Via LFG; I confess that half way through this sorry article, I lost track of the point, assuming there was any. It's beyond my comprehension to understand this high-level illogic. A partial fisking follows.
Backed by the self interest of their landed and commercial elites, and inspired by revolutionary ideas, the colonists had a dream worth pursuing. They were prepared to die for this dream - and to kill. They did: and they won.
On September 11, 2001, nineteen Arab hijackers too demonstrated their willingness to die - and to kill - for their dream. They died so that their people might live, free and in dignity.
Ah, Shahid rhetorically reduces the revolutionary colonists to suicidal murderers with a dream. Even then, the twisted analogy isn't complete, so he concocts a dream for the 911 terrorists. The terrorists died so that their people...Wait a minute, what is this 'their people'? You're talking about terrorists not Muslims since these 911 dreamers didn't represent the mainstream Muslims. Right? But then the logic doesn't work. Why should the Islamist terrorists live, free and in dignity? They should be six feet under, decomposing and in pigskin. So, you must be referring to Muslims as 'their people'. But then how does incinerating thousands help Muslims live, free and in dignity?
The attacks of 9-11 were in many ways a work of daring and imagination too; if one can think objectively of such horrors. They were a cataclysmic summation of the history of Western depredations in the Middle East: the history of a unity dismembered, of societies manipulated by surrogates, of development derailed and disrupted, of a people dispossessed.
Yes, the words 'daring' and 'imagination' came to my mind as I saw the Twin Towers fall. 911 was a summation of the history of Western depredations in the Middle East. Of course, if only the West had not conquered the Middle East and Afghanistan and pillaged it,...oh wait, never mind. Saudi Arabia, to this day, employs thousands of Westerners to maintain it's oil facilities. There are simply not enough educated Muslims to maintain said facilities. If it were not for these Westerners, most Saudis would be riding camels instead of BMWs.
When exactly were the Muslims united? A Muslim might be a Sunni, Shia, Ismaili, Salafi, Ahmadi, Sufi, just to name a few. I have yet to mention the tribal aspect of the Arab world. Oops, some unity. Grow up, and stop blaming surrogates and other phantom menaces. The Arab and the Muslim world is in a dump because of their lack of freedom, gender aparthied, religious intolerance, rabid antisemitism, ironclad belief in conspiracy theories, education from demented madrassas, and xenophobia of the West. By the way, marrying in the family doesn't help either.
Above all, the question that the hijackers of 9-11 pose to their Islamic compatriots is this: "What have you risked to oppose your own tyrants, your own ruling cliques, tribes and sectaries, who are so easily co-opted by foreign powers, who have worked so treacherously to enslave their own peoples, who sell off their national treasures, and who have secretly worked with Israel to complete the dismantling of Palestinian society?"
I didn't know that the 911 terrorists were sooo deep, man. I'm slightly confused though. Were most of the 911 terrorists opposing their tyrant the US or their original tyrant the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? On second thought, the answer doesn't matter. The foreign powers helped Israel dismantle Palestinian society. Hmm, didn't know a Palestinian society existed. If it did, Arafat was the pillager-in-chief.
"We engage in this violence against the United States," they say, "because you force us to, because you have failed to act against the American surrogates in your own countries. Because you have failed to act politically and with courage, we send you this message of horror, of shame. We advertise your shame before the world. We announce the failure of a billion and a half people - keepers of the Quran and heirs to a moral civilization - to overthrow the craven ruling classes who commit treachery against their own societies, their own history, every day that they cling to power."
There you go again, making the 911 terrorists representatives of all Muslims -- keepers of the Quran and heirs to a moral civilization. Bwhahaha. Ahem, moral civilization: where an old male can marry four pre-teenagers, fornicators and adulterers are stoned to death, drinking booze gets you decapitated, questioning Muhammad's behaviour gets one hanged, homosexuals are thrown off cliffs head first, females are treated like cattle, slavery is permitted, non-Muslims are treated as garbage. Moral = an Islamist's wet dream.
One thing is certain now: the Islamic world will change. Will it be the change the Americans and Israelis want? Will the Islamic world be smashed into a collection of micro-states - ethnic, sectarian and tribal entities - allied to and dependent on the US and Israel for their survival? Or will the Muslims oppose this new 'civilizing mission' and regain the freedom to shape their destiny in ways that allow the integral Quranic society, just, inclusive, creative, seeking knowledge, taking the middle road, to once again enrich our common human sojourn on earth?
There are already over 45 Muslim-majority states. How can the US, with Israel of course, smash it into smaller pieces? Put it another way, the Muslim world isn't united to begin with. One cannot 'regain' something, one never had. Once again, the sugarcoated rhetoric about the Quran. Enrich = one's face being stomped by a Quran. I wonder why so many Muslims are leaving such an enriching experience behind to migrate towards the West?
Shahid's entire article is repugnant. You should read some of the other comments as well.