Muslim nations defend use of suicide bombers (They rationalize Terrorism)

A meeting of Islamic nations ended in disagreement yesterday after Arab governments rejected a proposal to include Palestinian suicide bombers in a condemnation of terrorism.

In its final declaration, the meeting of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur, said: "We unequivocally condemn acts of international terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, including state terrorism, irrespective of motives, perp- etrators and victims." But it went on: "We reject any attempt to link terrorism to the struggle of the Palestinian people in the exercise of their inalienable right to establish their independent state."

The host of the meeting, the Malaysian Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamed, had suggested in his opening speech that Palestinian suicide bomb-ers be included in a condemn-ation of all who use violence against civilians. "According to this definition of terrorism, the attacks on the World Trade Centre on 11 September, the human bomb attacks by Palestinians and Tamil Tigers [of Sri Lanka], the attacks against civilians by Israeli forces ... must be considered as acts of terror," he said. But the OIC rejected the proposal, and supported the Palestinian delegation's argument that the suicide attacks can be seen a legitimate tool of national liberation.

The final statement promised in the future to reach a definition that would distinguish between terrorism and "legitimate struggles ... against foreign occupation".

Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister, Mohamad Zarif, said: "It is not for us to define international terrorism for the international community. It is for us to ask the international community to start a process of defining terrorism. That process has started."

The foreign ministers and representatives of the 57-member OIC also rejected "any unilateral action against any Islamic country under the pretext of combating international terrorism" – an obvious reference to American and British hints of a future attack against Iraq.

Dr Mohamed, although well known as a critic of Western, and especially American, arrogance, is equally opposed to Islamic fundamentalism within his own country and abroad. Malaysia has consistently denounced Israel for its actions in the West Bank, but has also been one of the most active non-Western supporters of the war against terror.

"The US is doing all right in terms of getting the world to act against terrorists," Dr Mohamed said in his opening speech. "I think the whole world supports [it], but unfortunately the US has supported the action by the Israeli government which amounts to terrorism."

He added: "These people may be misguided, they may be wrong in believing they are fighting a jihad, a holy war ... [but] the world must deal with these misguided people not just by hunting them down but also by removing the causes of their anger and frustration."

Several dozen Muslims, suspected of involvement in al-Qa'ida, are being held without charge in Malaysia, under "security" legislation which allows detention without charge.

It was reported yesterday that Dr Mohamed has been invited by President Bush to visit the White House in May.

* Abu Zubeida, the captured al-Qa'ida leader, could be the first prisoner to be dealt with by America's military tribunals, established under an executive order by President George Bush last year, although officials in Washington said no decision had been taken on how to deal with him. Mr Zubeida, 30, is in US custody at an undisclosed location. He is likely to be transferred to Camp X-Ray at the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"We reject any attempt to link terrorism to the struggle of the Palestinian people in the exercise of their inalienable right to establish their independent state."

Why can't Jews fight for the right to have an independent state either?

Obviously this means Israel, the sole imperfect but earnestly attempted jurisdiction respecting democracy of the Middle East, is a terror state in their view.

They might as well say: "We reject any attempt to link terrorism to the struggle of the Nazi people in the exercise of their inalienable right to establish their independent state."

Oh, they think they are so smart to pull a Clinton on us, giving us definitions for sexual relations and Palestinian people. What is a Palestinian? What is their definition of Palestinian? Of independent state? Or of "people" as a matter of fact? Or are these people over-imaginative mysticists?

Is it now a war of definitions, a pi$$ing contest as to whom will make the most accurate or popular picture of these things, inevitably leading to war of cults in total anarchy? Or are muslims simply violating their own laws forbiding the drawing and drafting of people? Forbiding muslims to fill in their designs that are not God's designs?

Since when, anyway, identities and definition were able to transcend the inalienable jurisdictions (the separated judicial, legislative and executive) that constitute statehood? Since when such violation by cults, identities and ideologies over jurisdictions did not constitute terrorism and terror states, in effect? Since when "Palestinianist" suicide bombings did not constitute a violation of civilians' jurisdictions in the name of identity?

Terrorism is simply the embrace of definitions at the expense of jurisdiction. These people are embracing defintions of terrorism instead of rejecting terrorism. Moreover they use those definitions of terror to form the basis of their states. The single Palestinian and terrorism dictates around which they define themselves acknowledge on their face the dictatorships and terror nations that they are.

We did not define them that way, they defined themselves through their dictates. If anyone ever wanted to know who is a terrorist, these nations have simply affirmed before the world that they are terror nations according to the terrorist dictates of Palestine and terrorism they impose.

Last but not least, terrorism is simply a cult in and of itself, a jurisdiction of terror aiming to violate inalienable jurisdictions through violent means/ends. Terror is a violent end through violent means. The cult of martyrdom and terrorism is obvious in Palestine, as a mean and as an end. It is not a matter of definition, it is a matter of inalienable jurisdiction vs. terrorist cult vs. one's personal defintions. And those that make it a matter of definition are terrorists.

Sexual relations is the mutual jurisdiction of Monica over Clinton's sex and sexual functions, and hence it was sexual relation by jurisdiction and not by definition.

Terrorism is the mutual jurisdiction of people over the cults of terror who refuse political settlements in favor of uniquely violent and terror settlements such as so self-defined Hamas etc., and hence the PA, Arafat and the Palestinians they represent officialy are terrorists, by jurisdiction over Hamas and not by definition. The above arab nations that accept the existence of implicit and explicit terror jurisdictions such as "Palestine" are terrorist supporting nations too.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.