NationStates Jolt Archive

Muslim clerics in Spain have issued what they called the world's first fatwa, or Islamic edict, against Osama bin Laden as the country marked the first anniversary of the Madrid train bombings that killed 191 people.

They accused him of abandoning his religion and urged others of their faith to denounce the al Qaeda leader, who is believed to be hiding out near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

The ruling was issued by the Islamic Commission of Spain, the main body representing the country's 1 million-member Muslim community. The commission invited imams to condemn terrorism at Friday prayers.

The fatwa said that according to the Koran "the terrorist acts of Osama bin Laden and his organization al Qaeda ... are totally banned and must be roundly condemned as part of Islam."

Quoted from CNN.com

This isn't the first time Muslim's have denounced terrorism, but it is refreshing to read on a corporately controlled and government regulated news site.

This isn't the first time Muslim's have denounced terrorism, but it is refreshing to read on a corporately controlled and government regulated news site.

It is, however, the first fatwa. That makes it semi-official, at least from the point of view of that group of clerics. What other clerics may think - well, they haven't issued any fatwas yet.

Finally, they have been so universal in their distrust of the US, that they have failed to notice how big of a threat Bin Laden actually is to their standing geo politically.

While I applaud their action now, where was it 3 years ago? What they are saying is it's ok to kill 3000 Americans on the other side of the Atlantic, but kill 191 here in our country and now we'll condemn you. Seems more than a little self centered to me.

While I applaud their action now, where was it 3 years ago? What they are saying is it's ok to kill 3000 Americans on the other side of the Atlantic, but kill 191 here in our country and now we'll condemn you. Seems more than a little self centered to me.
Yeah, but when spain got hit they immediately did exactly what the terrorists asked, so they're good people. When the US was hit we hit back, which makes us evil. So clearly these good upstanding people will have more sympathy for the Spanish.

Yeah, but when spain got hit they immediately did exactly what the terrorists asked, so they're good people. When the US was hit we hit back, which makes us evil.

I think the world should be pleasantly surprised. If I had been President, it would still be too radioactive to go into Afghanistan.

I hope this is followed up by other muslim groups. It seems a good idea, as it will hopefully massively degrade his support from true muslims.

And, of course, he stands a fairly good chance of being eliminated - it is a religious bounty on his head and he hangs out with a lot of people desperate to collect a bounty of that sort.

If by "hit back" you mean arrest twelve year old boys, deport them to Cuba so they can be legally tortured and bomb the hell out of a country that had absolutely no ability to project military power beyond it's borders...

Well sure, hitting back makes you evil.

By the way, we kind of ****ed up Afghanistan too, which is run by drug lords with the exception of a few large cities.

I think the world should be pleasantly surprised. If I had been President, it would still be too radioactive to go into Afghanistan.
Same here.

By the way, we kind of ****ed up Afghanistan too, which is run by drug lords with the exception of a few large cities.

Drug lords (or warlords, as they are more colloquially known) have always run Afghanistan.

It's been the number one producer of opium in the world, even when the Taliban were in power.

We came to remove the Taliban - not to solve the drug problem overnight.

If by "hit back" you mean arrest twelve year old boys, deport them to Cuba so they can be legally tortured and bomb the hell out of a country that had absolutely no ability to project military power beyond it's borders...

Well sure, hitting back makes you evil.

By the way, we kind of ****ed up Afghanistan too, which is run by drug lords with the exception of a few large cities.
We eliminated the threat in Afghanistan. That was our major objective. Helping the Afghan people is a noble goal, but a secondary one.

Drug lords (or warlords, as they are more colloquially known) have always run Afghanistan.

It's been the number one producer of opium in the world, even when the Taliban were in power.

We came to remove the Taliban - not to solve the drug problem overnight.
If I recall, the drug problem went up after we removed the Taliban

We eliminated the threat in Afghanistan. That was our major objective. Helping the Afghan people is a noble goal, but a secondary one.
Then we have no business controlling the country if we have no interest in doing anything besides control the country. The US is a self-righteous country interested in empire building, other countries grew out of that crap, we continue to do it directly and indirectly.

HAH.

When the most powerful country in the world can't defend itself with the largest military in the world without passing laws that violate it's constitution and civil rights laid out by it's founding fathers, there is a problem.

HAH.

When the most powerful country in the world can't defend itself with the largest military in the world without passing laws that violate it's constitution and civil rights laid out by it's founding fathers, there is a problem.
We could just deport all muslims and close our borders. Then we return to a pre 9/11 state. I think we chose the solution that interfears with freedom least.

Then we have no business controlling the country if we have no interest in doing anything besides control the country. The US is a self-righteous country interested in empire building, other countries grew out of that crap, we continue to do it directly and indirectly.

And I suppose that you could, if you had our current assets in Afghanistan, stop the drug trade tomorrow?

I'm sure it's something that is being worked on - but you're expecting results yesterday, or in your words, the US is engaged in crap.

And I suppose that you could, if you had our current assets in Afghanistan, stop the drug trade tomorrow?

I'm sure it's something that is being worked on - but you're expecting results yesterday, or in your words, the US is engaged in crap.
For the last time, please refute things relevantly. That part of the post was COMPLETELY irrelevant to the afghani drug trade, it was in response to the post made by the guy I quoted, who wasn't you.

I think the world should be pleasantly surprised. If I had been President, it would still be too radioactive to go into Afghanistan.
yes...that would certainly stop people joining terrorist groups with the aim of attacking the US...

HAH.

When the most powerful country in the world can't defend itself with the largest military in the world without passing laws that violate it's constitution and civil rights laid out by it's founding fathers, there is a problem.

Er? You want the military as the police/security guards everywhere?

HAH.

When the most powerful country in the world can't defend itself with the largest military in the world without passing laws that violate it's constitution and civil rights laid out by it's founding fathers, there is a problem.

Actually, if you consider that the Supreme Court upheld the detention of thousands of American citizens who just happened to be of Japanese descent for purposes of national security, it would not be illegal AT ALL to round up every Muslim in the United States.

I'll repeat that: it would not be a violation of the US Constitution (according to Supreme Court precedence) to round up Muslims and put them in camps for the duration of the conflict.

Go ahead and laugh now. Here's what the Supreme Court said:

Distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality. For that reason, legislative classification or discrimination based on race alone has often been held to be a denial of equal protection. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 , 6 S.Ct. 1064; Yu Cong Eng v. Trinidad, 271 U.S. 500 , 46 S.Ct. 619; Hill v. Texas, 316 U.S. 400 , 62 S.Ct. 1159. We may assume that these considerations would be controlling here were it not for the fact that the danger of espionage and sabotage, in time of war and of threatened invasion, calls upon the military authorities to scrutinize every relevant fact bearing on the loyalty of populations in the danger areas. Because racial discriminations are in most circumstances irrelevant and therefore prohibited, it by no means follows that, in dealing with the perils of war, Congress and the Executive are wholly precluded from taking into account those facts and circumstances which are relevant to measures for our national defense and for the successful prosecution of the war, and which may in fact place citizens of one ancestry in a different category from others. 'We must never forget, that it is a constitution we are expounding', 'a constitution intended to endure for ages to come, and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human [320 U.S. 81, 101] affairs'. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 407, 415. The adoption by Government, in the crisis of war and of threatened invasion, of measures for the public safety, based upon the recognition of facts and circumstances which indicate that a group of one national extraction may menace that safety more than others, is not wholly beyond the limits of the Constitution and is not to be condemned merely because in other and in most circumstances racial distinctions are irrelevant. Cf. State of Ohio ex rel. Clarke v. Deckebach, 274 U.S. 392 , 47 S.Ct. 630, and cases cited.

I'm shocked by the naivety that a lot of you display on this forum.... I don't agree with what Osama Bin Laden has done, but the reason he has so many followers is because of what the West, and primarily the USA, have done to them and their society.

Terrorism isn't caused by Osama Bin Laden. It was, and still is, being caused by the actions of your 'great country'; Osama Bin Laden has just organised that resentment, and fought back. Wow, he must be evil, if he fights back at people that he doesn't agree with... and so it must obviously follow with your twisted logic that Bush is the pinnacle of goodness if he fights back at people he doesn't agree with.

Oh wait, doesn't agree with? That's strange... the Bush family have very, very good relations with the Bin Laden family! Strange that, almost as strange as the way that he attacked Iraq after terrorists from Afghanistan committed 9/11! Especially when he was 'worried' about the weapons that Iraq had... wait, we sold them the weapons! And at the same time, we were also selling weapons to Iran! Whilst they were fighting each other!

Also very strange, after 9/11 both the American and English governments implemented legislation giving the government and police much heightened powers to snoop into our lives and detain us at will, regardless if we were suspected of terrorism or not...

I could go on....

I'm shocked by the naivety that a lot of you display on this forum....

I'm shocked by the naivety of a person who would believe what he saw in a Michael Moore film...

yes...that would certainly stop people joining terrorist groups with the aim of attacking the US...
It would stop them one way or another. They would either stop out of fear of nuclear genocide, or stop as a result of a nuclear genocide.

My first gut reaction to the 9/11 attacks was that I wanted every nation responsible nuked. That was the initial reaction of most Americans, I think. Naturally the government took it's time and came up with a better solution.

I'm shocked by the naivety of a person who would believe what he saw in a Michael Moore film...
I'm shocked at the fact you can spot and know things that are in Michael Moore films yet despise him and can't figure out who and what I am replying to in my posts.

I'm shocked by the naivety that a lot of you display on this forum.... I don't agree with what Osama Bin Laden has done, but the reason he has so many followers is because of what the West, and primarily the USA, have done to them and their society.

Terrorism isn't caused by Osama Bin Laden. It was, and still is, being caused by the actions of your 'great country'; Osama Bin Laden has just organised that resentment, and fought back. Wow, he must be evil, if he fights back at people that he doesn't agree with... and so it must obviously follow with your twisted logic that Bush is the pinnacle of goodness if he fights back at people he doesn't agree with.

Oh wait, doesn't agree with? That's strange... the Bush family have very, very good relations with the Bin Laden family! Strange that, almost as strange as the way that he attacked Iraq after terrorists from Afghanistan committed 9/11! Especially when he was 'worried' about the weapons that Iraq had... wait, we sold them the weapons! And at the same time, we were also selling weapons to Iran! Whilst they were fighting each other!

Also very strange, after 9/11 both the American and English governments implemented legislation giving the government and police much heightened powers to snoop into our lives and detain us at will, regardless if we were suspected of terrorism or not...

I could go on....
Al Quaeda wasn't righting wrongs against oppressed people. Their strategy was to weaken and frighten the USA so it would remove support for the governments of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. Al Quaeda would then try to establish an arab Islamic state in those areas that would have been much like the Taliban, but with oil money and more military hardware. They then would have spread their ideology through violence elsewhere in the Middle East and into the rest of the world. Their goal is to put as much of the world under sharia law as possible. If you don't feel like making a choice between converting to Islam or living as a second class citizen then you should thank the USA for fighting Al Quaeda.

It would stop them one way or another. They would either stop out of fear of nuclear genocide, or stop as a result of a nuclear genocide.
a suicide bomber going to attack the US isnt going to care much about being killed, they will just want to attack the US...and nuking a muslim nation like Afghanistan with a government which was seen to be a very religious would just make more people want to sign up

My first gut reaction to the 9/11 attacks was that I wanted every nation responsible nuked. That was the initial reaction of most Americans, I think. Naturally the government took it's time and came up with a better solution.
just as well youre not the government then ;)

a suicide bomber going to attack the US isnt going to care much about being killed, they will just want to attack the US...and nuking a muslim nation like Afghanistan with a government which was seen to be a very religious would just make more people want to sign up


just as well youre not the government then ;)
I'd wager a suicide bomber does care about his parents, his wife, his children, all his friends, his community, his nation, his people in general. The idea is you kill a few of us, we exterminate all of you.

I could go on....
Please don't. Your ignorance and presumtiveness are offensive.

You said...

I'm shocked by the naivety of a person who would believe what he saw in a Michael Moore film...

Survey said!

<ding>

Number one answer!!

I'd wager a suicide bomber does care about his parents, his wife, his children, all his friends, his community, his nation, his people in general. The idea is you kill a few of us, we exterminate all of you.
an idea that wouldnt work...not with the uber-crazy suicide bombers

I'm shocked at the fact you can spot and know things that are in Michael Moore films yet despise him and can't figure out who and what I am replying to in my posts.
Unfortunately, most of what Mike puts in his films is distorted, false, exaggerated, or fallacious.

Even he admits that he doesn't have to make things in his films "true". He admits that his films are entertainment.

If Ann Coulter were a filmmaker, I'm sure she would have just as many distortions, lies, exaggerations, and fallacies in her films as well.

People who would rather take the word of a polemicist at face value and worship their assertions as fact are in a word, "naive".

Christopher Hitchens woke up - why can't you?

I'm shocked by the naivety of a person who would believe what he saw in a Michael Moore film...
Is that were he got that incredible wierdness from? No WONDER it almost made me puke!

Unfortunately, most of what Mike puts in his films is distorted, false, exaggerated, or fallacious.

Even he admits that he doesn't have to make things in his films "true". He admits that his films are entertainment.

If Ann Coulter were a filmmaker, I'm sure she would have just as many distortions, lies, exaggerations, and fallacies in her films as well.

People who would rather take the word of a polemicist at face value and worship their assertions as fact are in a word, "naive".

Christopher Hitchens woke up - why can't you?
And you prove my point yet again, bravisimo.

an idea that wouldnt work...not with the uber-crazy suicide bombers
It works whether it intimidates them into behaving, or it kills them and their kind off.

It works whether it intimidates them into behaving, or it kills them and their kind off.
youd end up nuking most of the middle east

youd end up nuking most of the middle east
Ok, I have no problem with that.

Ok, I have no problem with that.
wouldnt be good for the oil business though

wouldnt be good for the oil business though
There are more important things than wealth.

Within the memory of the youngest child there was a family of rabbits who lived near a pack of wolves. The wolves announced that they did not like the way the rabbits were living. (The wolves were crazy about the way they themselves were living, because it was the only way to live.) One night several wolves were killed in an earthquake and this was blamed on the rabbits, for it is well known that rabbits pound on the ground with their hind legs and cause earthquakes. On another night one of the wolves was killed by a bolt of lightning and this was also blamed on the rabbits, for it is well known that lettuce-eaters cause lightning. The wolves threatened to civilize the rabbits if they didn't behave, and the rabbits decided to run away to a desert island. But the other animals, who lived at a great distance, shamed them saying, "You must stay where you are and be brave. This is no world for escapists. If the wolves attack you, we will come to your aid in all probability." So the rabbits continued to live near the wolves and one day there was a terrible flood which drowned a great many wolves. This was blamed on the rabbits, for it is well known that carrot-nibblers with long ears cause floods. The wolves descended on the rabbits, for their own good, and imprisoned them in a dark cave, for their own protection.
When nothing was heard about the rabbits for some weeks, the other animals demanded to know what had happened to them. The wolves replied that the rabbits had been eaten and since they had been eaten the affair was a purely internal matter. But the other animals warned that they might possibly unite against the wolves unless some reason was given for the destruction of the rabbits. So the wolves gave them one. "They were trying to escape," said the wolves, "and, as you know, this is no world for escapists."

Moral: Run, don't walk, to the nearest desert island.

There are more important things than wealth.
its not just about wealth...its about the people youd put out of a job when the world goes into massive recession, the people who die because they dont have any food...

you should nuke the places that dont have oil, and just invade the ones that do

Although I have watched the Michael Moore film, and found it interesting, I also know a lot of it was exagerated, and not all of it true. What I put in my post wasn't quotes from the film, it was a well thought about opinion that has culminated over many years, from a lot of reading and research, including my Law Degree, and many discussions with notable Judges and Politicians here in England. I have written essays on the selling of weapons that was both to Iraq and Iran whilst they were at war, and on the legislation that my government put through after 9/11, and I know the facts a lot more than someone who has watched the Michael Moore movie, discredited it fully because of some exageration, then ignorantly posted on here the opposite quotes of what they heard whilst watching the movie.

Don't insult me.

its not just about wealth...its about the people youd put out of a job when the world goes into massive recession, the people who die because they dont have any food...

you should nuke the places that dont have oil, and just invade the ones that do
How about we just nuke their major population centers and use conventional weapons and troops against the smaller villages and places near the oil fields. Does that make you feel better?

How about we just nuke their major population centers and use conventional weapons and troops against the smaller villages and places near the oil fields. Does that make you feel better?
thats a good idea

but make sure you get the oil fields before you go after the villagers, you dont want anyone torching the oil fields...then feel free to massacre villagers, nobodys going to care once the cities get nuked

Terrorism isn't caused by Osama Bin Laden. It was, and still is, being caused by the actions of your 'great country'; Osama Bin Laden has just organised that resentment, and fought back. Wow, he must be evil, if he fights back at people that he doesn't agree with... and so it must obviously follow with your twisted logic that Bush is the pinnacle of goodness if he fights back at people he doesn't agree with.

The architecture of the Twin Towers was not that bad. . .

And they don't have to build skyscrapers in the Middle East, they can stick to sand castles.

Therefore I don't think that fighting back at what he disagrees with was good justification, condoning a mass murder over an issue of taste is definetly a twisted logic.

Wow, he must be evil, if he fights back at people that he doesn't agree with.

That really bugs me; did Osama meet these peoples and fall out with them? Or was it ok for him to scape-goat a few individuals over the actions of government. I wouldn't be too bothered if they wanted to target politicians, they're the ones who put themselves up for target. However they chose innocents who are just trying to get to work, or earn a living to put food on the table. Can't exactly disagree with that.

I disagree with a lot of people though, but do I kill them? I disagree with Tony Blair's House Arrest ****; his actions do affect my life after all. . . (ironically the only one terrorising this country), but I came to the conclusion (as most do at a very young age), that mass murder is not the best way to get what you want. After all, if I killed my parents, who would cook me dinner and give me pocket money for penny sweets.

Yeah, but when spain got hit they immediately did exactly what the terrorists asked, so they're good people. When the US was hit we hit back, which makes us evil. So clearly these good upstanding people will have more sympathy for the Spanish.
Fool, it wasn't a matter of Spain doing what terrorists wanted. The Iraq War was extremely unpopular in Spain, and 3 days after the attack the Spanish elected a new government. The Socialist party, who comprised the new government had always been against the war, and pulling troops out of Iraq was on their agenda before March 11th.

Same here.
Warmongering American simpletons. If Timothy McVeigh had bombed Karachi in Pakistan, killing thousands of people there, do you think it would be justified for the Pakistani government to nuke Washington, DC?

Fool, it wasn't a matter of Spain doing what terrorists wanted. The Iraq War was extremely unpopular in Spain, and 3 days after the attack the Spanish elected a new government. The Socialist party, who comprised the new government had always been against the war, and pulling troops out of Iraq was on their agenda before March 11th.
Fool, I wasn't discussing the actual motivations of the Spanish people, I was discussing what I beleive the perception of the descision was among Islamists. I pity the fool who don't know that.

Warmongering American simpletons. If Timothy McVeigh had bombed Karachi in Pakistan, killing thousands of people there, do you think it would be justified for the Pakistani government to nuke Washington, DC?
I'm not so worried about what's justified. If Pakistan could get away with it I'm sure they would have considered it. America can get away with it. I'm sure our government considered it.