the world is a freaking scary place... as stated before, WHAT THE F*CK IS GOING ON IN THE MINDS OF PEOPLE?

Al Qaeda claimed the attack a couple of weeks ago when Sadique Khan released his 'martyrs' video statement justifying the bombings.

When they were doing this reconnaisance they were planning their own deaths - cool as ice.

I fear it will happen again. People are still in denial and the extremism is deeply rooted.

Apparently, one of the other pipsqueal Mother F***ers also has a 'martyrs' video waiting to be broadcast by Al Jazeera.

The best black comedy of the last few weeks was when a Muslim task force which was set up to reccommend to the government how to reduce extremism in the Muslim community came up with the following idea - scrap Holocaust Memorial Day.

Because apparently it is 'provocative' to Muslim youth.

Like I said, the roots of this disease are strong and whilst only a minority of people cheer this kind of thing, quite a few are prepared to look the other way or are in deep deep denial.

I dont think sepia mutiny blogged about the leader of the suicide slaughterers 'martyrdom' video - it was released at the height of the hurricane New Orleans disaster so you might have missed it in the news.

You can watch the video of the bastard here

Okay, as a pathologist I should definitely get this 'cause it's what you see when you do your forensics rotations, but it still freaks me out that it's all so banal. So much death and destruction and all while wearing the same clothes as everyone else, listening to the same music, just going about it like all the others. And inside these on-the-outside everymen, such utter blackness of heart.

Sometimes I just feel like retreating from the world, which I know is exactly the wrong response.

MD

Its even worse because they come from the same streets as us - it gives us the freaks to know that they just hopped on those trains and buses that we use every day and did what they did.

Scrap Holocaust Memorial Day??? That's outrageous. If anything, as Exhibit A in what can happen when (a) one has merely an instrumental relation to the lives of others; and when (b) the "other" is stigmatized such as to lose all status as a human, almost, not just Holocaust Memorial Day but readings about the Nazi genocide should be compulsory in schools, not to mention Rwanda...

MD: as for "banal," it's just as the lady said...

Like I said, the roots of this disease are strong and whilst only a minority of people cheer this kind of thing, quite a few are prepared to look the other way or are in deep deep denial.

amen!

it's been 4 years since 9/11, curing the root causes will be the work of generations. but one thing that galls me is when liberal tolerant people behave as if only the muslim community can have any impact on this mentality and cultural that births these sort of abominations. ultimately i have little faith that non-muslim religious moderates can do much in the short term. as sam harris has asserted in this book the end of faith religious moderates remove from the table their most powerful tools, a full front attack on irrationality and its basic presuppositions. ultimately i fault, in part, the progressive secular community which once castrated european christianity and abolished the ominpresence of shtetl life for jews via its seducations. get some balls people!

I agree that the slaughter of innocent people is a horrible thing. Although, the problem is that those that may seem innocent to one side seem like enemies to the other.

These bombers succumbed to the Al Qaeda ideology. It is a concept and has shown to be impervious to geographical boundaries. In a conflict, each side will try and recruit people from the other side. These civilians became Al Qaeda people. I'm sure there must have been other social and psychological factors that made them vulnerable to it and to becoming suicidal. Have you ever felt that you loved a stranger much more than those you've known all your life? Is that what they felt towards the Al Qaeda ideology? I don't know.

I guess the Al Qaeda people think that in a democratic society the people are responsible for their leaders and their actions since they elected them. Also, they don't seem to make the distinction between civilians and the military and so they think that both are targets and as such believe that these actions are justified. Isn't that their point of view? As an example, the US used nukes on civilians for a decisive strike against Japan, thus ending the bloodiest conflict in recent history. Was it justified because the victors told us they had to do it?

I don't mean to start a flamewar. I'm only trying to understand this behavior instead of dismissing it.

As an example, the US used nukes on civilians for a decisive strike against Japan, thus ending the bloodiest conflict in recent history. Was it justified because the victors told us they had to do it?

Elementary, my dear Watson. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Punjabi Boy:

Just another desi kind of proves the whole head in the sand point, eh?

Just another desi

And - so we understand their fascist motivations. What next? Its not difficult to understand. So what do we do with the understanding?

I am so sick of this rhetoric - so sick and tired of it.

MD

Yeah - and I am sick of it. I am sick of them and sick of their tired, lame, obfuscatory rhetoric and relativism and denial.

"relativism"

Hey man, don't knock relativism...

I dont get it. If you lived 200 years back in India, wouldnt you have considered violence as a fundimental right to protect your freedom? Your actions would also be termed "terrorist".

I dont get it. If you lived 200 years back in India, wouldnt you have considered violence as a fundimental right to protect your freedom? Your actions would also be termed "terrorist".

And what "freedom" were these psychopaths "protecting" in 2005 ?

Here is a country where such psychopaths are running wild. Are they protecting "freedom" too ?

Irony!
Brits had a hand in creating Pakistan. Americans had a hand nurturing the zealots and both their hand got bitten.
But at least the
Americans did not have a gang of US born American citizens who wanted to kill Americans.

I've never been to Britain. But
to me it seems like Britain had gone out of its way with a multicultural approach to appease/accomodate some group(s) yet the pakistani muslim croud views itself as a victim of sorts and wants to settle score(s).

The americans also try to provide accomodation but not as much as the Brits. I wonder if that has something to do with the US citizens who are muslims not engaging in this kind of activity.

razib - yes, that's exactly right.

Punjabi boy - it's hard not to get sick of it; how many times can you say, just look at what is in front of your own eyes?

just another desi - I'll take a stab at your question. Al Qaeda wishes to establish a Muslim caliphate and uses violence to acheive those aims. This is their stated goal. After dropping the bomb on Hiroshima, the United States helped to rebuild Japan and occupied it only to let it become it's own viable state. So, the result of Al Qaeda is the Taliban in Afghanistan, while the post world war II history of Japan is quite a different thing. Note I say nothing about dropping the bomb. Cultural relativism of a certain sort means that you ignore what is in front of your own eyes, as it were. We can look back in hindsight now and say that even if it stopped the war, dropping the bomb was utterly and completely horrific, because it was (although, how many lives would have been lost in a full on invasion of Japan? Many civilians would have died, also). But if you divorce it from Japanese Imperial ambitions of the time, the treatment of the Koreans and Chinese and others brutalized during World War II and from Pearl Harbor, then you lose the very essence of the thing. What would have happend to the world if Japan had wone? You lose meaning in this sort of cultural relativism, you do not gain it. That's my answer. Not to justify (or, two wrongs don't make a right, as gujjubhai says), but to say, between two choices, one stands out clearly. Whatever problems I have with the West or the United States, the life I live here as a woman, an agnostic Hindu, a free person, is far superior to that I would live under Al Qaeda. So, I do understand the motives of these young men and I categorically reject them. I make the judgement that killing civilians, on purpose and as judgement on their sins, so to speak, is abhorent.

Umair Muhajir - there's relativism, and then there's relativism :)

Ugh, I've mispelled a million words as usual. Mock away dear commenters......

MD,

Not to give “just another desi” any ammo. He is at the deep end.

However…

One of the most significant reason for USA to drop the A-bomb on Japan was: a) Stalin (I think at the Yalta Conference) had threatened that if USA could not get a surrender within a month or two, USSR would step in – Churchill and Roosevelt did not want that. Japan and USSR have a long history and till today one of the giant oilfields in Russia are erstwhile Japanese property, the Shaklin Islands b) The ground warfare was moving very slow and body count was really high. The Japanese Imperial Army was fighting to the last blood.

Why USA help rebuild Japan?

a) Again, USSR, they were very scared that Japan would really go red – Another Marshall Plan in action.

b) The statesmanship of General Macarthur and Emperor Hirohito. Once Emperor Hirohito told Japanese to comply with Americans, for most part they went to rebuilding in a dedication like no society has ever done. Historians believe that post-WW II Japan was as horrible as it will ever get.

Chinese and Koreans were never not in the equation for A-bomb.

Overall, you idea is correct

I stil dont get it. So its ok for British soldiers IN Iraq to blow up buildings and shoot unarmed civilans under the guise of collateral damage. Yet, its not ok for the insurgents to essentially do the same thing in Britain? Isnt this a double standard?

Not another 100+ post thread on this again, with the same 3* points repeated over and over again -

1. Justification of the action.
2. Hate and Bigotry (from both sides).
3. Need for reform within a given establishment (state or religion).

* Also as Godwin's Law entails: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.

Gujjubhai: I suppose two wrongs would have to be identified by the same observer as being wrong for that rule to apply.

Punjabi Boy: What can we do about it? Yea, that is the open question and I'm not an expert on this subject. I just found this as a forum to discuss what I had been thinking. Oye yaar, I didn't mean to cause sickness ;-)

The following is my understanding:
I think their motivations are retaliatory, not fascist. By "their", I refer to the bombers. As for the motivations of OBL and other infamous leaders of Al Qaeda, I think they started off as retaliatory too (to events in the middle east), but they aligned with fascists like the Taliban for leverage in the current world order that only listens to the states that it recognizes. Now having lost that political seat they are desperate to spread their word and gain political capital elsewhere before their current jihad is extinguished.

Also, the reason their word is spreading is because in the developed and developing world societal change has been accelerating causing many people to be confused about their identities as citizens of a political state and as members of a religion. States have a much shorter history than religions and the last century or so has brought massive migration of ideas, people and culture to make many states very diverse in religious representation. However a lot of that representation remains as cultural islands in the larger populace. Islands caused by differing ethnic values and the influence of persons that wish to preserve that ethnicity (even as it evolves in their homeland?). I refer to any religion, but Islam is the one relevant to this discussion because the ideology can be traced to the middle east which is predominantly muslim and has been the flash point for the Al Qaeda leaders.

Al Qaeda people surely recognize that a very viable way of gaining political capital is by influencing the people in other countries, with religion being their common language. Also, I would assume that they recognize that youth would be the easiest to fashion into a rebellion.

From what I understand there is very little that can be done in the short term. If they are speaking the voice of fundamental religion, then it is very hard to reason with them. Again, I am no expert on the matter. I agree with you that there are many others like those bombers that have already been influenced into being just as destructive. The islands of cultural isolation need to be bridged but that will take some generations. People should not influence their offsprings towards cultural isolation by resisting the larger populace. I think they are too afraid of losing their cultural heritage, but it is inevitable that some or all of it will be lost gradually.

MD: As I was writing this I read your recent comment and I think we are partly expressing a similar understanding.

"What would have happend to the world if Japan had wone? You lose meaning in this sort of cultural relativism, you do not gain it"

You lose similar meaning in the following comparison:

"Whatever problems I have with the West or the United States, the life I live here as a woman, an agnostic Hindu, a free person, is far superior to that I would live under Al Qaeda"

I agree mostly but I don't think your life in the newborn US would have been any better. What I'm saying is that societies evolve with time and none of us can make judgement on the future in the present. In a hypothetical scenario it is quite plausible that a couple of hundred years from now a woman citizen of the Al Qaeda World Empire would be saying the same thing to an agnostic Hindu man like me regarding some new threat. So, let's not get lost in the what-if scenarios. Same thing with the "how many lives would have been lost in a full on invasion of Japan? Many civilians would have died, also".

"between two choices, one stands out clearly"

Maybe in hindsight.

"I do understand the motives of these young men ..."

I'm not too sure of their motives. I think they are pawns just like the coalition soldiers in Iraq.

"I make the judgement that killing civilians, on purpose and as judgement on their sins, so to speak, is abhorent."

I think that killing civilians is abhorent. Period. Whether on purpose or as collateral damage (as in the case of the nukes).

epoch: I'm new here and felt compelled to write and now to respond. Sorry for any redundant arguments that you've been reading ;-)

No Kush Tandon, I didn't make my point well. My point is that if you are going to make moral equivalence arguments and use Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then you have to take into account Imperial Japan's treatment of the Chinese, etc, into the account.

Post WWII Japan was horrible - but my point, again, was that to take things out of context takes away all the meaning of what happened; but I think you got that part of it anyway. Wars are messy and fought in real time and it's easy for us to judge with the benefit of hindsight. We know the answers now, so of course we are smarter. We know how things turned out.

Killing civilians is abhorent, but I disagree that intentionally killing them, and collateral damage are on the same moral footing. That again is a sort of relativist argument that makes no sense. In that arguement there is no difference between the Jews killed by the Nazis as German civilians accidentally killed by Allied soldiers (I'm not talking about the Dresden bombings). In fact, there are some quarters in Germany who are trying to do just that, say that they are equally victims of WWII because of Allied attacks that killed civilians. Again, in that calculus, there is no effective moral difference between the Nazis and the UK, US, etc. On what planet does that make sense?

MD: I agree with you to posit a moral equivalence between intentional killings and "collateral damage" (though I do find that term abhorrent) is highly problematic. However, you evade the iddue if you "define out" of the debate events like the Dresden bombings. First of all, the Dresden bombings were not a "one-off" but were part of a strategy to terrorize the German population; in fact Allied war planners proudly called them "terrorist" bombings. The same sort of bombing was in evidence in Japan in 1945, even before the Hiroshima atomic bombing (e.g. the firebombing raids on Tokyo, designed and intended to take advantage of the fact that large numbers of civilian buildings were made of wood; tens of thousands died).

My point is NOT to draw a moral equivalence between the Allied and the Axis powers. However, a little relativism ( :-) ) can be of use in reminding ourselves that the trend in modern warfare for a long time now has been a blurring of the distinction between civilian and combatant, even as human rights consciousness has paradoxically increased. Al-Qaeda is an extreme manifestation of this trend, such that the killing of civilians-- as opposed to military engagement-- is its very modus operandi.

What separates Nazi Germany from the US/UK in WWII was the grave difference in ideology; it is also an ideology that makes Al Qaeda an enemy as far as I'm concerned. Note that I said "...in WWII"; because the UK had no qualms about using concentration camps in the Boer War in the late 19th C, and again when crushing the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya in the '50s; and Germany had exterminated peoples/tribes in Namibia decades before they unleashed ever more refined methods of killing on a European population.

I repeat, I share your impatience with those who would say that the Nazi exterminations are just "more of the same"; but that doesn't mean we can just draw a bright line and say nothing anyone else has done has ever been comparable (for instance: if the Brits eliminated an entire people in Zimbabwe in the 19th C, but the entire people consisted of a population of 5,000, can we compare or can we not compare to some other polity that eliminates a people, except this time the population is 5,000,000? It's not an easy calculus surely...)

I always use post WW-II Japan as an example of hope, resiliency, and power of one that Middle East should learn from. John Dower from MIT believes that Iraq is not even close to what Japan went through. Japanese population had paid a very high, terrible price for the cruel jingoism of a small (ruling) section of their society.

By 1950s, they became a real world economic power by sheer determination.

Inspite of being full of himself, General Macarthur understood the nobility and suffering of Japanese people and worked with them to develop a society that was quite different from pre-WW II days. He was almost at odds with the State Department all the time and quite stern with Japanese too. However, he made sure they were no (almost no) Nuremberg like trials in Japan - he needed them for rebuilding. In post WW-II, Japan was treated with utmost care by West (due to cold war).

Emperor Hirohito understood that his time had passed and the welfare of Japanese was foremost. Some historians believe that Hirohito turning himself to Macarthir as the war criminal first and foremost to be tried as a turing point in Japanese history. And the common Japanese rose to the challenge.

This is something, some of the countries/ societies deviled with radical Islam should learn from Japan. If you think things are not working out your way, the best way to turn it around is through peace and belief in yourself - not through suicide bombing. Then West has to learn to treat Islamic societies with care and dignity too.

Sadly, there are no Emperor Hirohitos in Middle East and there are General Macarthurs in West today. That is the jist of my post.

Grievances should heard and dealt with dialogue - this is something Middle East will have to learn, otherwise it will be a suicide of the whole society.

Correction:

Sadly, there are no Emperor Hirohitos in Middle East and there are no General Macarthurs in West today.

This is unrelated to the WWII discussion taking place, but Ha! PB, I saw that hearing on the bomb blasts with "Sir" Iqbal Sacranie on C-Span. Is this guy off his rocker or what?! He was going on and on about how unfair it was that there was a Holocaust Memorial Day and we really should just do away with it.

And hasn't he always raised a stink about the Holocaust Memorial Day? He and his sidekicks have been boycotting it long before these attacks took place. I'm no PR specialist but this can't be helping the public image of Islam abroad. His argument is that the genocide of Muslims in Palestine, Chechnia, etc should be honored and remembered on that day as well. He says that because Holocaust Memorial Day is too exclusive, it's a "grievance" that young suicide bombers can exploit. Is it fair to compare this to the Nazi Holocaust? What do you guys think? Genocide against Muslims is serious and deserves remembrance but to claim that this is OBVIOUSLY what tipped the suicide bombers over the edge is as unreasonable as demanding the recall of ice cream cones because you saw Allah in the swirly.

As Salman Rushdie said:

If Sir Iqbal Sacranie is the best Mr Blair can offer in the way of a good Muslim, we have a problem.

The Sacranie case illustrates the weakness of the Government’s strategy of relying on traditional, but essentially orthodox, Muslims to help to eradicate Islamist radicalism. Traditional Islam is a broad church that certainly includes millions of tolerant, civilised men and women, but also encompasses many whose views on women’s rights are antediluvian, who think of homosexuality as ungodly, who have little time for real freedom of expression, who routinely express anti-Semitic views, and who, in the case of the Muslim diaspora, are — it has to be said — in many ways at odds with the (Christian, Hindu, non-believing or Jewish) cultures among which they live.

The common thread of the commentators should have been one of feeling sad for the London victims. No doubt tehy were innocent citizen just about moving on with daya to day affair, far detached from the war of conquar and subjucation of bush and tony blair. Sadly as usual with American settled desi's pasttime it gone completely off the topic.

Although majority of Brits have know what their leaders doing ( massacaring hundreds of thousands of people) to make world a safe place. Ofcource as MD states Whatever problems I have with the West or the United States, the life I live here as a woman, an agnostic Hindu, a free person, bush is doing just that. No matter what kind of brutalities they perpetuates around the world, the people of sepia will turn a blind eye.

zak, you're a moron.

Is it only me or you people also notice that ANNA after starting the debate just goes off. If she feels so strong about the issues she brings, she should stay around the discussion. Unfortunately I have not noticed it and her issues are more and more.... yeah you know. I have deep suspecion, is she following the Indira/KGB thing with CIA?

People take time to ponder... hey don't come attacking! If KGB can buy almost all gov, right from small jouranlist (not withstanding their lofty ideals) to mighty Idira gandhi, who is anna?

sadly as usual with American settled desi's pasttime it gone completely off the topic.

No matter what kind of brutalities they perpetuates around the world, the people of sepia will turn a blind eye.

where on earth did you find a brush THAT BIG to paint generalizations with? i simply have to know.

this is a blog. the "people of sepia" (as brutal as this will sound to you), don't have to do whatever it is you think they should.

for god's sake, don't feed the morons people!!! the easiest form of moderation is shunning.

If KGB can buy almost all gov, right from small jouranlist (not withstanding their lofty ideals) to mighty Idira gandhi, who is anna?

ANNA since you are apparently rolling in KGB/CIA money, we - your ardent readers - want in.;). Wheres the party @? ND, D.C.?

abcd 2.0

Yet, its not ok for the insurgents to essentially do the same thing in Britain? Isnt this a double standard?

What insurgents you half wit? They were born and raised in Leeds and went to London to kill innocent people on the Underground. They were Pakistani British, not Iraqi.

Terrorist supporters like you are the reason why scum like this were allowed to go unchallenged both within and outside the Muslim community.

You are absolutely clueless about the fascistic ideology that motivates these suicide bombers. They tied bombs to themselves and touched the trigger and killed dozens of people in the name of a supremacist fascist ideology.

Useful idiots like you who make excuses for fascism are not only fellow travellers of terrorism and fascism - you are in a long line of excusers and effective collaborators with this sick and perverted and murderous ideology - most of them from the left.

It is truly pathetic to see how people are bending over and ready to pleasure the fascist Islamists as soon as they let out the spiel of oppression and retaliation and all their pathetic rhetoric.

Islamist fascism is self directed, self perpetuating, self justifying, self enclosed.

When the next bombs go off and you are sitting there with your legs blown off, staring at your intestines dripping off the ceiling, I am sure abcd 2.0 and your ilk will be thinking, "Hey, its alright, its just retaliation, no big deal, we are not hypocrites"

===========

abcd 2.0 and his kind are SUPPORTERS OF TERRORISM AND FASCISM

Shout it from the rooftops! Dont let them get away with their moral support for fascism and suicide bombing any more! Hold them to account for their moral and justificatory support for FASCIST KILLING!!

zak, you're a moron.

Hey razib I have a name for his type - the But Heads.

Everything starts with the usual platitudes about how it is terrible and blah blah blah, but there is always a BUT....

Well, there are millions of them out there - you always hear them and read them in the media - they are essentially apologists for fascism and suicide-terrorism. They are all over the place. They are shameless. They come in all shapes and sizes, religions, races. They are the But... Heads.

As abcd 2.0 said:
I stil dont get it. So its ok for British soldiers IN Iraq to blow up buildings and shoot unarmed civilans under the guise of collateral damage. Yet, its not ok for the insurgents to essentially do the same thing in Britain? Isnt this a double standard?

^^Its all well and good to get on your high horse and make your "outraged" statements, and you are halfway there: the brutal killings on 7/7 WERE whatever you say they are. Very good, I applaud your sense of humanity.

But if you do not feel the same sense of outrage at the hundreds of thousands who have died as a direct result of this so-called "democratic way of life", and most recently in Iraq, then not only do you forfeit your argument, but you forfeit a big aspect of your humanity as well.

Come on people, move beyond the double standard.

Random Guy

Another But Head

I am going to make a list of these But Heads.

No matter how they try to cut it - Random Guy, abcd 2.0, Zak and all the others are justifiers of terrorism and fascist action.

Coalition forces -- From liberal democracies, aim was to impose/encourage liberal democracy, collateral damage has been accidental (not as a result of deliberate targeting of civilian populations).

Al-Qaeda -- Represent the most extreme, fascist, totalitarian theocratic Islam, aim is to impose this throughout the Middle East and ideally across the rest of the world too (including the West), deliberate targeting of civilians to cause maximum casualties of non-combatants.

Moral relativism/equivalence ? I don't think so. Do the math.

Punjabi Munda, I guess that potentially makes YOU an apologiser for democratic/neo-con terrorism, colonialism, the war industry, and corporate interests.

AND another BUT HEAD :)

LOL. How ironic.

Random Guy

The truth hurts eh?

Fascist Terrorist.

Watch the fascist terrorist supporters primp and preen and tie their But Heads up in knots to masquerade their nasty black hearted support for terrorism and support for suicide bombing fascism as reasoned liberalism.

Hook Line and Sinker the fascists of politicised Ummahist violence shall be exposed - its time to call them and their putrid creed.

dude....rofl

Laugh it up, apologist.

Punjabi Boy,

I think Random Guy is possibly just playing Devil's Advocaate and attempting to look at both sides of the situation objectively (even though I don't agree with his conclusions, I can understand his motivations) -- however, you are correct that there are a couple of other people on this thread who are worryingly sympathetic towards the actions of the terrorists.

In some cases I think this is just well-meaning-but-misguided empathy (it is possible to take the "Devil's Advocate" approach too far -- something Indians do far too often in life); in others, however, I think the motivations are significantly more dubious. I hope that the latter group continue to participate in this discussion so that we really can hammer this issue out and clear the air. Such people do need to be confronted.

Rupa: Re: "His argument is that the genocide of Muslims in Palestine, Chechnia, etc should be honored and remembered on that day as well. He says that because Holocaust Memorial Day is too exclusive, it's a "grievance" that young suicide bombers can exploit. Is it fair to compare this to the Nazi Holocaust? What do you guys think? Genocide against Muslims is serious and deserves remembrance..."

I agree in the abstract, but the premise is questionable; what is happening in Palestine is horrific, but by no stretch can it be termed a genocide; Chechnya I know less about, but it too does not seem to me to be a genocide. The problem with some Muslim activists (though not only Muslim activists) is that they are always trying to piggyback on the victimhood "prestige" of the Holocaust. The only genocide against Muslims that I can think of in recent decades happened in East Pakistan/Bangladesh, and that was not because the Bengalis were Muslim, but on the grounds of ethnicity, and in fact perversely, because they were seen as "all-but-Hindus"...

Its even worse because they come from the same streets as us

Unfortunately this statement is often read to imply that there are crazies living among us (which lays people's daemons to rest--"they're just bad people"), rather than the fact that average people can be brainwashed into crazies.

I'd like to see the phrase disappear.

Someone mentioned multiculturalism in Britain and appeasement/accomodation of certain communities. I have also seen overt/implied criticism of European (particularly British)multiculturalism elsewhere, but it seems to me it wasn't the problem per se. You have fundamentalists of one particular kind creating all the havoc here. This is the community that was appeased, or at least authorities certainly looked the other way.

Going slightly off-base, I see tremendous resentment among Americans against the US' continued alliances with regimes like that of Saudi Arabia, and these voices do find a lot of support in the media. But what I don't see often is introspection of past policies where the US collaborated with and nurtured jihadists. While those responsible for the policies no doubt see their actions as necessary in view of the geo-political situation prevailing then, I don't see why American media/public shouldn't question these actions.

Umair,
I agree, I sort of feel like that's trying to "capitalize" on the emotions of Jewish Holocaust. I also don't think it's comparable at all -- Muslims were being targeted in those other states but were their death camps specifically set up with trains rolling into gas ovens? I don't think so. Some may argue that to call it a day of remembrance for genocide of all ethnic groups would promote unity, but how pissed would the Jews be if Muslims piggybacked on to their memorial day?

"Some may argue that to call it a day of remembrance for genocide of all ethnic groups..."

Rupa I agree with you, and with reference to the quote above, isn't it odd that the groups that have the biggest claim to genocide or wholesale displacement (e.g. Native Americans, various peoples in Africa) are not the ones raising such arguments, but "Muslim" activists in the UK and other Western countries? The politics of victimhood often veers perilously close to narcissism in these debates as far as these spokesmen are concerned, who have little empathy for atrocities against anyone else. And then there's Palestine-- my sympathies for the Palestinians, but a media obsession (in the West too, for various reasons) with the Arab-Israeli conflict means that people are aware of every tragic death in the West Bank, even though they don't know that their own state is bombing their own citizens a few hundred miles away! (This by the way actually happened to me: I've met people in Karachi who weren't aware that the Musharraf regime has instituted measures akin to what the IDF uses in the West Bank (house demolitions, etc.), and moreover that they have also used aerial assaults on villages suspected to be harboring Al-Qaeda terrorists)...

isn't it odd that the groups that have the biggest claim to genocide or wholesale displacement (e.g. Native Americans, various peoples in Africa) are not the ones raising such arguments, but "Muslim" activists in the UK and other Western countries? The politics of victimhood often veers perilously close to narcissism in these debates as far as these spokesmen are concerned, who have little empathy for atrocities against anyone else.

Very well put.

If the Muslim Council of Britain wants to have an all-inclusive involvement in "Genocide Day", perhaps we should also include the huge numbers of people who were killed in India during the Turkic-Mughal invasions and the subsequent consolidation of their rule. Even the Emperor Akbar -- normally regarded as a moderate -- massacred tens of thousands of civilians during his conquest of Chittorgarh. We can also add the atrocities against the Sikhs during the 200 years of the Gurus and in the interim period afterwards.

It would be interesting to see how they would react to the negative publicity this would no doubt generate. The truth sure hurts sometimes, doesn't it.

people, don't engage with the morons!

whether we are godly or godless, left or right, fat or skinny, fugly or beautiful, there are certain critical thinking and rationality skills most people in this forum possess. but not everyone is like that. remember, the protocols of the elders of zion is still popular in the arab world!!! hell, 1 in 5 americans thinks that the sun goes around the earth.

there enough disagreemants among the sentient to sate our apetites for disputation, let's limit it to that....

Wow, thanks Umair Muhajir, Kush, Razib, PB, Rupa and others. Excellent points and a lot for me to mull over.

Umair Muhajir: you put that beautifully. Ideology is the key. I think one of the problems with a certain kind of bean counting - this many dead for this side, this many dead for the other, is it doesn't take into consideration the ideology of the participants. That's the sort of moral equivalence I don't understand. How can you not take that into account? Talk about making the perfect the enemy of the good.

I don't want to discount things like the Dresden bombings, and we shouldn't do that. I think we in the West have a tendency to romanticize WWII, which is something the American, Brit, etc soldiers who actually fought in the war did not do! What a stoic generation - I had a friend (medical student at the time) who treated a WWII vet and noticed the markings on his skin and asked him about them.

"I was in a concentration camp, but I never told my family. I never wanted it to happen to me or my family again, but it will. It will happen again." He basically converted to Christianity after the war, and did not tell his children what happened to him. Can you imagine? ( I heard this second hand from my very good friend whom I trust, but I can't vouch for it's accuracy beyond that. It's the obsessive in me that has to say that - I have to try and be accurate).

Also, zak (sorry razib, I have to answer): I'm not saying I don't care about civilian casualites caused by the US or UK forces. What I am saying is that I can draw a distinction between purposefully killing someone and accidentally killing them. For instance, if I am a policewoman, and I shoot at a dangerous criminal who is running away from a crime scene, and accidentally kill someone, that is very different than if I point the trigger and mean to kill an innocent bystander. It's horrific, and very well may deserve punishment, but it is by no means an equivalence.

Oh, and Jai Singh, I liked your point about the Genocide Remembrance Day. It gets to the point that the meaning of a holiday like that would be diluted - the whole history of mankind is one giant litany of genocide, murder, and mayhem. And even with that, we move forward and forward. The world we live in today is vastly superior to anything that came before, and don't even try to tell me differently :)

MD:

"Killing civilians is abhorent, but I disagree that intentionally killing them, and collateral damage are on the same moral footing."

I didn't suggest that they were on the same moral footing.

Also, please don't equate collateral damage, as in the case of the nukes, with accidental shooting by a policewoman. The former was premeditated. A drive-by shooting may be a better comparison and of course wholly unaaceptable as a law enforcement measure. However, I do agree that the latter may deserve punishment under manslaughter laws in the US.

Dropping the nukes might have been treated as a war crime if the other side had won, because winners make the post-war rules. But again, that is a what-if scenario, so excuse me ... or kick my ass. It's up to you ;-)

MD: "The world we live in today is vastly superior to anything that came before, and don't even try to tell me differently :)"

Not sure I agree with the statement that human history is a massive litany of GENOCIDE: massacres are not new, but exterminations are a newer creature for the most part (in the old days one might raze a city after a battle won; but it was comparatively rare to have as one's political project the elimination of a group, one reason I think it's a conceptual mistake to lump Akbar with the Nazis). Something like the '47 partition violence, '71 in East Pakistan, Rwanda in '94, not to mention colonialism's crimes in the 18-20th centuries, and of course the Nazi and Communist mass murders, one would be hard pressed to find in a single 200-year span.

Another reason many countries are "better" is that many have eliminated or driven out or made irrelevant the ones who they used to oppress. Take the Native Americans: sure they are treated "better" now than before, but only after all land that needed to be stolen from them was in fact stolen or occupied. Eastern Europe treats Jews better-- except they don't have that many left...

MD: "That's the sort of moral equivalence I don't understand. How can you not take that into account? Talk about making the perfect the enemy of the good."

Thanks MD, and I guess that's also what I meant when I was defending the idea of "relativism": as I understand the term it doesn't mean (or shouldn't mean) that no useful distinctions can be drawn (e.g. "Holocaust is nothing new because this sort of thing happens all the time"; "They're all equally bad"), but that one attempt to disorient oneself a little by trying to imagine how the world might look to someone else (for instance, so that we don't condemn "other" cultures as "inferior," and seek to promote understanding/insight rather than judgment).

Now before anyone says that this means we should try and empathize with a murderous terrorist, let me clarify: since the whole POINT of such a relativism would be a (self-) disorientation with a view to gaining insight and understanding, it follows that a worldview that actually deliberately promotes the opposite-- that "others" are inferior, weak, stupid, and even in some instances that they don't deserve to live, or anyway may be killed without crime-- is simply inconsistent with the relativistic urge, which is at bottom an ethical urge (in the sense that one tries to be relativistic precisely in order to be fair to "the other").

Relativism gets a bad rap, but really I would argue the sorts who refuse to draw any distinctions are moral/ethical nihilists...

Umair hits the button - the narcissism and hypocrisy of the victimhood peddlers is what is most disgusting - that and their apologia for fascist terrorism

They stink.

Umair, regarding what you said about Palestine: what is happening in Palestine is horrific, but by no stretch can it be termed a genocide;

Surprisingly, I would be inclined to agree with you on that point. Genocides in the context of this thread have been relatively short periods of human barbarism that last a number of years and are usually a direct result of embedded resentments and political turmoil (read, opportunism).

Palestine's situation has lasted for over half a century. It is not a genocide in the conventional sense. It is the cold war of genocides.

Umair,

one reason I think it's a conceptual mistake to lump Akbar with the Nazis

You're right, but I was just giving an example for the benefit of the fundies (who want to negate or expand Holocaust/Genocide Day) that there have been atrocities committed by Muslims repeatedly in Indian history too. Akbar of course, was a religious moderate compared to some of his predecessors and successors -- again, it was just an example.

MD,

Oh, and Jai Singh, I liked your point about the Genocide Remembrance Day. It gets to the point that the meaning of a holiday like that would be diluted - the whole history of mankind is one giant litany of genocide, murder, and mayhem.

Unfortunately, yes. As mentioned above, my point was to play Devil's Advocate by demonstrating that it isn't just Muslims who have suffered -- indeed, the history of the Indian subcontinent over the past 1000 years includes example after example of brutality and slaughter at the hands of the more warlike and aggressive Muslims of the time, often in the name of religion. If groups such as the MCB want to perpetrate some kind of "aggrieved victim" image, it would be worthwhile to expand the parameters of persecuted groups and include the examples of people who have suffered specifically at the hands of Muslims too. It's only fair, after all -- especially as I suspect that many people out here in the West will not be aware of the specifics of the last millennium of Indian history. I have a feeling they'd find it an eye-opening experience, although I wonder how willing the MCB and their allied groups would be to open this particular Pandora's Box.

If anyone has any spare time, I recommend taking a look at the various links I included (in my previous post) in my sentence "and in the interim period afterwards" -- there's a separate URL under each word.

And even with that, we move forward and forward. The world we live in today is vastly superior to anything that came before, and don't even try to tell me differently :)

I wish you were right, but...I don't know. What's happening now is similar in some ways to what already happened in India and the Middle East centuries ago, but on a global scale -- because of modern technology, ease of international travel, and more widespread communication. I think the technology to wreak havoc on a broader level -- including the international reach -- is also now much more dangerous. However, I do agree that there is much more global emphasis on universal human rights these days, which is definitely a positive improvement compared to much of our previous history on the planet.

Someone mentioned multiculturalism in Britain and appeasement/accomodation of certain communities. I have also seen overt/implied criticism of European (particularly British)multiculturalism elsewhere, but it seems to me it wasn't the problem per se.

Going slightly off-base.... past policies where the US collaborated with and nurtured jihadists.