Omar Bakri, begs the Brits for help!
Given a chance at “martyrdom”, some who continue call for self sacrifice and incite jihad against the oppressor and anything non-Muslim, just turn tail and scarper. Ironically, they turn to an entity which they have publicly regarded as corrupt, filthy and not deserving of God’s grace to help extricate them from the very scene which – according to them at least – can provide them a ticket direct to martyr’s Heaven!
What can I say but cowards exposed?
It’s very easy for them to shout and scream and threaten fire and brimstone, incite others to kill and maim, but when it comes for them themselves to enact what they preach, they’re the first to turn tail!
This must gives people pause to think if their fiery ideology is worth considering, and their version of Islam is simply false.
Hat tip Big Pharaoh
Comments
When I read this, I couldn’t help but smile.
You would be hard pressed to find any major terrorist cleric/leader who is actually willing to die for the cause. They run away. They hide. The spread their vitriol in countries where free speech is a cultural given.
But when the bombs start falling they curl up in the fetal position and cry for mommy.
It’s the kids that grew up inculcated with that hatred that make the best terrorists. They don’t know how to think for themselves – brainwashed beyond measure and armed with a memorized Koran, they strap bombs to themselves for a fool’s errand.
But Osama and Bakri and the hatemongers themselves? Getting fat off of their followers’ sacrifice.
As the song goes ‘isn’t it ironic’! Is there an Arabic version of the saying ‘practice what you preach’?
Ethan, as for those who purportedly become suicide bombers, many of them are actually not fanatically religious. I wrote a post on this earlier this week or late last week (I lose track)..here is the link;
http://www.alternet.org/audits/35815/
Ingrid
Very interesting article Ingrid, thanks for posting it. Here’s another slant on the same topic from the January issue of Scientific American Magazine. The authors of both articles are more often in agreement than not:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0006A854-E67F-13A1-A67F83414B7F0104&sc=I100322
Jared
Wormtongue I name you. Down on your belly, snake.
” But strength still goes out from your thorns
and from your abysses the sound of music.
Your shadows lie on my heart like roses
and your nights are like strong wine.”
“This must gives people pause to think if their fiery ideology is worth considering, and their version of Islam is simply false.”
AMEN! if I can say this in this forum?
Indeed. And if you notice, that particular word is a common denominator of all three religions!
Jared in NYC – that was a very interesting article! I found this to be quite interesting:
“countries like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, which have spawned relatively many terrorists, are economically well off yet lacking in civil liberties. Poor countries with a tradition of protecting civil liberties are unlikely to spawn suicide terrorists. Evidently, the freedom to assemble and protest peacefully without interference from the government goes a long way to providing an alternative to terrorism.”
For one, I didn’t realize that Bahrain was spawning terrorists! Saudi I understand, but Bahrain??!
owing to the 6 who were in Gitmo, 3 have been released already, and I am told that the remaining 3 will be released soon.
Tooners where did you read that? plz send me the link.
Interesting article, but not very convincing, in my opinion… first, who are those “400 members of Al Qaeda” that they checked? Did they all go on to become suicide bombers? I suppose most members of Al Qaeda aren’t bent on blowing themselves up… there wouldn’t be too many left of them if that was the case… also it ignores the case of the Palestinian Authority, where civil liberties (at least vis-a-vis the PA) are relatively well. And, of course, the oppressing side is non-existant. Nothing about the effects of living under occupation. And generally, It’s a very Americentric article, it seems that it takes September 11th as the paradigm for suicide attacks and Al Qaeda as the paradigm for a group that incites these attacks… nothing about Hamas/Israel, Talliban/Afghanistan, etc.
(Just to make things clear, I was referring to the article Jared linked to, not to Mahmood’s post…)
Mr. Bakr’s plea to scuttle back to Britain on a warship has been met with considerable mirth here in Blighty … plus the well-known phrase “No, f*** off”.
Nadav,
I understand your criticism of the article and agree that it’s from an American perspecitive. What’s your own perspective on the psychology of suicide bombers?
Jared
Tooners,
You’ve picked out the portion of the Scientific American article that made an impression on me also. Thomas Freidman, a columnist and author who’s written a lot on the subject of suicide terror (and global trade and many other issues), has made that point about civil liberties several times in his writing.
Searching in Google, using a string such as yields a few of his recent opinions, and rebuttals from academics and other columnists.
Jared
Sorry, the string I was referring to was [“thomas friedman” suicide terror India saudi]
I’v just bought his book “The World is Flat” and looking forward to read it.
I think you’ll like it Mahmood, I did. I’m heading out to Mumbai for work at least once before the end of this year, so I think I can see some of what he’s talking about up close (my first visit among what I hope to be many more to India).
He’s a fascinating read, but naturally controversial since he’s so detailed and specific in his opinions.
well if you stop over in Bahrain, give me a call!
That’s likely to happen eventually 😉
While Omar Bakri’s demand that Britain, an infidel country he is dedicated to destroying, should rescue him from Lebanon seems hypocritical to sane people, it is perfectly consistent with the radical Muslim world view in which infidels should serve him. In the same spirit, many Muslims argue that Western countries owe them welfare payments as a form of jizaya (tax on being non-Muslim) that they would naturally receive when those democracies are converted to Sharia states.
The argument that protecting civil liberties is effective in suppressing the blossoming of radical Islam has some merit, but it certainly is not a panacea. After all, those civil liberties are blasphemy in the wacked out view of Islamists, the kind of individual freedoms they want eradicated so that everyone submits to the will of Allah.
Terrorism is the default response of Muslim extremists, not peaceful protest. The British Tube bombers did not turn to peaceful protest to convey their message, even though they had ample opportunity to do so without fear of repercussion. They went straight to blowing people into bloody chunks in the Muslim extremist tradition. The Canadian Muslim punks just rounded up made no protest signs to hoist downtown. Their first idea was to behead the prime minister of Canada. The train bombers in Madrid and Bombay did not turn to peaceful protest. And of course, Mohammed Atta and his crew did not come for a sit-in. Peaceful protest and civil liberties hold no attraction for the Islamists.
It’s not so surprising that Arab terrorist chieftains use their naive followers as suicide fodder. That’s a natural progression from an Arab culture where rank exempts leaders from responsibility or care for their subordinates. Americans believe in leading from the front, but Arabs believe in leading from the rear and letting the troops incur all the risks. Arab leaders are generally indifferent to the welfare or morale of their people. It’s hardly a surprise that Arab leaders like Arafat and his ilk would cynically send kids packed with explosives out to kill themselves when they had no intention of doing the same themselves nor allowing their families to do so. Suicide missions are for the gulllible chumps.
As for the suicide bombers themselves, many of them see it as chance to gain a respect they never enjoyed. Often they are kids who have been failures at school and in life. The women suicide bombers often have been trapped in some cultural problem that makes them unmarriageable. Their prospects are dim.
That period between the time they are selected and actually are sent on their suicide mission is the happiest time of their life, where everyone looks up to them, praises them, is happy to see them. It may also be their main chance to contribute to their family, with a death payment to their parents giving them the chance to buy a home or establish a business. And, after all, they are going to paradise with the virgins servicing them and taking seventy of their family with them with their death as martyrs. What a deal. It’s an offer they can’t refuse.
Steve
I agree that civil liberties and freedom of expression are big part of calming political violence, but it’s not the whole picture. Civil liberties must be accompanied by tolerance and protection by law and order. Palestinians do have the right to protest, but even if they wanted, how long do you think an ‘I Love Israel’ march would last? Free expression means jack if you don’t accept that people might not see things your way.
We have a similar situation here in Ireland, where support for Britain, commemorating WWII soldiers, or saying the Irish version of history might be a load of ****, was and still is in many cases taboo and not tolerated by large sections of the population. It was only a few months ago that Unionist marchers came to Dublin from Belfast to march, which, although they were perfectly within their rights to do so, were met with riots, firebombs, looting and violence. The rioters attacked our police, civilians and brought back terror to Dublin. Still a long way to go. Lots of rights, but very little tolerance.
As to Mr Bakri, well, that post just made me smile. You reap what you sow. I think Steve is correct in saying that neither Bakri nor his supporters would see the irony in this. They see nothing undignified in sponging off the enemy.
All – I think this is especially topical. If you have Real Player and an extra 20 minutes, listen to this streaming audio of a budding (initially very naive) British journalist, who followed Bakri around for a few weeks in 2002 and provided this narrative:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1138439
Jared
Jared I listened to it the other day. It is worth a listen.
bint ilshaah, sorry for my late reply, but i got the link to this article thru Jared in NYC’s comments in this thread. go to the top of the comment section, come down and you’ll see the link to this article and another article by Ingrid. both are good and very interesting reads.
Americans believe in leading from the front, but Arabs believe in leading from the rear and letting the troops incur all the risks.
While I agree with much of what you are saying the above comment triggered my bullshit alarm. Can you name the last US Commander-in-Chief that led his troops into battle? Or how about a General? Our so-called leaders lead from behind just as well as theirs do.