Muslim terrorists laugh at western hirelings/liberals running to thier defense

[Zebo]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pag...465570&in_page_id=1770

I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.

By blaming the Government for our actions, those who pushed this "Blair's bombs" line did our propaganda work for us.

More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

Lots of apologists myths being debunked this week (poor Jihadis) so I thought I add another...Read it all.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Zebo
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pag...465570&in_page_id=1770

I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.

By blaming the Government for our actions, those who pushed this "Blair's bombs" line did our propaganda work for us.

More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

Lots of apologists myths being debunked this week (poor Jihadis) so I thought I add another...Read it all.

It's a steam engine and I think all were dong is adding fuel to the fire.

We either go to war and do it right (whatever it takes to take their oil) or we make an arrangment of some kind. I expect more then high oil prices for our "investment" of lives/resources/dollars and I could give two shakes of a lambs tail whethter the Iraqis have a Democracy or not. Either it's worth doing right or it's not worth doing at all.

If you have some plan about how we can change Islmaic theology without WW3, I'm all ears.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Zebo
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pag...465570&in_page_id=1770

I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.

By blaming the Government for our actions, those who pushed this "Blair's bombs" line did our propaganda work for us.

More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

Lots of apologists myths being debunked this week (poor Jihadis) so I thought I add another...Read it all.

It's a steam engine and I think all were dong is adding fuel to the fire.

We either go to war and do it right (whatever it takes to take their oil) or we make an arrangment of some kind. I expect more then high oil prices for our "investment" of lives/resources/dollars and I could give two shakes of a lambs tail whethter the Iraqis have a Democracy or not. Either it's worth doing right or it's not worth doing at all.

If you have some plan about how we can change Islmaic theology without WW3, I'm all ears.

It has less to do with changing their theology and more to do with not bending over backwards to appease them at every bend, which the left is all too eager to do.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Zebo
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pag...465570&in_page_id=1770

I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.

By blaming the Government for our actions, those who pushed this "Blair's bombs" line did our propaganda work for us.

More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

Lots of apologists myths being debunked this week (poor Jihadis) so I thought I add another...Read it all.

It's a steam engine and I think all were dong is adding fuel to the fire.

We either go to war and do it right (whatever it takes to take their oil) or we make an arrangment of some kind. I expect more then high oil prices for our "investment" of lives/resources/dollars and I could give two shakes of a lambs tail whethter the Iraqis have a Democracy or not. Either it's worth doing right or it's not worth doing at all.

If you have some plan about how we can change Islmaic theology without WW3, I'm all ears.

It has less to do with changing their theology and more to do with not bending over backwards to appease them at every bend, which the left is all too eager to do.

Muslims != Muslim terrorists

This is not a complex concept, but you guys get that...because you're stupid, but you're not stupid, if you know what I mean.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: jrenz
It has less to do with changing their theology and more to do with not bending over backwards to appease them at every bend, which the left is all too eager to do.

QFT -- if, by "them," you are referring to the Muslim terrorists, and not all Muslims.

Rainsford>
remember this axiom whenever you get the urge to nitpick on peoples' word choice: Most modern Muslims are NOT terrorists, but most modern terrorists ARE Muslim.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Zebo
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pag...465570&in_page_id=1770

I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.

By blaming the Government for our actions, those who pushed this "Blair's bombs" line did our propaganda work for us.

More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

Lots of apologists myths being debunked this week (poor Jihadis) so I thought I add another...Read it all.

It's a steam engine and I think all were dong is adding fuel to the fire.

We either go to war and do it right (whatever it takes to take their oil) or we make an arrangment of some kind. I expect more then high oil prices for our "investment" of lives/resources/dollars and I could give two shakes of a lambs tail whethter the Iraqis have a Democracy or not. Either it's worth doing right or it's not worth doing at all.

If you have some plan about how we can change Islmaic theology without WW3, I'm all ears.

It has less to do with changing their theology and more to do with not bending over backwards to appease them at every bend, which the left is all too eager to do.

Muslims != Muslim terrorists

This is not a complex concept, but you guys get that...because you're stupid, but you're not stupid, if you know what I mean.

I never said Muslims == Muslim terrorists... as pointed out below though, the overwhelming majority of terrorists are Muslims, and what you're doing is a good example of what I am talking about. People refuse to equate terrorism with radical Muslims (look at the new EU policy), and we'll do anything to avoid offending Muslims, including pretending that the problem doesn't exist, and calling anybody who brings up terrorism and Islam in the same sentence a xenophobic bigot.

You are intelligent enough to know that while not all Muslims are terrorists, that our problem is with MUSLIM Terrorists.. yet you still seem to find it more important that I make absolutely sure that I specify that not all Muslims are terrorists before making any comments.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Zebo
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pag...465570&in_page_id=1770

I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.

By blaming the Government for our actions, those who pushed this "Blair's bombs" line did our propaganda work for us.

More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

Lots of apologists myths being debunked this week (poor Jihadis) so I thought I add another...Read it all.

It's a steam engine and I think all were dong is adding fuel to the fire.

We either go to war and do it right (whatever it takes to take their oil) or we make an arrangment of some kind. I expect more then high oil prices for our "investment" of lives/resources/dollars and I could give two shakes of a lambs tail whethter the Iraqis have a Democracy or not. Either it's worth doing right or it's not worth doing at all.

If you have some plan about how we can change Islmaic theology without WW3, I'm all ears.

It has less to do with changing their theology and more to do with not bending over backwards to appease them at every bend, which the left is all too eager to do.

Muslims != Muslim terrorists

This is not a complex concept, but you guys get that...because you're stupid, but you're not stupid, if you know what I mean.

I never said Muslims == Muslim terrorists... as pointed out below though, the overwhelming majority of terrorists are Muslims, and what you're doing is a good example of what I am talking about. People refuse to equate terrorism with radical Muslims (look at the new EU policy), and we'll do anything to avoid offending Muslims, including pretending that the problem doesn't exist, and calling anybody who brings up terrorism and Islam in the same sentence a xenophobic bigot.

You are intelligent enough to know that while not all Muslims are terrorists, that our problem is with MUSLIM Terrorists.. yet you still seem to find it more important that I make absolutely sure that I specify that not all Muslims are terrorists before making any comments.

I think you missed my point. I never accused you of conflating Islam and terrorism to an unfair degree, I was commenting on your statement that "the left" is all too eager to not offend Muslim terrorists. And I was pointing out that the aim of not offending people is aimed pretty squarely at NON-terrorist Muslims. A perfect example are the folks who are suggesting installing foot baths at a college with a lot of Muslim students is appeasing the terrorists, a statement I'd suggest would only be made if you think the words Muslim and terrorist mean the same thing.

The "complex concept" I was referring to was the idea that I can both defend ordinary Muslims and want to stop Muslim terrorists. You claim that you understand the difference, yet people who think like me are regularly attacked (like you just did) for "appeasing terrorists". Which is it?

 

[jpeyton]

The opinion of one footsoldier is gospel for entire worldwide terrorist networks? Hardly.

Furthermore, even within our own military chain of command, the soldier on the ground has an entirely different mindset than the leaders and planners. Infantry are always given a simple set of instructions and enough motivation to follow through on them.

His words are valuable if you want to understand the thinking of the underlings, but he can't give you much in the way of intelligence about the leadership.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: jrenz
It has less to do with changing their theology and more to do with not bending over backwards to appease them at every bend, which the left is all too eager to do.

QFT -- if, by "them," you are referring to the Muslim terrorists, and not all Muslims.

Rainsford>
remember this axiom whenever you get the urge to nitpick on peoples' word choice: Most modern Muslims are NOT terrorists, but most modern terrorists ARE Muslim.

Gee, thanks professor, that cleared it right up :roll:

Nobody is defending terrorists, just defending the average Muslim who has no more desire to blow anyone up than does the average Christian. Your startling inability to understand this concept is what I was talking about. Maybe you understand the difference between Muslims and Muslim terrorists, but you clearly do NOT understand the difference between defending the former and defending the latter.

 

[1prophet]

They are definetly laughing at us if this is the type of all are equal but some are more equal than others type of democracy we are spreading.

Iraqi Laws and Procedures

The Iraqi Social Status (civil) Law follows the Islamic Sharia (Islamic legislation).Under Islamic law, an Iraqi Muslim female may not marry a non Muslim male. However an Iraqi Muslim male may marry a Muslim, Christian, or Jewish female.


Marriage of a Muslim to a Non-Muslim

Muslim women in Iraq are legally prohibited from marrying a non-Muslim. Therefore, the non-Muslim male must convert his religion to Islam and file a petition with the Social Status Court to declare that he is Muslim.

Muslim men in Iraq are permitted to marry non-Muslim women if they are Christian or Jewish only. If the woman belongs to any other religion, she must convert to Islam.

Iraqi Women Should Think Twice Before Accepting Constitution

"Iraqi women will have far fewer rights under this constitution than they have enjoyed for decades, and for this reason all Iraqi women should pause to consider whether they will vote for it," Gandy urged in August. "Adoption of this constitution will likely result in the loss of rights gained over past decades. Conservative Sharia law as the basis for the country's family law system threatens to send Iraqi women back to the Middle Ages."

The draft of the constitution was adopted by the Iraqi parliament on Aug. 28 and will go to a general referendum for ratification by the voters on Oct. 15. Close observers have said that pressure from U.S. advisers needing a public relations win ? combined with a power grab by hard-line Shiites ? resulted in the 'compromise' that incorporates Islam as a main source of law.

"The U.S. failed to live up to its promise of protecting women's rights in Iraq," Gandy charged. "Despite what George W. Bush may be claiming, women cannot be assured equality by constitutional language that is vague and contradictory."

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The opinion of one footsoldier is gospel for entire worldwide terrorist networks? Hardly.

Furthermore, even within our own military chain of command, the soldier on the ground has an entirely different mindset than the leaders and planners. Infantry are always given a simple set of instructions and enough motivation to follow through on them.

His words are valuable if you want to understand the thinking of the underlings, but he can't give you much in the way of intelligence about the leadership.

One of the few worthwhile posts in this thread.

The U.S. failed to live up to its promise of protecting women's rights in Iraq

Shame. Everything else has gone so well it's a shame to have just this one little part a mess.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I think you missed my point. I never accused you of conflating Islam and terrorism to an unfair degree, I was commenting on your statement that "the left" is all too eager to not offend Muslim terrorists. And I was pointing out that the aim of not offending people is aimed pretty squarely at NON-terrorist Muslims.

Fair enough, but my comment was more a statement that "the left", in it's quest to avoid offending anybody of the Muslim faith, all too often try so hard to adopt the "not all Muslims are terrorists" line of thinking, that it is gradually becoming "No Muslims are terrorists". In the effort of trying not to offend anybody, we're trying to ignore the problems that are very clear. We try so hard to tip-toe around issues that eventually we make them non-issues.

A perfect example are the folks who are suggesting installing foot baths at a college with a lot of Muslim students is appeasing the terrorists, a statement I'd suggest would only be made if you think the words Muslim and terrorist mean the same thing.

No, but it's a good example of how we're trying so hard to make Muslims "more equal" than other religions. People are so afraid that if we don't do everything that Muslims ask of us, we'll be labeled as bigots and told that we are anti-Islamic. It happens all the time, and it's happening in this thread.

The "complex concept" I was referring to was the idea that I can both defend ordinary Muslims and want to stop Muslim terrorists. You claim that you understand the difference, yet people who think like me are regularly attacked (like you just did) for "appeasing terrorists". Which is it?

The "complex concept" is more complex than you make it appear. You can indeed defend ordinary Muslims and want to stop terrorists... but there is a difference between "defending" and bending over backwards to make them happy.

The problem is that there is no one "profile" of what a terrorist looks like or how he acts. We saw it with the recent arrest of the highly-educated doctors. Unfortunately, the only common link between them is a common faith, and when we refuse to accept that fact as reality being what it is, we'll continue to avoid addressing the problem.

 

[magomago]

I read it and found two interesting points: one is that he directly states that the Quran is the one telling Muslims to kill unbelievers

However, it isn't enough for responsible Muslims to say that, because they feel at home in Britain, they can simply ignore those passages of the Koran which instruct on killing unbelievers.

This automatically leads one to think that reading comprehension skills is not necessarily strong...save for the brainwashed jihadists and islamophobes - direct explicit calls for random destruction and murder is non existent. Defence of oneself is explicitly stated, but engagements are taken within "limits" [ie: along the lines of the Geneva convention]. Of course he emphasizes what he has learned from "radical clerics" and therein may lie the problem:

They are relying on interpretation from different figures. He speaks as if these are the only true interpreters of Islamic law, if so then why did a figure such as Grand Ayatollah Sistani call for a separation of the Church and state (perhaps not to the degree we expect it to be, but still a far cry from a direct fusion of Muslim Life and Government according to the author of this article)? Even though I absolutely abhor Memri for its lopsided presentation and selective editing of videos, it has shown that there are many religious figures that object to what is going on when it comes to the basis of Islamic theology.

No, but it's a good example of how we're trying so hard to make Muslims "more equal" than other religions. People are so afraid that if we don't do everything that Muslims ask of us, we'll be labeled as bigots and told that we are anti-Islamic. It happens all the time, and it's happening in this thread.

Yeah but jrenz - OFTEN, those who are bitching about what you are talking about are the ones who are also virulently bigoted~ This is true especially on these forums where in one post they may attempt to appear sensible, and in the next they say something that they can get away with because bashing Islam when most Muslims are simply trying to get by is socially acceptable.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The opinion of one footsoldier is gospel for entire worldwide terrorist networks? Hardly.

Furthermore, even within our own military chain of command, the soldier on the ground has an entirely different mindset than the leaders and planners. Infantry are always given a simple set of instructions and enough motivation to follow through on them.

His words are valuable if you want to understand the thinking of the underlings, but he can't give you much in the way of intelligence about the leadership.

One of the few worthwhile posts in this thread.

The U.S. failed to live up to its promise of protecting women's rights in Iraq

Shame. Everything else has gone so well it's a shame to have just this one little part a mess.

/tap tap tap

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I think you missed my point. I never accused you of conflating Islam and terrorism to an unfair degree, I was commenting on your statement that "the left" is all too eager to not offend Muslim terrorists. And I was pointing out that the aim of not offending people is aimed pretty squarely at NON-terrorist Muslims.

Fair enough, but my comment was more a statement that "the left", in it's quest to avoid offending anybody of the Muslim faith, all too often try so hard to adopt the "not all Muslims are terrorists" line of thinking, that it is gradually becoming "No Muslims are terrorists". In the effort of trying not to offend anybody, we're trying to ignore the problems that are very clear. We try so hard to tip-toe around issues that eventually we make them non-issues.

A perfect example are the folks who are suggesting installing foot baths at a college with a lot of Muslim students is appeasing the terrorists, a statement I'd suggest would only be made if you think the words Muslim and terrorist mean the same thing.

No, but it's a good example of how we're trying so hard to make Muslims "more equal" than other religions. People are so afraid that if we don't do everything that Muslims ask of us, we'll be labeled as bigots and told that we are anti-Islamic. It happens all the time, and it's happening in this thread.

The "complex concept" I was referring to was the idea that I can both defend ordinary Muslims and want to stop Muslim terrorists. You claim that you understand the difference, yet people who think like me are regularly attacked (like you just did) for "appeasing terrorists". Which is it?

The "complex concept" is more complex than you make it appear. You can indeed defend ordinary Muslims and want to stop terrorists... but there is a difference between "defending" and bending over backwards to make them happy.

The problem is that there is no one "profile" of what a terrorist looks like or how he acts. We saw it with the recent arrest of the highly-educated doctors. Unfortunately, the only common link between them is a common faith, and when we refuse to accept that fact as reality being what it is, we'll continue to avoid addressing the problem.

I don't disagree that it's possible to take the idea too far, but it's also possible to go too far the other way...the suggest fighting terrorism requires fighting Islam. Whatever the faith of the terrorists, I don't think fighting their faith is an effective approach, and it alienates the people who share that faith and are NOT terrorists...which seems like the very people we want on our side. Focusing on the faith of the terrorists is the natural, and intellectually lazy, reaction, but that doesn't mean it's an effective way to fight them. I happen to object way more to their attempts to blow me up, and call me crazy, but it seems like THAT is the common trait we should be focusing on.

 

[Phokus]

So what you're saying is that Osama Bin Laden was lying when he said he attacked us because we were meddling with their affairs over there? Sorry Zebo, i don't buy some nobody underling's explanation.

 

[Zebo]

magomago - I guess Sheikh Abu Hamza al-Masri, Sheikh Abdullah al-Faisal, Sheikh Ayman al-Zawahiri, and hundreds of others caught red-handed on tape (google them and listen) calling for death of infidels are just ignorant to the texts they preach. Maybe we should also ignore the 'selective interpretation' going on around the world today whereby terrorists are using the Quran to justify violence and to convince others that they should act violently? The West and Asia arnt stupid and are coming to understand Islam at it's core is fascist and violent and the pious men are the 'brainwashed jihadists' you speak of. MINO's like yourself are not the problem but people who take it seriously. Get it? Sistani? He Shi'a hardy representative of the Muslim world comprising only ~10% of Muslims - not to mention Sunni consider them little better than Jews and don't listen to anything he says. Find one Sunni Imam saying murder of unbelievers is unjustified.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Phokus
So what you're saying is that Osama Bin Laden was lying when he said he attacked us because we were meddling with their affairs over there? Sorry Zebo, i don't buy some nobody underling's explanation.

Thats not what I'm saying - It's only part of the reason and very small part since anyone who comes into contact with Muslims had serious problems (thailand, Pakistani govt, Nigeria, Kenya, Sudan, etc etc) it's unavoidable as this author describes they are against everyone. Osama's message was for western liberals consumption so concerned with self critique they can't see what's happening everywhere else.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Zebo
magomago - I guess Sheikh Abu Hamza al-Masri, Sheikh Abdullah al-Faisal, Sheikh Ayman al-Zawahiri, and hundreds of others caught red-handed on tape (google them and listen) calling for death of infidels are just ignorant to the texts they preach. Maybe we should also ignore the 'selective interpretation' going on around the world today whereby terrorists are using the Quran to justify violence and to convince others that they should act violently?

No, these these interpretations should not be given a pass and should be challenged on an Islamic and Modern basis where they can be challenged. Part of a problem is that those over there who challenge those ideas are often muzzled. When you have situations of Imams killing people and running into Mosques as protection they forget that God says Killing one is like killing all of humanity. This is NOT acceptable, and I find it very hard to find massive religious support for this outside of politically motivated circles.

The West and Asia arnt stupid and are coming to understand Islam at it's core is fascist and violent and the pious men are the 'brainwashed jihadists' you speak of.

Most Muslims exist in Asia - The "arab world" comprises only anwhere from 12-17% of the Muslim World. You can stop splitting the world in terms of how you want to see it.

MINO's like yourself are not the problem but people who take it seriously. Get it?

No I don't. What I do get is that apparently my being a Muslim for most of my life leaves me out to this deep insight that you have; You immediately label me a Muslim in name only as if you know all my practices or what I do or don't do. In reailty, what do you or do you not know about my practices? Beyond the small pieces I write in AT, absolutely nothing.
I know you don't think I am part of the problem because you have stated that many times.
If anything you are empowering the radicals because you lend credence to their idea that the only "true muslim" is one who listens to their violent psychobabble. You do not allow for other Islamic ideas to flourish, because unless it is violent then you do not admit it is a "real" Islamic idea. It can be said that you want to define Islam is only ONE METHOD POSSIBLE - a violent one - and that means the rest of us are simply lumped into a MINO title as if everyone who is one that doesn't try to follow the tenants of Islam.

Sistani? He Shi'a hardy representative of the Muslim world comprising only ~10% of Muslims - not to mention Sunni consider them little better than Jews and don't listen to anything he says. Find one Sunni Imam saying murder of unbelievers is unjustified.

I don't listen to Sistani either. When you reach that level of understanding that those men have, they don't see Sunni or Shi'ite - all they see are Muslims. The title that Sistani has is not one that exists as defined in Quran ~ AFAIK it simply says that his knowledge and understanding is very deep as it is recognized as great works by his peers. Of course, these figures also realize that politics will dirty religion and they generally try to stay out of it unless absolutely necessary~ Sistani's short stint only shows that. So when I see any imam - whether in Pakistan or Indonesia call to use politics to completely apply religion in the exact manner they see fit, it shows that they don't allow for room that Islamic ideas have traditionally inspired because it is a "their way or the highway" ideology. Even look at the Islamic schools of thought that have existed - most people never follow one exclusively~ they take and choose from them. These radicals that are being faced today want ONE school of thought.
You ask me to find a SINGLE Sunni Imam (This is ridiculous!) who says murder of unbelievers is wrong - I challenge you to find a religious leader respected by all Muslims who says the murder of unbelievers is wrong. Oh, and while I completely disagree with this whole "guilty till proven innocent" question (I mean seriously, telling me to find Muslim imams who are NOT opposed to killing of non muslims? You gotta be kidding me. This is like saying Christian priests have no problem with the death of non christians who will not convert because they aren't going to be saved anyways) I can tell you that the "Sunni" Imam who came to UCI (Sorry, can't remember the name) a few months ago - despite being conservative - explicitly stated that is rubbish.

The reality Zebo is either I am really blind and an absolute sheep at the religion I follow, or you are towards the religion you absolutely abhor.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Phokus
So what you're saying is that Osama Bin Laden was lying when he said he attacked us because we were meddling with their affairs over there? Sorry Zebo, i don't buy some nobody underling's explanation.

Thats not what I'm saying - It's only part of the reason and very small part since anyone who comes into contact with Muslims had serious problems (thailand, Pakistani govt, Nigeria, Kenya, Sudan, etc etc) it's unavoidable as this author describes they are against everyone. Osama's message was for western liberals consumption so concerned with self critique they can't see what's happening everywhere else.

+Thailand - bullshit on both sides. You can't seriously claim to just label that as Islamic Terrorism without reading on the history . There was a good post here a while back that explained the situation very well.
+Pakistani Govt - I know Muslim Women who won't shake your hand, won't ride with you (or any man) in a car, will not be in a room with you alone at all (even for homework) that completely lambast what is going on in Pakistan
+Kenya and Nigeria - I don't know enough to make my own comments...but these countries both have pretty big Muslim Populations natively.
+Sudan - even the Christian Science Monitor does not label it as religiously motivated - and when I see pictures of destroyed Mosques and Qurans by the "Muslims" it becomes hard to think that it is a battle of "Muslims vs non Muslims"

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Phokus
So what you're saying is that Osama Bin Laden was lying when he said he attacked us because we were meddling with their affairs over there? Sorry Zebo, i don't buy some nobody underling's explanation.

Thats not what I'm saying - It's only part of the reason and very small part since anyone who comes into contact with Muslims had serious problems (thailand, Pakistani govt, Nigeria, Kenya, Sudan, etc etc) it's unavoidable as this author describes they are against everyone. Osama's message was for western liberals consumption so concerned with self critique they can't see what's happening everywhere else.

No, i believe what Osama says is true, if this tired 'they hate our freedom' meme was true, the Netherlands (home of legalized marijuana and prostitution) would be a smoldering crater from suicide bomb attacks right now. What the CIA, the 9/11 commission, Osama Bin Laden, and Ron Paul have been telling us for years is why we get attacked, not this 'they hate our freedom' crap.

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The opinion of one footsoldier is gospel for entire worldwide terrorist networks? Hardly.

Furthermore, even within our own military chain of command, the soldier on the ground has an entirely different mindset than the leaders and planners. Infantry are always given a simple set of instructions and enough motivation to follow through on them.

His words are valuable if you want to understand the thinking of the underlings, but he can't give you much in the way of intelligence about the leadership.

Understanding the religious basis used by the islamist leadership to convince the followers to do their bidding is very important. If this kind of discourse is given enough publicity, it might even help curtail islamist recruitment of youth. However, these opinions are never given enough publicity, because holders of these opinions are often threatened with violence from islamists, and dismissal from western apologists such as yourself and the Chamberlainesque Gordon Brown ("no such thing as muslim terrorists").

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: dmens

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The opinion of one footsoldier is gospel for entire worldwide terrorist networks? Hardly.

Furthermore, even within our own military chain of command, the soldier on the ground has an entirely different mindset than the leaders and planners. Infantry are always given a simple set of instructions and enough motivation to follow through on them.

His words are valuable if you want to understand the thinking of the underlings, but he can't give you much in the way of intelligence about the leadership.

Understanding the religious basis used by the islamist leadership to convince the followers to do their bidding is very important. If this kind of discourse is given enough publicity, it might even help curtail islamist recruitment of youth. However, these opinions are never given enough publicity, because holders of these opinions are often threatened with violence from islamists, and dismissal from western apologists such as yourself and the Chamberlainesque Gordon Brown ("no such thing as muslim terrorists").

VERY well said!

/thread

 

[GrGr]

Where did Brown say that there is "no such thing as a Muslim terrorist"? You couldn't possibly be creating strawmen now could you?

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: GrGr
Where did Brown say that there is "no such thing as a Muslim terrorist"? You couldn't possibly be creating strawmen now could you?

Gordon Brown: Don't Say Terrorists Are Muslims