Showing posts with label terrorist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label terrorist. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

more from imam zaid

Imam Zaid Shakir delivers a one-two punch against Islam-haters and extremist Muslims in a pair of his recent articles.

In Qur’an defeats Muslim Barbarism Imam Zaid exhorts towards the importance of reading the Quran holistically and guided by the highest ideals:

Like all other scriptures, it is easy to take a Qur’anic verse out of context and distort its meaning to fit an ideologically defined agenda. However, such an approach not only results in semantic violence towards the text, its can become the basis of physical violence against innocent adherents of a particular religion.

The time has come for members of all faith communities to begin a push towards a higher ground that leads to a common ground. The hard work of fostering understanding will require honest and enlightened scholarship and leadership, coupled with a deep quest for truth, peace and justice. If we stop short of that, we are only cheating ourselves and jeopardising our collective security.


In Letter to a Would-be Mujahid Imam Zaid writes to a hypothetical terrorist, Muslim to Muslim, explaining why becoming a terrorist is not just contrary to basic Earthling morality, and a violation of Islamic principles, but also really really stupid.

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

catholic church involved in terrorist cover-up

NPR: Cover-Up In 1972 North Ireland Bombing
The British government and the Roman Catholic church colluded to cover up the suspected involvement of a priest in a 1972 bombing that killed nine people and injured 30, a new report said Tuesday.

Monday, May 17, 2010

you don't fight terrorists the same way you fight rumpelstiltskin

I saw this exchange on CSPAN and thought it was pretty bizare and frustrating. Admittedly, Holder should have been a bit more confident and smooth, but Lamar Smith (and other folks of a similar mindset) are downright ignorant and dangerous.

For me, the basic question is about how the US should respond to terrorism. Should there be a targeted and defined effort with a relatively clear endgame (e.g. dismantle Al-Qaedah and capture/kill OBL). Or should there be vaguely defined war without any clear limits (e.g. a War on Islamic Terrorism or "Radical Islam")

As a Muslim and an American I can totally get behind the first approach. But in the second case I'm not sure I would trust someone like Lamar Smith to be able to distinguish between "radicals" and the rest. I'm not going to pretend to be able to see into Smith's heart but I have to wonder if he simply hates Muslims and is using the word radical as a figleaf. In any case, if folks like him end up framing the terms of the US' anti-terrorism response, we will probably end up fighting the Crusades for 1000 years or so.



Huffington Post: Lamar Smith Wants Eric Holder To Say 'Radical Islam' Or He'll Cry

And if you have the time, here is the whole hearing:
House Judiciary Cmte. Hearing with Atty. Gen. Eric Holder on the Attempted Times Square Bombing

Saturday, July 12, 2008

vantage point

I just finished watching the film Vantage Point last week. The central idea behind the film is how ones perception of reality radically depends on ones point of view. It demonstrates this idea by telling and retelling the story, from different perspectives, of a terrorist attack in Salamanca involving the President of the United States (POTUS).

The movie was good and generally entertaining. I just have a few comments and nits:
1. There was at least one discrepancy between the stories: During the iteration which follows Forrest Whitaker's character (an American tourist with marital problems back home), there are two secret service agents who appear at the end at a crucial moment but are absent from the corresponding scene in the final iteration of the story.

2. A second slight weakness in terms of the construction of the story: At a crucial point, the main terrorist leader who has clearly established his callous disregard for human life during the rest of the film, makes a surprise move actually swerves to avoid hitting a little girl.

3. Finally (and here is the "Grenada-esque" bit) maybe this is just as further example of how everything depends on perspective but the terrorists' motivations aren't made totally clear in the film. In one iteration, a member of the President's staff says that a group called Mujahideen Brigade with connections to Morocco is planning an attack on the President. But when we follow the terrorists, there are few, if any, clues to their ideology and all of them, even the sleeper agent, speak nothing but Spanish.

Anyone else see this movie?