Terrorism is condemned wherever it takes place

by Abdul salam - epic Thu Jul 07, 2005 20:25 iilc at eircom dot net

If we had more brave and sane people like Sheikh Dr Shaheed Satardien who are prepared to come out strongly to condemn these senseless killings and stupid morons who claim to be muslims then we may have a more safer community. Why do muslims have to tolerate this humiliation and tainting of their faith? Let the Ulama take a united stand against these barbarians

by MOHAMED Thu Jul 07, 2005 22:42

"This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful.

It was not aimed at presidents or prime ministers. It was aimed at ordinary working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old.

Indiscriminate slaughter irrespective of any consideration for age, class, religion, whatever.

That isn't an ideology. It isn't even a perverted faith. It is just an indiscriminate attempt at mass murder. "

Mayor of London speaking in Singapore

by avi H. Fri Jul 08, 2005 00:07

Would that be the same Red Ken who welcomed the visits of Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi to London? You know, the Muslim Sheikh who said things like,

"'There is No Dialogue between Us and the Jews Except by the Sword and the Rifle'

and

'I Hope to Die a Virtuous Death Like a Jihad Warrior, with the Head Severed from the Body'

??

Just asking...

by ashiq Fri Jul 08, 2005 01:52

On behalf of the sane muslims in iireland and the world over, I would like to thank the honored Shayk Dr. Shahed Satardien saheb for his good stand and courage. We need more leaders like you and I pray that Allah reward you. let all the muslims rally around you and may you lead and guide us properly. Jazakallah for your your braveness and sincerity.

by Michael Quinn Fri Jul 08, 2005 06:23 mpq at campus dot ie

I also think that Dr Satardien's comments are welcome, and well stated. It is about time that the Western media stopped brading all Muslims as fundamentalists and terrorists.

I live in London and I hope that the callous actions of these terrorists will not result in a backlash against the Muslim population in this city.

by Robert Fisk Fri Jul 08, 2005 13:51

By Robert Fisk - 08 July 2005
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article297623.ece
http://www.selvesandothers.org/article10155.html

"If you bomb our cities," Osama bin Laden said in one of his recent video tapes, "we will bomb yours." There you go, as they say. It was crystal clear Britain would be a target ever since Tony Blair decided to join George Bush’s "war on terror" and his invasion of Iraq. We had, as they say, been warned. The G8 summit was obviously chosen, well in advance, as Attack Day.

And it’s no use Mr Blair telling us yesterday that "they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear". "They" are not trying to destroy "what we hold dear". They are trying to get public opinion to force Blair to withdraw from Iraq, from his alliance with the United States, and from his adherence to Bush’s policies in the Middle East. The Spanish paid the price for their support for Bush - and Spain’s subsequent retreat from Iraq proved that the Madrid bombings achieved their objectives - while the Australians were made to suffer in Bali.

It is easy for Tony Blair to call yesterdays bombings "barbaric" - of course they were - but what were the civilian deaths of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003, the children torn apart by cluster bombs, the countless innocent Iraqis gunned down at American military checkpoints? When they die, it is "collateral damage"; when "we" die, it is "barbaric terrorism".

If we are fighting insurgency in Iraq, what makes us believe insurgency won’t come to us? One thing is certain: if Tony Blair really believes that by "fighting terrorism" in Iraq we could more efficiently protect Britain - fight them there rather than let them come here, as Bush constantly says - this argument is no longer valid.

To time these bombs with the G8 summit, when the world was concentrating on Britain, was not a stroke of genius. You don’t need a PhD to choose another Bush-Blair handshake to close down a capital city with explosives and massacre more than 30 of its citizens. The G8 summit was announced so far in advance as to give the bombers all the time they needed to prepare.

A co-ordinated system of attacks of the kind we saw yesterday would have taken months to plan - to choose safe houses, prepare explosives, identify targets, ensure security, choose the bombers, the hour, the minute, to plan the communications (mobile phones are giveaways). Co-ordination and sophisticated planning - and the usual utter ruthlessness with regard to the lives of the innocent - are characteristic of al-Qa’ida. And let us not use - as our television colleagues did yesterday - "hallmarks", a word identified with quality silver rather than base metal.

And now let us reflect on the fact that yesterday, the opening of the G8, so critical a day, so bloody a day, represented a total failure of our security services - the same intelligence "experts" who claim there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when there were none, but who utterly failed to uncover a months-long plot to kill Londoners.

Trains, planes, buses, cars, metros. Transportation appears to be the science of al-Qa’ida’s dark arts. No one can search three million London commuters every day. No one can stop every tourist. Some thought the Eurostar might have been an al-Qa’ida target - be sure they have studied it - but why go for prestige when your common or garden bus and Tube train are there for the taking.

And then come the Muslims of Britain, who have long been awaiting this nightmare. Now every one of our Muslims becomes the "usual suspect", the man or woman with brown eyes, the man with the beard, the woman in the scarf, the boy with the worry beads, the girl who says she’s been racially abused.

I remember, crossing the Atlantic on 11 September 2001 - my plane turned round off Ireland when the US closed its airspace - how the aircraft purser and I toured the cabins to see if we could identify any suspicious passengers. I found about a dozen, of course, totally innocent men who had brown eyes or long beards or who looked at me with "hostility". And sure enough, in just a few seconds, Osama bin Laden turned nice, liberal, friendly Robert into an anti-Arab racist.

And this is part of the point of yesterday’s bombings: to divide British Muslims from British non-Muslims (let us not mention the name Christians), to encourage the very kind of racism that Tony Blair claims to resent.

But here’s the problem. To go on pretending that Britain’s enemies want to destroy "what we hold dear" encourages racism; what we are confronting here is a specific, direct, centralised attack on London as a result of a "war on terror" which Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara has locked us into. Just before the US presidential elections, Bin Laden asked: "Why do we not attack Sweden?"

Lucky Sweden. No Osama bin Laden there. And no Tony Blair.

www.independent.co.uk

by avi H. Fri Jul 08, 2005 15:04

FYI

Shin Bet says these attacks were the work of a team of suicide bombers, possibly a home-grown terrorist cell composed of British muslims. There are a number of cogent reasons for this conclusion, none of which I will go into.

by Gerard Ryan - personal Fri Jul 08, 2005 19:07 garkworld at eircom dot net 086 600 4917

Sheikh Shaheed is an example of a senior Muslim cleric who opposes extremism. Such clerics are in a majority in Islam, but the media generally focus on the tiny minority of clerics who provide "justification" for inhuman acts.

I believe it is very important to support those with influence who have moderate views.

by Maria (not the saint) Sat Jul 09, 2005 10:58

What is Robert Fisk trying to do? Make the shaykh's statement sound insignificant? Does he want to justify the murderous acts in London? If he wants to demonstrate his literary prowes and his hatred for the British government and Blair, then I personally think that he has chosen the wrong time and place for it. Here we have a decent learned scolar of Islam who can bring some sanity to society then we find a non-muslim journalist to perpetuate the polarization of the communiites. Why does indymedia allow a full article to be reegoistered under comments in the first place is mind-boggling. On the one side the media is condoning the bombing and on the other side it is not condemning the bombing but the Muslims and Islamic terrorists. Where is the mention of the catholic and protestant terrorists in Northern ireland, the Tamil terrorists in Sri Lanka etc. etc etc etc?

by Sandra McGregor Sat Jul 09, 2005 14:25

From a distance, your article makes a lot of sense, but from a close-up look it seems that you are justifying the London bombings Robert Fisk. If I analyse your article and the statement of Sheikh Dr.Shaheed Satardien then the one is chalk and the other cheese. Sheikh Satardien in his shrewdness seem to condemn not only the bombings, but at the same time calls for the innocence of Islam to such vile acts. He makes it clear that al-Qaida or whosoever wants to use the name of al-Qaida which is, incidentally, initially a creation of the CIA, or worked for them closely as much as Saddam did have no claim to Islam. Robert Fisk however, seems to justify and aid and abett these horrific acts. Good for him he is not muslim because if he were, then they would detain him without trial or send him to Guantanamo.

by Aslam Sat Jul 09, 2005 14:47

Sheikh Dr. Shahid Satardien Saheb is not shrewd. He gave a true and sincere academic muslim response to the horrible bombings in London. I wish more Muslim academics and ordinary people would add their voices to his. Unlike Robert Fisk, he is calling for a sane, tolerant and harmonious society who can live with plurality and not a childish tit-for-tat society who are no diifferent from the gangsters of New York in the movies. Jazakallah Sheikh saheb

by Peter Zoehrer - FOREF-Forum for Religious Freedom Mon Jul 11, 2005 01:04 webmaster at religiousfreedom dot info

Comments like yours are vital to stem the rising islamophobia in Europe. Although I am not a Muslim myself, I have many friends who are. They share the anger and concern, which you express in your comment wholeheartedly. Please continue to speak up for what is right and know, that you are not alone. Your comment has been published on our website: http://www.religiousfreedom.info

by Ali H. Mon Jul 11, 2005 13:50

As usual there are always those interested in jumping on the bandwagon of justifiable anger at the attacks in London to promote their own pet causes.

I was particularly sickened by the Evening Heralds attempt on Saturday to link Jihad Jaeera in some way to what happened in London. I "wonder" what the source for that "story" was?

This "article" was even more surprising given the reports not too long ago in the same paper that 2 Mossad killers had been intercepted by Gardai while on their way to kill him.

Similar attempts to link the Palestinian cause to the attacks were made by John McGuirk of the ironically named "Freedom Institute" on yesterdays Wide Angle program on Newstalk 106 in reference to charitable donations made by British Muslims to organisations dedicated to Palestinian liberation.

This type of attack is part of a pattern, anybody remember the Palestinian "celebrations" at the 9/11 attacks which turned out to be a complete fabrication by the Israelis?

Who exactly is funding right wing groups such as the Freedom Institute?

by eeekkkk Mon Jul 11, 2005 14:48

undisclosed donations

by Anthony Mon Jul 11, 2005 16:06

It wouldn't require a lot of money to fund an organisation such as the Freedom Institute. The arrival of the Internet has made it much easier - and cheaper - for an organisation to to carry out some basic research and to publish its own material.
They also seem to have a number of people able and willing to appear on the media. if their members are based in Dublin, this also wouldn't cost much money. It would just require that the members be willing to give up some of their free time and - if it's the Wide Angle - to get up early on a weekend morning.

by Devil Dog Mon Jul 11, 2005 16:10

Hey Ali, try again on the Palestinians celebrating 9/11.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cnn.htm

If you object to Palestinians terrorist like the aptly named Jihad being roped into the attacks in London, do you also object to the Israel/Palestinian issue being dragged into protests against the liberation of Iraq, where there is an even more tenuous connection with Palestinians?

by Noel Mon Jul 11, 2005 17:47

Devil Dog,

try and make a resoned response, if some one like tony blair says that unless "the underlying causes of ME terrorism are dealt with" terrorism wont be defeated. therse underlying issues are Palestine, Iraq and others so to mention Palestine in this context is understandable and is nedded, Tony Blair has seen the light why dont you

ah yes the embassy wont let you

by Ali H. Mon Jul 11, 2005 18:28

Clinton hadn't been president for well over a year on 9/11, so why all of the pictures of him that the protestors are holding?

Surely if news of the 9/11 attacks can make it around the world for "celebrations" to begin the news of GWBs coup would have made the news in Palestine also and they might have dragged out a few photos of Dubya to burn?

The fanciful allegation that a news item that went round the world was cooked up and subsequently "retracted" by an unknown "Brazilian" student sounds a little suspicious to me as does the fact that snopes.com (first time I've ever heard of it or of and Mrs. Barbara and Mr David P. Mikkelson ... what's in a name?) was able to "clear" the whole matter up in just 12 days (the page is marked as having last been updated on Sep 23rd 2001).

Given these guys are soooooooooo efficient maybe they should dedicate their not inconsiderable skills to finding where the WMD that were supposed to be in Iraq/Syria/Arab-Nation-du-jour currently reside outside of the minds of neo-cons and Zionists.

by Ali H. Mon Jul 11, 2005 18:47

Devil Dog,

what you seem to be arguing is that anybody with the name Jihad is a suicide bomber.

I guess by extension you also suggest that all men called Ariel, Adolf, Josef, Slobodan, Tony, George, Silvio etc. are war criminals purely on the basis of the names their parents chose to give them?

Mr Jaara is quoted by the BBC as being against the killing of civilians whether Palestinian or Israelis. He also denies any imvolvement with Hamas and was an officer in the PA when expelled from the occupied territories. He also denies having anything to do with attacks on Israeli military personnel, civilians or in the organisation of suicide bombings.

Furthermore with a badly broken leg he was hardly in a position to do harm to anybody while surrounded by Israeli snipers for 39 days in the church of the nativity in Bethlehem.

by Dave Mon Jul 11, 2005 18:53

"It wouldn't require a lot of money to fund an organisation such as the Freedom Institute. The arrival of the Internet has made it much easier - and cheaper - for an organisation to to carry out some basic research and to publish its own material."

I'd say calling the Freedom Institute's research "basic" is a bit generous to be honest.

by tasneem Thu Jul 14, 2005 08:32 tasneemk at aspenpharma dot com +2772 896 2657

No way,whatsoever, does bombing and killing innocent people depict Islam, if others think that then they have a concocted view of Islam that they have invented and all that they are doing is making Islam look barbaric when instead they are the barbarians, and when the world doesnt agree with their views?they bomb and kill!Islam stands for peace, humanity and brotherhood, catch a wake up!

by joseph Thu Jul 14, 2005 10:14

Religion is a matter of interpretation. There's plenty of scope in most religions to justify violence.