Waleed Aly said 10 years ago that Melbourne terrorist attack was likely, and that loyalty to the Muslim Ummah would be the cause:
by Ganesh Sahathevan
This is the New York Times reporting the latest attack in Australia by a "mentally disturbed person" who happens to be Muslim:
The man who plowed an SUV into a crowd of Christmas shoppers in Australia told cops he carried out the attack as retaliation for the “mistreatment of Muslims,” officials said Friday.
Saeed Noori, 32, injured 19 people — three critically — when he sped his vehicle into a busy intersection in downtown Melbourne outside the city’s main train station just before 5 p.m. Thursday.
Noori, an Afghan who was granted entry into Australia in 2004 as a refugee and became a citizen two years later, made the comments to police after he was arrested.
“He has said that he attributes his actions to the perceived mistreatment of Muslims,” Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said.
This, believe it, or not, is that great Muslim intellectual Waleed Aly,speaking in 2008:
As the world becomes globalised, so too are identities and their accompanying narratives. Identities may now exist outside of space. This is why Bouyeri is not alone in considering himself a soldier in a global war. It is not because The Netherlands had declared war on his parents' homeland of Morocco, but because the world has declared war on his global collective, his de-territorialised community.
The implications for government policy are relatively clear. No longer can we maintain the convenient political fiction that it is possible to quarantine policy decisions, whether foreign or domestic, from issues such as the terror threat. It is clear that whatever actions we take, in whatever sphere we take them, can and do have an increasingly global resonance. They become internalised and interpreted by people who are watching the global screen. That raises profound challenges of policy, challenges governments are typically yet even to acknowledge, probably because they still conceive of terrorism as being something that may be fought conventionally, via networks and organisations, and as a war. But we do not truly confront a 'war' on terror. What we face is more accurately described as an argument. One that will be won or lost through action, and also through word.
See link at: http://www.griffith.edu.
And then there is this from that other great intellectual, Malcolm Turnbull:
“At this stage . . . apart from that statement there are no known links to any political issues or any links to extremist groups,” Turnbull said.
END
This is the New York Times reporting the latest attack in Australia by a "mentally disturbed person" who happens to be Muslim:
The man who plowed an SUV into a crowd of Christmas shoppers in Australia told cops he carried out the attack as retaliation for the “mistreatment of Muslims,” officials said Friday.
Saeed Noori, 32, injured 19 people — three critically — when he sped his vehicle into a busy intersection in downtown Melbourne outside the city’s main train station just before 5 p.m. Thursday.
Noori, an Afghan who was granted entry into Australia in 2004 as a refugee and became a citizen two years later, made the comments to police after he was arrested.
“He has said that he attributes his actions to the perceived mistreatment of Muslims,” Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said.
This, believe it, or not, is that great Muslim intellectual Waleed Aly,speaking in 2008:
As the world becomes globalised, so too are identities and their accompanying narratives. Identities may now exist outside of space. This is why Bouyeri is not alone in considering himself a soldier in a global war. It is not because The Netherlands had declared war on his parents' homeland of Morocco, but because the world has declared war on his global collective, his de-territorialised community.
The implications for government policy are relatively clear. No longer can we maintain the convenient political fiction that it is possible to quarantine policy decisions, whether foreign or domestic, from issues such as the terror threat. It is clear that whatever actions we take, in whatever sphere we take them, can and do have an increasingly global resonance. They become internalised and interpreted by people who are watching the global screen. That raises profound challenges of policy, challenges governments are typically yet even to acknowledge, probably because they still conceive of terrorism as being something that may be fought conventionally, via networks and organisations, and as a war. But we do not truly confront a 'war' on terror. What we face is more accurately described as an argument. One that will be won or lost through action, and also through word.
See link at: http://www.griffith.edu.
And then there is this from that other great intellectual, Malcolm Turnbull:
“At this stage . . . apart from that statement there are no known links to any political issues or any links to extremist groups,” Turnbull said.
END
Comments
Post a Comment