Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

I think it is clear you think WTC 93 was carried out for religious reasons eh. The point is that the reason the terrorist gave does not agree with your belief.

Now, coming back to Brievik:

So eh - if Brievik is not a Christian Fundamentalist Terrorist, despite calling himself a Christian Crusader - because you think he is misusing the term Christian to refer to cultural values as opposed to religious values. Is that right?

But he does share your views about Islam though, doesn't he? He cites Guru Bob et al and agrees with them.

Does that not make him an Islamophobic Terrorist who calls himself a Christian Crusader?

I am most interested to hear your reply.

Cheers,
Shafique

So if someone isn't racist if they join the KKK? Or it would be absurd to draw that conclusion? Hmmm.

I'm curious, just let me know your opinion on that is. We'll move on to Ramzi Yousef's extreme religious beliefs (blowing up Shi'ites because they're heretics and joining a fundamentalist terror group) after we look at the above question.

And Brievik?

He's an Islamophobe who calls himself a Christian Crusader - so does that make him an Islamophobic Terrorist who calls himself Christian?

Simple question.

(I see you struggling with logic again concerning WTC 93 - keep it simple and read what motives the terrorist gave for the attack, and not ones you wish he had listed.)

Cheers,
Shafique

Shaf, do you not agree that the terrorists involved in the attack on the WTC 93 had religious indoctrination going on in their group?

kanelli - oh, don't get me wrong - I do consider Yousef to be a Muslim extremist, he did after all go after non-Wahabi muslims. I also consider Bin Laden to be a Muslim extremist too. Brievik is a Christian extremist (with a warped view of Christianity), Goldstein is a Jewish extremist.

But the specific point made in the OP by eh was disputing the criteria Ron Paul gave for terror attacks against the USA. He listed 3 reasons, the third being Foreign policy in Mid East - specifically support of Israel.

Now, the premise eh was making was that the REASON for the WTC attack in 93 was not one of the 3 listed reasons.

The fact that a Muslim extremist lists ONLY political motives for WTC 93 actually lends more weight to the argument that it was not religiously motivated. He's an extremist and not shy of stating when an attack is because of his hatred of non-Muslims. However, his motivation for targetting the US is explicitly because of US foreign policy and not because he supposedly hates all non-Muslims.

(Eh - still waiting to hear from you).

Cheers,
Shafique

kanelli wrote:

Bora Bora wrote:

kanelli wrote:BB, I have not once baited or attacked you in this thread. I am discussing the topic. Re-read my posts. If you can't answer my questions which are on the topic, that is one thing, but don't claim I am trying to pick a fight with you. I discuss and question the same way with others - you are not being treated as a special case.

Call in BM's buddies wasn't baiting?? I guess if you had used your usual term "BM's lackies" then it would be baiting - my bad. Maybe you should re-read the "tone" of your post. There is a difference between can't and don't care to. FYI, your question was not on topic hence my suggestion that you start a new thread. How about it ends here???

Where in this thread did I say "Call in BM's buddies"? That was another thread in another forum. And in defense, I was simply describing what predictably would happen next and sure enough, it happened. You were never mentioned by name and had no need to comment, it was your choice.

You'd be wise to end it here because you look a fool for turning this thread into another personal squabble because you simply don't like me.

I'd like to get back to discussing why there are or aren't other trans-national Al-Qaeda groups out there spreading terror and the motivations behind these groups - religious or political or both?

Don't flatter yourself thinking that you matter to me one way or the other. They say if you repeat a lie enough times you believe it. Keep lying to yourself Kanelli. Only a fool would believe their own lies. All was fine until you jumped in. How about jumping back out?? So, if your baiting was on another thread it doesn't count. Great logic there. No need to mention names Kanelli, it was crystal clear what your were attempting to do.

I don't have an ongoing beef with anyone on DF Kanelli, unlike others. I've taken myself out of the mix and won't be dragged into one.

Carry on.

^Ladies - why don't you just end the discussion between you here on whether one was baiting the other or not. Both of you have given your view. Don't hold a grudge and you can both choose whether to respond to future posts or not.

I think it is appropriate to quote the extract in the thread below - on suicide bombings - which talks to the motivations for terrorist attacks.

The quote talks to two specific points I think are over-estimated - the first being the actual threat from Muslim terrorists in Western Countries (for example, we only had 3 actual terror attempts in the EU in 2010 - all pretty much failed and related to specific issues over the Dutch cartoons, and not an existential attack on 'western values). The second point is that attacks against Western interests are almost exclusively because of political issues, not religion.

Popular accounts of these suicide terrorists give the impression that most of them are globe-trotting extremists radicalized by militant networks to strike outside their homeland for religious or other transnational causes. These accounts are false.
..
While religion contributes in many cases to increased feelings of loyalty toward a kindred community that may be oceans away from an individual’s country of citizenship, the primary cause of these horrible phenomena is foreign occupation.

Cheers,
Shafique

Agreed, I have no wish to waste any time on BB. I baited no one in this thread and BB derailing this thread to get personal with me is extremely misplaced.

So Shaf, are essentially saying that religion contributes by creating increased feelings of loyalty toward a kindred community... How far does religion go in justifying the actions of the group though?

kanelli wrote:Agreed, I have no wish to waste any time on BB. I baited no one in this thread and BB derailing this thread to get personal with me is extremely misplaced.

I saw Shaf's post and thought the best thing to do was leave it alone. A little restraint Kanelli would go a long way.

Again BB, give advice that you yourself can keep.

kanelli wrote:Again BB, give advice that you yourself can keep.

Apparently there is no hope for you.

Last word!

kanelli wrote:So Shaf, are essentially saying that religion contributes by creating increased feelings of loyalty toward a kindred community... How far does religion go in justifying the actions of the group though?

A couple of points:

1. the size of the group and
2. how far religion is used for that group's actions.

For 1 - we see that in the EU and USA, only a small minority of terrorist acts are carried out by 'Islamists'. In the EU in 2010 there were only 3, and all three were apparently loners who failed in their attacks - and whose gripe was the Danish cartoons.

So, for these 3 cases - religion played a major role in their motivation. But, they had to overcome the over-riding Islamic teaching that killing civilians (i.e. acts of terrorism) are expressly forbidden.

Now, even if we keep RC happy and look at Russia too - we find that there the Chechen and Dagastani attacks are being done by separatists with clear political aspirations. Much like the IRA (and including the smaller IRA factions which are expressly religiously motivated).


So, how far is religion used to justify religiously motivated acts of terrorism? Quite a lot - by definition.

How far is religion a factor when Muslim extremists target political targets such as the USA, because of their foreign policy - I'd argue, not much.

Put it another way - IF Islam did indeed teach that suicide bombing and attacking the West are requirements for Muslims, why is it that there are so very few Muslims carrying out Joe Stack, Tim McVeigh, Brievik style attacks in the USA. It's not because they don't have access to the same reading material and hardware supplies is it? It's not because they are all being caught - the ones being caught are all numpties and most are being entrapped.

The alternative is that Pape's analysis is right - the threat is over blown.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:So, for these 3 cases - religion played a major role in their motivation. But, they had to overcome the over-riding Islamic teaching that killing civilians (i.e. acts of terrorism) are expressly forbidden.

But I thought some groups have taken to heart the meaning of jihad as being a literal war against non-believers with support from the Quran? It is just like how some sects of Christianity interpret things in different ways than others. The problem is that they can always pull up quotes and stories from the Bible to support their beliefs.

I'm imagining a world with no more US and coalition troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, and Israel and Palestine existing as separate countries under mutually agreed terms... What would terrorism look like then?

Well, the point is kanelli these 3 particular terrorists didn't take to heart that they had to attack all things non-Islamic, they had specific gripes about the Danish cartoons.

Now, even Al Qaeda doesn't fit this loon stereotype of an organisation that is waging war against all things Western. Even Anjem Choudary (whom we all know shouldn't be taken seriously) only talks tough - but stays on the right side of UK law.

If we have no more occupation etc, then you'd probably have the 98.8% of terrorism in the EU accounting for 100% of the terrorist acts, rather than the current 98.8%.

In Norway, it would look like Brievik, in Northern Ireland it will look like the 99 terrorist bombs in 2010.

Cheers,
Shafique

Well, they were going to attack in order to defend their prophet - I'd say that's a religious motivation. According to the teachings of Islam they should not behave that way, but they felt justified in doing so. But I agree that the majority of the reasons why various "Muslim" terrorists actions happen are primarily because of political reasons.

I agree - those few who are using religion as an excuse for violence are indeed a problem for Muslims.

Humans find excuses for violence, religion is one of many.

Recent history has also shown that fabricating or hyping an enemy has its uses too.

Cheers,
Shafique

Of course, you have to make everyone paranoid and afraid so that they will agree to take certain strategic actions...

And Brievik?

He's an Islamophobe who calls himself a Christian Crusader - so does that make him an Islamophobic Terrorist who calls himself Christian?

Simple question.

I thought I already provided the quotes showing why I don't consider Brievik a religious terrorist or Christian fundamentalist.

I don't see the need to jump through hoops when Brievik's secular views are all provided in his manifesto.

Interesting non-answer to the question posed. Did you misread the question?

It was quite simple.

Is it really that hard to admit the stark reality that 'yes, Brievik is indeed an Islamophobic terrorist who calls himself a Christian Crusader'?

A bit too close to home is it, given you agree with his Islamophobic views?

Cheers,
Shafique

He described himself as someone who was not a deeply religious.

I think it speaks volumes you need to cherry pick some statements of Brievik to compare him to Islamic religious fanatics like Ramzi Yousef who clearly were motivated by religion.

He described himself as a 'Christian Crusader' - and clearly didn't believe in turning the other cheek. I'd agree with your assessment he wasn't a good Christian.

However, the question was not whether he was a good Christian or not.

It was about whether he was an Islamophobic Terrorist who called himself a Christian Crusader. The answer is yes, but you can't quite bring yourself to say this, can you?

Cheers,
Shafique

The answer is Brievik described himself as moderately religious, supported gay marriage and did not hate/dislike Muslims because of his theological beliefs but because of personal experiences.

Again, judgements on how Christian the 'Christian Crusader' is, is not what I asked. We agree he calls himself a Christian Crusader.

Now, just take the next step and comment on whether it is accurate to call him an 'Islamophobic terrorist who calls himself a Christian Crusader'.

I'm not that interested in the source of his Islamophobia either.

Cheers,
Shafique

He called himself a 'modern day Crusader'.

I don't know where he called himself a 'Christian Crusader' as you claimed, but happy for you to provide the passage. But again, Breivik described what it meant to be both a Christian and a Crusader, so the terms obviously don't have the meaning you want them to have.

Happy to address the fact Breivik did not have a 'personal relationship with Jesus' and described himself as only moderately religious. He also opposed Christian missionaries converting Hindus in India - strange opposition for a 'Christian fundamentalist'. Then again, I'm unaware prior to today of any Christian fundamentalist supporting gay rights/marriage.

Now, about the evidence the IRA is seeking to establish a Catholic theocracy or quotes Thomas Aquinas to justify their violent actions....you have it, right?

Why keep bringing up issues where we agree already - Brievik was not a good Christian. Agreed.

I assumed that the NY Times was correct:

Mr. Breivik, 32, a self-described Christian crusader, was calm, cooperative and in control of his emotions, whatever they might have been, Paal-Fredrik Hjort Kraby, a police prosecutor, said Sunday in Oslo.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/world ... orway.html

Were they wrong?

Brievik himself says he is "100% Christian", doesn't he?

"At the age of 15 I chose to be baptised (sic) and confirmed in the Norwegian State Church," the 32-year-old Breivik wrote. "I consider myself to be 100 percent Christian."

http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/ ... 624540.php


Cheers,
Shafique

LoL.

Let me know which stream of Christian fundamentalism accepts homosexuals and opposes evangelism.

Your attempt to make Breivik into something he's not - a Christian fundamentalist - is getting more desperate by the post.

I've never disputed Breivik is a Christian. I disagreed with your claim that he was a Christian fundamentalist.

I thought that was pretty obvious.

kanelli wrote: I'm sorry you feel repulsion, and that in all your time in Dubai you didn't meet any nice Muslims that would temper your extreme views. Taking one Muslim navy officer's hygiene habits and stereotyping it to all Muslims is laughable. In university I lived in a residence with a group of guys who were living away from their mamas for the first time and couldn't be bothered to shower every day or wash their clothes or sheets regularly. When they propped their bedroom doors open and other students walked past in the halls the smell was ing. They too vomited in their sinks and wastebaskets after getting hammered on a Friday night. They weren't Muslims, the only thing in common was that they were men. Should I let that experience put me off of all men?

It is not just Dubai Kanelli, I spent 15 years in the ME and i read the quran, hence i am qualified to speak about moslems.
And It was not one moslem navy officer hygiene habit, ALL moslems perform ablution when they wake up, and it is really gross. from bottom to top social ladder. I don't know about you , in the civilized world we use tissue.
your students puking in the sink, although di$gusting, was not a habit, it happened , but only sometimes.
As of the moslem ablutions it is every single day.
Now if you ask moslems why they do it, they will tell you that they blow their boggies out of their nose in the morning because they beleive the devil slept inside their nose at night.

herve wrote:It is not just Dubai Kanelli, I spent 15 years in the ME and i read the quran, hence i am qualified to speak about moslems.

You aren't qualified to speak about your own turd. Two days ago you made an absolute fool of yourself and went undercover. Your post today is testament of your continuing stupidity. You speak on issues as if you are an expert and you don't have a clue. The only reason you should continue posting is to provide us with more comedy rather than insight. You are a total moron. Morons everywhere will now feel insulted to be compared to you.

The devil spends the night in the interior of your nose; so clean your nose after sleep…(Sahih Muslim, 2.0462, 0468)

Not only I was told, but I read it too.
For someone who claims not to be a moslem, you get pretty offended when the qurn vodoo is exposed.
Beside, you can insult me all day, you will never reach me.