event horizon wrote:Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani-born US citizen has told interrogators that he been inspired to take up the cause of al Qaeda and radical Islam by the internet messages of Anwar Al-Awlaki, a Yemen-based imam.
Awlaki, who was born in America, was accused of grooming Nidal Hasan in a series of emails before the US soldier opened fire at the Texas military base last year.
nothing to do with Islam, move alonghttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... acher.html
If this isn't enough evidence by Shahzad's own admission, then what is Shafique?
Mr Shahzad has made wide-ranging admissions to interrogators since his arrest on Tuesday. The former financial analyst has said that he travelled to Taliban training camps in North Wazirstan, where he received training in bomb making. While there he met with Hakimullah Mehsud, the leader of Pakistan's Taliban, whose death in a drone strike he was attempting to revenge by driving the car loaded with homemade explosives to America's most famous square.
Mr Shahzad also admitted that he had met with member of Lashkar-e-Taiba, a separate group responsible for the attacks on the Indian city of Mumbai in 2008
Associations with terrorist factions. Sniff sniff... Lashkar-e Taiba, Yemeni cleric (religious odour anyone?)
-- 24 May 2010, 22:47 --
shafique wrote:event horizon wrote:According to Mr Shahzad's own *admission*, he targeted Times Square as revenge for the killings of Taliban leaders
So, nothing to with religion then. QED.
(or are you saying that killing of the Pakistanis by the US was religiously motivated? They didn't attack the vatican, for example, - but rather attacked the country which was killing Pakistanis.)
Cheers,
Shafique
Nothing with religion?...
Revenge for killing Taliban leaders. Lets analyze this somewhat more:
The taliban is islamic conservative (Middle Age conservative). Shahzad doesn't like them to be killed by the Americans. What does that say about his motivation?
1. Simple hate for America, the land that gave him an opportunity and citizen status. Shafique's defense.
2. The possibility that Shahzad actually liked the conservative rule of the Taliban in his homeland Pakistan.
3. He was forced to do terrorist acts for militia's, before being allowed/accepted back with his parents in Pakistan.
The 2nd would imply him being religiously inclined, to say the least. Do you agree with this soft conclusion?
The 3rd would imply that he didn't have much options other than obey the militia that operates with a daily prayer to Allah.
All plausible motivations.
-- 24 May 2010, 23:20 --
shafique wrote:If he was an anarcho terrorist, he would have had better training. As I said, thank God he didn't go for training in the Bible belt - they know how to blow things up there!
I can only imagine he was a gullible Yank and thought he was going for a proper training course and was sold a pup in Waziristan - can you imagine, 'my brother, you must blow up the infidels - God tells you do to this - use a SUV and stuff it with stuff that won't explode - don't do what the guys here do and successfully create bombs'.
Imagine how stupid the guys at the Jihad training camp must feel when their protege says that he was trying to kill people because of US drones bombing of Pakistan and not because of the bloodlust that good Muslims must show against non-Muslims! As I said, the Bible belt camps in the woods would have taught him better and he would have been on message - like the Hutaree who are clear they want to kill US policemen because of Biblical descriptions of the appocalypse.
You Americans know how to create nutters - I gotta hand it to you!
I mean, a Catholic suicide bomber whose beef is over taxes!! Wow.
Cheers,
Shafique
How do you explain the following, Shafique?
Lets consider
Joseph Stack's own letter directed to the world, which indicates he didn't care about religion one bit, other than his inherited roots.
...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.
His distaste about the Catholic Church is quite obvious. He didn't care a bit for it. It was all about the IRS and the US government, stealing the fruits of his own labour by high taxes during his lifetime, that ruined him several times.
Stack’s diary takes aim at the IRS, outraged at loopholes that benefit large corporations and the Catholic Church, but not average Americans. He claimed that the IRS cost him "$40,000+, 10 years of my life, and set my retirement plans back to 0."
Like EH said, he was a libertarian. He happens to have the same ideas about taxes as I have. Governments in the Western world are out of control. Size is huge, and so are tax collections. Point is that religion wasn't involved in his decision making. The IRS was.
Shahzad has way more relation with religion, since he admitted in his testimony that he had contact with religiously motivated terrorist cleric/factions that have relation to the Mumbai bombings etc.
)
