Monday, November 14, 2005

USA: THE Terrorist of the World ...

This is in response to a comment I received at my previous post titled, "Terrorists, Terrorism, and Terror". The commenter objected to my calling America as "the" terrorist of the World. Now I am not a Bush-hating, Usama-loving fanatic, but I believe what I said was true. A mere list of U.S. military interventions in various countries should be more than enough to prove my point. The following list of U.S. military interventions has been extracted from the book, "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower", by William Blum, which I would highly recommend to those who are interested in knowing the other, uglier side of the coin.


A List of US Military Interventions in Various Countries

  • China, 1945-51
  • France 1947
  • Marshall Islands, 1946-58
  • Italy, 1947-70s
  • Greece, 1947-49
  • Phillipines, 1945-53
  • Korea, 1945-53
  • Albania, 1949-53
  • Eastern Europe, 1948-56
  • Germany, 1950s
  • Guatemala, 1953-90
  • Costa Rica, mid-1950's, 1970-71
  • Haiti, 1959
  • Western Europe, 1950s-60s
  • British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64
  • Soviet Union, 1940s-60s
  • Vietnam, 1945-73
  • Cambodia, 1955-73
  • Laos, 1957-73
  • Thailand, 1965-73
  • Ecuador, 1960-63
  • The Congo/Zaire, 1960-65, 1977-78
  • France/Algeria, 1960s
  • Brazil, 1961-64
  • Peru, 1965
  • Dominican Republic, 1963-65
  • Cuba, 1959 to present
  • Ghana, 1966
  • Uruguay, 1969-72
  • Chile, 1964-73
  • Greece, 1967-74
  • South Africa, 1960s-80s
  • Bolivia, 1964-75
  • Australia, 1972-75
  • Portugal, 1974-76
  • East Timor, 1975-99
  • South Korea, 1980
  • Fiji, 1987
  • Bulgaria, 1990-91
  • Albania, 1991-92
  • Philippines, 1950s
  • Italy, 1948-70s
  • Lebanon, 1950s
  • Vietnam, 1955
  • British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64
  • Japan, 1958-1970s
  • Nepal, 1959
  • Laos, 1960
  • Brazil, 1962
  • Dominican Republic, 1962
  • Guatemala, 1963
  • Bolivia, 1966
  • Chile, 1964-1970
  • Portugal, 1974-5
  • Australia, 1974-75
  • Jamaica, 1976
  • Panama, 1984, 1989
  • Nicaragua, 1984, 1990
  • Haiti, 1987-88
  • Bulgaria, 1990-91 & Albania, 1991-92
  • Russian, 1996
  • Mongolia, 1996
  • Bosnia, 1998

U.S. Interventions in the Muslim World

  • Iran, 1953
  • Middle East, 1956-58
  • Indonesia, 1957-58
  • Iraq, 1958-63
  • Indonesia, 1965
  • Iraq, 1972-75
  • South Yemen, 1979-84
  • Libya, 1981-89
  • Afghanistan, 1979-92
  • Somalia, 1993
  • Iraq, 1990s
  • Indonesia, 1955

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

What about the genocide committed by West Pakistan against East Pakistan? That was supported by the United States and the mullahs of Pakistan. Do you condemn that shameful and utterly reprehensible atrocity as well?

Renaissance Scientist said...

Of course I condemn it. Genocide is condemnable wherever it occurs.

All three parties involved in the 1971 conflict have their share of crimes: West Pakistan, for its hegemonistic attitude; East Pakistan, for its rebellious attitude; and India, for its conspiratorial and parasitic role.

Anonymous said...

Are you comparing East Pakistan's campaign for cultural sovereignty with West Pakistan's campaign of genocide? Is the one really the moral equivalent of the other? Would William Blum or Noam Chomsky equate a campaign for cultural sovereignty with a campaign of genocide? Would you equate the Palestinian campaign for cultural and political sovereignty with a "rebellious attitude"?

"Of course I condemn it. Genocide is condemnable wherever it occurs."

What do you think would be an appropriate form of punishment for those Pakistanis responsible for the campaign of genocide against the Bengali people? What punishment should be applied to those mullahs who supported the genocide? Should those mullahs continue to enjoy moral or religious authority, given their support for the indiscriminate slaughter of countless men, women, and children? Or should they be stripped of their religious authority and imprisoned for life?

Do you believe Muslims should condemn themselves for acts of genocide carried out by Muslims before they condemn others for acts of genocide? Or should Muslims point the finger at non-Muslims first?

Renaissance Scientist said...

Are you comparing East Pakistan's campaign for cultural sovereignty with West Pakistan's campaign of genocide? Is the one really the moral equivalent of the other?

No, I wasn't comparing the two. Nor was I comparing Indian conspiracies with either of these two.

Would you equate the Palestinian campaign for cultural and political sovereignty with a "rebellious attitude"?

I can't help noticing that you use the term cultural sovereignty when talking about East Pakistan's campaign, but you talk about cultural and political sovereignty when talking about Palestine. I think you have been intellectually honest here because East Pakistan's campaign was a campaign for cultural sovereignty and was not a campaign for political sovereignty, something which they already possessed. On the other hand, the Palestinian struggle is for both cultural and political sovereignty. Thus, we cannot equate the two campaigns. It is for this reason that I can call the East Pakistani campaign as "rebellion" but cannot say the same for the Palestinian campaign.

To further prove my point, consider the strange and unlikely event of Quebec, the French-speaking province of Canada, saying to Canada, "I need my cultural sovereignty, so I am no more going to be a part of Canada". I think most people would view that as rebellion. Or consider the Sindhi-speaking province of today's Pakistan doing the same with Pakistan ...

... Or should they be stripped of their religious authority and imprisoned for life?

The punishment for genocide is capital punishment, not imprisonment.

Do you believe Muslims should condemn themselves for acts of genocide carried out by Muslims before they condemn others for acts of genocide? Or should Muslims point the finger at non-Muslims first?

I believe acts of genocide should be condemned, irrespective of the religious identity of those who committed them. Perhaps you have taken issue with my calling America as "the" terrorist of the World without first mentioning the "Muslim terrorists". Actually, in my original posting, titled "Terrorists, Terrorism, and Terror", I have condemned those "Muslims" who commit acts of terrorism (though their state of Islam is highly questionable). But one should realize that the terrorist acts of these Muslims are only a retaliation to American state terrorism. In addition, why do we turn a blind eye to the fact that the number of men, women, and children terrorized and/or killed by American state terrorism is incredibly more than the number of men, women, and children killed/terrorized by these so-called "Islamic terrorists"?

Anonymous said...

"To further prove my point, consider the strange and unlikely event of Quebec, the French-speaking province of Canada, saying to Canada, "I need my cultural sovereignty, so I am no more going to be a part of Canada". I think most people would view that as rebellion. Or consider the Sindhi-speaking province of today's Pakistan doing the same with Pakistan ..."

No point has been proven. Nobody who is familiar with the politics of the Bloque Quebecois could possibly equate their separationist stance with "rebellion". Separationism and rebellion are two different things. If you were to suggest to a Canadian that Gilles Duceppe was a "rebel", what reaction would you expect, other than one of uncontrollable laughter?

Also, why should rebellion be universally wrong? Is rebellion against tyranny wrong? Is rebellion against an arrogant and ethnocentric state, especially one that has the gall to carry out genocide, wrong? What should the Kurds of Turkey do? Accept their oppression? Should the uprisings in the Jewish ghettoes have never taken place? What should the millions of people living under the colonialism have done? Accept their oppression? Should the Indian mutiny against the British in 1857 not have happened? Would you have sided with the British? Should the countless slave rebellions in North America, the Caribbean, and Latin America never have happened? Would you side with a tyrannical state over an oppressed people carrying out a rebellion? Who would William Blum or Noam Chomsky side with?

Secondly, by what possible logic do you equate a campaign for cultural sovereignty with "rebellion"? Are you suggesting that cultural sovereignty for minority communities is wrong?

"The punishment for genocide is capital punishment, not imprisonment."

According to what system of justice? According to the Pakistani system of justice? Has Pakistan sentenced those guilty of genocide to capital punishment?

"I believe acts of genocide should be condemned, irrespective of the religious identity of those who committed them."

As a Muslim, who should you be condemning first? Fellow Muslims who commit atrocities or non-Muslims who commit atrocities? Was the Armenian genocide (a genocide carried out by a Muslim army) a "retaliation"? Was the Indonesian genocide of the people of East Timor (a genocide carried out by a Muslim army) a "retaliation"? Was the Pakistani genocide of the Bengali people (a genocide carried out by a Muslim army) a "retaliation"?

Should Muslims be educated about the sickening and disgusting horrors carried out by their fellow Muslims? Or only those carried about by Americans? You've included statistics of US military interventions around the world. Do you have the statistics for the numbers of Armenians, East Timorese, and Bengalis killed by Muslim armies? Would you post them on your website, too?

Renaissance Scientist said...

Separationism and rebellion are two different things.

If one achieves separation through peaceful diplomacy, then you call that separationism, and if you achieve the separation through bloody war, then you call that rebellion. That's about the difference between them, more or less.

Why should rebellion be universally wrong?

Good question. The term 'rebellion' has negative connotations, but it doesn't have to be wrong. Rebellion against tyranny isn't wrong (though it has to be done in an organized manner in order to be effective). The reason why I put part of the blame of the events of 1971 on East Pakistan is that their rebellion was not all against hegemony; part of their rebellion was purely for cultural reasons, to achieve cultural sovereignty, as you so rightly put it. This may have been a legitimate cause in the eyes of many, and I won't debate that, but it does fly in the face of the original philosophy which united Bengal and the Western provinces into one nation in 1947.

By what possible logic do you equate a campaign for cultural sovereignty with "rebellion"?

The answer to my previous question applies to this question too. That is, the same philosophy which applied in 1947 should also have applied in 1971, but East Pakistan threw that philosophy to the winds, hence the use of the term "rebellion".

Are you suggesting that cultural sovereignty for minority communities is wrong?

East Pakistan was hardly a minority community. On the contrary, it was very much a majority community.

"The punishment for genocide is capital punishment, not imprisonment." According to what system of justice? According to the Pakistani system of justice? Has Pakistan sentenced those guilty of genocide to capital punishment?

According to the Islamic system of justice. The Pakistani and Islamic system of justice overlap to some extent but they are not equivalent, so I don't know what the exact Pakistani judicial standpoint is. As regards your other question, I think the answer is "No", to the best of my knowledge.

Should Muslims be educated about the sickening and disgusting horrors carried out by their fellow Muslims? Or only those carried about by Americans? You've included statistics of US military interventions around the world. Do you have the statistics for the numbers of Armenians, East Timorese, and Bengalis killed by Muslim armies? Would you post them on your website, too?

I think the world media are doing a fantastic job of "educating" (nice word there) Muslims about the "sickening and disgusting horrors" carried out by their fellow Muslims. What they aren't doing is educating the world about the far more "sickening and disgusting horrors" carried out by non-Muslims against Muslims. We were talking about terrorism and you shifted the discussion to genocide. Well, you might also well nigh have mentioned the genocides by non-Muslims of Muslims in Indian Kashmir, the genocides by non-Muslims of Muslims in Palestine, the genocides by non-Muslims of Muslims in Bosnia, and the genocides by non-Muslims of Muslims in India. You might also have mentioned that the events of East Pakistan, East Timor, and Armenia were all carried out through the connivance of American CIA. Perhaps it would do you good to read the book that I have recommended in my posting before making any further comments. Thank you very much.

Anonymous said...

The reason why I put part of the blame of the events of 1971 on East Pakistan is that their rebellion was not all against hegemony; part of their rebellion was purely for cultural reasons, to achieve cultural sovereignty, as you so rightly put it.

Where are you getting your facts from? The 1971 war was triggered by West Pakistan's refusal to acknowledge the political rights of East Pakistan after it had democratically won control of the National Assembly. How can you possibly pin any blame on East Pakistan? What would the correct response have been to West Pakistan's morally reprehensible disregard for political rights and the principles of democracy? How is the suppression of democracy not hegemony? The Bengali people rightly protested West Pakistan's shameful disregard for political rights and demanded that it recognize the results of the election. In response, the bloodthirsty General Muhammad Yahya Khan carried out a horrifying campaign of indiscriminate slaughter, which was supported by the mullahs of Pakistan. And, you have the audacity to pin blame on the Bengalis? What kind of sick person are you?

Why play shameful apologetics for a bloodthirsty, genocidal state? What would William Blum do? Blame the victims or the killers?

The Pakistani and Islamic system of justice overlap to some extent but they are not equivalent, so I don't know what the exact Pakistani judicial standpoint is. As regards your other question, I think the answer is "No", to the best of my knowledge.

So, what exactly are you doing to rectify the situation? Blaming the US? Are you involved in any campaigns to persuade the Pakistani government to punish those Pakistani citizens responsible for genocide? If not, why not?

That is, the same philosophy which applied in 1947 should also have applied in 1971, but East Pakistan threw that philosophy to the winds, hence the use of the term "rebellion".

And what philosophy is that? That if East Pakistan democratically wins control of the National Assembly, its political rights should not respected? What exactly did East Pakistan do wrong, besides democratically winning control of the National Assembly? And, what do you call committing genocide against those who demand their political rights? Is that a case if upholding "the philosophy which applied in 1947"?

You might also have mentioned that the events of East Pakistan, East Timor, and Armenia were all carried out through the connivance of American CIA.

What the HELL are you talking about? The Armenian Genocide took place from 1915 to 1917. The CIA was created in 1947. It's obvious -- to the point of absurdity -- that you're making up your facts as you go along. And, you have the audacity to recommend a book to somebody else? What kind of an "intellectual of sorts" could get such basic facts wrong? Would you be as quick to follow your own advice to read a book (or, as your case seems to demand, several books), given your incredibly poor command of the facts?

More interestingly, though, the slaughter of Bengali men, women, and children by the bloodthirsty state of West Pakistan was "carried out through the connivance" of Pakistani mullahs. Who excites your anger more for supporting genocide, the CIA or your fellow Muslim believers, the mullahs of Pakistan?

I think the world media are doing a fantastic job of "educating" (nice word there) Muslims about the "sickening and disgusting horrors" carried out by their fellow Muslims.

On what basis do you make such an outlandish claim? Are you suggesting that Muslims are aware that their fellow Muslims are guilty of genocide, and in at least three cases? How could you possibly prove this? You yourself don't even know anything about the Armenian genocide, having made the incredibly ignorant suggestion that it was "carried out through the connivance of American CIA." If a Muslim "intellectual of sorts" is ignorant of the Armenian genocide, is that not proof that Muslims in general are not educated about the Armenian genocide? Or, are Muslims in general more educated than you? In which case, why call yourself an intellectual?

Renaissance Scientist said...

This is as hot as it gets! ...

How can you possibly pin any blame on East Pakistan?

That is the problem, you are not ready to listen to any blame to East Pakistan. My point is that undoubtedly East Pakistan was wronged (hence, I talked about the hegemonistic attitude of West Pakistan), but East Pakistan was also partly in the wrong for raising Bengali nationalism, as symbolized by Bengali culture and Bengali language. You yourself have admitted that Bengalis were seeking cultural sovereignty.

So, what exactly are you doing to rectify the situation? Blaming the US? Are you involved in any campaigns to persuade the Pakistani government to punish those Pakistani citizens responsible for genocide? If not, why not?

I am an active supporter of the Pakistan Awami Tehreek (www.pat.com.pk), which is a political movement that is working to right all the wrongs in Pakistan.

You might also have mentioned that the events of East Pakistan, East Timor, and Armenia were all carried out through the connivance of American CIA.

Oops! I did it again! Thank you for correcting me there about Armenia. However, you seem to make too much of it. The fact that I said "CIA" instead of "American intelligence" does not mean that I made up the facts, which I will furnish you here. Please note the following sentences from the answer to the question, "What was the response of the international community to the Armenian Genocide?" at the webpage,

http://www.armenian-genocide.org/genocidefaq.html#response:

"The American, British, and German governments sponsored the preparation of reports on the atrocities and numerous accounts were published. On the other hand, despite the moral outrage of the international community, no strong actions were taken against the Ottoman Empire either to sanction its brutal policies or to salvage the Armenian people from the grip of extermination. Moreover, no steps were taken to require the postwar Turkish governments to make restitution to the Armenian people for their immense material and human losses."

Thus, the international powers, including America, England, and Germany, made no worthwhile attempt to stop the genocide or help the victims. They only paid lip-service to a supposed support for the victims by preparing reports and publishing accounts of the atrocities. So the genocide had the tacit approval of American intelligence, and for that matter, also the British and German intelligence.

By the way, by your own admission in your first comment, the United States, one of the then two superpowers in the World, had supported West Pakistan in its genocidal campaign ...

Who excites your anger more for supporting genocide, the CIA or your fellow Muslim believers, the mullahs of Pakistan?

Both are on the wrong. The agenda of Pakistan Awami Tehreek is at odds with the agenda of the mullahs. However, while mullah-supported oppression/atrocities have been local, CIA-supported oppression/atrocities have been truly international.

Anonymous said...

...but East Pakistan was also partly in the wrong for raising Bengali nationalism, as symbolized by Bengali culture and Bengali language.

Your ignorance of Pakistani history is even more revolting than your ignorance of the Armenian Genocide. You obviously have no clue as to what took place. Nor, for that matter, do you have any clue as to what constitutes nationalism. It was MOHAMMED ALI JINNAH who declared in 1948 IN THE CITY OF DHAKA that “Urdu, and only Urdu” would be the official language of the whole of Pakistan, East and West. What the fuck do you call that, if not nationalism? Are you going to even dare to suggest that Jinnah’s declaration wasn’t nationalism? Or is nationalism good in the case of Jinnah?

More to the point, what the fuck is wrong with you? What should the Bengali people have done when some shameful political leader declares that a foreign language will be their official language? Acquiesce? Do you really know what hegemony is? Do you actually think about terms like "nationalism" and "hegemony" before you make these incredibly stupid remarks?

Secondly, you’re still playing games and refusing to answer the question. East Pakistan won control of the National Assembly. West Pakistan refused to respect the results of the election and to recognize the political rights of East Pakistan. When East Pakistan rightly protested, they were massacred. Again, how could you possibly pin any blame on East Pakistan for a genocide that was carried out against them? What sort of sick human being pins the blame on the victims? Again, who would William Blum side with, the victims or the killers?

However, you seem to make too much of it. The fact that I said "CIA" instead of "American intelligence" does not mean that I made up the facts…

Idiot, if the CIA didn’t exist during the time of Armenian Genocide, then yes, you made up the facts. Don’t play fucking games. You ate your foot and now you’re trying to defend your pathetic integrity.

Thus, the international powers, including America, England, and Germany, made no worthwhile attempt to stop the genocide or help the victims.

The OTTOMAN EMPIRE carries out a genocide and you blame the United States? Are you at all morally capable of acknowledging that Muslims were PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE for genocide? Do you blame the United States for failing to stop Hitler, too? Again, what sort of sick human being are you?

Secondly, you've presented no proof that the “world media” are educating Muslims about genocidal massacres carried out by Muslim armies. What evidence is there that Muslims are even aware that the OTTOMAN EMPIRE was guilty of GENOCIDE? What evidence is there that Muslims are aware that Pakistan and Indonesia are guilty of genocide? How many Muslims know the statistics of the numbers killed?

Again, if you, a self-styled “intellectual of sorts” (give me a fucking break, really) don’t know anything about the Armenian genocide, do you really expect anybody to believe that Muslims are educated about the Armenian genocide?

Again, you’re not answering my questions, choosing instead to play sick games rather than acknowledging that you’re a fucking hypocrite:

Should Muslims be educated about the sickening and disgusting horrors carried out by their fellow Muslims? Or only those carried about by Americans? You've included statistics of US military interventions around the world. Do you have the statistics for the numbers of Armenians, East Timorese, and Bengalis killed by Muslim armies? Why don't you post them on your website?

Renaissance Scientist said...

In the name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful!


It is unfortunate that some people resort to using four-letter words when things don’t seem to go the way they want them to go ...

Mr Anonymous (or is it Ms Anonymous?) has accused me of being an ignorant, apologetic, idiotic, stupid, morally un-integrated, hypocritical, fact-making, intellect-lacking, game-playing, sick person. I think I will not answer the personal accusations, but I will insha’Allah definitely answer those contentions that seemingly brought forth these ungainly adjectives. I will leave the issue of who deserves those descriptions to the audience.

I will start with outlining the relevant facts of Bangladesh’s history, which forms Chapter One of the grievances/accusations of Mr Anonymous. The following paragraph is found under the heading "Creation of Pakistan" at the webpage, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bangladesh

Almost from the advent of independent Pakistan in 1947, frictions developed between East and West Pakistan, which were separated by more than 1,000 miles of Indian territory. East Pakistanis felt exploited by the West Pakistan-dominated central government. Linguistic, cultural, and ethnic differences also contributed to the estrangement of East from West Pakistan.

I think this paragraph summarizes in a nutshell both the hegemonistic attitude of West Pakistan and the rebellious attitude of East Pakistan. Hegemonistic because West Pakistan did exploit East Pakistan, and rebellious because East Pakistan did exploit linguistic, cultural, and ethnic differences to the detriment of the "original philosophy" of the creation of Pakistan, namely the two-nation theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Nation_Theory), which basically states that Muslims and Hindus are two separate nations from every definition, and which implies that the Muslims of the sub-continent are one nation, not an East Pakistani nation and a West Pakistani nation. (The fact that there were several million Muslims in post-partition India does not count, because they were a minority in their new State.) Note that East Pakistan's search for cultural sovereignty, at the eventual cost of Pakistan's national solidarity, is not just an event of 1971; it was an ongoing movement that lasted several years, as is evident from the Language Movement article at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_Movement). One cannot, of course, blame the movement for cultural sovereignty as an excuse for the eventual genocide of 1971, but to discount this movement among the primary reasons for East Pakistan's search for independence is to ignore history. Mr Anonymous, however, is hell-bent on proving that any mention from me of this culture sovereignty movement - which really is a rebellion from the two-nation theory - is done as an apologetic for the genocide of 1971.

At this juncture, I will put in a few thoughts regarding the Language Movement. There was great wisdom behind Quaid-e-Azam's decision to make Urdu the official language of Pakistan. Urdu was the only language spoken in Pakistan that was not the local language of any area of Pakistan - either East or West. The vast majority of people in West Pakistan - as well as East Pakistan - did not have Urdu as their mother tongue. Thus, establishing Urdu as the national language did not pose the problem of accusation of imposition of one's culture upon another. Quaid-e-Azam had a great vision for Pakistan, but the really sad part of the whole story - just as sad as the genocide itself - is that East Pakistan's parochial attitude, in sharp contrast with Quaid-e-Azam's unifying stance, had a very significant role to play in the eternal separation of our Bengali brothers from us. In this connection, Indian conspiracy has a great role to play in that they played upon the volatile emotions of our estranged Bengali brothers.

The final event that fueled East Pakistan's search for independence was Bhutto's and Yahya's denial to give East Pakistan its due role in politics in 1971:

East Pakistan was dominated and neglected by West Pakistan, which comprised the rest of Pakistan (West Punjab, Sindh, Baluchistan, and the Northwest Frontier Province). Despite the fact that East Pakistan earned the larger share of national income, especially through the export of Jute, most of the development was done in West Pakistan. The Pakistan Army was also mostly dominated by officers from West Pakistan. The tensions peaked in 1971, following an open, non-democratic denial by Pakistani president Yahya Khan, a military ruler, of election results that gave the Awami League an overwhelming majority in the parliament (167 out of 169 seats allocated for East Pakistan).

Under the leadership of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, also known as Bôngobondhu (Friend of Bengal), Bangladesh started its struggle for independence. The official onset followed one of the bloodiest genocides of recent times carried out by the Pakistan army on Bengali civilians on 25 March 1971. Virtually the entire Bengali intelligentsia were annihilated. Owing to West Pakistan's effort to rid the country of foreign journalists, accurate numbers are difficult to get, but some estimates claim 50,000 deaths in the first three days of the so-called Operation Searchlight of the Pakistan Army. The overall death toll of the Bengalis in the nine month war is officially estimated to be around 3 million, with some Western sources citing between 1-1.5 million deaths. More than ten million Bengalis fled to neighbouring India, which backed the liberation war, with support from the Soviet Union.


(From the heading, "History", at the webpage, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh)

Having cleared up the issues surrounding Bangladesh's history, I think it is due time to say that I couldn't help getting the impression that right from Mr Anonymous' first comment till his last, he is actually looking for an apology from me for the genocide of 1971. But, as Mr Abdur Rehman Squires puts it so effectively at his Mere Muslim website, "Apologize? No! Condemn? Yes!", I will condemn those atrocities, but will not apologize for them, since I am not responsible for them. Perhaps I should also clarify that I condemn those mullahs too.

Now I will turn to the question of why I have put up a list of US military interventions without mentioning the genocides done by Muslims in recent history. Firstly, Mr Anonymous' assertion that Muslims are in need of education about the genocides done by Muslims is a bizarre and silly assertion and could be likened to thinking of educating an eskimo about the hazards of winter. Most countries with majority Muslim populations are ruled by despotic dictators who have been committing the usual crimes that are committed by despotic dictators. The Muslims of these countries are all-too-cognizant of these crimes, but what makes it so difficult to overthrow these despotic regimes, and what Mr Anonymous doesn't want to know, is that these dictators are but puppets in the hand of Uncle Sam, the real dictator of the world. The book in question ("Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower", by William Blum) amply proves this assertion, but I wonder if Mr Anonymous would ever read it. No act done by these dictators is done but by the tacit or verbal approval of their masters in Washington. Secondly, one should realize that comparing statistics of genocides in terms of numbers of people annihilated with statistics of terrorism in terms of numbers of military interventions is simply unfair, since genocide entails virtual extermination of a group of people while terrorism entails at best the killing of only a fraction of a group of people in order to terrorize the rest. We will be talking more about this shortly, but here we will compare the statistics of Muslim-led genocides with other genocides in their proper international and historical perspective. The following genocide statistics for the past 500 years are from the webpage, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history

The Americas (1492 onwards): 25 million (Uncle Sam's great-grand Uncle Pam there)
Canada: Numbers not given
USA (throughout the 19th century): Numbers not given, but are said to be in millions (Uncle Sam himself there)
Guatemala (1982-1983): 0.075 million
Algeria (1954-1962): 0.2 to 1.5 million (genocide of Muslims, not by Muslims)
Congo (1880-1920): 10 million
German South West Africa, i.e. present day Namibia (1904-1907): 0.075 million
Rwanda (April 1994): 0.937 million
Sudan (1983): 2 million
Australia (following European settlement): Aboriginal population "decimated", but numbers not given
Iraq (1986-1988): Numbers not given
Turkey (1914-1923): Total 1.4 to 2.85 million
Spain (1555): Numbers not given, though "hundreds of thousands" is mentioned
The Deluge (1648-1662), i.e. Poland/Lithuania: More than 3.5 million
Bosnia (1992-1995): "Ethnic cleansing" mentioned, but number given is 8,000
Croatia (1941-1945): Numbers not given
Germany (1933-1945): 11 million
USSR (1932-1933): 7 to 15 million
Philippines (1899-1908): More than 1 million
Cambodia (1975-1979): More than 1.7 million
Timor (1975-1999): 0.15 million to 0.2 million
Tibet (late 1950's and 1960's): 4 million
Indonesia (1965-today): Number not mentioned
Vietnam (1973-present): 4 million (Uncle Sam again)
The Great Calamity, i.e. India (1870-1900): 40 million (Uncle Sam's other brother, Uncle Tam, in action there)
Partition of India (1947): 5 million
Bangladesh Liberation War (1971): 1 to 3 million
Jammu and Kashmir (1989-present): 0.1 million

Now let us compare the total number of people killed by Muslim-led genocide with the total number of people killed by non-Muslim-led genocide. I think we can safely ignore those cases for which the numbers are not mentioned, since these numbers are not extravagantly high and will not skew our final results too much. We can also safely use average figures where a range of numbers has been given.

Muslim-led genocides: Sudan + Iraq + Turkey + East Timor + Indonesia + Bangladesh Liberation War = 2 + 0 + 2.125 + 0.175 + 0 + 2 = 6.300 million

Non-Muslim-led genocides: The Americas + Canada + USA + Guatemala + Algeria + Congo + German South-West Africa + Rwanda + Australia + Spain + The Deluge + Bosnia + Croatia + Germany + USSR + Philippines + Cambodia + Tibet + Vietnam + The Great Calamity + Partition of India + Jammu and Kashmir = 25 + 0 + 0 + 0.075 + 0.85 + 10 + 0.075 + 0.937 + 0 + 0 + 3.5 + 0 + 0 + 11 + 11 + 1 + 1.7 + 4 + 4 + 40 + 5 + 0.1 = 118.237 million

Ratio of non-Muslim-led genocide deaths to Muslim-led genocide deaths = 118.237 million / 6.300 million = 18.768

Ratio of non-Muslim population to Muslim population (today): 4.95 billion / 1.5 billion = 3.300

Therefore, genocide death ratio ( non-Muslim: Muslim ) = 18.768 / 3.300 = 5.687

This ratio simply means that the non-Muslim crime rate of genocide for the past half-millennium is about 6 times the Muslim crime rate of genocide.

Needless to say, I have started moderating the comments at this blog because I don't want to be bothered by Islamophobes like Mr Anonymous anymore.

While I think I have largely answered Mr Anonymous’ contentions, there are several lessons to be learned from the foregoing discussion which culminated in Mr Anonymous’ using the ‘f’ word five times in his last comment. Mr Anonymous’ Islamophobia was obvious from the very start by the way in which he deceptively tried to compare Muslim-led genocides with American-led terrorism. Knowledge of the fact that genocide and terrorism are two different (though related) terms is crucial to understanding the psychodynamics of this Islamophobe. Dictionary.com defines these terms as follows:

Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Genocide: The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

The difference between the two terms lies in the fact that terrorism entails the killing of a few in order to intimidate the many, while genocide entails the killing of many in order to get rid of the many. Moreover, terrorism does not necessarily have to involve killing. The use of force or violence without a single murder can have incredible consequences. Specifically speaking, the mere presence of an American fleet near a country’s shores can raise the goose bumps on that country’s leader and force him into compliance. Mr Anonymous was very much aware of this difference between terminologies but he nevertheless decided to play upon my simplicity (which is obvious to anyone who reads my blog) and challenged me with the question of whether I would post the statistics of Muslim-led genocides along with the statistics of American-led terrorism that I have put on this post. This was an unfair question, and the truth is that if one wants to arrive at credible results, then one must compare statistics of American-led terrorism with statistics of Muslim-led terrorism and statistics of Muslim-led genocide with statistics of American-led genocide.

I have not even tried to compare the statistics of American-led terrorism with Muslim-led terrorism because such an act would be ludicrous to the highest degree. The fact is that American-led terrorism has terrorized virtually billions of people, as is evident from the mere fact that 226 countries in the World have US military troops, and American presence in the seas is an entirely different issue. (Reference: http://www.flagrancy.net/timeline.html)

When one compares statistics of American-led genocide with statistics of Muslim-led genocide (for the past half millennium – figures quoted in my previous comment), one observes that more than 25 million people were the victims of genocide in the Americas and millions more were killed throughout the 19th century in USA (actual numbers are not quoted in the Wikipedia article). The total number of genocide deaths by Muslim-led genocides, in contrast, is not much more than 6 million. When one accounts for the fact that most of the American genocide deaths were done when the world population was much lower, and also the fact that the population of America is one-fifth of the Muslim population, then the adjusted ratio of genocide rates becomes more than 20. Thus, the American crime rate of genocide for the past half-millenium is at least 20 times the Muslim crime rate of genocide. Some people may take issue with the fact that I have taken the past 500 years for my comparison and not the past 100 years. One must realize that in terms of sheer numbers, the majority (but certainly not all) of the American genocide crimes were done during the period 1500 AD to 1900 AD while all of the Muslim genocide crimes were done during the period 1900 AD to 2000 AD. It would, therefore, be unfair to use only one of these period of times to make our deductions. Genocides, after all, are not like everyday murders that one could calculate crime rates based upon the data of a few months or a few years. I have, however, chosen to compare the Muslim-led genocides with the non-Muslim-led genocides, and not with the American-led genocides, since Mr Anonymous hates the Muslims more than he loves the Americans. The result that we achieved, as we have seen, is that the non-Muslim crime rate of genocide for the past half-millenium is about 6 times the Muslim crime rate of genocide.

The fact that all of the Muslim-led genocides of the past half millennium took place in the twentieth century is very important, though, and becomes even more important when one observes that all Muslim-led genocides of the past 500 years (except one) have occurred only during the 1960s to the 1980s, the Turkish genocide of 1914-1923 (about which Mr Anonymous tried to create so much fuss) being the only exception. The time period between the late 1960s and the early 1980s is called the Détente, which was marked by the “general reduction in the tension between the Soviet Union and the United States and a weakening of the Cold War” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detente). This outward reduction in tension was, however, matched only by an escalation of their inward tension. Conflicts raged during this period when the two powers vied for allies throughout the world, especially in the Third World:

Despite the growing amicability of the two superpowers heated competition continued between the two, especially in the Third World. Wars in South Asia in 1971 and the Middle East in 1973 saw the superpowers back their sides with materiel and diplomatic support. In Latin America the Soviet Union continued efforts to foment revolutions, while the United States continued to block any leftward shift in the region. For much of the Détente period the Vietnam War continued to rage …

(Under the heading, “Continued Conflicts” at the webpage referenced above.)

It was the “sickening and disgusting” conflict (to use Mr Anonymous’ words) between the United States and the Soviet Union that caused five of the six Muslim-led genocides of the past half-millennium.

In stark contrast to this concentration of Muslim-led genocides in a two-decade period, the non-Muslim-led genocides have continued more or less unabated throughout the past 500 years.

At this juncture, one might well ask, “What makes the Muslims so immune to committing genocide and the non-Muslims so vulnerable to committing genocide?” The answer to this question lies in the following verse of the Qur’an which equates the unlawful murder of one man to the genocide of the whole of humanity:

“Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person - not in retaliation of murder or spread of mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all humankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all humankind. And indeed, there came to them Our Messengers with clear proofs/evidences/signs, but even then after that many of them continued to exceed the limits in the land.” (Qur’an, 5:32)

For those who are interested in knowing through the internet more about the American search for worldwide hegemony, I would suggest the webpage, http://www.flagrancy.net/timeline.html, as an excellent starting point. It shows clearly that the American search for worldwide hegemony started towards the end of the nineteenth century. It also shows quite clearly that American-endorsed and American-sponsored genocide in the twentieth century is more shocking than some would like to have it. If you find the webpage too long for you to read, then here’s an interesting advice for you: Open the webpage I have quoted, press ‘control+F’ on your keyboard, then enter ‘000’ (‘zero-zero-zero’, not ‘oh-oh-oh’) in the ‘Find’ window that pops up, then press ‘Enter’. The first occurrence of a triple-zero in the page will be highlighted. Read the whole sentence of the highlighted text and write down the genocide figures. Then press ‘Enter’ again and read the sentence that is highlighted. Keep pressing ‘Enter’ and keep writing down the figures. Some of the figures will not be genocide statistics, so ignore them. At the end, add up all the figures. My total is a bit more than 10 million. What is your total?

On a slightly different note, I can’t help but notice the remarkable similarity between the American CIA and Professor James Moriarty, the criminal mastermind and nemesis of my favorite fictional character, Mr Sherlock Holmes. If one could personify the CIA, it would become Professor Moriarty. Arthur Conan Doyle was remarkable for many reasons, not the least of which was the way he understood the dynamics of organized crime. Doyle has described the professor in The Final Problem as follows.

There was something very strange in all this. It was not Holmes's nature to take an aimless holiday, and something about his pale, worn face told me that his nerves were at their highest tension. He saw the question in my eyes, and, putting his finger-tips together and his elbows upon his knees, he explained the situation.
"You have probably never heard of Professor Moriarty?" said he.
"Never."
"Ay, there's the genius and the wonder of the thing" he cried.
"The man pervades London, and no one has heard of him. That's what puts him on a pinnacle in the records of crime. I tell you Watson, in all seriousness, that if I could beat that man, if I could free society of him, I should feel that my own career had reached its summit, and I should be prepared to turn to some more placid line in life. Between ourselves, the recent cases in which I have been of assistance to the royal family of Scandinavia, and to the French republic, have left me in such a position that I could continue to live in the quiet fashion which is most congenial to me, and to concentrate my attention upon my chemical researches. But I could not rest, Watson, I could not sit quiet in my chair, if I thought that such a man as Professor Moriarty were walking the streets of London unchallenged."
"What has he done, then?"
"His career has been an extraordinary one. He is a man of good birth and excellent education, endowed by nature with a phenomenal mathematical faculty. At the age of twenty-one he wrote a treatise upon the binomial theorem, which has had a European vogue. On the strength of it he won the mathematical chair at one of our smaller universities, and had, to all appearances, a most brilliant career before him. But the man had hereditary tendencies of the most diabolical kind. A criminal strain ran in his blood, which, instead of being modified, was increased and rendered infinitely more dangerous by his extraordinary mental powers. Dark rumours gathered round him in the university town, and eventually he was compelled to resign his chair and to come down to London, where he set up as an army coach. So much is known to the world, but what I am telling you now is what I have myself discovered.
"As you are aware, Watson, there is no one who knows the higher criminal world of London so well as I do. For years past I have continually been conscious of some power behind the malefactor, some deep organizing power which forever stands in the way of the law, and throws its shield over the wrong-doer. Again and again in cases of the most varying sorts-forgery cases, robberies, murders-I have felt the presence of this force, and I have deduced its action in many of those undiscovered crimes in which I have not been personally consulted. For years I have endeavoured to break through the veil which shrouded it, and at last the time came when I seized my thread and followed it, until it led me, after a thousand cunning windings, to ex-Professor Moriarty, of mathematical celebrity.
"He is the Napoleon of crime, Watson. He is the organizer of half that is evil and of nearly all that is undetected in this great city. He is a genius, a philosopher, an abstract thinker. He has a brain of the first order. He sits motionless, like a spider in the centre of its web, but that web has a thousand radiations, and he knows well every quiver of each of them. He does little himself He only plans. But his agents are numerous and splendidly organized. Is there a crime to be done a paper to be abstracted, we will say, a house to be rifled, a man to be removed the word is passed to the professor, the matter is organized and carried out. The agent may be caught. In that case money is found for his bail or his defence. But the central power which uses the agent is never caught-never so much as suspected. This was the organization which I deduced, Watson, and which I devoted my whole energy to exposing and breaking up.
"But the professor was fenced round with safeguards so cunningly devised that, do what I would, it seemed impossible to get evidence which would convict in a court of law. You know my powers, my dear Watson, and yet at the end of three months I was forced to confess that I had at last met an antagonist who was my intellectual equal. My horror at his crimes was lost in my admiration at his skill. But at last he made a trip-only a little, little trip-but it was more than he could afford, when I was so close upon him. I had my chance, and, starting from that point, I have woven my net round him until now it is all ready to close. In three days-that is to say, on Monday next-matters will be ripe, and the professor, with all the principal members of his gang, will be in the hands of the police. Then will come the greatest criminal trial of the century, the clearing up of over forty mysteries, and the rope for all of them; but if we move at all prematurely, you understand, they may slip out of our hands even at the last moment.
"Now, if I could have done this without the knowledge of Professor Moriarty, all would have been well. But he was too wily for that. He saw every step which I took to draw my toils round him. Again and again he strove to break away, but I as often headed him off. I tell you, my friend, that if a detailed account of that silent contest could be written, it could take its place as the most brilliant bit of thrust-and-parry work in the history of detection. Never have I risen to such a height, and never have I been so hard pressed by an opponent. He cut deep, and yet I just undercut him. This morning the last steps were taken, and three days only were wanted to complete the business. I was sitting in my room thinking the matter over when the door opened and Professor Moriarty stood before me …

Renaissance Scientist said...

A couple of corrections and then a point to ponder are in order here …

Firstly, the corrections. I forgot to include the figures of the “Great Muslim Genocide” in my calculations of the ‘non-Muslim-led genocides’. The statistics of the Great Muslim Genocide are given under the heading marked “Turkey” on Wikipedia’s History of Genocide page. It shows the figures of ethnic cleansing of Ottoman Muslims by non-Muslims in wars that continued throughout the nineteenth century all up to World War I. The total given is 5,060,000 (a little over 5 million). I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to redo the calculations with this correction.

World War I and World War II witnessed civilian massacres of 7 million and 37 million respectively. The author of the History of Genocide page has not included these figures in his genocide statistics, probably because the majority of these deaths do not fall under the classic definition of genocide as the “systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group”. But don’t you think these figures should be included in genocide? I will again leave it to the reader to redo our calculations with the casualties of the World Wars included. Just remember two things: these casualty figures do not include the German Nazi genocides, so there is no problem of overlapping here; also, the total casualty figure of 44 million should fall under the ‘non-Muslim-led genocides’ since the Ottoman Empire is responsible for very few of these deaths.

My calculations show that after these two corrections, the non-Muslim to Muslim ratio of crime rate of genocide for the past half-millennium becomes about 8.

Now let us turn to the point to ponder … We have observed above that the non-Muslim European colonialists and neo-colonialists have been committing genocides for the past 500 years, but the Muslim Ottoman Empire, which lasted from 1300 AD to 1923 AD, remained virtually genocide-free for the first 600 of its 630 years of existence … All you Islamophobes, put all those facts and analyses in your Islamophobia pipe, and smoke it!

Renaissance Scientist said...

The Psychodynamics of Islamophobia:

I have so far restrained myself from detailing the psychodynamics of our Islamophobic friend, Mr Anonymous. That is because I would be digressing from the topic at hand, which is terrorism and not Islamophobia. But on further reflection, one realizes how typical a textbook case of Islamophobia one has at his disposal. A critical analysis of the discussion that I had with Mr Anonymous would shed light on some of the more important aspects of Islamophobia and would be beneficial for all, even for Mr Anonymous himself.

Mr Anonymous starts by asking the following question:

What about the genocide committed by West Pakistan against East Pakistan? That was supported by the United States and the mullahs of Pakistan. Do you condemn that shameful and utterly reprehensible atrocity as well?

Note the way in which he starts off by equating genocide with terrorism. We have already pointed out the deception that is inherent in such a manner of questioning. Such a deception can only be achieved by a mind which is under the influence of an even greater deception. Mr Anonymous rightfully calls it a “shameful” and “utterly reprehensible” atrocity, but note the strong words that he uses throughout his discourse with me.

My answer to his question is as follows:

Of course I condemn it. Genocide is condemnable wherever it occurs.

All three parties involved in the 1971 conflict have their share of crimes: West Pakistan, for its hegemonistic attitude; East Pakistan, for its rebellious attitude; and India, for its conspiratorial and parasitic role.


From this point onwards, Mr Anonymous assumes an attacking stance. He has erroneously assumed that when I am talking about all three parties having their share of crimes, I am only being apologetic for West Pakistan’s crimes. This erroneous assumption is not a casual mistake; it is a reflection of his twisted view of Muslims in general. He replies:

Are you comparing East Pakistan's campaign for cultural sovereignty with West Pakistan's campaign of genocide? Is the one really the moral equivalent of the other? Would William Blum or Noam Chomsky equate a campaign for cultural sovereignty with a campaign of genocide? Would you equate the Palestinian campaign for cultural and political sovereignty with a "rebellious attitude"?

Ridiculous! If East Pakistan also erred, should we refrain from mentioning that in history books just because it would be construed as an apologetic for the genocide? Consider the following scenario, which is not exactly analogous to the situation at hand, but it will clarify my position: A father warns his daughter not to leave the house alone at night, but she pays no heed to his father’s concerns and does exactly what she is not supposed to do. As a result, she is raped by her neighbor. The father cries over her daughter’s plight, but isn’t he correct if he chides her for leaving the house in the night all alone? Would one call that being apologetic? The problem with Mr Anonymous is that, since he is convinced that he is on the right and Muslims in general are on the wrong, any attempt at objectification of history from Muslims is only an apologetic for their shortcomings.

Mr Anonymous continues:

"Of course I condemn it. Genocide is condemnable wherever it occurs."

What do you think would be an appropriate form of punishment for those Pakistanis responsible for the campaign of genocide against the Bengali people? What punishment should be applied to those mullahs who supported the genocide? Should those mullahs continue to enjoy moral or religious authority, given their support for the indiscriminate slaughter of countless men, women, and children? Or should they be stripped of their religious authority and imprisoned for life?


Mr Anonymous rightfully condemns the mullahs for supporting the killing of non-combatants. But as we will see shortly, he has assumed that I will take sides with the mullahs and offer some kind of excuse for the mullahs’ support of the genocide, the reason being that the only kind of Islam that Mr Anonymous identifies with is the twisted Islam of these mullahs. Mr Anonymous also very treacherously identifies these mullahs as having “religious authority”, which is an utter lie. If these mullahs had religious authority, then I assure Mr Anonymous that there wouldn’t be a single non-Muslim left alive in Pakistan. The truth is that these mullahs are a bunch of opportunists with little appeal for the masses of Pakistan.

He further continues:

Do you believe Muslims should condemn themselves for acts of genocide carried out by Muslims before they condemn others for acts of genocide? Or should Muslims point the finger at non-Muslims first?

Finally, Mr Anonymous is out in the open. He wants the Muslims to condemn themselves for acts of genocide carried out by Muslims. Hatred couldn’t show better. Using Mr Anonymous’ logic, we could say that if 0.1% of Hindu or Christian men are rapists, the other 99.9% should condemn themselves for being rapists! “Or should Muslims point the finger at non-Muslims first?” Mr Anonymous has also assumed that Muslims are pointing the finger at non-Muslims because they are non-Muslims. At least I have been talking about the American State, and not the non-Muslims in general, in my original posting. Besides, I clearly showed that the majority of U.S. military interventions have been in the non-Muslim countries. I wonder from where Mr Anonymous is making his inferences. It is hatred all the way.

When I have answered Mr Anonymous’ questions (hopefully satisfactorily), he becomes even more aggressive in his behavior:

"To further prove my point, consider the strange and unlikely event of Quebec, the French-speaking province of Canada, saying to Canada, "I need my cultural sovereignty, so I am no more going to be a part of Canada". I think most people would view that as rebellion. Or consider the Sindhi-speaking province of today's Pakistan doing the same with Pakistan ..."

No point has been proven. Nobody who is familiar with the politics of the Bloque Quebecois could possibly equate their separationist stance with "rebellion". Separationism and rebellion are two different things. If you were to suggest to a Canadian that Gilles Duceppe was a "rebel", what reaction would you expect, other than one of uncontrollable laughter?


Yes, separationism and rebellion are two different things, in somewhat the same way that terrorism and genocide are two different things. But I was talking about East Pakistan’s rebellion against the two-nation theory, as I have discussed in my analysis of Bangladesh’s history. Mr Anonymous, however, chooses to remain blissfully ignorant of the all-important two-nation theory. By the way, note how the use of the phrase “uncontrollable laughter” instead of “laughter” betrays Mr Anonymous’ prejudices.

He continues:

Also, why should rebellion be universally wrong? Is rebellion against tyranny wrong? Is rebellion against an arrogant and ethnocentric state, especially one that has the gall to carry out genocide, wrong? What should the Kurds of Turkey do? Accept their oppression? Should the uprisings in the Jewish ghettoes have never taken place? What should the millions of people living under the colonialism have done? Accept their oppression? Should the Indian mutiny against the British in 1857 not have happened? Would you have sided with the British? Should the countless slave rebellions in North America, the Caribbean, and Latin America never have happened? Would you side with a tyrannical state over an oppressed people carrying out a rebellion? Who would William Blum or Noam Chomsky side with?

Secondly, by what possible logic do you equate a campaign for cultural sovereignty with "rebellion"? Are you suggesting that cultural sovereignty for minority communities is wrong?


Mr Anonymous has evidently taken issue with the use of the word “rebellion”. His prejudicial and selective ignorance of the importance of the two-nation theory in the history of Pakistan, upon which the very existence of Pakistan hinges, has brought forth the two rhetorical paragraphs quoted above, which, between them, consist of not less than fifteen questions! (Not to mention the fact that all in all, he asks 92 questions in his whole tirade.)

Further:

"The punishment for genocide is capital punishment, not imprisonment."

According to what system of justice? According to the Pakistani system of justice? Has Pakistan sentenced those guilty of genocide to capital punishment?


Mr Anonymous is obviously ignorant of the Islamic system of justice, but I won’t blame him for that, because one hardly finds it in practice anywhere in the World today.

Again:

"I believe acts of genocide should be condemned, irrespective of the religious identity of those who committed them."

As a Muslim, who should you be condemning first? Fellow Muslims who commit atrocities or non-Muslims who commit atrocities? Was the Armenian genocide (a genocide carried out by a Muslim army) a "retaliation"? Was the Indonesian genocide of the people of East Timor (a genocide carried out by a Muslim army) a "retaliation"? Was the Pakistani genocide of the Bengali people (a genocide carried out by a Muslim army) a "retaliation"?


His point regarding condemning the atrocious acts of Muslims is valid, but he wants me to condemn the “fellow Muslims who commit atrocities” instead of condemning the acts of atrocity. In the final analysis, it is the act of unlawful murder that should be condemned because the Islamic punishment for unlawful murder (which is capital punishment) is the same, whether the perpetrator is a Muslim or a non-Muslim. Mr Anonymous also insists that these perpetrators of heinous crimes should be called “fellow” Muslims. Using our previous analogy, Mr Anonymous’ logic would mean that Hindu men should call the Hindu rapists as “fellow” Hindus, and the same would hold for men of every religion and denomination. Finally, when I talked about “retaliation”, I was talking about terrorism - not genocide - but Mr Anonymous, as always, doesn’t move an inch away from his agenda of confusing the two terminologies.

The next paragraph is the sickest part of his sick diatribe:

Should Muslims be educated about the sickening and disgusting horrors carried out by their fellow Muslims? Or only those carried about by Americans? You've included statistics of US military interventions around the world. Do you have the statistics for the numbers of Armenians, East Timorese, and Bengalis killed by Muslim armies? Would you post them on your website, too?

Note the repeated use of the term “fellow Muslims”. And of course, note the deceptive equation of army interventions that were primarily meant to terrorize with army interventions that were primarily meant to kill.

Mr Anonymous’ response to my answers starts as follows:

The reason why I put part of the blame of the events of 1971 on East Pakistan is that their rebellion was not all against hegemony; part of their rebellion was purely for cultural reasons, to achieve cultural sovereignty, as you so rightly put it.

Where are you getting your facts from? The 1971 war was triggered by West Pakistan's refusal to acknowledge the political rights of East Pakistan after it had democratically won control of the National Assembly. How can you possibly pin any blame on East Pakistan? What would the correct response have been to West Pakistan's morally reprehensible disregard for political rights and the principles of democracy? How is the suppression of democracy not hegemony? The Bengali people rightly protested West Pakistan's shameful disregard for political rights and demanded that it recognize the results of the election. In response, the bloodthirsty General Muhammad Yahya Khan carried out a horrifying campaign of indiscriminate slaughter, which was supported by the mullahs of Pakistan. And, you have the audacity to pin blame on the Bengalis? What kind of sick person are you?

Why play shameful apologetics for a bloodthirsty, genocidal state? What would William Blum do? Blame the victims or the killers?


Mr Anonymous obviously has no respect for the unifying force between East and West Pakistan. He is probably ignorant of the fact that the two-nation theory was first propounded by the Muslim scientist Al-Biruni one thousand years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Nation_Theory), and that the creation of Pakistan finds its roots in a cultural divide that spans a whole millennium.

Mr Anonymous’ ultimate aim is to embarrass me by proving that Pakistan is a “bloodthirsty, genocidal” State. The adjective “bloodthirsty” is rhetorical, incorrect, and redundant, but I am willing to use the adjective “genocidal”, provided we use the same adjective with a capital “G” for USA, UK, USSR, Belgium, Germany, Australia, and Spain, not to mention the other criminals like India, Cambodia, Rwanda, Guatemala, and others. Mr Anonymous also forgets (in fact, he never remembered it) that he is posting his comments on a website which is titled “Islamic Renaissance”. If Pakistan had been anything near an ideal State, I wouldn’t have been talking about Islamic renaissance over here.

He continues:

The Pakistani and Islamic system of justice overlap to some extent but they are not equivalent, so I don't know what the exact Pakistani judicial standpoint is. As regards your other question, I think the answer is "No", to the best of my knowledge.

So, what exactly are you doing to rectify the situation? Blaming the US? Are you involved in any campaigns to persuade the Pakistani government to punish those Pakistani citizens responsible for genocide? If not, why not?


Four questions in three lines. Maybe I should allow only one question at a time in my comments’ section like they do in press conferences. I think I answered his questions satisfactorily in my next comment.

Also:

That is, the same philosophy which applied in 1947 should also have applied in 1971, but East Pakistan threw that philosophy to the winds, hence the use of the term "rebellion".

And what philosophy is that? That if East Pakistan democratically wins control of the National Assembly, its political rights should not respected? What exactly did East Pakistan do wrong, besides democratically winning control of the National Assembly? And, what do you call committing genocide against those who demand their political rights? Is that a case if upholding "the philosophy which applied in 1947"?


A deceptive technique to slander the two-nation theory. Mr Anonymous’ hatred and prejudice is at its peak at this point. He is angry at the fact that I call East Pakistan’s two-decade long search for cultural sovereignty as a “rebellion”. He is hell-bent on proving the notion that “East Pakistan is a complete angel; West Pakistan is a complete devil”. (The truth is that both lie somewhere in between.) Moreover, “all Muslims living in West Pakistan should apologize for the genocide, even if they were not even born at the time of the event. Period.” Also, “Muslims should be so utterly embarrassed about genocides committed by ‘fellow’ Muslims that they should forget about the at least six times more sickening and disgusting genocides committed by some non-Muslims”.

Anger is increasing all the time:

You might also have mentioned that the events of East Pakistan, East Timor, and Armenia were all carried out through the connivance of American CIA.

What the HELL are you talking about? The Armenian Genocide took place from 1915 to 1917. The CIA was created in 1947. It's obvious -- to the point of absurdity -- that you're making up your facts as you go along. And, you have the audacity to recommend a book to somebody else? What kind of an "intellectual of sorts" could get such basic facts wrong? Would you be as quick to follow your own advice to read a book (or, as your case seems to demand, several books), given your incredibly poor command of the facts?

More interestingly, though, the slaughter of Bengali men, women, and children by the bloodthirsty state of West Pakistan was "carried out through the connivance" of Pakistani mullahs. Who excites your anger more for supporting genocide, the CIA or your fellow Muslim believers, the mullahs of Pakistan?


This is the first (but not last) of his use of four-letter words. Incidentally, he mentions the place where he ought to go in bold and capital letters. If Mr Anonymous had been less bigoted, he would have politely asked for a clarification, but he is under the delusion that I am the ignorant person that he wants me to be. In response to his comment, I clarified that I was talking about American intelligence/government, and I am not too bothered by the semantics. When I proved that the American government did give tacit approval for the Armenian genocide, he totally lost any coolness that was left of him, as we shall see shortly. He finds it “more interesting” that the mullahs were involved in the 1971 genocide, a fact that he mentions in his very first comment, and a fact that I have never denied. In his usual pathetic fashion, he calls them my “fellow Muslim believers”, wishfully thinking in his deluded way that these mullahs were preaching Islamic commandments. He challenges me with the question of who is more criminal, the mullahs or the CIA, but as we have seen, the mullahs are petty criminals compared to the don that is CIA.

Mr Anonymous capitalizes on his perceived advantage:

I think the world media are doing a fantastic job of "educating" (nice word there) Muslims about the "sickening and disgusting horrors" carried out by their fellow Muslims.

On what basis do you make such an outlandish claim? Are you suggesting that Muslims are aware that their fellow Muslims are guilty of genocide, and in at least three cases? How could you possibly prove this? You yourself don't even know anything about the Armenian genocide, having made the incredibly ignorant suggestion that it was "carried out through the connivance of American CIA." If a Muslim "intellectual of sorts" is ignorant of the Armenian genocide, is that not proof that Muslims in general are not educated about the Armenian genocide? Or, are Muslims in general more educated than you? In which case, why call yourself an intellectual?


On what basis am I making that claim? On the basis that I am talking about terrorism, and you are hooked onto your genocide gear. The world media keep talking about “Islamic terrorists” (nice terminology there), so they surely are “educating” Muslims. Mr Anonymous’ methodology remains deceptive: he asserts that I have made an “outlandish” claim and that I cannot prove it. He should know that he is the one who originally made the implicit claim that “Muslims should be educated about the Muslim-led genocides”. Logic dictates that the onus of responsibility lies on him to prove that his assertion is correct and not on me to prove that the contrary is true. Yet, Mr Anonymous completely fails to recognize this responsibility and instead uses rhetoric language like “sickening and disgusting”, “bloodthirsty”, etc. This, indeed, is the primary reason that I blocked further discourse with him. It is interesting that Mr Anonymous is too eager to note that I have called myself an “intellectual of sorts” in the introduction to this blog, but he completely forgets that I have emphasized in the same introduction that this blog is all about Islamic renaissance, not just finger-pointing. Mr Anonymous is undoubtedly pointing the fingers at me (and symbolically, at all Muslims). He just can’t digest the notion that a Muslim could be an “intellectual of sorts”, much less the notion that a Muslim could actually be an intellectual proper and even a scholar.

In my next comment, I prove to him that the Turkish genocide had the tacit approval of the American, British, and German governments, and we shall shortly see how he completely loses his cool.

...but East Pakistan was also partly in the wrong for raising Bengali nationalism, as symbolized by Bengali culture and Bengali language.

Your ignorance of Pakistani history is even more revolting than your ignorance of the Armenian Genocide. You obviously have no clue as to what took place. Nor, for that matter, do you have any clue as to what constitutes nationalism. It was MOHAMMED ALI JINNAH who declared in 1948 IN THE CITY OF DHAKA that “Urdu, and only Urdu” would be the official language of the whole of Pakistan, East and West. What the f**k do you call that, if not nationalism? Are you going to even dare to suggest that Jinnah’s declaration wasn’t nationalism? Or is nationalism good in the case of Jinnah?

More to the point, what the f**k is wrong with you? What should the Bengali people have done when some shameful political leader declares that a foreign language will be their official language? Acquiesce? Do you really know what hegemony is? Do you actually think about terms like "nationalism" and "hegemony" before you make these incredibly stupid remarks?

Secondly, you’re still playing games and refusing to answer the question. East Pakistan won control of the National Assembly. West Pakistan refused to respect the results of the election and to recognize the political rights of East Pakistan. When East Pakistan rightly protested, they were massacred. Again, how could you possibly pin any blame on East Pakistan for a genocide that was carried out against them? What sort of sick human being pins the blame on the victims? Again, who would William Blum side with, the victims or the killers?


Ya sure, my ignorance of Pakistani history is revolting. Had we been standing face to face, you would have shot me through the head. You should know that I was taught Pakistani history from primary school all the way to my first two years at medical college. And they taught us everything, uncensored, with all the blood and gore. I wonder why you call the Muslim personalities whom you so detest (whether rightly or wrongly) by their full names (Mohammed Ali Jinnah, General Muhammad Yaqub Khan), but you call the non-Muslim personalities by their usual first and last names only (William Blum, Noam Chomsky, Gilles Duceppe). Hidden fires? Hmm? Again, since Mr Anonymous doesn’t know the ABC of the two-nation theory that is responsible for the very creation of Pakistan, he accuses me of not knowing what nationalism is. But I will forgive him for that because he is an ignorant and prejudiced person.

He continues his tirade:

However, you seem to make too much of it. The fact that I said "CIA" instead of "American intelligence" does not mean that I made up the facts…

Idiot, if the CIA didn’t exist during the time of Armenian Genocide, then yes, you made up the facts. Don’t play f**king games. You ate your foot and now you’re trying to defend your pathetic integrity.


Mr Anonymous doesn’t want to concede that if I was wrong in a fact, I was right in principle. You see, he had already made too much of my one error; how could he turn back on his heels? He had proven through one “wrong fact” that I was idiotic, stupid, and non-intellectual. Moreover, and more importantly, he had almost proven through this wrong fact that Muslims “in general” need to be “educated” about Muslim-led genocides. How could he turn back on this one?

He continues with his blind rhetoric of accusing me of being apologetic:

Thus, the international powers, including America, England, and Germany, made no worthwhile attempt to stop the genocide or help the victims.

The OTTOMAN EMPIRE carries out a genocide and you blame the United States? Are you at all morally capable of acknowledging that Muslims were PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE for genocide? Do you blame the United States for failing to stop Hitler, too? Again, what sort of sick human being are you?


Mr Anonymously evidently has got a case of diarrhea from the paragraph that I quoted from the Armenian Genocide website. I was only proving my assertion that the Turkish genocide took place “through the connivance” of American intelligence, and I believe I proved it satisfactorily. It seems that Mr Anonymous needs a course in English language, for he misunderstands the meaning of the phrase, “through the connivance of”. Apparently, the word “connivance” is too heavy for Mr Anonymous to digest. The phrase means “with the tacit approval of”, or let me make it simpler for Mr Anonymous: “with the silent approval of”. Yes, the American (and British and German) governments, who were major World powers at that time, silently approved the genocide (though outwardly they shed crocodile tears). Whence did I say or mean that they were primarily responsible for it? If you knew that your neighbour’s house was being robbed and you had the power to stop it, but you kept quiet and let it happen, you would be accused of “conniving” with the criminal.

Mr Anonymous culminates his hate-letter with the following question:

Should Muslims be educated about the sickening and disgusting horrors carried out by their fellow Muslims? Or only those carried about by Americans? You've included statistics of US military interventions around the world. Do you have the statistics for the numbers of Armenians, East Timorese, and Bengalis killed by Muslim armies? Why don't you post them on your website?

Do you observe the way he maintains that Muslims should be “educated” about the Muslim-led genocides, yet he always makes this statement in the form of a question? He knows somewhere inside his sick brain that if he made that statement explicitly, he would have to prove it through reliable data, which he just doesn’t have. So he wants me to reply that either (a) the Muslims need to be educated about so-and-so (a victory for him), or (b) the Muslims do not need to be educated about so-and-so, in which case the onus of responsibility seems to fall on me to prove my assertion. Well, I have proven my assertion. The Muslim genocide rate is only one-eighth of the non-Muslim genocide rate, and one-twentieth of the American genocide rate, so it is obviously the non-Muslims in general (and the Americans in particular) who need to be educated. However, since this blog is about Islamic renaissance (and not un-Islamic renaissance), I would like to say that these statistics aren’t good for us Muslims, even though they pit us favorably against the non-Muslims. As I have noted in a previous post (on the Last Sermon of the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, http://isre.blogspot.com/2005/10/last-sermon.html), we should have zero tolerance for injustice, as commanded by the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him: “You will neither inflict nor suffer any inequity”.