From: RBNXHS@rohvm1.bitnet
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: The "civilized" west
Date: 12 Aug 92 20:58:00 GMT
Supersedes: <9208122059.AA07976@rutgers.edu>


 Bernt Budde <bug@arachne.udac.uu.se> writes:
 
> deleted ...And even criminals that are convicted to
> death do not get state terrorist murder groups after them,
> in any civilized country!
 
   America did just that for Fidel Castro in 1960s (see below).
 
>                           Of course, a FEW HUNDRED YEARS
> ago, it could very well happen in Europe,
 
   Yes, it definitely did happen a lot in those days.
 
>                                         , but then it could
> be questioned if Europe qualified as civilized countries by
> modern standards...
 
       YOU ARE RIGHT AGAIN, EUROPE DID NOT QUALIFY AS A CIVILIZED
       NATION JUST FEW HUNDRED YEARS AGO.
      ----------------------------------------
We do not have to go a few hundred years to see the practices
of *civilized countries* of the west in state-sponsored terrorism.
Let me provide you with the case of attempted assassination by
bombing of Muammer Gaddafy by the American govenment during the
presidency of *Mr. civilized* Ron Reagan. There seems no doubt
that the Reagan administration wanted to kill him from the air
in the course of bombing in Tripoli in 1986. The planes had
instructions to bomb what they thought was his residence. In
a bid to kill Gaddafy, the Americans killed a lot of other
people (including his adopted daughter) and missed the primary
target. Was this a consolation prize for *civilized* America?
 
 In the 1960s the Americans also conspired to kill Fidel Castro.
This episode of how America used its paid *terrorists* to
kill foreign leaders (including Salavadore Allende of Chile)
is well documented and was shown on PBS. We may never know
if the killing of Shaikh Mujibur Rahman of Bangladesh by the
terrorists was financed by America. One thing which has become
quite obvious is that America did starve thousands of people
in Bangladesh to death in 1974 by diverting the grain-carrying
ships from reaching Bangladesh ports, which eventually resulted
in unpopularity of the Mujib government. This is documented
in a PBS program (I think, it was: Food as Weapon).
 
 How about the killing of Patrice Lumumba of Africa by the
 Portuguese government just a few years ago? Was it in line
 with *civilized* norms? How about Mussaddeque of Iran who
 languished to death in his prison, similar to the fate of
 Bang Karno (Brother Suekarno) of Indonesia? Both men being
 deposed of their positions in a CIA inspired (or US-sponsored
 terrorism) coup. All these happened not too long ago.
 
 A famous phrase used by Ronald Reagan for the so-called (alleged)
 terrorists was, "You can run, but you cannot hide." This was
 essentially a declaration that the sovereignty of other
 countries was no asylum for enemies of America.
 
 America skyjacketed an Egyptian civilian airplane in *international*
 skies because there was a suspect on board. The US also
 deliberately violated Italian sovereignty in the course of
 same operation.
 
 During the course of the Gulf War, US bombed several targets/
 buildings where civilians were taking shelter, resulting in
 deaths of few thousand Iraqis. We are now told that the target
 of this bombing was Saddam Hussein of Iraq. During the course
 of the war, the Allied bombers deliberately bombed civilian
 positions including the men on the street who were fleeing from
 Basra, moving north. This process alone resulted in more than
 100,000 civilian deaths. The whole civilian casualty on the
 Iraqi side, caused by Allied Bombing, was more than 400,000.
 All these simply because the tyrant in Baghdad has become too
 uncontrolled (don't forget this was our friend whom we armed
 to the teeth prior to his ill-advised aventure in Kuwait).
 
 How about the deliberate shooting of the Iranian domestic Air-
 liner by the US Navy just around the end of the Iran-Iraq war?
 Now we are told (despite earlier cover-ups by the government)
 that the Airliner was in deed in Iranian territorial waters and
 that US even violated the territorial rights of Iran by having
 its *terrorist, killer* ship within that water. I wonder how
 many of you believe that US killed this 286 passengers mistakenly.
 There was no mistake, it was a clear case of murder sponsored
 by *civilized* America (it has been documented on PBS). Was
 this murder of innocent civilians a direct result of hating
 Khomeini, whom America could not murder otherwise, thru' its
 CIA and other paid terrorists? Is it justifiable in the
 western *civilization* to kill innocents because the target
 could not be hit/killed? Is the price of one *targetted*
 human being equal to hundreds of innocent lives? In all these
 cases the *civilized* world did not have to put a bounty on
 the targetted individuals (although, recently, US is doing
 just that for drug-pins in south America), it simply either
 killed the person thru' its paid terrorists (CIA/Mafia, etc.) or
 else killed hundreds/thousands of innocent individuals. (Please,
 note Khomeini did not put a bounty on Rushdie. A certain other
 non-governmental, Iranian citizen did.)  One may say, well
 America did apologize for murdering those 286 innocent Iranians.
 It is more like a person who enters a house, kills its residents,
 robs of all the properties, then leaves a small note saying,
 "I am sorry, it was a mistake." Should not the violaters be
 made accountable, something like a Nuremberg Trial for crimes
 against humanity, and punished? I guess, when the terrorist
 crimes are perpetrated by the western *civilized* nations, one
 has to disregard such crimes, after all, these are done against
 the *uncivilized* people of the east. When demons become judges
 what else can one expect? We are also told that it was a "White
 man's burden" to civilize the *uncivilized* Africa, prior to its
 colonization and plunder by Europe. So much for *civilization*.
 
 I can cite several other examples of the practices of so-called
 *civilized*, western countries in undermining the basic
 human rights of others with the use of paid *terrorists*
 (including CIA) or state-sponsored terrorism.  I don't think it
is needed to remind the readers as to the genocidal practices
 against the indigenous people as a result of their being
 colonized by the European *civilized* countries, even as recent
 as 1960s. Take e.g., the case of Algerian experience where
 innumerable Algerians were killed without any trial. Algeria
 did get independence eventually but at what price? More
 than 3 millions of its people had to give their lives
 simply because the *barbarian* Algerians did not want
 to live under *civilized* French government. No wonder
 Mahatmaji (Gandhi) considered the West to be *uncivilized*.
 To him the West did not know the very meaning of *civilization*.
 
 I hope by now I have made my points clear for our readers and
 need not go into details of such historical cases of terrorist
 activities practiced by western governments.  The
 terrorism perpetrated by the West is so subtle that most
 westerners (thanks to TV and media) fail to discern such
 notorious,  terrorist actions inficted on the East by their own
 governments.
 
It is the victims of terrorism who protest such heinous crimes who
are now labelled as something less than *civilized* men. In the
process, the criminal's crimes are forgotten or ignored, and the
burden of explanation shifts to the victims, they have to explain
why they asked for justice, couldn't they keep quiet. Consider the
example cited above: relatives of the massacred victims ask
for justice and put up a demonstration to attract their plight
(note that authorities ignored their pleas for justice merely
because the massacred people were *uncivilized*, minorities).
Out of frustration, one relative announces that if someone could
catch the murderer he would be rewarded handsomely. What the victims'
relatives find out is that the criminal, murderer was actually
helped during the process of massacre by the very authority from
whom they are asking for justice. Not only that the authority is
harboring the criminal. When the relatives of the victims showed
their anger by burning the effigy of the criminal, the law and
order keeping authorities gunned down several of these *uncivilized*
creatures. Not only that, other *civilized* folks even came up in
support of the right of the murderer to commit such *noble* acts of
murder against the *uncivilized* minorities, it was merely a free-
dom of action (these *civilized* folks really hated these minorities).
Now the media gets involved and show how unruly, uncivilized
these relatives of the victims were. So, at the end, the murderer
never had to face any trial and the victims' relatives have to
come up with an explanation why they were so upset about the case,
since such cases are happening everywhere. They simply should
have kept quiet (in that case, at least, no one would have blamed
them of being *uncivilized*). This is a price the victims must be
willing to pay for living  in *civilized* nations: "If you are
a minority/*uncivilized* guy, simply don't complain, no matter
how terribly you are victimized. This is western justice and there
is freedom of choice (for the perpetrators of crime) here."
 
I have not merely put the above example for no reason. It is
to bring the Rushdie case as a parallel.
Let us now examine the chain of events leading to the mess.
The Penguin (UK) was reported to have paid a handsome amount
of money (according to some reports close to a million dollars)
to S. Rushdie in advance for writing a book which is going to be very
sensitive (and perhaps very hostile to Islam). This is perhaps
more money than he ever received as advances for all his books
combined. It is learnt that two other writers lined up for
similar onslaughts on Islam. But at the end, Rushdie was given
the contract for his assault on Islam.
 
Controversy comes easy for Rushdie, and of his own volition. His
so-called fictions have always relied on distorted images/facts
of his culture (before getting assimilated) to provide a kick
to the western readers. Previously, he was sued by late Mrs. Indira
Gandhi for distorting her image in a British court for his remarks
in "Midnight's Children" that she was responsible for her husband's
(Firoz Gandhi) death thru' negligence. Rushdie pleaded guilty and
he and his publisher apologized to Mrs. Gandhi. But this time, he
choses Muslims as his victims. It is worth mentioning here that in
a previous book, he had already mocked the Muslims. At that time
Muslims ignored him. This did not satisfy his ego and he did not
make as much money as he hoped he would. So he comes up with Satanic
Verses. Borrowing the offensive terminologies used by the medieval
Christian West and its orientalists in its fight against Islam as
a world religion, he also belittles the character of its prophet by
suggesting that Muhammad sallal-lahu alaihe was-salam, the Prophet of
Islam was not only incapable of distinguishing between what had been
inspired by the Devil and what had come form Archangel, Muhammad
could not even tell between what he himself had dictated to the
scribe and what the subscriber had mischeviously substituted.
I do not want to go into the details of his book, suffice it to say
that it was very offensive to the taste of any Muslim.
 
Former
President, Jimmy Carter remarked on this book, "The Satanic Verses
goes much further (than the Last Temptation of Christ) in villi-
fying the Prophet Muhammad and defaming the Holy Qur'an."
The British author, Roald Dahl remarked, "(Rushdie) knew exactly
what he was doing and he cannot plead otherwise. This kind of
sensationalism does indeed get an indifferent book on to the top
of the best-seller list, but to my mind it is a cheap way of
doing it."
TV commentator (former Republican Party candidate for Presidency)
Pat Buchanon remarked, "The Western literary herd, of course, is
thundering to Mr. Rushdie's defense, invoking the First Ammend-
ment, artistic freedom and all that, though, what the episode
reveals is that the First Ammendment has succeeded phony patriot-
ism as the last refuge of the scondrel. For Salman has written
defamatory novel, a blasphemous attack on the faith of hundreds
of millions. Satanic Verses is an act of moral vandalism by an
artistic delinquent."
Kushwant Singh, a non-Muslim (Sikh) advisor for Penguin publishers
(also an eminent Indian journalist), warned Penguins about the
book before publication. He said, "I read the manuscript very
carefully, and I was positive it would cause a lot of trouble.
There are several derogatory references to the Prophet and
Qur'an. Muhammad (peace be upon him) is made out to be a small-
time impostor."
Despite these warnings, Penguin went ahead with the publication.
The book was banned in India. The former Prime Minister, Rajib
Gandhi was himself approached by Rushdie to lift the ban. Gandhi
rejected his plea. Was India's ban of the book a case of building
a repressive society? To answer this 'The Times of India' wrote:
"Mr. Rushdie says his novel is not about Islam but about migration.
But Islam is partly about migration and asylum. The Muslim
calendar does not begin with the birth of Muhammad. It does not
begin with the death of Muhammad. It does not begin with the
first revelation of the Qur'an - the day he became a Prophet.
The Islamic calendar begins with the day Muhammad migrated from
Mecca to Medina. The principle of ASYLUM is celebrated in the
concept of the HIJRA.  ...."
 
----------------- to be continued --------------
=
H. Siddiqui.