no muslim will accept them.
14/08/07
Jai Choorakot says:
‘Also as Dilip D has stated, the violence by the myriad Hindutva organizations is just as terrifying to its victims as the bomb blasts. Its terrorism pure and simple and aggravated to my mind by the fact that often times the perpetrators can stay overground and cock a snook at the system.’
Thiagan says:
The riots and the Hindu violence have always been retalliatory. Secularism, rule of law and obedience to Constitution can not be one sided. When the minority rejects Uniform Civil Code; when they claim that they are muslims first and Indians next, if possible; when they aim towards imposition of shaiat in India; when they refuse one child norm and increase the numbers didproportionately; when they firebomb karsevaks in Goodhra; kill pilgrims in Akshardam; drive the Hindus out of Kahsmir and shout Aazaadi: the muslims will continue to be under glare and discriminatory treatment. It is the same situation in Europe, Australia, UK and Europe. The plight is self inflicted and the reason is Islam.