> Message: 17
> Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 23:53:45 -0500
> From: "Sitangshu B.Guha"
> Subject: Lets Support The War & The President
> WE SHOULD SUPPORT PRESIDENT BUSH AND
> I saw a lot of posting about the "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and
> noticed that all most all of those are against the war and some
> even against President Bush and as well as America! I wonder why?
> those who are against the war will say univocally that, they want
> will claim themselves 'Peace-loving'. Fine, but only problem is
> is not the fact, at-least not for everybody. I understand, why some
> Americans/Westerners' are against the war, they are real good
> face the atrocities caused by the Islamic fundamentalists or
Applying the same argument, when we consider
-the genocide of North America
-the death of 3 million Vietnamese
-the ravaging of Africa
-the US supported terrors in Latin America
-the dispossession of the Palestinians
we must consider that Europe and her offspring America has much
atrocities to apologise for.Therefore the current self serving
proclamation by Bush et.al about freedom and all that jazz has to be
viewd with scepticism. People are against the war for various reasons.
A large number of them are against the war because they are finally
waking up to the fact that their government lies to them.
> Americans & Westerns' would never understand how heinous are the
> or terrorists if there were no 9/11. Surely,You people noticed
> the fundamentalists & terrorists are also against this war . I
This is a non sequitur. A fundamentalist being against the war does
mean everybody opposing the war are fundamentalists.
> somebody will say that, Saddam is not a fundamentalist! Well, a guy
> built a mosque in his every birthday--what you will call him?
> Yes, I am in favor of this war. I am with 71% Americans. You know
> Because like all civilized people I don't
> want another 9/11. Actually I want President Bush to win the
I would be delighted to know whether you want any of the following to
a) Sending a cruise missile to Al-shifa pharmaceutical factory in
Sudan.US has not apologised for the attack and have not paid any
b) Introducing Osama Bin Laden to Afghanistan SIX MONTHS BEFORE the
Soviets were to come in. Osama was introduced to provoke Soviets to
enter Afghanistan. At that time the Government in Afghanistan had
c) Overthrowing Mossadeq- the secular prime minister of Iran in a coup
which brought in the brutal dictatorship of the Shah and then saw the
political opposition coalesce around the Mullahs.
d) Overthrowing the secular and democratic Sukarno of Indonesia and
replacement by Suharto who undertook a genocide in East Timor.
e) Killing all passengers of an Iranian jet liner by American Missile.
America never apologised.
> and finish the task he had started. That is, crush the Islamic
> fundamentalists every where in the world including Bangladesh.
> to do this and Bush has started that and we need to support him. I
> people will say that, what is the relation between terrorists &
> watch, let the war finish, you may find Talibans/Chechen & Kasmiri
> Separatists' /Bangladeshis(?) there fighting against the infidel(!)
> That is why almost all the Muslim countries and even its peoples
(Even in US
> or West) support Saddam (Wrong Choice). See, all infidels (In their
> language) are not supporting President Bush, that is the beauty of
> progressive world.
Lets say after the war we find Islamic terrorism multiply
This is a real possibility and this has been predicted as a possible
outcome by many antiwar commentators. What will that prove- that Bush
deliberately went down a path which stoked the fires of Islamic
> Let me tell you a story: 3/4years before one guy told me, where is
> (senior), (Note that I am not registered as a republican or
> is still in power. There are plenty of people like that and
> should feel pity for them because those people say that from their
> fundamentalist point of view. Here again I have another reason to
> the war, that is, may be in future civilized world need to go to the
> countries to change their rulers, the kings, the dictators, military
> like Iraq (Because someone has to show them the good). Have you
This is the "white men's burden" argument. This was used for the
colonisation and impoverishment and genocide in most of the world. It
will be much better if the "civilized" world refrain from interfering
in other countries affairs. Each country will find their own solution.
Also I hope that you know about the Eishenhower doctrine
which promised that US will defend Saudi Arabia as if it is its own
territory- this of course meant protection for a feudal and corrupt
and fundamentalist ruling monarch and his family.
In Afghanistan there is an organisation called RAWA (Revolutionary
Association of Women of Afghanistan). In Taliban times they used to go
inside Taliban controlled areas and educate and organise Afghan women.
Their leader Meena was captured by Taliban and executed. When US
declared its intention to bomb Afghanistan,
RAWA opposed it. RAWA said that opposition and resistance to Taliban
should grow up from within Afghanistan. It was ignored. After the war,
RAWA was never involved in the discussions about the future of
Afghanistan. So much for the noble intentions of the West and their
commitment for lofty ideals like women's rights. Let us also not
forget that Taliban was supplied arms by the US through the ISI of
> that, people from Islamic countries including Bangladesh (Not
> there are some progressives too in Bangladesh, some of my muslim
> support the war) enjoy the democracy, free sex, religious freedom,
> properties & wealth etc. in America & West and everywhere, but they
> their own country to become an Islamic country!! (So that all
> become their slaves??)(Please find me one muslim country where
> are growing!!). So long the mentality is like that, America has to
> Afganisthan or Iraq or some where else. (Sovergenety? Bangladeshi
I really don't understand the meaning of the above statement. Firstly
are we talking about growth in absolute numbers- then I am sure many
examples can be found as there is a general rise in population level.
Are you talking about percentage growth? If so then is percentage
growth an indicator of absence/presence of discrimination. In India
the small community of Parsis are declining with falling birth
rate. Nobody will argue that Parsis are discriminated against in
> minorities don't have that in their own country, and in almost no
> country, non-muslims have that!!).
Islam- like other great faiths- is a highly nuanced religion and has a
highly nuanced history. During the conquering of Spain by Isabella and
Fernandez, many Jews left Spain and came to settle in the middle east
in muslim ruled areas.. They were the forefathers of Sephardic jews.
If you look at our own land (Bengal) you would find that Hindus and
Muslims had coexisted here for thousands of years. The Muslim
Nawabs had plenty of Hindu high officers. Look at Chaitanya
Kazi talking to Chaitainya
"Gram shambandhe Chakraborti hoy mor chacha
Deho shambondho hoite hoy gram shombondho sacha
Nilambar Chakraborti hoy tomar Nana
Se shombondhe hoou tumi aamar bhagina"
[For Non-Bengalis-Kazi was telling Chaitanya that he is Kazi's nephew
Islam has been interpreted variously and some of these interpretations
the orthodox fundamentalist Islam.
Here is a poem from Hasan Raja
"Momo aankhi hoite poida aasman jamin
Kaanete korilo poida Musalmani Deen
Nake poida koriache khushboy bud boy
Aama hoite shob utpotti Hasan Rajai koi"
Later in the poem he says "Aama hoite Rab"
[Fro non-bengalis- Hasan Raja says that he is the source of
including god and the Islamic faith]
The present day communal politics in Indian subcontinent has its
origin in 19th century. For understanding the genesis of Muslim
communalism I would refer you to the book Bengal Muslims by Rafiuddin
We need to oppose communal politics in Indian subcontinent but that
does not mean that we should swallow the Western propaganda hook line
and sinker. Actually the West (or the US) has never had much problem
with fundamentalist Muslim rulers like the King of Saudi Arabia. On
the other hand it had undermined secular Muslim leaders like Nasser of
Egypt, Sukarno of Indonesia and Mossadeq of Iran.
> Either way, you support it or not, Saddam is history now. Who is
> today, my friend 'Kalam' (True but not the full name) told me:
> Muslims are brothers, All Hindus are brothers & All Christians are
> too.' I told him, I never heard Christians saying that, All
> brothers.' If they say that, and tell us that they will not give
> to non-Christians, then half of the fundamentalists will just die of
> starvation (They are civilized people and will not and can't let us
Are you at all aware of the doings of the conquistadores in South
America? Also look up A peoples history of the United States by Howard
Zinn. Especially look for the part where they killed 10% of the people
of Phillipines in order to "civilize and Chiristianise" them.
> Solution of that problem is to support the war against terrorism.
I would be curious to know whether that means supporting the first
against terrorism" launched by Ronald Regan and which devastated Latin
Ignorance may be bliss. My personal preference is to keep my eyes
Here is a short reading list.
1. Rogue State - William Blum
2. The clash of fundamentalisms- Tariq Ali.
3. 9-11 by Noam Chomsky.
4. Perpetual war for perpetual peace by Gore Vidal
5. Tragic Partition of Bengal by Suniti Kumar Ghosh
(also published in Bengali as Bangla Bibhajoner Orthoniti-Rajniti)
with best wishes.