NationStates Jolt Archive

Come get it out of your system here.

The response to... Terrorism.

Forgive them and then sit down and talk with them.

In response: Blow them up! Then send a strongly-worded memo. (If any of you watch Mad-TV, you'll get it)

Forgive them and then sit down and talk with them.

Am I to assume there will be punch and pie? People won't come unless they think there'll be punch and pie.

Am I to assume there will be punch and pie? People won't come unless they think there'll be punch and pie.

If punch and pie is required to bring about a temporary cessation of military activities, then yes, I reckon we should stretch to punch and pie.

I'd follow the lines of the urban legend about how General John Pershing supposedly dealt with terrorists in the Phillippines.

Tactics? I say we throw the ball on second down.

Wow. This very discussion was getting heated to the point of no return in the other thread...are people so loathe to move?

I'd follow the lines of the urban legend about how General John Pershing supposedly dealt with terrorists in the Phillippines.

Uh-huh. Killing the spear-carriers solves the problems at the root of terrorism. Sure.

1) Get over the squeamishness about monitoring what's taught in mosques and religious schools. If a criminal conspiracy is being hidden behind religion it's still a criminal conspiracy.

2) Tighten the borders to visitors/immigrants from problem nations like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, etc.

3) Use economic and political leverage to force nations that spread terrorist ideology to cut it out. I'm looking at you Saudi Arabia.

4) Use military action when foreign countries don't seem to be doing enough to help stop global terrorism.

Those are some of my ideas. What do you guys think?

Tactics? I say we throw the ball on second down.

Only if it's second and long. You can always try a run on second and short and, if you don't get it, you can come back for the third and try something else.

1) Get over the squeamishness about monitoring what's taught in mosques and religious schools. If a criminal conspiracy is being hidden behind religion it's still a criminal conspiracy.

2) Tighten the borders to visitors/immigrants from problem nations like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, etc.

3) Use economic and political leverage to force nations that spread terrorist ideology to cut it out. I'm looking at you Saudi Arabia.

4) Use military action when foreign countries don't seem to be doing enough to help stop global terrorism.

Those are some of my ideas. What do you guys think?

bolded is racial profiling... and heaven forbid we racially profile people who look to be of middle eastern descent. :rolleyes: Gotta watch out for those grannies in a wheel chair. However, i believe they are good ideas. As far as #3, Saudi has stepped up some in curbing their radical fundamentalists, killing one just recently i think. and i remember hearing of several different shootouts.

1) Get over the squeamishness about monitoring what's taught in mosques and religious schools. If a criminal conspiracy is being hidden behind religion it's still a criminal conspiracy.


This leads to an interpretive conflict, though. I mean, I suppose a person could just go hang out in the mosques and see what's up (mostly a lot of feet washing and butts in the air, but that's something else all together) but how would they know what to listen for?

I've never once heard anything that could even be remotely construed as a plot to steal everyone's left shoe, but who knows what you'll hear if you're in there for a preconceived purpose.

bolded is racial profiling... and heaven forbid we racially profile people who look to be of middle eastern descent. :rolleyes: Gotta watch out for those grannies in a wheel chair. However, i believe they are good ideas. As far as #3, Saudi has stepped up some in curbing their radical fundamentalists, killing one just recently i think. and i remember hearing of several different shootouts.
Saudi only seems to get serious about anti-terrorism when terrorists decide to operate inside the kingdom. Otherwise Saudi doesn't seem to worry much about spreading the ideology, funds, and personell that cause terrorism outside it's borders.

1) Get over the squeamishness about monitoring what's taught in mosques and religious schools. If a criminal conspiracy is being hidden behind religion it's still a criminal conspiracy. I would assume there are already 'plants' in such places...no? Making it more obvious probably wouldn't work, it might in fact drive conspiracies further underground.

2) Tighten the borders to visitors/immigrants from problem nations like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, etc. I sadly agree. I hate that innocent people are being blamed or targeted because of the actions of militants...but just as we sanction nations with poor human rights records, I think we need to sanction nations that are not actively, and seriously dealing with terrorists within their own borders.

3) Use economic and political leverage to force nations that spread terrorist ideology to cut it out. I'm looking at you Saudi Arabia.
Yes. I think this would go hand in hand with the above idea. But they need to be more effective than sanctions normally are. I'm not sure how to do that.

4) Use military action when foreign countries don't seem to be doing enough to help stop global terrorism. I'm not sure about this. Are you talking fullscale war again? (akin to Iraq, with major troop deployment I mean). Does the manpower exist to effectively do this? Is it worth the risk? Look how many American troops and civilians have died in the conflict...now imagine trying to stretch your resources over more area...

This leads to an interpretive conflict, though. I mean, I suppose a person could just go hang out in the mosques and see what's up (mostly a lot of feet washing and butts in the air, but that's something else all together) but how would they know what to listen for?

I've never once heard anything that could even be remotely construed as a plot to steal everyone's left shoe, but who knows what you'll hear if you're in there for a preconceived purpose.
On the other hand you've got guys like that one-eyed, hooks for hands fella that the British arrested a few months back who's said things like "If an unbeleiver comes into muslim lands he's like a cow. You can take him and sell him (into slavery). If you can't sell him you can kill him." I forget that particular bipedal cockroach's name.

If you hear stuff like that you know you've stumbled onto the enemy. The monitoring can be done secretly. Bugs, undercover agents, etc. so that they won't notice a new face and tone the sermon down that particular day.

Only if it's second and long. You can always try a run on second and short and, if you don't get it, you can come back for the third and try something else.
Nah, the defense will be expecting that. They'll toughen up on the D-Line and the secondary will back off. But I guess it also depends how short, anything above 4 yards is called for a short pass.

Condolences to London. I hope you find effective methods to deal with this and don't go "YeeHaw, lets bomb Saudi Arabia" like some country I know. *looks in selfs direction*

Stop our abusive "fair trade".

Provide massive funding to problem nations, but personally oversee the spending.

Start competing and hostile alternatives to religious cults like Al Quida. The US is very very good at this. Fabricate some competing cults, who's vision of Jihad is to kill people who kill civilians. Be sure to surgically insert gps tracking and explosives in their bodies when you invite them to the US to teach them how to be good terrorists. Nobody wants another mess like Al Quida.

Undermine the problematic nations economies and have IMF demand we be allowed to make free secular education in return for monetary aid.

Ship the entire US religious rightwing to the middle east.

Stop exploiting the 3rd world in general.

Use force and make 2 countries instead of 1 Israel and a few million oppressed Palestinians. Shoot the Israeli rightwing and kill off the entire PA.

If all else fails, drop a fucking nuke.

1) Get over the squeamishness about monitoring what's taught in mosques and religious schools. If a criminal conspiracy is being hidden behind religion it's still a criminal conspiracy.

2) Tighten the borders to visitors/immigrants from problem nations like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, etc.

3) Use economic and political leverage to force nations that spread terrorist ideology to cut it out. I'm looking at you Saudi Arabia.

4) Use military action when foreign countries don't seem to be doing enough to help stop global terrorism.

Those are some of my ideas. What do you guys think?

I agree. Not much will happen though until we get heads wrapped around the concept that the planners and perpetrators are Moslem Fundamentalists - and claim to be.

We're still squeamish about profiling racially or religiously - as we should be, but in this case we can't do anything proactive until people can agree to identify the threat.

Evidence that we're not willing to admit this is the lack of profiling.

On the other hand you've got guys like that one-eyed, hooks for hands fella that the British arrested a few months back who's said things like "If an unbeleiver comes into muslim lands he's like a cow. You can take him and sell him (into slavery). If you can't sell him you can kill him." I forget that particular bipedal cockroach's name.


Yiiikes ... I don't think I'm familiar with this particular specimen. Wonder out from which orifice he pulled that drivel.

I would assume there are already 'plants' in such places...no? Making it more obvious probably wouldn't work, it might in fact drive conspiracies further underground.

I sadly agree. I hate that innocent people are being blamed or targeted because of the actions of militants...but just as we sanction nations with poor human rights records, I think we need to sanction nations that are not actively, and seriously dealing with terrorists within their own borders.


Yes. I think this would go hand in hand with the above idea. But they need to be more effective than sanctions normally are. I'm not sure how to do that.

I'm not sure about this. Are you talking fullscale war again? (akin to Iraq, with major troop deployment I mean). Does the manpower exist to effectively do this? Is it worth the risk? Look how many American troops and civilians have died in the conflict...now imagine trying to stretch your resources over more area...
1 Even if we only manage to drive them a little farther underground it limits their ability to function. If a bigger chunk of your resources and energy are dedicated to hiding you have less to spend on actuall terrorism. Also if you've got to operate underground some training and tactics become off-limits to you. You can't, for example, buy a ranch and have a bunch of jihadis come over for a two week long course on marksmanship and bomb making. It would attract too much attention.

4 Full scale war if necessary. In other situations small units of highly trained personell can assasinate enemy leaders, airstrikes can eliminate training camps, etc. This requires building a strong human intelligence network, and is likely to take some time, but it can be done.

I think the thing I hate the most is that our response to terrorism is going to be EXACTLY what the terrorists want us to do. Out of fear, we will increase racial profiling (sparking more open, and accepted racism), we will crack down on our freedoms, spy on one another, become more and more paranoid...

On the other hand you've got guys like that one-eyed, hooks for hands fella that the British arrested a few months back who's said things like "If an unbeleiver comes into muslim lands he's like a cow. You can take him and sell him (into slavery). If you can't sell him you can kill him." I forget that particular bipedal cockroach's name.

If you hear stuff like that you know you've stumbled onto the enemy. The monitoring can be done secretly. Bugs, undercover agents, etc. so that they won't notice a new face and tone the sermon down that particular day.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, regardless of anyone's religion or political persuasion, once they advocate bringing down the legitimate government by killing civilians at random, or advocate the destruction of Western Civilization as a whole by any means, it's time to toss them into an industrial-size arc furnace and be done with them.

At least we'd be able to recycle the hook.

Nah, the defense will be expecting that. They'll toughen up on the D-Line and the secondary will back off. But I guess it also depends how short, anything above 4 yards is called for a short pass.

Ooh ... good call! Just gotta check for that flat dime package and, if you see it, throw your receiver into motion in the backfield or audible a double-wide and plow your fullback right through their weakened line.

I agree. Not much will happen though until we get heads wrapped around the concept that the planners and perpetrators are Moslem Fundamentalists - and claim to be.

There is no evidence to support that today's action was perpetrated by anyone claiming to be Muslim.

Moslem
I cringe when I hear it spelt or said that way.

I think the thing I hate the most is that our response to terrorism is going to be EXACTLY what the terrorists want us to do. Out of fear, we will increase racial profiling (sparking more open, and accepted racism), we will crack down on our freedoms, spy on one another, become more and more paranoid...

It's true, the more intrusive we become the more personal freedoms we lose.

Are we willing to have profile one group of people to the exclusion of others? Personally I am willing to extend profiling to high-risk areas such as airports since little practical loss of freedom will occur. But I'm not for pulling people off the street because of their faith or skin color.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, regardless of anyone's religion or political persuasion, once they advocate bringing down the legitimate government by killing civilians at random, or advocate the destruction of Western Civilization as a whole by any means, it's time to toss them into an industrial-size arc furnace and be done with them.

Nod ... guys like that make Phelps look like a stroll in the park on a nice afternoon. On the whole, I'd rather be wearing a Pride(tm) ring and a tank-top and bump into Phelps in a darkened alley than even come within 200 yards of a jihadist.

I cringe when I hear it spelt or said that way.

I don't mean to offend. It's the way I've written it all my life - that's how the word was spelled when I was in school. It is still a valid, if old-fashioned, spelling of the word. I can try to change how I spell it, but old habits die hard...

1) Get over the squeamishness about monitoring what's taught in mosques and religious schools. If a criminal conspiracy is being hidden behind religion it's still a criminal conspiracy.

2) Tighten the borders to visitors/immigrants from problem nations like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, etc.

3) Use economic and political leverage to force nations that spread terrorist ideology to cut it out. I'm looking at you Saudi Arabia.

4) Use military action when foreign countries don't seem to be doing enough to help stop global terrorism.

Those are some of my ideas. What do you guys think?

None of which address root causes.

I cringe when I hear it spelt or said that way.

I think it depends on the age/nationality of the poster. Some of our older members will spell it the older way and certain nations (such as the Netherlands, I believe) spell it with the 'o' as a matter of course.

I only cringe when I see "Mohammetan" ... ugh.

I think it depends on the age/nationality of the poster. Some of our older members will spell it the older way and certain nations (such as the Netherlands, I believe) spell it with the 'o' as a matter of course.

I only cringe when I see "Mohammetan" ... ugh.
Yeah Mohammaden/Mohammetan is screwy.

Yeah Mohammaden/Mohammetan is screwy.

I know it's a throw-back to the 1800s, but I don't get its use today. It implies Mohammed worship which is so wrong in so many ways that I don't even know where to begin.

Forgive them and then sit down and talk with them.

:headbang:

You cannot negotiate with terrorists like Al Qaeda

None of which address root causes.

And your suggestion?

I think either than forming a better information system among countries to wipe out international terrorism (which is currently under-way).. Drunk Commies hits the spot for me.

If we really want to stop terrorism, we need to nip it in the bud by dealing with Russia and China, who finance at least 9 out of 10 of the world's terrorist organizations, if not all of them. Read the journal Soviet Analyst by Christopher Story (told from the perspective of a Soviet defector) for details.

:headbang:

You cannot negotiate with terrorists like Al Qaeda

You can if there's punch and pie.

If punch and pie is required to bring about a temporary cessation of military activities, then yes, I reckon we should stretch to punch and pie.

I'll agree to this, on the condition that I prepare both the punch and pie for this summit.

:headbang:

You cannot negotiate with terrorists like Al Qaeda

Agreed.

If we really want to stop terrorism, we need to nip it in the bud by dealing with Russia and China, who finance at least 9 out of 10 of the world's terrorist organizations, if not all of them. Read the journal Soviet Analyst by Christopher Story (told from the perspective of a Soviet defector) for details.

Soviets? That does not make much sense. I recall Cold War is over... :confused:

Stop our abusive "fair trade".

Provide massive funding to problem nations, but personally oversee the spending.

Start competing and hostile alternatives to religious cults like Al Quida. The US is very very good at this. Fabricate some competing cults, who's vision of Jihad is to kill people who kill civilians. Be sure to surgically insert gps tracking and explosives in their bodies when you invite them to the US to teach them how to be good terrorists. Nobody wants another mess like Al Quida.

Undermine the problematic nations economies and have IMF demand we be allowed to make free secular education in return for monetary aid.

Ship the entire US religious rightwing to the middle east.

Stop exploiting the 3rd world in general.

Use force and make 2 countries instead of 1 Israel and a few million oppressed Palestinians. Shoot the Israeli rightwing and kill off the entire PA.

If all else fails, drop a fucking nuke.


Massive funding? Please- you're steps are in the wrong order.

You can if there's punch and pie.

How about a punch and a pineapple?

Soviets? That does not make much sense. I recall Cold War is over... :confused:

Most if not all of the "former" Soviet republics are ruled by communists masquerading as ex-communists. 'Perestroika,' 'glasnost,' the Soviet 'collapse,' et. al., are all frauds, as explained in New Lies For Old and The Perestroika Deception by Anatoliy Golitsyn (a Soviet defector) and Through the Eyes of the Enemy by Stanislav Lunev (the highest-ranking Soviet defector in history).

How about a punch and a pineapple?

Shrug ... not much of a negotiation, and certainly not as tastey. Almost sounds like something the terrorists would say.

None of which address root causes.
Now you're going to tell me the root causes are poverty and injustice and I'm going to remind you that the leaders of these organizations and the people who pulled off the actual 9/11 hijackings weren't poor.

Let's skip to the root of this discussion. I beleive the problem is a certain type of Islamic ideology that sees immorality and failure to beleive in a very repressive form if Islam as the problems and violent jihad as the solution. I don't feel like compromising my way of life, so they have to die. Root cause addressed.

Shrug ... not much of a negotiation, and certainly not as tastey. Almost sounds like something the terrorists would say.

Only if you got what I was aiming at.

Now you're going to tell me the root causes are poverty and injustice and I'm going to remind you that the leaders of these organizations and the people who pulled off the actual 9/11 hijackings weren't poor.

Let's skip to the root of this discussion. I beleive the problem is a certain type of Islamic ideology that sees immorality and failure to beleive in a very repressive form if Islam as the problems and violent jihad as the solution. I don't feel like compromising my way of life, so they have to die. Root cause addressed.

It has nothing to do with Islam. The so-called extremist Muslims are communists committing atrocities under the guise of Islam.

I'll agree to this, on the condition that I prepare both the punch and pie for this summit.
I have only one question. What does a pork and arsenic based punch taste like?

Massive funding? Please- you're steps are in the wrong order.
Depends a hell of a lot on what that massive funding is used for. If it's used to educate people and introduce other cultural influences than Islam, it's a step in the right direction.
If it's used to promote things like unions and other democratic things, it's a huge fucking leap in the right direction.

Undermining religious authority, stopping all support for monachies and other oppressive regimes and ending our abusive business strategies is the only way to really address the problem.
Anything else we can come up with is just treating the symptoms, not killing the disease.

Only if you got what I was aiming at.

Ahahahaha .... oh man ... you broke me on that one ... "aiming at" ... priceless.

It has nothing to do with Islam. The so-called extremist Muslims are communists committing atrocities under the guise of Islam.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2001/12-03-2001/vo17no25_roots.htm

Now you're going to tell me the root causes are poverty and injustice and I'm going to remind you that the leaders of these organizations and the people who pulled off the actual 9/11 hijackings weren't poor.

Let's skip to the root of this discussion. I beleive the problem is a certain type of Islamic ideology that sees immorality and failure to beleive in a very repressive form if Islam as the problems and violent jihad as the solution. I don't feel like compromising my way of life, so they have to die. Root cause addressed.


You got my vote.

It has nothing to do with Islam. The so-called extremist Muslims are communists committing atrocities under the guise of Islam.

Lol. I doubt it.

It has nothing to do with Islam. The so-called extremist Muslims are communists committing atrocities under the guise of Islam.
I'd need a crapload of evidence to buy this. If you trace the money, personel and ideology behind much of this terrorism you find it all leads back to Saudi Arabia and the Wahhabi muslims there. I seriously doubt that members of the house of Saud and various violent clerics are secretly trying to bring down capitalism in favor of a communist utopia.

It has nothing to do with Islam. The so-called extremist Muslims are communists committing atrocities under the guise of Islam.
Communists?! I always thought they were fascists.

I have only one question. What does a pork and arsenic based punch taste like?


Just good enough to ingest a fatal amount.

Just good enough to ingest a fatal amount.

Serve that with a good ole fashion pineapple and you'll have an explosive party :D

Lol. I doubt it.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2001/12-31-2001/vo17no27_bin_laden.htm

I'd need a crapload of evidence to buy this. If you trace the money, personel and ideology behind much of this terrorism you find it all leads back to Saudi Arabia and the Wahhabi muslims there. I seriously doubt that members of the house of Saud and various violent clerics are secretly trying to bring down capitalism in favor of a communist utopia.

I seriously doubt they're trying that, too. Whether they know it or not, they're involuntarily serving the aims and goals of Red China and the "former" Soviet Union.

Serve that with a good ole fashion pineapple and you'll have an explosive party :D


yeah- the pineapple-heavily fortified with iron- is the dessert. That will cleanse the palate.

Stop our abusive "fair trade".

Provide massive funding to problem nations, but personally oversee the spending.
Er, fair trade? Those nations exporting terrorism either have elites getting dreadfully rich off whatever trade agreements they've established with Western nations, or otherwise are overwhelmingly human-resource-rich (i.e. overpopulated and poor). Fairer trade might work for Chiapas, but wouldn't change the mindset of some brainwashed suicide bomber from a Western Asian or North African country, or even from the country in which the attack is made.

The "problem" nations frequently have enough money all ready, they just like to use it on important things like weapons. Trying to police their spending will simply bring them equally up in arms. Besides, Egypt and much of North Africa has been trying to combat Islamic fundamentalism for decades now. Funding those nations is about the only thing stopping them from becoming other Irans, but which only pushes them further along the road to becoming another Iran. Lovely game, politics.

Start competing and hostile alternatives to religious cults like Al Quida. The US is very very good at this. Fabricate some competing cults, who's vision of Jihad is to kill people who kill civilians. Be sure to surgically insert gps tracking and explosives in their bodies when you invite them to the US to teach them how to be good terrorists. Nobody wants another mess like Al Quida.
Er, no, the US hasn't had particular success in establishing counter ideologies to religious fundamentalist movements. It had success in supporting existing religious movements (see Afghanistan). The rest of that statement is simply a joke, I assume.

Undermine the problematic nations economies and have IMF demand we be allowed to make free secular education in return for monetary aid.
Nothing works up more ire than being told by the IMF -- which many nations see as the US in drag -- how to do things.

Stop exploiting the 3rd world in general.
Calling the rest of the world "the Third World" is denigrating enough.

Use force and make 2 countries instead of 1 Israel and a few million oppressed Palestinians. Shoot the Israeli rightwing and kill off the entire PA.

If all else fails, drop a fucking nuke.
Such slapdash solutions can't solve a crisis of Israel-Palestine proportions any more than they could the Irish/Northern Irish Troubles, or attitudes of Southerners towards the Blacks (African-Americans) after the US Civil War.

yeah- the pineapple-heavily fortified with iron- is the dessert. That will cleanse the palate.

Hehe! I agree with you 100%

Keru, considering your argument that these people are not Muslims...

Technically, they can consider themselves such, as you consider yourself such. They also have hundreds of thousands of die-hard supporters who believe that they are Muslims.

Since there doesn't seem to be a central authority in the heterodoxy that is Islam, everyone on this forum could declare themselves to be followers of Islam, and nothing you or I say about it could change it.

So, although it may be possible to say that they do not represent all of Islam, and do not represent your particular flavor of Islam (or the branch that hundreds of millions may follow), they DO have a lot of supporters.

Put it this way. If you wanted to pack your own mosque with people, and OBL wanted to pack a mosque with his, he'd need a major football stadium to accomodate his people.

yeah- the pineapple-heavily fortified with iron- is the dessert. That will cleanse the palate.
Pineapple, according to Iron Chef, is quite good for the digestion.

I think the poms should come out and say that unless the perps aren't handed over within the week, they'll kick every Muslim out of the country.
Since the terrorists don't care who they hit, nor whether they're involved in the government in anyway then the Brits should do the same.

I seriously doubt they're trying that, too. Whether they know it or not, they're involuntarily serving the aims and goals of Red China and the "former" Soviet Union.
Actually, the PRC has rather nasty problems of its own with Muslim fundamentalists in Western China and some other areas, as the former Soviet Union has in Russia (Chechnya) and the Central Asian states. The return of the Soviet Union -- a great, monolithic (and economically struggling) but comparatively reasonable enemy -- would probably be viewed as a godsend by some people. Indeed, I presently look back on the Cold War with a great deal of fond memories, despite all the abhorrent nastiness that went on in South and Central America.

I think the poms should come out and say that unless the perps aren't handed over within the week, they'll kick every Muslim out of the country.
Since the terrorists don't care who they hit, nor whether they're involved in the government in anyway then the Brits should do the same.

No. I may be guessing here, but I do believe that the people who did this were Islamic. And most of them died in the attacks.

They did have friends and supporters in the UK, though. Some of whom may or may not have been Islamic (although I would think they would tend to be).

Find those people. Have a nice, fair trial, and then have them drawn and quartered, and have the heads put on pikes outside the Tower of London. If they have fled overseas, find them and bring their heads back in bowling ball bags.

Then monitor all of the mosques in the UK. Close down any that advocate any violence using the religious hatred law. Jail the imams who speak in that manner - for life in isolation without public communication.

Find those people. Have a nice, fair trial, and then have them drawn and quartered, and have the heads put on pikes outside the Tower of London. If they have fled overseas, find them and bring their heads back in bowling ball bags.

Then monitor all of the mosques in the UK. Close down any that advocate any violence using the religious hatred law. Jail the imams who speak in that manner - for life in isolation without public communication.

I agree with this. All those involved, after being convicted by a fair trial, should be killed in a very inhumane manner... I like your idea, it's quite medieval.

All mosques should be monitored in the UK and France, because it isn't that difficult to get to the UK from France. Those two countries need to stand up immediately and get rid of these hatemonger imams, with serious prison terms with solitairy confinement (absolutely necessary).

Since there doesn't seem to be a central authority in the heterodoxy that is Islam, everyone on this forum could declare themselves to be followers of Islam, and nothing you or I say about it could change it.

Actually ... there is .... Qur'an.


Put it this way. If you wanted to pack your own mosque with people, and OBL wanted to pack a mosque with his, he'd need a major football stadium to accomodate his people.

Well get 'em all in there, then! Seal it up and fill it with water. Let's go the long way and give the ibn Laden types 5 million people. More than a stadium would hold, but let's imagine. Drown them all in sacks and you're left with ... 1.495 billion Muslims. Their group is so tiny compared to mine it's unreal.

Here's the problem, though: My group doesn't have the funding or the weaponry or the training to deal with them.

I agree with this. All those involved, after being convicted by a fair trial, should be killed in a very inhumane manner... I like your idea, it's quite medieval.

All mosques should be monitored in the UK and France, because it isn't that difficult to get to the UK from France. Those two countries need to stand up immediately and get rid of these hatemonger imams, with serious prison terms with solitairy confinement (absolutely necessary).


Don't look now! But your post number is 1776! So close to the 4th of July!

:headbang:

You cannot negotiate with terrorists like Al Qaeda

I seem to remember hearing a lot of people say that about the IRA and the ANC.

Er, fair trade? Those nations exporting terrorism either have elites getting dreadfully rich off whatever trade agreements they've established with Western nations, or otherwise are overwhelmingly human-resource-rich (i.e. overpopulated and poor). Fairer trade might work for Chiapas, but wouldn't change the mindset of some brainwashed suicide bomber from a Western Asian or North African country, or even from the country in which the attack is made.

The "problem" nations frequently have enough money all ready, they just like to use it on important things like weapons. Trying to police their spending will simply bring them equally up in arms. Besides, Egypt and much of North Africa has been trying to combat Islamic fundamentalism for decades now. Funding those nations is about the only thing stopping them from becoming other Irans, but which only pushes them further along the road to becoming another Iran. Lovely game, politics.
Free trade would provide alternatives to current business practices, if combined with a lot of other initives. It would have no effect on current braindead homocidal freaks, but would help provide an alternative for the future ones.
The problem nations are loaded. No doubt about it. Most of them could eliminate poverty tomorrow if they wanted. Point is, they don't. That's why massive funding controled by us would be usefull. Especially in connection with a host of other initives. The point is to undermine the crappy regimes that make terrorism attractive.

Er, no, the US hasn't had particular success in establishing counter ideologies to religious fundamentalist movements. It had success in supporting existing religious movements (see Afghanistan). The rest of that statement is simply a joke, I assume.
The US have had unparalelled success in instigating civil wars all over the globe. Right now, I'm not at all sure the rest of that statement was a joke. The US have a massive failure rate on maintaining control over their fundamentalist guerrillas. Being able to blow the lot apart when they're no longer convenient seems prudent... And yea, I hate myself for saying this.

Nothing works up more ire than being told by the IMF -- which many nations see as the US in drag -- how to do things.
Yet it usually happens a couple of times a year. Do you think the resentment would be greater because the demands were helpful to the local populations, instead of harmful? I personally don't think they'd be any more or less pissed no matter the nature of the demands, and this seems a good way to force our will on them.

Calling the rest of the world "the Third World" is denigrating enough.
I'm beyond giving a shit right now.

Such slapdash solutions can't solve a crisis of Israel-Palestine proportions any more than they could the Irish/Northern Irish Troubles, or attitudes of Southerners towards the Blacks (African-Americans) after the US Civil War.
Yea well... US blocking any and all initives to solve the damn conflict doesn't help either.

I seem to remember hearing a lot of people say that about the IRA and the ANC.

Al Qaeda won't stop till every last one of us is either dead or converts.

Swordfish tactics. They take a few subway stations and a city bus, we tactical nuke a whole neighborhood.

A perfect arrangement.

Actually ... there is .... Qur'an.





The Qur'an can be interpreted many ways. The Al Quaeda vermin make good use of it as a recruiting tool. They also use it to justify their attacks.

Since the terrorists don't care who they hit, nor whether they're involved in the government in anyway then the Brits should do the same.

Since the terrorists plant bombs on buses and in the tube then the Brits should do the same?

Swordfish tactics. They take a few subway stations and a city bus, we tactical nuke a whole neighborhood.

A perfect arrangement.

Where? Bradford? London? New York?

Al Qaeda won't stop till every last one of us is either dead or converts.

I seem to remember hearing much the same thing said about the IRA and the ANC.

Where? Bradford? London? New York?

I'd go with Mecca and Medina. Though Rihyad is a good spot too.

Swordfish tactics. They take a few subway stations and a city bus, we tactical nuke a whole neighborhood.

A perfect arrangement.
Don't you think London's been bombed enuff sicko?!

I seem to remember hearing much the same thing said about the IRA and the ANC.

:headbang:

Al Qaeda is not the IRA or the ANC!

I'd go with Mecca and Medina. Though Rihyad is a good spot too.

Why not just stick a pin in a map? Or are you deliberately advocating a religious war?


Should the Vatican get nuked if the RIRA plant another bomb?

Where? Bradford? London? New York?Teheran? Tripoli? Cairo? Khartoum? I dunno that's up to the military experts in the pentagon, but it sure gives off a signal.

:headbang:

Al Qaeda is not the IRA or the ANC!

And the unbridgeable difference here is what?

Why not just stick a pin in a map? Or are you deliberately advocating a religious war?

Your beginning to your ignorance. We are in a religious war. They have already declared it a religious war.

Teheran? Tripoli? Cairo? Khartoum? I dunno that's up to the military experts in the pentagon, but it sure gives off a signal.

And that signal as intended to be 'we are a bunch of fucking nutters who shouldn't be allowed near sharp objects never mind weapons of mass destruction'?

Al Qaeda is not the IRA or the ANC!Exactly! The ANC and IRA fought for freedom. Al Qwhatever just terrorizes to maim, kill and butcher as many innocent people as they can target in a single attack.

And the unbridgeable difference here is what?

I'll let you figure that out.

Forgive them and then sit down and talk with them.
I don't think that the "Jesus" approach is going to work on this one.

Your beginning to your ignorance. We are in a religious war. They have already declared it a religious war.

So why are civilian non-religious targets being bombed? I can't recall a single case of an attack on a religious target in the Western World. Religion is being used as a recruiting tool in order for the upper echelons to achieve their political objectives.

And the unbridgeable difference here is what?
ANC and IRA were fighting for political goals. Al Quaeda is fighting for religious goals. They seek to bring the whole world to their vision of Islam and they embrace the use of violence to do so. You can deal with someone who has political goals. You can compromise with someone who wants a small piece of the world (N. Ireland). You can't deal or compromise with someone who thinks god told him to kill you.

And that signal as intended to be 'we are a bunch of fucking nutters who shouldn't be allowed near sharp objects never mind weapons of mass destruction'?When you know a whole city is gonna be evaporated when you attack, will do try something? Like a barbarian banana republic like Iran can even remotely hurt the USA or any other western country with military force. Oh yeah, we have terrorists.

Terrorists can strike any nation, any day of the week, in every city. This is a fact, look at what happened today. Drastic situations, drastic measures. Thw western world has long enough bargained away its power by thinking "ah well, just threatening using harsh words and all will keep 'em at bay." Hell no.

Action means reaction.

If that means proactive, exaggerated reaction, then so be it. They are asking for it.

I don't think that the "Jesus" approach is going to work on this one.
Yeah. Look where it got him.

I don't think that the "Jesus" approach is going to work on this one.

Target the relative moderates within the movement. Attempt to engage them in talks. See if it is possible to placate them and address their issues. In doing so you can strip away a large body of support for the movement. There would doubtless still be hardline splinter factions in operation, but the situation is better than not talking to them and attempting to persuade people through the use of fear and force.

So why are civilian non-religious targets being bombed?

If you think about it with your brain, you'd figure the answer out. What is a non-religious target? What is a religious target? Your thinking like a civilized human. The problem is, you can't do that with these people. You have to think like them in order to understand it. They do not consider non-muslims to be religious. Therefor, we are to be erradicated. To do that, you hit the spots that they are likely to populate. That causes the most damage to people. Hitting a Church or Synague isn't really going to have the effect that hitting a mall, shopping center, hotel, nightclub, school, etc is going to have.

If that means proactive, exaggerated reaction, then so be it. They are asking for it.

The people of Teheran/Tripoli/Cairo/Khartoum/Wherever?

The Qur'an can be interpreted many ways. The Al Quaeda vermin make good use of it as a recruiting tool. They also use it to justify their attacks.

Not really. It's pretty specific on a great number of things. There is no way to misinterpret Qur'an 45:14 "Tell those who believe, to forgive those who do not look forward to the days of Allah: It is for Him to recompense (for good or ill) each people according to what they have earned."

It just cannot be misinterpreted. The language is very plain and simple.

How about 8:61 "But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things)."

If a peace offering of punch and pie is given and the response is to blow up a bus full of innocents, then they have disobeyed Allah and, thus, are not submitting their entire will over to Allah - which is the definition of Islam, submission to Allah - and, thus, are not Muslim.

On the convert or die approach, consider "Let there be no compulsion (forcing others) in religion: Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things." Qur'an 2:256

No room for misinterpretation. No compulsion. No forcing of others into Islam. Muslims must leave people decide for themselves because the "Truth stands out clear from error..." If they use force, they are disobeying Allah.

Qur'an 5:32 "...if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people..."

You can clearly see that Allah honors all the innocent souls that He created. Killing any innocent soul is so hated by Allah that He considers it as a crime against all of Mankind.

So, the bombings today are in clear violation of Allah's will. If you consciously violate Allah's will with something so greivous, you cannot me Muslim in any sense of the word.

If you think about it with your brain, you'd figure the answer out. What is a non-religious target?

So, why the concentration of attacks on the nominally Christian nations of the west, rather than other non-Muslim nations?

I'd go with Mecca and Medina. Though Rihyad is a good spot too.

If you bomb Mecca, you make an enemy of the 1.4 billion Muslims who have no quarrel with you. You do not want to fight all of us. Mecca is a holy sight to *all* Muslims, not just the ones you seek to subdue.

The people of Teheran/Tripoli/Cairo/Khartoum/Wherever?They killed in London, Moscow, New York and Madrid. Why not there? I don't see the problem.

So, why the concentration of the nominally Christian nations of the west, rather than other non-Muslim nations?

Because of what happened centuries ago! :rolleyes: Its called payback! *shrugs* not to mention the fact that the Christian west (as you call it) have been involved in the Middle East for centuries. Shall we discount Gulf War I as well? Shall we discount the Crusades that Europe did?

You set up a large well-funded intelligence net with cooperation acroos national and organizational lines. You find the terrorists, but you do not kill them. Killing them just makes them martyrs.

You take them, lock them up, treat them humanely. Keep a hidden camera in their room, then leave temptation nearby. The terrorists we have troubles with are Islamic fundamentalists. So we allow the leaders to destroy their own credibility within their religious group.

Lock them in a reasonably comfortable room, then leave temptations for them to stumble over. For example eating pork is forbidden by Islam if I remember correctly. So everyday leave them a selection of food. Make most of it bland and tasteless, like rice, bread, and water, but more than enoughn of this to live comfortably. But also leave some really nice, juicy, good-smelling pork roasts and ham at the table. Don't force them to eat the pork and make it known to them that it is pork, but just leave some with every meal. Eventually they will get sick of eating the same bland food day after day and will get tempted by the pork. Hopefully they fall to temptation. The cameras will capture them violating Allah's commands and then publish these tapes widely. The terrorist leader will be dicredited. Do something similar with other temptations, such as pornography, alcohol, etc. Leave it there for them. Don't force them to sin, but just leave the temptation in easy site. Eventually they will fall the camera will catch it and they will be discredited before everyone of their religion.

Do this on a mass scale for all captured terrorist leaders. Saturate the media in the Middle-East with the videos and pictures of their "leaders" violating Allah's commands. Once Islamics have seen enough of their so-called "moral leaders" violating commands they will begin to discount the terrorists teachings and the problems will hopefully disintegrate.

Combine this propoganda attack with educational programs, support for democratic movements in the Middle-east, and normal terrorist fighting activities and eventually we may win.

If you bomb Mecca, you make an enemy of the 1.4 billion Muslims who have no quarrel with you. You do not want to fight all of us. Mecca is a holy sight to *all* Muslims, not just the ones you seek to subdue.

I know Keruvalia. I know this quite well. I don't want it to happen either. Call it a heat of the moment thing.

Not really. It's pretty specific on a great number of things. There is no way to misinterpret Qur'an 45:14 "Tell those who believe, to forgive those who do not look forward to the days of Allah: It is for Him to recompense (for good or ill) each people according to what they have earned."

It just cannot be misinterpreted. The language is very plain and simple.

How about 8:61 "But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things)."

If a peace offering of punch and pie is given and the response is to blow up a bus full of innocents, then they have disobeyed Allah and, thus, are not submitting their entire will over to Allah - which is the definition of Islam, submission to Allah - and, thus, are not Muslim.

On the convert or die approach, consider "Let there be no compulsion (forcing others) in religion: Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things." Qur'an 2:256

No room for misinterpretation. No compulsion. No forcing of others into Islam. Muslims must leave people decide for themselves because the "Truth stands out clear from error..." If they use force, they are disobeying Allah.

Qur'an 5:32 "...if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people..."

You can clearly see that Allah honors all the innocent souls that He created. Killing any innocent soul is so hated by Allah that He considers it as a crime against all of Mankind.

So, the bombings today are in clear violation of Allah's will. If you consciously violate Allah's will with something so greivous, you cannot me Muslim in any sense of the word.
I can't quote chapter and verse to you, but I'm sure Bin Laden could.

Anyway, doesn't Islam allow for making war on a people unless they convert or pay the Jizya and live as second class dhimmis? Couldn't Bin Laden use that as one justification for war? Also Britain, the USA, and other non-muslim nations have armies in "muslim lands". Isn't that also a justification for war in Islam?

You've only quoted the peacefull stuff. There's plenty in the koran and in the hadiths that's not peacefull, right?

Because of what happened centuries ago! :rolleyes: Its called payback! *shrugs* not to mention the fact that the Christian west (as you call it) have been involved in the Middle East for centuries. Shall we discount Gulf War I as well? Shall we discount the Crusades that Europe did?

Why would we be mad about the Crusades? We won!

Because of what happened centuries ago!

ie. political motivation.


:rolleyes: Its called payback! *shrugs* not to mention the fact that the Christian west (as you call it) have been involved in the Middle East for centuries.

ie. political motivation.

Shall we discount Gulf War I as well?

ie. political motivation.

Shall we discount the Crusades that Europe did?

ie. political motivation.

Give the West enough of these attacks on civilians, and give a few of them the casualties in the thousands, and you'll get this for starters:

http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/knacht.html

not because anyone wants it to happen, but because it's human nature.

Why would we be mad about the Crusades? We won!

You might've won but that doesn't mean they've forgotten about it.

ie. political motivation.

Apparently you are going to keep your mind closed. Alwell. Your loss.

Apparently you are going to keep your mind closed. Alwell. Your loss.

Okay: explain to me what religious significance the original Gulf War had.

Give the West enough of these attacks on civilians, and give a few of them the casualties in the thousands, and you'll get this for starters:

http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/knacht.html

not because anyone wants it to happen, but because it's human nature.

Moscow was close to that in 1999. We went to Chechnya instead - Putin had to do something.

Anyway, doesn't Islam allow for making war on a people unless they convert or pay the Jizya and live as second class dhimmis? Couldn't Bin Laden use that as one justification for war? Also Britain, the USA, and other non-muslim nations have armies in "muslim lands". Isn't that also a justification for war in Islam?

No, actually it isn't. None of that is in Qur'an. War is only justifiable if it is in self-defense and can only be waged "ceaselessly" if it is in defense of Islam. Nobody has declared war on Islam.

You've only quoted the peacefull stuff. There's plenty in the koran and in the hadiths that's not peacefull, right?

Well, obviously, there are rules concerning how one should conduct themselves in war. However, the ultimate goal is peace.

Again ... 8:61 "But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things)." This alone shows that Islam is not a religion for wars, but for peace.

The Hadith is a whole other kettle of fish. I look at it sort of like I look at the Talmud as compared to Torah. Qur'an is the final authority and the only authority. Hadith is merely discussion, not canon.

Hadith is not required to be Muslim.

Okay: explain to me what religious significance the original Gulf War had.

Are you that ignorant?

There were NON-MUSLIM SOLDIERS ON MUSLIM HOLY LAND! That is the religious significance of the Original Gulf War! Also, Bin Ladin went to the King of Saudi Arabia and offered up his services and that of his network to protect the crown. The Crown said no and came to US. That is how we wound up on Saudi Soil for the last 12 years.

Moscow was close to that in 1999. We went to Chechnya instead - Putin had to do something.

I don't think that people in the West are really aware of how close they are to that point. It's been a quiet creeping of laws - a shift in internal police powers - military intervention overseas.

In any real respect, we're talking about the expulsion of the Islamic people from every sphere of life of the West and the expulsion of the Islamic people from the living space of the West. Measures to date should be discussed and the concept of the 'deportation' of the Islamic people to the East should be introduced - for appropriate labour... in the course of which action doubtless a large portion will be eliminated by natural causes. The final remnant will have to be treated accordingly, because it would, if released, act as a the seed of a new Islamic revival. The number of Muslims in Europe should be immediately enumerated and the methods of evacuation should be considered with regard to age and country of origin.

Publicise that all muslim terrorists caught dead or alive will be buried along with pig entrails. :eek: That will put the fear into the hearts of the faithful and deter suicide attacks. :D

Seriously speaking, there is no "one size fits all" type solution, but there are some general things which we can do.

1. Actively monitor the sermons delivered in mosques. Just because they speak in what we think as gibberish, we don't normally care what they are speaking. If you understood what some of the sermons of these preachers in mosques you would be horrified.

The Dutch, after the flareup, have are attempting to draft a law for the same. But look at the responses for that

http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2005-07/03/article03.shtml
Dutch Draft Law to Monitor Imams’ Sermons
By Nasreddine Djebbi, IOL Correspondent

THE HAGUE, July 3, 2005 (IslamOnline.net) – The Dutch parliament is currently debating a draft law presented by the government on radicalism combat, including a TV show to monitor sermons delivered by imams.

The controversial measure drew rebuke from a prominent Dutch Muslim scholar who told IslamOnline.net it would deepen Muslim isolation in the country.

According to the 32-item measure, one mosque sermon would be televised each week without the prior knowledge of the imam. It would then be debated by the program's guests.

Minister of Immigrants and Integration Rita Verdonk told parliament the aim of this program is to draw the attention of young Dutch of foreign origin to the grave consequences of religious extremism.

She said mosques should open their doors to the Dutch, who wrongly believe that that the Muslim places of worship are meeting points for people working to undermine the West and coexistence.

The measure proponents argue it would enable the Dutch to know firsthand the teachings of such imams and form their own judgment.

The government has so far put forward 10 plans to qualify imams, seen by Dutch Muslim leaders as a ruse to interfere in Muslims’ affairs.

It has also endorsed a relevant program introduced by Amsterdam University, which was granted 1.5 million euros to that end.

There are some 450 mosques, 1,000 Islamic cultural centers, two Islamic universities and 42 preparatory schools in the Netherlands, serving an estimated one million Muslim minority.

Deepening Isolation


Marzouk Abdullah Awlad, professor of Islamic Studies in the Netherlands-based Islamic University of Europe, warned that Muslims “would feel targeted by this law.”

Awlad, also the imam of Rotterdam grand mosque, cautioned that the muzzling measure would drive some imams to go underground.

He said the government should acquaint the Dutch with the moderate and tolerant face of Islam as much as it is enthusiastic about addressing the facets of radicalism and the threats it poses.

“I think a dialogue between representatives of different parties would do in this case,” he added.

Awlad said Dutch Muslims are undoubtedly trying their best to serve and stabilize their homeland, as well as stand up firmly to saboteurs irrespective of their backgrounds.

The draft law also calls for holding an annual conference bringing together experts and politicians to discuss the image of Islam.

It allocates cash for individual initiatives providing job opportunities for jobless young Muslims.

The Muslim minority has been the subject of racist attacks since the murder of controversial filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, blamed on a Dutch of Moroccan origin.

Carrying banners reading “Islam is not an enemy” and “Hatred is not the solution,” Dutch Muslims and non-Muslims took to the streets in March of last year to protest the rising attacks against the minority.

Europe’s main rights and democracy watchdog, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), expressed concern in May at the increasing Dutch intolerance towards Muslims and the “climate of fear” under which the minority was living.

2. Monitor the literature being sold around mosques and and prevent nonsense like these..

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/printpage/0,5481,15714027,00.html

Muslim books of hate sold
Liam Houlihan, religious affairs reporter
24jun05

LITERATURE filled with hatred of Christians, Jews and non-Muslims is being sold at a mosque near a Melbourne home raided by ASIO.

Books sold at the store attached to the Brunswick mosque tell Muslims they should "hate and take as enemies" non-Muslims, reject Jews and Christians, and learn to hate in order to properly love Allah.

The texts say Muslims should learn military tactics and suggest that if a person speaks ill of Islam it is acceptable to kill them.

They urge Muslims to strike back against "the barbaric onslaught from their enemies -- the Jews, Christians, atheists, secularists and others".

Pages are devoted to legitimising episodes of violence against Jews who insult Islam.

"A Jewish woman used to abuse the Prophet and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah declared that no recompense was payable for her blood," one book recounts.

A similar example is given of a man killing the mother of his two children because she "disparaged the Prophet"; he also was declared clear of any crime.

"When they (non-Muslims) meet you, they say, 'We believe', but when they are alone, out of frustration and rage, they bite off the tips of their fingers because of you," one says.

"O you who believe! Do not take the Jews (Yahood) and Christians (Nasara) for friends (Awliyaa). They are Awliyaa to each other. And the one among you that turns to them is one of them."

Readers are instructed by the books not to feel compassion for non-Muslims, not to trust them, and not to speak well of them.

One book says faithful Muslims should learn military tactics.

The group of books were bought from the bookstore of the Islamic Information and Support Centre of Australia, which is in the same building as the Brunswick mosque. One, The Ideological Attack, describes "the Jews" as striving to corrupt the beliefs, morals and manners of Muslims.

"The Jews scheme and crave after possessing the Muslim lands, as well as the lands of others," it reads.

"Supported by a demonic global plan as well as unlimited financial backing, this attack aims at domination and hegemony over the Islamic world; dividing it, attacking it culturally and morally and perverting the true image of the religion.

"Therefore it is amongst the priorities of the Islamic call (da'wah) to break this attack and to counter it with every legitimate means of da'wah possible."

One text says of devotion to Allah: "As regards hatred for His sake this is an essential prerequisite for loving Him."

A book on "Muslims Living as Minorities" mentions Muslims fighting in Afghanistan and discusses "jihad", or holy war, as a collective and individual responsibility.

Another quotes classic anti-Semitic conspiracy text The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, stating Jews want to make Muslims "the ass of the chosen people".

3. Monitor islamist politicians like these and prevent them coming to power.

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=75867
Labour's Muslim MP has released a statement condemning stoning after a controversial refusal to go against the Koran during an interview.

Ashraf Choudhary was asked on the TV current affairs show 60 Minutes about the practice of stoning homosexuals and adulterous women.

He refused to disagree with the Koran's recommendations, saying it was appropriate in "those societies", not in New Zealand :rolleyes: .


Above all make sure that there are no state sanctuaries for the terrorist organizations. Notably, Saudi funding and ideological inspirations, Iran and Syria's support of Hizbollah, and ofcourse Pakistan the epicentre and mother of all terrorist nations. These things have to end. It needs to be told unequivocally that there is no such thing as "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter",

A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist.

Just the other day, when terrorists attacked the temple at Ayodhya in India, the BBC used the word "gunmen (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4651095.stm) " instead of calling them what they are - TERRORISTS.

Of course calling them terrorists will raise embarassing questions about the relations that Bush and Blair administration are having with a nation that is harboring terrorists.

I was tempted to call the perpetrators of the recent attack as done by "bombmen" - but I realised the stupidity of that and refrained.

(...)Quoting is all well and good but in the end it comes down to interpretation and politcal/economical climate. When the whole Middle-East, emphasis on whole so that means Dictatorial Central Asia too, was a quite prosperous area and blessed with a stable and wise government not hellbent on self-enrichment and promoting terrorism then I'm really sure it'd be a different place.

With a lot less, perhaps without religious extremism and terrorist spawing hellholes such as Afghanistan and Iran.

1. Actively monitor the sermons delivered in mosques. Just because they speak in what we think as gibberish, we don't normally care what they are speaking. If you understood what some of the sermons of these preachers in mosques you would be horrified.


Funny ... my Imam speaks pretty clear English ... Pakistani accent, but it's most definately English. Just the other day we were sitting in the Mosque discussing a warning given by the Prophet(pbuh): "Whoever oppresses any Dhimmi (non-Muslim citizen of the Islamic state), I shall be his prosecutor on the Day of Judgment" and its relation to the way Christians are treated in Saudi Arabia.

Oh the horror ... the horror of it all!

Funny ... my Imam speaks pretty clear English ... Pakistani accent, but it's most definately English. Just the other day we were sitting in the Mosque discussing a warning given by the Prophet(pbuh): "Whoever oppresses any Dhimmi (non-Muslim citizen of the Islamic state), I shall be his prosecutor on the Day of Judgment" and its relation to the way Christians are treated in Saudi Arabia.

Oh the horror ... the horror of it all!

Now lets all preach this to Osama Bin Ladin.

Are you that ignorant?

There were NON-MUSLIM SOLDIERS ON MUSLIM HOLY LAND! That is the religious significance of the Original Gulf War!

I am aware of this, and also that the removal of those soldiers from Saudi Arabia was listed as one of the aims of Al Qaeda a few years ago. IIRC they pulled out sometime in 2003.


Also, Bin Ladin went to the King of Saudi Arabia and offered up his services and that of his network to protect the crown. The Crown said no and came to US. That is how we wound up on Saudi Soil for the last 12 years.

Without these two things, would the intervention of the US and other Western powers have been acceptable?

I don't think that people in the West are really aware of how close they are to that point. It's been a quiet creeping of laws - a shift in internal police powers - military intervention overseas.

In any real respect, we're talking about the expulsion of the Islamic people from every sphere of life of the West and the expulsion of the Islamic people from the living space of the West. Measures to date should be discussed and the concept of the 'deportation' of the Islamic people to the East should be introduced - for appropriate labour... in the course of which action doubtless a large portion will be eliminated by natural causes. The final remnant will have to be treated accordingly, because it would, if released, act as a the seed of a new Islamic revival. The number of Muslims in Europe should be immediately enumerated and the methods of evacuation should be considered with regard to age and country of origin.
Eh, you're talking about one Stalinesque purge... My stance is more liberal - after all, I work together with three Chechens, who are observant Muslims and are very much against our 'Ichkerian freedom fighters' - unlike Vanessa Redgrave & Co, who strove for granting asylum to bandit Zakayev.

You cannot perform that cleansing without trampling upon innocent and like-minded people, so no.

But - be vigilant and fight them aggressively whenever they are.

Surprisingly, if they change sides, they become good allies - President Kadyrov preached, as a mufti, jihad and bloodletting in the First Chechen War, but died for our cause last year. His son, the Hero of Russia, is hated by jihadists, and is a 'marked man'.

Edit: we in Russia have a phenomenon of 'atheist Muslims' - my friend is one! And they are numerous.

I am aware of this, and also that the removal of those soldiers from Saudi Arabia was listed as one of the aims of Al Qaeda a few years ago. IIRC they pulled out sometime in 2003.

Yes we did because we invaded and took over Iraq. Now Iraq is a soveriegn nation but we're still at war with Al Qaeda. Now what does that tell you? We've been at war with Al Qaeda since Al Qaeda declared war on us.

Without these two things, would the intervention of the US and other Western powers have been acceptable?

Yes because I don't think that Osama's gang of thugs and murderers can keep Hussein from taking Saudi Arabia.

With a lot less, perhaps without religious extremism and terrorist spawing hellholes such as Afghanistan and Iran.

I'm guessing you've never been to Iran. Just how is it a "hellhole"? It's a gorgeous place! Lush gardens, great architecture ... they even drive cars and have super-highways and electricity!

They also elect their leaders! Sometimes even women!

My god, man ... leave the house now and then.

Now lets all preach this to Osama Bin Ladin.

I'd love to. Know where I can find him?

I'm guessing you've never been to Iran. Just how is it a "hellhole"? It's a gorgeous place! Lush gardens, great architecture ... they even drive cars and have super-highways and electricity!

They also elect their leaders! Sometimes even women!

My god, man ... leave the house now and then.

My God man! Look at the list of people that have been barred from running :eek:

I'd love to. Know where I can find him?

Southern Afghanistan if what Pakistan is saying is right :D

(...)Sweet dreams. Women have no rights and you know it, you get stoned and flogged. Cars? Zimbabwe has cars too. In fact, name one single Islamic country that has the same level of womens rights that can be compared to... let's say Germany.

Great architecture and lush gardens, what does that have to do with civil liberties, a democratic government and laws based on common sense, not barbarism.

Eh, you're talking about one Stalinesque purge... <snip>
You cannot perform that cleansing without trampling upon innocent and like-minded people, so no.

Have you ever heard a really old person say, "Stalin was the kind of man who got things done..."

Yes we did because we invaded and took over Iraq. Now Iraq is a soveriegn nation but we're still at war with Al Qaeda. Now what does that tell you? We've been at war with Al Qaeda since Al Qaeda declared war on us.

Iraq has been a sovereign nation since 1932, no? If anything it is somewhat below that status now as it has a semi-puppet government. What does that suggest to me? That Al Qaeda and the members that go towards making it are happy enough when the US stays out of 'their' region.

My God man! Look at the list of people that have been barred from running :eek:


Works the same here. They have Mullahs, we have Caucuses. We whittle down the thousands of Presidential candidates to a select few.

That's just how it works.

Iraq has been a sovereign nation since 1932, no?

Return of soveriegnty if you will. Jeez!

If anything it is somewhat below that status now as it has a semi-puppet government.

Bullshit! Bullshit! Bullshit!

What does that suggest to me? That Al Qaeda and the members that go towards making it are happy enough when the US stays out of 'their' region.

Even though they have pledged to erradicate all those that won't convert to muslim? Even though they have declared war on the United States? Even though they have struck at those they deemed, not muslim enough?

Sweet dreams. Women have no rights and you know it, you get stoned and flogged. Cars? Zimbabwe has cars too. In fact, name one single Islamic country that has the same level of womens rights that can be compared to... let's say Germany.

The United Arab Emirates. (http://www.uae.gov.ae/Government/women.htm)

Have you ever heard a really old person say, "Stalin was the kind of man who got things done..."
Actually a lot of times. But my family was never into that - my grandfather and a brother of a grand-grandfather were on the run from the NKVD for some time (BTW, they succeeded). I'm from a family of Orthodox priests.

Works the same here. They have Mullahs, we have Caucuses. We whittle down the thousands of Presidential candidates to a select few.

That's just how it works.

But at least we have a choice if we want someone to run or not. They don't have that choice. :rolleyes:

The religious leaders are the ones barring people and who have they barred the most? REFORMERS! Why? Because they are scared. Please....

Depends a hell of a lot on what that massive funding is used for. If it's used to educate people and introduce other cultural influences than Islam, it's a step in the right direction.
If it's used to promote things like unions and other democratic things, it's a huge fucking leap in the right direction.

Undermining religious authority, stopping all support for monachies and other oppressive regimes and ending our abusive business strategies is the only way to really address the problem.
Anything else we can come up with is just treating the symptoms, not killing the disease.
I agree!!!

It has nothing to do with Islam. The so-called extremist Muslims are communists committing atrocities under the guise of Islam.
Where did this one come from? I know that you right-wingers used to equate communism to atheism and homosexuality in the 1950s. Is this just the updated version of that tactic?

Your source is so biased. With a clue like an "end the UN" ad at the side, it is obvious that these guys are just desperately trying to smear communism.

Swordfish tactics. They take a few subway stations and a city bus, we tactical nuke a whole neighborhood.

A perfect arrangement.
Aren't you the guy who suggested killing everyone in Afghanistan in response to 9/11?

Your beginning to your ignorance. We are in a religious war. They have already declared it a religious war.
Wrong. They are fighting a religious war. We are fighting an anti-terrorist war. This isn't Islam vs Christianity or Islam vs Atheism.

If that means proactive, exaggerated reaction, then so be it. They are asking for it.
Many of us agree with military reaction, but we see no reason to resort to using nuclear weapons.

Target the relative moderates within the movement. Attempt to engage them in talks.
Like who?

They killed in London, Moscow, New York and Madrid. Why not there? I don't see the problem.
We are better than the terrorists. Thus we shouldn't resort to their tactics.

The United Arab Emirates. (http://www.uae.gov.ae/Government/women.htm)So, you have given me one name. Any others? I'd like to know how "civilized" the Middle East really is. Don't kid yourself, the message is crystal clear.

Even though they have pledged to erradicate all those that won't convert to muslim? Even though they have declared war on the United States? Even though they have struck at those they deemed, not muslim enough?

So why target first those who are also states founded on one of the other Faiths of the Book rather than other religions?

So, you have given me one name. Any others? I'd like to know how "civilized" the Middle East really is. Don't kid yourself, the message is crystal clear.

Try Kuwait while your at it.

Like who?

I don't know, but it is fairly safe to assume that in any movement (even amongst the most extreme) there will be some who are relative hardliners, and some who are relative moderates, along with quite a large body of people who are basically just foot-soldiers.

In fact, name one single Islamic country that has the same level of womens rights that can be compared to... let's say Germany.

Indonesia and Turkey.

There's two. Iran is gettin there as well.

The problem is, you're not dealing with Islam, you're dealing with culture. Qur'an expressly forbids women to be mistreated and, like Torah before it, holds women in a high regard.

So why target first those who are also states founded on one of the other Faiths of the Book rather than other religions?

Does Israel come to mind? The United States as well? Britain now? Spain?

All attacked.

Israel: A Jewish State
USA: Christian principles
Spain: Catholic
Britain: Church of England

Try Kuwait while your at it.Jeez, didn't see that one coming. How many months ago did women receive the right to vote? Do they have the right to say I want to divorce, I want to stay single? No.

PS: before anyone says Turkey get your facts straight; Turkey is NOT an Arab nation. It has the latin alphabet, is very western in large parts of the country and its overall a very pro-western type of nation.

Funny ... my Imam speaks pretty clear English ... Pakistani accent, but it's most definately English. Just the other day we were sitting in the Mosque discussing a warning given by the Prophet(pbuh): "Whoever oppresses any Dhimmi (non-Muslim citizen of the Islamic state), I shall be his prosecutor on the Day of Judgment" and its relation to the way Christians are treated in Saudi Arabia.

Oh the horror ... the horror of it all!

Your Imam is one of a kind then. :)

Remember the Lodi case, where two Pakistani Americans (father - son ) were arrested since the father concealed that the son got training in a Pakistani terror camp ?

The Imam at Lodi has admitted to calling for attacks against Americans.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/25/BAGPQDF0OS1.DTL
SAN FRANCISCO
Lodi imam admits calling for attacks on Americans

Bob Egelko and Christian Berthelsen, Chronicle Staff Writers

A Muslim cleric from Lodi, one of five members of the Pakistani community in the San Joaquin County city arrested by federal authorities this month, told an immigration judge Friday that he made anti-American speeches to crowds in Pakistan in the first months of the U.S.-led invasion of neighboring Afghanistan.

A bail hearing in San Francisco for Shabbir Ahmed, facing deportation for allegedly overstaying his visa, provided a forum for the government to counter his supporters' claims that Ahmed is a peaceful clergyman victimized by anti- Islamic hysteria.

As the imam of a mosque in the capital city of Islamabad in late 2001, "you encouraged people in Pakistan at least five times to go to Afghanistan and kill Americans,'' Paul Nishiie, assistant general counsel of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, told Ahmed.

The witness, speaking through an interpreter, at first denied the accusation, then said he urged his audiences to "pressure Americans that they should stop the bombing,'' and finally confirmed that he told the FBI he had encouraged attacks on American troops.

Asked repeatedly whether he had also urged Pakistanis to defend Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, Ahmed eventually said, "Being emotional, I may have said it or I may not have said it.''

Ahmed also testified that he has never supported terrorism and that he now regrets his 2001 speeches, and has since made speeches defending the United States to Muslim audiences.

Immigration Judge Anthony Murry delayed further proceedings until Aug. 2 for Ahmed and two other Lodi men, leaving all three in jail.

In Sacramento, a federal judge declined to order prosecutors to produce intelligence that led authorities to place a Lodi man suspected of attending a terrorist training camp in Pakistan on the "no fly" list, saying he did not want defense lawyers to "muck around in national security."

The man, Hamid Hayat, and his father, Umer Hayat, both U.S. citizens, are charged with making false statements to federal agents. They are accused of denying, then admitting, that Hamid Hayat attended an al Qaeda-sponsored training camp in Pakistan. They are not charged with plotting or taking part in terrorist activity.

Both have pleaded not guilty and are being held without bail. Their lawyers, Johnny Griffin III and Wazhma Mojaddidi, have denied that Hamid Hayat attended a terrorist training camp and suggested their comments in FBI interviews were the product of a misunderstanding.

The two were arrested June 3 after Hamid Hayat returned from Pakistan, where he had been living for the past two years. Also arrested were Ahmed, 42; another Lodi religious leader, Muhammad Adil Khan, and Khan's 19-year-old son, Muhammad Hassan Adil Khan. Those three are not charged with any crimes but are accused of immigration violations that could lead to deportation.

At the Hayats' hearing Friday, U.S. District Judge Peter Nowinski ordered the government to provide defense lawyers with videotapes of the two men's interrogations. He barred the lawyers from disclosing the material to anyone outside the case. The judge scheduled another hearing Monday to consider defense requests for more information after they had reviewed the initial government material.

First Assistant U.S. Attorney Larry Brown said that cases involving national security require special procedures to deal with classified information, but that the defense would get all the evidence it needs.

At the San Francisco immigration hearing, Ahmed testified that he entered the United States in January 2002 with a religious visa, served as imam for the Lodi Muslim Mosque, opened the mosque to local Christians and Jews as part of an interfaith organization, and applied for an extension of his visa a month before it was due to expire last November.

Nishiie, the government lawyer, pressed Ahmed about his 11 years at a Pakistani madrassa, or religious school, called Jamia Farooqia, where many of the students went to Afghanistan to fight against the Soviet occupation and later on behalf of the fundamentalist Taliban. During one of bin Laden's denunciations of America, Nishiie said, he "thanked the scholars at Jamia Farooqia'' for their help.

Ahmed said he was too occupied with his studies to have any interest in going to Afghanistan. But he acknowledged that his fellow Lodi cleric, Khan --

formerly the general secretary of Jamia Farooqia -- was, for a time, a close friend of a Taliban leader.

Your Imams reference to a Dhimmi is not relevant since by definition a dhimmi is a second class citizen in an islamic state.

But the Imam and you are not in an Islamic state. So we are not Dhimmis and have no protection, atleast by the above verse that your Imam has quoted.

The religious leaders are the ones barring people and who have they barred the most? REFORMERS! Why? Because they are scared. Please....

Of course they do ... it's a THEOCRACY ... something many Americans want the US to become.

Election 2005, 3 reformers were rejected. Three. One of them was Ebrahim Asgharzadeh, one of the kidnappers during the Iran Hostage Crisis in 1979. Three conservatives were also rejected. Among those was the militia leader, Zabihollah Bakhshi.

(...)See my previous posts. That rules out Turkey. See post before that. That rules out Iran. I'm overruled on Indonesia and UAE. Kuwait? What a joke. Only a farce to show the world they're a developed emancipated nation. Wow, that's two. How much countries does Europe have? Oh excuse me, we are talking about the basic human rights of women. That's irrelevant, they're just women.

Like men in the Arab world treat women with a high regard. Don't make me laugh. Never heard of "honor killings"?

I'm guessing you've never been to Iran. Just how is it a "hellhole"? It's a gorgeous place! Lush gardens, great architecture ... they even drive cars and have super-highways and electricity!

They also elect their leaders! Sometimes even women!


Iran is definitely not the "hellhole" as painted in American media. Atleast when compared to its neighborhood.

But they do not elect women. Women are barred from contesting. But they are allowed to drive, unlike Saudia.

Of course they do ... it's a THEOCRACY ... something many Americans want the US to become.

I'd fight that.

[qute]Election 2005, 3 reformers were rejected. Three. One of them was Ebrahim Asgharzadeh, one of the kidnappers during the Iran Hostage Crisis in 1979. Three conservatives were also rejected. Among those was the militia leader, Zabihollah Bakhshi.[/QUOTE]

They were still rejected. In a free society, they would've been allowed to run.

PS: before anyone says Turkey get your facts straight; Turkey is NOT an Arab nation. It has the latin alphabet, is very western in large parts of the country and its overall a very pro-western type of nation.

You didn't say "Arab", you said "Islamic".

Turkey is a Muslim nation. Arabs make up about 12% of the world's Muslims. The vast majority of Muslims are Asian.

I, myself, happen to be a 6'4 Irish Jew .... and I'm Muslim.

Your preconceived notions are hideous.

Iran is definitely not the "hellhole" as painted in American media. Atleast when compared to its neighborhood.

But they do not elect women. Women are barred from contesting. But they are allowed to drive, unlike Saudia.Hallelujah! Women are allowed to drive! Long live progress! We are seeing a radical change there folks! Prepare yourself for a great wave civil rights trampling through the Middle-East!

Your Imam is one of a kind then. :)

No he's not.

Like men in the Arab world treat women with a high regard. Don't make me laugh. Never heard of "honor killings"?
If you have, then hopefully you realise that 'honour killings' are also perpetrated by Sikhs and Hindus? It's not a purely Muslim thing.

No he's not.

Did you see the Lodi Imam reference ?

One like him is enough to poison 100. Out of that 100 poisoned minds one cell can be formed. One cell like that carries out a terrorist attacks which reinforces the stereotype that all muslims have terrorist inclinations.

Arguing with us is of no effect.

Argue with Imams like the Lodi Imam.

...

yes, the great Iran... where "Death to America!" can be heard over loudspeakers and news outlets.


it's beautiful isn't it?

yes, the great Iran... where "Death to America!" can be heard over loudspeakers and news outlets.


Oh feh ... I hear that in America all the time. I even see it on these forums from time to time. Did you want to abridge Iranian's freedom of speech?

So they say it ... big deal. Every country has its wackos. America is chock full of them. We're the country who brought you Fred Phelps and Michael Jackson.

If you have, then hopefully you realise that 'honour killings' are also perpetrated by Sikhs and Hindus? It's not a purely Muslim thing.

Honor killings is a cultural thing which is justified with religion by the perpetrators.

Verses that call for protecting women's honor and shariat are abused to justify honor killings.

Sikhs and Hindus do not "perpetrate" honor killings. I beleive you are referring to "Sati" which does not have religious justification and has been banned and not more than a dozen cases have happened in the past 50 years. The origins of Sati in NW India is traced to the practice of Sikh / Hindu women killing themselves in the husband's funeral pyre fearing rape and persecution by the invading muslim armies.

Did you see the Lodi Imam reference ?

Yes. I gave it its due attention.

One like him is enough to poison 100. Out of that 100 poisoned minds one cell can be formed. One cell like that carries out a terrorist attacks which reinforces the stereotype that all muslims have terrorist inclinations.

I am aware of that.

Arguing with us is of no effect.

You're right ... because you will cling to the idea that 100 Muslims can speak for 1.5 billion.

Argue with Imams like the Lodi Imam.

No. That would get me killed in rather nasty ways. I have children to raise. That takes precident.

(...)Wonderful. You're fighting back with a small omission in one of my posts. And that is how you dismiss my statements? Calling them hideous. Wow, if mine are hideous what are yours? I'm a non Christian American citizen, not affected by the religious propaganda/truth whatever being pumped into the average American living room by John Hagee, Billy Graham not too long ago, Jerry Falwell and many others. No, I'm looking at religion from a scientific viewpoint as a tool to provide the masses with simple explanations on which I'm not going to debate here.

Yours would be biased, untrue and bursting with other misconceptions if I looked at it from a total neutral viewpoint disallowing any supernatural powers. But I don't because I respect other people's religious viewpoints, unlike the Wahhabi's that want to bring down the Western world. To them only one reality exists, and that is theirs. I'm merely stating facts, you are stating opinions taken into account as fact. Women being allowed to drive a car is a normal kind of thing in Europe, Russia, large parts of Africa, North and South America, Australia and Oceania.

Honour killings may happen in other religions too. Big deal, it's equally wrong.

EDIT: Forgot China. Not really that important, except it's well over 1 billion people.

Oh feh ... I hear that in America all the time. I even see it on these forums from time to time. Did you want to abridge Iranian's freedom of speech?

So they say it ... big deal. Every country has its wackos. America is chock full of them. We're the country who brought you Fred Phelps and Michael Jackson.

you'll hafta clue me in on fred phelps, but michael jackson? He's a wacko but he doesn't promote death and hatred. You hear that in America all the time? Is it so mainstream that everyone gets a chance to see it? I rarely see "death to iran/north korea/iraq/some-other-muslim-country-or-country-that-usa-doesn't-like" i see more of "death to the regime that supports terrorism" however, you do get rednecks who say they want to see the middle east be a glass parking lot. but again, that's not chanted over loudspeakers or wide spread news.

Honour killings may happen in other religions too. Big deal, it's equally wrong.

Honour killings are not sanctioned by Islam.

You're telling people they are.

I can prove you wrong using Qur'an, the Muslim holy text and the single authority on how a Muslim is supposed to act. You can only site examples of cultural nuttery.

In that, you are telling me that I must abide by honour killings and not permit my wife to drive and must snip my daughter's clitoris (yeah, I'm sure the topic will come up soon enough) because, and only because, I am Muslim and some Muslim somewhere in the world did it.

Can I hold you personally accountable for everything every American has ever done in the history of America because you are American?

Sikhs and Hindus do not "perpetrate" honor killings. I beleive you are referring to "Sati" which does not have religious justification and has been banned and not more than a dozen cases have happened in the past 50 years. The origins of Sati in NW India is traced to the practice of Sikh / Hindu women killing themselves in the husband's funeral pyre fearing rape and persecution by the invading muslim armies.
No, I am NOT referring to Sati. I'm referring to killing a woman because she is perceived to have sullied the family's honour. And yes, Hindu and Sikh women have been made victims of this practice too.

No, I am NOT referring to Sati. I'm referring to killing a woman because she is perceived to have sullied the family's honour. And yes, Hindu and Sikh women have been made victims of this practice too.

Very very few cases, maybe two dozens in this whole century. Again it is confined to the Punjab area in India and such cases are few and far between. Please look up the last occurence and the one before that and the number of such incidents in the past decade.

Please understand that I condemn all such killings and I am not saying that it is OK just because it is very few. Just trying to put it into perspective.

In Pakistan alone close to 1000 women die every year in honor killings.

(...)You are so good at twisting someone's words I think you'd be a great spin doctor.

Anyway I'm not telling you how to act according to some vague rulings laid down in some dusty old tome written in 636 if I'm correct. Yes they are vague, look at how many men beat their wife daily. If they were abided by every Muslim then the women's life would be heaven on earth. Stop lying.

The society of the nation where you live and work in will tell you, teach you what is acceptable and what not. In Iran or any other laughable middleage alike nation you call gorgeous that may be normal but you live in Europe. In Europe cutting off your daughters clitoris isn't normal.

In Pakistan alone close to 1000 women die every year in honor killings.

Hah. Muslim men respect their women. You can fill in your personal favourite sarcastic remark here.

Very very few cases, maybe two dozens in this whole century. Again it is confined to the Punjab area in India and such cases are few and far between. Please look up the last occurence and the one before that and the number of such incidents in the past decade.

Please understand that I condemn all such killings and I am not saying that it is OK just because it is very few. Just trying to put it into perspective.

In Pakistan alone close to 1000 women die every year in honor killings.
True. The number of women of the Muslim faith being killed this way is greater.

But I wanted to point out that they don't have a monopoly on barbarism. And India is rife with bride-burnings (not Sati...burnings of wives by husbands and/or mother in laws over poor dowries). Violence against women exists in ALL cultures, and is horrible, regardless of religious background. I just get tired of people jumping all over Muslims as though no one else is capable of incredible religious stupidity. (not saying you are)

Anyway...

You're right ... because you will cling to the idea that 100 Muslims can speak for 1.5 billion.


100 is a metaphorical number. Like I said in the other thread, In my neighborhood these Imams are the norm, Jihadi leaders are revered, Jihadi sympathisers are the majority.

I will cling to that idea as long as I am affected by Islamic terrorism by muslims and no muslim acts against terrorists in their ranks.


No. That would get me killed in rather nasty ways. I have children to raise. That takes precident.

Likewise I too have a family to look after. I don't have time to read and understand Koran and sort out the good muslim from the terrorist muslim. Not interested in knowing about what the Koran actually says when the moulana says he wants to kill me and he is supported, endorsed and funded by the muslim society. Expediency says kill them all and let Allah sort them out.

You are so good at twisting someone's words I think you'd be a great spin doctor.

Anyway I'm not telling you how to act according to some vague rulings laid down in some dusty old tome written in 636 if I'm correct. Yes they are vague, look at how many men beat their wife daily. If they were abided by every Muslim then the women's life would be heaven on earth. Stop lying.

The society of the nation where you live and work in will tell you, teach you what is acceptable and what not. In Iran or any other laughable middleage alike nation you call gorgeous that may be normal but you live in Europe. In Europe cutting off your daughters clitoris isn't normal.

In Pakistan alone close to 1000 women die every year in honor killings.

Hah. Muslim men respect their women. You can fill in your personal favourite sarcastic remark here.

Yeah, but "real" muslims don't do it. Like "real" christians love their gay brothers and sisters. The same way that "real" catholic priests don't touch kids in the bad place.

I find it way too easy for any group to say that the troublemakers among them aren't real members of the group rather than doing something to marginalize the whackos and if they're breaking the law to turn them in to the police.

I will cling to that idea as long as I am affected by Islamic terrorism by muslims and no muslim acts against terrorists in their ranks.

Or until 90 percent of Muslim US Citizen males between the ages of 18 and 25 enlist in the Army and volunteer to fight against their brothers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But I wanted to point out that they don't have a monopoly on barbarism. And India is rife with bride-burnings (not Sati...burnings of wives by husbands and/or mother in laws over poor dowries). Violence against women exists in ALL cultures, and is horrible, regardless of religious background. I just get tired of people jumping all over Muslims as though no one else is capable of incredible religious stupidity. (not saying you are)

Anyway...

True. India has an appalling record of women's rights. Better than neighboring Islamic countries, but far worse than what it should be. But dowry deaths are coming down with economic freedom of women. Again, Dowry is officially banned and recently there have been cases where women have complained and the dowry demanders were arrested and prosecuted.

Yes, Violence against women exist in ALL cultures. But other nations/cultures are trying to deal with it and there is no state sanctioned violence and in most countries if the law enforcement comes in picture, usually some action will be taken.

A far cry from state sanctioned Hudood Ordnances and shariat laws in Islamic countries. I know of an instance where a woman was shot in her advocated room for losing her honor in Pakistan. The killer was let go scot free.

http://www.gendercide.org/case_honour.html
One of the most notorious "honour" killings of recent years occurred in April 1999, when Samia Imran, a young married woman, "was shot in the office of a lawyer helping her to seek a divorce which her family could never countenance." According to Suzanne Goldenberg,

Samia, 28, arrived at the Lahore law offices of Hina Jilani and Asma Jahangir, who are sisters, on April 6. She had engaged Jilani a few days earlier, because she wanted a divorce from her violent husband. Samia settled on a chair across the desk from the lawyer. Sultana, Samia's mother, entered five minutes later with a male companion. Samia half-rose in greeting. The man, Habib-ur-Rhemna, grabbed Samia and put a pistol to her head. The first bullet entered near Samia's eye and she fell. "There was no scream. There was dead silence. I don't even think she knew what was happening," Jilani said. The killer stood over Samia's body, and fired again. Jilani reached for the alarm button as the gunman and Sultana left. "He never even bothered to look whether the girl was dead."

The aftermath of the murder was equally revealing: "Members of Pakistan's upper house demanded punishment for the two women [lawyers] and none of Pakistan's political leaders condemned the attack. ... The clergy in Peshawar want the lawyers to be put to death" for trying to help Imran. (Suzanne Goldenberg, "A Question of Honor," The Guardian (UK), May 27, 1999.)

No comparision. Really.

Another myth is that only poor disgruntled men take to terrorism due to lack of economic opprotunities and if "root causes" are addressed terrorism would vanish away.

The problem is more widespread than simplistic analysis like that. The leader of the org al-Muhajiroun described here, Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammad has warned in 2004 itself that UK is a target. A year old article. It is still chilling to read. What "root causes" do these muslims have sitting in London ?

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/londonnews/articles/10329634?version=1

Terror on the dole
By David Cohen, Evening Standard
20 April 2004

Four young British Muslims in their twenties - a social worker, an IT specialist, a security guard and a financial adviser - occupy a table at a fast-food chicken restaurant in Luton. Perched on their plastic chairs, wolfing down their dinner, they seem just ordinary young men. Yet out of their mouths pour heated words of revolution.

"As far as I'm concerned, when they bomb London, the bigger the better," says Abdul Haq, the social worker. "I know it's going to happen because Sheikh bin Laden said so. Like Bali, like Turkey, like Madrid - I pray for it, I look forward to the day."

"Pass the brown sauce, brother," says Abu Malaahim, the IT specialist, devouring his chicken and chips.

"I agree with you, brother," says Abu Yusuf, the earnest-looking financial adviser sitting opposite. "I would like to see the Mujahideen coming into London and killing thousands, whether with nuclear weapons or germ warfare. And if they need a safehouse, they can stay in mine - and if they need some fertiliser [for a bomb], I'll tell them where to get it."

His friend, Abu Musa, the security guard, smiles radiantly. "It will be a day of joy for me," he adds, speaking with a slight lisp.

As they talk, a man with a bushy beard, dressed in a jacket emblazoned with the word "Jihad", stands and watches over them, handing around cups of steaming hot coffee. His real name is Ishtiaq Alamgir, but he goes by his adopted name, Sayful Islam, meaning "Sword of Islam". He is the 24-year-old leader of the Luton branch of al-Muhajiroun, an extremist Muslim group with about 800 members countrywide, who regard Osama bin Laden as their hero.

Until recently, nobody took the fanatical beliefs of al-Muhajiroun too seriously, believing that a British-based group so brazenly "out there" could not be involved in something as "underground" as terrorism. The group is led by the exiled Saudi, Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammad, from his base in north London. Yesterday, in a magazine article, Bakri warned that several radical groups are poised to strike in London.

For all its inflammatory rhetoric, al-Muhajiroun has never been linked to actual violence. Yet, with the discovery last month of half-a-tonne of ammonium nitrate fertiliser - the same explosive ingredient used in the Bali and Turkey terror attacks - and with the arrest of eight young British Muslims in London and the South-East, including six in Luton, extremist groups such as al-Muhajiroun are under the spotlight like never before.

Detectives fear that the "enemy within", the homegrown extremists leading apparently normal lives in suburbia, now pose the greatest threat to security in Britain. Sayful and his friends fit this "homegrown" profile: three were born here, two came as young children from Pakistan; all were educated in local Luton schools; and they grew up in families of full employment - one of their fathers is a retired local businessman, two are engineers, and two worked in the local Vauxhall car plant.

The question is: how worried should we be? Is al-Muhajiroun nothing more than a repository for disaffected Muslim youths who have adopted an extreme interpretation of Islam - perhaps to cock a snook at the white establishment - but who are essentially posturing? Or does the group also perform a more sinister function, sucking in alienated young men and brainwashing the more impressionable into becoming future suicide bombers?

Although none of the arrested Muslims - aged 17 to 32 - appear to be current al-Muhajiroun members, rumours have circulated of informal links to the group. Moreover, parents of the arrested men have spoken anxiously of the "radicalising influence" of al-Muhajiroun militants who " corrupt" their children at mosques.

Nowhere has this public confrontation between radicals and moderates been more apparent than in Luton, which has the highest density of Muslims in the South-East - 28,000 out of a total population of 140,000 - and has long been regarded as a hotbed of extremism.

Sayful Islam, for one, is particularly proud of his contribution to Luton's hardline reputation. His exploits include covering the town with " Magnificent 19" posters glorifying the 11 September suicide bombers. "When I joined al-Muhajiroun four years ago, there were five local members," he says. "Now there are more than 50 and hundreds more support us."

The strange thing is that four years ago, Sayful Islam was a jeans-clad student completing his degree in business economics at Middlesex University in Hendon, north London.

The son of a British Rail engineer who came to this country from Pakistan, Sayful grew up in a moderate, middle-class Muslim family in Luton. At the local Denbigh High School, he is remembered as one of the smartest kids, and was selected to attend a science masterclass at Cambridge University. He would go on to marry, have two children and find work as an accountant for the Inland Revenue in Luton. He was thoroughly uninterested in politics.

THEN he met Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammad at a local event. Within two years, he had swapped his decently paid job as an accountant for an unpaid one as a political agitator. What turned him into an extremist? And how far is he prepared to go to achieve his aims?

Prior to seeing the group at the fastfood restaurant, Sayful meets me at his semi-detached rented home in Bury Park, Luton's Muslim neighbourhood. He no longer works, even though he is able-bodied, he admits, preferring instead to claim housing benefit and jobseeker's allowance. He smiles sheepishly and says the irony is not lost on him that the British state is supporting him financially, even as he plots to "overthrow it".

"I made a decision that I wanted to follow what Islam really said," Sayful begins, sitting on his sofa in his thowb (a traditional robe) and bare feet. "I went to listen to all the local imams, but I found their portrayal of Islam was too secularised. When I heard Sheikh Omar [the leader] of al-Muhajiroun speak, it was pure Islam, with no compromise. I found that appealing.

"At the same time," continues Sayful, "wars were happening in Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Afghanistan. People were being oppressed simply because they were Muslim. Although I had never experienced racism in the UK, it opened the eyes of a lot of Muslims, including mine."

But it was the events of 11 September that crystallised Sayful's worldview. "When I watched those planes go into the Twin Towers, I felt elated," he says. "That magnificent action split the world into two camps: you were either with Islam and al Qaeda, or with the enemy. I decided to quit my job and commit myself full-time to al-Muhajiroun." Now he does not consider himself British. "I am a Muslim living in Britain, and I give my allegiance only to Allah."

According to Sayful, the aim of al-Muhajiroun ("the immigrants") is nothing less than Khilafah - "the worldwide domination of Islam". The way to achieve this, he says, is by Jihad, led by Bin Laden. "I support him 100 per cent."

Does that support extend to violent acts of terrorism in the UK?

"Yes," he replies, unequivocally. "When a bomb attack happens here, I won't be against it, even if it kills my own children. Islam is clear: Muslims living in lands that are occupied have the right to attack their invaders.

"Britain became a legitimate target when it sent troops to Iraq. But it is against Islam for me to engage personally in acts of terrorism in the UK because I live here. According to Islam, I have a covenant of security with the UK, as long as they allow us Muslims to live here in peace."

HE USES the phrase "covenant of security" constantly. He attempts to explain. "If we want to engage in terrorism, we would have to leave the country," he says. "It is against Islam to do otherwise." Such a course of action, he says, he is not prepared to undertake. This is why, Sayful claims, it is consistent, and not cowardly, for him to espouse the rhetoric of terrorism, the "martyrdom-operations", while simultaneously limiting himself to nonviolentactions such as leafletting outside Luton town hall.

He denies any link between al-Muhajiroun and the Muslims arrested in the recent police raids. But, as I later discover at the fastfood restaurant, not everyone attaching themselves, however loosely, to al-Muhajiroun draws the same line. Two members of the group - Abu Yusuf, the financial adviser, and Abu Musa, the security guard - scorn al-Muhajiroun as "too moderate".

"I am freelance," says Abu Yusuf, fixing me with his piercing brown eyes. What does that mean? I ask.

"The difference between us and those two," interjects Abu Malaahim, pointing to Musa and Yusuf, "is that us lot do a verbal thing, those brothers actually want to do a physical thing."

Referring to the latest truce offered by Bin Laden, and Britain's scathing rejection of it, Abu Malaahim adds: "He tried to make a peace deal. When terrorism happens, you will only have yourselves to blame."

How far are you prepared to go? I ask.

[b]"You want to know how far I will go," says Abu Musa, his high-pitched lisp rising an octave. "When Allah said in the Koran 'kill and be killed', that's what I want. I want a martyr operation, where I kill my enemy."

Are you saying, I probe, that you are looking to kill people yourself ? "Yes," Abu Musa says, "to kill and to be killed." He emphasises each word.

What's stopped you doing it? "As you know from watching the news," intones Abu Yusuf, "there are brothers who do leave the country and do it." He is referring to the four Muslims from Luton who died fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the two British Muslims, said to have had ties to al-Muhajiroun, who last April left to become suicide bombers in Israel. "In-shallah [ Godwilling], there will be a time to go."

It is hard to know whether Musa and Yusuf are deadly serious or just pumped full of misguided, youthful bravado. Though I see coldness - even ruthlessness - in their eyes, I sense no malice. Both young men agree, perhaps foolishly, to be quoted using their real names, though they decline photographs - thus illustrating their uncertainty of which way to jump.

Muhammad Sulaiman, president of the Islamic Cultural Society, the largest of the 14 mosques in Luton, dismisses al-Muhajiroun as "verbal diarrhoea".

"They are an extreme Right-wing group - the Muslim version of the BNP," he says disdainfully. "They think Muslims should dominate, just like the BNP thinks whites should dominate. They use Islam as a vehicle to promote their distorted beliefs, particularly to unemployed young bloods who are vulnerable."

ALTHOUGH unemployment in Luton is just six per cent, the rate among Muslim youths is estimated at 25 per cent. "They are no more representative of our Muslim community than the BNP are of the white community."

Sulaiman insists that Sayful Islam and his crew are not welcome at the mosque. He cannot prevent them praying there, but he will never give them a platform. "I've told Sayful to bugger off and ejected him many times," he says brusquely. "Even Sayful's father, who I know well, thinks his son has been brainwashed."

But Sayful and his friends laugh at the idea that they are local pariahs. "The mosques say one thing to the public, and something else to us. Let's just say that the face you see and the face we see are two different faces," says Abdul Haq. "Believe me," adds Musa, "behind closed doors, there are no moderate Muslims."

They also mock the idea that they are attracted to al-Muhajiroun because they have suffered alienation from white society. "Do we look like scum?" they ask. "Do we look illiterate?"

As they call for the bill, Abu Malaahim flicks open his 3G mobile phone and, with a satisfied grin, displays the image, downloaded from the internet, of an American Humvee burning in Iraq.

Abu Yusuf says: "That's nothing. I downloaded the picture of the four burnt Americans hanging from the bridge." It's oneupmanship, al-Muhajiroun style.

Sayful, the only married one in the group, prepares to go home to his wife and children. Before he departs, he says he has a message to deliver.

"I want to warn that the police raids - if repeated - could create a bad situation.

"Islam is not like Christianity, where they turn the other cheek. If they raid our homes, it could lead to the covenant of security being broken.

"Islam allows us to retaliate. That would include" - he tugs his "Jihad" coat tight against the night air - "by violent means."

I don't think that 'myth' is especially prevalent anymore...especially once the middle-class, privileged backgrounds of the 911 terrorists was revealed.

Though you can't discount those that are taught, armed, and pointed at a target, who act out of lack of education and lack of opportunity. The ones who plan these attacks aren't undereducated OR under funded nuts living in squalor.

Well, im pretty late to this whole party started by the attacks in London as I was gone this morning, but here is my idea to drastically slowing terrorism...because it is impossible to stop completely.

NOTE: When I use the term "we" it means the Western world.

First we must understand why particularly Muslim extremists are driven to use terrorism. Once we know why, we know better how to solve it and make amends. It is not because "they hate our freedoms." I can't stress that enough. Terrorists are not blowing themselves up because they're jelous of our freedoms or whatever Big Brother wants you to believe. The real reason is because we have exploited the Middle east for well over half a century and disrupted their societies. Just as we pried our way into China and unleashed boatloads of narcotics in the late 1800's, and the way Western nations divied up Africa to exploit resources and labor and forcfully convert tribesmen to Christianity, we have exploited the Middle East and used their resources to our advantage. Our creating of Israel and our blatant backing of Israel over the Palestinians isn't helping either. They hate us because in their eyes, we hate them.

We can't hate back. That will just create a vicious cycle that will never end. Invading Iraq in the manner that we did isn't helping at all either. We go in with hundreds of thousands of troops armed to the teeth, but without a plan. The insurgents are/were a few thousand with weapons bought off the black market or left over from the Soviet union and they knew they'd be fighting a perpetual war when they went in, so instead of getting slaughtered when we marched to Baghdad, they waited in the cities.

We aren't being smart about this war. The cars used in the convoys that are always being blown up are brand new, large, usually white SUVs, incredibly easy to pick out. If we used plain cars that blended in with the crowd, they wouldn't get blown up. We can't kill many insurgents because they're blended in with crowds, why don't we blend in as well. Fight them on the same level. That's just one of the many things going wrong in this war, and we can't have the mindset that pure force will achieve victory.

June 6, 1944, the largest invasion in modern history, was successful because of sheer numbers. It was equally successful to the brilliant mastermind George Patton and Operation Bodyguard and Operation Fortitude. They set up a huge fake army to invade in the in the Pas de Calais area and the Germans thought that the Normandy invasion was a decoy for the real invasion.

Battle of Midway, Admiral Chester Nimitz commanded three (I believe) aircraft carriers, one of which the Yorktown was heavily damaged from the Coral Sea. They got wind of a massive Japanese fleet headed towards Midway island. The American carriers hid beyond the horizon behind the island and launched a surprise attack sinking all four Jap carriers and severly damaging the fleet.

War on Terror, we go in with 150,000 troops and nothing else. Where have all the brains gone in the military? Did the IQ of the military drop 99% after WWII? We must fight this smart, not tough.

This article is a real long read... but very interesting. No matter what your views might be, it will make you think.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18631

I cannot understand how a muslim immigrant born in a western country and educated in western institutions until college and seemingly "normal" can become a virulent jihadi after listening to a few "fiery" sermons from a jihadi preacher.

Remember Omar Sheikh, the guy who killed Daniel Pearl and allegedly wired $100K to Mohammed Atta. He went to LSE (London School of Economics) and was a "normal" British guy.

Profile
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/1804710.stm

Profile: Omar Saeed Sheikh

People who knew Omar Sheikh when he lived in Britain were shocked when allegations that he was involved in the journalist's abduction were first made.

George Paynter, who was his economics tutor at Forest School, said: "I'm horrified. The chap we knew was a good all round, solid and very supportive pupil.

"We are just absolutely stunned that he might be involved in these activities."

Mr Paynter added: "He was in the premier league of students, there was absolutely nothing there, no sign whatsoever of this.

"He wouldn't have been here if there was. He was a nice bloke and very respectful."

Clearly there is something majorly wrong if guys like Omar Sheikh turn to Jihad. There is a recruiting mechanism behind this involving incendiary sermons in mosques, a network of recruiters, a visit to initiating grounds in Pakistan, hate literature, etc that the UK law enforcement is not being able to smash ...maybe due to fear of backlash and fear of being accused "anti-muslim" or worse appeasement and hoping that they will act elsewhere and not in UK.

First we must understand why particularly Muslim extremists are driven to use terrorism. Once we know why, we know better how to solve it and make amends. It is not because "they hate our freedoms." I can't stress that enough. Terrorists are not blowing themselves up because they're jelous of our freedoms or whatever Big Brother wants you to believe. The real reason is because we have exploited the Middle east for well over half a century and disrupted their societies. Just as we pried our way into China and unleashed boatloads of narcotics in the late 1800's, and the way Western nations divied up Africa to exploit resources and labor and forcfully convert tribesmen to Christianity, we have exploited the Middle East and used their resources to our advantage. Our creating of Israel and our blatant backing of Israel over the Palestinians isn't helping either. They hate us because in their eyes, we hate them.


Very true, but a lot of people won't want to hear it. The truth conflicts with what they want to believe - i.e., that the West is and always has been good and pure and above reproach, with not the faintest degree of reponsability in stirring hate in the world.

The terrorists are despicable, and no explaining can condone their actions. But refusing to understand why they do it, refusing to face up to the responsabilities of the West, claiming simply that "they hate our freedoms", is merely to continue to encourage the grassroots of terrorism, and pour oil on the fire rather than water.

Likewise I too have a family to look after. I don't have time to read and understand Koran and sort out the good muslim from the terrorist muslim. Not interested in knowing about what the Koran actually says when the moulana says he wants to kill me and he is supported, endorsed and funded by the muslim society. Expediency says kill them all and let Allah sort them out.

You sick bastard.

You've just reminded us that it's possible to be even more despicable than those who advocate the random murdering of innocent civilians. You've managed to sink even lower than the advocates of terrorism; you're advocating genocide.

Kerulavia, I'm an atheist myself, but the Muslims I know are educated, intelligent, open-minded people, and far more intelligent, decent, human beings than the non-Muslm likes of the hate-spewing, ignorant morons we've seen here.

Yes. I gave it its due attention.



I am aware of that.



You're right ... because you will cling to the idea that 100 Muslims can speak for 1.5 billion.



No. That would get me killed in rather nasty ways. I have children to raise. That takes precident.

i have been reading your posts and i must say i am very impressed with you.

you have remained calm amongst many ideas of total ignorance towards your religion

you have been very reasoned and rational in your posts

and i must admit i love the fact your so well versed in football,i love football

lastly,thanks for the insight into your religion,i know next to nothing about islam so i am refraining to put forth opinions about it.

p.s.i think to do something about this problem with the thugs masquerading as religous folks.
1.try to do something about the funding they receive.
2.get saudi's to do something about the clerics that rail against anything western and promoting violence towards the west.to me,they are just as guilty as the perps.
for example:if i raised my son in a rural area in poverty,and ranted all day to him how blacks are evil and should die,it;s the blacks fault we are poor.when he grows and commits an act of violence against a black person,am i not as guilty as him?
if the saudis cant get the clerics to chill,then send teams in to whack em,alot better then indiscrimmanate attacks against a country of mostly innocent people.
3.try some counter propaganda with the dissaffected youth they recruit.

You sick bastard.

You've just reminded us that it's possible to be even more despicable than those who advocate the random murdering of innocent civilians. You've managed to sink even lower than the advocates of terrorism; you're advocating genocide.


Nope. Not genocide. You are reading in between posts and jumping on me. The society I meant is not the whole muslim society all over the world , just the one in which majority people support and fund terrorism.

I have no sympathies for muslims who actively aid, protect, support and fund terror seeing that thay have no sympathies for me by their said actions. How am I to know who is a good muslim or a bad muslim in such societies ? That was the context in which the post was written. Apologies if I have worded it wrongly.

Direct you OMG outburts elsewhere please.

Nope. Not genocide. You are reading in between posts and jumping on me. The society I meant is not the whole muslim society all over the world , just the one in which majority people support and fund terrorism.

I have no sympathies for muslims who actively aid, protect, support and fund terror seeing that thay have no sympathies for me by their said actions. How am I to know who is a good muslim or a bad muslim in such societies ? That was the context in which the post was written. Apologies if I have worded it wrongly.


Apology accepted, but do be careful how you word things. What you said was, at best, highly ambiguous:


I don't have time to read and understand Koran and sort out the good muslim from the terrorist muslim. Not interested in knowing about what the Koran actually says when the moulana says he wants to kill me and he is supported, endorsed and funded by the muslim society. Expediency says kill them all and let Allah sort them out.

Not that that's any excuse or justification for advocating the murder of innocent, non-violent people even within specific "contexts".

You're still advocating exactly the same kind of thing as terrorists, on exactly the same grounds of justifaction as they try to use.

Apology accepted, but do be careful how you word things. What you said was, at best, highly ambiguous:


Yes, I wish I had not worded it like that.


Not that that's any excuse or justification for advocating the murder of innocent, non-violent people even within specific "contexts".

You're still advocating exactly the same kind of thing as terrorists, on exactly the same grounds of justifaction as they try to use.

There is of course no excuse for killing a non-violent person.

But there is also no excuse for a society which cannot keep its extremists to itself. When I am getting affected by the actions of the terrorists from the said society, I am not interested in knowing the intricacies of the terrorist's faith nor I need to.

Keruvalia and I were speaking about a particular Moulana and his claims of Jihad and the funding and protection that his society offers him.

There is no innocent muslim society, if such a society cannot eradicate the terrorists in their ranks. There maybe innocent muslims in that society but we have no way of knowing who they are. That was my point. So when the inevitable retaliation comes, expediency will take over.

Terrorists hide behind the "moderates" and the day it dawns upon the terrorist organisations and their political backers that we too can be crazy and irrational, they will fall in line and their political and societal acceptance will drop. Self preservation will take over.

Expediency says kill them all and let Allah sort them out.

So you're endorsing the murder of my children.

That's sweet.

There is no innocent muslim society, if such a society cannot eradicate the terrorists in their ranks.

Well that's just it, isn't it?

I have no terrorists in my ranks. I have never met a terrorist. I've never even met someone who "might be" a terrorist. I've met quite a few left-wing Democrat Muslims who don't like Bush too much and rattle on about Republicans from time to time ... but nothing more harsh than a "When Clinton lied, nobody died" pin on their shirt.

So you're endorsing the murder of my children.

That's sweet.

Not the American muslim society. Since there is no significant support for terrorism amongst American muslims.

Not the American muslim society. Since there is no significant support for terrorism amongst American muslims.
Then maybe you should list off the Muslim societies you are thinking of...I'm sure the American Muslims are not the only innocents...

I have no sympathies for muslims who actively aid, protect, support and fund terror

But that's what I've been trying to explain to you .... Muslims don't do that. A wolf may call itself a sheep, but that doesn't make it so.

Then maybe you should list off the Muslim societies you are thinking of...I'm sure the American Muslims are not the only innocents...

Yes. I have nothing against American muslims or for that matter muslims from any country who do not support terrorism against my country.

My beef is with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Especially the later which I can prove is not innocent when it comes to terrorism against my country. Please follow the discussions in "Ask a muslim" thread regarding Moulana masood Azhar.

But that's what I've been trying to explain to you .... Muslims don't do that. A wolf may call itself a sheep, but that doesn't make it so.

It bites me. I react. I don't care what it is called. The wolf hides behind sheep and the sheep don't push him out and worse I have no way of knowing which is a wolf and which is a sheep.

I don't like to divulge details, but I am a person who has experienced islamic terrorism first hand. I have suffered the loss of friends (unarmed civilians, not armymen ) - to islamic terrorism. I was in the midst of a far worse bomb blast than this London one, one which took 250 lives and the ensuing riots took another 1000 lives. The person who coordinated the bomb blast was Dawood Ibrahim. Following the blasts he ran away to Pakistan. He enjoys state protection there even though the Paki govt keeps saying that he is not there. You can't say that society has not accepted him because his daughter is now marrying the son of a celebrated cricketer, Javed Miandad. (http://p146.news.scd.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050618/wl_sthasia_afp/afplifestylefamilyindiapakistandawood/nc:731)

Is such a society innocent? Why should I take the trouble of differentiating a good muslim from a bad muslims from such a society when they themselves do not do that?

Technically, is it not enough for a person to declare shahadat to be called a muslim?

Has anyone brought up examples of where terrorism has resulted in something that most people would agree is a good result?

For example, the American Revolution may never have happened if it were not for the work of the urban terrorist group known as the Sons of Liberty in the few years before the war...

Technically, is it not enough for a person to declare shahadat to be called a muslim?

No, it isn't enough. There are 5 pillars in Islam .... shahadah is only 1 of them.

There are 70 sins:

01. Associating anything with Allah
02. Murder
03. Practising magic
04. Not Praying
05. Not paying Zakat
06. Not fasting on a Day of Ramadan without excuse
07. Not performing Hajj, while being able to do so
08. Disrespect to parents
09. Abandoning relatives
10. Fornication and Adultery
11. Homosexuality(sodomy)
12. Interest(Riba)
13. Wrongfully consuming the property of an orphan
14. Lying about Allah and His Messenger
15. Running away from the battlefield
16. A leader's deceiving his people and being unjust to them
17. Pride and arrogance
18. Bearing false witness
19. Drinking Khamr (wine)
20. Gambling
21. Slandering chaste women
22. Stealing from the spoils of war
23. Stealing
24. Highway Robbery
25. Taking false oath
26. Oppression
27. Illegal gain
28. Consuming wealth acquired unlawfully
29. Committing suicide
30. Frequent lying
31. Judging unjustly
32. Giving and Accepting bribes
33. Woman's imitating man and man's imitating woman
34. Being cuckold
35. Marrying a divorced woman in order to make her lawful for the husband
36. Not protecting oneself from urine
37. Showing-off
38. Learning knowledge of the religion for the sake of this world and concealing that knowledge
39. Bertrayal of trust
40. Recounting favours
41. Denying Allah's Decree
42. Listening (to) people's private conversations
43. Carrying tales
44. Cursing
45. Breaking contracts
46. Believing in fortune-tellers and astrologers
47. A woman's bad conduct towards her husband
48. Making statues and pictures
49. Lamenting, wailing, tearing the clothing, and doing other things of this sort when an affliction befalls
50. Treating others unjustly
51. Overbearing conduct toward the wife, the servant, the weak, and animals
52. Offending one's neighbour
53. Offending and abusing Muslims
54. Offending people and having an arrogant attitude toward them
55. Trailing one's garment in pride
56. Men's wearing silk and gold
57. A slave's running away from his master
58. Slaughtering an animal which has been dedicated to anyone other than Allah
59. To knowingly ascribe one's paternity to a father other than one's own
60. Arguing and disputing violently
61. Witholding excess water
62. Giving short weight or measure
63. Feeling secure from Allah's Plan
64. Offending Allah's righteous friends
65. Not praying in congregation but praying alone without an excuse
66. Persistently missing Friday Prayers without any excuse
67. Unsurping the rights of the heir through bequests
68. Deceiving and plotting evil
69. Spying for the enemy of the Muslims
70. Cursing or insulting any of the Companiions of Allah's Messenger

61. Witholding excess water

I am sorry, but cannot help laughing at that :D

The way I understand it, you become a muslim by declaring the shahadah and you are expected to follow the other pillars - salat , zakat, ramzan fasting and Hajj , but you still remain a muslim even though you are unable to follow the other pillars at one time or the other. Hajj is even exempt for those who are not economically endowed, right ?

So technically, is Moulana Masood Azhar a muslim ?

I believe he is not and you would also say the same. But I have come to the stage where I don't care who is a true muslim or not. What is the use ? Would the jihad stop by you saying so? Your words that he is not a muslim has no effect on him and he is still out to kill me in his jihad. Jaish terrorists are still active.

You said that all your letters to the mullahs and imams had no response. If you get some reply, please let me know.

Added Later: Taking a break. Don't expect reply for atleast 10 days.

68. Deceiving and plotting evil

Here's a question! Its a sin to decieve evil as well as plotting it?

i have been reading your posts and i must say i am very impressed with you.

Don't be. All praise to Allah. I am surprisingly quite the sinner.

you have remained calm amongst many ideas of total ignorance towards your religion

I was blessed with Zen.

you have been very reasoned and rational in your posts

Not always ... heh ... not always.

and i must admit i love the fact your so well versed in football,i love football

Well, I am, after all, a Texan. :D

lastly,thanks for the insight into your religion,i know next to nothing about islam so i am refraining to put forth opinions about it.

Thanks be to Allah that I am able to speak of it with clarity and to hopefully clear up any misunderstandings or misinformation I may unwittingly cause.

Here's a question! Its a sin to decieve evil as well as plotting it?

Heh ... well I suppose that one is strangely worded. :) Should be a comma in there, I guess.

There are 70 sins:

02. Murder
08. Disrespect to parents
15. Running away from the battlefield
16. A leader's deceiving his people and being unjust to them
17. Pride and arrogance
23. Stealing
24. Highway Robbery
25. Taking false oath
26. Oppression
27. Illegal gain
28. Consuming wealth acquired unlawfully
29. Committing suicide
30. Frequent lying
31. Judging unjustly
32. Giving and Accepting bribes
37. Showing-off
39. Bertrayal of trust
40. Recounting favours
50. Treating others unjustly
52. Offending one's neighbour
53. Offending and abusing Muslims
54. Offending people and having an arrogant attitude toward them
68. Deceiving and plotting evil


These are the reasons the terrorists are not true muslims

Heh ... well I suppose that one is strangely worded. :) Should be a comma in there, I guess.

just thought I ask because it looked strange to me. :D

These are the reasons the terrorists are not true muslims

I hope I don't cause offenst to Keruvalia for saying this but those rules you quoted can be used to say that most muslim nations aren't muslim nations.

I mean no offense when I say this either.

I hope I don't cause offenst to Keruvalia for saying this but those rules you quoted can be used to say that most muslim nations aren't muslim nations.

I mean no offense when I say this either.

Hey I'm no perfect catholic. But i'm still catholic, my point is that any group that frequently disregards those rules with the use of suicide bombers just to mention one cannot be seen as a representation of Islam

Hey I'm no perfect catholic. But i'm still catholic, my point is that any group that frequently disregards those rules with the use of suicide bombers just to mention one cannot be seen as a representation of Islam

I agree totally with that. They aren't and we all need to remember that.

I hope I don't cause offenst to Keruvalia for saying this but those rules you quoted can be used to say that most muslim nations aren't muslim nations.

I mean no offense when I say this either.

Its not that they are not Muslim nations. It is a battle inside the muslim world over sharia law,hardline radicals and the moderates. This is why there is battle amongst some muslim nations. In Iraq they target other muslims. In Morocco they targeted other muslims, Chechnya, Algeria, Turkey, Egypt,Arabia, Yemen and other nations. Almost the whole list has had interfaith violence. I think there is going to be a very long vetting process to rid Islam of what I would think of as the trash. Unfortunately Christian and Jewish peoples are going to be the ones fighting in this vetting process. In the end it will work out and things will be fine. But this is going to be a long haul. This war of ideology and religion is what I would consider the Third World War.

Its not that they are not Muslim nations. It is a battle inside the muslim world over sharia law,hardline radicals and the moderates. This is why there is battle amongst some muslim nations. In Iraq they target other muslims. In Morocco they targeted other muslims, Chechnya, Algeria, Turkey, Egypt,Arabia, Yemen and other nations. Almost the whole list has had interfaith violence. I think there is going to be a very long vetting process to rid Islam of what I would think of as the trash. Unfortunately Christian and Jewish peoples are going to be the ones fighting in this vetting process. In the end it will work out and things will be fine. But this is going to be a long haul. This war of ideology and religion is what I would consider the Third World War.

In other words, we're already in the mist of a Muslim 3 way civil war and the Christians and Jews are caught in the middle. Is that what your saying?

In other words, we're already in the mist of a Muslim 3 way civil war and the Christians and Jews are caught in the middle. Is that what your saying?

:( Unfortuneately, religious civil wars are always very messy and have a tendancy to catch-up anyone in the general area, no matter their religious beliefs... or wish to stay out if it.

Am I wrong in thinking that by eliminating transportation targets terrorists are greatly harmed in their ability to exact financial instability?

I mean, if a hotel is bombed, it's horrible and doubtless many people will die. However, there is not a system which must be shut down for an extended period of time and no whole industry which risks going down the tube if one hotel is bombed--I mean, hotels may be less visited, but its less of a loss than at least less so than airlines, trains, ships, busses, etc. which will all be shut down for possibly days on end. I've just been thinking, and it seems that security in transit systems is the most well-placed, as transit terrorism seems to do the most financial damage.

Anyway, I think everyone who has a grasp on the evils of the KKK knows not to blame Muslims for terrorism. Just like not all Christian are intolerant bigots (in fact, only a few--who are arguably 'Christians' in name only--are intolerant bigots), not all Muslims are terrorists (in fact, only a few--who are arguably 'Muslims' in name only--are terrorists). Every ideology, religion suffers from outliers.

In other words, we're already in the mist of a Muslim 3 way civil war and the Christians and Jews are caught in the middle. Is that what your saying?

'Tis a grand time to be alive, is it not? *deeply sad sigh*

I only hope Allah's plan with all this bears good fruits.

'Tis a grand time to be alive, is it not? *deeply sad sigh*

I only hope Allah's plan with all this bears good fruits.

I hope so too.

KKK

Speaking of the KKK, I think that the American terrorist organizations have been significantly smarter than Al Qaeda.

In other words, we're already in the mist of a Muslim 3 way civil war and the Christians and Jews are caught in the middle. Is that what your saying?
This, to my knowledge, sums up much of the current situation quite nicely.

Of course, we're not helping at all. Christian minorities in the middle east generally have better relations with the Muslims than with the Jews. Somehow I think that's worth considering. Perhaps it says something about our forign policies.

Anyway, what's now the Al Queda have existed for a long time. The "Kill the western infidels" thing is a pretty new practice. Mostly they have been consentrating on trying to overthrow governments in the region. After they failed miserably, they started killing Muslims. I think the reasoning was something along the lines of "If they don't want our rulership, they are not true believers. If they are not true believers, they are unwellcome in our lands. They occupy our lands, and thus it's our sacred duty to kill them".
Of course many of them were captured and some of them executed. Unfortunately it damn hard for an illegitimate government in a Muslim nation, to kill what many still considered rightious rebel leaders, without helping their cause by making them martyrs.
Anyway, untill the Afghan war against USSR, the various factions had taken to warring with eachother. The argument was somewhat similar to the one above, ei. "We're the way. Some of our former allies claim they're the way, so they're obviously wrong and thus infidels to be killed".
If the USSR hadn't invaded and if the US hadn't enabled the fucked up loons to win the war, they most likely wouldn't be around anymore.
The Afghan war proved to them they could both unite and defeat a superpower if they needed. It also boosted their popularity immensely. Just not enough for them to actually overthrow anyone. I guess people in the region considered them heroes, but the kind of heroes you'd rather much like not having come visit.

If all of that was leading anywhere it was prolly to me saying: The fuckers are trying to win a popularity contest. We are bastards. Really. We are. We prove it daily by our utterly evil forign policies. They're taking a swing at us to gain popularity, and it's working like a charm. And when we pull insane stunts like breaking our own laws and go to war on a soverign nation that isn't a threat to anyone anywhere, we prove that we're not only unaccountable, but completely unpredictable... And evil. And they're the only real resistance. We own all their corrupt leaders. Leaders they pretty much hate. They are the alternative - at least in their own minds - and they want to make damn sure everyone can see that.

I've said it previously. The only way we can win without removing the entire region from the face of the planet, is if we make a viable alternative. Most sane people, regardless of their religion, don't really want to live in a theocracy. People of the ME sure don't if past elections are anything to go by. And noone's interested in living under the Sharia law. It's simply too harsh for most people.

The root cause of these terrorist attacks is not ideology. Ideology is only a justification. Islamic doctrine is slightly easier to convert into radical militarism than other religions, and therefore is frequently used.

The root cause of these terrorist attacks is poverty. If people are hungy and uneducated, they will think with their blood, not with their brain. The G8, instead of trying to fight terrorism with politics and military, they should do it with economics, such as FAIR TRADE. Abolish your agricultural subsidies and tariffs and encourage responsible investment in these areas. China is having success at this: a generally moderate foreign policy, but its economics is rapidly storming the world.

Islamic doctrine is slightly easier to convert into radical militarism than other religions, and therefore is frequently used.
Could you explain that please?

Could you explain that please?
I'm waiting for that one as well :confused:

Anyway, I think the ideology side of this is a sort of theological fascism. They want to decide what Islam is and they want power over the ME nations. I'm not sure they're actually out to save anyone, but it's damn hard to tell.

Edit: A great many followers aren't that poor. Many of them link our conduct with our lack of belief in Islam. It's hardly suprising they're inclined to listen to a bunch of bastards who say that all the abuse really is due to us being infidels. I suspect I'd be tempted to believe it If I was in their situation. They have all the reasons in the world to be pissed off. Al Queda is just providing an outlet.

30. Frequent lyingI find it so ironic to be hearing this from you.

I find it so ironic to be hearing this from you.
Where on Earth did that come from?

And your suggestion?

I think either than forming a better information system among countries to wipe out international terrorism (which is currently under-way).. Drunk Commies hits the spot for me.

I'm not saying Drunk Commies is wrong. I'm just saying you need to address root causes as well as symptoms. Two of the biggies are poverty and injustice. You look at the Taliban. Their recruits largely consisted of orphans from the Afghani civil war (which was a result of foreign intervnetion by the US and USSR) who were living in refugee camps and who got brainwashed by the mullahs. Poverty and inustice create a lakc of opportunity which is a fertiel breeding ground for terrorism. A War on Poverty is as consistent with trying to eradicate terrorism as a War on the Terrorists themselves.