Nèdeem Elmahjoub's blog

Olivier Roy's "Jihad and Death" " I think Roy underplays the historical context within which forms of modern jihadism find expression. Not all jihadis have the same background, but I’ve found — certainly in France — a fertile ground to radicalisation is produced when you have a disaffected immigrant population whose ideas and concerns are not taken seriously, who do not enjoy access to the power and wealth they see around them, and who remember a background of colonisation in Algeria or elsewhere in north Africa that fuels a historical sense of grievance. I think it’s a mistake to downplay that context." — Christopher de Bellaigue Was/is there an Islamic enlightenment?

The Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn was asked in a recent interview by a Sky News jiurnalist to condemn the IRA bombing. Jeremy Corbyn: "There were Loyalist bombs as well. I condemn all the bombing by both the Loyalists and the IRA ." Mr Corbyn, but do you condemn the IRA? Mr Corbyn, but do you condemn the IRA? Mr Corbyn, but do you condemn the IRA? Mr Corbyn, but do you condemn the IRA? "Mr Corbyn also attempts to contextualise bombings." Well, yes. Whether it is a bombing in Iraq, London, Paris, Bali, Belfast, Istanbul, Madrid... or a homocide, a divorce, a bankruptcy, a car accident, a nervous breakdown, a failure in delivering a successful lesson ... an invasion of a country, the birth of ISIS, waterboarding, an IMF loan, austerity, arms sale ... it has to be contextualised. 

A colleague  of mine at Oxford was asked to see an undergraduate who was falling behind in her work. The student – a Muslim – explained that she had been suffering from depression and was being treated for it by her GP. My colleague believed the student’s explanation placed her under an obligation to ask the student whether she was being radicalised. A young colleague, an Arab, told me that when he tried to book a room for a seminar, he was informed that this was no longer permitted on security grounds: he had to get a ‘senior’ academic to confirm the real purpose of the meeting. Another young colleague was told that she had to carry out a security ‘risk assessment’ for a feminist seminar she was convening; she refused, and was repeatedly pressured to comply. A librarian was asked for a reference by another university: ‘Are you completely satisfied,’ they wanted to know, ‘that the applicant is not involved in “extremism” (being vocal or active opposition to fundamental British

Violence: theirs and ours

A reminder from the aftermath of the Paris attack This article, which I had reposted before, mentions state terrorism in passing without making it a fundamental point besides/part of/a determinant "in the nine truths". Instead, it calls state terrorism "counter-terrorism".  That is aside,  the arguments ("the truth") are quite valid and accurate, I think.  The threat is already inside

This is intetesting. A "lone-wolf" doesn't emerge from a vacuum. Yes. What about the terrorist machine of the imperialist states? Is it manned by "lone-wolves"? Were Clinton, Bush, Blair, and Obama, for example, "lone-wolves" or part of a machine, a network? The myth of the "lone-wolf" terrorist

" The suicide attacker, as Richard Boothby has written, short-circuits this relationship between master and slave. The uneven dialectic is based on the formula: your freedom or your life. But it is uneven because, if you choose the former, you can't have either. In a suicide attack, the attacker abruptly proves willing to give up her life to end the stand-off; turning her corporeality, her body, into a weapon. Jacqueline Rose made the point, writing about suicide attackers some years ago, that every such attack is "an act of passionate identification -- you take your enemy with you". Which could be interpreted as meaning, you take a bit of their whiteness, their being, with you. You claim a share of being, seemingly always precarious, always endangered, through death. Lone wolf suicide attackers may not kill many people compared to the apparatuses of military full-spectrum dominance, or militarised policing. But they evoke a particular horror because they upend the

London I have received an email saying that the attack, which took place yesterday, was "an attack on the values of democracy and openess".  Theresa May, the PM, has said that "the attacker was inspired by the Islamic faith". The intellectual disability (or the fundamentalist discourse) of some people are just disgusting. Has the PM said something else? Yes, she spoke about "the oldest democracy", "freedom", "forces of evil", and some other things of that nature. The ones we heard after the previous attacks. Update: the Prime Minister also said that "we saw the worst of humanity." She is not pretending to be ignorant; she is just a representative of an imperialist and chauvinistic regime for which the rhetoric of "humanity" is a PR for public comsumption. More than 200 people just drowned in the Miditerranean

The recent attacks in Damascus are only the start Now compare that with this Syria's 'peace process' is Russia's new weapon

"Zionists were demanding Mubarak stay in power back in February 2011 because otherwise extremists were going to take power. No one argues sovereignty to excuse Saudi Arabia’s intervention in Yemen since they were invited in by the Yemeni government. And if anti-imperialism is fine with replacing US imperialism with Russian imperialism, then that’s a bad anti-imperialism. There is also a purposeful ignorance being perpetuated around Syria by those who want us to think the choi ce is either Assad or ISIS, ignoring the existence of local coordination committees and other grassroots formations that could be an alternative and are need of support. "The US left for the most part continued to push the regime change narrative, which again ignored all the actions the United States has pursued to preserve the regime despite all the rhetoric. They mocked the idea that there were moderate Syrian rebel groups, claiming everyone fighting Assad was an extremist and then acted all shoc

I  think it is a timid article. It doesn't use the term state terrorism to refer to the actions of the imperialist powers. Also, yes, "the public" is also responsible. The public could be responsible for a positive change as well as for perpetuationg atrocities and the status quo, if not through tacit support, it is through passivity, indifference, silence and acceptance.  The public votes for the same criminals in again and again. Is not that a responsibility? The public also votes for the same criminals to perpetuate crimes at home (plunder, privatisation, inequality, etc). Furthermore, the author has not cited "the roots of terrorism" in the plural. He is happy to mention only a couple of the roots. The roots of terrorism

" It is critical to recognize and fight against the unique elements of Trump’s extremism, but also to acknowledge that a substantial portion of it has roots in political and cultural developments that long precede him. Immigration horror stories — including families being torn apart — are nothing new. As ABC News  noted last August , “The Obama administration has deported more people than any other president’s administration in history. In fact, they have deported more than the sum of all the presidents of the 20th century.” And the reason Trump is able so easily to tap into a groundswell of anti-Muslim fears and bigotry is because they have been cultivated for 16 years as the central fuel driving the war on terror. There are  factions on both the center-left and right  that are primarily devoted to demonizing Muslims and Islam. A government can get away with bombing, invading, and droning the same group of people for more than 15 years only by constantly demonizing and dehuman

Journalist: M. Ben M'Hidi, don't you think it's a bit cowardly to use women's baskets and handbags to carry explosive devices that kill so many innocent people? Ben M'Hidi: And doesn't it seem to you even more cowardly to drop napalm bombs on defenseless villages, so that there are a thousand times more innocent victims? Of course, if we had your airplanes it would be a lot easier for us. Give us your bombers, and you can have our baskets.  — The Battle of Algiers The BBC bunkruptcy in equating two completely different attacks of two completely different contexts .

Pope Francis on capialism

Still relevant "The uses of Al-Qaeda"

The spectacle consists of daily photographs and news items from a ten-time Guernica, Aleppo;  terrorist attacks in France, Egypt and Istanbul; countless refugees drowning in the sea; decades of a form of capitalism which have spawned more social dislocation, racism, Islamophobia, and far-right chauvinism, and more yet to come; Jennifer Lawrence's butt-scratching, which upset some viewers yearning for a merry Christmas.

When we condemn and oppose the Western barbarism of the war and invasion of Iraq and the "liberal defense of murder" we are anti-American and supporters of Saddam Hussein. When we condemn and oppose Russian and Assad's barbarism we are dupes of US propaganda. When we condemn Israeli barbarism we are anti-semitic. When we condemn torrorist attacks in France and the US saying that is a product of state terrorism we are called apologists for terrorism. I guess we must be anti-semitic, anti-Russian, anti-American, CIA agent, Trotskyite socialist, Anarchists.

Two liberals lost in translation When one acknowledges the existence of state terrorism (though I curiously want to know which states English has in mind), but does exclude it from his analysis when dealing with non-state terrorism. One does not certainly see the interaction between the two types of terrorism (nor can one be able to broaden the concept and practices of "terrorism". I know I am probably passing a premature judgement on English's take, but that's the impression I get from the reviewer and the quotes. Nagel, on the other side, believes that Bin Laden and his colleagues "had stimulated the invasion of Iraq" (!!) That says it all. "By Any Means or None"

A 9/11 Retrospective: Washington's 15-Year Air War The Coup in Chile: 11 September 1973

“We attacked a foreign people and treated them like rebels. As you know, it's all right to treat barbarians barbarically. It's the desire to be barbaric that makes governments call their enemies barbarians.” — Bertolt Brecht The 'war on terror' (i.e, state terrorism) goes on. Now it's almost draw*. Nice attack will definitely be the last attack in France and in the West in general. *The French pilots are not using smart enough weapons to kill only 84 civilians.  Obviously, you do not have to be with ISIS or a similar organization to carry out such attacks**. Personally, I have grievances and been angry since 1991. Life in a Western country has made me more radical.  **According to what we know about the Orlando and Nice attacks that the perpetrators did not have a record of being Islamic activists.  Update:  no word on the bbc yet .