ETS! encourages comments, feedback, tips, corrections, and info! Please keep them as concise as possible so we can print as many different voices as possible: ETS!, P.O. Box 85541, Seattle WA 98145, or e-mail ets@scn.org.

Jihad Vs. Terror

Today, the world is filled with experts. Left and right, there are hundreds of experts. Sadly though, the majority of them carry the least qualification. In other words, they are self-appointed experts. Take for example the term Jihad or the term Terrorism. Many, so called experts will claim that Jihad means holy war and terrorism is a form of that holy war. These so called experts have violated the very profession they claim to master because a true expert is one who understands fully his field of expertise. The truth is, Jihad is the opposite of terrorism because jihad, though its Arabic primary meaning is to struggle to do better, can only be used in defense for self or an oppressed person or to regain a stolen land. On the other hand, terrorism is an act of aggression against innocent people. So how can these experts claim that jihad is comparable to terrorism? Today, Muslims around the world have suffered as a result of this misconception and day by day, this misconception serves to alienate Muslims from the rest of the world.

Unfortunately, Muslims, who are the true experts on the term jihad, have never been given the chance to explain what this term truly means. After all, it's their language and Muslims have used this term for 1400 years and during those many years, jihad was used for the betterment of mankind.

Yet, because an insignificant group of criminals had committed an act of terror on September 11th while claiming to be Muslims, have erased the 1400 years of service to humanity. Islam, which means peace in Arabic, was the victim on September 11th, rather than the criminal.

Muslims also argue with these so-called experts who equate terror with jihad that Allah (God) has passed a verdict or judgment against individuals who cause terror and chaos in the land. It is written in the Quran "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah (God) and His messenger and strive to spread mischief (terror, chaos, etc.) is: execution or crucifixion or the cutting off of their hands and feet from opposite sides or exile from the land." This is a very harsh and fitting punishment for any one who commits the above crimes and Muslims are aware of this judgment. So how can anyone argue that Islam promotes terror in any way when it has the most severe punishment against criminals of terror?

There is also another verse in the holy Quran which shows the limits of a Muslim in the case of self defense: "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits, for Allah loves not the transgressors." From this verse, we understand that aggression or terror is not part of the Muslim's behavior but Allah (God) has given him the right to defend himself, may Allah guide all of us to the truth and help us shun falsehood wherever it may be.

Ameen,

American Muslim Culture Association www.amca.9f.com

Crying for Hussein

It seems, tough stance towards Mr. S. Hussein's Iraq has been required not because of emotions but because of a vital understanding of the predatory nature of his regime. Although even a very few are supposed to be the aliens in a war on terror, Muslim countries themselves slightly differ in terms of geopolitical goals and targets from contemporary Iraq. At the moment, this secular socialist(?) state is the only one who officially not only blesses Islamic terrorism but makes no secret of practical support--at least financially.

Thank you for your eventual understanding of the issue.

Michael Kerjman

Another Letter the Stranger Hasn't (so far) Printed

Did you stand in your room and cheer when the US ordered food aid to drought-stricken and war-torn Afghanistan cut off? Did you stand in your room and cheer when the US implicated bin Laden within hours after the attack, but refused to provide any evidence of his culpability, even after the Taliban promised to extradite him if it would do so (note that it now acknowledges that it doesn't have the slightest clue what bin Laden's relation to the hijackers was)? Did you stand in your room and cheer when fear of a US bombing campaign coupled with fear of a return to power of the "Northern Alliance" touched off a huge refugee exodus--right during planting season? Did you stand in your room and cheer when the US elected not to obtain Security Council authorization for a bombing campaign? Did you stand in your room and cheer when international aid agencies in Afghanistan issued repeated condemnations of the US intention to bomb? Did you stand in your room and cheer when the carpet bombing of perhaps the poorest nation in the world began (a war crime)?

Did you stand in your room and cheer when the US utilized depleted uranium munitions and cluster bombs (a war crime)? Did you stand in your room and cheer when the first Afghan civilian was killed by the bombing (a war crime)? Did you stand in your room and cheer when the civilian death toll in Afghanistan (war crimes all) surpassed the civilian death toll in New York?

Did you stand and cheer when the civilian death toll from starvation reached into the thousands (some have estimated into the tens of thousands)? Did you stand in your room and cheer when RAWA and others issued repeated condemnations of the "Northern Alliance" (see http://rawasongs.fancymarketing.net/sep11-02.htm, for example)? Did you stand in your room and cheer when the war aims suddenly shifted from capturing bin Laden to ousting the Taliban? Did you stand in your room and cheer when the US appointed two former Unocal consultants as interim President of and Special Envoy to Afghanistan?

Did you stand in your room and cheer when the US undermined the Loya Jirga? Did you stand in your room and cheer when, despite the blitzing of Afghanistan, the Bush Administration announced that future terrorist attacks would be "inevitable"? Or when it allowed that the war in Afghanistan had dispersed al-Qaeda and made it MORE dangerous? Did you stand in your room and cheer when the UN World Food Program announced (in August of this year) that due to a dearth of promised funds, it was being forced to cut food rations in Afghanistan? Did you stand in your room and cheer when Hamid Karzai requested that the US military guard his life? Did you stand in your room and cheer when the US began aiding warlords in Afghanistan?

As far as the topic at hand is concerned, your suggestions are well enough, as far as they go. They're also hopelessly naive. The United States cannot promote democracy in the Middle East (or any other region) because democracy is bad for business. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's just mathematics: the US economy would instantly crash and burn were third world democracies to nationalize their resources and insist upon a level economic playing field--which is exactly what a third world democracy would do. Rather than suggesting what the US should--but that we all know won't in a million years--do, why not focus on what US citizens can do to rein in their country? May be hopelessly naive as well, but at least it's something that (theoretically) could happen.

Eddie Tews, Bainbridge Island

Monorail Leaves Cars Behind

The important piece missing from this perspective is the realization that these transit agencies all have very different, and often competing, goals. Sound Transit is controlled by the suburbs--they want to make it easy for people to commute downtown from the suburbs. Their long term vision is to build light rail across Lake Washington.

Basically, their goal is to build a (slow) version of BART in the Puget Sound. BART is fabulous and fast if you live in the suburbs. It is almost useless if you live in San Francisco, although you pay to subsidize the suburban commute.

The ETC, on the other hand, envisions a monorail system which moves people around Seattle. The long term goal is to build monorail lines criss-crossing the city, creating a true transportation alternative for Seattle residents. The monorail will be for Seattle, controlled by Seattle, and funded by Seattle.

The monorail is not a piecemeal approach: it is a totally new approach. While the other agencies are focused on ferries or buses or roads or the suburbs, the ETC is the only agency focused on how we can leave cars behind.

Elijah Saxon