Is Pakistan responsible for the Mumbai attack in India? No.
Is India’s repression of its Muslim minority responsible? No.
Is the United States government responsible? Yes.
The attack on Mumbai required radicalized Muslims. Radicalized Muslims resulted from the US overthrowing the elected government in Iran and imposed the Shah; from the US stationing troops in Saudi Arabia; from the US invading and attempting to occupy Afghanistan and Iraq, bombing weddings, funerals, and children’s soccer games; from the US violating international and US law by torturing its Muslim victims; from the US enlisting Pakistan in its war against the Taliban; from the US violating Pakistan’s sovereignty by conducting military operations on Pakistani territory, killing Pakistani civilians; from the US government supporting a half century of Israeli ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their lands, towns and villages; from the assault of American culture on Muslim values; from the US purchasing the government of Egypt to act as its puppet; from US arrogance that America is the supreme arbiter of morality.
As Justice Brandeis said, crime is contagious. Government teaches by example, and America’s example is lawlessness. America’s brutal crimes against the Muslim world have invited every Muslim to become a law unto himself--a revolutionary. It is not terror that Washington confronts but revolution.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Muslim Revolution
Muslim Revolution by Paul Craig Roberts on Counterpunch.org
5 comments:
The article ends with ...
"The change over which Obama will preside will have no American victories. The change will come from America as a failed state, from the dollar dethroned as reserve currency, from America repudiated by its allies and paid puppets, from massive unemployment for which there is no solution, from hyperinflation that produces anarchy.
The day might arrive when Washington is faced with revolution at home as well as abroad."
Impeach Obama!
I think we need to correct the answers on the second question because to tell you the truth, all parties are responsible. The third question is based on a myth.
"Is Pakistan responsible for the Mumbai attack in India? No."
Maybe not the country but Pakistan is known for harbouring terrorists and they've ruined Afghanistan and are trying to overtake India though thankfully the idea is failing. Also, please consider the fact that Pakistanis themselves have been pushed into severe poverty and are fed up with religious fundamentalism, regardless of religion. I myself believe that religion is a disease all too often.
As to the myth that India represses its Muslim minority, nothing can be farther from the truth. Muslims in Pakistan are severely oppressed whereas in India and even the US to some degree, they're free to complain like the rest of us.
I do not justify any terrorist attack no matter the excuse. The neocons will use it to keep waging more wars and the last thing we need is more of them.
Lyle, Obama hasn't even taken office yet and you want to impeach him before he even takes office ?
Yes, the beginning is probably too simplistic. But I like the point he makes. To have an attack like this, you have to have people willing to die for their cause. I've got a cause here in the US, but I'm not willing to die for it. What takes someone to that place.
Mr. Roberts is too simplistic here. But, the list of actions he lists does probably help contribute to creating people willing to die in a suicide attack.
The one thing I can tell about Pakistan is that its way more complicated than is normally depicted here. Like any large group of people, you can't talk about it as a single entity. The Pashtun tribesmen up in the mountains near the Afghan border are something entirely different from the millions living in the big cities like Karachi. Judging from vote totals, the millions in the big cities aren't real fond of islamic fundamentalism and tend to support more western-like politicians.
The Pakistan government has always been very beligerent over both Kashmir and Afghanistan, and has supported a lot of these fundamentalist groups as a tool in each. And near as I can tell, that has some popular support as the military handing over power doesn't seem to have changed it much.
I did read one report from Pakistan somewhere that said that at first the general reaction was one of great sympathy towards the victims of this attack. But then when India started ramping up the charges and belligerence towards Pakistan, it generally became much more defensively belligerent itself.
In India, there's a right-wing Hindu party that certainly sounds very nasty at times. And sometimes that blows up in to massacres like in Gugarat. Day to day, I don't know enough to know how bad it is. But it does blow up very nastily every once in awhile.
Me, I'm waiting until Obama starts breaking the law before I say impeach Obama. But since the nation commits crimes and war crimes pretty regularly, that might not take long. At what point does not aggressively changing Bush's policies as soon as taking office become crimes on Obama's account?
Hi Samson,
I don't know any movement that was eventually successful via suicide madness and dragging others into their misery. I still think it a push for the better can be made without violence.
As to impeachment, I've often found myself debating that idea with my wife. One day, I would say impeach Bush and she would say "and don't forget Congress". That reminded me that Congress had its part to play in enabling Bush to rush the country into war. Both parties in Congress know that if Bush were impeached, his gang would take down members of Congress who agreed with him down with him as well. Perhaps that's not a bad idea as it would pave the way for perhaps better representation. As for Obama, while I'll probably be disappointed to see him not end the occupation in Iraq, as long as he doesn't start another war, he probably won't be recommended for impeachment except by the far right. Besides, he has to clean up the 10 trillion mess and I don't see him even coming close to actually thinking about bombing Pakistan or Afghanistan. I could be wrong though so we'll have to wait and see.
We need to bring in local and state level politicians who will stand up to the corrupt ones in Washington and make them pay attention to the nation's actual needs first and foremost. That strong unity is what will make it harder for the pro-war pro-occupation forces to prevail.
On India and Pakistan, I don't think we have any control over that other than to shut down the CIA and stop allowing them to ship $10 billion yearly in military aid to those two nations. I know that China and Russia would possibly take our place but better to slow down the sales than keep giving them, right? In the end, those two will have to sit down and figure it out for themselves.
Post a Comment