MRN

The aspiration of the Media Review Network is to dispel the myths and stereotypes about Islam and Muslims and to foster bridges of understanding among the diverse people of our country. The Media Review Network believes that Muslim perspectives on issues impacting on South Africans are a prerequisite to a better appreciation of Islam.

Bin laden lots to think about

by MRN
January 1, 2013July 25, 2013

By Naom Chomsky

(source: Voice of the Cape Online)

We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic.　It’s increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law. There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition-except, they claim, from his wife, who lunged towards them.

In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress “suspects.” In April 2002, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the FBI could say no more than that it “believed” that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, though implemented in the UAE and Germany.

What they only believed in April 2002, they obviously didn’t know 8 months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know, because they were instantly dismissed) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence-which, as we soon learned, Washington didn’t have.

Thus Obama was simply lying when he said, in his White House statement, that “we quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda.” Nothing serious has been provided since. There is much talk of bin Laden’s “confession,” but that is rather like my confession that I won the Boston Marathon. He boasted of what he regarded as a great achievement.

Us violated bin ladens rights

by MRN
January 1, 2013July 25, 2013

By Anver Suliman – Media Review Network

(source: Citizen Newspaper – Monday, 9/05/2011, Pg12)

Oh Obama! Oh America! Did you fear Osama Bin Laden at death as you feared him when he was alive – that you could not give the man a decent burial? What cowards you are.

In all traditions & religions, the civilized norm requires one to treat the dead body with respect – whatever one perceives him to be: a terrorist, a martyr, a saint or a murderer.

I expect that George Bush or Tony Blair, who are responsible for invading Iraq on deception & blatant lies, who have killed hundreds & thousands of Iraqis, who have tortured hundreds, who have plundered the resources of Iraq, to have a decent burial when they die.

William Blum in his book, ‘Rogue State: A guide to the world’s only Superpower’ (referring to America) says: “From 1945 to the end of the century, the United States attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements struggling against intolerable regimes. In the process, the US caused the end of life for several million people & condemned many millions more to a life of agony & despair.”

So when Obama says: “The world is a safer place with the death of Osama”, maybe he should introspect about the history of his own country. And he should also consider why he has been sending drones into Afghanistan killing innocent civilians, women & children, when he knew Osama was hiding in Pakistan since last September, as he asserts.

One would ask, what was the rush & the hush to dispose of Osama Bin Laden’s body? In Islam & other religions, a dead body has its own rights to be given a burial on land (not in the sea or in the air) with announcement to the public & a full congregational prayer. In this case of Osama Bin Laden, his rights have been violated.

Bin laden is dead but what about his ideas?

by MRN
January 1, 2013July 25, 2013

By Uri Avnery

(source: AntiWar.com)

“Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth, lest the Lord see [it], and it displease him, and he turn away his wrath from him.”

This is one of the most beautiful passages in the Bible (Proverbs 24:17-18) and, indeed, in the Hebrew language. It is beautiful in other languages, too, though no translation comes close to the beauty of the original.

Of course, it is natural to be glad when one’s enemy is defeated, and the thirst for revenge is a human trait. But gloating—schadenfreude—is something different altogether. An ugly thing.

Ancient Hebrew legend has it that God got very angry when the Children of Israel rejoiced as their Egyptian pursuers drowned in the Red Sea. “My creatures are drowning in the sea,” God admonished them, “and you are singing?”

These thoughts crossed my mind when I saw the TV shots of jubilant crowds of young Americans shouting and dancing in the street. Natural, but unseemly. The contorted faces and the aggressive body language were no different from those of crowds in Sudan or Somalia. The ugly sides of human nature seem to be the same everywhere.

The rejoicing may be premature. Most probably, al-Qaeda did not die with Osama bin Laden. The effect may be entirely different.

Dubious hopes for peace

by MRN
January 1, 2013July 25, 2013

By Gareth Porter

(source: Counterpunch.org)

Barack Obama and top administration officials have taken advantage of the killing of Osama bin Laden to establish a new narrative suggesting the event will pave the way for negotiations with the Taliban for peace in Afghanistan. That good news message, reported by Washington Post senior editor Rajiv Chandrasekaran Tuesday, suggested that the administration would now be able to negotiate a deal that would make it possible for the United States to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan.

The Chandrasekaran article quoted a “senior administration official” as saying that bin Laden’s death at the hands of U.S. forces “presents an opportunity for reconciliation that didn’t exist before”. The official suggested that administration officials were seeking to “leverage the death into a spark that ignites peace talks”.

The claim of new prospects for peace conveyed to Chandrasekaran appears to be dependent mainly on the assumption that the Taliban leaders in Pakistan will now fear that they will be captured or killed by the U.S. forces, as was bin Laden.

An official familiar with administration policy discussions on Afghanistan said the fact that the United States could locate and kill bin Laden “so deep inside Pakistan” is presumed to “have an impact on the Taliban’s thinking”.

The idea that U.S. policy is now on the road to an “endgame” in Afghanistan glosses over a central problem: the publicly expressed U.S. determination to keep a U.S. combat presence in Afghanistan indefinitely is not an acceptable condition to the Taliban as a basis for negotiations. The Chandrasekaran report anticipated the announcement soon of a “strategic partnership agreement” between the United States and the government of President Hamid Karzai as “another potential catalyst for talks”.