Charlie Hebdo, the farce

Charlie Hebdo: Intolerance and Totalitarianism more than Freedom of Expression

Why the champions of freedom of expression offend me as much as the terrorists

Terror and counter-terror: It is more than meets the eyes

By Nauman Sadiq

On terrorism, it is more than it meets the eyes. But being bombarded day in and day out by the 'Responsibility to protect' and 'Humanitarian intervention' jargon, the real narrative of the terrorist activities and so called counter-terrorism measures is just missing from public discourse.

So, why is The West ready to pick new fight with a bunch of terrorists calling themselves the 'Caliphate'? Are the motives really altruistic as is often depicted in MSM?

Definitely not, says Sadiq, known for his insinuations to the psychological aspects of the contemporary developments in the world. Here he delves into how the economic and other factors force the hands of the western powers into the different parts of the world not necessarily rich in fossil fuels. 


Terrorism as pretext for intervention

Nauman Sadiq

The fear of terrorism is partly a fact and partly a hype to militarily intervene in the oil-rich Middle East. Obviously, any incident of terrorism is a big human tragedy in which many innocent human lives are lost and governments all over the world try to avert such an incident from happening. But the actions of the governments, and their proportionality, needs to be carefully examined to judge their real intentions. Can it be said about General Zia-ul-Haq’s regime that it felt a genuine love and affection towards its brothers-in-faith; and that’s why the Pakistani military establishment chose to give refuge to the Afghans and then equipped and trained them to ‘liberate’ their homeland from the clutches of an ‘evil empire?’ Even the naivest amongst us won’t believe a word of what I just said, but some Pakistani tea partyers might.

So why did Pakistani military oligarchy decided to intervene in Afghanistan? Was it to strengthen its defenses against India, the oft-quoted strategic depth theory; or, the fear that the erstwhile Soviet Union might make further advance into Balochistan to reach the warm waters of the Arabian sea? These factors may have played a part; but to understand the real reason why Pakistan decided to intervene in the Afghan conflict; we need to understand the nature of power. Power ought to be means to attain higher goals; but in the real life we often face the is-ought dilemma; where, rather than being means to an end, the power becomes an end in itself; and it is the nature of power to expand further and to grow even more powerful. Thus, the Pakistani Establishment didn’t collaborate with the Western powers’ ‘bear-trap project’ for any ulterior strategic goals; the goal was only to ‘exercise’ power by taking advantage of the opportunity provided to them, goal or no goal.

To elaborate this abstract concept; I would like to draw a parallel between power and sex. In the grand scheme of things, sex is not an end in itself; it is means to an end, the end being the procreation of the offspring. But most modern hedonic couples use contraceptives and don’t consider it worthwhile to procreate and nurture offspring, due to the material constraints or the unnecessary effort which it entails. We, the social scientists, have no business to offer advice or moral lessons; to each his own. But if the ultimate end for which the grand schemers invented the agency, comes to a naught; that does not per se render the agency any less significant; instead the agency itself becomes an ultimate end, and quite a potent one for that matter. Thus power is like sex; its exercise is pleasurable and its goal is further expansion and more arrogation of power to satisfy the needs of insatiable power-maniacs.

Many Leftists and anti-imperialists these days, commit the fallacy of trying to establish an essentialist and linear narrative to the global events. One cannot question their bona fide intentions; but their overzealous efforts sometimes prove counter-productive to their own credibility and the cause that they strive for. All the conflicts of the 21st century were not energy-wars. Iraq and Libya were obviously energy-wars because Iraq has proven oil reserves of 140 billion barrels and it produces 3 million barrels per day (and has a capacity to reach 5 mbpd in a few years comparable only to Saudi Arabia’s 10 million bpd or 15% of global supply) and Libya produces 1.6 mbpd. The Syrian conflict has a different dimension to it; it does not produce much oil except some 400,000 barrels per day from the north-east Syria which is territorially contiguous with Iraq. NATO’s involvement in the Syrian conflict is for the sake of Israel’s regional security because the Shia axis: Iran, Syria and Hezbollah have a known anti-Zionist stance. A likely scenario for any future government in Syria would be an Islamist-dominated government; but a weak Islamist government in Syria riddled with internal conflicts is a lesser evil compared to a strong Assad regime which has a backing of powerful global and regional actors like Russia and Iran and which also has an active proxy force in Lebanon in the form of Hezbollah.

Dissecting 'Islamic' extremism: The Saudi role

How Saudi Petrodollar plays determinant role in spreading, sustaining and multiplying religious fanaticism and extremism around the globe

The author

Opinion

By Nauman Sadiq

It has been tempting to attach the word 'Muslim' to terrorism in much of the western world. It is often forgotten, rather deliberately, that the Al Qaeda and Taliban are but a fringe elements in the Muslim world. The narrative which places the entire Muslim population as a potential if not present day threats to the security of the others has given rise to a dangerous form of Islamophobia in many parts of the world.

So what is the so called Islamic extremism and terrorism? How was it borne and how is it sustained in today's world? What were and are the geopolitical realities-- though downplayed by the mainstream media in the world-- that decide the trajectory of forces like Taliban and Al Qaeda? To be frank, the people all over world have been more misinformed than informed on these issues by the mainstream media. In this highly insightful piece, Nauman Sadiq pointedly explains how the state of Saudi Arabia has been at the center of extremism and fanaticism that goes in the name of Islam. This post, also carried by Asia Times Online earlier this week, is his first in this blog and was taken from the author's blog with his permission.

Oh lord! Save me from my friends

While the militants in Pakistan have apparently attributed the attacks as 'retaliation to drone attacks by US', either an insane or a brain dead will buy their argument: neither were the poor people in Pakistan behind any of the droning done by Nobel War Prize winner Barack Obama, nor will this butchery make any future droning less frequent or less lethal. Any religion in the world will say that butchering unarmed and vulnerable civilians is cowardice, pure and simple.