Al Qaeda Terrorism - Political Or Religious ?

Topic locked
  • Reply
Re: Al Qaeda terrorism - political or religious ? Jul 28, 2010
AQ also considers Andaluz occupied territory. First Palestine, than Andaluz it seems.

Flying Dutchman
Dubai Forums Zealot
Posts: 3792
Location: Dubai

  • Reply
Re: Al Qaeda terrorism - political or religious ? Aug 02, 2010
Enlightening extract from the OP:

Al-Qa'ida has maintained that its hostilities to the West have absolutely nothing to do with the latter's freedoms. Speaking to the Americans, bin Ladin asserted, "From the start, I tell you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life; free men do not underestimate their security--contrary to [President George W.] Bush's claim that we hate freedom. [11] If so, let him explain to us why we have not attacked Sweden, for instance." [p. 214].

Speaking to the Europeans, bin Ladin tries to define terrorism: "[W]e inform you that your description of us as 'terrorists' and our actions as 'terrorism' necessarily means that you and your actions must be defined likewise. Our actions are merely reactions to yours...." (p. 234)

Finally, bin Ladin makes it quite clear that terrorism is used only in reciprocity since al-Qa'ida has no other choice: "Shall a man be blamed for protecting his own? Self-defense and punishing the wicked in kind--are these shameful [acts of] 'terrorism'? And even if it is, we have no other option." (p. 216)

Taken together, all these messages assert that the terror al-Qa'ida inflicts upon the West has nothing to do with Western freedoms and everything to do with reciprocal treatment. Moreover, by stating "we have no other option" than to engage in acts of terrorism, bin Ladin clearly implies that terrorism is being relied upon as a last resort out of desperation. Thus al-Qa'ida maintains that there is no correlation between Western freedoms and Islamic terrorism--that the latter is never used simply to suppress the former.

This is not the case when addressing the Saudis. After they wrote to the Americans saying that Islam does not allow coercion in matters of religion, bin Ladin, once again, revealed his true beliefs and ultimate goals. The Saudi intellectuals had declared, "It is not permitted to coerce anyone regarding his religion. Allah Most High said: 'There is no compulsion in religion' [Koran 2:256]. Thus Islam itself does not comport with coercion." (p. 40) After explaining that this verse has to do with matters of the heart and not Islam's destiny to rule the whole world,[12] bin Ladin quotes the Hadith:

Whenever the Messenger of Allah appointed someone as leader of an army or detachment, he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and be good to the Muslims with him. Then he would say: "Attack in the name of Allah and in the path of Allah do battle with whoever rejects Allah. Attack!... If you happen upon your idolatrous enemies, call them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, accept it and stay yourself from them. [1] Call them to Islam: If they respond [i.e., convert], accept this and cease fighting them..... [2] If they refuse to accept Islam, demand of them the jizya: If they respond, accept it and cease fighting them. [3] But if they refuse, seek the aid of Allah and fight them." Thus our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue--one that demands our total support, with power and determination, with one voice--and it is: Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: either willing submission; or payment of the jizya, through physical though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; or the sword--for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live. The matter is summed up for every person alive: Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die. [pp. 41-42]


When the Saudi intellectuals wrote: "Man, from his very make-up, is a sacred creation. Thus it is impermissible to transgress against him, no matter what his color, race, or religion." Bin Ladin, after mocking their language for its "UN" tone, wrote extensively:

Now, then, how can you speak about Allah without knowledge? Who told you that transgression against man is impermissible--if he is an infidel? What about Offensive Jihad? Allah Exalted, the Most High, said: "Fight them! Allah will torment them with your hands".... [Koran 9:14] Indeed, these expressions of yours are built upon the principle of equality, as found in the charters of the United Nations, which do not distinguish [among] people, neither by way of religion nor race nor sex. Islam improves; it is not improved.... [p. 38] Furthermore, how can they [intellectuals] claim that we have no right to force a people to change its particular values, when they transgress the bounds of nature? Such are lies. In fact, Muslims are obligated to raid the lands of the infidels, occupy them, and exchange their systems of governance for an Islamic system, barring any practice that contradicts the sharia from being publicly voiced among the people, as was the case at the dawn of Islam....[p. 50] Thus they make claims and speak about Allah without understanding. They say that our sharia does not impose our particular beliefs upon others; this is a false assertion. For it is, in fact, part of our religion to impose our particular beliefs upon others. Whoever doubts this, let him turn to the deeds of the Companions when they raided the lands of the Christians and Omar imposed upon them the conditions of dhimmi[tude]. These conditions involve clothing attire, specific situations, and class distinctions known to ulamaas the pact of Omar,[13] and they are notoriously famous. Let the signatories review them so they know that we are to force people by the power of the sword to [our] particular understandings, customs, and conditions, all in order to induce debasement and humility, just like Allah commanded when he said: "[...]until they pay the jizya by hand, in complete submission and humility." [Koran 9:29] Now, if you are incapable of jihad and placing people into the religion, like the Companions did, your impotence does not mean that it is not a legitimate aspect of the religion. [p. 51]


As for direct support for terrorism, bin Ladin again refers to the Koran:
"Muster against them [infidels] what fighting-men and steeds of war you can, in order to strike terror in the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them whom you do not know, but Allah knows well." [Koran 8:60] Thus whoever refuses the principle of terror[ism] against the enemy also refuses the commandment of Allah the Exalted, the Most High, and His sharia. The West prepares to defend itself in face of this extremist verse. [p. 54]


The Saudi intellectuals wrote: "Terrorism, according to the universally agreed meaning being used today, is but one of many manifestations of unjust aggression against life and property." Bin Ladin, outraged, responds:

Behold! Today they are agreed to the meaning and definition of "terrorism" as acknowledged and agreed to by the Americans, that is, "unjust aggression against life and property." And such acknowledgment by necessity must apply to and include the Prophet who assaulted the lives, properties, and women of the infidels, who were living in secure and settled cities. As did his Companions after him. Such aggression, as understood by the West, is not justified; nor does such hostility agree with the Western notion of "freedom of religion." Thus our Prophet and his Companions and the righteous forefathers have all now become "terrorists."[14] [p. 58]


Taken together, the above three sections all demonstrate that for al-Qa'ida, hostility and violence towards the West is not merely "reciprocal treatment"--that is, "an eye for an eye"--but rather religious obligation that far transcends any and all notions of "universal justice" and claims to grievances. However, there are two more notable contradictions between what they say to the West and what they affirm to Muslims. Consider the following disparities:


http://www.meforum.org/2043/an-analysis ... -worldview

Seems pretty clear to me.
event horizon
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
User avatar
Posts: 5503

  • Reply
Re: Al Qaeda Terrorism - Political Or Religious ? Aug 02, 2010
Still quoting from Ibrahim's book?

And yet you can't bring yourself to defend this 'friend' of yours?

shafique wrote:Ah, I think it is sweet.

Raymond Ibrahim is the equivalent of loon comfort food. So here we have a young loon starting in the thread :
dubai-politics-talk/religious-basis-for-muslim-view-t42622.html

arguing that Al Qaeda is indeed waging a Holy War. Then starts two new thread to try and defend his view that the Crusades weren't Holy Wars, and now starts a fourth thread to basically counter what is in the first thread.

Classic loon smoke-and-mirrors tactics. However, the reply to the pseudo-arguments advanced by Ibrahim are in the first thread already - the original post and the longer one quoting Bin Laden.

It is pretty straightforward to compare the two and choose whether to agree with Mr Ibrahim's interpretations.

What is fascinating is that the young loon chooses to quote Ibrahim despite what happened the last few times he quoted him. We all laughed at the desperation of the loons at presenting a discredited proven loon as a scholar when he's just an "Islamophobic cash cow".
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/raymon ... -cash-cow/

The last few times eh chose not to defend Mr Ibrahim's reputation - perhaps this time he will?


Why won't you come to his defence? Is it because you can't, or because you won't?

Cheers,
Shafique
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: Al Qaeda terrorism - political or religious ? Aug 02, 2010
The usual non-reply.

Ibrahim cuts through the claims Muslims in the West will try to package to naive Westerners - just like quoting Hamas politicians writing to Western newspapers that Hamas is not anti-Semitic and accepts the historicity of the holocaust.

By the Loon's logic, we should believe them because they say so !

Never mind quoting what OBL and high ranking Hamas officials say to their own people. It's what they say to their enemies or potential sheep that counts.

The article from loonwatch also doesn't actually 'expose' Raymond Ibrahim. It was just a long attack against Ibrahim without showing any errors in Ibrahim's book or research he has done.

This is what you would call an 'ad hominem' attack.

Of course the loon doesn't have a response to the quotes Raymond provides from OBL. Just smoke and mirrors.

Move along people, nothing to see.
event horizon
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
User avatar
Posts: 5503

  • Reply
Re: Al Qaeda Terrorism - Political Or Religious ? Aug 02, 2010
So, you are not going to defend 'your friend' then?

As for the substance of your original post and Ibrahim's flights of fancy, we can easily compare his interpretations with the full quotes I gave. Interestingly, you have chosen not to do this and believe that Ibrahim's book is Gospel.

But you really won't defend Ibrahim? Tut tut.

I mean, surely this applies to you, Guru Bob and Ibrahim:
And, mind you, you don’t need to be an expert on the subject matter, just make sure to quote verses from the Qur’an out of context, cite Osama Bin Laden as the role model of Muslim behavior, bank on tired canaries like “Islam oppresses women,” and “Islam was spread by the sword,” and other washed out cliches, and voila!


Cheers,
Shafique
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: Al Qaeda terrorism - political or religious ? Aug 02, 2010
Ok, so the argument is that Raymond quoted the Koran out of context because the author of your article said so.

Hmm, no, don't see any problem with that argument.

The author wouldn't care to provide the actual transcript so the reader could make that determination for his or herself ?

Or, better yet, contact Ibrahim to get his reply.

You know, there's always two sides to a story.

Anyways, I guess you don't have any evidence that Raymond's book is seriously flawed, especially since you dropped this link several times without noticing that the article doesn't actually 'expose' Raymond's work.


As for the substance of your original post and Ibrahim's flights of fancy, we can easily compare his interpretations with the full quotes I gave. Interestingly, you have chosen not to do this and believe that Ibrahim's book is Gospel.


Great, I take you'll get along to doing that just after you decide to compare the quotes of OBL's fatwa to the Pope's call to arms against the Turks ?

It's been several pages now and you seem a bit hesitant to do so.

Why is that ?
event horizon
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
User avatar
Posts: 5503

  • Reply
Re: Al Qaeda Terrorism - Political Or Religious ? Aug 02, 2010
Try and keep up - Ibrahim is a huckster and has been exposed as such. I'm surprised you're not leaping to his defence.

You've decided to quote his book and believe what he writes is gospel. I've invited you to compare and contrast his spin with Bin Laden's full explanation of why he launched 9/11.

still waiting.

Cheers,
Shafique
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: Al Qaeda terrorism - political or religious ? Aug 02, 2010
OBL has provided his explanation for carrying out terrorism against non-Muslims.

Whenever the Messenger of Allah appointed someone as leader of an army or detachment, he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and be good to the Muslims with him. Then he would say: "Attack in the name of Allah and in the path of Allah do battle with whoever rejects Allah. Attack!... If you happen upon your idolatrous enemies, call them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, accept it and stay yourself from them. [1] Call them to Islam: If they respond [i.e., convert], accept this and cease fighting them..... [2] If they refuse to accept Islam, demand of them the jizya: If they respond, accept it and cease fighting them. [3] But if they refuse, seek the aid of Allah and fight them." Thus our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue--one that demands our total support, with power and determination, with one voice--and it is: Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: either willing submission; or payment of the jizya, through physical though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; or the sword--for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live. The matter is summed up for every person alive: Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die. [pp. 41-42]


Let me know if you have any evidence if these quotes are mistranslated or fabricated.

Otherwise, you're whining once more when your betters have come to conclusions, through their research, that contradict the mickey mouse explanations you would like others to believe.

It's not as if this was the first time you suddenly decided to reject an expert's conclusions. When a quote from Hugh Kennedy was provided to show that Muslims paid fewer taxes than non-Muslims, your response was to dismiss Hugh Kennedy's research.

Hey, I could play that game too.

Who am I going to trust more - a Muslim reporter with an axe to grind or a person who has written a highly respected and critically acclaimed book on al-Qaeda ?

It's also telling that your quotes from OBL are just snippets whereas the quotes Raymond Ibrahim provides are several paragraphs long.
event horizon
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
User avatar
Posts: 5503

  • Reply
Re: Al Qaeda Terrorism - Political Or Religious ? Aug 02, 2010
There you go again, quoting Ibrahim's book as if it was gospel is not going to change the fact that Bin Laden's explanation for 9/11 has been quoted in full and contradict Mr Ibrahim's spin that you quote.

Given you have only given references to his book - and he quotes snippets (and probably ones that pre-date the 9/11 explanation) - you really don't have a leg to stand on. You're just bigging up a huckster because he agrees with your loon fantasies.

There's no doubting the quotes I give (in full) from Bin Laden explaining the reasons for 9/11 are complete. Why should we believe Ibrahim over these?

If you read this review:
http://www.slate.com/id/2171752

You'll understand where Ibrahim's spin breaks down. Now, for a real scholar's compilation, try this:
http://www.amazon.com/Messages-World-St ... 844670457/

Reviews are to the point:
[quote]
Western media have made no consistent effort to publish bin Laden's statements, thereby failing to give their audience the words that put his thoughts and actions in cultural and historical context ... Bin Laden has been precise in telling America the reasons he is waging war on us. None of the reasons have anything to do with our freedom, liberty and democracy, but have everything to do with US policies and actions in the Muslim world. (Michael Scheuer )


Cheers,
Shafique
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: Al Qaeda terrorism - political or religious ? Aug 02, 2010
There you go again, quoting Ibrahim's book as if it was gospel is not going to change the fact that Bin Laden's explanation for 9/11 has been quoted in full and contradict Mr Ibrahim's spin that you quote.


Well, actually your reporter was the one who quoted snippets.

That should have been obvious when only three sentences were quoted from OBL.

The full transcript reveals that OBL justified the killing of women and children (let alone the 9/11 attacks) on religious grounds (his words).

Usamah bin Laden: Yes, so we kill their innocents, and that is valid both religiously and logically. Because some of the people who talk about this issue, some talk about it from a religious point of view...


UBL: They say that this is wrong and invalid [laa yajuz], and for proof, they say that the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) forbade the killing of children and women, and that is true. It is valid and has been said by the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) (in authentic narration)...


UBL: ...But this forbiding of killing children and innocents... is not general [mutlaqan] and there are other writings that uphold it [nusus ukhra tuqayiduhu].

Allah's (subhannahu wa ta'aala) saying:
"And if you punish (your enemy, O you believers in the Oneness of Allah), then punish them with the like of that with which you were afflicted..." [Qur'an (16):126]

The scholars and people of the knowledge [ahlu al-`ilm], amongst them 'Sahib al-Ikhtiyarat', and Ibn al-Qayyim (rahimahullah), and Shawkaani, and a lot of others, and Qurtubi (rahimahullah) in his tafseer, say that if the disbelievers were to kill our children and women, then we should not feel ashamed to do the same to them, mainly to deter them from trying to kill our children and women again. And that is from a religious standpoint, and those who speak without any knowledge in sharee`ah, saying that killing such a child is not valid and what not, and having full knowledge that those young men, that Allah has cleared the way for, didn't intend to kill children, but instead, they attacked the biggest center of military power in the world, the Pentagon, which contains more than 64,000 workers, a military base which has a big concentration of army and intelligence...


http://www.religioscope.com/info/doc/ji ... _int_3.htm

For starters, you and your author (deliberately) confused/conflated OBL's statements justifying the killing of women and children with the actual attacks themselves.

OBL's quote wasn't justifying attacks against the US. He was justifying attacks where women and children would be killed.

But, what is more hilarious, is that your author deliberately quotes a snippet from OBL while ignoring the previous statements where OBL clearly provides religious grounds for killing women and children - including quoting the Koran and citing Muslim commentators that it is 'ok' to kill women and children of non-believers in retaliation.
event horizon
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
User avatar
Posts: 5503

  • Reply
Re: Al Qaeda Terrorism - Political Or Religious ? Aug 02, 2010
Actually, I linked to the complete speech by Bin Laden where he asks the question why they didn't attack Sweden and gives the reason for 9/11.

Well, let's see what Ibrahim's book actually is:
a hodgepodge of interviews, declarations, and exegetical arguments can be read as a sort of jihadist manifesto is debatable. While these writings provide readers with page after page of, for example, arcane legal debates over the moral permissibility of suicide bombing, they do not really get to the heart of what it is that al-Qaida wants, if it wants anything at all. Al-Qaida's nominal aspirations—the creation of a worldwide caliphate, the destruction of Israel, the banishing of foreigners from Islamic lands—are hardly mentioned in the book. It seems the president of the United States talks more about al-Qaida's goals than al-Qaida itself does. Rarely, if ever, do Bin Laden and Zawahiri discuss any specific social or political policy.


http://www.slate.com/id/2171752

Now compare Ibrahim's spin with
http://www.amazon.com/Messages-World-St ... 844670457/

Cheers,
Shafique
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: Al Qaeda terrorism - political or religious ? Aug 02, 2010
What al-Qaida does lay out, however, are grievances—many, many grievances. There is the usual litany of complaints about the suffering of Palestinians, the tyranny of Arab regimes, and the American occupation of Iraq. But again, legitimate as these complaints may be, there is in these writings an almost total lack of interest in providing any specific solution or policy to address them. Indeed, al-Qaida's many grievances against the West are so heterogeneous, so mind-bogglingly unfocused, that they must be recognized less as grievances per se, than as popular causes to rally around. There are protests about the United Nations' rejection of Zimbabwe's elections, the Bush administration's unwillingness to sign up to the International Criminal Court, and America's role in global warming. (To quote Bin Laden: "You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases, more than any other country. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies and industries.") Zawahiri's many complaints include the mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, which he calls "a historical embarrassment to America and its values," as well as the United Kingdom's anti-terrorism laws, which "contradict the most basic principles of fair trial." There is even a screed against America's campaign-finance laws, which, according to Bin Laden, currently favor "the rich and wealthy, who hold sway in their political parties, and fund their election campaigns with their gifts."

Most Americans would agree with many of these complaints. And that's precisely the point. These are not real grievances for al-Qaida (it does not bear mentioning that Bin Laden is probably not very concerned with campaign finance reform). They are a means of weaving local and global resentments into a single anti-American narrative, the overarching aim of which is to form a collective identity across borders and nationalities, and to convince the world that it is locked in a cosmic contest between the forces of Truth and Falsehood, Belief and Unbelief, Good and Evil, Us and Them.


Belief and Unbelief

-- Mon Aug 02, 2010 10:19 pm --

Actually, I linked to the complete speech by Bin Laden where he asks the question why they didn't attack Sweden and gives the reason for 9/11.


That's a nice sidestep to the fact that your author has been exposed.

Thanks, though, for providing yet more quotes that 9/11 was religiously motivated - OBL explicitly says the killing of Kuffar women and children is religiously justified (and backs it up)!
event horizon
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
User avatar
Posts: 5503

  • Reply
Re: Al Qaeda Terrorism - Political Or Religious ? Aug 02, 2010
Again with your fantasies, young loon.

I'm at a loss why you think Ibrahim's 'hodgepodge' is gospel and think repeating your beliefs will disguise the fact you haven't actually addressed Bin Laden's explanation for 9/11.

Hmmm.

Cheers,
Shafique
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: Al Qaeda terrorism - political or religious ? Aug 03, 2010
Bin Laden is pretty clear just justifying an attack that kills women and children - let alone the attack itself.

Here, I'll quote OBL again from the interview:

Usamah bin Laden: Yes, so we kill their innocents, and that is valid both religiously and logically. Because some of the people who talk about this issue, some talk about it from a religious point of view...


UBL: ...But this forbiding of killing children and innocents... is not general [mutlaqan] and there are other writings that uphold it [nusus ukhra tuqayiduhu].

Allah's (subhannahu wa ta'aala) saying:
"And if you punish (your enemy, O you believers in the Oneness of Allah), then punish them with the like of that with which you were afflicted..." [Qur'an (16):126]

The scholars and people of the knowledge [ahlu al-`ilm], amongst them 'Sahib al-Ikhtiyarat', and Ibn al-Qayyim (rahimahullah), and Shawkaani, and a lot of others, and Qurtubi (rahimahullah) in his tafseer, say that if the disbelievers were to kill our children and women, then we should not feel ashamed to do the same to them, mainly to deter them from trying to kill our children and women again. And that is from a religious standpoint


Couldn't get any clearer.

Now you expect others to believe that religion played no part in the 9/11 attacks (apparently the suicide bombers did not consider themselves holy warriors who would be awarded paradise for their actions) when OBL is clear that Islam justifies the slaughter of women and children - he even quotes the Koran and says that religion is a big factor just to make sure others are unclear on this.

LoL.
event horizon
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
User avatar
Posts: 5503

  • Reply
Re: Al Qaeda Terrorism - Political Or Religious ? Aug 03, 2010
You do realise that your evasiveness over facts presented isn't going un-noticed - don't you?

shafique wrote:Again with your fantasies, young loon.

I'm at a loss why you think Ibrahim's 'hodgepodge' is gospel and think repeating your beliefs will disguise the fact you haven't actually addressed Bin Laden's explanation for 9/11.


Why ignore what Bin Laden has said the reasons for 9/11 are and believe Ibrahim's spin? Could it be because you can't handle the truth?

Cheers,
Shafique
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: Al Qaeda terrorism - political or religious ? Aug 03, 2010
Why are you bringing up Raymond Ibrahim ?

I quoted from the interview OBL had with an al-Jizya reporter that was cited by the Muslim 'journalist' in your other thread.

Do try and keep up.
event horizon
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
User avatar
Posts: 5503

  • Reply
Re: Al Qaeda Terrorism - Political Or Religious ? Aug 03, 2010
Because you are repeating Ibrahim's spin.

Do try and keep up young one.

Let me repeat:
shafique wrote:Why ignore what Bin Laden has said the reasons for 9/11 are and believe Ibrahim's spin? Could it be because you can't handle the truth?


Cheers,
Shafique
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: Al Qaeda terrorism - political or religious ? Aug 04, 2010
Hmmm.

So quoting from the interview Hadia Mubarak used (took out of context) as her primary evidence that the 9/11 attacks were political and not religious is repeating Raymond Ibrahim's spin ?

Not only do I have the quotes from Raymond Ibrahim which prove that OBL is motivated by the texts and teachings of Islam, but we now have pretty explicit statements that OBL justifies the killing of women and children based on his interpretation of the Koran - where the source was provided for us by your author.
event horizon
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
User avatar
Posts: 5503

  • Reply
Re: Al Qaeda Terrorism - Political Or Religious ? Aug 04, 2010
Nope, believing Ibrahim's spin from his hodgepodge of a book is what is wrong.

I'm just asking why you don't quote Bin Laden when he gives the explanation for 9/11 and insist that Ibrahim's version is correct? Is Ibrahim more informed about Bin Laden's motives that Bin Laden? (I wouldn't be surprised if this is your latest loon illogicality)

Cheers,
Shafique
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: Al Qaeda terrorism - political or religious ? Aug 04, 2010
I quotes from OBL's speech that Hadia Mubarak used to arrive at her conclusion that that the 9/11 attacks were political, not religious.

Bin Laden explicitly said that his justification for killing women and children was religious. His words, not mine.

That you are setting up strawmen speaks volumes.
event horizon
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
User avatar
Posts: 5503

  • Reply
Re: Al Qaeda Terrorism - Political Or Religious ? Aug 04, 2010
I simply asked why you believe Ibrahim's spin rather than Bin Laden's explanations about why 9/11 was carried out? (In the interview, he is asked specifically about 9/11 (the World Trade Centre) - what is his explanation for 9/11?)

I couldn't have been clearer. Will you address this question?

Cheers,
Shafique
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

posting in Dubai Politics TalkForum Rules

Return to Dubai Politics Talk