 
字體：小 中 大 |
|
|
|
| 2013/05/13 08:04:36瀏覽378｜回應3｜推薦39 | |
這是用古哥翻譯的文章,如果重寫會更好,但是,也許,有心人就會說"這是你自己寫的..."同時,我也要讓各位知道,當你在重慶南路的書店翻書,或是欣賞台灣一些人的文章時,如果文法很奇怪,不要懷疑,不要不滿,...因為,這些人在暗示你"我是喝過洋墨水的人." 這篇文章,主要是探討: 所謂的反美恐怖份子,未必是伊斯蘭教徒,同時,由於美國喜歡用新武器(無人駕駛飛機)來作戰,造成濫殺無辜,也創造出越來越多的敵人.
美國的反恐政策“創建數百個新的敵人” The new US tool for fighting terrorists, the drones, creates more enemies than killing ‘bad guys’, Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies at the American University in Washington, D.C., Akbar Ahmed, told RT. 美國新的工具，打擊恐怖分子，無人駕駛飛機，創造了更多的敵人比屠戮'壞人'，美國大學伊斯蘭研究在華盛頓特區，阿克巴·艾哈邁德·伊本·赫勒敦主席告訴RT。 Arguably the world’s leading authority on contemporary Islam believes the US authorities greatly underestimate the tribal nature of most of the Muslim societies in their war on terror. 可以說，當代伊斯蘭世界領先的權威認為，美國當局大大低估了大多數穆斯林社會在他們的戰爭恐怖的部落性質。 RT: Post 9/11 the US has been all over the map chasing terrorists. But then you see terror growing right here in the US in a well-educated area like Cambridge Massachusetts, referring to the Boston bombers. What slipped through the cracks in America’s understanding of terror? RT "9/11後，美國一直都在地圖上追逐恐怖分子。但是當你看到恐怖這裡成長在美國受過良好教育的領域，如馬薩諸塞州劍橋，波士頓轟炸機。通過在美國的理解恐怖的裂縫下滑什麼？" Dr. Akbar Ahmed: This is a new phenomenon and a challenge. When people say home-grown terrorism it really means Muslim youth – those who grew up in the US and have turned against the US. I believe that several causes are to be identified. You have the problem of youth growing up in a culture, not of their own. Many of these people are from the Middle East, south Asia or, in the case of the Boston bombers, from the Caucasus. They grow up in a culture, which sort of accepts them and sort of doesn’t. 阿克巴爾·艾哈邁德博士：這是一個新的現象，也是一個挑戰。當人們說本土的恐怖主義，它的真正含義穆斯林青年 - 那些人在美國長大，對美元已經轉向。我相信，要確定幾個原因。你有問題的青年成長起來的一種文化，而不是自己的。其中許多人是從中東，南亞，波士頓轟炸機的情況下，從高加索。他們的文化中長大，接受哪種排序不。 RT: But by so many accounts they did fit in. AA: As I said, they fit on one level, but on the other level they don’t. They are hearing around them so much talk of islamophobia, someone attacks their religion, Koran, not necessarily on the religious level. So their response isn’t necessarily an Islamic response, but also a cultural one. The same phenomenon can be seen in the UK where you have many of these young British-born Muslims being accepted, playing cricket, going to pubs and so on, and yet being involved in terrorism. There aren’t many such cases, but these cases, I believe, are consequences of several failures of society, which is unable to integrate them fully, and their own community not being able to detect who they are and give them a certain direction. AA：正如我所說，他們適合在一個水平上，但在其他水平他們不這樣做。他們聽到的是他們周圍的這麼多談論伊斯蘭恐懼症，有人攻擊他們的宗教，古蘭經的宗教，不一定。所以他們的反應不一定是一個伊斯蘭反應，但也是一個文化。同樣的現象可以看出，在英國被接受，這些年輕的英國出生的穆斯林，你有很多，打板球，去酒吧等，而被捲入恐怖主義。有很多這樣的情況，但這些情況下，我相信，是無法充分整合社會，這幾個失敗的後果，自己的社區沒有能夠探測到他們是誰，並給予他們一定的方向。 RT: Apparently Tamerlan Tsarnaev didn’t fit into FBI’s profile of who would be a jihadist. Can we talk about the danger of profiling in law enforcement? AA: I was in charge of law and order myself in the tribal areas of Pakistan, in Balochistan, which is one of the most difficult areas to administer. We were taught when the cat is about to jump and when it will jump. When you profile people broadly, for example all Middle East-looking people, and you only look at them then your mentality is that a blue-eyed or blond-haired cannot be a terrorist. But as we know terrorism comes in every form and every shape. We’ve had many terror attacks in the US by people who weren’t Muslim. Timothy Mcveigh is just one famous example of that. So the aim is to prevent violence whoever commits it. AA：我是負責法律和訂購自己在部落地區的巴基斯坦俾路支省，這是管理最困難的地區之一。我們被教導當貓是要跳樓時，它會跳。當您的個人資料的人廣泛，例如中東所有好看的人，你看他們，那麼你的心態是，藍眼睛的金發不能是恐怖分子。但是，正如我們知道恐怖主義各種形式和各種形狀。我們已經有很多人誰不是穆斯林在美國的恐怖襲擊。蒂莫西·麥克維就是一個著名的例子。因此，其目的是為了防止暴力犯什麼。 RT: Why do those people, many of them presumably well-read and educated, find what they find in Islam? RT：為什麼那些人，他們中的許多想必閱讀並接受教育，找到他們在伊斯蘭教中找到？ AA: First, the assumption that education means a person is compassionate, sensible, pluralist or inclusive is not really correct. Secondly, what is coming from Islam is equally not correct. Perhaps the most terrible example in history is what the Germans did to the Jewish community in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. From 25 to 30 percent of SS personnel were PhDs or had higher education decrees. Where did that leave their humanity? They were completely unsympathetic to the Jewish community. So we have to be very careful making these generalizations. Very often these people act as they do, which is completely unacceptable, they come out of their own broken societies and distort the understanding of Islam. AA：首先，假設，即教育是指一個人是慈悲的，明智的，多元和包容性是不是真的正確。其次，是來自伊斯蘭教同樣是不正確的。也許在歷史上最可怕的例子是德國人在20世紀30年代和20世紀40年代在德國的猶太社區。 SS人員從25％到30％是博士或有更高的教育法令。在哪裡離開自己的人性呢？他們是完全絕情的猶太社區。因此，我們必須要非常小心，這些概括。很多時候，這些人的行為，這是完全不能接受的，因為他們做的，他們出來自己的社會分裂和歪曲伊斯蘭教的理解。 RT: What difference have drones, the new US tool for fighting terrorists, really made? RT：什麼差異有無人駕駛飛機，打擊恐怖分子，著實讓美國新工具？ AA: In my opinion the debate around drones has just started. There is one side of the debate, which is the most problematic, and that is how the Americans see the usefulness of drones. What they don’t see is an impact drones are having across the world on local tribes, local communities. You may have 1, 2, 3 intended targets killed, the so-called bad guys, but then you have 100, 200, 300 completely innocent people killed including women, and children. There are many reports confirming this. That creates hundreds of new enemies. AA：在我看來，辯論圍繞無人機才剛剛開始。有一側辯論，這是最容易出問題的，這是美國人如何看無人駕駛飛機的實用性。他們沒有看到的是，有世界各地的當地部落，當地社區的影響無人駕駛飛機。您可能有1，2，3個預定目標的殺害，所謂的壞人，但你有100，200，300完全無辜的人死亡，包括婦女和兒童。有許多報導證實這一點。這創造了數百個新的敵人。 RT: It seems that the main point of discussions around drones was whether or not they should kill American citizens. The fact it could kill innocent people without due process remained sidelined. What was your impression? AA: My sense was that the Americans were very ethnocentric when dealing with this issue. They aren’t really connecting this to people across the world, who are being killed in drone strikes. But I’m sure that this debate will continue. The Americans have great social conscience. If you pick up an idea and they feel there is injustice they pick it up themselves and they go for it. But right now this isn’t happening. Also we have to understand that when you have a place like Waziristan, which is the focus of my book. A small place, really impoverished, tribal society, no hospitals, no roads, no education facilities, and you are hit with drones again and again. They’ve ended up by killing over 300 people in drone attacks in Waziristan alone. Think about the impact it could have on a small society. It just rips it apart. In that vacuum you will certainly have violent angry killers, as you call, who then go down to Karachi and other bigger cities and blow themselves up. Once they killed a ten year old boy, a Pakistani army officer, in a mosque. They killed him and said ‘Now you know how we feel and what we go through every day’. RT: In your book ‘The Thistle and the Drone’ you write how the US props up central governments, which then go out and fight tribes. It’s true for Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen. Is it because the US doesn’t understand tribal society or just doesn’t want to understand? RT：你寫你的書“薊與無人機美國如何撐起中央政府，再出去打部落。它是真實的阿富汗，巴基斯坦，也門。這是因為美國並不了解部落社會，或根本沒有想明白呢？ AA: The war on terror, as I see it, resembles a triangle. I call it a ‘triangle of terror’. You have the US at one point, you have the central government at another point and the third point is tribal society. So far in the discussion we don’t hear much about the tribal society. Very often we see the US and central governments in alliance, but what they don’t realize, and this is a very important point, that terrorist are coming out of societies, which have nothing to do with supporting them. In fact, they are the victims now – they’ve been killed by the drones, by their own armies, and they’ve been blown up by suicide bombers. Tribal society lies underneath a vast number of Muslim population from Morocco across North Africa to the Middle East and to the Caucasus. The Code of honor, the code of hospitality, the code of revenge –all these things are very important and defining these societies. Not so much Islam but the tribal code. And there you have a kind of an internal tension, which hasn’t been resolved after centuries. RT: The Pakistani government condemns the US strikes in very strong terms but at the same time allows them. That kind of a two-faced policy, is it sustainable? RT：巴基斯坦政府在非常強烈譴責美國的罷工，但同時允許他們。那種兩面政策，是可持續的嗎？ AA: No, it isn’t. I called it duplicities in my book. On the one hand they are telling the Pakistani people that they have nothing to do with that. On the other hand they align with Americans to go ahead with the drone strikes. The Pakistani PM has many times said that he would object to it, that he would go to parliament and say that the Americans shouldn’t do these terrible things. But he goes ahead with that. The people of Pakistan aren’t stupid. They understand the game. But again you ask yourself does it help law and order, does it help peace and stability, and does it help check the men of violence? And the answer is ‘No’. AA：不，它不是。我把它叫做我的書duplicities。一方面，他們告訴巴基斯坦人民，他們什麼都沒有做。另一方面，他們與美國人對齊繼續無人駕駛飛機襲擊。巴基斯坦總理已多次表示，他會反對，他會去國會說，美國人不應該做這些可怕的事情。但他繼續與。巴基斯坦人民不傻。他們了解遊戲。但你再次問自己，它有助於法律和秩序，它有助於和平與穩定，並有助於檢查男性的暴力嗎？ ，答案是“否”。 RT: Why isn’t Pakistan saying the real ‘No’? AA：我認為這是因為他們有一個軟弱的政府。他們想留在權力。這需要很大的勇氣站起來，說一個超級大國'伙計們，我們是你的朋友，但你是為我們搞亂。 RT: Afghanistan past 2014, is it going to move back to the rule by tribes? RT：阿富汗過去的2014年，它是打算搬回部落規則？ AA: That’s a very important question. I asked someone who lived there and worked with the tribes. The country is going to face a lot of challenges both internally and regionally. AA：這是一個非常重要的問題。我問別人誰住在這裡，並與部落。國家將面臨很多的挑戰，在內部和區域。會？ RT: If the structure of their society is tribal maybe it’s a natural way for them to go back to tribal society? RT：如果他們的社會結構是部落，也許這是一種自然的方式，為他們回到部落社會？ AA: Don’t forget what happened to Afghanistan in the last few decades. First, there was the Soviet invasion, which disrupted all the old structures – chiefs, the elders, the religious structure, the central government, the King of Afghanistan. So you have a tribal society in a state of destruction. Then 1990s with the Taliban, which brought even more disruption. Then you have 9/11 and the American invasion with more disruption. Three decade later this tribal society is different, the tribal code has mutated, Islam has mutated. And from those mutations you see violence, violence, violence. |
|
| ( 時事評論｜政治 ) |
