17.4.13

Regurgitating Jihad: Boston Marathon


Is she dead? Injured? Her limbs blown off? I will never know. I knew her only as a pseudonym. She often spoke about training for the marathon. She was, from all accounts, rather fit “for my age”. I did not know how old or young she was. I only discovered the tremendous effort she put in for something that gave her so much joy, such a sense of achievement.

Stray exchanges revealed that she was a nurse of Pakistani origin. However, I felt her constant assertion of her American nationality a bit overarching. There was a touch of insecurity, and I know how it feels.

Take any attack and the first word on everyone’s lips – and that probably constitutes most non-Americans too – is jihadi. Miles away, my first thought was not one of sympathy, but “Hope it is not a Muslim” on hearing about the Boston Marathon bomb blasts. Paranoia is dehumanising us, instead of making us more sensitive. I was shocked that President Barack Obama was berated for not calling it a “terrorist attack”.  The same people who demand the use of the catchphrase refer to the many more trigger-happy young kids and racists as gunmen and almost always there is an attempt to understand their behaviour in terms of “mental instability”.

It is not a very healthy attitude when only due to one’s origins we wait for the insiders to voice our thoughts and heave a sigh of relief. I usually do not hold back, but even when I openly give another perspective, I am always aware that I will be judged not dispassionately for what I say, but for ‘who’ I am.

And so when I read Glenn Greenwald write in The Guardian that a day after the April 15 Boston attack, “42 people were killed and more than 250 injured by a series of car bombs, the enduring result of the US invasion and destruction of that country”, I thought more people would understand. Greenwald by virtue of not being a Muslim is quite above any suspicion or agenda. There will most certainly be people who might castigate him, but he will not be seen as someone who is paid by terrorists.

Here are some salient points from his piece and my reaction to them:

“The widespread compassion for yesterday's victims and the intense anger over the attacks was obviously authentic and thus good to witness. But it was really hard not to find oneself wishing that just a fraction of that compassion and anger be devoted to attacks that the US perpetrates rather than suffers. These are exactly the kinds of horrific, civilian-slaughtering attacks that the US has been bringing to countries in the Muslim world over and over and over again for the last decade, with very little attention paid. Somehow the deep compassion and anger felt in the US when it is attacked never translates to understanding the effects of our own aggression against others.”

I am not too sure if empathy is the solution, as the tweet he reproduces reveals. How can it when the immediate reaction is to hark back to 9/11, without even trying to comprehend the difference in the reasons and manner in which the attacks were carried out? 



It would be expecting too much for the large majority of Americans to be concerned about Yemen or Iraq just as Iraqis and Yemenis would not empathise with America; for most of them, their contact is with US forces sent to protect them.  It is not incumbent upon the citizens to rationalise. This is the job of the government, and political expediency demands creating a fear psychosis. None of the countries the US has intervened in has benefited from its democratic ideals.

“The rush, one might say the eagerness, to conclude that the attackers were Muslim was palpable and unseemly, even without any real evidence. The New York Post quickly claimed that the prime suspect was a Saudi national (while also inaccurately reporting that 12 people had been confirmed dead)…Anti-Muslim bigots like Pam Geller predictably announced that this was ‘Jihad in America’.”

The victims of this so-called jihad are largely Muslims. I do not know what sort of religiosity would make them target their own places of worship, their own people. This is proof that their ideology is to use the name of a faith, much as others use the patriotic card to whip up xenophobic sentiments. It is, indeed, the job of investigators to question people, but getting hold of a Saudi national immediately and then making it public does convey that it wasn’t about investigations; rather, it does seem more like a gotcha moment. Osama bin Laden is dead. The Al Qaeda is not a unified group anymore. I do not need to emphasise again that George Bush was quite friendly with the House of Saud and Osama was himself a tactical weapon of the CIA during the Russian war in Afghanistan.

“Recall that on the day of the 2011 Oslo massacre by a right-wing, Muslim-hating extremist, the New York Times spent virtually the entire day strongly suggesting in its headlines that an Islamic extremist group was responsible, a claim other major news outlets (including the BBC and Washington Post) then repeated as fact. The same thing happened with the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.…in US political discourse, "terrorism" has no real meaning other than: violence perpetrated by Muslims against the west. The reason there was such confusion and uncertainty about whether this was "terrorism" is because there is no clear and consistently applied definition of the term. At this point, it's little more than a term of emotionally manipulative propaganda.”

I have often wondered why this does not qualify as a conspiracy against a community when so many conspiracy theories prevail. The Atlantic Wire mentioned the Boston Police Department's final press conference where Dan Bidondi, a radio host for InfoWars, asked:

“Why were the loud speakers telling people in the audience to be calm moments before the bombs went off? Is this another false flag staged attack to take our civil liberties and promote homeland security while sticking their hands down our pants on the streets?”

To further quote from the piece on what a "false flag" attack is:

“The term then expanded to mean any scenario under which a military attack was undertaken by a person or organization pretending to be something else. What the questioner was asking, then, was: Did the United States government orchestrate this attack, pretending to be a terrorist organization of some sort, in order to justify expanded security powers?”


I would understand if the manipulative machinery projected the view about “devices found”, “threat perception”, “intelligence reports”, or even conducted a mock exercise. I very much doubt if the US government would endanger the lives of its people to actually organise an attack. It will most likely want to create fear among the citizens, and that should be enough to grant it the privilege to use its security powers. It has used 9/11 as a propaganda ploy, and this has worked because the United States was not accustomed to being attacked on this scale.

Does a nation go on the offensive against countries where the perpetrators could be without any evidence? The runners are innocent and so are the villagers who live under threat of drones. The point is no one should be stuck on empathy. We cannot feel the pain. And, for all his genuinely balanced opinion, Greenwald too when speaking about ethnic groups feeling alienated added, “even though leading Muslim-American groups such as CAIR harshly condemned the attack (as they always do) and urged support for the victims, including blood donations”.

This is the problem. You have to state it loud and clear. Stand on the soapbox and declare that your heart is clean and you care. It would be so much better, and convey the true spirit of America, if these people were not boxed into a group, and instead seen as US citizens like any other. Here, it sounds as though they are being granted the magnanimity of being ‘like us’, and not ‘like them’.  

© Farzana Versey

18 comments:

  1. FV,

    QUOTE: "..I am always aware that I will be judged not dispassionately for what I say, but for ‘who’ I am. .."

    Do the sekulaars offer the same privilege to a Narendra Modi supporter?

    I know I sound like a stuck record! Maybe that is why you got rid of my last comment on the 'Vote For Lord Ram' post! :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. FV
    She was a famous beautiful emergency room Pak.american PHYSICIAN ,who was a proud athlete with 30 marathons on her delicate shoulders. If she had beauty, athleticism with great profession and a great philanthropist then why would she be insecured? And married to a famous physician.

    I know her personally, she is not only beautiful but has a very great heart and soul, she got injured but she is safe and is running London marathon next Sunday.

    Take care
    Circle

    ReplyDelete
  3. If she has completed 30 marathons, I doubt she should be called "delicate" (a term more apt for us couch-dwellers). That having said, however (and all the best wishes for the individual aside!), I have never been able to understand the psychology which makes an individual subject oneself to extreme physical hardship merely to "prove" something to oneself! And once something is "proved" why keep redoing it? Does it mean the proof was incomplete the first time?

    This piece also illustrates the dangers of looking at a "public" figure too closely and then running away with one's imagination on what they would be really like. Once in the blue moon, those images crash into reality and one wonders - "what the heck was I THINKING?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous
      What is life?
      To do repetitive rituals routinely, some are necessities N others R our obsessions, dedications, commitments, dreams n hopes.
      If we nullify repetition out of human lives then we nullify human existence.

      It might be that someone's dream n obsession might be perceived as craziness for others but again if we nullify craziness from human evolution then the very existence of human would've been extinct.
      circle

      Delete
  4. Hi Farzana,

    For what it's worth, however often you are judged passionately for 'who' you are, my sense is that there are yet not a few who are quite dispassionately deliberative of what you have to say. A 'silent majority' perhaps.  :)

    Looking thus at your Dan Bidondi of InfoWars citation:

    >>“Why were the loud speakers telling people in the audience to be calm moments before the bombs went off? Is this another false flag staged attack to take our civil liberties and promote homeland security while sticking their hands down our pants on the streets?”<<

    I'd have to say his was the wrong question to be asking in that a request for calm at a mobbed marathon finish-line is hardly unreasonable as contestant supporters at a race are often unable to contain their joy and rush forward with congratulations, only to interfere with other contestants as yet attempting to achieve the finish-line. Too easily, reasonably explained, and thus, if only by association, too easily dismissive of his subsequent "false-flag" speculation . . .

    >>And so when I read Glenn Greenwald write in The Guardian that a day after the April 15 Boston attack, “42 people were killed and more than 250 injured by a series of car bombs, the enduring result of the US invasion and destruction of that country”, I thought more people would understand.<<

    These sorts of attrocity are not conducive to much thinking -- only emotion fueled reaction (as with Bidondi, perhaps). That said, whilst perusing Glenn Greenwald's piece in the Guardian, perhaps you noticed Ian Cobain's article, "US torture of prisoners is 'indisputable', independent report finds"?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/16/us-torture-prisoners-indisputable-report

    On the heels of a tremendous resurgence of security fears and concerns consequent to the Boston Marathon bombs (indeed, I also see where both the U.S. President and a Senator are recently reported to have received ricin-laced letters), I'd have to call the timing of this independent report unfortunate, wouldn't you?

    Mark

    ReplyDelete
  5. FV

    The Boston bombers turned out to be Muslim after all. And the Marathon runners, it can be broadly presumed, had nothing to do with the Chechen problem.

    ReplyDelete
  6. F&F, you anus from somewhere,

    There's been yet another rape in India. The accused name is "Manoj". Using your "logic" against Muslims, it would be about square to say YOU are potentially a rapist. Why are you Hindus so anti-female? She was 5. How could you?! You're a sick, sick thing.

    Farzana,

    Really don't understand why you continue to indulge him on this blog. Nobody's building any bridges here ok? He's proven on numerous occasions that he's just a shit disturber. You do not owe him any space here. He lowers the discourse. Do something about it please.

    What you've written is sensible as always. I'm just too numb to engage in this type of a debate now. It is utterly futile. People believe what they want to believe regardless of the truth or what is morally right. Muslims will continue to be vilified, harassed, spied on and suspected as long as we're economically weak and politically un-savvy. Any Muslim, especially an American Msulim, feeling guilty or apologetic about what happened is willingly being pigeonholed into the role laid out for us. That is our fault. The solution lies not in falling over ourselves to denounce these crimes but asserting our rights as tax-paying individuals who are INNOCENT until proven guilty. This is the only message the non-muslim majority will understand. Money = power. As simple as that.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have only seen a few of his/her posts, but based on those F&F appears to merely vocalize what many others around the world (and increasingly, even in the USA) appear to think privately. The (alleged) Boston bombers are not being pilloried because of their names (which actually appear to be of a rather ambiguous origin to most people) so the comparison with "Manoj" is misplaced. There is little doubt that the self-radicalizing powers of Islam, especially for those who delve into it deeply -- which would leave out a vast numbers of outwardly "Muslim" individuals (including perhaps the author of this blog who is a self-proclaimed atheist) are considerable, perhaps vastly superior to those of many others. This power and its ability to drastically affect the behavior of those who are affected by it and to transform them into serious agents of destruction should not be ignored, especially by those who are closest to it and perhaps better placed to do something about it. (I understand how drawing attention to such facts may in some ways may hit a raw nerve.)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Circle, your abstract on the repetitiveness of life activities is on the mark! The more things (appear to) change, the more the cycle keeps repeating itself -- in more ways than one! :(

    ReplyDelete
  9. Meriam,

    Your choice of language is extremely unfortunate. I am afraid that it is you who is lowering the level of discourse (too grand a word!). You (or anyone else) would accuse me (or anyone else) of sexual harassment or something, were I to initiate use of such language.

    However, in this case, I am merely amused. Few things, if any, outrage me any more!

    My comment was purely in response to what FV had written in her post.

    (QUOTE: "..my first thought was not one of sympathy, but “Hope it is not a Muslim” on hearing about the Boston Marathon bomb blasts..")

    That stands true for each and every comment I have posted here ever.

    I would have loved to counter your argument, but only if your language was less embarrassing. I would not want to match wits there.

    ----

    FV,

    I too got a character certificate today! I am not, however, sure I will attach it with my CV! :)

    Hope this comment is published.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dear Circle:

    How do you know who I am talking about? You say you don't even know me, which is probably true.  That apart, my best wishes for your friend, and am relieved she is safe, as I would wish everyone there would be. 

    Regarding insecurity, it has nothing to do with the admirable qualities. Rather, the whole diaspora suffers from it. She could be confident of her looks, her profession. But her identity? It may not always be manifested overtly, though, and does not take away from anything else. 

    Re your next comment (in response to Anon):

    {What is life?
    To do repetitive rituals routinely, some are necessities N others R our obsessions, dedications, commitments, dreams n hopes.
    If we nullify repetition out of human lives then we nullify human existence.}

    I completely agree. Running a marathon is not about proving, and repeating it does not mean it was inadequate the first time. It sure is about extending one's capacity. And we repeat a lot of things, including mistakes. Does it mean the mistakes weren't erroneous enough to begin with? 

    Anon:

    Who is the public figure in this piece? 

    ReplyDelete
  11. Meriam:

    First, let me get this out of the way. I'd rather not communalise a rape. Also, I am aware that there are a few like you who are fed-up of certain comments, not restricted to the one you mentioned.

    I keep an open mind, knowing well that people might react in certain ways, because what I say does, in the precious words of someone else here (but not for me), touch a raw nerve.

    Then, I do moderate, as the complaints make it so obvious.

    Re your statement about the piece, we are on the same page:

    {Any Muslim, especially an American Msulim, feeling guilty or apologetic about what happened is willingly being pigeonholed into the role laid out for us. That is our fault. The solution lies not in falling over ourselves to denounce these crimes but asserting our rights as tax-paying individuals who are INNOCENT until proven guilty.}

    I'd go a step further and say that assertion of innocence is not necessary for regular citizens.

    PS: I would have preferred if you did not use certain words in your comment, which otherwise made perfect sense.

    ReplyDelete
  12. F&F:

    {The Boston bombers turned out to be Muslim after all. And the Marathon runners, it can be broadly presumed, had nothing to do with the Chechen problem.}

    Yes, and you gloat over it. Just shows you have no clue or concern for the ramifications or even justice, but for confirming your stereotype. 


    {QUOTE: "..I am always aware that I will be judged not dispassionately for what I say, but for ‘who’ I am. .."

    Do the sekulaars offer the same privilege to a Narendra Modi supporter?}

    I did not know that he was an ideology. Supporters - the term is enough to put them in the 'who' category. Anyhow, I thought you did not care, anyway. 

    {I know I sound like a stuck record! Maybe that is why you got rid of my last comment on the 'Vote For Lord Ram' post! :) }

    The comments of yours that get past outnumber the stray ones that are not. I don't need to explain why. The policy is mentioned clearly. 

    PS: Re your response to Meriam, rest assured I would have given you right of reply. However, although I disapprove of certain language, do recall some of your unpublished comments. To me, they too went beyond civility. It may be a matter of perception. Also, as I told her, there is genuine disapproval when the discourse is reduced. I write a piece or a post, and my views are known. Anything beyond that, unless it extends or adds to the argument, becomes baiting. 

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hi Mark:

    {I'd have to say his was the wrong question to be asking in that a request for calm at a mobbed marathon finish-line is hardly unreasonable as contestant supporters at a race are often unable to contain their joy and rush forward...}

    Agree, and have said so, that I doubted the false-flag allegation by Dan Bidondi, and as you rightly pointed out the loudspeaker announcement was a practical consideration directly about the marathon. 

    Re the quote from Greenwald, I did not add the incident was in Iraq, although you might have surmised. 

    The reactions to any atrocity is bound to have an emotional quotient, anywhere in the world.  

    {... perhaps you noticed Ian Cobain's article, "US torture of prisoners is 'indisputable', independent report finds"? 

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/16/us-torture-prisoners-indisputable-report

    On the heels of a tremendous resurgence of security fears and concerns consequent to the Boston Marathon bombs (indeed, I also see where both the U.S. President and a Senator are recently reported to have received ricin-laced letters), I'd have to call the timing of this independent report unfortunate, wouldn't you?}

    No. Security concerns of one country do not in any way negate what happens due to that country. It is not a quid pro quo. 

    From the link, should this not be of concern?

    In one of their most damning conclusions, the panel says: "In the course of the nation's many previous conflicts, there is little doubt that some US personnel committed brutal acts against captives, as have armies and governments throughout history. But there is no evidence there had ever before been the kind of considered and detailed discussions that occurred after 11 September, directly involving a president and his top advisers on the wisdom, propriety and legality of inflicting pain and torment on some detainees in our custody."

    One might want to see the timing of the report as unfortunate, but we will in the days to come see quite a bit of analyses on the motives of the Chechen brothers and of Chechnya. 

    Perhaps the intel agencies need to be more alert. 

    {For what it's worth, however often you are judged passionately for 'who' you are, my sense is that there are yet not a few who are quite dispassionately deliberative of what you have to say. A 'silent majority' perhaps.  :) }

    Thank you and wish they'd speak up more often!

    ReplyDelete
  14. FV

    Thanks for the "right of reply" . I differ with your view that civility and politeness are a matter of perception. By saying so, you echo the govt which asserts that Iit has powers to arrest a citizen for 'liking' a facebook post.

    Broadly though your pov may be correct, on a particular forum we need to chalk out symantic boundaries ab initio. Decent language is the least of them.

    That aside, it can be argued that the commentator in question is herself degenerating into blind radicalization - given that she now speaks about what "we muslims" should do to avoid a discussion on the terror topic. The sekulaar gloves are off faster than expected.

    Did I transgress the norms of civility?

    ReplyDelete
  15. FV

    QUOTE: "...confirming your stereotype.."


    You make it sound as if I organised the bombing to prove my point. Sorry, I didn't. Neither did I found Islam or Wahabism. I did not create the Jihadi stereotype either.

    Who is stereotyping whom here?

    ReplyDelete
  16. F&F:

    She did not use the term "we Muslims", although she did speak about Muslims because the piece here discusses it.

    Re stereotypes, am amused that you use every trick in the book. You did not create the jihad stereotype, but every comment of yours confirms it. See, where did Wahabism come in? Anyhow, you may have your views...it's something you have to deal with.

    On this blog, my perception of civility will prevail. As simple as that.

    PS: I do wonder whether you consider the White westerner Mr Greenwald as a pseudo secular jihadi apologist. You seem to have ignored him.

    It's too late, and this discussion is closed for you. Give it a rest.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Some great commentary that examines grey areas on the subject. I quote from 'How Boston Exposes America's Dark post 9/11 Bargain'

    “How long did it take conservative pundits and politicians, after the bombing suspects were identified as Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, immigrant brothers of Chechen heritage born in Kyrgyzstan, to seize on that fact as a reason to walk back the supposed Republican change of heart on immigration reform? Was it even five minutes? Never mind that the young men in question came here as war refugees in childhood, one was an American citizen and the other a legal resident, and we still have no idea what role their religion and national background may or may not have played in motivating the crime. It’s hard to imagine what possible immigration laws could have categorically excluded them, short of a magic anti-Muslim force field. And don’t even get me started on the irrelevant but unavoidable fact that the shameless, butt-licking lackeys of the Senate’s Republican caucus (with a few Democrats along for the ride) took advantage of the post-Boston confusion to do Wayne LaPierre’s bidding and kill a modest gun-reform bill supported by nearly the entire American public."


    http://www.salon.com/2013/04/20/how_boston_exposes_americas_dark_post_911_bargain/

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.