speaking of knocking on your door

[Michael Tee]

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It is time to prove to the whole world that the United States of America has worn a garment, which was not originally made for it, when it merely thought about facing or resisting the mujahideen.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.

[The_Professor]

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.

[sirs]

<<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

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

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[Michael Tee]

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.

[sirs]

...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

[Michael Tee]

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?

[sirs]

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

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[sirs]

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'?

[_JS]

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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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.