Re: Lets Support The War & The President 

By Nalinaksha Bhattacharyya 


You said:

I saw a lot of posting about the "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and unfortunately  noticed that all most all of those are against the war and some people are  even against President Bush and as well as America! I wonder why? All of  those who are against the war will say univocally that, they want peace or  will claim themselves 'Peace-loving'. Fine, but only problem is that, that  is not the fact, at-least not for everybody. I understand, why some  Americans/Westerners' are against the war, they are real good people, never  face the atrocities caused by the Islamic fundamentalists or terrorists. 


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 apologies for. Therefore the current self serving proclamation by Bush about freedom and all that jazz has to be viewed with skepticism. 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.


You said:

Americans & Westerns' would never understand how heinous are the islamists  or terrorists if there were no 9/11. Surely, You people noticed that, all  the fundamentalists & terrorists are also against this war .


This is a non sequitur. A fundamentalist being against the war does not mean everybody opposing the war are fundamentalists.


You said:

I guess, somebody will say that, Saddam is not a fundamentalist! Well, a guy who  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 why?  Because like all civilized people I don't  want another 9/11. Actually I want President Bush to win the election again...



I would be delighted to know whether you want any of the following to happen again:

a) Sending a cruise missile to Al-shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan.US has not apologised for the attack and have not paid any compensation.

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 women ministers.

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.


You said:

 ...and finish the task he had started. That is, crush the Islamic  fundamentalists every where in the world including Bangladesh. Somebody has  to do this and Bush has started that and we need to support him. I know some  people will say that, what is the relation between terrorists & Saddam. Just  watch, let the war finish, you may find Talibans/Chechen & Kasmiri  Separatists' /Bangladeshis(?) there fighting against the infidel(!) America.  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 the  progressive world.


Lets say after the war we find Islamic terrorism multiply thousandfold. 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 millitancy/orthodoxy/radicalism.


You said:

 Let me tell you a story: 3/4years before one guy told me, where is your Bush  (senior), (Note that I am not registered as a republican or democrat) Saddam  is still in power. There are plenty of people like that and of course, we  should feel pity for them because those people say that from their  fundamentalist point of view. Here again I have another reason to support  the war, that is, may be in future civilized world need to go to the Muslim  countries to change their rulers, the kings, the dictators, military juntas,  like Iraq (Because someone has to show them the good).


This is the "white men's burden" argument. This was used for the brutal 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 Pakistan.


You said:

Have you noticed  that, people from Islamic countries including Bangladesh (Not everybody,  there are some progressives too in Bangladesh, some of my muslim friends  support the war) enjoy the democracy, free sex, religious freedom,  properties & wealth etc. in America & West and everywhere, but they want  their own country to become an Islamic country!! (So that all infidels  become their slaves??)(Please find me one muslim country where non-muslims   are growing!!). So long the mentality is like that, America has to go to   Afganisthan or Iraq or some where else.


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 India.


You said:

(Sovergenety? Bangladeshi religious  minorities don't have that in their own country, and in almost no muslim  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 Charitamrita.  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 through village relations"]

Islam has been interpreted variously and some of these interpretations clash with 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"

[For non-bengalis- Hasan Raja says that he is the source of everything 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 Ahmad.

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.

You wrote:

 Either way, you support it or not, Saddam is history now. Who is next? Just  today, my friend 'Kalam' (True but not the full name) told me: 'Like all  Muslims are brothers, All Hindus are brothers & All Christians are brothers  too.' I told him, I never heard Christians saying that, All Christians are  brothers.' If they say that, and tell us that they will not give wheat/food  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 die ...


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.


You wrote:

Solution of that problem is to support the war against terrorism.


I would be curious to know whether that means supporting the first "war against terrorism" launched by Ronald Regan and which devastated Latin american countires.

Ignorance may be bliss. My personal preference is to keep my eyes open. 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.

Nalinaksha Bhattacharyya