Al-Ahram Weekly Online is one of those magazines that has constantly coughed up some interesting nugget. The recent Bali bombings that exploded on Malaysian front page news recently was conspicuously *not* covered by the periodical.
It is clear that in the pursuit of the Palestinian question, the question of terrorism and "do as thou wouldst thyself be done by" has been viewed as two separate questions. I found Mr. Sid-Ahmed's article to begin innocuously enough. He began by relating how recently, after the Katrina/Rita hurricane disasters were highlighted in the news, an SMS was making its rounds. Purportedly issued by the Al-Qaeda group, claiming responsibility for the recent spate of hurricane-related horrors.
Of course, it was tasteless, but it served as a good ice breaker and an introducer to his article. In fact, he even drew a conclusion from the (apparently) tasteless joke: "The incident is significant in that it shows how people have been conditioned in recent years to believe in the omnipotence of terrorism and the long reach of terrorists."
The following paragraph was quite interesting. He mentioned that the Sept 11 incident introduced a new "dimension" in the "escalation of terrorism". We have to ask ourselves if As-Sayyid Sid-Ahmed is correct that terrorism has seen some "escalation". Escalation, in response to what is perceived as oppression. Escalation, because retaliation in another city, inflicting pain on innocent people who had no part in whatever atrocity you feel strongly against, and mostly importantly who did not ever do anything to even hurt you -- such retaliation, it seems, is increasingly "correct".
The "dimension" that the author referred to was the feeling of power. Those who committed the crimes, felt suddenly that they had been given a magnificent weapon. It could kill hordes of their enemies, but only on one condition: to activate it, or to pull its trigger, one had to be willing to sacrifice one's own life. The author, cognizant of the fact that death was a very real pre-requisite for this brand of "terrorism" to survive, writes eloquently, almost in praise of death (possibly because the Enemies of Isl@m fear death):
**************************************************
"Terrorism is a state of mind and not only a material situation, its frame of reference is death, not life. Death is becoming the key factor in determining what options life has; how free humans are. Terrorism proceeds from the assumption that a state of death commands the state of life. In the final analysis, with terrorism having the upper hand, it would seem that people live with the aim of dying, not the opposite."
**************************************************
This state of affairs goes on until at one point, one finds that the matters required actual human sacrifice to change the system. Another quote that I find interesting, from the article, is as follows.
**************************************************
"The global population is divided into two distinct categories: those for whom living is perpetual suffering and those who benefit from the suffering of the latter; the haves and the have- nots, the dispossessed and the privileged. Not surprisingly, this is creating tensions that are affecting the viability of world order as we know it."
**************************************************
Words are cheap. Actions are not. Actions speak very much louder than words. But still, death is the one and last means of proving one's commitment to a cause. It is the ultimate sacrifice. Yet there is another question: Is it legally allowed?
--
___________________________________________
Graffiti.net free e-mail @ www.graffiti.net
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.graffiti.net/
Powered By Outblaze
