DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on August 18, 2007, 12:35:55 PM
-
CLICK LINK BELOW:
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1428.htm (http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1428.htm)
-
Thanks. The guy - - Sayyed Yusef Tabatabai Nejad - - gave a sermon in Esfahan (Isfahan?) in which he claimed that his religion, Shi'a Islam, was the one true religion (seems to be I've heard Popes say that) and that it's not just for themselves but they hope to spread it first to their Sunni brothers, then the Christians, then the Jews and then even the "polytheists' (Hindus) would "have no alternative" but to accept it. Honest to God, does the RCC ever preach anything else?
By way of comparison, I looked up some of the sayings of Franklin Graham in Wikipedia:
# "The god of Islam is not the same God of the Christian or the Judeo-Christian faith. It is a different god, and I believe a very evil and a very wicked religion." [1]
(Note that Sayyed Yusef Tabatabai Nejad did not utter one disrespectful word about any other religion in his sermon.)
# "But let's use the weapons we have, the weapons of mass destruction if need be and destroy the enemy." (CNN, September 14, 2001)
(Note that Sayyed Yusef Tabatabai Neja did not utter one call to violence in his sermon.)
# "...we'll make a great mistake if we hold back our technology and hold back our weapons and put young men and women in there and sacrifice them because we're scared to use some of our major weapons. And I think we're going to have to use every -- and I hate to say it, hellish weapon in our inventory, if need be, to defeat these people." (CNN, September 14, 2001)
("Why Christianity is the Religion of Peace - - and Islam is Not" - - title of a book recommended by either the Professor or CU4)
# "This is one wicked city, OK? It's known for Mardi Gras, for Satan worship. It's known for sex perversion. It's known for every type of drugs and alcohol and the orgies and all of these things that go on down there in New Orleans... There's been a black spiritual cloud over New Orleans for years. They believe God is going to use that storm to bring revival."
(the next book in the same series: "Why Christianity is the Religion of Sanity and Islam is Not") :)
-
michael but honestly don't you see the huge difference?
Rev Graham and the Pope do not have people within their religion TODAY IN CURRENT TIMES blowing up airliners, blowing up buses, flying planes into buildings, blowing up night clubs, beheading people, blowing up commuter trains full of innocent civilians in Spain and England, car bombing airports, assassinating women because they hold elective office, violently attacking schools because they are teaching women, suicide bombings on a daily basis, threatening to kill all members of entire countries, all in the very name of the religion. It's no secret that the people doing these kinds of things proclaim their primary motivation is their religion. (Islam)
-
I dunno, CU4 - - where's the evidence that Sayyed Yusef Tabatabai Nejad has people blowing up airliners, flying planes into buildings etc.? As a matter of fact the Sept. 11 mujahideen were all Sunnis, the very first people that Nejad hopes to convert.
<<Rev Graham and the Pope do not have people within their religion TODAY IN CURRENT TIMES blowing up airliners, blowing up buses, flying planes into buildings, blowing up night clubs, beheading people, blowing up commuter trains full of innocent civilians in Spain and England, car bombing airports, assassinating women because they hold elective office, violently attacking schools because they are teaching women, suicide bombings on a daily basis, threatening to kill all members of entire countries, all in the very name of the religion.>>
Seems to me that more people have been killed in Iraq than in all the blown-up airliners, WTC victims etc. put together and the killers were in the U.S. army, most of whom WERE within the religion of the Pope and Graham. And what's the difference to the victims if the killers killed them in the name of Christianity or democracy or WMD? They're all just as dead. Surely if the Christian religion were any better than the Muslim religion it would have prevented all this carnage. Why point a finger at the Muslims and say "Look what their followers did" when you ignore everything done by those who follow Christianity.
-
I dunno, CU4 - - where's the evidence that Sayyed Yusef Tabatabai Nejad has people blowing up airliners, flying planes into buildings etc.? As a matter of fact the Sept. 11 mujahideen were all Sunnis, the very first people that Nejad hopes to convert.
I never said this Muslim Cleric has his followers doing these terrible deeds, but it is a fact that people within Islam are doing these horrible deeds in the name of their religion and they even admit their motivation is their religion. There are mountains of evidence I can provide from the last year, even the last month, of violent carnage perpertrated by Muslims claiming Islam as their primary motivation.
Why are you so reluctant to admit the obvious? Today, in the year 2007, none of the other religions of the world has this huge problem of followers carrying out violent attacks targeting innocent civilians in the name of their religions claiming their motivation is their religion.
Seems to me that more people have been killed in Iraq than in all the blown-up airliners, WTC victims etc. put together and the killers were in the U.S. army, most of whom WERE within the religion of the Pope and Graham.
Come on you must know that is a false dichotomy.
The people killed in Iraq by US/Coalition forces are not killed in the name of some religion.
And what's the difference to the victims if the killers killed them in the name of Christianity or democracy or WMD?
The difference is when you are discussing which religion in today's world has a serious problem of violence, one points out the reality that every single day we see headlines of horrible attacks by Muslim followers claiming motivation from Islam to carry out these attacks.
Why point a finger at the Muslims and say "Look what their followers did"
Because that is in fact reality is it not?
You do the exact same thing towards past instances of violence and crimes from Christians throughout ancient history.
But in today's world...in the now....it is the followers of Islam who claim their motivation is Islam and are doing these horrible violet acts all over the globe every single day. There is no current similar violent situations in any of the other major religions of the world.
Again, why do you find it so difficult to readily admit the obvious?
when you ignore everything done by those who follow Christianity.
I ignore? No I don't deny the historical facts, how could one?
But you seem like you are attempting to ignore the facts in the current time.
I freely admit that Christians in the past have done horrible things.
But I live in today's world, not centuries ago or even decades ago.
And the fact is, currently there is no comparison as to what religion has a very serious problem of violence in it's midst in today's world of followers carrying out daily violent attacks all over the globe and freely stating the motivation is their religion.
-
MT, I fail to see why you cannot admit the obvious, namely that today it is radical Islam that are committing these horrendous acts. You keep brining up the past and so I respond to you that you need to live NOW and HERE. Let's do what we can to mitigate any issues coming from militant Islam. Unfortunatuiely, that someitmes menas we have to give up our liberties. So be it. I do not like it, but it seems the lesser of two evils.
-
Unfortunatuiely, that someitmes menas we have to give up our liberties.
I'm glad our founding fathers and those who fought to bring forth this great nation didn't think that way.
-
Give me liberty or give me death.
What would that be today, I wonder? Give me liberty--if it's convenient, if mean scawy brown people with an eeeevil religion aren't plotting sometime, somewhere to hurt me.....
-
Unfortunately, that sometimes means we have to give up our liberties.
I'm glad our founding fathers and those who fought to bring forth this great nation didn't think that way.
Ok, so H, if no searches at airports and such were performed, guess what would probably occur? Gimme a break.
-
Some of you guys seem bound and determined to stir up a war with all of Islam on specious (and unChristian) grounds. You will do so only over my metaphorically dead figurative intellectual body.
-
Ok, so H, if no searches at airports and such were performed, guess what would probably occur? Gimme a break.
Let it happen.
Roll back TSA and Homeland Security.
The founders pretty much said you are on your own. Thus the 2nd Amendment.
-
BT, at times you're an embarrassment to this board.
-
Some of you guys seem bound and determined to stir up a war with all of Islam on specious (and unChristian) grounds. You will do so only over my metaphorically dead figurative intellectual body.
Are you then presenting the postion that we should roll back all the recent procedures employed to "protect" us? If so, on what grounds?
-
Are you then presenting the postion that we should roll back all the recent procedures employed to "protect" us? If so, on what grounds?
=======================================
Let's start by ceasing to protect ourselves from one another's shampoo and nailclippers.
-
Ok, I'll buy. Then wnat?
-
BT, at times you're an embarrassment to this board.
How so.
Is security worth the price of liberty?
Are the odds that great that we will suffer another attack and if so is the loss of "freedoms" worth it?
More damage is done by hurricanes than terrorists so what is the deal?
-
If so, on what grounds?
Price performance ratios.
What do these protections cost us in time and money? Does the investment outweigh the "cost" of a terrorist strike.
-
Unfortunatuiely, that someitmes menas we have to give up our liberties.
I'm glad our founding fathers and those who fought to bring forth this great nation didn't think that way.
I'm equally glad there are those who recognize when we have to fight for those freedoms, much like our founders fought for, and to fight an enemy that would wish to see us cease to exist, or at minimum be subjugated to their way of life
-
The Arabs are noted for their habit of gross exaggeration, and this is nothing new.
They may say they want to subjugate the West, but pretty much all of even the most radical know that this will never happen. They were provoked by Israel and the US and US companies and aggressions and invasions into their countries, and will easily settle for just being left the eff alone.
Echoing their inflated rhetoric serves no purpose whatever.
If the US had been a bit more fair with regard to Israel grabbing chunks of Syria and the WB, and stationing US troops who spread Christian propaganda within Saudi Arabia, there would have been no Al Qaeda or "war on terrorism".
-
<<Why are you so reluctant to admit the obvious? Today, in the year 2007, none of the other religions of the world has this huge problem of followers carrying out violent attacks targeting innocent civilians in the name of their religions claiming their motivation is their religion.>>
I could swear I already answered this post earlier in the day, but when I checked through this thread, I didn't find my reply. So I'll try again.
I am not reluctant to admit the obvious. I know that it is not the Methodists or the Mormons who are flying planes into buildings.
I do not believe that "radical Islam" is flying planes into buildings or anywhere else. "Radical Islam" is an ideology or a group of more or less similar ideologies, and ideologies do not fly planes. People fly planes. The people who fly planes into buildings seem to be Muslim. Whether they are "radical Islamists" I am not so sure.
This thread began with a link to a sermon by Sayyed Yusef Tabatabai Nejad ("Nejad.") Presumably an example of "radical Islam." I compared and contrasted Nejad's sermon with the words of Franklin Graham, who I think many conservatives would consider a fairly mainstream American Christian. Nejad's sermon contained neither the violence nor the disparagement of other religions that were readily found in Graham's words.
So I think we first need to agree on what is considered "radical Islam," whether it necessarily includes calls to violence and disrespect of the religions of others.
Secondly, even if we can at least agree that a sermon like Nejad's, with the addition of calls to violence and zero respect shown for other religions, would be "radical Islam," we have to ask ourselves in what way is this "radical Islam" different from or worse than the quoted words of a mainstream Christian like Franklin Graham?
I think that any fair-minded person would have to admit that both "radical Islam" and the Franklin Graham position would look pretty similar on paper - - both intolerant and disrespectful of other religions and both calling for violence against the other. The Professor, though, would probably go further and say something like: "But look - - there are no Christians flying hijacked planes into buildings. There ARE Muslims doing this, and THEY believe in radical Islam." The Professor might even go further and say something like, "Radical Islam promises rewards in the afterlife for this kind of conduct and Christianity promises a one-way ticket to hell for it."
What is the actual responsibility of "radical Islam" for the acts of "terrorism" that have been perpetrated against Americans? I think it is at least possible that for some of the 911 "terrorists" and their backers, "radical Islam" might have convinced them that (a) it was their duty to attack Americans, (b) they should be prepared to sacrifice their lives in the attempt and (c) they would be rewarded in the afterlife for the attack.
So I think we should examine whether in fact "radical Islam" was the prime motivator of the "terrorists" of, for example, Sept. 11: were they moved to act because "radical Islam" had convinced them that (a) it was their duty to attack Americans, (b) they should be prepared to sacrifice their lives in the attempt and (c) they would be rewarded in the afterlife for the attack.
There are numerous difficulties with this theory. First, we don't know if all the participating shuhada actually knew that they were intended to die in the attacks, so it's impossible to state with any certainty that the promise of rewards in the afterlife had any effect at all on them. Secondly, if we assume that "radical Islam" at least persuaded them that it was their duty to attack Americans we have to ask ourselves, on what basis, or with what logic or reasoning could that have been accomplished? Since America did not even exist in Koranic times, the Koranic justification could not have been a simple injunction to attack and kill Americans. The commandment, or justification, would have to be found in some passage dealing with the duty to attack and kill, not just infidels - - because infidels are everywhere, and many are much more vulnerable than Americans - - but infidels of a particular kind, most likely, enemies of the Muslims, enemies of Islam itself, or enemies of God.
In order to be considered as enemies of the Muslims or Islam or God, some demonstrable reason stronger than mere unbelief (IMHO) would have to be demonstrated. It seems painfully obvious to me that the strongest argument that America was an enemy of Muslims (or of Islam or of God) would have to be the continuing forty-year military occupation of the West Bank and the perpetual suffering of the Palestinians under it, conducted by the Jews with the support of the Americans. If anything could inflame an Arab or Muslim that would be it. Nothing to add, nothing to explain - - it's a story that is well-known to every living breathing Muslim Arab. If "radical Islam" preached the destruction of America, I believe its strongest supporting argument is the situation in the West Bank, until recently in the Gaza Strip as well, and the American support of the occupation.
I would also venture to guess that even without the contribution of "radical Islam," the anger generated in the Arab world by the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza strip, and American support of it, would be white-hot. Whether that anger needs the additional motivation of rewards in the after-life to make the transition from mere anger to suicide mission remains to be demonstrated. I would not rule out the possibility in individual cases but to answer the question in the affirmative would still leave some very important issues unresolved.
-
Extremely well-reasoned reply, MT. Thank you for the time it must have taken to formulate your thoughts and report them in this manner.
Hmmm,,,,let me cogitate on this further.....
-
The Arabs are noted for their habit of gross exaggeration, and this is nothing new.....They were provoked by Israel and the US and US companies and aggressions and invasions into their countries, and will easily settle for just being left the eff alone.....If the US had been a bit more fair with regard to Israel grabbing chunks of Syria and the WB, and stationing US troops who spread Christian propaganda within Saudi Arabia, there would have been no Al Qaeda or "war on terrorism".
Good gravy....talk about over-the-top inflated rhetoric ::)
-
Ok, so H, if no searches at airports and such were performed, guess what would probably occur? Gimme a break.
No.
You want to let the government listen in on your phone conversations, hell, why not give them carte blanche to open your mail and read it too. Or just walk into your bedroom anytime they feel like it. Or, hey, here's a thought, let them displace you from your home so they can use it to house all those troops who are just a'clamoring to join up and go to Eye-rack.
As far as the airports, if you want to fly, you have to abide by the rules they laid down for it. I don't fly.
But for the rest, I figure the Constitution of these United States guaranteed everyone in this country (not just American citizens, by the way) certain rights and protections from the government. I intend to fight like hell to keep mine. If you want to roll over and just give yours up, that's up to you.
-
<<I figure the Constitution of these United States guaranteed everyone in this country (not just American citizens, by the way) certain rights and protections from the government. I intend to fight like hell to keep mine. If you want to roll over and just give yours up, that's up to you.>>
Makes a lot of sense. A free society is not a risk-free society. Of course you can have more security if you give up more freedoms, but you need to evaluate (a) the risk and (b) the freedoms about to be sacrificed. If the risk is that tens of millions of Americans will die in an imminent attack, then a fairly significant chunk of freedom might have to be given up. If the risk is that maybe once every six or seven years a bunch of "terrorist" jihadis might get lucky and kill a few thousand Americans, it's just a part of life as a free nation. There are plenty of sinister forces trying to magnify small threats into huge threats precisely so that Constitutional freedoms can be whittled down to size, increasing the control of the monied upper classes over the rest of the country and allowing the "President" a freer hand in foreign policy.
-
"do not believe that "radical Islam" is flying planes into buildings or anywhere else"
no but somebody claiming Islam is the motivation is:
blowing up commuter trains full of innocent civilians in Spain
blowing up commuter trains in England
attacking airports in Glasgow
attacking and killing innocent civilians in theaters and schools in Russia
blowing up russian civilian airliners full of innocent civilians
bombing commuter trains and shopping markets in India
blowing up wedding parties in Jordan
blowing up hotels full of innocent civilians in Egypt
beheading Buddhists in Thailand
Christmas Eve bombings as well as bus depot and airport bombings in the Philippines
blowing up night clubs full of innocents in Bali
bombings of restaurants & hotels full of innocent civilians in Morocco
attacking , burning, and killing policemen & civilians in Nigeria
planting bombs on commuter trains in Germany
all over the world, getting the picture?
and the list could on and on and on and on
"Radical Islam" is an ideology or a group of more or less similar ideologies, and ideologies do not fly planes. People fly planes. The people who fly planes into buildings seem to be Muslim. Whether they are "radical Islamists" I am not so sure.
Oh come on Michael, be honest.
The people doing these horrible deeds targeting innocent civilians are not secret about their motivations.
They readily admit their intent and reason for the "Jihad".
They state their motiviation is Islam.
The deeds are being done, the people doing the deeds admit why, but you are reluctant to accept the reality?
-
<<They state their motiviation is Islam.>>
Here is where I think your whole carefully-concocted thread of fantasies is going to unravel. YOU state their motivation is Islam. I would like to see in their own words what THEY state their motivation is. Not in Daniel Pipes' words, not in Bernard Lewis' words but in their own words.
Until you can show me the words of an actual "terrorist" what his motivation is, I have absolutely no reason to take YOUR word that they are doing it motivated "by Islam." FACTS, CU4, give me some facts.
BTW, your long "laundry list" of various "terrorist" actions: opposite each item, I could indicate a violent anti-Muslim or anti-Islamic act (such as participating in the U.S. invasion of Iraq) for which the "terrorist" action is more or less meant to be retaliatory. The general conclusion to be drawn from your list is simple: Don't fuck with them and they won't fuck with you.
<<and the list could on and on and on and on>>
Bullshit. You were reaching the outer limits when you ran out of examples. I challenge you to make up a second list equally as long as your first without repeating yourself once.
-
<<They state their motiviation is Islam.>>
Here is where I think your whole carefully-concocted thread of fantasies is going to unravel. YOU state their motivation is Islam. I would like to see in their own words what THEY state their motivation is. Not in Daniel Pipes' words, not in Bernard Lewis' words but in their own words.
The problem Tee, is that you have heard them, from fomer terroists, radical Islamists, and Usama himself, prior to and just after 911. A very recent thread gave you 2 intimate references to precisely what you're asking for. You apparently have no problem ignoring the former & rationalizing the latter to comply with your already made up mind that this is all due to U.S. & Israel aggravated foreign policy
-
<<The problem Tee, is that you have heard them, from fomer terroists, radical Islamists, and Usama himself, prior to and just after 911. A very recent thread gave you 2 intimate references to precisely what you're asking for. You apparently have no problem ignoring the former & rationalizing the latter to comply with your already made up mind that this is all due to U.S. & Israel aggravated foreign policy>>
Usama's statement was fairly complex, certainly not the "Islam says do it" simplistic crap that CU4 is trying to peddle here. As far as the two intimate references you are referring to, I really don't recall them. They probably cite as many factors as Usama did.
This should be very simple work for anyone who claims that "radical Islam" makes them do it: show me the proof. Where is the proof?
-
<<The problem Tee, is that you have heard them, from fomer terroists, radical Islamists, and Usama himself, prior to and just after 911. A very recent thread gave you 2 intimate references to precisely what you're asking for. You apparently have no problem ignoring the former & rationalizing the latter to comply with your already made up mind that this is all due to U.S. & Israel aggravated foreign policy>>
Usama's statement was fairly complex, certainly not the "Islam says do it" simplistic crap that CU4 is trying to peddle here.
There's the rationalization effort, on quotes that were pretty cut & dry, regarding jihad & the Great Satan
As far as the two intimate references you are referring to, I really don't recall them.
And there be the active ignoring part. Occurng in a very recent thread that even included in the title that of someone's personal jouney in Rejecting Radical Islam, that I could have swore you posted even in. Your efforts are appreicated.
-
<<There's the rationalization effort, on quotes that were pretty cut & dry, regarding jihad & the Great Satan>>
Really, sirs, what quotes are you referring to? So far, I've seen plenty of your usual BS, not one direct quote.
<<And there be the active ignoring part. Occurng in a very recent thread that even included in the title that of someone's personal jouney in Rejecting Radical Islam, that I could have swore you posted even in. Your efforts are appreicated.>>
More BS. Where are the quotes?
-
Found one of the statements, a "last will" and a message read on al-Jazeera by a 9-11 hijacker in a ante-mortem video, according to the Beeb:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/monitoring/media_reports/1931523.stm
Ahmad al-Haznawi?s last will, read on al-Jazeera:
<<We left our families to send a message, which has the colour of blood, to reach the whole world: the friends and enemies, the near and far, the lofty and humiliated, the honest and the collaborator.
This message says: O Allah, take from our blood today until you are satisfied. O Allah, do not make a grave for our bodies, nor soil to be buried in, nor a tomb to cover them, so that, on the Day of Judgement, they will be blessed with an eternal Paradise - blessed be its Builder. >>
I don't see this as any different from any soldier going into battle on a suicide mission, expecting, even knowing, that he will die. He asks God to accept the sacrifice of his and his buddies' lives and to make a place in heaven for them. Maybe expressed a little more poetically and beautifully than the U.S. "low-hanging fruit" could manage, but not much different in the basic sentiment.
His "statement;"
<<The message says: The time of humiliation and slavery is over.
<<It is time to kill the Americans in their own backyard, among their sons and near their forces and intelligence.
It is time to prove to the whole world that the United States of America has worn a garment, which was not originally made for it, when it merely thought about facing or resisting the mujahideen. >>
This is basically nothing more than saying that the U.S. is too big for its britches. That it needs to be taught a lesson. Again, I wonder how, allowing for the difference between styles of expression, this is all that different from American soldiers speaking for public consumption, of why THEY are in Iraq.
<<The United States is nothing but propaganda and a huge mass of false statements and exaggeration. The purpose of this propaganda was to make the United States big in the eyes of the world. What it wanted has happened.
However, the truth is what you saw. We killed them outside their land, praise be to Allah. Today, we kill them in the midst of their own home. >>
Isn't this just, "They're a bunch of big talkers, bullshit artists. We beat them on our turf and now we beat them on their turf?"
<<O Allah, revive an entire nation by our deaths.>>
Translation: Please God let our sacrifices be an example to the nation.
<< O Allah, I sacrifice myself for your sake, accept me as a martyr. >>
Translation: Please God, let me go to heaven when I die.
<<O Allah, I sacrifice myself for your sake, accept me as a martyr. O Allah, I sacrifice myself for your sake, accept me as a martyr. >>
Just ritual repetition, probably common in their tradition. Americans are always rushing around, they don't have time for repetition.
<<To the Garden of Eden, our first house. We shall meet in the eternal Paradise with the prophets, honest people, martyrs and righteous people. They are the best of companions.>>
We'll meet our loved ones and all the saints in heaven.
<<Praise be to Allah. Allah's peace, mercy and blessings be upon you>>
Praise God. God bless you.
Honest to God, I don't see any evidence of "radical Islam" in the will or the statement. Sounds more to me like a religious guy going to his death, praising God and asking for his mercy.
-
It seems to me that, regardless how "noble" your last will and testament may sound, if you primarily go after civilians (think World Trade Center), then you are in the wrong. The will you listed obviously depicts someone with this goal in mind.
-
<<There's the rationalization effort, on quotes that were pretty cut & dry, regarding jihad & the Great Satan>>
Really, sirs, what quotes are you referring to? So far, I've seen plenty of your usual BS, not one direct quote.
More demonstrating of your rationalizing tactic;
"We should fully understand our religion. Fighting is a part of our religion and our Sharia. Those who love God and his Prophet and this religion cannot deny that. Whoever denies even a minor tenet of our religion commits the gravest sin in Islam."
"Hostility toward America is a religious duty, and we hope to be rewarded for it by God . . . . I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America."
"The pieces of the bodies of infidels were flying like dust particles. If you would have seen it with your own eyes, you would have been very pleased, and your heart would have been filled with joy." following the USS Cole attack
"An Unparalleled And Magnificent Feat Of Valor, Unmatched By Any In Humankind." following the 911 attack
"These attacks (911) took off the skin of the American wolf and they have been left standing in their filthy, naked reality. Thus the whole World awoke from its sleep and the Muslims realized the importance of the belief of loving and hating for the sake of Allah; the ties of brotherhood between the Muslims have become stronger, which is a very good sign and a great step towards the unity of Muslims and establishing the Righteous Islamic Khilafah insha-Allah."
a few more quotes here (http://www.usvetdsp.com/osam_qts.htm)
Go ahead and start rationalizing away
<<And there be the active ignoring part. Occurng in a very recent thread that even included in the title that of someone's personal jouney in Rejecting Radical Islam, that I could have swore you posted even in. Your efforts are appreicated.>>
More BS. Where are the quotes?
More demonstrating of your ignorance;
From Daveed Gartenstein-Ross;
"I began to pray for the mujahedeen, for these stateless warriors who were trying to topple secular governments,"
He got his first taste of radicalization when an imam at a local makeshift mosque blasted Western society. "His argument was that the West was so inherently corrupt, so inherently anti-Islamic, that if we stayed in this society, then inevitably our faith would be eroded,"
Whenever he questioned the rules, his co-workers would tell him his own views were irrelevant. The view was that "your moral inclinations do not matter. All that matters is whether this is what's right according to God's will,"
He converted to Christianity and was eventually baptized in the Baptist church. It was a decision he took extremely seriously because he said his colleagues at Al-Haramain had preached that leaving Islam was punishable by death.
From Hassan Butt;
"By blaming the Government for our actions, those who pushed this "Blair's bombs" line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology. "
"What drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice."
"How do Islamic radicals justify such terror in the name of their religion? There isn't enough room to outline everything here, but the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a model of the world in which you are either a believer or an infidel. Formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion: they are considered to be one and the same."
"What radicals and extremists do is to take this two steps further.
- Their first step has been to argue that, since there is no pure Islamic state, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr (The Land of Unbelief).
- Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world.
Along with many of my former peers, I was taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief. "
Strange how I'm not seeing ANYWHERE quotes by those you rationalize as simply too vague to comprehend or utterly ignore, that reference that what's driving them (Militant/Radical Islam) is egregious U.S. & Israel foreign policy. The closest you get is that Western Civilization/culture is simply corrupt, and is apparently in need of clensing
-
<<It seems to me that, regardless how "noble" your last will and testament may sound, if you primarily go after civilians (think World Trade Center), then you are in the wrong. The will you listed obviously depicts someone in thi situation...
According to Osama bin Laden, since the U.S. is a democracy, all of the civilians vote for and are consequently represented by the U.S. government, which in turn raises money from them and puts it to use by giving it to Jews who are killing Muslims in the West Bank and stealing their land. Therefore the civilians are legitimate targets since they bear moral responsibility for the Muslims fighting for their lands against the Zionist occupation.
You may or may not agree with Osama's reasoning, but they (the so-called "terrorists") obviously do, so in their own eyes they are not doing any wrong. Of course, in YOUR eyes they are doing wrong, but the Jews who kill Muslims in the West Bank are not, nor are the Americans who finance them and support them in other ways as well. In his own eyes, every player is always right and the other side is always wrong. This is a situation from which no progress can ever result.
I think this whole moral judgment thiing in a complex situation like the Arab-Israeli conflict is way overblown. Each side is going to claim to be in the right, and neither side is going to budge. The Arabs have lost a lot of people over the years to the Americans and Israelis - - 500,000 children dead as a result of sanctions, 1 million killed in the Iran-Iraq war, which the U.S. promoted, unknown victims of the SAVAK torture chambers in Iran and the tens of thousands killed in Lebanon and "Palestine" by the Israelis with U.S. backing. The inhumanity is staggering. There's a lot of emotion on that side, same as there is over the 3,000 killed in the Sept. 11 attacks in the U.S.
This finger-pointing is just one of the most useless exercises I can think of. I think the analysis has to start in the present and stop in the present. What are the Arabs/Muslims currently doing to piss off the U.S. and what is the U.S. currently doing to piss off the Arabs/Muslims? I think it's pretty obvious that the continuing irritant in the equation are the occupations of the West Bank, Iraq and Afghanistan and the ongoing slaughter of Muslims by Jews and Americans that result from them. The aggression, oppression and illegality have got to stop, otherwise the situation of a continuing cycle of violence and reprisal will never end.
-
<<More demonstrating of your rationalizing tactic;
<<"We should fully understand our religion. Fighting is a part of our religion and our Sharia. Those who love God and his Prophet and this religion cannot deny that. Whoever denies even a minor tenet of our religion commits the gravest sin in Islam.">>
Really proving nothing. "Fighting is a part of our religion" says nothing. Big part, small part, we don't know. Fighting infidels because they're infidels, fighting your mother-in-law, fighting the New York Yankees, fighting the Jews, fighting the enemies of Islam, fighting those who oppress and kill Muslims? - - doesn't say. Basically to say that fighting is a part of the religion is saying nothing more than that the religion is not pacifistic. BFD. Neither is Christianity. Neither is Judaism.
<<Whoever denies even a minor tenet of our religion commits the gravest sin in Islam.>>
Cool. Whosoever looks lustfully at a woman would be better off tearing out his own right eyeball. I don't see how denying a minor tenet of the religion commits "the gravest sin" in Islam - - how could it be a graver sin than killing Muslims? But all religions abound in these moronic statements. Who the hell but a moron could take any of them seriously. Where is the evidence that this stupid opinion was shared by any so-called "terrorist" or that the 9-11 hijackers were driven to their act because they believed the occupants of the WTC had denied some minor tenets of Islam? This is just pure fucking bullshit. Proves nothing.
"Hostility toward America is a religious duty, and we hope to be rewarded for it by God . . . . I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America.">>
They're hostile to the American superpower that invades Iraq to steal its oil, overthrows the democratically elected Mossadegh government to steal Iran's oil, supports the Jews as they occupy the West Bank and its three million Arabs for 40 years in defiance of UN Resolutions and settle the land while pretending to "negotiate" over it. Who the fuck can blame them. Who needs to be religious to be "hostile to the American superpower?" Why blame the religion, when it's just climbing on the bandwagon?
<<"The pieces of the bodies of infidels were flying like dust particles. If you would have seen it with your own eyes, you would have been very pleased, and your heart would have been filled with joy." following the USS Cole attack>>
This is typical warrior exultation over the destruction of an enemy force. I quoted in another thread from the much more gory and gruesome "Battle of Brunanburh" as translated from the Anglo-Saxon into modern English by Alfred Lord Tennyson. There is nothing particularly religious about this kind of trash-talking, and nothing here to indicate that Muslim religious fervour had motivated the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, which in any event was a MILITARY target and thus quite acceptable as a target.
<<"An Unparalleled And Magnificent Feat Of Valor, Unmatched By Any In Humankind." following the 911 attack>>
Muslim content: zero. Religious content: zero. What the hell are you trying to prove, anyway? Do you even READ this stuff before you post it? Have you any idea what the point is in this thread?
<<"These attacks (911) took off the skin of the American wolf and they have been left standing in their filthy, naked reality. >>
Muslim content: zero. Religious content: zero
<<Thus the whole World awoke from its sleep and the Muslims realized the importance of the belief of loving and hating for the sake of Allah; the ties of brotherhood between the Muslims have become stronger, which is a very good sign and a great step towards the unity of Muslims and establishing the Righteous Islamic Khilafah insha-Allah.">>
Hey, finally! religious content. Islamic content. OK, who said this? More importantly, WHY is "hating for the sake of Allah" important? Because obviously in the Koran, Allah will tell the readers who to hate. Obviously, blind hating of random targets is not "hating for the sake of Allah." So this is a passage which you quoted OUT OF CONTEXT. Why? Because unless you understand the context of the Koran and what it says about hating, you can't possibly understand what "hating for the sake of Allah" means.
Now I know very little of the Koran. And I suspect that if I know very little of it, then YOU must know absolutely nothing of it. So we are neither one of us Koranic experts. But I'm going to give you a chance. One more chance to make a fool of yourself yet again. Want to try to explain to us what this guy meant by "hating for the sake of Allah?" Because I think I do know what he meant. but I'd like to hear you try to explain it first.
-
REgarding sirs' quotes from Hassan Butt and Daveed Gartenstein-Ross - -
First, Hassan Butt, who I did not read. My understanding is that this guy is a poseur and a fringe onlooker. Never got into any so-called "terrorist" group and has no first-hand knowledge whatsoever of the guys who actually put bombs in the subway or fly planes into buildings. Never met them, never had any heart-to-hearts with them and knows nothing about why they do what they do.
The Gartenstein-Ross book I actually DID read and I know that he also has no personal first-hand knowledge of the terrorists or why they do what they do. He was always on the fringes, but once was asked (and refused) to transport a bag (probably filled with cash) illegally on its way to "terrorist" organizations. Or at least to organizations that the U.S. government in its wisdom had designated as "terrorist." His theorizing on who's to blame for "terrorists" attacking Americans are about as valid as yours or mine. Your quotes from Gartenstein-Ross are extremely lame - - they do nothing at all to buttress your own case and by their failure to do so, actually support mine.
-
...religious content. Islamic content. OK, who said this? More importantly, WHY is "hating for the sake of Allah" important?
Asked and answered already. Please pay attention. All those 1st sets of quotes are attributed to Usama alone, as that ws the ignorant wuery you posed. Your effort to minimize their context is your alone. Taken in their totatility paints the direct picture of the radical islamic mindset, attributed to the fella that many believe is the "leader" of it. I mean, your rationalizations efforts are being stretched to their thinnest, like referring to those who had intimate understanding of the ideology as apparent fringe onlookers, with lame comments.
Funny how you seem to have no problem connecting non-existant dots as to Bush supposedly lying us into war, how it's all for the oil, or how our military is supposedly a bunch of raping torturing low hanging fruit, dren like that, yet it would seem, despite all the quotes you rationalize or minimize away, the only thing you're going to accept in noting the radical Islamic mindset, their ideolgy, and their goals, is a sworn avidavit from Usama on precisely his position, and only then, as long as there are 2 witnesses, perhaps from CAIR, to vouch for its authenticity
-
Did it ever occur to you that Osama and many other so-called "terrorists" might be simply people who have become very, very pissed off at things which they believe America has done to Muslims, and that their religion tells them they SHOULD be pissed off?
In other words, that their religion simply reinforces the resentment they feel, rather than creates it?
Maybe the question I should have just asked you way back when is: How would you define "radical Islam" and how is it different from just plain "Islam?"
And another question: If you know there are a whole bunch of Middle Eastern Arabs who very badly want to rip your head off, why is it so important to prove that they believe in "radical Islam?" Would it make any difference if they still wanted to rip off your head but had recently abandoned Islam and become Zoroastrians?
-
Did it ever occur to you that Osama and many other so-called "terrorists" might be simply people who have become very, very pissed off at things which they believe America has done to Muslims, and that their religion tells them they SHOULD be pissed off?
Strange how the quotes I posted, including those of Usama's fails to present YOUR point of view. In other words, they mean what they say vs what you think they really mean. Did THAT ever occur to you?
Maybe the question I should have just asked you way back when is: How would you define "radical Islam" and how is it different from just plain "Islam?"
That's easy. Islam, is a religion founded on the teachings of Muhammad. It would seem to be a persoanl giving of one's self to the Muslim God, Allah, though you should ask Miss Henny for specifics. And despite your warped notion of thinking I condemn all those who are Muslim/Islam, those that simply practice said religion are largely just your normal of the mill folk, just like any other religious person, be it Christian, Jew, Wiccan, or whatever. Radical Islam, as has been defined adnauseum around here, are those who have mutated those message from the Koran, and have adopted an all or nothing goal of bringing about a Muslim led world, where you are either Muslim, you convert to it, you are subjugated by it, or you die. It's been referenced many a time by those very folks such as Usama, and the 2 other commentators who had an intimate connection to it. It are THOSE folks I have a problem with. The ones that would wish to deprive me of my life & liberty as a non-Muslim. NOT Muslims in general
If you know there are a whole bunch of Middle Eastern Arabs who very badly want to rip your head off, why is it so important to prove that they believe in "radical Islam?"
Because it's the Islamic religion they're radicalizing, perhaps?? ::) Way to try and downplay it, though
Would it make any difference if they still wanted to rip off your head but had recently abandoned Islam and become Zoroastrians?
Only in designating them as being radical Zoroastrians, ...........whatever religion that is
-
<<From Hassan Butt;
"By blaming the Government for our actions, those who pushed this "Blair's bombs" line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology. ">>
Right away, you can see why the British and U.S. War Parties and the Zionists will LOVE this guy. He just totally washes away the idea that that the West may have done anything to excite retaliatory violence against it, and places the blame for "terrorism" squarely where it belongs, on the so-called "terrorists" themselves. The "real engine" of "our violence" is "Islamic theology." It's actually pretty familiar tactically - - blame the victim!
<<"What drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice.">>
Implying of course that they live in a world where the LACK of justice must be appalling. But naturally, ZERO effort to explore what particular injustices in the world drove them to rebel in search of Islamic justice.
<<"How do Islamic radicals justify such terror in the name of their religion? There isn't enough room to outline everything here, but the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a model of the world in which you are either a believer or an infidel. >>
True enough, but there have always been infidels. Why now "terrorism?"
<<Formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion: they are considered to be one and the same.">>
Got it.
<<"What radicals and extremists do is to take this two steps further.
- Their first step has been to argue that, since there is no pure Islamic state, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr (The Land of Unbelief).>>
Cool. Makes some kinda sense. They've got an idea of an Islamic State but there's no state on earth that lives up to their ideal, so none of them are any good.
<<- Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world.>>
OK I got that too. ALSO make sense.
<<Along with many of my former peers, I was taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief. ">>
This is total bullshit, man. Even if the world is a LAND of unbelief there are plenty of true believers scattered. The preacher MUST have permitted only the destruction of infidel life, not Muslim life, even if that Muslim life was being lived on a Land of Unbelief.
-
<<Strange how the quotes I posted, including those of Usama's fails to present YOUR point of view. In other words, they mean what they say vs what you think they really mean. Did THAT ever occur to you?>>
No, because I just finished demonstrating how, taken by themselves, they couldn't possibly mean anything. For example, "fighting is part of our religion" is meaningless - - big part, little part, WHAT part? Fight who? everybody?
That's the problem generally when you quote out of context.
--------------------------------------
<<Radical Islam, as has been defined ad nauseum around here, are those who have mutated those message from the Koran, and have adopted an all or nothing goal of bringing about a Muslim led world, where you are either Muslim, you convert to it, you are subjugated by it, or you die. >>
OK, thank you.
<<It's been referenced many a time by those very folks such as Usama . . . >>
Yeah? Osama believed in that? Not in revenging past injustices? Where did he say that?
----------------------------------------------------------------
MT's question: <<If you know there are a whole bunch of Middle Eastern Arabs who very badly want to rip your head off, why is it so important to prove that they believe in "radical Islam?">>
sirs' answer: <<Because it's the Islamic religion they're radicalizing, perhaps?? >>
If you can prove that they believe in "radical Islam" then you feel you have established the reason for their hostility to you?
If the answer to the last question is "yes," then would you feel it would be useful to know what led them to believe in "radical Islam?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
You really are, THAT obtuse. And like any public defender, your whole effort in the quotes refernce is to try and pick apart each one, and completely disregard everything else meaning THE CONTEXT of what the quotes refer to. (notice how he claims there are no quotes that would demonstrate the mindset & ideological agenda of radical Islam, then ignores them, then when faced at how transparently clear they are, has to try and pick them apart as if each quote alone is all that's been said regarding the ideolgy of radical Islam). You can play that game to your heart's content. The rest of those with a rational mind can distinquish between your preconceived notion of what is is, and what reality is. Gads, talk about a phobia of connecting dots when they fly in the face of what's supposed to be
Oh, and BTW, regarding your radical Islam query, you asked how I define radical Islam, not how a radical Islamist would, nor that they are advocating "radical Islam". To them, it's just Islam. Capice'?
-
Only in designating them as being radical Zoroastrians, ...........whatever religion that is
Seriously, it is a very interesting religion and one of the oldest Monotheist religions in history (rivalling Judaism as the oldest). It is worth learning about and it influenced many other faiths, including some Christian sects.
-
<<And like any public defender, your whole effort in the quotes refernce is to try and pick apart each one, and completely disregard everything else meaning THE CONTEXT of what the quotes refer to.>>
My point was that your quotes obviously lacked context. When I say "obviously" I mean that there are questions of interpretation legitimately raised by the quotes themselves that cannot be answered by the material quoted, so the answers must be found elsewhere, i.e. outside of the quoted material. Where the answers are found would constitute the context that your quotes were lacking. (context: con = with, text = text; context is just additional information or text without which the text in question cannot be understood; so context is text that goes with (con) the original text. As in chili con carne; chili with meat.
<<(notice how he claims there are no quotes that would demonstrate the mindset & ideological agenda of radical Islam,>>
Uhh, scuse me, that's not what I claimed. YOU claimed that the so-called "terrorists" were motivated by "radical Islam" and I challenged you to find quotes from them that proved your point.
<<then ignores them,>>
I thought I dealt with them in some detail - - how did I "ignore" them?
<< then when faced at how transparently clear they are >>
They certainly were not, mostly they were taken out of context
<< has to try and pick them apart as if each quote alone is all that's been said regarding the ideolgy of radical Islam)>>
Ridiculous. I can only analyze the material that is presented, some of which I had to go out and find myself just to see whether there was anything at all to your point. It's the oldest trick in the book to produce quotes which, when they are found NOT to say what you claim they said, to claim, oh but there's lots more out there, I didn't give you everything. As in cards, so in debate: put up or shut up. If you have other supporting statements available, let's see 'em. Otherwise, how can we possibly have any kind of intelligent conversation about them?
<<You can play that game to your heart's content. The rest of those with a rational mind can distinquish between your preconceived notion of what is is, and what reality is. >>
Better just speak for yourself, sirs. Outside of a few right-wing fruitbats here in this group, I can't think of too many people I know who attribute all anti-American hostility in the Middle East to irrational relgious fanaticism rather than to very justifiable anger over American and Israeli actions in the region.
<< Gads, talk about a phobia of connecting dots when they fly in the face of what's supposed to be>>
Yeah, YOURS.
<<Oh, and BTW, regarding your radical Islam query, you asked how I define radical Islam, not how a radical Islamist would, nor that they are advocating "radical Islam". To them, it's just Islam. Capice'?>>
Well, I asked how YOU defined it because you are the one I was debating it with, not them. So I'm cool with all that.