By: Tariq Colvin*

A glimpse of the horror that took place Tuesday morning. A day of fear, loss, grief and anger. A tragedy for our entire community Muslim and non-Muslim.

We found ourselves trying to understand, to reason, to come to grips with sights and sounds coming in over the airwaves. But how could a disaster so immense, so unexpected, so grave - be understood ?! ........

Who could have committed such evil? What kind of soul could perpetrate such hatred?

As news came out it was clear. The blame would be placed squarely at the feat of America's Great Satan: Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden.

Calls for restraint and care were drowned out by the lust, though understandable, for revenge. The bearded, sweaty terrorists of every Americans worst nightmare were brought to the fore. It was simple, the enemy was one, the enemy was us (Muslims).

But whoever the perpetrator, whoever is ultimately responsible, we must ask ourselves, "Where in the human soul lay the source of such hatred?" "What could produce such utter desperation and disregard for life?"

Without doubt. Tuesday's events didn't appear out of a vacuum. We can never justify or rationalize such a tragedy, but we must attempt to understand WHY !

Yesterday, I discussed this with a teacher. She also though that obscuring the lessons of this tragedy with labels and oversimplifications would only increase the loss.

The reality is that Tuesday's tragedy, a reprehensible crime against humanity, is an expressions of years of pent up frustration, despair, anger and resentment against the United States.

To call the attackers 'crazy', 'senseless', or 'mindless' is to miss the point. The attackers must have been anything but. To lost sight of the context out of which such hatred could flow is to only set the stage for greater tragedies.

If we allow ourselves the easy option of dehumanizing the attackers in our minds, as they must have dehumanized their victims before they ended their lives, then we aid and escalate the cycle of reciprocal violence and lead humanity to darkness beyond imagination.

Were the attackers really so much different than the average American? Retired General Norman Schwartzkopf seemed to think so.

In a recent televised interview he said, "In Iraq we went to great length to avoid civilian casualties .. but these bastards went after civilians. That's the difference between us and them."

But is this the truth, or is this what we'd like be believe about ourselves? In a mid-nineteen nineties interview, CBS Reporter Lesley Stahl questioned the then US Ambassador to the UN, Madeleine Albright, on the post-war sanctions against Iraq :
"We have heard that a HALF MILLION CHILDREN HAVE DIED. I mean, That's more children that died in HIROSHIMA. And -and you know, is the price worth it?"

Albright's reply, "I think this is very hard choice, BUT THAT PRICE - WE THINK THE PRICE IS WORTH IT."

Stahl won both an Emmy and a Dupont-Columbia journalism award for this report, but Albright's comment went virtually unremarked in the U.S. ( Though it received considerable attention in the Middle East). Within six months, Madeleine Albright was unanimously approved by the Senate as U.S. Secretary of State.

Price? Price? A heavy and grave price indeed that lives of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSANDS INNOCENT CHILDREN each with dreams and hopes of their own. Aspirations for their young lives. Laughing and loving sweet things and comfort. Loving play and being naughty just like American children.

How could we (as Americans) allow ourselves to be silent while they died? Did we turn our eyes from their humanity and worth? Did we not indeed commit an unimaginable atrocity? ARE WE REALLY ANY DIFFERENT THAN THE PERPETRATOR OF TUESDAYS ATTACK?

THEY CRIED TO THEIR MOTHERS FOR FOOD AND COMFORT. Mothers who could do nothing but tell them who had done this to them. Telling them WHO HAD BEEN RESPONSIBLE for the pains in their stomachs.

What would you do if this was how your little one had died? What would you be capable of?

But America told the world that deformities the disease and death were 'WORTH THE PRICE'. No, these children were raised not on milk, BUT ON THE BREAST OF BURNING HATE. Waiting to express itself in an unthinkable explosion of revenge and vindication.

But let there be no question in the minds of our neighbors, coworkers and friends - The Muslim community STANDS WITH YOU IN CONDEMNATION OF THIS OFFENSE against you. AS WE STAND WITH THE CHILDREN OF IRAQ. AS WE STAND WITH THE DISPOSSESSED OF PALESTINE. As we stand with all who have been wronged.

Many of us know all too well the taste of lives lost. Ones whom we loved. Ones for whom we cried tears. Ones whose joy and laughter we miss so dearly.

Robert Fisk, a well known reporter in the Independent wrote a report towards understanding this tragedy. He said :
" ... And yes, Osama bin Ladin comes to mind, his money, his theology, his frightening dedication to destroy American power. I have sat in front of bin Laden as he described how his men helped to destroy the Russian army in Afghanistan and thus the Soviet Union. Their boundless confidence allowed them to declare war on America. BUT THIS IS NOT THE WAR OF DEMOCRACY VERSES TERROR THAT THE WORLD WILL BE ASKED TO BELIEVE IN THE COMING DAYS. It is also about American missiles smashing into Palestinian homes and US helicopters firing missiles into a Lebanese ambulance in 1996 and AMERICAN SHELLS CRASHING IN VILLAGE CALLED QANA and about a Lebanese militia paid and uniformed by America's Israeli ally hacking and raping and murdering their way through refugee camps ...

... And there will be, inevitably, and quite immorally, an attempt to obscure the historical wrongs and the injustices that lie behind yesterday's firestorms. We will be told about "mindless terrorism", the "mindless" bit being essential if we are not to realize how hated America has become in the land of the birth of three great religions.
Ask an Arab how he responds to 20,000 or 30,000 innocent deaths and he or she will respond as decent people should, that it is an unspeakable crime. But they will ask why WE DID NOT USE SUCH WORDS ABOUT THE SANCTIONS THAT HAVE DESTROYED THE LIVES PERHAPS HALF A MILLION CHILDREN IN IRAQ, WHY WE DID NOT RAGE ABOUT THE SEVENTEEN THOUSANDS CIVILIANS KILLED IN ISRAEL'S 1982 INVASION OF LEBANON. And those basic reasons why the Middle East caught fire last September the Israeli occupation of Arab land, the dispossession of Palestinians, the bombardments and state-sponsored executions .. all these must be obscured lest they provide the smallest fractional reason for yesterday's mass savagery.

Eight years ago, I helped to make a television series that tried to explain why so many Muslims had come to hate the West. Last night, I remembered some of those Muslims in that film, their families burnt by American-made bombs and weapons. They talked about how no one would help them but God.
Theology versus technology, the suicide bomber against the nuclear power. Now we have learnt what this means"

So what are the lessons to be learned from this great disaster?
We must work towards greater mutual understanding. We must listen to each other. We must humanize one another, and this cannot be done at a distance. We cannot afford let bombs teach this moment.
Are we not all God's creatures? Do we not all have stomachs, feel cold, feel pain, and need comfort?
Do we not all deserve to be secure from harm and dispossession?

It is imperative that the Muslims join together as one, for it is through this joining that the Almighty and Wise shall make us strong. It's them imperative that we set our course unto spreading understanding and Mercy. And neutralizing enmity, hate and ignorance.

ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ
Tariq Colvin is a Computer Science Student at University of Michigan, Tariq is an American Muslim.

I agree with some of what you have to say; and disagree with much.
But, out of respect for all victims all I will say is; peace be with you.

I think the countries out there that hate the u.s. don't hate us because of jealousy. They hate us because we always like to interfere with the soverienghty (sp) of other countries as though we OWN them. That is one lesson our country needs to learn. We can't just go around and bully other countries all the time, no matter how small. And we the citizens often won't know any of this because the media whispers only sweet words in our ears. Their priority is in their viewership. Feed us honey and we'll keep coming back.

Word of caution. As technology gets better and better, it'll require less effort to destroy and terrorize the world. In fact this is how I think this planet will perish. Not from global warming or comets, but from terrorists. There will come a day when one man can carry a small handbag full of biological/chemical/nuclear can end the world, and that's no joke.

So in your view of the world, when Saddam decides to annex his neighbor and increase his beach frontage, we should do nothing. It's not our problem.

Ignore the request of Kuwait when they ask for our help? Would Iraq have stopped at Kuwait? Would it have been OK to let him overrun Saudi Arabia and ultimately the entire Middle East? Would he have stopped at Kuwait?

What's the right answer here? It's not an easy question regardless of who asks it.

When we ignored Hitler, he overran most of Europe and was only stopped from taking Russia by the ravages of Winter. He would have taken Russia in the Spring, and then?

When we ignored Japan, they nearly owned the entire South Pacific before they decided to bomb Perl Harbor and bring us into the war. Would they have turned to China next? Did you know that China was our ally in the war?

What's the right answer? Let the "other guy" decide to take whatever part of the world he can grab and do nothing?

The world is full of people who take what they want, unless someone else is prepared to stop them. Right now, we are the only country capable, able and willing to play the role of World Police, and try to keep one country from simply overrunning another. Should we? There is no easy answer.

What's your solution? Ask why we can't all just get along?

It's pure hyperbole to say that we started all of this by meddling where we did not belong in the first place. If we were to take that approach, who would be in control of the world today? Do you think it would be a more stable place? I suspect that we would not be having this Internet based conversation at all without the meddling of the US in the affairs of the world. There would be no Internet - it's a product of our continued search for a better way to share information around the world, and God forbid, a product of Capitalism. If there were no commercial value in the Internet, it would still be called Arpanet, and only be available to a few University and Government geeks like I was in the 1970s.

Read some history before you judge where we are. Start with pre-civilization and stop in the Middle Ages. Peaceful coexistance? No such thing. Did the US start this? Absolutely not. We try - making moral judgements as best we can - to help whom we feel is in the right at any given time. Is it an easy role to play? Absolutely not. Is it required? I think so. If freedom and civilization mean that people are free to govern themselves in the way that they wish, and to worship a god of their choosing, then our role in the world politic is absolutely necessary.

I don't expect to persuade you however, as you apparently have the answer.

Isolationists believe that we should pull in behind our borders and stay completely out of the rest of the business of the world. Is this really the answer? Who would have opposed the Soviet takeover of Europe? Who would oppose the Chineese takeover of South East Asia? Would these things not happen because we became isolationists? Not hardly.

I can imagine a world where there are no wars. I cannot imagine that world without someone keeping the bullies from starting wars. There are no shortage of bullies in the world, and just wishing they would go away will not make it so.

-t

Originally posted by thewitt
Ignore the request of Kuwait when they ask for our help? Would Iraq have stopped at Kuwait? Would it have been OK to let him overrun Saudi Arabia and ultimately the entire Middle East? Would he have stopped at Kuwait?

pffff .. don't even go there, if Kuwait was a poor nation with no OIL, we would have never step a foot inside that country .. lets be honest here, we are very "selective" in who we help.

the atrocities that happen this week are beyond reasoning, but I can see his point .. if those kids grow to be adults .. do you think they will say . "death to Sadam becuase he caused the world to close their borders to Iraq" ? or will they say "Death to the US that didn't allow us to get food and supplies"

Yep, another generation of suicide maniacs in the making.

Originally posted by CRego3D
Yep, another generation of suicide maniacs in the making.

Yes, that's probably the sadest point of it all. :bawling:

Originally posted by CRego3D


pffff .. don't even go there, if Kuwait was a poor nation with no OIL, we would have never step a foot inside that country .. lets be honest here, we are very "selective" in who we help.

the atrocities that happen this week are beyond reasoning, but I can see his point .. if those kids grow to be adults .. do you think they will say . "death to Sadam becuase he caused the world to close their borders to Iraq" ? or will they say "Death to the US that didn't allow us to get food and supplies"

Yep, another generation of suicide maniacs in the making.

I agree completely with thewitt, but I also agree with what you said completely as well. The US doesn't always make the best decisions for the best reasons. However, the US has definitely gotten involved in trying to keep the bullies of the world in check and has done so for some not very well to do countries either. Some countries in Africa come to mind, as does Kosovo, and others not in Africa whom have no money, etc. Your above example doesn't go against what thewitt said, it's simply a side effect of what he said and no one will argue that. It's the price you pay, and it's bound to happen and it's one reason why it's happening to the US.

While I don't personally believe that fighting a war over oil and having one person die for it is worth it, I strongly support any defense of any nation or state that is attacked or invaded. We should have attacked Saddam for his invasion of anyone, be it Turkey or Kuwait, it makes no difference. The real reason for the war on Iraq can be debated, but all in all, by Iraq's actions, we initially did the right thing. Allowing people to suffer from sanctions both has it's reasons and drawbacks. There's things we needed to ensure to protect us and other parts of the world, make sure they weren't and couldn't develop nuclear or biological weapons, etc.

It's never easy, it's never fair and it's always going to be a big deal and people will always have small or large issues with the reasons, actions and outcomes -- which is understandable -- but what alternatives do we have other than peace talks and trying to reason with a government/nation, before we are forced to take some type of action to stop said parties from doing wrong to another country or state? We can't sit idly by and allow them to take over other countries and have people turtured or suffer needlessly when we can and have thw ability to take action to resolve it.

There's never any clean way to resolve such a conflict of that nature and we take the rap and fall for it all. It's the price you pay, but you are right about the end result. The only alternative from then, would be to take control of the government and schools of the attacking nation and effectively take over their country and run it to ensure that people were educated and controlled, but that would be very wrong and it would fail anyway. It all sucks... As long as there's evil people in the world to cause suffering, there will be suffering.

I've searched a bit about bi ladden and came around a text which was written in May 1978. Title of the discurse: Islam and the Death of Democracy

If your orientation is the unseen and what lies beyond it, not as an idea, not as a fantasy, but something which you will see with your own inner eye while you're alive because the Prophet, salla'llahu Ôalayhi wa sallam, has said, "Every mu'min, everyone who accepts Allah, will see his place in the Garden before he dies" - and it is true. And this is an orientation that not only makes life possible, it makes death possible. If your life is bearable, your death will be bearable. If you're not afraid of death, you will not be afraid of life. All fear of life is fear of death and fear of death is based on not having coming to terms with your inevitably destined limited existence. All Sufic knowledge is attuning people to relax before the inevitable, before what Qur'an calls the Certain: "When the Certain comes to you, and what is the Certain?" (Qur'an)

You can read the entire article here: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ABewley/tucson.html
Be warned, it's long.
I don't want to comment this right now, but yours are welcome.

I just want to say one thing: WHAT IF THIS BIN LADDEN IS REALLY NOT INVOLVED AS HE IS SAYING???
(It does leave the fact he's guilty or at least a prime suspect of other bombings)

I keep hearing Muslims saying "do not judge us by the actions of this lunatic fringe. . . but you must understand, nonetheless, why some Muslims hate the US." I'm afraid that most of these people are trying to have it both ways. If the speakers intended this kind of comment to indicate that we must understand the illogic of those who hate the US so that we can try to reason together, that would be one thing. But I think the person who started this thread, and most folks saying similar things, really mean something very different: that the 9/11 terrorists were justified in acting against the US, but they may have gone a little too far.

The arguments as to why the US is hateable (and here I mean hateable enough to justify terrorism) are, at best, myopic, and generally just the result of ludicrous double standards. The Israelis use American made munitions, so America is responsible for any civilian deaths caused by Israel? Come on, if the Russians sold them the weapons (and they would, these days), would they become a legitimate target? Actually, by this reasoning, they are already a legitimate target of Muslim rage, since the arms Saadam used against Kuwaiti civilians were by and large Russian made.

TBC

Part 2

Sanctions hurt civilians in Iraq? Why isn't Saadam Hussein a target of terrorists? Doesn't Saadam bear just a little responsibility for the sanctions applied against Iraq? Was he justified in invading Kuwait?

Oh, how about the millions of civilians, including innumerable children, that were killed during the Iraq-Iran war? Where is the Islamic outrage and terrorist response to those atrocities? Or maybe they are not atrocities if committed by fellow Muslims. Oh yes, and what about the Russian and Chinese bombs, bullets, missles and mortar shells the Islamic combatants used to cut each others' civilians' throats? Where is the rage against the Russians and Chinese?

What about Saadam's genocidal campaign against the Kurds, a campaign that apparently included extensive use of nerve gas, and which was waged primarily against civilians? See, e.g., http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html

TBC

Part 3

As to American only being interested in Kuwait because of its oil, how do we then justify Bosnia and Kosovo? Do these countries have secret oil reserves? Did we pursue Milosivic (sp?) to get him to show us where the oil is?

Yes, our incursions into Bosnia, Kosovo, and Kuwait all involved some national interest -- but that's true of any action taken by any country in the world.

Muslims who hate America enough to kill Americans hate us because they choose to wear blinders, and they want scapegoats, just like most humans. We should understand THAT. But, in my opinion, anybody who serves as an apologist for terrorists, anybody who suggests in a sympathetic manner that their actions were "understandable," is -- at best -- choosing to wear the same blinders. At worst, they betray their own protestations of shock and horror at what happened on September 11.