Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

Fair enough - you're not alone in believing his actions were in part due to what was 'embedded in his religious beliefs'.

The issue is Islamphobe (loon) argument though is that Islam is inherently violent and that this guy was trying to kill because that is what Islam teaches Muslims should do to non-Muslims. Go to eh's guru's website JihadWatch.com and the hatred is dripping off the page - and dressed up in pseudo-scholarly misrepresentations of the Quran etc.

The problem here is that the reason the numpty gave for targetting the US is explicitly retaliation for US bombings. The numpty does not align himself with loon ideology and cite hatred for non-Muslims as a reason. In fact, as with Bin Laden, they cannot find a Quranic reason for blowing up women and children and civilians in general.

When Muslims target Christians or other Muslim sects - then that clearly is a religous act of terrorism. When Baruch Goldstein killed Muslim worshippers, that was too.

Tim McVeigh blew up fellow Americans over political issues. His fellow citizen tried to do the same - but thankfully failed.

Let's remember too, the last successful suicide terrorist in America flew his plane into a federal building this year. He was white and a Catholic. His gripe was over Federal Taxes - but no one tries to link his successful terrorist attack with his religious views.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Let's remember too, the last successful suicide terrorist in America flew his plane into a federal building this year. He was white and a Catholic. His gripe was over Federal Taxes - but no one tries to link his successful terrorist attack with his religious views.

LoL.

Yes, others are loons.

You're not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwOiXxTO ... r_embedded

Let me know when you uncover a video of Joe Stack calling for holy war against the US, who wants Christianity to militarily take over the world in this holy war ..... oh, and spends eight months at a Christian Taliban training camp a few thousand miles away from his homeland.

In fact, the only thing I found about Stack and his mention of religion was his railing against the Catholic Church. But RobbyG already provided those quotes on the other thread, so you knew this already.

Yeah, I wonder why no one with a shred of credibility and common sense would try to link his attack with Christianity.

Big mystery there.

Thanks - I had forgotten Joe's name.

I also don't link Catholic Joe's successful suicide terrorist mission with his religion - that's my whole big thing point.

The last successful suicide terrorist in the US attacked for political motives, not religious.

Cheers,
Shafique

I also don't link Catholic Joe's successful suicide terrorist mission with his religion - that's my whole big thing point.

Wouldn't care to show that Joe was even a Catholic at the time of his death, now would you ?

Unlike, of course, Shahzad, who called for 'holy war'.

And, it is a bit funny how Muslims will drop the 'Islamophobe' card.

Now anyone who dare claims that Shahzad was religiously motivated - he called for a holy war - is now an Islamophobe.

People who believe loon propaganda may not be loons - just people who believe the loon headlines.

Please don't try and project - loons like to exaggerate with statements like:

event horizon wrote:Peace with Islam and Muslims is impossible. The only time Muslims seek peace is when they need to reload.

Some even defend this statement with so called loon proof (which turns out to be loon interpretations of selected verses).


But the point is still, the last successful suicide bomber in the US was a white Catholic dude called Joe who had a gripe against the government and no one talks about 72 virgins being his motivation for suicide or even his Catholicism etc as proof that all Christians hate the Federal Government. That would be absurd.

Cheers,
Shafique

Did Catholic Joe leave a note or video talking about Catholicism and a holy war, and how Catholicism will be spread around the world?

No use pointing out the obvious.

Logic doesn't work on loons.

event horizon wrote:Peace with Islam and Muslims is impossible. The only time Muslims seek peace is when they need to reload.

He-he,

Horizon is not original here. I heard approximately the same slogan about commies, that they used lessening of international tension in 70s for buying or stealing Western technology in other to modernize their own weapon.

Looking at this striking resemblance I think there is nothing against Moslems in particulae but only making up a new enemy to consolidate nation.

event horizon wrote:No use pointing out the obvious.

Logic doesn't work on loons.

Thanks, but that doesn't mean much coming from a loon.

kanelli wrote:

event horizon wrote:No use pointing out the obvious.

Logic doesn't work on loons.

Thanks, but that doesn't mean much coming from a loon.

But you'll still be an Islamophobe until you 'agree' that shafique is right.



Loons are intolerant of opposing viewpoints.

Just observe for yourself how Muslims on this forum react if you don't agree with them on their religion or politics.

I've been on this forum since 2005, and I have met forumers in person, including Shaf.

^Ouch! (Expect eh to come out fighting after that - he'll insist that he's right and Muslims are intolerant etc. Gosh - I've been hanging around him too much!)


About suicide bomber Joe from the Bible belt- no he didn't leave a note railing about Catholicism, he left a note saying what his political gripes were - against the federal government. His problem was taxation - and he burnt down his house, IIRC, got into a plane and flew into a government building.

He didn't need religion or a promise of 72 virgins for him to want to kill his fellow Americans. Neither did Tim McVeigh need religion as an excuse to kill fellow Americans using a car/truck bomb.

Shahzad decided to emulate Tim McVeigh and gave his reasons for wanting to kill New Yorkers - the reason he gave was US foreign policy - the killings of people in foreign lands. Thankfully he failed, miserably.

Now, I concede that Shahzad is Muslim, I concede he believes that Islam will one day be the dominant religion in the world. I concede that his retaliation was against US bombings of Muslims.

What I don't concede is that he said his retaliation for the bombings was because Islam teaches Muslims to fight all non-Muslims or that Islam condones terrorism.

He's an American terrorist that was less successful than Joe the bomber and Tim McVeigh.

Cheers,
Shafique

Red Chief wrote:

event horizon wrote:Peace with Islam and Muslims is impossible. The only time Muslims seek peace is when they need to reload.

He-he,

Horizon is not original here. I heard approximately the same slogan about commies, that they used lessening of international tension in 70s for buying or stealing Western technology in other to modernize their own weapon.

Looking at this striking resemblance I think there is nothing against Moslems in particulae but only making up a new enemy to consolidate nation.

I think this is indeed the agenda for some guys - notably the neo-cons. The same guys who used the 'Red Menace' as a way to keep military spend up and keep power in their hands, needed a new enemy.

If you look at the BBC documentary 'Power of Nightmares' - available on You Tube etc - they trace this aspect very well. I think they start with the exaggeration of the Soviet threat for US political purposes (largely to control the US population, IIRC). Then they go through to the creation of Al Qaeda and how this plays into their agenda. Its interesting - not because it says that the Soviet threat or Al Qaeda terrorist acts were invented or created by the 'evil West' - no it rather shows that it is spun out of proportion to reality.

One bit of the documentary that I recall is the epic spin in the time of Reagan (again IIRC) - there was a theory that the Soviets had developed a nuclear submarine that could not be detected, it was silent etc. So the intelligence guys compiled reports. All the reports said there was no evidence of this. Then the reports were given to a White House committee/group and they spun the reports to say 'as there is no evidence, this shows that the Russian programme is much more advanced that we thought - the sub is almost invisible!!' Classic. And they got their money.


However, I don't think mini-me Loon here is part of the neo-con conspiracy, it is just that the Bible Bashing loons have found themselves aligned with the spin that there's an evil conspiracy of Jihadists out there that 'hate our freedoms' etc.

Cheers,
Shafique

I cannot agree any more. It looks like the tolerable guy equaly hates Moslems and all leftists in common but bloody commies in particular.

'as there is no evidence, this shows that the Russian programme is much more advanced that we thought - the sub is almost invisible!!' Classic. And they got their money.

Cool!

Red Chief wrote:

event horizon wrote:Peace with Islam and Muslims is impossible. The only time Muslims seek peace is when they need to reload.

He-he,

Horizon is not original here. I heard approximately the same slogan about commies, that they used lessening of international tension in 70s for buying or stealing Western technology in other to modernize their own weapon.

Looking at this striking resemblance I think there is nothing against Moslems in particulae but only making up a new enemy to consolidate nation.

Communism, Nazism and (Islamo)fascism are very much alike.

Probably. Hiroshima, bombing of Serbian Cities and Iraq with its WMD are different.

Shafique, do you still have a doubt?

I'm almost convinced RC ...almoust - just a little doubt remaining though, something to do with a thing called 'reality' vs 'fantasies'


(And why are you going on about WMD in Iraq - surely everyone knows that the reason was regime change and that was what was said at the time was the reason - it was bring democracy and freedom to the Iraqis... oh and Al Qaeda were best buddies with Saddam and we'll find some evidence that there was a link between 9/11 and Saddam - as up to 70% of Americans believed at one stage! )



Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:About suicide bomber Joe from the Bible belt- no he didn't leave a note railing about Catholicism, he left a note saying what his political gripes were - against the federal government. His problem was taxation - and he burnt down his house, IIRC, got into a plane and flew into a government building.

Typically one would need some kind of evidence that a person is a religious extremist before the media would label said person as such.

If you recall, the media didn't initially claim that Shahzad was a religious extremist - certain outlets went so far as to claim that he carried out the attempted bombing because his home was foreclosed on.

As for Joe Stack, once again, we have no evidence to link his actions or any of his primary belief systems to Catholicism.

In fact, quite the opposite as RobbyG already pointed out in another thread. Our 'Catholic' suicide bomber hated the Church, referring to it as 'vulgar' (similar to how the Koran refers to Christians):

..Some friends introduced me to a group of people who were having ‘tax code’ readings and discussions. In particular, zeroed in on a section relating to the wonderful "exemptions" that make institutions like the vulgar, corrupt Catholic Church so incredibly wealthy. We carefully studied the law (with the help of some of the “best”, high-paid, experienced tax lawyers in the business), and then began to do exactly what the "big boys" were doing (except that we weren’t steeling from our congregation or lying to the government about our massive profits in the name of God). We took a great deal of care to make it all visible, following all of the rules, exactly the way the law said it was to be done.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/ ... ontentBody

What I don't concede is that he said his retaliation for the bombings was because Islam teaches Muslims to fight all non-Muslims or that Islam condones terrorism.

Then go back and watch the video I posted featuring Shahzad himself.

He calls for a holy war against the United States. Sounds pretty explicit to me.

Thanks for bringing us back to the original topic eh - and I commend you for not reacting to kanelli's post (although you did ask for it!).

What Shahzad said on the video is exactly what this thread is about - and I started the thread with this - and the reasons he gave for the attempted bombing haven't changed (nor did I ignore the Islamic rhetoric - in fact I quoted it):

shafique wrote:Our would be bomber's motivations are now out on video, and validates the initial reports about the motivations behind the attempted terrorist bombing - i.e. that they were not because he subscribes to the loon interpretation of Islam, but that he was reacting to the killings of 'Muslim fighters' carried out in Pakistan, Afghanistan etc.

But, to be fair, there is the rhetoric about Islam taking over the world - but this does not detract for the reasons for the bombing (he doesn't say the bombing is to spread Islam):

..
"This attack on the United States will also be a revenge attack for all the mujahideen... and the weak and oppressed Muslims, for example Baytullah Mehsud and Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi, and all the Muslims and Arabs that have been martyred.

"I will take revenge on their behalf and I really wish that the hearts of the Muslims will be pleased with this attack.

"Islam will spread on the whole world and democracy will be defeated... and the world of Allah will be supreme."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us+canada-10634960


And here's a reminder of what was said soon after the McVeigh wanna-be was caught:

The evidence that the Times Square bombing was in retaliation for illegal U.S. predator drone attacks–and not because “they hate our freedoms” or because of some silly South Park affair–is very strong.
..
So these Islamic extremists did not try to bomb Times Square because “they hate our freedoms” or because of an Islamic prohibition on depicting the Prophet Muhammad, or because the religion of Islam is diabolically evil and commands them to do so. The motivations are largely political, not religious, in nature. Our country has attacked theirs and killed their countrymen.

The bewilderment of some Americans–”why are there so many Muslim terrorists!?”–is mostly a reflection of a deep ignorance of what our government does abroad. It’s not really that hard to understand the simple fact that if we kill hundreds of civilians in another country, some people from that country are going to try to retaliate and kill some of us. As Representative Ron Paul put it: “They don’t come here to attack us because we are rich and we’re free. They come and they attack us because we’re over there [attacking them].”
..

Cheers,
Shafique

Do you deny that Shahzad called for a holy war against the US ???

Have you not been reading what has been written? Which part of the post above is unclear?

shafique wrote:But, to be fair, there is the rhetoric about Islam taking over the world - but this does not detract for the reasons for the bombing (he doesn't say the bombing is to spread Islam):

The reason for the Tim McVeigh attempt (i.e. using a car bomb to blow up fellow Americans) is clearly given. The reason isn't a 'Holy War', no amount of wishful thinking or 'inferring' can change this fact.

The last successful suicide bomber was Joe the bomber - he too didn't need a religious reason to carry out his terrorist attack against fellow Americans.

Cheers,
Shafique

Have you not been reading what has been written? Which part of the post above is unclear?

No, I've read your posts quite well.

You've argued very recently that the Pope's call to arms was religiously based because he called for a holy war.

I'm simply pointing out that Shahzad called for a holy war against the US but this seems not to have mattered.

Basically - Pope calls for 'holy war' = religious

Muslims call for 'holy war' = political

That pretty much sums your 'logic' up.

shafique wrote:The facts though are - Urban did indeed quote the Bible in Clermont, did call for a Holy Army

Holy War is only religious if a Christian calls for one

Great, I'm glad you're reading the posts carefully.

Do we therefore agree that the reason given by Shazad for his Tim Mcveigh attempt was in retaliation for US bombings overseas?

Does he give this as his reason? Yes or No?

Cheers,
Shafique

Right, according to your logic, calling for a holy war is proof of religious motivation.

Therefore, Shahzad's call for a holy war proves that his attack was motivated by his belief in Islam.

Was the question difficult?

Do we therefore agree that the reason given by Shazad for his Tim Mcveigh attempt was in retaliation for US bombings overseas?

Does he give this as his reason? Yes or No?

Yes or No?

Cheers,
Shafique

Do you deny that Shahzad called for a 'Holy War' against the United States ?

Yes or no - young loon, yes or no.

You're squirming again.

Actually, to cut this short - your answer is clearly:

"Yes, Shahzad did say the bombing was in retaliation for US bombing BUT my loon point of view does not allow me to acknowledge this and I will continue to hold on to my cherished hatred of Muslims and Islam and insist he really meant to say he wanted to fight non-Muslims because that is what loon's believe the Quran says"

When you have a new tune, let me know and we can discuss it again.

Cheers,
Shafique

Actually, the Pope said the crusades were in response to Muslim aggression/actions.

So, does this mean that the Pope's call to arms was political, not religious as you had previously claimed ?