Whacking Dr Azmi Sharom’s Article on Terrorism

Reading Dr Azmi Sharom’s opinion piece in The Star today really got me peeved at the sheer wrongness of his article – wrong in its facts and assumptions, wrong in its conclusions and solutions, wrong in its hypocritical double standards.

So I took it upon myself to ruthlessly dissect and mock his proud article for all (i.e. visitors to my blog) to see.

Blockquoted excerpts from The Star 5 May 2011, my responses in normal paragraphs:

Terror threat remains

Despite my sarcastic tone, let’s be clear. I think the world is a better place without Osama, mass murderer and hide-and-seek champion. He has claimed responsibility for the killing of thousands of civilians and in that he is monstrous.

I am of course aware that people like former US President George W. Bush and former British Premier Tony Blair are also responsible for the deaths of thousands with their, I submit, utterly unlawful war against Iraq. Be that as it may, Osama is still an international criminal and his demise will not see me shedding any tears.

See the smug moral equivalence here? Oh, Osama was bad because he killed thousands, sure, but Bush & Blair are just as bad because they ‘killed’ thousands too!

He totally ignores the different means and ends at play in this comparison – for Osama killing was the ends, for Bush & Blair it was but the means to get rid of Saddam Hussein. And by the way, the vast majority of deaths of Iraqi civilians was caused by terrorists along the lines of Osama’s gang, not US or British troops. So double whammy and shot-in-own-foot for him on that one.

And speaking of Saddam Hussein… I note that he does not mention Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi anywhere, although he does mention the already-deposed Hosni Mubarak of Egypt.

Might this be because citing Gaddafi would cause his readers to realize that whatever atrocities Libya’s psycho leader perpetrated that led to the Arab League and NATO wanting to out him, Saddam perpetrated much, much worse?

Imagine what an informed reader would be thinking if he had put the names Gaddafi and Saddam in the same article:

Soooo…. Outing Gaddafi over a few shot rebels (who commit plenty of atrocities of their own and include Al Qaeda affiliated types) is just grounds for a multinational invasion by 11 nations agreeing to military action… But Saddam’s genocide of Iraqi Kurds, arbitrary arrest and torture of Iraqis, chemical weapons usage, rape rooms, invading Kuwait, warring on Iran and defying UN resolutions is NOT just grounds for a multinational invasion by 40 nations agreeing to military action? Riiiiiiight.

Yes, I can see why he would want to avoid any mention of Gaddafi which might shine a spotlight on a certain hypocritical stance.

And further to Saddam’s murderousness, I continue to contend that Bush & Blair’s invasion saved a net 750,000 Muslim lives (it’s probably over 1 million by today).

So, Bush & Blair are just as bad as Osama? Says a lot about the kind of mentality Dr Azmi Sharom has.

The politically cynical point out that this operation has come at a terribly convenient time for Barack Obama. The killing of Osama will boost his flagging popularity, just in time for the tough upcoming presidential election.

Ace puts that theory to rest as follows:

But this stuff about him being able to to take out Osama at anytime he wanted and choosing, for maximum political impact, May 1, 2011, as the “best” month for doing this?

No, the best month for doing this is either August or September or October of 2012, taking all the oxygen out of the presidential race and showing Obama in his finest moment right before the election.

The next-best time would be August or September or October of 2010 — having the same effect, and boosting Democrats running for Congress.

But now?

Now, six months after one election and eighteen months away from the next?

So the idea that Obama chose now of all times to declare Osama dead is merely shallow analysis again.

I for one believe that he was killed by the MI6. It is all a British plot designed to keep the world’s press preoccupied so that William and Kate will have a peaceful honeymoon.

Flippancy aside,

Yes, the same MI6 who killed Princess Diana because she was going to convert to Islam to marry Dodi Fayed and shame the British throne, surely. /flippancy

With Osama now dead, it does not mean that the problem he symbolised has gone. The world must still deal with terrorism and, more importantly, the causes of terrorism.

There will always be mad men in the world, those who think that violence is the method to achieve their objectives. But for these kind of people to get large numbers of followers and supporters cannot be simply explained away by saying that all of them are bad.

Terrorism is not some sort of mental problem, it is the result of political, economic and social factors.

In countries where the political process is exclusive and people are not allowed to take part in governance, either because the system followed is a dictatorship or a sham democracy, they are more likely to turn to unlawful methods to get their point across.

When there is widespread poverty and desperation, it is easier to get recruits into a cause which promises salvation, even though the promise comes with a price of mindless violence.

When people are faced with gross social injustice, men like Osama with the message that they will fight that injustice (as deceitful as he may be) will draw plenty of eager followers.

Ah, here he repeats the standard apologist’s line about terrorism – it’s caused by socio-economic factors like poverty and injustice and whatnot.

That the prepetrators of the Glasgow Airport bombing included multiple doctors and an engineer pursuing a PhD who were settled and accepted into Britain? Or that countless medical professionals are among the ranks of terrorists?*Shrug* No relevance.

That Al Qaeda’s ambassador to Europe, Abu Qatada is pampered with an £800,000 house and £50,000 of taxpayer money a year even as he cannot be deported back to Jordan to face trial? *Shrug* No relevance.

That most of the 19 hijackers involved in 9/11 came from middle class families? *Shrug* No relevance.

That Osama himself came from a fabulously wealthy family? *Shrug* No relevance.

That every single suicide bomber and shooter like Malik Hassan screams a certain same phrase before carrying out their massacre? *Shrug* No relevance.

That the young fighters are promised immediate entry into heaven, with 72 virgins to cater to their every whim, and that their names will be glorified by the ummah as true pious champions of the faith? *Shrug* No relevance.

That even as Muslims across the world acknowledged Osama’s death with the caveat that he was misguided and not representative of Islam, other groups were hailing him as a martyr, a holy warrior, and condemning his burial at sea as against Islam? *Shrug* No relevance.

That various moderate Muslim scholars denounce violence in the name of Islam as a misunderstanding and misapplication of ‘jihad’ by extremist Muslims when the latter carry out acts of terror? *Shrug* No relevance.

That millions of Christians are subjected to discrimination, ostracization, economic oppression, violence, slavery, rape, murder – especially those living in Muslim states – yet never seem to rise up and war against their governments and villages? (Case in point: Bombs continued to explode in the eastern half of the city and in other Christian areas outside Beirut, though they weren’t mass-casualty terrorist attacks like those in Iraq at the time. Most Christians believed they were being goaded into retaliating against one Muslim community or the other and sparking another civil war so the Syrians would be “invited” to return as peacekeepers. Not even the most ferociously bigoted Christians took the bait, though some may have been tempted.) *Shrug* No relevance, and by the way Bush & Blair are lawbreaking Crusaders didn’t you know.

That history shows us 461 years of unprovoked raids, invasion and occupation preceded the First Crusade, which should be a MASSIVE CLUE as to the motivations of modern day jihadis? No relevance, and Bush… um… Crusaders… um… Zionist oppression of Palestinians something something.

Unless the approach taken goes beyond cowboy gunship diplomacy and idiotic jingoistic flag waving, and while the causes of terrorism are not dealt with properly, all that has been achieved is the destruction of a fang. The threat is still there.

Unless the real causes of terrorism are scrutinized – instead of obfuscated and misrepresented – the threat will always be there.

Dr Azmi Sharom is a law teacher. The views expressed here are entirely his own.

And here is my own view: It’s been said that refusing to forgive someone who has wronged you hurts only yourself. After all, you are the one getting all angry and frustrated while the wronger is, in all likelihood, totally and blissfully unaware of his unforgiven state.

Similarly, it only harms my own peace of mind to feel frustrated over the unbelievably smug obtuseness of self-sure ‘pundits’ like Dr Azmi Sharom. So sure is his analysis that I doubt he’s going to be persuaded by logic or proof or facts – whatmore by an inconsequential little blog like mine – so there’s no point getting worked up over the sheer selective blindness I see.

All perceptions of smugness, obtuseness and etc on the part of Dr Azmi Sharom are IMHO, of course.

So instead, I’ll leave people like that to curl up snugly in their little cocoons stuffed under coconut shells at the bottom of a well which acts as an excellent echo chamber to reflect his chants of La la la la I can’t hear you, and be content with my utter dismantling of his worldview for him to never see.

30 Responses to “Whacking Dr Azmi Sharom’s Article on Terrorism”

  1. wits0 Says:

    I just read 2 para of Azmi’s spew and I already puked!

  2. loop Says:

    Strange,reading the scott’s version l see maggot in the cans

  3. wits0 Says:

    Scott’s piece isn’t one of those, “in your face” jaundiced pronouncements carried by any of Malusia’s MSM papers, all of which are well known for partisan bigotry rehashed and recycled constantly.

  4. loop Says:

    It’s hard to believe anything these days;Malusia’s MSM, Scott’s tales much more when the stories comes from US who destroyed their own WTC & killed their own citizens then claim it was the muslim terrorist. Don’t harm your peace of mind .
    All stories like eosinophilia a hallmark of helminth infection cause your brain damage .

  5. gobbledygook Says:

    # loop Says:
    May 6, 11 at 10:35 am

    Strange,reading the scott’s version l see maggot in the cans

    In not more than 500 words, please explain how you see “maggot in the cans”.
    Is that something to with matter transfer like in Star Trek? Then you should immediately apply for the highest post in MINDEF.

  6. syedjamaluddin Says:


  7. syedjamaluddin Says:

    Syed Jamaluddin´s campaign for an independent state for urdu speaking people living in Karachi and other cities in SINDH province of Pakistan
    An independent state in South Asia for Urdu-speaking nation (MUHAJIR) who migrated from India to Pakistan in 1947 currently living under military siege of Punjabi Army of Islamic (socalled) Republic of Pakistan.

  8. Anjem Choudary Says:

    HUNDREDS of Osama bin Laden supporters clashed with English Defence League extremists today as a “funeral service” for the assassinated terror leader sparked fury outside London’s US Embassy.

    Police stepped in to separate the chanting groups amid threats of violence from both sides.

    US leaders were branded “murderers” by radicals, who warned vengeance attacks were “guaranteed” and shouted: “USA, you will pay.”

    Protesters carried signs declaring ‘Islam will dominate the world’ and Jihad to defend the Muslims’ as well as banners attacking the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The pro-bin Laden ‘funeral’ took place as relatives of the 7/7 terror attack on London – which claimed 52 lives – wept at the inquest into the atrocity just three miles away.

    It was organised by controversial preacher Anjem Choudary, who told reporters after the ‘service’ that America had created a new generation of Islamic terrorists.

  9. SMEG Says:

    # loop Says:
    May 6, 11 at 10:35 am

    Strange,reading the scott’s version l see maggot in the cans

    In not more than 500 words, please explain how you see “maggot in the cans”.
    Is that something to with matter transfer like in Star Trek? Then you should immediately apply for the highest post in MINDEF.

    Kryten tries to be helpful by fixing the toaster only to discover that it’s the most annoying machine in the universe. Lister can’t take it in this classic early episode clip of Red Dwarf!

  10. wits0 Says:

    “Strange,reading the scott’s version l see maggot in the cans” – loop.

    He always would and more than just maggots too – from his known state of brainwashed hallucination.

  11. Simon Thong Says:

    Did maggots drop out of your ear into your can, loop?

  12. Zack T Says:

    Notice, loop said, ‘maggot [singular] in cans [plural]’. Interesting…

  13. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    “Maggot”..that’s it. I guess this word is from the Christian Bible. In a debate with Dr. Anish Shorrosh in London, the late Ahmed Deedat quoted the Bible word to describe the state of man in early development/age. It was a very interesting debate ..on Youtube. Pls. watch it.

  14. Simon Thong Says:

    Nasaei, a maggot is the legless, soft-bodied, wormlike larva of any of various flies of the order Diptera, often found in decaying matter. (Middle English magot, perhaps alteration of mathek, maddokk, perhaps from Old English matha.) Middle English is 1100-1500 b4 the English Bible was translated.

    Ahmed Deedat, if indeed he thought maggot came form the Bible, was ignorant as he was ignorant if Scripture. He is now Ahmed DEAD-at. Long eaten by maggots.

  15. Simon Thong Says:

    Maggot in Arabic
    يرقة, نزوة, سرء

  16. Simon Thong Says:

    Maggot in Arabic
    يرقة, نزوة, سرء

  17. Simon Thong Says:

    Malay: belatung

  18. Zack T Says:

    Nasaei, “I guess this word is from the Christian Bible.”

    Nasaei makes it sound as though ‘Maggot’ is first coined/found in the bible before anywhere else. Interesting…

  19. Simon Thong Says:

    No maggot in the Middle East? None in pre-Islamic times? Then what ate up all the dead bodies in the graves? يرقة, نزوة, سرء ate them all up! Arabic maggots did it!

    Maggot in English is maggot in any language. Just as a rose would smell as sweet were it called something else, a maggot would stink as foul whether in English, Chinese 蛆, Malay belatung, Hebrew נוטה לגחמות, Arabic يرقة, نزوة, سرء or Urdu suٌDi.

  20. Ron Says:

    Obama kept his vow and got Osama two years and four months into office, while Bush stopped looking back in 2002 and decided to invade a foreign nation instead.

  21. Scott Thong Says:

    That’s funny, and here I thought it was Michelle who personally kicked down the door of the Pakistan hideout with her vogueish heels, death glared the guards into emasculated submission, and popped two holes in Osama’s skull with her ‘two gun salute’ (ref: bonus number 0 at bottom of this post) /sarc

  22. wits0 Says:

    Loop seems to gave gone fulat (chinese colloquial term for a big gaff/failure whereby his pants falls involuntarily off) over ulat(malay for maggot). Whoa! LOL!

  23. loop Says:

    Seem the maggots attracted more than ‘wits0 puked’!
    Actually I want to say ‘maggots’ to Scott’s piece was prejudiced.He only influenced readers to have an unfair or unreasonable to judge people for the actions especially with the stories that hard to believe these days.
    Wits0 got puked reading of Azmi’s and let’s see then if the maggots drop into can after reading what I’ve found . I won’t quote from people like Azmi because you will puked.To say ‘Gadhafi has been a black hat for as long as I can remember. If we believe the adage that “where there is smoke there is fire,” Gadhafi is probably not a nice fellow. However, there is no doubt whatsoever that the current US president and the predecessor Bush/Cheney regime have murdered many times more people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia than Gadhafi has murdered in Libya’..read more by Paul Craig Roberts http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts297.html

    Obama really raises American hypocrisy to a higher level. Now let’s see conspiracy, governemnt corruption, new world order, abducting us against our will by Barry Chamish an Israeli journalist who has done a great deal of research into corruption of Israel’s government. He wrote about ISRAEL KEEPING GHADDAFI AFLOAT and THE U.S. IS BEHIND THE FALL OF MUBARAK. – http://www.pushhamburger.com/barry.htm

    I hope you all will not puke because these written is not from a Muslim.If you puke then I believe it is not food back up from your stomach but maggots come out from your mouth this time!

    Ps-Zack T, I realized the mistake but just thought they got the message.

  24. Scott Thong Says:

    However, there is no doubt whatsoever that the current US president and the predecessor Bush/Cheney regime have murdered many times more people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia than Gadhafi has murdered in Libya’.

    Silly loop, even Mukhriz Mahathir was forced to admit (silence is consent) that it was jihadis looking for virgins in heaven who did the killing of Muslims.

    And so much fewer Iraqis die these days than under Saddam, you could say that kuffar Bush saved 1 million (by now) Muslim lives.

    How many Muslim lives did your hero Osama bin Fishfood save? If by ‘saved’ you mean ‘killed in horrible explosions’, then 85% of all Al Qaeda victims being Muslim must surely make him a greater shaheed than Bush!

  25. Simon Thong Says:

    In the past, it was true that ‘there is no smoke without fire’ but nowadays, there are smoke-making machines; don’t need fire. Refer to the 2 bloggers (b*gg*rs?) and Utusan reports on Christian pastors in Penang. Lots of smoke but no fire.

  26. wits0 Says:

    In the past, a probe means a proper investigation ; today it’s more to do with a colonoscope and the frivolous fart that follows.

  27. Ron Says:

    “That’s funny, and here I thought it was Michelle who personally kicked down the door of the Pakistan hideout with her vogueish heels, death glared the guards into emasculated submission, and popped two holes in Osama’s skull with her ‘two gun salute’ (ref: bonus number 0 at bottom of this post) /sarc”

    Didn’t need to glare down the guards… seeing a woman sans burka was enough to immobilize them.

    And on a more serious note, there were no American casualties, which leaves WBC members with no funerals to picket. Thank non-existent god for the Elite Navy Seals.

  28. Scott Thong Says:

    Phelps was not needed – Veterans For Peace had it covered.

  29. Ron Says:

    Blessed are the peacemakers… right?

  30. Scott Thong Says:

    Frankly, with the antics going on these days, pacemakers are needed.

    Anyway, as King ‘You so crazy!’ Steve points out, corpses are remarkably pacifistic. So what’s the complaint over Osama brand Fish Food?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: