U.S. military occupations are causing terrorism
Glenn Greenwald, citing the work of University of Chicago scholar Robert Pape, describes how it is the United States’ occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq as well as America’s support for tyrannies in the Middle East that have led to an upsurge of terrorism. This flies in the face of the proclamations made by pseudo-scholar Robert Spencer and co., who endlessly claim that terrorism is due to Muslim fanatics following Islamic texts and teachings. The obvious evidence staring these bigots in the face is apparently not enough, even when a Muslim extremist, like Faisal Shahzad, says things like “Muslims must defend themselves from ‘foreign infidel forces,’” who have invaded their countries. No, it is much easier (and profitable) to just blame a whole religion for the acts of a few of its misguided followers.
They hate us for our occupations (Salon.com’s Glenn Greenwald)
In 2004, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld commissioned a task force to study what causes Terrorism, and it concluded that “Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom,’ but rather, they hate our policies”: specifically,“American direct intervention in the Muslim world” through our “one sided support in favor of Israel”; support for Islamic tyrannies in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia; and, most of all, “the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan” (the full report is here). Now, a new, comprehensive study from Robert Pape, a University of Chicago political science professor and former Air Force lecturer, substantiates what is (a) already bleedingly obvious and (b) known to the U.S. Government for many years: namely, that the prime cause of suicide bombings is not Hatred of Our Freedoms or Inherent Violence in Islamic Culture or a Desire for Worldwide Sharia Rule by Caliphate, but rather. . . . foreign military occupations. As summarized by Politico‘s Laura Rozen:
Pape. . . will present findings on Capitol Hill Tuesday that argue that the majority of suicide terrorism around the world since 1980 has had a common cause: military occupation.
Pape and his team of researchers draw on data produced by a six-year study of suicide terrorist attacks around the world that was partially funded by the Defense Department’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency. They have compiled the terrorism statistics in a publicly available database comprised of some 10,000 records on some 2,200 suicide terrorism attacks, dating back to the first suicide terrorism attack of modern times – the 1983 truck bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, that killed 241 U.S. Marines.
“We have lots of evidence now that when you put the foreign military presence in, it triggers suicide terrorism campaigns, … and that when the foreign forces leave, it takes away almost 100% of the terrorist campaign,” Pape said in an interview last week on his findings.
Pape said there has been a dramatic spike in suicide bombings in Afghanistan since U.S. forces began to expand their presence to the south and east of the country in 2006. . . . Deaths due to suicide attacks in Afghanistan have gone up by a third in the year since President Obama added another 30,000 U.S. troops. “It is not making it any better,” Pape said.
Pape believes his findings have important implications even for countries where the U.S. does not have a significant direct military presence, but is perceived by the population to be indirectly occupying.
For instance, across the border from Afghanistan, suicide terrorism exploded in Pakistan in 2006 as the U.S. put pressure on then Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf “to divert 100,000 Pakistani army troops from their [perceived] main threat [India] to western Pakistan,” Pape said.
Imagine that. Isn’t Muslim culture just so bizarre, primitive, and inscrutable? As strange as it is, they actually seem to dislike it when foreign militaries bomb, invade and occupy their countries, and Western powers interfere in their internal affairs by overthrowing and covertly manipulating their governments,imposing sanctions that kill hundreds of thousands of Muslim children, and arming their enemies. Therefore (of course), the solution to Terrorism is to interfere more in their countries by continuing to occupy, bomb, invade, assassinate, lawlessly imprison and control them, because that’s the only way we can Stay Safe. There are people over there who are angry at us for what we’re doing in their world, so we need to do much more of it to eradicate the anger. That’s the core logic of the War on Terror. How is that working out?
* * * * *
Akbar Ahmed, the Chair of Islamic Studies at American University, was onBloggingheads TV yesterday with Robert Wright discussing convicted attempted Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad, and said this:
Take the case of Faisal Shahzad. He seems to be, if you put him in a category . . . he grows up with the reputation of being a party guy, a party boy in the tribal areas [in Pakistan]. . . . He then comes to America and all the pictures are of a modern young man. . . . He changes, but he changes, again, for interesting reasons. The media would have us believe that it’s the violence in the Koran and the religion of Islam. But hear what he’s saying. He’s in fact saying: I am taking revenge for the drone strikes in the tribal areas. So he’s acting more like a tribesman whose involvement in Pashtun values . . . one of the primary features of that is revenge, rather then saying I’m going to have a jihad or I’ve been trained by literalists . . . .
That is confirmed by mountains of evidence not only about what motivated Shahzad but most anti-American Terrorists as well: severe anger over the violence and interference the U.S. brings to their part of the world. The only caveat I’d add to Professor Ahmed’s remarks is that a desire to exact vengeance for foreign killings on your soil is hardly a unique attribute of Pashtun culture. It’s fairly universal. See, for instance, the furious American response to the one-day attack on 9/11 — still going strong even after 9 years. As Professor Pape documents: ”when you put the foreign military presence in, it triggers suicide terrorism campaigns . . . and that when the foreign forces leave, it takes away almost 100% of the terrorist campaign.” It hardly takes a genius to figure out the most effective way of reducing anti-American Terrorism; the only question is whether that’s the actual goal of those in power.
October 12th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
While it is tempting to blame someone else for terrorism(occupation, etc…) but ultimately we make our own choices. If there is some injustice, blowing people up will not get you much sympathy.
October 12th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Thats not a good argument mindy1 that is like saying
Its the bees fault for stinging us and not the fact that i was poking it with a stick 2 sec before. While it is 100% wrong to kill civilians and innocent people for any reason we have to look at the root cause. Fact is over 100,000 civilians could not be dead today they were not caught in between the fight and if there was no search for WMD in iraq.
October 12th, 2010 at 8:43 pm
It’s not about sympathy mindy1. It’s about defending your property and the lives of your loved ones against foreign armies.
I seem to see a lot of “sympathy” for returning soldiers who have been “blowing” people up.
As Muslims we denounce in the strongest terms possible any method of warfare that goes against Islamic teaching of Jihad – taking innocent lives and killing women and children and noncombatants. Victory comes from God’s will alone – not stooping to the tactics of imperialist powers. As humans we sympathize with other humans and understand the pain of someone who has seen their country ravaged and their family and friends killed.
October 12th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
The Iraq war is officially over, with most of its years met with what seemed minimal interest from the American public.
I think Iraq is far better off now than it was under Saddam’s brutal and nationalist regime–although bettering the country wasn’t the core reason for invading (WMDs).
The ironic thing about unquestioning right-wing support for the wars is that an Islamic state emerged out of a secular one.
Anyways, I’m hoping that Iraq has a bright future.
October 12th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
@nat my point(which maybe wasn’t clear) was that it is not wrong for them to feel anger towards what is happening to them, there are just better ways to express the anger and frustration. Regarding sympathy for soldiers, that comes from nationalism and patriotism(in part) and also because if you say you are blowing up the enemy you will get admiration. I do not think MOST of our military intentionally kills civilians, it’s just that sadly innocent people get mixed up with non-innocents, and it can be hard to tell them apart. Again, I am not saying what is right or wrong, it’s just that it’s complicated, and both sides have culpability
October 12th, 2010 at 9:58 pm
@Mindy
So true.
October 12th, 2010 at 11:22 pm
@NassirH
“I think Iraq is far better off now than it was under Saddam’s brutal and nationalist regime–although bettering the country wasn’t the core reason for invading (WMDs).”
Over 1.3 million dead Iraqis, millions more handicapped for life and 4 million Iraqi refugees would beg to differ. Yeah Iraq is “better off” now with 5 hours of available electricity per day. Whats a little depleted uranium, right?
“The ironic thing about unquestioning right-wing support for the wars is that an Islamic state emerged out of a secular one.”
What Islamic state?! A Vichy style puppet regime is more like it with 50000 occupation soldiers(+ 100000 mercenaries) and a US embassy larger then the Vatican. Heck of an “Islamic state.”
October 13th, 2010 at 1:56 am
“I do not think MOST of our military intentionally kills civilians, it’s just that sadly innocent people get mixed up with non-innocents, and it can be hard to tell them apart. ”
Oh, yeah. Well as long as they’re trying.
October 13th, 2010 at 2:21 am
Did this study also find out the faith of the Pope and where bears go to the toilet?
October 13th, 2010 at 3:12 am
It’s sad that it takes a study to verify the obvious. Well, at least the willfully ignorant don’t have the lack of conclusive evidence to hide behind.
October 13th, 2010 at 3:37 am
Although I agree with Mandy, we are no one to judge the mentality of this people. years and years of oppression and humiliation may lead them to a state were they think, “one day like tiger than hundred days like a dog and and when i am going down i am gonna make sure i will take atleast some of them”. the root cause of this mentality is occupassion and oppression. and that is why all this needs to end. But the truth is “no war no America”…after all the worlds biggest weapon contractors cannot afford to live without a war. if there isnt they gonna lead one and make sure every one will purchase the best “equipment” from them. Targeting civilians is wrong indeed whether done by Uncle sam or cousine Laden.
October 13th, 2010 at 3:46 am
Drat Jack got there before me .
One does wonder at the mentality of some people in the face of the blindingly obvious or is it because they are paid to spout the sort of evil hate that spencer comes out with.
October 13th, 2010 at 4:05 am
In the 1950′s, the CIA & MI5 were responsible for toppling the democractically elected regime of Iran at the time. Most the key media outlets were in the pocket of the CIA. This eventually brought the downfall of that government and in its place, the tyrant king replaced him, who wasd pro-western.
Is it any wonder why the revolution took place? is it any wonder why they are so anti american? Is it any wonder why they place such a strict control on their media, so nothing like that can ever happen again?
This is basic commonsense. You only need to read the words of Al-Qaeda to understand their motives. You only need to see the words of those who have been prosecuted for terrorism to understand why they did what they did.
October 13th, 2010 at 7:32 am
No doubt Turkey’s occupation of Cyprus is cause for Christian extremist terrorism in the four corners of the world…
No, wait.
What the report doesn’t tackle, however, is why this terrorism is Islamic terrorism.
Why not just terrorism carried out by peeps who happen to be Muslims? Like the al-Aqsa martyrs brigade or the PKK?
What’s that you say, none of our ACE detectives wants to crack that mystery?
October 13th, 2010 at 7:36 am
Is it only the “American occupation thats causing the upsurge?
October 13th, 2010 at 7:39 am
The obvious evidence staring these bigots in the face is apparently not enough, even when a Muslim extremist, like Faisal Shahzad, says things like “Muslims must defend themselves from ‘foreign infidel forces,’” who have invaded their countries. No, it is much easier (and profitable) to just blame a whole religion for the acts of a few of its misguided followers.
Might as well get your facts right.
Faisal called for the forceful establishment of Islamic law throughout the world and cited the texts and teachings of Islam to support his belief in a violent offensive Jihad against non-believers.
October 13th, 2010 at 7:42 am
This is what makes loonwatch.com such a bad-ass site. It has the ability and guts to articulate and say what every imam in America and Canada *should* be saying but are too scared to say, lest they lose their immigration status. This piece is absolutely 100% correct.
I love the part about Pashtun culture not having a monopoly on revenge culture– just look at America’s never-ending blood-thirst for Muslims, now almost a decade after 9/11! So politically-incorrect, yet so true. If anything, Muslim nations/groups/organisations/individuals should be credited for their incredible restraint in the face of so much violence and provocation emanating from the U.S.
May God guide America and Americans to the Truth, before they destroy themselves. Setting yourself up for a civilizational/ideological clash with Islam– which is what the Spencers and Gellars want to do– is a bad, bad idea. There is simply no bigger suicide mission than sending your troops into Afghanistan and Iraq. When are Americans going to start loving their sons and daughters more than they hate Muslims? Pull out the troops!
Peace.
October 13th, 2010 at 7:48 am
what mystery sponge bob?
Look at the press in the 70′s The Palestinians were called marxist now they are called IslamistStill the same folks fighting for their rights.
Should we refer to the IRA as the catholic IRA.
The only mystery is how much Robert Spencer gets paid to spread hate and why Pam Geller is so bonkers.
Answers to those questions are much more pertinant
October 13th, 2010 at 7:53 am
JihadBob wrote:
“What the report doesn’t tackle, however, is why this terrorism is Islamic terrorism. Why not just terrorism carried out by peeps who happen to be Muslims? Like the al-Aqsa martyrs brigade or the PKK?”
Your question is based on an unproven premise, which is that this is all “Islamic terrorism”. For all I know, most of these acts ARE “just terrorism carried out by peeps who happen to be Muslims.” I doubt we get many testimonials from suicide bombers in Pakistan. It’s sort of hard to gather evidence and testimonials *after* the fact, isn’t it? I’m sure a closer look at this study from University of Chicago would elaborate on how many of these attackers made videotapes before their attack, clearly citing the Qur’an or “jihad”.
Furthermore, the secular military in countries like Pakistan also routinely use religious imagery, symbols, and language. Pakistani soldiers killed in the tribal areas (where they are fighting the Pashtun/Taliban) are referred to as “shaheed” (martyrs) on national television. So if, in your simplistic world, reference to Islamic imagery/terminology is enough to prove a link between the terrorists and Islam, then surely by that very same criterion you should also consider a link between “anti-terrorism” measures and Islam as well.
Hell, even George Bush quoted the Qur’an to try to prove why he was fighting the Taliban! So there must be a link between Islam and American imperialism too, I guess.
The point is, religious texts can be used and mis-used in almost any way or direction. But certain facts cannot be changed, “JihadBob”. Like, for example, the fact that the Qur’an *nowhere* commands the direct and targeted killing of women and children, whereas your Bible does (Book of Numbers). How you use, interpret, and apply that is up to you. But those are the bare facts. The “scary”, “terroristic” Qur’an does not anywhere command the believers to target children, whereas the Book of Numbers does. As a peace-seeker, does that not make you uncomfortable?
October 13th, 2010 at 9:27 am
Faisal called for the forceful establishment of Islamic law throughout the world
Wow, just wow. Yeah, partying and picking up girls is very compliant with Islamic law. Oh wait, he was practicing taqiyya. Forgive me for letting that slip my mind *facepalm*.
October 13th, 2010 at 9:31 am
JihadBob is Robert Spencer. It is so obvious. What a goon.
October 13th, 2010 at 9:54 am
“What the report doesn’t tackle, however, is why this terrorism is Islamic terrorism.”
- It’s called “Islamic terrorism” because the media presstitutes decided to attach the adjective “Islamic” to “terrorism” when referring to it.
October 13th, 2010 at 10:20 am
“Faisal called for the forceful establishment of Islamic law throughout the world and cited the texts and teachings of Islam to support his belief in a violent offensive Jihad against non-believers.”
Might want to post up a source to back up your “claims”, JihadBoob.
October 13th, 2010 at 10:22 am
@JihadBob
Dr. Tahir ul Qadri, an expert in Islamic law, issued a 600 page fatwa consolidating all the scriptural evidence against terrorists and suicide bombers. But you would rather take the word of a fringe lunatic rather than any renowned scholarly expert. Obviously, you grasp at anything you can use to justify your hateful anti-Muslim ideology and then ignore anything that contradicts it.
JihadBob (who is Robert Spencer) comes to this site, recycling the same boring talking points everyday, because he fears how Loonwatch exposes him. He fears having his multi-million dollar hate industry shut down. It is a sign of his weakness, his intellectual and moral bankruptcy.
October 13th, 2010 at 10:28 am
@Dan
I never heard Faisal Shazad ever say anything about “the forceful establishment of Islamic law.” Rather, I heard him issue the standard grievances against occupation, government corruption, drone strikes, and civilian casualties.
JihadBob (who is Robert Spencer) is making up his own facts again, no surprise there.
October 13th, 2010 at 10:39 am
I agree, Justin. Still doesn’t change the fact that Faisal Shahzad is a fanatic that is better off being locked up forever. He has done a lot of damage to Pakistani-Americans due to his fanaticism.
October 13th, 2010 at 11:11 am
You’re right, Dan. He is a criminal, no doubt, and a heretic. Terrorists like him do not comprehensively cite Islamic texts or Islamic law; they cherry-pick just like Robert Spencer.
October 13th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
An even better example of this is the Palestine-Israeli conflict. The blockade, imposed to punish the Palestinians for voting for the ‘wrong’ party (Hamas) did nothing to tame the palestinians, and now their grievances are huge.
October 13th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Occupation forces people into terrorism regardless of their religion.
George Hasbah: Founder of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
Time Magazine said he is the godfather of Middle Eastern terrorism:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1707366,00.html
He has hijacked planes and fired at Israelis at Airports amongst other things that Spencer finds exclusive to Islam. The truth is that wherever there is an occupation and the weaker side is unable to respond through conventional warfare,then people will resort to terrorism be they Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist (Yes a few of them too!)
Was George Hasbah inspired by the Quran or Muhammad’s teachings? No.
October 13th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
The EOKA was a Greek terrorist organization in Cyprus that targeted the Brits and Turks.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/9/newsid_3745000/3745505.stm
October 13th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
IIRC the EOKA wanted Greece to annex Cyprus and ethnically cleanse it of Turks, just as they had Crete around the turn of the 20th century. That’s why the Turks invaded Cyprus – one Turkish newspaper had the slogan “Giriti Hatırla!” (Remember Crete!)
October 13th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Funny how JihadBob (who is Robert Spencer) is never able to refudiate our refudiations of him. Spencer is weak, on the ropes, so to speak.
October 13th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
The EOKA was a Greek terrorist organization in Cyprus that targeted the Brits and Turks.
Epic failure in missing the larger point.
I don’t know anything about the EOKA, but I’ll go ahead and make two assumptions:
1) This terrorist group’s end goal is not the creation of a Christian theocracy – towards that end, the texts and teachings of Christianity are not cited
2) Christians from around the world are not engaging in Christian holy war directly or ‘indirectly’ as a result of Turkey’s occupation of Cyprus. There won’t be Christian suicide bombers from Malaysia or streets named after Cyprus suicide bombers in the streets of Washington DC. Christians fundamentalists won’t blow up buses in Sudan and blame it on the conflict between Turkey and Cyprus.
October 13th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
George Hasbah
Yeah, except George Hasbah was not a Christian fanatic waging ‘holy war’.
October 13th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
JihadBob,
“Yeah, except George Hasbah was not a Christian fanatic waging ‘holy war’.”
So what if he wasn’t? Are you saying that makes it OK?
“his terrorist group’s end goal is not the creation of a Christian theocracy – towards that end, the texts and teachings of Christianity are not cited
once again so?
and you’re a prize hypocrite, if you’re so concerned about a Christian theocracy, why don’t you speak out against the Dominionionists and Baptists who do want a Christian theocracy in the US, and who incidentally, see the Catholic church as “the great whore” according to Haggee and his millions of followers.
You really are a hypocrite and a Judas of the highest order.
What is your point? You are saying the only terrorism that is “abhorrent” is the one done in the name of religion?
Who the hell do you think you’re talking to your pathetic moron? Go and ask the families of the victims above, ALL of them, if they care if the terrorism was done in the name of religion or not?
October 13th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
This terrorist group’s end goal is not the creation of a Christian theocracy – towards that end, the texts and teachings of Christianity are not cited
If you read the article I linked to, it says that the British accused a Greek archbishop of “actively fostering terrorism”.
Admittedly, most non-Muslim terrorist groups are nationalistic and secular (although they may have a religious dimension to them), as religion has lost considerable influence in the world with the exception of the Islamic world, where religiosity is actually growing in some places.
Christians from around the world are not engaging in Christian holy war directly or ‘indirectly’ as a result of Turkey’s occupation of Cyprus
Watch this documentary–no mention of enforcing Shariah law on the US; the only reason given for the insurgency by insurgents is to rid Afghanistan of the American military and Western culture.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/talibanlines/
Also, what do you mean by “indirectly”? It sounds like you actually believe in nutty conspiracy theories.
October 13th, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Here you go JihadBob. Bin Laden’s 1998 so called “fatwa”.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1998.html
The claim that Muslims want to enforce Sharia worldwide is ridiculous. If you ask me, it isn’t Muslims who are forcing a system of government [like Communism, or (in the case of the West) anything that isn't Communism] upon people who don’t want it.
October 13th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
Nothing wrong with George Habash people… a great Palestinian freedom fighter. RIP.
October 13th, 2010 at 6:34 pm
Totally agree with you DrM. Only a madman would think Iraq is better off now.
October 13th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
Saddam is gone–he was a madman: he invaded two Muslim-majority countries, he killed thousands of Muslims, mostly Shiite and Kurds, his invasion of Kuwait caused American intervention and consequently the rise of Osama Bin Laden, he was racist against Persians, his son was a rapist, the list of his evils goes on and on…
I based my assertion that Iraq is better off, or, more accurately, that it has a bright future, on the likes Fareed Zakaria, and other news sources.
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/insideiraq/2010/09/20109267939822153.html
I don’t think Iraq is some sort of vassal of the US, the fact that it has relatively good relations with Iran is proof.
I was no fan of the Iraq invasion (lack of WMDs, Abu Ghraib, religious violence, etc), but alas, we should make the best of what is.
October 13th, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Nassir, you’re very ignorant of Iraq. Whether you know it or not, you’re spouting American propaganda. And citing the likes of Fareed Zakaria (an overrated journalist with a 3rd world inferiority complex) doesn’t help your case.
I’m going to point you to an old blog post by our good friend DrM, it takes care of your BS. Read.
http://drmaxtor.blogspot.com/2005/06/facts-they-hate.html
October 13th, 2010 at 8:32 pm
I wish Dubiya never started this war against Afghanistan and Iraq. This has cost us trillions of dollars not to mention so many civilians and troops dying for NOTHING. WMD was never found and it certainly wasn’t for “our security”. In fact, our security is more at risk now because of this war which has caused even more anger among radicals. However, this doesn’t give these radicals the right to kill civilians either; I don’t care what their reason is! Two wrongs do not make a right! I also hate the fact that they hide behind Islam to justify their actions making gullible people believe what they say and agenda-driven loons like Spencer happy while putting the rest of us moderates in a precarious position.
October 13th, 2010 at 9:07 pm
I don’t know if anyone caught this yet, but JihadBob undermined his own point by mentioning the PKK. The PKK are a secular atheist terrorist group.
October 13th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
Funny how JihadBob (who is Robert Spencer) is at a loss for words when it comes to the 600 page fatwa by Dr. Tahir ul Qadri that completely demolishes the claim that terrorists act with the support of Islamic texts and Islamic law. Typical anti-Muslim propagandizing: amplifying fringe extremists, ignoring the moderate mainstream. But inconvenient facts don’t matter when it comes to hating Muslims, right Bob?
October 14th, 2010 at 2:00 am
Les
The selectively quoted links (most of which are obselete) in the blog post you posted, do not disprove what NassirH said. I personally know iraqi’s (who were against the war) but who say what you say that Fareed Zakariya says due to his “third world complex”?
Perhaps what he meant was that every cloud has a silver lining.
The Iraq war was put into motion by a number of groups who had their own specific agenda. This couldn’t have come about if the Republicans had not been in power.
Oh and can you please learn to think for yourself. You only quote that SELECTIVELY quoted post, (I can add many more links that would give a truer picture of the reality) It doesn’t do your credibility any good to choose a blogger who says what you like him to say. None of what you posted provided proof that Saddam did not invade two countries, (are you blaming the US for Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait?) or that his son was a rapist. Perhaps you’d have a different view if you were the victim. Of course you will never mention that Iraqi children were treated by Israeli doctors, or given surgery in Israel, that would not fit in your agenda now would it? Nor will you mention that it was an Israeli newspaper (Haaretz) that published a list of 19 Jews without whom the Iraq war would not have happened. That statement was not based on reality, (it excluded the influence of the oil interests like Cheney, and more importantly the Evangelicals who thought invading Iraq would bring the Armeggdon)
Your pathetic attempt to discredit Zakaraiya based on where he is from, rather than the facts he presented, show you to be petty and mean minded.
The biggest lie in the blog post you posted was that “most American’s were against the invasion”. They were not at the time, publich opinion only changed after the war because they were losing. Dr Maxtor has an agenda for excusing crimes of everyone who isn’t Zionist and blaming the Iraq war soley on Jewish neo cons. No mention of Dick Cheneys role, or the Evangelicals.
I think it’s about time you learn to find facts from proper sources, not from those who parrot what you like to hear.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War
Although there was significant opposition to the idea in the months preceding the attack, polls taken during the invasion showed that a majority of Americans supported their country’s action. However, public opinion had shifted by 2004 to a majority believing that the invasion was a mistake, and has remained so since then.
October 14th, 2010 at 2:11 am
NassirH
I’ve crossed paths with Les before. All she does is cheer on Dr Maxtor because he shares her anti Zionism.
She will now come and show you how the Jewish neo cons supported the war, and make no mention of the protests held in Israel at the time against the Iraq war. No mention of the Evangelical or oil interests that supported the war. No mention of the fact that Saddam was about to dump the Dollar to trade oil in the Euro like Iran was. No, only the Jewish Zionists in America will be held responsible.
She (nor Dr Maxtor) doesnt care about facts, unless they can proved to show how evil Israeli’s are, and will reject any fact that doesn’t fit in with her views, and will happily cheer on Dr Maxtor even if he said that Zionists (Jewish not the Christian ones, they’re poor lambs who are misled because God didn’t bless them with a brain) are responsible for every ill on the planet.
October 14th, 2010 at 3:31 am
@BMD aka Military Commissions aka generic whatever,
I don’t know why you’ve started up with me again but it’s going to end up the same way with you being thoroughly humiliated. This almost feels like a bad cable rerun. I’ve warned you before that your Zionist gate keeping would land you in trouble with those of us whose knowledge of the subject spans more then a few websites and Chris Hedges’ book on brain dead Evangelical fanatics. Heck you’re so dishonest, you post under multiple names to give the impression your shilling is shared by many.
You try your best to sanitize the role of Jewish extremists every single time you deplorable Hasbara troll. It’s Bush, it’s Cheney, etc it’s always someone else BUT the usual suspects.
“and make no mention of the protests held in Israel at the time against the Iraq war. ”
Oh yes, the handful of protests by some far left Jews in your minute mind equals a majority consensus of “israeli” opposition to the Iraq war. The only two countries in the WORLD with a majority of the population supporting the war were the US and “israel.”
“No mention of the fact that Saddam was about to dump the Dollar to trade oil in the Euro like Iran was.”
Yeah no mention because Saddam switching to the Euro was not the main reason for the invasion. Saddam tried for years to reestablish diplomatic relations with the US and UK, hoping to restart the ol’ client relationship before he switched to the Euro. It was about REGIME CHANGE, and a Lebanonization of Iraq, that’s why the Kurdish militias were and are still being trained by Israelis, the same way the Maronite militias were in the 80s.
And speaking of Iran, who’s working day and night demonizing them and making up lies about their nuclear enrichment program? It’s not Dick Cheney, George Bush, or Zombie Jerry Falwell.
The buck stops with Zionist Jews, not their army of useful goyim idiots, and no amount of your lies and other deceptive cherry picking will change that. Try to respond with truth for a change instead of whining and throwing the same old refuted, retarded arguments justifying Zionist criminality eg. the ol’ “it was done to the Native Indians, so why not the Palestinians?”
Back to the Hasbara workshop, troll.
October 14th, 2010 at 3:46 am
Thank you for proving what i said DrM,
Anybody with a cursory knowledge of world events can see the litany of misinformation DrM wrote above,
October 14th, 2010 at 4:04 am
@Les,
Thanks for the referral. Notice BMD is on his/her usual zio clean up job.
@NasirH,
“Saddam is gone–he was a madman: he invaded two Muslim-majority countries,”
Excuses, omissions and obfuscations. You cannot be this ignorant. Saddam was a puppet of the US, installed by the CIA. The US has also invaded multiple countries with its mass murdering armies, killing millions so are you in favor of taking out the “madmen” responsible?
“he killed thousands of Muslims, mostly Shiite and Kurds, his invasion of Kuwait caused American intervention and consequently the rise of Osama Bin Laden,”
And not the only one in the region. Ever heard of the Saudis? How about them Kuwaitis? How about the Bahrain regime which is throwing Shias in prison by the hundreds? How about that Islam Karimov character in Uzbekistan? You know the one who boils his opponents alive. Oh but I forget…they are “friends” aka puppets who don’t deviate from the script. All with western support, political and military. Look at the size of Iraq and Iran, you think Saddam just decided to take on Iran just like that? As for Kuwait, the US ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie give him the green light to invade Kuwait(“hey, it’s between you Arabs, nothing to do with us”) after years of Kuwaiti slant drilling(tech provided by the US and UK) into Iraqi oil fields. Saddam takes the bait like an idiot, invades and Uncle Sam acts shocked, decides to restore the Kuwaiti dictator by putting down the Iraqi dictator, while building bases and slowly gaining direct control of the regions resources. Devilish indeed.
OBL was up and running before the Iraq-Iran war started. Another CIA trained man.
“I don’t think Iraq is some sort of vassal of the US, the fact that it has relatively good relations with Iran is proof.”
Well you think wrong because Iraq is a nation under a foreign occupation. The only reason Iraq has “good relations” with Iran is because of their influence amongst Iraq’s Shia militias who could topple the weak Vichy style puppet regime propped up by Uncle Sam if Iran was attacked.
“but alas, we should make the best of what is.”
Oh yeah, whats 1.3 million dead Iraqis, millions disabled, millions more living as refugees? Who cares about war crimes? Why bother with depleted uranium poisoning? Tell me dude, as an outsider how do you feel about the human race?
October 14th, 2010 at 4:17 am
@BMD aka Military Omissions aka Con artist
“the litany of misinformation”
Like what? Insisting that its ok to kill Palestinians because the Native Indians were wiped off? Or conflating it with the British raj in India? The “israelis” and their apologists like you really have no shame.
October 14th, 2010 at 4:45 am
DrM said:
“The buck stops with Zionist Jews, not their army of useful goyim idiots, and no amount of your lies and other deceptive cherry picking will change that.”
I do not cherry pick DrM, you’re the one who does that, not only that, you sweep the garbage at white power and Christian supremacist sites which you then spin into anti Zionism. The facts are there for anyone to check, we are not all blind lemmings like Les. It was more than a handful of Israeli’s who protested the war against Iraq. Dick Cheney got the neo cons to fabricate the evidence in Israel. General Wesley Clark (the Nato commander) said the Bush administatration asked him to FIND evidence against Iraq. He said he was asked to fabricate it.
The FACTS dear DrM is that MOST AMERICAN ZIONIST JEWS OPPOSED THE IRAQ WAR. MOST AMERICAN CHRISTIAN ZIONISTS SUPPORTED IT, THEY WANT A CHRISTIAN IRAQ. MOST AMERICAN CHRISTIAN ZIONISTS ARE BAYING FOR AN IRAN WAR FOR THE ARMEGGEDON and no amount of your deceptive cherry picking will change that.
Anybody who wants to see how DrM spins the truth should check out the below, heck even Glenn Greenwald rebuts his outrageous statement above. I will also dig up what General Wesley Clark said, and post another story about how Evangelicals are trying to Christianise Iraq, after failing with Blackwater.
———————
New poll reveals how unrepresentative neocon Jewish groups are
salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2007/12/12/ajc_poll/
By Glenn Greenwald
Wednesday, Dec 12, 2007 05:36 ET
most American Jews oppose U.S. military action in the Middle East — including both in Iraq and against Iran.
——————
Conservative Christians biggest backers of Iraq War
Catholic New Times, Nov 21, 2004
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_18_28/ai_n8569077/
Of the major religious groups in the United States, evangelical Christians are the biggest backers of Israel and Washington’s planned war against Iraq, says a new survey released in late October by a politically potent group of fundamentalist Christians and Jews.”
Some 69 per cent of conservative Christians favour military action against Baghdad, 10 percentage points more than the U.S. adult population as a whole.
And almost two-thirds of evangelical Christians say they support Israeli actions towards “Palestinian terrorism,” compared with 54 per cent of the general population, according to the survey, which was released by Stand For Israel, a six-month-old spin-off of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews (IFCJ).
—————–
Most Evangelical Leaders Still Support Iraq War
christianpost.com/article/20080212/most-evangelical-leaders-still-support-iraq-war/
Church|Tue, Feb. 12 2008 07:31 AM EST
———–
Iran, the Christian Zionists, and the American People
tikkun.org/magazine/tik0711/frontpage/lobby
Thursday :: Aug 12, 2004
Christian Hate and Support for Iraq
theleftcoaster.com/archives/002387.php
———————-
Wayward Christian Soldiers
nytimes.com/2006/01/20/opinion/20marsh.html
IN the past several years, American evangelicals, and I am one of them, have amassed greater political power than at any time in our history. But at what cost to our witness and the integrity of our message?
Recently, I took a few days to reread the war sermons delivered by influential evangelical ministers during the lead up to the Iraq war. That period, from the fall of 2002 through the spring of 2003, is not one I will remember fondly. Many of the most respected voices in American evangelical circles blessed the president’s war plans, even when doing so required them to recast Christian doctrine.
——————-
Why Evangelical Christians march on the Iraq warpath
Vail Daily, USA
religionnewsblog.com/14002/why-evangelical-christians-march-on-the-iraq-warpath
They are increasingly out-of-sync with most Americans who believe the war is like a spreading gangrene upon our national soul.
Reports Christianity Today in its February 2006 issue, “In 2003, 77 percent of white evangelicals approved of Bush’s decision to launch the war in Iraq. By last October, evangelical support for the Iraq war was down to only 68 percent.” Evidently, military metaphors describing how Christians must respond to evil carry a massive punch against the enemy in Iraq.
—————-
Forcing God’s Hand
Mainstream Baptist
Fri Aug 04, 2006
talk2action.org/story/2006/8/4/121228/2119
Southern Baptist Professor Ergun Caner has long been pouring fuel on the fire of religious conflict. Recently he said, the war in Lebanon “is against the God of Israel.” He’s one of a number of Christians who are ratcheting up the rhetoric of holy war in the Middle East.
Caner is a “Christian Zionist.” He’s one of the millions of Evangelical Christians worldwide who pray for a quick rapture and destruction of planet earth.
Some of them are doing more than praying for the end of the world. John Hagee and other evangelical leaders are currently “lobbying for Armageddon.”
—————-
Christian Zionists Eye Iran
Bill Berkowitz Fri Oct 02, 2009
Ahmadinejad’s visit to the United Nations stirred Mike Evans and Joel Rosenberg, two leading Christian Zionists, to once again open fire on Iran
——————-
October 14th, 2010 at 4:59 am
DrM
“@Les,Thanks for the referral. Notice BMD is on his/her usual zio clean up job.”
Yes i will clean up lies left by you and others like JihadBob, HaramPork, and the poster called Les who is too stupid to think for herself. That is unless you are Les trying to promote yourself?. I won’t let the likes of you, propogate your lies here.
With friends like these who needs enemies. Don’t worry, i’ll be right behind you, cleaning up. Zio job or not.
“I don’t know why you’ve started up with me again but it’s going to end up the same way with you being thoroughly humiliated. This almost feels like a bad cable rerun. I’ve warned you before that your Zionist gate keeping would land you in trouble with those of us whose knowledge of the subject spans more then a few websites and Chris Hedges’ book on brain dead Evangelical fanatics. Heck you’re so dishonest, you post under multiple names to give the impression your shilling is shared by many.”
Don’t flatter yourself. You’re just a petty mean minded bigot, who picks up garbage from neo nazi sites, white power, and other anti Jewish, and Christian Supremacist sites, give an anti zionist spin to legitmise it. Like you they pretend that Christian Zionists cannot think for themselves. Israel exposed, condemned and talked frankly about the American jews (Wolfowtiz, perle, kristol) and others who backed the Iraq war. By contrast, America censored her media, even Al Jazeera was banned, when it has a bureuux in Israel.
I’d like to know how many Palestinians would agree with your take on Middle East affairs. Most of the ones i know wouldn’t agree with you.
As for your buck stopping at Jewish neocons, you liar, this is what General Wesley Clark has to say, his comments were silcenced by the Bush media censorship, during his years. As commander in chief of the military he had the means to censor the media and plant stories.
Subsequest exposes in The Guardian showed that PNAC a far right Israeli outfit, with links to the Bush admin and Cheney fabricated the Iraq war evidence.
Cheney is the only one who benefitted from the Iraq war, (his oil company) none of the other groups got what they hoped for (a secure Israel for the Jewish neocons and the Armeeggedon for the Evangelicals)
———————-
Media Silent on Clark’s 9/11 Comments
Gen. says White House pushed Saddam link without evidence
fair.org/index.php?page=1842
6/20/03
Sunday morning talk shows like ABC’s This Week or Fox News Sunday often make news for days afterward. Since prominent government officials dominate the guest lists of the programs, it is not unusual for the Monday editions of major newspapers to report on interviews done by the Sunday chat shows.
But the June 15 edition of NBC’s Meet the Press was unusual for the buzz that it didn’t generate. Former General Wesley Clark told anchor Tim Russert that Bush administration officials had engaged in a campaign to implicate Saddam Hussein in the September 11 attacks– starting that very day. Clark said that he’d been called on September 11 and urged to link Baghdad to the terror attacks, but declined to do so because of a lack of evidence.
Here is a transcript of the exchange:
CLARK: “There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein.”
RUSSERT: “By who? Who did that?”
CLARK: “Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, ‘You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.’ I said, ‘But–I’m willing to say it, but what’s your evidence?’ And I never got any evidence.”
Clark’s assertion corroborates a little-noted CBS Evening News story that aired on September 4, 2002. As correspondent David Martin reported: “Barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, the secretary of defense was telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.” According to CBS, a Pentagon aide’s notes from that day quote Rumsfeld asking for the “best info fast” to “judge whether good enough to hit SH at the same time, not only UBL.” (The initials SH and UBL stand for Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.) The notes then quote Rumsfeld as demanding, ominously, that the administration’s response “go massive…sweep it all up, things related and not.”
Despite its implications, Martin’s report was greeted largely with silence when it aired. Now, nine months later, media are covering damaging revelations about the Bush administration’s intelligence on Iraq, yet still seem strangely reluctant to pursue stories suggesting that the flawed intelligence– and therefore the war– may have been a result of deliberate deception, rather than incompetence. The public deserves a fuller accounting of this story.
If you’d like to encourage media outlets to investigate this story, please see FAIR’s Media Contact List
October 14th, 2010 at 5:25 am
DrM
“You try your best to sanitize the role of Jewish extremists every single time you deplorable Hasbara troll. It’s Bush, it’s Cheney, etc it’s always someone else BUT the usual suspects.”
Projection much? It’s you who does that,
You try your best to say Jewish extremists are responsible for every problem (grantend they’re responsible for SOME) which gives a dangerous pass to the fruitcakes i highlighted above, who are more numeerical and more influential than the Jewish extremists, even the Jewish neocons need the Chrisitan Zionists for their agenda, that’s why Jewish neocons have no power in Europe. The likes of Geert Wilders have their alllies in the US,
Explain what Jewish extremists have to do with Blackwater crimes, and the below. This is exactly why Christian zionists support Israel and why most Jews reject their support. They want a Christian Israel, just like they’re trying (but failing) to Christianise Iraq.
They’r e the modern day crusaders, and you want me to believe Jewish extremists are more dangerous? You’re going to have to do better than what you’re doing if you want to convince people of that, you dangerous moron
What are your comments on the two reports below? If Christian Zionists are mere useful idiots, how have they managed to mobilise billions for Blackwater, and the Crusades in Iraq and Kurdistan below?
American Evangelicals in Kurdistan
By Michael ReynoldsAlterNetJuly 12, 2010
Evangelicals have established schools, radio stations and churches in northern Iraq — all with the blessings of the Kurdistan government and assistance from U.S. taxpayers.
theinvestigativefund.org/investigations/1357/american_evangelicals_in_kurdistan/?page=entire
Atop one wall is a large white sign glittering with gold and azure lettering that reads in English and Arabic: Classical School of the Medes. It is one of three new private schools in the region that teach a “Christian worldview,” the handiwork of American evangelicals from Tennessee.
Since the US occupation took hold, American evangelicals have established not only schools, but printing presses, radio stations, women’s centers, bookstores, medical and dental clinics, and churches in northern Iraq, all with the blessings and assistance of the Kurdistan government. Many of these efforts were funded in part by US taxpayer dollars, channeled through Department of Defense construction contracts and State Department grants.
In September 2003, just four months after US forces took down Saddam Hussein’s regime, 350 evangelical pastors and church leaders assembled in Kirkuk, where they were warmly welcomed by Massoud Barzani, president of the Kurdistan Regional Government. At that gathering, George Grant, a leader of Servant Group International, the evangelical organization in Nashville that set up the chain of Christian schools, declared that “Jesus Christ is Lord over all things; He is Lord over every Mullah, every Ayatollah, every Imam, and every Mahdi pretender; He is Lord over the whole of the earth, even Iraq!”
CENTCOM documents show that between 2005 and 2007, DOD’s Joint Contracting Command Iraq/Afghanistan paid the Kurdish company Daban Group at least $465,639 for the construction of Grant’s School of the Medes. Two years earlier, tens of thousands of dollars from a State Department-funded program called Healthcare Partnerships in Northern Iraq also made their way into a variety of Servant Group evangelical and humanitarian projects.
The Money Trail
In June 2002, as the Bush administration began prepping for the US invasion of Iraq, Congress green-lighted $3.1 million for a State Department-funded program called Healthcare Partnerships in Northern Iraq, ostensibly an effort to improve healthcare in the Kurdish region, but primarily viewed by Middle East policy experts in the United States and local NGO observers as a way to bring the KDP and PUK together under a unified governing body. And who was hired as field operations director for this team-building USAID project? Douglas Layton.
Two-thirds of the Partnership money was swallowed up by Meridian International, a politically connected NGO whose board, at the time, included the wife of then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, and its subcontractors, according to an analysis by one of the program’s participants. That left about $1 million for Layton to personally direct into Kurdish health programs. According to published reports by Servant Group and sources in northern Iraq who were involved with the program, Layton funneled much of it into Servant Group operations such as its mobile dental service, health clinics, and into the pockets of KRG officials with whom he was currying favor. Layton also used funds to rent an office in the KRG Ministry of Health for $1,000 a month-another kickback to KRG officialdom-where he wrote speeches for Health Minister Dr. Jamal Abdul Hamid Abbas. According to two NGO sources who were then in Kurdistan, Layton also handed out cash and equipment from Healthcare Partners to Abbas’ cronies.
Racist Ties
Grant is the author of The Blood of the Moon, a book first published in 1991 and reprinted in 2001. In his book, Grant calls for conquering the Islamic world by military might in order to bring about Muslim conversion, an obvious prerequisite for achieving his uncompromising theocratic worldview. In his 1987 Dominionist polemic, The Changing of the Guard, Grant wrote: “Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land — of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ. It is to reinstitute the authority of God’s Word as supreme over all judgments, over all legislation, over all declarations, constitutions, and confederations.”
In an April 2004 lecture at fellow Dominionist R.C. Sproul’s Highlands Study Center in Virginia, Grant said, “We’re to make disciples who will obey everything that He commanded, not just in the hazy zone of piety, but in the totality of life…. It is the spiritual, emotional, and cultural mandate to win all things in the name of Jesus.”
Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks racist and far-right social movements, is well acquainted with Grant and his schools, which, he argues, “are deeply influenced by white supremacist ideas.” He points, in particular, to Grant’s close association with Douglas Wilson, who founded both the Association of Classical and Christian Schools (of which Grant is a longstanding member) and New Saint Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho, which provides teachers to the Classical Schools in Kurdistan.
Wilson also coauthored a disturbing book, Southern Slavery: As It Was, a neo-Confederate fantasy disguised as history. The book argues that Southern slavery was sanctioned by the Bible and that slaves enjoyed a wonderful life due to the patriarchal benevolence of their evangelical masters. “Slavery produced in the South a genuine affection between the races that we believe we can say has never existed in any nation before the [Civil] War or since,” it reads. “There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world.” According to Potok, Grant and Wilson are in the leadership of a movement within Christian Reconstructionism called “Celtic Sunrise” that is deeply influenced by white supremacist ideas.
Few Answers
Though I spent months in pursuit of interviews for this story, the evangelical leadership in northern Iraq remained resolutely, uniformly unresponsive. Yousif Matty, the Servant Group pastor in Erbil, begged off repeatedly, first citing health reasons and then saying he would talk, but not for publication. Pastors at two new evangelical churches in the region, the Kurdzman Church and the Free Evangelical Church, were more blunt: “We don’t talk to the media.”
—————————–
zcommunications.org/u-s-evangelical-christians-kurdish-crusade-by-bill-berkowitz
By Bill Berkowitz
in the immediate aftermath of shock and awe during the March 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, a number of fundamentalist Christian organizations announced plans to participate in the rebuilding of Iraq. Rev. Franklin Graham, the son of Rev. Billy Graham, indicated that his organization, Samaritan’s Purse, would lead the way.
Around that time, while working on a book titled Bad Faith about the financial forces behind the Religious Right, Mike Reynolds got wind of the Nashville, Tennessee-based non-profit, America 21. According to Reynolds, a long-time investigative reporter, “the group caught my eye because it was involved with holding support rallies for Judge Roy Moore, who, as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, defied a federal order to remove his 5,300-pound monument of the Ten Commandments from inside the state’s judicial building.” The statue was later removed from the building and Moore was removed from the bench.
Via a number of e-mail exchanges, Reynolds talked about the strong presence that Christian evangelicals have established in Northern Iraq. Reynolds’s work on the secular and religious right has been featured in the Nation, Mother Jones, Playboy, Rolling Stone, The Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists, US News&World Report, Searchlight (UK), the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Report, and CBS’s “60 Minutes” and “48 Hours.”
BERKOWITZ: How did Christian evangelicals get so deeply involved with the Kurds?
October 14th, 2010 at 5:26 am
@ BMD and Dr.M
The impression I’m getting from this is you are arguing about who’s worse; Christian Zionists or Jewish Zionists. It’s cool to have differing opinions, but do you have to call each other names?
October 14th, 2010 at 5:49 am
Cynic,
Your impression is wrong,
Jewish Zionism is all about a home for Jews, (except the far right version, which isn’t supported by the mainstream Jewish Zionists or the Israeli Rabbinate anyway)
Christian Zionism, is a different agenda, it’s about getting Jews into Israel at the expense of everyone and all else so that the Armeggedon can be put into play, where the Middle East will go up in a fireball, and all will either convert to their deity or die.
The difference between the two is that it’s the latter that is hell bent on denying the Palestinians any rights. The former is prepared to, the latter opposes because their Armeggedon can’t come about then. Unlike the Jewish extremists who are a minority, these Christian ones are a majority, and they did control the worlds most powerful army in the Bush years, so could put their dreams into action, (iraq, now they want Iran)
October 14th, 2010 at 6:48 am
@ BMD
I understand the difference between the two, and why the Christian Zionists pose a greater threat. But my impression was that you two are arguing who to put the blame on; the Christians or the Jews…Zionists I mean.
October 14th, 2010 at 6:51 am
BDM and DrM both have good points and I enjoyed flicking thought the debate (alas, Father Ted has finished downloading of C4 so I’ll come back to it another time). However, I’d like to second what Cynic said, do you really have to call each other names? Seriously, come on, as Cynic says debate is great but we can behave like adults right?! Please
October 14th, 2010 at 7:23 am
I don’t know if anyone caught this yet, but JihadBob undermined his own point by mentioning the PKK. The PKK are a secular atheist terrorist group.
Let me know when you find that quote from me.
October 14th, 2010 at 7:30 am
So if, in your simplistic world, reference to Islamic imagery/terminology is enough to prove a link between the terrorists and Islam, then surely by that very same criterion you should also consider a link between “anti-terrorism” measures and Islam as well.
References to Islamic terminology probably has to do with the overall religiosity of the citizens of Pakistan and a lack of a clear guidelines prohibiting what members of the Pakistani military can say to the public.
then surely by that very same criterion you should also consider a link between “anti-terrorism” measures and Islam as well.
Well, no. But I could easily do that, since I am aware of the past atrocities of the Pak army in Bangladesh.
Wow, just wow. Yeah, partying and picking up girls is very compliant with Islamic law. Oh wait, he was practicing taqiyya. Forgive me for letting that slip my mind *facepalm*.
Well, Faisal was in an Islamist militant camp for eight months before he returned to the US to bomb American civilians.
Is it fair to say that his ‘picking up girls at parties’ probably occurred before he found religion again?
October 14th, 2010 at 7:49 am
Well, Faisal was in an Islamist militant camp for eight months before he returned to the US to bomb American civilians.
Is it fair to say that his ‘picking up girls at parties’ probably occurred before he found religion again?
Uh huh, yet that bit about Shahzad calling for the “forceful establishment” of Shariah law throughout the world is about as factual as stating that Britney Spears has an ounce of musical talent. Here are a few quotes from him that explain why he planned the attack.
“Can you tell me a way to save the oppressed? And a way to fight back when rockets are fired at us and Muslim blood flows? Everyone knows how the Muslim country bows down to pressure from west. Everyone knows the kind of humiliation we are faced with around the globe”
“The attack on the United States will be a revenge for all the mujahedeen and oppressed Muslims,”
Now do you want to continue your b.s about terrorists trying to take over the world, or are you going to realize that this articles apply to almost every single Muslim terrorist? Something tells me it’ll be the former.
October 14th, 2010 at 9:17 am
Cynic,
DrM is a plain anti Zionist bigot, and he doesn’t like Muslims who support a homeland for the Jews. Les is his lemming, a stupid person unable to form an opinion of her own. She blindly parrots what he says because he says what she wants to hear. I don’t know what her background is or even if she is a Muslim, certainly DrM’s other fan here was an atheist (What) She ignores everything else. Her denigrating Fareed Zakariya, is something that she picked up from DrM, check out his blog if you want to see the Muslim version of Spencer. I’ve never read anything there that didn’t have at least 5 lies by omission, half lies, and false spin to put the worlds problems on Jewish zionists (which includes some of our allies in Islamophobia by the way). Anyone with half a brain and a fair mind can easily rebut, that Les cannot shows her for what she is.
We do not need the Muslim version of Geller and Spencer here.
It’s about blaming Zionism (Jewish) for the war. The biggest single group of suppoerters without whom the war would not have been possible were the Christian Zionists in power at the time. If that were not the case, why isn’t there a war in Iran at the moment, with the Jewish Zionist party (Obama’s) in power? It’s the Christian Zionists who still pushing for that. Whilst there were Jewish neocons who pushed for the Iraq war,they were not instrumental, and couldn’t have succeeded without other parties who wanted it, for their own reasons.
At that time, the evangelcials were in control of the media, so Bush had no problem misleading those who were genuinely afraid after 9/11 using the media. I posted a shining example above. By contrast, the Israeli media were freely discussing what was banned in the USA.
Beinin and Plitnicks article at Jewish Voice for Pease is one of the best that debunks this fairy story, it has a lot of relevent links, here are some extracts, but read the whole thing it has some excellent sources :
Did Israel Lead the US into the War on Iraq?
jewishvoiceforpeace.org/content/did-israel-lead-us-war-iraq
By Mitchell Plitnick, Director of Education and Policy, Jewish Voice for Peace; Joel Beinin, Professor of Middle East Studies at Stanford University; and Cecilie Surasky, Director of Communications, Jewish Voice for Peace
Further, while many may see George W. Bush as a figurehead whose advisers are really determining policy, few see Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld that way, and they were the clear ringleaders beating the drums for war on Iraq. They may define America’s “interests” differently from most of us, but do we really believe that they have put the interests of Israel before what they see as American interests? And, if protection of Israel was not the prime motivation for the war, then what American interests were thought of as being served by it?
What matters are US interests Oil is both the obvious and correct answer; specifically, American control over the region’s oil resources, which also motivates many policymakers’ support for Israel. It also motivates other policymakers’ urging greater American distance from Israel. The neocons, on the other hand, are ideologically supportive of Israel, as well as strategically, but this does not dictate all of their politics.
In a February 14, 2003 article in Foreign Policy in Focus, Michael Renner describes in detail just how huge the oil stakes were in Iraq and how big a difference for the US a client government replacing Saddam Hussein would make. The impact would be enormous, both for big oil companies and for many individuals connected to them in the Bush Administration. This is a much more obvious and clear reason for the war than Israeli interests. Berkeley political scientist Peter Dale Scott runs down a list of the geo-political and financial potential of US control over Iraq, as well as some of the challenges the US faced from nationalized oil and competition from the euro that framed the decision to go to war. These are just two of many sources that document a case, based on hard evidence, for why America went to war. One major problem with the oil analysis is that it doesn’t bother to consider the question of Israel. The same problem is mirrored on the other side—those advancing the “war for Israel” theory either ignore or dismiss other arguments. That’s the sort of environment in which conspiracy theories flourish. Israel has always been a special concern of the United States, for strategic reasons, and so has oil. Any explanation for why we went to war in Iraq has to address the consideration of these two most important factors in American Middle East policy.
Perhaps Michael Kinsley, writing for slate.com, put it best: “The president’s advisors, Jewish and non-Jewish, are patriotic Americans who sincerely believe that the interests of America and Israel coincide. What’s more, they are right about that, though they may be wrong about where that shared interest lies. Among Jewish Americans, including me, there are people who hold every conceivable opinion about war with Iraq with every variation of intensity, including passionate opposition and complete indifference.”
Or there is Juan Cole’s summation: “Most of the members of Cheney’s inner circle were neoconservative ideologues, who combined hawkish American triumphalism with an obsession with Israel. This does not mean that the war was fought for Israel, although it is undeniable that Israeli concerns played an important role. The actual motivation behind the war was complex, and Cheney’s team was not the only one in the game. The Bush administration is a coalition of disparate forces — country club Republicans, realists, representatives of oil and other corporate interests, evangelicals, hardball political strategists, right-wing Catholics, and neoconservative Jews allied with Israel’s right-wing Likud party. Each group had its own rationale for going to war with Iraq.”
As usual, neither extreme is correct. Nothing involving the US and the Middle East happens without consideration, if not the actual involvement, of Israel. Israel is always a factor in American strategy in the region, both as a tool and ally and as a friend whose interests are a concern. For some in policymaking positions, Israel’s interests are America’s interests—not because they favor Israel, but because they believe (quite incorrectly, we would contend) that America’s interests are best served by having their staunchest ally as the dominant force in the region.
The decision to invade Iraq was motivated by many factors. These included the fact that the relationship with Saudi Arabia was shaken by 9/11, a desire for more direct control over Iraqi oil (and the untapped reserves, which are thought by some to be the largest in the world), concern over the direction Latin American oil producers were going (particularly Venezuela), the feeling that the first Gulf War left “unfinished business” and the propaganda uses in terms of the “war on terror”, among others. Israeli desires were certainly a factor, as was the perception that the invasion of Iraq would advance Israeli interests. Israel’s lobbyists here in the US were understated in their support for the war, possibly because they knew it would go through without much effort on their part, but certainly were supportive of it. On a number of levels, Israel was a factor in the disastrous decision to invade Iraq. But to say it was the major or decisive factor is enormously out of line with the evidence. Iraq was a war for American interests as perceived by those who have the power to make those decisions. It was not a “war for Israel”.
October 14th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
Let me know when you find that quote from me.
Here you go JihadBob.
Why not just terrorism carried out by peeps who happen to be Muslims? Like the al-Aqsa martyrs brigade or the PKK?
Silly JihadBob, the PKK is for secular nationalists.
October 14th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
^ Wow, I thought I made that pretty clear in my comment:
by peeps who happen to be Muslims? Like the al-Aqsa martyrs brigade or the PKK?
Seriously, are the members on this site so brain dead they are unable to comprehend the basic written word, or is this a universal loon characteristic to misread the simplest comments from someone you disagree with (from having prior arguments with loons, something tells me it’s the latter)?
October 14th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Uh huh, yet that bit about Shahzad calling for the “forceful establishment” of Shariah law throughout the world is about as factual as stating that Britney Spears has an ounce of musical talent. Here are a few quotes from him that explain why he planned the attack.
No problem cynic.
Faisal talks of offensive Jihad and establishing Islamic law throughout the world (by force) in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwOiXxTOxrA&feature=related
@ 0.45: (Jihad) is one of its (Islam’s) pillars. By Jihad, Islam is established. Allah’s word is made superior. None has the right to worship, but Allah and his religion, Islam, is propagated. By abandoning Jihad,
@ 2:00: Islam is coming to the world. Inshallah. Islam will spread on the whole world…and democracy will be defeated….and all other -isms and schisms will be defeated and the word of Allah will be supreme, Inshallah.
October 14th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Now do you want to continue your b.s about terrorists trying to take over the world, or are you going to realize that this articles apply to almost every single Muslim terrorist? Something tells me it’ll be the former.
Sure, once you acknowledge that Sunni Islamic terrorists cite the texts and mainstream teachings of Sunni Islam when they engage in holy war (terrorism) against non-Muslims, ‘apostates’ and ‘hypocrites’.
October 14th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Are you trying to deny that occupation or drone attacks didn’t have anything to do with Shazhad’s attack?
October 14th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
Sure, once you acknowledge that Sunni Islamic terrorists cite the texts and mainstream teachings of Sunni Islam when they engage in holy war (terrorism) against non-Muslims, ‘apostates’ and ‘hypocrites’.
Yes, and Christians have cited Christians texts before killing innocent people (it wasn’t terrorism because they aren’t Muslim)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788&ps=cprs
I posted Bin Laden’s 1998 “fatwa”. I suggest you take a gander at it.
October 14th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
Doll, you have precious little credibility when you’ve compared, over and over, the Palestinians and the Native Americans.
Certainly, both were victims of massacre and ejection from their lands. But please understand this. The Natives have long since abandoned claim to the lands of North America and have abided by the treaties they have made with the US and Canada.
The Palestinians have not. They continue to claim their land and fight for it. And so long as they do, you in your computer chair half a world away have little right to tell them that they have no right to oppose Israel’s theft of the land, homes, and lives stolen from them.
October 14th, 2010 at 9:41 pm
Yes, and Christians have cited Christians texts before killing innocent people (it wasn’t terrorism because they aren’t Muslim)
Well that would be weird since the battles of the Hebrew Bible are reinterpreted in the New Testament as spiritual conflicts.
Let me know when you have real examples rather than one side referring to the other as ‘Amalekites’ ( you know, like a structured theology that mandates holy war against disbelievers for the establishment of Christian law over all non-Christians based on the Sunnah of Jesus and his early followers on the prescriptive passages of the New Testament ).
October 14th, 2010 at 10:06 pm
You know, for someone who takes great comfort in telling Muslims that they’re mostly Islamo-fascists, you seem to get very offended when someone puts things into context.
Let me know when you have real examples rather than one side referring to the other as ‘Amalekites’
Apperantly religious conflicts in which the participants use the Bible to justify their violence aren’t “real examples”.
(This is coming from a loon who thinks that Muslims helping Christians in Haiti are trying to take over the world)
Well that would be weird since the battles of the Hebrew Bible are reinterpreted in the New Testament as spiritual conflicts.
That sounds like BS, as the Catholics and Protestansts seemed to have no qualms about justifying violence against each other and others with Biblical passages.
I think Justin describes your bizarre behavior better than most:
Obviously, you grasp at anything you can use to justify your hateful anti-Muslim ideology and then ignore anything that contradicts it.
October 14th, 2010 at 10:36 pm
The Pope divided the world between the Spanish and Portuguese in the Treaty of Tordesillas.
Of course, the dividing of the non-Christian world between two Christian states by the infallible leader of the world’s largest Christian sect has nothing to do with Christianity.
October 14th, 2010 at 11:04 pm
Sure, once you acknowledge that Sunni Islamic terrorists cite the texts and mainstream teachings of Sunni Islam when they engage in holy war (terrorism) against non-Muslims, ‘apostates’ and ‘hypocrites’.
They can quote religious texts all they want, but their motives are always the same. Religion is just a means, and not a justification.
According to ABC news:
“According to a person briefed on the FBI interrogation, Shahzad has told federal agents that he was angry at the CIA missile strikes carried out in Pakistan and suffered a personal crisis in his life. He has reportedly said he carried out the attempted bombing because he was under duress and that he feared for his family’s safety if he didn’t fulfill the mission. ”
He told U.S. District Judge Miriam Cedarbaum on June 21 that he wanted to plead guilty “a hundred times over,“because until the hour the U.S. pulls its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and stops the drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan and stops the occupation of Muslim lands and stops killing the Muslims and stops reporting the Muslims to its government, we will be attacking U.S.”
No, but to your simple mind, he wants to take over the world, because he used a quoted a few verses of the Qur’an, despite the overwhelming evidence.
Nassir’s right, you’re denying the importance of this article in an attempt to oppose for the sake of opposing. That is the definition of a bigot. How can you deny that US foreign policy is the premier cause of terrorism against them. It’s sad that a lot of Americans are just like you, never able to understand why they’re being threatened. And as long as you stay willfully ignorant, and blame everything on Islam; rather than take some responsibility, there will be more Faisal Shahzads…just like he said.
October 15th, 2010 at 12:39 am
@BMD aka Military Omissions aka schizophrenic Hasabara troll,
Well, looks like I touched a raw nerve. Easy there before you hurt yourself trying to make a comeback. Three long winded cut and paste posts? Yawn. That’s what I expect from a gate keeper like you, flood the comment section and drown out the facts. You’re not very bright because you keep making the same old failed play in your repetitious posts. Perhaps you’ve developed a fetish for being slapped around by facts online?
Unlike you, I’m interested in the FACTS, not some of them sometimes based on any shaky shoddy premise. What annoys you is that I’m not the only one who can see through your charade. Well, you better get used to it because discrete and knowledge posters will put you in your place. Les is a lemming because he/she has called you out for your BS. I have an atheist fan? Cool, I would take the side of an honest and truthful atheist over dishonest theist any day. Truth tellers rock. You are not sure of any such thing. You are, in fact, lying or delusional. Or both. You have elevated the strawman argument to a trollishly hellish level.
No matter how you try to style it out, skunks like you like you will not able to fool or derail astute readers from understanding what Zionism truly is. You think the Palestinian who has lived on his land as a refugee for over 6 decades cares whether his oppressor is a left wing or a right wing Zionist? Er, no actually – that’s merely a symptom not the disease. You obviously aren’t a big fan of history. Zionist invaders have NO RIGHT to Palestine, period. Would you like it if I bulldozed your home with your loved ones inside and built a settlement on it?
Zionism was foisted upon the world with lies, deception and avarice. Nothing it has done, achieved or manifested has been legitimate, ethical or moral. The most unnatural and incompatible Political ideology on the planet with others. A total waste of humanity. Spawned by sociopaths and despots.
Back to the hasbara workshop for you troll.
October 15th, 2010 at 6:34 am
“Let me know when you have real examples rather than one side referring to the other as ‘Amalekites’”
Real examples? The Bosnian genocide was carried out by Christian extremists with full support of the Serbian and Greek Orthodox churches; the Bosnian genocide was a result of centuries of Christian anti-Muslim ideology, the mountain wreath for example which celebrates the extermination of Muslims as a holy act was written by a Bishop, other examples include how a rape victim testified that a Serb soldier threatened to slash a cross onto her skin or the Serbian Orthodox Church canonizing a Bishop who collaborated with nazis. Greeks who volunteered to take part in the genocide did so because of a shared religion with Serbia.
http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com/2009/11/may-patriarch-pavle-burn-in-hell.html
“This section details many of the ludicrous and irrational charges made by Serbian and Croatian nationalists, and their international allies and enablers, against the Muslim community of Bosnia and its leadership (particularly Alija Izetbegovic and the SDA). The hysterical charges of Islamic fundamentalist jihads, plans to abduct Serb women for harems, and so forth. Sells also notes that academics added pseudointellectual commentary to the propaganda war, creating mystical, half-baked generalizations about the nature of Islam and Islamic culture.”
http://americansforbosnia.blogspot.com/2008/01/bridge-betrayed-by-michael-sells-13.html
Not to mention there is the matter of the LRA; some of the most wanted terrorists on the planet. Getting back to Greece it’s worth pointing out that a majority of Greeks sympathized with the 9/11 attacks and the Serbian government gloated over the attacks, which proves that the real problem is anti-Western ideology not Islam.
October 15th, 2010 at 9:09 am
Further to my posts above,
regarding whether Iraq is better off after the war, I think it goes without saying that of course, no country will benefit from having it’s citizens murdered, uprooted, bombed, under occupation etc. etc. That said, sometime in the future when Iraq is back to normal one can look back and say, that Saddam’s deposing was a good thing, of course it doesn’t justify the war, his crimes could have easily been contained without a war. The war was for a specific agenda by the US, and the weapons of mass destruction have now proven to a lie.
In any case, below are two opinion pieces about the aftermath, one thinks Iraq is better now, the other worse. But perhaps the best source to judge from are those under the occupation, ie. Iraqis themselves. Aswat al Iraq has an English section too
اصوات العراق
ar.aswataliraq.info
———————-
Iraq’s oil: a lesson in transparency
guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/23/iraq-oil-transparency
For the first time in Iraq’s history, its people can monitor oil revenues and hold the government to account
——-
U.S. Leaves Iraq Much Worse Off
By Adil E. Shamoo
truthdig.com/report/item/us_leaves_iraq_much_worse_off_20100823/
Posted on Aug 23, 2010
October 15th, 2010 at 11:30 am
Real examples?
Yes, actual parallels to al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist groups.
Not smoke and mirrors and deflection from a DOT com blog site of inter-religious fighting.
Not to mention there is the matter of the LRA; some of the most wanted terrorists on the planet.
According to whom?
I thought OBL is the most wanted fugitive on the planet.
But yes, mention the LRA. Be sure to include their occult beliefs and contrast their religious views in comparison to mainstream Christianity to al-Qaeda’s conformity to Islamic law – hence why I said ‘the texts and teachings of Islam’.
October 15th, 2010 at 11:35 am
They can quote religious texts all they want, but their motives are always the same. Religion is just a means, and not a justification.
I disagree. Islam is the operating mechanism for Islamic terrorism.
If the US invaded Nigeria and Boko Haram emerged, the loons on this site would claim that Boko Haram is a reaction to US invasion.
Rather, these beliefs always lie under the surface of the communal Muslim psyche. The US doesn’t force anyone to become an Islamic fanatic and adhere to centuries old rulings of Islamic scholars. These rulings were already there, waiting for someone to take a hold of them.
Boko Haram took hold because of the militant Islamic views the group holds already existed. It has nothing to do with outside factors, it is Islam completely.
October 15th, 2010 at 11:37 am
The Pope divided the world between the Spanish and Portuguese in the Treaty of Tordesillas.
Of course, the dividing of the non-Christian world between two Christian states by the infallible leader of the world’s largest Christian sect has nothing to do with Christianity.
Papal bulls are not infallible. You should read up on Wikipedia for when a Papal decree is considered infallible.
BTW, let me know what Islam taught and still teaches about the division of the world between Muslim and non-Muslim.
October 15th, 2010 at 11:42 am
No, but to your simple mind, he wants to take over the world, because he used a quoted a few verses of the Qur’an, despite the overwhelming evidence.
Sure, he just quoted a few violent verses from the Koran.
But surely there’s no connection there, right?
No, of course all terrorists travel thousands of miles to join up with Islamic terrorist groups to spend eight months training at a Taliban run camp in Pakistan.
Timothy McVeigh did it. The Una Bomber did it. Heck, have you ever listened to Tim McVeigh? Every other word out of his mouth is Christian this, Jesus that.
The guy was a real religious fanatic.
The guy was citing the violent texts and teachings of Christianity until the very last minute of his life.
No, wait…..
October 15th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
AmeOtoko
“The Palestinians have not. They continue to claim their land and fight for it. And so long as they do, you in your computer chair half a world away have little right to tell them that they have no right to oppose Israel’s theft of the land, homes, and lives stolen from them.”
I’m afraid you have pre conceived notions of what you PRESUME I think. The above thread, was not about Palestinians and theft of their land, and don’t you ever presume to tell me the rights of Palestinians, which by the way, do not mean that their cause depends on conspiracies and fabrications. Their cause is a just one. Some months ago, the Palestinians spoke out against a Turkish news report that the IDF were raping Palestinian women. It was a lie and propogamda. Whomever was spreading those lies needs to be taken to task. It discredits a legitimate cause.
When the guilty for a genocide in Iraq are being whitewashed supposedly for concern for Palestinians but in reality to vent hatred, I do not need people like you to tell me what you presume I think.
By the way, the Red Indians didn’t give up claim to the land, they were killed. The remaining remnant had NO CHOICE but to accept otherwise face genocide. Your analogy suggests that Israel hasn’t comitted a genocide like America therefore Israel should be villified for that. If Israel so chooses, with the fourth largest army in the world she can easily genocide the whole Middle East, and many other countries. That is what the US would have done, if the US had had Israel’s weaponery at the time in America.
That comparison is riduculous. It suggests that because the USA comitted a more successful ethnic cleansing and genocide what followed should be acceptable because a weakened minority had no choice but to accept?
You cannot reject one ethnic cleansing campaign and hypocritically pretend that another is OK because the minority faced genocide otherwise.
America has no right to exist.
October 15th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Yes, actual parallels to al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist groups .
You didn’t ask me for “parallels to Al-Qaeda”. Here is what I responded to:
Sure, once you acknowledge that Sunni Islamic terrorists cite the texts and mainstream teachings of Sunni Islam when they engage in holy war (terrorism) against non-Muslims, ‘apostates’ and ‘hypocrites’.
I said correctly that Christians had done the same, and you predictably denied it. According to your definition of “holy war”, the Protestants and Catholics were committing terrorism against each other and they used the Bible to justify their actions—their violence was completely compatible with the morality of the Hebrew Bible: the book which they used to justify their slaughters.
October 15th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
BTW, let me know what Islam taught and still teaches about the division of the world between Muslim and non-Muslim.
When people who hate Muslims make references to “Dar al-Islam” and “Dar al-Harb”, they show immediately that their knowledge if Islam and the Islamic world are extremely limited.
First of all, Islam doesn’t teach those divisions, a number of medieval jurists taught/created those divisions of the world. Second of all, there exist divisions other than the “Dar al-Islam” and the” Dar al-Harb”, for example: Dar al-Suhl (House of Treaty), Dar al-Hudna (House of Calm), and Dar al-‘Ahd (House of Truce). This is simply another example of anti-Muslim bigots ignoring the facts and cherry picking.
Read
http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e496
October 15th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
”I disagree. Islam is the operating mechanism for Islamic terrorism.”
Well, we all know how viable your opinions are—not very.
“ these beliefs always lie under the surface of the communal Muslim psyche.”
Case in point—you sound like a complete nut.
How about you answer this: What makes your “analysis” of Islam and terrorism more viable than that of Al-Azhar, Bernard Lewis, Sherman Jackson, or an innumerable amount of Muslim scholars? @Justin brought up a Muslim scholar with a fatwa against terrorism, and you were left speechless.
Muslim and non-Muslim scholars agree that Islam is not compatible with terrorism. For example Bernard Lewis says:
At no point do the basic texts of Islam enjoin terrorism and murder.
At no point do they even consider the random slaughter of uninvolved bystanders.
Now, Bernard Lewis isn’t exactly someone who is sympathetic with Islam. In his book “Islam: the Religion and the People”, he explicitly outlines and explains why terrorists have deviated from traditional Islam, especially in regards to their violence.
Here is a Hadith that completely shatters your loon beliefs.
”Do no betray or misappropriate any part of the booty; do not practice treachery or mutilation. Do not kill a young child, an old man, or a woman. Do not uproot or burn palms or cut down fruitful trees. Do not slaughter a sheep or a cow or a camel, except for food. You will meet people who have set themselves apart in hermitages; leave them to accomplish the purpose for which they have done this. You will come upon people who will bring you dishes with various kinds of foods. If you partake of them, pronounce God’s name over what you eat. You will meet people who have shaved the crown of their heads, leaving a band of hair around it (monks). Go in Gods name, and may God protect you from sword and pestilence.”[
October 15th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
@Beautiful Muslim Doll
Won’t your comparisons between Palestinians and American Indians just drive many Americans further into the pro-Israel camp? It is well known that street gangs have initiations in order to burden their entire membership with a shared shame (thus ensuring the gang’s cohesion).
Anyway, notwithstanding the fact that Palestinians were way more advanced than American Indians (who were Bronze Age – at best), the comparison isn’t really valid because most American Indians weren’t murdered by white men, but were killed by disease (usually smallpox) without ever even seeing a white man. For example, when George Vancouver discovered Puget Sound, he found villages filled with corpses — the result of an epidemic which had started years previously in Mexico City.
October 15th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
George Carty,
“Won’t your comparisons between Palestinians and American Indians just drive many Americans further into the pro-Israel camp?”
Palestinian rights should not have to depend on the pretence that a genocide did not occur. I can see your point, but that means that dictators can use that logic to stay in power. The point was that people who are quick to demonise one occupation/genocide rarely speak out against more worthy cases, that they fear losing something, means you’re for sale then. It’s whoredom, and means your case has no ground to stand on. Opportunistic in other words.
American’s who are pro Israel are so for the wrong reasons if they support that which goes against international law. The millions of dominionists support neither a one state or two state solution. THAT is a huge problem because they fund the settlements, illegal under international law.
Pro Israel doesn’t have to be anti Palestinian and vice versa. Why can’t they be both, or better yet, neutral. Besides, no country should have to rely on the support of another for survival. It’s not good for Israel, as many Israeli’s want a split from the US/Israel relationship, and I certainly don’t want Palestinians to be dependent upon American support.
“the comparison isn’t really valid because most American Indians weren’t murdered by white men, but were killed by disease (usually smallpox) without ever even seeing a white man.”
Many but not all George, there was genocide comitted, and in any case, there was no need for them to go there and try to force their culture on an indigineous people which led to justifiable revolts and resistance.
I really don’t understand why people think that just because it happend 300 years ago we should be forgiving? Didn’t these people have a moral code then? were human beings animals 300 years ago? No! We had a moral code then, just as we do now.
If we are going to use this logic, we can look to the future, for example 300 years from today will humanity be justified in saying
“Oh well, you cannot blame the Israeli’s, because though they did uproot and expel Palestinians, humanity had no moral code 300 years ago, but we will not tolerate it today”
That logic is faulty and misguided.
I’d like to think not.
October 15th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
and George, the smallpox and other diseases were deliberately spread as well, some Red Indians died naturally, others were victims of chemical warfare. their immune system wasn’t upto fighting the diseases that the Europeans brought.
October 15th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
and you JihadBob, why do you bring your ugly face into every thread and repeat the same nonsense. What is so to hard to understand about what Nassir is saying, and why havn’t you answered my questions i’ve asked you countless times?
1. Why is violience/terrorism comitted in the name of religion more abhorrent to you than violence and terrorism per se, why don’t you look at the crime and murder rates in your own country
2. When are you going to accept Danios invitation to debate on radio?
3. Do you hang around here hoping to provoke members into making unguarded comments that you can use against them, so that you can label Loon Watch a hate site?
4. What do you think of Spencerwatch.com? Bwa ha ha ha ha
October 16th, 2010 at 7:33 am
I said correctly that Christians had done the same, and you predictably denied it. According to your definition of “holy war”, the Protestants and Catholics were committing terrorism against each other and they used the Bible to justify their actions
Protestants rejected the belief of a ‘holy war’, in part, because Luther was an Augustinian monk who worked to revive Christianity from the time of the 4th century when a concept of ‘holy war’ in Christianity did not exist.
The Catholic Church, to my knowledge, never declared a holy war against the Protestants.
You’ll need to do better than that, I’m afraid.
October 16th, 2010 at 7:35 am
their violence was completely compatible with the morality of the Hebrew Bible: the book which they used to justify their slaughters.
I doubt that. Both Christians and Jews do not view any historical passage in the Hebrew Bible as marching orders to carry out violence today – unlike the Islamic interpretation of v 9:29 in the Koran which is understood as an open ended passage to wage Jihad warfare against all non-believers to make them feel ‘subdued’.
October 16th, 2010 at 7:38 am
1. Why is violience/terrorism comitted in the name of religion more abhorrent to you than violence and terrorism per se, why don’t you look at the crime and murder rates in your own country
It isn’t.
I was simply pointing out that the Christian Palestinian terrorist either on this thread or another one was not a Christian terrorist, only a terrorist who happened to have been Christian (at least for some parts of his life).
October 16th, 2010 at 11:11 am
Is JihadBob saying wars fought for religious reasons isn’t holy war?
October 16th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
@Islamophobia-phobic
Yes.
October 16th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
JB, you’re not making any sense here! So if it’s a Christian terrorist, you’ll just call him “terrorist” but if it’s a Muslim terrorist, you’ll make sure you call him a “Muslim terrorist”. What double standard and please don’t insult my intelligence by saying “oh but they said ‘Allah!”
Even if you say God’s name, that doesn’t make him religious you know. A terrorist is a terrorist no matter what faith he/she is. Terrorism has nothing to do with religion. You need to understand that!
October 16th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
I doubt that. Both Christians and Jews do not view any historical passage in the Hebrew Bible as marching orders to carry out violence today
They (the two Christian sects) justified their violence by citing the Bible. There is no question about it. It’s your assertion against those of Christendom’s most influential figures.
Also, there are clearly Jews and Christians who view violence against certain non-believers as justifiable . An example being this particular retard:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/10/george-erdel-and-the-anti-muslim-movement-in-tennessee/
October 16th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
“I was simply pointing out that the Christian Palestinian terrorist either on this thread or another one was not a Christian terrorist, only a terrorist who happened to have been Christian (at least for some parts of his life).”
Wow JihadBob. Your double standards are amazing.
“at least for some parts of his life”
What? Did you excommunicate him? Did he commit the unforgivable sin (opposing Israel)?
I already pointed out that neither Muslims scholars nor Islamic scholars believe terrorism is compatible with Islam.
Bin Laden has tried to getting around this by claiming the cilivians of Democracies are viable targets because they elected their officials. Of course, this argument is pretty much a half-assed response by the Big Bad Bin himself.
It’s quite obvious that any occupation will be met with a violent response, no matter what the reason. I don’t see why it’s so hard for you to comprehend that.
October 16th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
JB, you’re not making any sense here! So if it’s a Christian terrorist, you’ll just call him “terrorist” but if it’s a Muslim terrorist
No, see my previous statement regarding al Aqsa Martyrs brigade and the PKK.
I distinguish terrorists who happen to be Muslims from terrorists who are Muslims and believe they are engaging in ‘holy war (Jihad) – I consider the latter Islamic terrorists, the former are just terrorists.
They (the two Christian sects) justified their violence by citing the Bible.
This remains to be seen.
What passages were the religious leaders citing to instill holy vengeance into the minds of each particular sect’s followers?
Please present the rulings or ‘interpretations’ on certain Biblical verses that Christian scholars used to justify holy war against non-believers.
When you can do this, I’ll present the rulings of v 9:29 from the Koran to show how Muslims have historically understood this passage.
What? Did you excommunicate him? Did he commit the unforgivable sin (opposing Israel)?
I’m assuming that the terrorist may have become only nominally Christian or agnostic later in his life.
But that’s just an assumption and from what I read about him the time he died.
I already pointed out that neither Muslims scholars nor Islamic scholars believe terrorism is compatible with Islam.
Sure, you just need to find out what their definition of terrorism is, exactly.
Of course, this argument is pretty much a half-assed response by the Big Bad Bin himself.
OBL justifies his actions from past rulings by Islamic scholars on Jihad.
I don’t see why it’s so hard for you to comprehend that.
I totally comprehend that. I don’t buy that the West or anyone else is responsible for Islamic militancy and Islamic violence (terrorism).
If that were the case, for instance, the early Pal-Arab terrorist groups would have been Islamic from the beginning. Instead they were secular and some Christian Arabs unfortunately took part in these terrorist movements.
October 16th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
Bob, you do realize that 9:29 is referring to the Oppressors right, not just innocent non-Muslims. You can’t just read one verse, you have to read the whole chapter. Check out 9:11-15 which states Fight those who fight you first. You should not fear them but God instead. Fight them until they stop. God will remove the anger of their hearts and HE turns in forgiveness to whom HE wills. Throughout the Quran, it mentions how God is merciful (ar Rahman) and compassionate (nir Rahim). I know this because I’ve read the WHOLE Quran. You, sadly, are only listening to Muslim radicals who are using religion to gain power and fear over people and/or listening to non-Muslim radicals who have their own agenda. Only God will judge but I’m sure he’ll punish these people.
October 16th, 2010 at 5:59 pm
JihadBob
“I doubt that. Both Christians and Jews do not view any historical passage in the Hebrew Bible as marching orders to carry out violence today – unlike the Islamic interpretation of v 9:29 in the Koran which is understood as an open ended passage to wage Jihad warfare against all non-believers to make them feel ‘subdued’.”
Why do you waste your time here you moron? You paid whore? I have posted links above in this and my other ID’s about the Dominionists who think they have God’s licence to impose their f**ed up religion, that calls your Church (Catholic) The Great Whore, and below is a Rabbi who sanctions religious violence
Half of America is up in arms over these F** up crackpots, yeah, i’m talking about the Christian Taliban Zionists, and you calmly state, Christians and Jews don’t sanction violence today. Israle and the US is regarded by the world community as the top two terror nations along with North Korea and Iran
Who the hell do you you think you’re talking to, you stupid media whore? Judas? You low life? Chernick’s allies in the US regard your religious community as being heretics yet you only see fit to speak out against Islam.
What a cheap prostitute you are.
————–
Settler Rabbi: Celebrating Murder of Palestinians ‘Great Mitzvah’
http://www.srugim.co.il/8661-%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%91-%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A6%D7%A4%D7%99-%D7%A4%D7%A1%D7%A7-%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%A8-%D7%9C%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%97-%D7%91%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%92%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%9D/?di=1
הרב מוצפיעוד בחדשות סרוגים, יהדות
אל תבלבלו בין התפתחות לדרווניזים
רפי איתן: מאסר העולם של יונתן פולארד נובע מהאשמות שווא
בשבת הבאה כולנו מתחברים לעיר סדום
פרשת לך לך: ללמוד את שלבי בירור האמונה של אברהם אבינו
הלב נפתח והמעיין נבקע – “הלב והמעיין” מארחים את אביתר בנאי
משעמם בחצר האופוזיציה הרב בן-ציון מוצפי בפסק הלכה: מצווה לשמוח בהריגת מחבלים
הרב בן ציון מוצפי, מהבולטים ברבנים הספרדיים קובע כי מותר לשמוח בהריגת מחבלים. “מצוה רבה כי הפסוק אומר באבוד רשעים רינה”, הוא משיב לבני משפחת איימס שנרצחו בפיגוע לפני כחודש ושמתכנניו חוסלו בשבוע שעבר. החגיגות הרשמיות יחלו כבר
היום
October 16th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
Jihadbob, just say it, and i’ll bring you many Christian and Jewish Taliban calls for Holy War, using religious texts,
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2010/10/15/settler-rabbi-celebrates-murder-of-palestinians/
Is this ghoulishness Judaism? Is my religion one that bathes in the blood of its enemies? God forbid. It reminds me more of Nosferatu or Lady Macbeth bathing in the blood of her enemies.
An article in the settler publication, S’rugim, notes that Rabbi Ben Tzion Motzpi declares that it is “permissible to celebrate the death of terrorists.” Not Israeli terrorists of course. Only the bestial non-Jewish kind. He adds: “On the contrary it is a great mitzvah” because a Biblical verse says that “there is joy in the destruction of evildoers.”
The poster concludes by calling on all of the Jewish people to arise to the Temple Mount, which carries with it the implicit call to rebuild the Holy Temple and destroy the Muslim holy places there: a tacit call for holy war against Islam.
October 16th, 2010 at 8:21 pm
“What passages were the religious leaders citing to instill holy vengeance into the minds of each particular sect’s followers?”
NPR talks about that. Your quarrel is with them.
“During the Crusades in the Middle Ages, the Catholic popes declared the Muslims Amalekites. In the great religious wars in the 16th, 17th and 19th centuries, Protestants and Catholics each believed the other side were the Amalekites and should be utterly destroyed.”
Sure, you just need to find out what their definition of terrorism is, exactly.
Good question. What’s your definition of terrorism? I’m sure it has Muslims in it.
OBL justifies his actions from past rulings by Islamic scholars on Jihad.
He may, but OBL hasn’t officially studied Islamic law. He’s basically a quack like Spencer. I explained OBL’s half-assed response to the prohibition of killing civilians–not exactly something Islamic scholars have said before. Indeed, we’ve presented you with several Islamic scholars who disproved your/OBL’s assertions.
Also, the fact that OBL says something doesn’t mean he’s right. This silly logic is often used by people like Robert Spencer; taking a single Muslim’s opinion and applying it to all of Islam/Muslims. I could take the genocidal opinions of George Erdel and apply to all Christians, but that would be wrong and thus I wouldn’t do it.
I showed one of the many Hadiths that debunk your/OBL’s claims. I’m thinking you may not have read it—be sure to take at least a glance at it. Kushboo also said something about your cited Sura.
“I totally comprehend that. I don’t buy that the West or anyone else is responsible for Islamic militancy and Islamic violence (terrorism).
If that were the case, for instance, the early Pal-Arab terrorist groups would have been Islamic from the beginning. Instead they were secular and some Christian Arabs unfortunately took part in these terrorist movements.”
Wow. You just dismally failed in comprehending basic Middle Eastern history.
First of all, Arab nationalism and socialism, as well as Iranian nationalism and Turkish nationalism, were far more powerful forces a couple of decades ago than they are today. It’s quite obvious that any resentment (and terrorism) against the West would have been expressed through nationalism and nationalistic themes more often than Islamic ones (as back then, nationalism was more popular). However, as nationalism began to fail, and was branded by many as un-Islamic (it’s racist, for example), it’s popularity suffered.
“Islamic nationalism” (I’ll call it that for sake of a better word), became increasingly popular after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Iranian revolution (both the Revolution and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan were reactions against the interventionist policies of certian countries, no). The failure of ethnic nationalism as well as the overall religiosity of the Muslim world—the Islamic world is indeed far more religious than the West— also contributed to its success as well. It largely replaced ethnic nationalism, and eventually terrorist acts weren’t committed “for the oppressed Arab people”, but instead “for the oppressed Muslim people”.
Since I mentioned the Iranian Revolution, I think it’s salient to mention that one of the leading intellectuals/authors in Iran, Jalal Al-e-Ahmad criticized “Westoxication” (he coined that phrase) and the policies of the US-backed Shah. He didn’t advocate for subjugating the world by way of Halal meat or “Stealth Jihad”.
Terrorism “for the sake of oppressed Muslims” was bound to become a way for people to express their political frustrations, and terrorists took their “inspiration” from Islam in the same way the Ukrainian Insurgent Army drew substantial support from and took its inspiration from the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and Ukrainian Orthodox clergy. The genocide against Muslims in Bosnia also had a religious dimension; Orthodox priests had no reservations about blessing soldiers before they committed genocide. Greeks also went to the former Yugoslavia to help their “Orthodox brothers” (sound familiar?) during the genocide.
The point is that terrorism wasn’t committed for the sake of “the Arab people” (as often as it once was), instead it was committed for “the Muslim people”.
Terrorism is against Islam. Islam didn’t spur terrorism. The oppression of Muslims in various ways, resentment against the West, as well as perceived unfairness against Muslims in various parts of the world (Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir), are the root causes of terrorism.
It’s really obvious. It takes someone of an immense stupidity to not realize it.
“Can you tell me a way to save the oppressed? And a way to fight back when rockets are fired at us and Muslim blood flows? Everyone knows how the Muslim country bows down to pressure from west. Everyone knows the kind of humiliation we are faced with around the globe”
“The attack on the United States will be a revenge for all the mujahedeen and oppressed Muslims” (Faisal Shahzad)
“First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.” (Bin Laden’s first reason for war)
“Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million… despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.” (Bin Laden’s second reason for war)
“Third, if the Americans’ aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews’ petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there.” (Bin Laden’s third and final reason for war against the West in his 1998 fatwa)
Also, if you watched the PBS Frontline documentary “Inside the Taliban” (I posted a link to it), you’ll notice that the insurgents specifically say that they won’t stop fighting unless foriegners leave the miserable nation. Nothing about a world domination conspiracy.
The US government came to the same conclusion. Read the article.
October 16th, 2010 at 11:36 pm
What happened to your argument about Faisal Shahzad JihadBob? Why’d you drop it all of a sudden? You seemed pretty certain that he planned his attacks to install Shariah in the 4 corners of the world (forget about the fact that the US was his only target). Why’d you change up your argument, without acknowledging that your previous one was about as valid as an expired credit card? Could it be that Shahzad was in fact plotting because of the situation in his own country among other Muslim countries?
I disagree. Islam is the operating mechanism for Islamic terrorism.
Of course you’ll disagree. Way to state the obvious. But like Nassir said, your opinion isn’t worth much here as it is heavily biased and unable to analyze anything objectively.
Islam isn’t the mechanism, people are. Faisal Shahzad is a perfect example of a Muslim who just couldn’t stand there any longer as his family is regularly attacked by unmanned drones. This isn’t the only mechanism though. You also have to have people like OBL to indoctrinate and justify to them why it’s ok to kill innocent people. I hear Anwar al-Awlaki is pretty good at that these days. He seems to know how to prey on the emotions of young men to the point where you have Shahzad and Abdul Mutallib (among others) ready to do what they were going to do.
Rather, these beliefs always lie under the surface of the communal Muslim psyche.
Quit pretending to be a psychiatrist all of a sudden in an attempt to switch up your argument. You have absolutely no clue about “the Muslim psyche”. You need to stop being in denial, and acknowledge that this article is spot on, whether you like it or not. Your dishonesty is not surprising though.
October 17th, 2010 at 12:48 am
I think Nassir hit the nail on the head with his last post. It’s quite sad that it takes these kinds of posts to point out the obvious. Even so bigots like JihadBob will always choose to ignore the overwhelming facts and just move on to their next red herring.
October 17th, 2010 at 7:57 am
NPR talks about that. Your quarrel is with them.
No surprise, more shoddy research over at NPR.
Good question. What’s your definition of terrorism? I’m sure it has Muslims in it.
“Terrorism is defined in statute [22 USC § 2656f(d)(2)] as: premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents. (“Noncombatant” includes civilians and military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed or not on duty).”
He may, but OBL hasn’t officially studied Islamic law.
The people in the Jihadist movement certainly have.
we’ve presented you with several Islamic scholars who disproved your/OBL’s assertions.
They’ve presented different views from the mainstream. There is a difference between the two.
Also, the fact that OBL says something doesn’t mean he’s right.
Agreed, we should determine how far off the mark Bin Laden is from the mainstream of Muslim society. However, since OBL is a populist, I doubt he is saying anything that is unorthodox.
became increasingly popular after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Iranian revolution
Regardless of when Islamism became ‘more’ popular, Islamism always lurked underneath the Muslim psyche. The United States did not create the structured doctrine of holy war, the West did not establish concept of martyrdom by blood, Israelis were not the ones to insert militant passages in the Koran. Zionism wasn’t responsible for the vast majority of Muslim majority countries for having the Koran and Sunnah as the primary source for law in these countries.
And correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t the ideas of Baathist socialism and Arab nationalism that spread across the Arab world Western in origin?
Wasn’t it attendance at Western Universities in Europe and the Arab world where Arab thinkers were first introduced to the teachings of socialism, communism, anarchism, national-socialism, etc?
For North Africa and Egypt, perhaps it was European influence that the Arab and Muslim masses were less conservative in the sixties than they are today?
Orthodox priests had no reservations about blessing soldiers before they committed genocide
There are religious dimensions to many/most conflicts in the second and third world. Shia Mosques were once used by the Mehdi army and Badr brigade to hold Sunni hostages and kidnap victims. Reports from survivors say that Imams were present during even the executions of some hostages.
Certainly that is also a religious dimension to the conflict, but I have the common sense to distinguish religiously inspired Sunni terrorism from extra judicial Shia reprisal killings.
Terrorism is against Islam.
Well it can’t be against Islam since Islamic terrorists are the most numerous and prolific terrorists today. I’m not speaking of Muslim terrorists, but terrorist groups that engaging in a ‘holy war’ and seek to establish an Islamic theocracy as one of their end goals.
Adherents to no other religion come anywhere close to the volume or structured theology and ideology of Sunni Islamic terrorism.
The oppression of Muslims in various ways
Tell that to the 7/7 bombers, 7/21 bombers, Jose Padilla, Richard Reid, Jihad Jane, etc., etc…
Palestine
There are Christians in Palestine.
Kashmir
There are Hindus and Christians in the disputed territories between India and Pakistan.
Chechnya
I’ll see Chechnya and raise you the civil war in Sudan. That killed more people (Christians) than the conflict in Chechnya killed (Muslims). Yet, there isn’t a global Christian militant movement seeking to establish Christian theocracies and retake ‘Christian’ land from the infidel.
What happened to your argument about Faisal Shahzad JihadBob? Why’d you drop it all of a sudden?
I haven’t dropped any comment about Faisal Shahzad. You haven’t responded to my revelation that Faisal Shahzad called for the enforcement of Islamic law over the non-Muslim world.
October 17th, 2010 at 9:05 am
Well it can’t be against Islam since Islamic terrorists are the most numerous and prolific terrorists today.
That is a terribly weak argument and you know it. If Muslim alcoholics were the most numerous of alcoholics today, would that mean that the consumption of alcohol is forbidden? Logic my friend, is something you obviously lack.
but I have the common sense
Ironic comment is ironic.
Tell that to the 7/7 bombers, 7/21 bombers, Jose Padilla, Richard Reid, Jihad Jane, etc., etc
That is ad hominem at its finest. Do you deny that Muslims are being oppressed in various ways? Of course you can’t, so you start pointing fingers like a distressed child. If you can’t engage in a proper debate, then don’t troll this site with your excruciatingly long spam.’
I haven’t dropped any comment about Faisal Shahzad. You haven’t responded to my revelation that Faisal Shahzad called for the enforcement of Islamic law over the non-Muslim world.
Uh, yes you did. What happened to denying that Shahzad’s planned attacks were in retaliation to the oppression of Muslims (which includes his immediate family)? What happened to denying the obvious connection of his motives to this article? It seems to have all but disappeared.
Once again it seems that you can’t grasp the meaning of a simple sentence. Since when is hoping that Islam will spread throughout the world the same as “calling for the enforcement of Islamic law over the non-Muslim world”. You need to stop shitting bricks and smell the roses a little bit. Islamic law doesn’t even apply to non-Muslims, so your sentence is a little oxymoronic.
October 17th, 2010 at 11:32 am
Cynic is right.
In the Ottoman empire, for example, Christians and Jews were governed by their own religious laws.
I suggest that JihadBob first learn how to read instead of pretending he can read people’s minds.
Islamism always lurked underneath the Muslim psyche.
Yep. JihadBob’s a nut.
October 17th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
That is ad hominem at its finest. Do you deny that Muslims are being oppressed in various ways?
No, I don’t deny that Christians are being oppressed all over the world.
I also don’t deny that there isn’t a global Christian terrorist movement seeking to liberate Christian lands from ‘infidels’ and impose Christian law.
Oh, and remind me how Jose Padilla, Richard Reid, the 7/7, 7/21 and the British Pakistani suicide bombers who blew themselves up in Israel are oppressed again?
happened to denying that Shahzad’s planned attacks were in retaliation to the oppression of Muslims (which includes his immediate family)?
The call for holy war against non-believers is pretty explicit to me.
So is traveling and lodging at a Pakistani Taliban terrorist camp for eight months (and remind me how many Pakistani civilians have been killed by the Pakistani Taliban).
Since when is hoping that Islam will spread throughout the world the same as “calling for the enforcement of Islamic law over the non-Muslim world”.
Uh, did you miss the video where Shahzad quotes a teaching of Islam where Jihad (holy war) is a sixth pillar of Islam? Or where, in the context of Jihad, Shahzad expresses his desire to have Islamic law spread on every nation of the world?
Get real.
Not enough? Go back to what Shahzad says himself (it’s pretty clear to me):
The recording, whose authenticity could not immediately be confirmed, was made in English and had an Arabic voice-over.
“I will carry this attack on their behalf, and I hope that it will please Muslims,” the Pakistani-American Shahzad said in the first video linking him to the abortive May 1 bomb plot and al-Qaeda.
“With jihad (holy war), the basis of Islam can be enforced and the word of Allah and his religion will prevail,” he said.
“Abandoning jihad destroys the religion and puts Muslims in an insulting position as they get robbed of land and authority,” he added.
Dressed in Afghan fighters-like attire with a black turban and trimmed beard, Shahzad appeared in a video that carried the “Umar Media” brand, with an AK-47 rifle apparently added by video editing to his left.
“Eight years have passed since the war in Afghanistan. You will see that the Muslims’ war has just started, and we will tell you how Islam will spread all over the world,” he said, reading at some point from a book.
“This attack on the United States will be a revenge for all the mujahideen (holy warriors) … and oppressed Muslims, including … Abu Musab al-Zarqawi,” the late leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, he added.
Dubai-based Al-Arabiya said the video was 40-minutes long. It said Shahzad appeared in the video with Faqir Mohammed, the Taliban leader in Pakistan’s region of Bajaur, but such footage was not aired.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7890985/Times-Square-Bomber-appears-in-video-justifying-actions.html
October 17th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
They’ve presented different views from the mainstream. There is a difference between the two.
What is not “mainstream” about this list of signatories to a united declaration amongst Muslims of all sects and schools of thought which clearly states that:
“On religious and moral grounds, we denounce the contemporary concept of terrorism that is associated with wrongful practices, whatever their source and form may be. Such acts are represented by aggression against human life in an oppressive form that transgresses the rulings of God, frightening those who are secure, violating peaceful civilians, finishing off the wounded, and killing prisoners; and they employ unethical means, such as destroying buildings and ransacking cities: Do not kill the soul that God has made sacrosanct, save for justice. (6:151)
We condemn these practices and believe that resisting oppression and con-firming justice should be a legitimate undertaking through legitimate means. We call on the people to take the necessary steps to achieve the strength and steadfastness for building identity and preserving rights.
We realize that over history extremism has been instrumental in destroying noble achievements in great civilizations, and that the tree of civilization withers when malice takes hold and breasts are shut. In all its shapes, extremism is a stranger to Islam, which is founded upon equanimity and tolerance. No human whose heart has been illumined by God could be a radical extremist.”
Considering that conferences were held both at the OIC in Mecca and the International Fiqh Academy based in Jeddah (as well as elsewhere in the Muslim world), and it has explicit endorsements from the Shaykh al-Azhar of the time and numerous other high ranking scholars from across the Muslim sectarian spectrum and political leaders from across the entire Muslim world, how can you then say that this position regarding terrorism and violence is not “mainstream”?
October 17th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
No surprise, more shoddy research over at NPR.
No surprise, more ironic comments from JihadBob. Wasn’t it you who played the Dar al-Islam/Dar al-Harb card, failed after I showed you that your research was shoddy, and then started pretending like you never made a reference to the “division of the world”.
“Terrorism is defined in statute [22 USC § 2656f(d)(2)] as: premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents. (“Noncombatant” includes civilians and military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed or not on duty).”
You proved my point, terrorism is against Islam. If you have a problem with this, take it up with an Islamic scholar—all of them disagree with you.
The people in the Jihadist movement certainly have.
Which people in the “Jihadist movement” have studied Islamic law? OBL? Al-Awlaki? Faisal Shahzad? Al Zawahiri? Robert Spencer?
None of the aforementioned people have
What about the people you mentioned?
the 7/7 bombers, 7/21 bombers, Jose Padilla, Richard Reid, Jihad Jane, etc., etc…
Nope. None here. Your case is extremely weak as always.
Regardless of when Islamism became ‘more’ popular, Islamism always lurked underneath the Muslim psyche…
What is this? Something irrelevant about reading people’s minds and European universities? You obviously didn’t read my post. I clearly said that nationalism failed and grew less popular, thus the “inspiration” for terrorism was fighting for the Muslim people instead of the Arab people.
Again, stop making yourself sound like a nut.
Palestine
There are Christians in Palestine.
Yes, they committed terrorism in the name of nationalism. They were fighting against a state created mostly by Christians. Plus, Christianity has lost considerable influence, no one really identifies themselves as ‘Christian first’, in contrast Muslims see their religion (more often than not) as more important than their ethnicity.
Kashmir
There are Hindus and Christians in the disputed territories between India and Pakistan.
Good for you. These are non-points. The majority of Kashmiris are Muslim and the Hindus wanted to be part of India—something that would go against the partition’s rules. It isn’t Hindu civilians who are getting killed by Indian government officials.
Chechnya
I’ll see Chechnya and raise you the civil war in Sudan. That killed more people (Christians) than the conflict in Chechnya killed (Muslims). Yet, there isn’t a global Christian militant movement seeking to establish Christian theocracies and retake ‘Christian’ land from the infidel.
We aren’t playing poker. But, if you want to compare who has suffered the most casualties, we bring up hundreds of years of Russian Christians killing/deporting millions of Muslims from the Caucasus (as well as the numerous wars in the Caucasus) and compare it to the Darfur conflict and its history. The Darfur conflict is fought along ethnic lines—you should know that most of the people fighting against the Sudanese government are Muslim (although I’m not sure if Muslims make up the majority of the casualties).
How about Bosnia? The majority of the casualties were Muslims (83.3% of the civilians killed were Muslims).
Afganistan—we can compare both the casualties three decades ago and now.
Iraq?
Palestine (compared to Israel)?
Now, you’ll predictably mention something Shahzad said. However, it’s relevant to note that you’ll ignore what he said after that in court—where he clearly said his attack was retaliation.
You’ll also ignore what Bin Laden, the Taliban, the US government, and scholars of Islam have said.
Of course, ignoring the facts is the only way you’re argument can stay alive.
Get real.
Right back at you.
October 17th, 2010 at 8:46 pm
No, I don’t deny that Christians are being oppressed all over the world.
You’re still dodging the question. I wonder why that is so. Why can’t you just answer it instead of pointing fingers at Christians? And who’s even talking about Christians anyway lol?
Oh, and remind me how Jose Padilla, Richard Reid, the 7/7, 7/21 and the British Pakistani suicide bombers who blew themselves up in Israel are oppressed again?
They may not have been oppressed, but their brothers and sisters (figuratively, and in a lot of cases literally) certainly were. They all cite this as their reasons for committing acts of terror. I have yet to see you deny that. Let me put it in plain English for you. Do you deny that the terrorists of today justify their attacks using the fact that Muslims are being killed and plundered of their resources by Western powers? Even OBL, the head honcho of terrorists cited the same thing dammit. How can you be so willfully ignorant? Oh, that’s right, it’s because you’re a bigot.
The call for holy war against non-believers is pretty explicit to me
Of course it’s explicit to you. Any sentence containing the words Jihad, and non-Muslim is an explicit call for war to you. How’s this for explicit?
Shahzad has told federal agents that he was angry at the CIA missile strikes carried out in Pakistan and suffered a personal crisis in his life. He has reportedly said he carried out the attempted bombing because he was under duress and that he feared for his family’s safety if he didn’t fulfill the mission.
[Shahzad] told U.S. District Judge Miriam Cedarbaum on June 21 that he wanted to plead guilty “a hundred times over,“because until the hour the U.S. pulls its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and stops the drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan and stops the occupation of Muslim lands and stops killing the Muslims and stops reporting the Muslims to its government, we will be attacking U.S.”
“Can you tell me a way to save the oppressed? And a way to fight back when rockets are fired at us and Muslim blood flows? Everyone knows how the Muslim country bows down to pressure from west. Everyone knows the kind of humiliation we are faced with around the globe”
“The attack on the United States will be a revenge for all the mujahedeen and oppressed Muslims,” <—You even quoted this one, what are you a fool?
Not enough? Go back to what Shahzad says himself (it’s pretty clear to me):
You’re trying to connect 2 quotes separated by more than a minute. Discussing Jihad as the so-called sixth pillar and using that to justify his perceived duty to retaliate for the oppressed, can in no way be connected to saying “Insha’allah Islam will spread around the world”. You’re grasping at really thin straws here Bob, and your desperate wish for somebody to want to install shariah somewhere is really pathetic.
And why would somebody want to impose Islamic Law on a non-Muslim country when Islamic Law doesn’t even apply to non-Muslims. Unless of course your entire point here Bob is that you’re scared they’d try to convert everyone. No sane Muslim who has read Surah al-Ikhlas would even think about that. But it’s all a pussy like JihadBob ever thinks about.
October 17th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
I agree Cynic, it does appear quite desperate, and is quite sad actually. Heck, Islamic law doesn’t even apply in Muslim countries in the majority of cases (whatever Islamic law is viewed to be anyway) let alone anywhere else!
October 17th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
Exactly. I find it quite amusing that there are people who desperately want to believe that Muslims are trying to take over the world by imposing Islamic law on any and everybody. What benefit (worldy or spirutually) that would give to any Muslim is completely beyond me.
October 17th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
Dawood,
From the few times you’ve posted here, you make quite an impression. You should consider applying to the Loon Watch recent casting call for contributors.
In fact i’d say, you’re the most knowledgable person here though you don’t post much, you avoid BS and present facts, not conspiracies and are not a Muslim apologist.
We need good Muslim Islamophobe busters who have knowledge of religion and history and current affairs. You’d be a credit to the cause
Don’t get big headed now:)
October 17th, 2010 at 9:57 pm
Yes, second that BMD. Dawood had a great blog back in the day, filled with a lot of information – plus, the boy can write!
October 17th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
Wow, that’s flattering you two… I think my blogging days are long gone, though am happy my efforts had at least one reader (Nat) back in the day!
I’m happy to comment when I can but don’t think I have the time for sustained article research/writing, though no one knows what the future holds. I am usually commenting on here when I should actually be doing other work.
/ Plenty of you guys here are very sharp on contemporary politics and so on, my interests are much more narrow and drab to be honest. But if we all do what we can, then hopefully it will make a cumulative difference.
October 18th, 2010 at 3:22 am
Nat
you have the advantage of knowing who Dawood is then, we only know him by his screen name here.
Dawood,
I know what you mean, I too find Loon Watch addictive, and spend time commenting here when I should be doing other things. For that reason I avoid the other sites of Loon Watch otherwise there would be no work done
It’s not our business, but I cannot help but feel we miss out on a lot of good reading material since you don’t link to your blog. It would be a good way of sharing knowledge. Yes I agree there are other great commentators here too.
In the blogging world there is so much great talent that deserves more recognition often better than the mainstream published writers.
October 18th, 2010 at 9:43 am
Considering that conferences were held both at the OIC in Mecca and the International Fiqh Academy based in Jeddah
Oh great, the same place where clerics incited Muslims for years to acts of militancy.
What a relief!
Let me know when you’re ready for me to take your links seriously.
Seriously, when you want me to take you seriously, let me know.
Wasn’t it you who played the Dar al-Islam/Dar al-Harb card
Sure, and I stand by my comments that Islam divides the world into different camps.
Ultimately, all non-Muslim lands are to fall under Islamic law – by force or through peaceful conversion.
The only exceptions are nations that are under a peace treaty with an Islamic state, where Islamic law can only be established through peaceful means, as long as the peace treaty remains intact.
No argument there.
You proved my point, terrorism is against Islam. If you have a problem with this, take it up with an Islamic scholar—all of them disagree with you.
Ok, I’ll take that up with the Blind Sheik and al-Awlaki. And they will both disagree with me – terrorism is incompatible with Islam.
It’s just that their definition of terrorism, as well as the definition of terrorism of thousands of other educated sheiks and clerics, is at variance with my definition of terrorism.
Which people in the “Jihadist movement” have studied Islamic law? OBL? Al-Awlaki? Faisal Shahzad? Al Zawahiri? Robert Spencer?
I would assume many thousands within the Jihadist movement are experts in Islamic law. That’s why it took so many years for a lone (and heretical) scholar in Pakistan to launch a comprehensive fatwa condemning terrorism.
It just remains to be determined if his fatwa has as much teeth in it to actually dispel the scholarly Jihadist position on terrorism.
Nope. None here. Your case is extremely weak as always.
I’m sorry, my mentioning of these people had nothing to do with their training in Islamic law. It was a response to your claim that only the oppressed Muslims carry out terrorism and are lured in by the distorters of Islam who take advantage of these oppressed Muslims’ position.
Remind me again, how was Jihad Jane oppressed? How was she lured into terrorism?
Surely not through the texts and teachings of Islam!
You obviously didn’t read my post. I clearly said that nationalism failed and grew less popular
Right, Islamism ultimately prevailed. The texts and teachings of Islam were capable of swaying Muslims from false ‘-isms’ to the one true ‘-ism’.
No argument there.
Yes, they committed terrorism in the name of nationalism.
No, my point is that there isn’t a global Christian terrorist movement – even though there are Christian Palestinians.
So, that there is a Palestinian conflict isn’t enough to explain the global Islamist movement.
The majority of Kashmiris are Muslim and the Hindus wanted to be part of India—something that would go against the partition’s rules. It isn’t Hindu civilians who are getting killed by Indian government officials.
I’m sure there are Hindus in the disputed territories that Pakistan controls.
I could care less, but I’m sure you’ll tell me if there are or aren’t.
So, we go back to what I mentioned above, there isn’t a global militant Hindu terrorist movement seeking to impose Hindu law and liberate Hindu held territory.
We aren’t playing poker. But, if you want to compare who has suffered the most casualties, we bring up hundreds of years of Russian Christians killing/deporting millions of Muslims from the Caucasus
Cool, so we agree that conflicts that cause massive amounts of casualties aren’t enough to explain the global Jihadist movement today.
Something else must be the cause of Islamism that we haven’t looked at.
Now, what could that be????
Oh, I know! The texts and teachings of Islam, perhaps???????
Now, you’ll predictably mention something Shahzad said. However, it’s relevant to note that you’ll ignore what he said after that in court—where he clearly said his attack was retaliation.
Deep down, almost every issue is over some grievance.
The Crusades were sparked over Muslim invasions.
Tim McVeigh blew up the Federal building over Waco and Ruby Ridge.
The Una bomber, uh, I’m not quite sure what pissed him off.
But neither Tim McVeigh nor the Una Bomber were religious zealots dedicated to a holy war against non-believers and apostate governments.
The Crusades were a holy war, but holy war could only have been initiated in the context of self-defense and a holy war was a relatively novel concept in Catholicism at the time – the Orthodox never formulated any type of holy war even though they were under continuous Muslim and Pagan assault for the last six centuries of their existence and knew of the teachings of the Latin Church.
You’ll also ignore what Bin Laden, the Taliban, the US government, and scholars of Islam have said.
I take their statement pretty seriously. However, I have the good sense to understand that what they tell the West is different from what they tell fellow Muslims.
Why can’t you just answer it instead of pointing fingers at Christians? And who’s even talking about Christians anyway lol?
Because, as we now agree, oppression is not linked to religious militancy.
If that were the case, Muslims in France would be more militant than Muslims in Britain.
But we both know the exact opposite is the case.
They may not have been oppressed, but their brothers and sisters (figuratively, and in a lot of cases literally) certainly were.
Is that the reason why Jihad Jane was arrested for plotting the assassination of a Mo-toonist?
Seriously?
Heck, Islamic law doesn’t even apply in Muslim countries in the majority of cases (whatever Islamic law is viewed to be anyway) let alone anywhere else!
Perhaps you should read up on what the *end goal* is for Islamist groups – both peaceful and violent.
Indeed, most Muslims support the establishment of an Islamic state – they typically are just against using violence in their Muslim majority countries in setting up an Islamic state.
So, the major difference between many Muslims and al-Qaeda is that many Muslims are just lite extremists.
Nothing more.
October 18th, 2010 at 10:14 am
Bob, why are you so convinced that the texts of Islam influence terrorism?! Majority of us go by the texts and are therefore, peaceful people unless of course we have to defend ourselves, so I resent the fact that you say many Muslims are lite extremists. Just because terrorists say “Allahu Akbar” or go by whatever made up verse doesn’t make them religious. This is just to justify their reasons for violence or maybe to convince some of us moderates to go by their “righteous” way. This is probably how they brainwash some of the uneducated youth. You are really not helping our cause to build bridges when you’re pissing on most of us moderates. Your hate and bigotry is making things worse, unless ofcourse you have your own selfish agenda which is to get rid of Islam altogether, but that would be evil wouldn’t it?
October 18th, 2010 at 11:26 am
Bob, why are you so convinced that the texts of Islam influence terrorism?!
I’m surprised one could ask that question.
To me, it’s very clear that the texts and teachings of Islam exert an enormous influence in terrorism today.
But it boils down to the teachings and the interpretation of the teachings.
In other words, the interpretation of the interpretation.
The interpretation (teachings) of Islam is dangerous as it is (Jihad warfare (holy war), martyrdom, Islamic supremacism, fusion of religion and state, etc.,) but the interpretation of these teachings is the current issue since there is no Kalifa to function as the official Muslim state for all Sunni Muslims.
For me, the solution is not only re-interpreting the teachings of the Jihadi movement, but re-interpreting most of the classical teachings of Islam – the abrogation of the ‘peaceful’ verses, the literal reading of the Koran, on and on, are all problems that form the root of Muslim militancy.
I don’t understand how you could not see this as clearly as I do.
Majority of us go by the texts
You can go by the texts all you want, but it’s the teachings (interpretation) of these texts that are the problem.
so I resent the fact that you say many Muslims are lite extremists.
Now hold on, if the majority of Christians said they would rather live in a Christian theocracy rather than the republic system of government we (Americans) live under now, wouldn’t you call these Christians extremists?
I think I’m being very fair in saying that Muslims are extremists if they said their ideal form of government is a theocracy.
If the majority of Jews in Israel would like to see women covered up like some extremists in Jerusalem do, then most I would easily say that most Israeli Jews are extremists hands down.
Just because terrorists say “Allahu Akbar” or go by whatever made up verse doesn’t make them religious.
I think that does make individuals religious.
You are really not helping our cause to build bridges when you’re pissing on most of us moderates.
You can’t fix anything if you won’t acknowledge it’s broken or misdiagnose the problem.
October 18th, 2010 at 11:33 am
JihadBob
You liar, your answer to Kushboo should have been
“I am paid to lie, i am a media whore”
“You can’t fix anything if you won’t acknowledge it’s broken or misdiagnose the problem.”
Understand this:
There is nothing to be fixed in Islam. Islam is perfect. So if your goal is to fix Islam, you’ll be here till eternity and it won’t be fixed.
Don’t attempt to fix it if it ain’t broke.
October 18th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Let me know when you’re ready for me to take your links seriously.
Well, the simple fact is that you are claiming to be somehow able to speak for the Muslim “mainstream” regarding as diverse things as understanding the Prophetic sira and early Muslim history, all the way to understanding what the general Muslim opinion is regarding “jihad” in the modern world and for want of a better term, “international relations”.
It’s clear that you don’t have Arabic let alone any other Muslim language (Farsi, Urdu or Bahasa Melayu for a start), so that automatically limits your ability to be able to do so. And it’s also clear that you don’t hold academia nor the academic scholars who study Islam and Muslim societies professionally in high regard either, often dismissing their points en masse when others have quoted them as authorities.
On top of that, you are now telling me that a conference supported by the OIC [Organisation of the Islamic Conference] with its 57 member states from the Muslim world (practically the entire Muslim world), and the International Fiqh Academy, the OIC’s subsidiary organisation which deals specifically with research on contemporary Islamic law, having members from across the OIC states, somehow does not represent the Muslim religious “mainstream”? Neither does the Amman Message, which has been signed and received supporting Fatwas and statements from across the Sunni, Shi’a and Ibadi divide since its initiation in late 2004.
I have one question for you then JihadBob: Who speaks for Islam and Muslims in your view, if Muslims cannot speak for themselves regarding their own religious tradition?
October 18th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
BMD: I stopped blogging years ago for various reasons, and don’t think they are even archived online anywhere to be honest since all the major blogging sites have changed their setup since then. And I think Nat simply knows me due to the circle of blogs I used to post/comment on, not in person.
The early-mid 2000′s was when I was at my most active ‘online’ wise, but the organisation of such as site as Loonwatch is a testament to what can be achieved by online collaboration; the technology simply wasn’t as available or sophisticated back then. I definitely believe that if we all play the part we can play, that Loonwatch can really achieve something good. The fact it has been mentioned in mainstream media even slightly is a proof of this.
October 18th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
somehow does not represent the Muslim religious “mainstream”?
Far from it.
That’s why I find the OIC’s plans to curb free speech if it’s insulting to Muslims particularly worrisome, because it implies that a majority oms support Islamo-fascism, even if they really don’t.
Re: terrorism and OIC
The condemnation of terrorism was paltry and left out terror attack against Israeli civilians, that’s why I didn’t give your link the time of day.
I also pointed out that the conference met in Saudi Arabia, a point you chose to highlight, as being rather ironic considering the clerics in Saudi Arabia who have incited Muslims for decades.
So, how much weight do you want me to give your link again?
The only universal condemnation of terrorism from a Muslim was quite recently (in this year, in fact) where a Pakistani cleric published a six hundred page fatwa categorically condemning terrorism, including against Israeli civilians.
And the Pakistani cleric has a little bit of a better track record when it comes to his association with Islamic extremism and militancy than a number of countries in the OIC, especially Saudi Arabia.
But hey, with good PR, who needs facts?
October 18th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
I have one question for you then JihadBob: Who speaks for Islam and Muslims in your view, if Muslims cannot speak for themselves regarding their own religious tradition?
I think the majority of Muslims who support the establishment of an Islamic theocracy speaks pretty well for Muslims.
So does the overwhelming majority of Pakistan’s Muslim population (80%) who support stoning for adultery, hand chopping for theft, and execution for blasphemy/apostasy.
Certainly Leftist/Muslim propagandists in the West do not speak for Muslims, ie., the authors and contributors of this site.
October 18th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Understand this:
There is nothing to be fixed in Islam. Islam is perfect. So if your goal is to fix Islam, you’ll be here till eternity and it won’t be fixed.
Don’t attempt to fix it if it ain’t broke.
Thanks BMD, you certainly illustrated my perception of the problem.
We’ll see if Kushboo agrees with you.
October 18th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Silly JihadBob. You keep on using you’re favorite phrase–”the texts and teachings of Islam”–as if it supports your loony thesis.
We’ve already went over this. Islam is against terrorism.
Also, Dawood is 110% right when he says:
Well, the simple fact is that you are claiming to be somehow able to speak for the Muslim “mainstream” regarding as diverse things as understanding the Prophetic sira and early Muslim history, all the way to understanding what the general Muslim opinion is regarding “jihad” in the modern world and for want of a better term, “international relations”.
You’re obviously under the impression that you can read people’s minds. If you can prove this, we’ll start taking you and your bizarre beliefs a little more seriously.
Rather, these beliefs always lie under the surface of the communal Muslim psyche.
Regardless of when Islamism became ‘more’ popular, Islamism always lurked underneath the Muslim psyche.
Wow dude. You’re crazy.
We all know whose “psyche” has the problem.
October 18th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
I think the majority of Muslims who support the establishment of an Islamic theocracy speaks pretty well for Muslims.
Where is any proof for this assertion?
Never mind the discussion of exactly what form a caliphate and so on would take if one even came into existence. The debate in the mid 1920′s was telling, especially when we compare the likes of `Ali `Abd al-Raziq, `Abd al-Rahman al-Kawakibi and `Abd al-Razzaq al-Sanhuri’s conceptions of the Caliphate with the likes of Rashid Rida and others. Especially considering recent histoy has shown that al-Sanhuri’s conception (and to an extent al-Kawakibi’s) seems to have been the most realistic and robust.
Never mind, too, that the OIC is seen by its current secretary Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu as “the embodiment of the concept of Islamic solidarity in the contemporary world, … The OIC concretized a desire, expressed since long before, to keep alive and to demonstrate Islamic solidarity and unity in a framework of a corporate international forum.” Yet it is this same OIC which affirmed the Amman Message linked to above previously, and implemented numerous conferences and research work based on its premises, above.
So does the overwhelming majority of Pakistan’s Muslim population (80%) who support stoning for adultery, hand chopping for theft, and execution for blasphemy/apostasy.
Again, where is proof of this? I am certainly unaware of it. And by the way, you have now changed your tune from discussing orthodox opinion through the use of texts and religious scholars to now raising the opinion of the masses to prove your point. Which is it? When the `ulama’ have been shown to be against violence and terrorism, and indeed as stating that it is against the essence of Islamic teachings, you now move on to the mindless rabble? And even still, you have not backed up your assertion with proof.
Certainly Leftist/Muslim propagandists in the West do not speak for Muslims, ie., the authors and contributors of this site.
Yet somehow you do? You claim to be able to speak for “Muslim psyche”, like there is somehow a single mindset across 1/5 of the world’s population? Not only that, you also claim to be able to speak for Muslims, to tell them their own religious tradition. Yet you have moved from now discussing that tradition to citing the “masses” in support of your argument. There is a huge difference between the two.
October 18th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
Of course, the report spins the % of Muslims who oppose attacks against civilians by ignoring the historical context in which the poll was conducted in – with 10′s of thousands of Iraqi civilians and thousands of Muslim civilians in other countries being slaughtered by Islamic terrorist groups – therefore lowering public support for suicide bombing and terrorism against non-Muslims than, say, in 2002 before the Iraq war and when Islamists began their (or renewed, see Algeria) Islamo-terrorism campaign of bombing hundreds of Muslims on a weekly basis.
Although the report does seem to acknowledge that dwindling support for Islamo terrorism is based on pragmatics, not morality when it says that Muslims are more against terrorism when they have seen that it doesn’t work:
There is a growing belief that attacks on civilians are ineffective, with approximately half now saying that such attacks are hardly ever effective
Ineffective, not immoral
But if Egypt, Indonesia and Morocco (and we already know that most Pakistanis are religious extremists) are representative of the Muslim world (Indonesia often touted as a moderate Muslim country), then it is clear that a majority of the world’s Muslims are in support with BMD’s and al-Qaeda’s end goal:
“In Egypt 81 percent said they agreed with the al Qaeda goal of “requir[ing] a strict application of Shari’a law in every Islamic country” (65% strongly); only 12 percent disagreed. Pakistanis were similar with 76 percent agreeing with this goal (52% strongly); 5 percent disagreed. Indonesians, however, agreed by only a narrow plurality: 49 percent supported the goal (just 14% strongly), while 42 percent disagreed. In Morocco in late 2006, 76 percent agreed.”
October 18th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
As for Pakistanis, here you go:
Nonetheless, many Pakistanis endorse extreme views about law, religion and society. More than eight-in-ten support segregating men and women in the workplace, stoning adulterers, and whipping and cutting off the hands of thieves. Roughly three-in-four endorse the death penalty for those who leave Islam.
Thus, even though Pakistanis largely reject extremist organizations, they embrace some of the severe laws advocated by such groups. Still, Pakistanis differ sharply with the Taliban and al Qaeda when it comes to a tactic associated with both groups: suicide bombing. Fully 80% of Pakistani Muslims say suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilians can never be justified to defend Islam, the highest percentage among the Muslim publics surveyed. As recently as six years ago, only 35% held this view.
http://pewglobal.org/2010/07/29/concern-about-extremist-threat-slips-in-pakistan/
As for suicide bombing, support only plummeted after Taliban and al-Qaeda like terrorist groups started bombing Pakistan directly.
So, once again, there is an ulterior reason for why ‘only’ 20% of Pakistanis support suicide bombings, as opposed to 40% or 33% in previous years (2004 and 2002 – the latter being well before the war in Iraq)
October 18th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
So, JihadBob, by citing the Pew Global Opinion polls and so forth, are you admitting that you have now moved from using religious scholars and classical texts to “define” Islam, and are now accepting the public opinion of the masses of everyday Muslims as representative of the Islamic religious tradition as a whole?
In other words, by the fact that you have moved onto this line of argument (which some would call ‘shifting goalposts’), you have tacitly admitted that the religious scholars consensus cited above upon affirming that terrorism and violence is against the essence of Islam is valid, and have now sought to prove your point by citing the opinion of the “masses” instead of countering the point raised.
The interesting thing, though, is that the Pew Global Report cites the question solely as: “Do you favor or oppose making the following the law in Pakistan?”, with no other information forthcoming about how the “masses” understand this specific and extremely technical aspect of Islamic criminal law, nor who they think has the capacity or right to decide the exact procedure to be followed in determining the applicability of the punishments, nor the procedure for finding defendants (in a criminal court of law) guilty, or any such thing. Never mind that it does not locate this discussion in the context of recent Pakistani political history regarding the “hudud bill” and so on.
In other words, the data is wanting due to the specific nature of the question asked, so further extrapolation from it is impossible. If you know anything about social sciences research, then you know that the issue of question formation is very important in delineating the analysis of the data given, and also to ensure it does not lead to one specific answer over another.
So once again, how does this fact cited in the Pew Report actually relate to the original point of the article that you protested, which was that the occupation of historically Muslim lands by the US military (primarily) has a direct correlative effect to those doing terrible things in the misguided belief that it is part of their religious tradition? I do not see the connection there between what Pakistani citizens believe regarding the future direction of their own country (and the question asked concerned specifically Pakistan), and this point.
October 18th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
Oh great, the same place where clerics incited Muslims for years to acts of militancy.
What a relief!
A relief indeed—where better to condemn terrorism than Saudi Arabia? It’s where the strictest version of Islam is practiced. Also, Dawood mentioned the OIC; the location of the conference shouldn’t matter, as almost every Muslim nation was represented.
I couldn’t help laughing when JihadBob simply couldn’t believe that Muslims would sincerely denounce terrorism. It’s ironic that his ilk is the one which most often demands that Muslims condemn every attack (that they personally didn’t commit), yet, when Muslims do such, they (extremist Muslim-haters) are the first ones to pretend that the perpetually evil Muslims weren’t sincere, weren’t *true Muslims*, or something more sinister (taqiyya).
(Also, most imams in Saudi Arabia don’t incite violence against non-Muslims–another epic failure in understanding the Islamic world)
JihadBob is forced to reject the evidence because he can’t deal with the facts. For example, note that he rejects what Faisal Shahzad, OBL, and the Taliban say—taking their (terrorists’) own words and justifications (for their actions) into considerations would destroy JihadBob’s arguments.
So, how does JihadBob account for his willful ignorance? How does he keep on sincerely believing that most Muslims are out to take over the world?
However, I have the good sense to understand that what they tell the West is different from what they tell fellow Muslims.
It’s actually worse than what it seems. JihadBob not only believes that terrorists (and I assume Muslims in general) are out to confuse him, but also…the US government and academia! *gasp*
He responded to the following from yours truly:
You’ll also ignore what Bin Laden, the Taliban, the US government, and scholars of Islam have said.
Notice that my prediction was 100% correct.
October 18th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
The difficulty there being that the Amman Message I linked to above originated in 2004 in the Arab world (Jordan to be precise), with all the major texts, supporting fatwas, major conferences and so on published in Arabic; it was not until a few years later anything was published in English at all.
October 18th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
Also interestingly, just looking at the Amman Message again, it specifically mentions – both in Arabic and English – that it calls upon all of the international community (i.e. including Muslim states) to support and implement the relevant United Nations international charters and regulations in order to end injustice, to eradicate fanaticism, violence and terrorism.
October 18th, 2010 at 7:32 pm
[Wasn’t it you who played the Dar al-Islam/Dar al-Harb card]
Sure, and I stand by my comments that Islam divides the world into different camps.
Weird
You seem to be constipated over an obscure and dated concept–that has its origins hundreds of years after the birth of Muhammad (PBUH).
Yet nothing about the papal bull I mentioned.
Let’ compare the two now abandoned “divisions”:
Islam)
Dar al-Islam (House of Islam)
Dar al-Harb (House of War)
Dar al-Hudna (House of Calm)
Dar al-‘Ahd (House of Truce)
Dar al-Sulh (House of Treaty)
Christianity)
Inter Caetera
Divides the world in half, with Portugal getting the East and Spain the West—thus, the two empires could plunder/kill non-Christians without bothering each other.
Hmmm…
JihadBob has double standards?
No way.
October 18th, 2010 at 7:35 pm
So, JihadBob, by citing the Pew Global Opinion polls and so forth, are you admitting that you have now moved from using religious scholars and classical texts to “define” Islam, and are now accepting the public opinion of the masses of everyday Muslims as representative of the Islamic religious tradition as a whole?
I thought I responded to this before, but it must have been one of my posts that did not make it through.
How about this, considering the mainstream teachings of Islam regarding martyrdom by blood, jihad warfare and the abrogation of the peaceful verses of the Koran with the more violent ones, and of survey after survey showing Muslims who support suicide bombings, terrorism, theocracies and backwards Islamic laws, what do *YOU* think would be a reasonable percentage of Muslims educated in Islamic law who support what ever you’re asking me?
Would it be fair to say that the mullahs of the world are just as reactionary, if not more so, than your average, run-of-the-mill Muslim?
you have tacitly admitted that the religious scholars consensus cited above upon affirming that terrorism and violence is against the essence of Islam is valid
Oh please, you haven’t shown any consensus regarding any issue involving Muslim scholars.
Do you favor or oppose making the following the law in Pakistan?”, with no other information forthcoming about how the “masses” understand this specific and extremely technical aspect of Islamic criminal law
Well, the following questions were asked regarding:
Hand chopping and thieves
Execution and blasphemy and apostasy
Stoning and adultery within the context of marriage
For all of the above, 80% or so of Pakistanis responded favorably.
Please don’t run interference regarding the ‘technical aspect of Islamic law in criminal courts’.
80% of Pakistanis support seventh century punishments. All of it is based on Islamic Law.
So once again, how does this fact cited in the Pew Report actually relate to the original point of the article that you protested, which was that the occupation of historically Muslim lands by the US military (primarily)
Let me know how hand chopping of thieves and stoning adulterers ties in with your smoke screen.
October 18th, 2010 at 7:55 pm
A relief indeed—where better to condemn terrorism than Saudi Arabia?
I have a bridge for sale in Mecca.
I couldn’t help laughing when JihadBob simply couldn’t believe that Muslims would sincerely denounce terrorism.
They didn’t. It was not a categorical condemnation of terrorism.
The only serious denunciation of terrorism is the 600 page fatwa recently published by the Pakistani cleric.
(Also, most imams in Saudi Arabia don’t incite violence against non-Muslims–another epic failure in understanding the Islamic world)
Who knows. I know for years (especially before 9/11) Saudi clerics would incite Muslims across the world via satellite.
For example, note that he rejects what Faisal Shahzad, OBL, and the Taliban say
No, I have not ignored all of the above’s comments regarding waging holy war against the infidel.
Christianity)
Inter Caetera
Divides the world in half, with Portugal getting the East and Spain the West—thus, the two empires could plunder/kill non-Christians without bothering each other.
Uh, actually the papal bull didn’t divide the world in half. That decree would be referring to the New World and clearly not even all of that was affected by the Papal bull – it was mostly Latin America that affected by the Bull.
And it’s partially a misunderstanding on your part regarding what the purpose of the Papal Bull – the Spanish and Portuguese were already exploring the New World, the Papal Bull was simply issued to prevent Spanish and Portuguese fighting by assigning which imperial nation got what territory.
It’s kind of how the Five Families each control their own carved out piece of land so they aren’t always warring with each other.
October 18th, 2010 at 7:55 pm
Let me get this straight…
Because a poll says most Pakistanis support laws present in the Bible…
Muslims want to take over the world?
Makes sense–if you’re JihadBob.
October 18th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
No, I have not ignored all of the above’s comments regarding waging holy war against the infidel.
So you admit to selectively qouting?
Good for you.
October 18th, 2010 at 8:05 pm
Alas, JihadBob proves me right again.
He’ll reject evidence he can’t handle.
I have a bridge for sale in Mecca.
No, I have not ignored all of the above’s comments regarding waging holy war against the infidel.
October 18th, 2010 at 8:32 pm
I seem to have hit a bit of a raw nerve there.
I thought I responded to this before, but it must have been one of my posts that did not make it through.
Why wouldn’t your post make it through? The only reason something wouldn’t is if it contained more than one link which means it is caught by the comment filter.
How about this, considering the mainstream teachings of Islam … etc.
Okay, this comes back to the same point that I raised before, although you seem to be a little angrier this time round: Who defines the mainstream teachings of the Islamic religious tradition? The hundreds (if not thousands) of senior scholars, junior scholars, intellectuals etc. engaged in organisations such as the OIC and International Fiqh Academy, never mind the numerous non-Muslims intellectuals working in Western academia more generally who spend their lives and careers researching Islamic thought and the Muslim world, or … you? Or even to be fair, you and your small group of associates and sources. I simply think that the numbers don’t stack up in your favour.
Oh please, you haven’t shown any consensus regarding any issue involving Muslim scholars
The Amman Message is clear in its aims and the issue of consensus:
———–
An approach based on scholarly consensus is not unprecedented within Islam. … In forging such a consensus, two groups are of particular relevance: the ulama (scholars of Islamic law), and leaders possessing political authority. The Aal al-Bayt Institute hopes to create ijma’ on difficult theological issues via the Amman Message.
———–
I would posit that the Amman Message, with its OIC [i.e. political] support, approval from the International Fiqh Academy and the host of hundreds of senior Muslim scholars from across the sectarian and political spectrum in (and outside) the Muslim world (many with supporting fatwas of their own) [i.e. scholastic support] constitutes a consensus on the points contained therein. Which, as I have quoted above, includes numerous statements regarding terrorism, extremism and violence.
Please don’t run interference regarding the ‘technical aspect of Islamic law in criminal courts’
Why not? Are you upset that bringing in actual discussion of the technical nature of Islamic criminal law (and Islamic jurisprudence in general) would tarnish the image of Islamic law that you seek to portray as simple, backwards and barbaric with nothing but violence in mind? Or that providing citations to show that your view of the hudud is necessarily simplistic and ill-conceived, not representing the juristic tradition at all would hurt your argument further? Or that judging a pre-modern legal system (why do you always seem to cite pre-modern ideas and not those of scholars existing today?) based on concepts developed and established only in the last century in Europe/America are somehow a bit unsavoury and dishonest? I suppose this is why people of your ilk don’t like the works or thought of M. Cherif Bassiouni, to name but one recent example. Never mind that academic study has consistently shown Islamic law to have been vibrant, dynamic and – shock – even ‘liberal’ in many respects, even in the formative and medieval period. Academia is long past treating Islamic law as kadijustiz as Weber believed.
Again, don’t let the actual facts get in the way of your argument… Pakistan and almost every other Muslim-majority country has had such things as constitutions, civil and criminal legal codes and so forth for the better part of thirty or more years since colonialism ended (and in some cases long before, such as Tunisia or Egypt) and that any overture towards Islamic law – no matter the percentage – in the state is mediated by these political structures, but no, all it comes down to is throwing rocks and chopping hands. It really shows everyone reading how you view the Muslim ‘Other’ and a significant aspect of their heritage.
October 18th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
And as for someone who considers themselves to have seriously researched the issue of “jihad”, violence, the connection between these and Islamic eachings etc., how can you explain your ignorance of the Amman Message website considering that it has been online since the beginning of 2007 in English?
October 18th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
Taken from JW:
UPDATE: Johnson has replied at his lies-and-hate site Little Green Footballs, accusing me of lying in The Guardian and bringing forth evidence that essentially amounts to claiming that Pamela Geller and I don’t mean what they say. Well, I am impressed that Charles Johnson can read souls, but doubt that his “evidence” would pass muster with any sane group that troubled to evaluate it.
Oh the irony considering the discussion here and on other threads on LW.
October 18th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
And blast the html tagging elements on the comments forms once again. :-S
October 18th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
Sorry if anyone found my posts ambiguous.
I was simply pointing out how JihadBob is forced to reject facts, as they would refute his thesis.
And for those unfamiliar with JihadBob—his thesis is as follows: Muslims want to take over the world.
Here is some of his damning evidence.
it is clear that a majority of the world’s Muslims are in support with BMD’s and al-Qaeda’s end goal:
How does JihadBob know it’s a clear majority? Good question. It’s actually because JihadBob can read the minds of the 1/5 of the world’s populace.
Nope. I’m not kidding. JihadBob has told us of his intimate wanderings into the “Muslim psyche”.
Rather, these beliefs always lie under the surface of the communal Muslim psyche.
Pretty impressive. Right?
And before you ask…
No—JihadBob hasn’t had his psyche checked of late.
Anyways, on to the issue at hand—JihadBob ignoring the facts.
Here is what I pointed out:
JihadBob is forced to reject the evidence because he can’t deal with the facts. For example, note that he rejects what Faisal Shahzad, OBL, and the Taliban say—taking their (terrorists’) own words and justifications (for their actions) into considerations would destroy JihadBob’s arguments.
Here’s JihadBob’s response:
For example, note that he rejects what Faisal Shahzad, OBL, and the Taliban say
No, I have not ignored all of the above’s comments regarding waging holy war against the infidel.
You’ll notice that JihadBob quoted a fraction of my statement. I specifically pointed out that he would ignore the terrorists’ justifications for their actions–he was unable to respond to my statement. Indeed his response basically confirmed my assertion.
Case in point: JihadBob ignores the facts.
Anyways, I have another quote for JihadBob to deny:
The imam told Shaea that the Fort Hood attack was acceptable under Islam. “America was the one who first brought the battle to Muslim countries,” (Anwar al-Awlaki)
Have fun.
October 18th, 2010 at 9:58 pm
Oops, I meant to say Surat-al-Kafirun on my last post *facepalm*. But lol @ JihadBob postulating Awlaki as a scholar, and rejecting all other scholars put forth by other posters. What a joke.
October 18th, 2010 at 10:10 pm
@Cynic
I found this refutation of Robert Spencer (on Jihad) on some random Muslim blog. It’s actually pretty legit–well researched, and with sources and everything. If anyone’s interested they can take a peek at it.
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?54468-Refutation-of-Robert-Spencer-on-Islam-and-Violence
So, whenever we are placed beyond the reach of the enemy and the outlying districts of the Muslim lands are secured and the gaps in their fortifications are filled, the obligation to wage jihad falls from all the rest of the Muslims … (al-Muqaddimat 1:374)
The purpose of jihad, in other words, is to provide for the security and freedom of the Muslims in a world that kept them under constant threat.” (15)
October 18th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
The only serious denunciation of terrorism is the 600 page fatwa recently published by the Pakistani cleric.
Really? You mean that the only one you’ve ever seen right? That would make much more sense.
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
October 18th, 2010 at 10:19 pm
http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm
October 18th, 2010 at 10:20 pm
Wow, nice to know my uploading of that article years ago is still doing the rounds lol!
October 18th, 2010 at 10:23 pm
Damn you guys are quick, I meant the Jackson article linked in NassirH’s post. lol.
October 19th, 2010 at 8:23 am
JB, BMD is right! Islam is perfect and so is our Quran, Sahih Hadith, and our messenger, the mighty teacher. I don’t however, agree, with a minority of Muslims who through ignorance or selfishness misinterpret the Quran and teach the uneducated youngins to kill innocent civilians in the name of Allah. Majority of Muslims are not extremists and are peaceful people. However, the gov’t of some Muslim countries along with non-Muslim gov’t. and politicians are questionable.
I don’t agree with some of the laws (women can’t drive w/o men) by Saudi Arabia but that’s on the Sauds, not the majority of the people who live there.
Also, if you really hate us Muslims, maybe you should stop buying gas for your car and peddle your way to a therapist. lol
Please stop ignoring the facts and look at the links provided by Cynic above of Muslims condemning terrorism.
Peace!
October 19th, 2010 at 8:36 am
I found this refutation of Robert Spencer (on Jihad) on some random Muslim blog. It’s actually pretty legit–well researched, and with sources and everything. If anyone’s interested they can take a peek at it.
Err, actually I’ve interacted with the author of that article on previous occassions – he has a tendency to write long winded screeds with actually very little research – ie., the author, Zameel, quote mines (plagiarises) from other authors and usually carries over their same errors from the authors he quote mines from.
October 19th, 2010 at 9:39 am
How ironic that
a) Sponge Bob admits to being Robert Spencer. Who would lie making such a claim and why? Its like admitting in writing to being illiterate
b) This web site has shown him to be guilty of the same crimes he accuses other of.
If you are new to this site Danios has written many articles taking Robert apart use the search engine above to view.
October 19th, 2010 at 9:40 am
Whoops that should read others not other
October 19th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Nice to know that Robert regularly contributes to a site exposing him.
October 19th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Haha!
October 19th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
Damn JB. If you are Spencer then you dug yourself into an amazingly deep shithole.
…tendency to write long winded screeds with actually very little research – ie., the author, Zameel, quote mines (plagiarises)…
Good old Bobby, ironic and hypocritical as always.
October 19th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
how ironic that
a) Sponge Bob admits to being Robert Spencer. Who would lie making such a claim and why? Its like admitting in writing to being illiterate
I agree, someone with poor reading comprehension can be very ironic.
No argument there, just waiting for the passage where I said ‘I’m Robert Spencer’.
Take your time.
Let me get this straight. Because a poll says most Pakistanis support laws present in the Bible… Muslims want to take over the world? Makes sense–if you’re JihadBob.
Khushboo and Dawood brought up Islamic fundamentalism and requested that I provide links to my claim that a majority of Pakistanis support barbaric, seventh century laws straight out of the prophetic Sunnah and Koran.
I join you in joining me in condemning the passage in the Koran calling for the hand chopping of thieves and where the Koran mentions killing apostates in honor killings before they actually become apostates.
Why wouldn’t your post make it through? The only reason something wouldn’t is if it contained more than one link which means it is caught by the comment filter.
Sometimes when I post more than three times in a row, my posts no longer go through the system.
Now, you haven’t given me your guesstimate.
How many Muslims, educated in their religion, share the beliefs of Qaradawi, the Blind Shiek, Azzam and al-Awlaki?
Come on Dawood, what’s your guesstimate? What percentage support terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians?
Martyrdom by blood?
Islamic supremacism?
The beleif that the Koran’s militant passages abrogate the peaceful ones?
I need a percentage here.
Who defines the mainstream teachings of the Islamic religious tradition?
Odd question.
What does that have to do with the fact that 80% of Pakistanis support hand chopping, stoning and killing for blasphemy and apostasy???
Do you side with Khushboo and BMD that hand chopping and stoning are perfect are not in need of re-interpretation?
October 19th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
JihadBob: If you can actually be bothered listening to an academic lecture at a conference entitled “Rethinking Jihad: Ideas, Politics and Conflict in the Arab World & Beyond” held by the Centre for the Advanced Study of the Arab World at the University of Edinburgh in 2009, then you will see that Qaradawi, for a start, does not accept the theory of abrogation that you assert above, and has actually published a text arguing against the extremist interpretations drawn from this type of textual reading. I’m surprised you don’t have it on your bookshelf already as it is a substantial text.
For those interested: listen to Prof. Sherman Jackson’s keynote lecture titled “Re-Thinking Principles: Sh. Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Ayat al-Sayf.” here. [MP3, approx 70mb and 40mins] It’s slightly long, but very interesting.
Khushboo and Dawood brought up Islamic fundamentalism and requested that I provide links to my claim
I simply stated that I was unaware of the fact and asked for proof. I did not indicate that it had any relevance to the discussion at hand.
I stated: “And by the way, you have now changed your tune from discussing orthodox opinion through the use of texts and religious scholars to now raising the opinion of the masses to prove your point. Which is it? When the `ulama’ have been shown to be against violence and terrorism, and indeed as stating that it is against the essence of Islamic teachings, you now move on to the mindless rabble?”
You have still not addressed this, and instead are deflecting by changing the subject now to what Muslims in a specific nation state may or may not believe. Again: what relevance does this have to the article at hand, which states effectively that it is continued occupation by military forces which is leading to an increase in violent attacks? I do not understand how what Pakistani’s may or may not believe can somehow be weaved in to your refutation of this point?
You initially countered by implying that “terrorism” was implicit within Islam itself – as your first comment on this thread states – and after I showed that a majority of senior `ulama’ from across the Muslim world reached a near-consensus on the issues presented in the Amman Message – including that terrorism is against the essence of Islam itself – you then shifted goalposts from discussing the “Islamic tradition” to discussing Pakistanis. So for you to then reply to me saying “Odd question“, I find rather disingenuous considering you are the one shifting goalposts and topics like wildfire in order to defend your position.
Instead of answering my question you try to deflect it; I guess that tells us all we need to know. Mob rule is not how any religious tradition works, and definitely not Islam.
And I like how you add the ad-hominem at the end, we all know what that means about the logic and state of the argument; my personal opinion is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
October 19th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Perhaps JihadBob can sum this latest masterpiece up best:
tendency to write long winded screeds with actually very little research
So what does JihadBob have to say now?
I join you in joining me in condemning the passage in the Koran calling for the hand chopping of thieves and where the Koran mentions killing apostates in honor killings before they actually become apostates.
He will join you in joining him?
Another impressive written failure on the part of JihadBob.
Anyways, the fact that he is forced to reject the evidence that completely affirms what the article and US government have explained says alot.
I don’t see how cutting hands means that Muslims want to take over the world–but it must make sense for JihadBob.
October 19th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
LOL
Sir David, thanks for the laugh
October 19th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
“I don’t see how cutting hands means that Muslims want to take over the world–but it must make sense for JihadBob.”
Priceless Nasir
I think JihadBob is better at a source of amusement than to waste time refuting. Remember he is paid to lie.
October 19th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Do you side with Khushboo and BMD that hand chopping and stoning are perfect are not in need of re-interpretation?
Spencer has clearly said Islam cannot be “reformed”–take it up with him if you’re so concerned about Halal meat and/or Cambell soup.
(I have to admit, I always feel pretty disgusted at the arrogance that bigoted people show when they tell me to change my religion.)
I think the majority of Muslims who support the establishment of an Islamic theocracy speaks pretty well for Muslims.
If you’re concerned about Islamic states then take it up with the American government–they created two new ones relatively recently.
“Do you deny that Muslims are being oppressed in various ways?”
No, I don’t deny that Christians are being oppressed all over the world
???
Must make sense to JihadBob.
October 20th, 2010 at 8:43 am
NassirH
It’s the denial of reality achieved by giving someone lots of money .
If someone was paying me such money to talk and write I am sure I could do a better job of it than Sponge Bob.
I wonder if his sponcers think they get value for money? After all his website must have huge overheads .
BMD
You are welcome:-)