Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

eh asked a pertinent question in the thread about Christian Terrorists:

event horizon wrote:Manhattan bomber - Christian religious fanatic, right?

Why speculate, when the answer is there for anyone who wishes to go beyond Fox News headlines:

Times Square bombing in retaliation for U.S. drone attacks, No connection to Islam
Posted on 05 May 2010 by Danios

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.

Hakimullah Mahsud, chief of the Pakistani Taliban (the same group that claimed responsibility for the failed Times Square bombing), had long ago promised to retaliate against the United States for the drone attacks; The Daily Mail reads:

Meanwhile the Pakistan Taliban’s new leader [Hakimullah Mahsud] has met with reporters for the first time since winning control of the militants and has vowed to retaliate against the U.S. and Pakistan for drone attacks along the Afghan border…

Mehsud said his group would avenge the killing of Baitullah Mehsud and strike back at Pakistan and the U.S. for the increasing number of drone attacks in the tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan.

Unmanned drones have carried out more than 70 missile strikes in northwestern Pakistan over the last year in a covert program, killing several top militant commanders along with sympathisers and civilians.

I discussed the drone attacks in a previous article, but I’ll reproduce the most salient part below:

U.S. drone attacks on Pakistani soil have killed hundreds of Pakistani civilians. According to Pakistani sources, upwards of 687 Pakistani civilians have died at the hands of U.S. drone attacks. CNN’s national security analyst Peter Bergen placed the number a bit lower:

Since 2006, our analysis indicates, 83 U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan have killed between 760 and 1,050 people. Among them were about 20 leaders of al Qaeda, the Taliban and allied groups, all of whom have been killed since January 2008…The real total of civilian deaths since 2006 appears to be in the range of 260 to 320, or one-third of those killed.

Regardless of whether the number is closer to 260 or 687, the point is: the U.S. is killing Pakistani civilians–men, women, and children. At least one-third of those killed are civilians.

UN human rights investigator Philip Alston has said that the drone attacks may “violate international humanitarian law and international human rights law”, and demanded the United States to prove otherwise. The ACLU declared that this drone policy “violates international law” and is “unconstitutional”, and has converted “the entire world” into a “war zone.” In a strongly worded letter to the President of the United States, the ACLU wrote:

The program you have reportedly endorsed is not simply illegal but also unwise, because how our country responds to the threat of terrorism will in large measure determine the rules that govern every nation’s conduct in similar contexts. If the United States claims the authority to use lethal force against suspected enemies of the U.S. anywhere in the world – using unmanned drones or other means – then other countries will regard that conduct as justified. The prospect of foreign governments hunting and killing their enemies within our borders or those of our allies is abhorrent.

Only 9% of Pakistanis support the U.S. led drone attacks–and only 6% amongst the Pashto speaking people who live in the NWFP (the area being bombed). Pakistani officials have declared the drone attacks on Pakistani soil to constitute an “act of war,” a feeling shared by the vast majority of the country’s citizenry.

In January of this year, it was thought that Hakimullah Mahsud was taken out in one such drone attack. However, Mahsud appeared in a TTP (Pakistani Taliban) propaganda video (allegedly taped on April 4th), declaring that he was in fact still alive. As you can well imagine, Mr. Mahsud was not too happy with us after that, so naturally he promised revenge on America in the typical over-the-top “Jihadist” rhetoric. He declared that his fighters had already infiltrated the United States, and would strike within one month. That month elapsed yesterday (May 4th), meaning the attack on Saturday (May 1st) conformed to his promised deadline. Furthermore, the video allegedly made on April 4th was released after the car bombing, indicating that it was the fulfillment of the threat. The Telegraph reports:

Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud threatens US months after ‘death’
Pakistani Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud has vowed to attack major US cities in two new videos released months after his reported killing in a US missile strike.

The videos emerged after an attempted car bombing in New York City, for which his faction claimed responsibility in a third video, and provided the most substantial evidence so far that he survived a barrage of US missiles.

Mehsud threatened to retaliate against the United States within a month for the killing of Islamist militant leaders, appearing in a nine-minute video allegedly made on April 4, after his supposed death in January.

“The time is very near when our fedayeen will attack the American states in the major cities,” said Mehsud…

The video is the first showing Mehsud since January and was issued on the heels of a claim by Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan that it was behind the attempted bombing in New York’s Time Square on Saturday…

“Inshallah (God willing) very soon in some days or a month’s time, the Muslim ummah (world) will see the fruits of most successful attacks of our fedayeen in USA,” Mehsud said.

He made similar remarks in an audio message in another TTP video Monday that was apparently recorded on April 19 and features Mehsud’s face next to a map of the United States showing multiple explosions across the country.

IntelCenter, a US-based group that monitors Islamist websites, said it believed all the TTP videos issued since the New York car bomb scare were credible.

“It is our assessment that this threat is credible and that there is a high threat of further attacks like the NYC attack during the coming days and weeks ahead,” it said.

The authorities have not confirmed that it was the Pakistani Taliban who did it, and we cannot ignore the possibility that the TTP is wrongfully seeking “credit” for this dastardly deed. However, at this time, it seems that it is indeed the Pakistani Taliban who masterminded the failed Times Square bombing. If they are in fact responsible, then the connection between the illegal U.S. drone attacks and the Times Square bombing is a very strong one, especially since:

Mehsud said his group would avenge the killing of Baitullah Mehsud and strike back at Pakistan and the U.S. for the increasing number of drone attacks in the tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan.

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].”

I could care less about Hakimullah Mahsud and his Taliban cronies. But I certainly don’t want my taxes to fund the drones that kill hundreds of civilians…something that is not only morally atrocious but which also helps the Pakistani Taliban recruit avengers. But if you’re OK with that, at least stop acting so bewildered when they keep attacking us. If we attack them, they will attack us. If we kill them, they will try to kill us. It’s not rocket science.

UPDATE:

The Telegraph reports:

Shah Mehmood Qureshi, Pakistan’s foreign minister, said yesterday that the failed attack could be retaliation for US drone attacks on the Taliban.

“This is retaliation. And you could expect that… let’s not be naive,” he told CBS. “They’re not going to sort of sit and welcome you to sort of eliminate them. They’re going to fight back.”

According to the New York Post, Mr Shahzad witnessed the drone attacks during eight months he recently spent in Pakistan and has told prosecutors that his bomb attempt was supposed to be revenge for the drones’ killing of Taliban leaders.

Of course, there will be a concerted effort to downplay the fact that hundreds of Pakistani civilians have been killed in these drone attacks, or that the drone attacks are illegal under international law. Notice how the Telegraph says “drones’ killing of Taliban leaders,” even though far more civilians have been killed than Taliban leaders (a ratio of 50:1 according to Pakistani sources, and 16:1 according to CNN’s national security analyst Peter Bergen).

http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/05/times- ... e-attacks/

Right, the man just became deeply religious, traveled to and trained at Islamist terror camps and was avenging the death of Baitullah Meshud - whose terror bombings against Pakistanis murdered thousands.

LoL.

It was nationalism!

Really, can you just stop drinking the Kool-Aid?

shafique wrote: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.

..

Mehsud said his group would avenge the killing of Baitullah Mehsud and strike back at Pakistan and the U.S. for the increasing number of drone attacks in the tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan.

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].”
..
The Telegraph reports:

Shah Mehmood Qureshi, Pakistan’s foreign minister, said yesterday that the failed attack could be retaliation for US drone attacks on the Taliban.

“This is retaliation. And you could expect that… let’s not be naive,” he told CBS. “They’re not going to sort of sit and welcome you to sort of eliminate them. They’re going to fight back.”
...
Of course, there will be a concerted effort to downplay the fact that hundreds of Pakistani civilians have been killed in these drone attacks, or that the drone attacks are illegal under international law. Notice how the Telegraph says “drones’ killing of Taliban leaders,” even though far more civilians have been killed than Taliban leaders (a ratio of 50:1 according to Pakistani sources, and 16:1 according to CNN’s national security analyst Peter Bergen).

So, let's see what key words above are:

'evidence' 'very strong'
'let's not be naive'

Ron Paul gets 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].”

But eh appears to be living up to this statement.
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.


Cheers,
Shafique

You're right. Islamic theology does not call for perpetual warfare against disbelieving nations, mainstream Islam does not hold that the 'peaceful' passages of the Koran were abrogated by militant passages such as 9:29 and 9:5 and, of course, people such as the Times Square bomber were not motivated, in any way, by the texts and teachings of Islam - he just visited *Islamist* terror camps to check out the mountains.

As for being motivated by Pakistani 'nationalism' (what a joke), then one wonders why this guy would seek revenge for the death of Baitullah Mehsud, whose bombing campaign against Pakistan murdered thousands of Pakistani civilians.

Oh right, nothing to see, move along.

I'm not surprised you're projecting your quaint view on Islam on to the bomber.

You've exactly demonstrated the point the article was making - a refusal to accept facts - the attacks are explicitly because of the Pakistanis (including many civilians) being killed:

“This is retaliation. And you could expect that… let’s not be naive,” he told CBS. “They’re not going to sort of sit and welcome you to sort of eliminate them. They’re going to fight back.”

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].”



And indeed, this other point is also pertinent:

Of course, there will be a concerted effort to downplay the fact that hundreds of Pakistani civilians have been killed in these drone attacks, or that the drone attacks are illegal under international law.

Cheers,
Shafique

Let me know if I've got the following facts wrong:

The Times Square bomber traveled to a militant Islamist camp in Pakistan sometime in the past year.

The man, like the army jihadist, recently became more religious.

Your article, which is nothing more than some guy on a soap-box, btw, says that Shahzad was not influenced by militant Islam (I don't know how you can call this a fact, but whatever) and that he was upset at the drone bombings in which some civilians have died.

Your author ignores the fact that Mr. Shahzad, upset about civilian casualties, joins up with the Pakistani Taliban which has managed to kill more Pakistani civilians in the space of a few weeks than all of the drone attacks have in the past several years put together.

Another fine example of head-in-sand reasoning.

The reason for the bombing was that the US is killing Pakistani civilians.

The title of the article sums it up nicely:
Times Square bombing in retaliation for U.S. drone attacks, No connection to Islam

Let me know if you are still confused.

cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:The reason for the bombing was that the US is killing Pakistani civilians.

The title of the article sums it up nicely:
Times Square bombing in retaliation for U.S. drone attacks, No connection to Islam

Let me know if you are still confused.

cheers,
Shafique

Really? Danios seems to contradict himself.

He says the bombing was in retaliation for the attempted assassination of the current Pakistani Taliban leader.

You say that the bombing is in retaliation blah blah blah.

Of course, and I don't know if you are understanding this by now, but you, beyond regurgitating some parroted lines, have not offered any convincing argument for why Islam has nothing to do with the attempted bombing.

What don't you understand about a guy who goes off to train at an Islamist terror camp, join up with the Pakistani Taliban, which has murdered many more Pakistanis than the drone attacks have, and who also recently became more religious before venturing off to Pakistan?

You're simply repeating yourself and are sounding more like a fool than usual. Did you not have recess today?

So, you are still confused.

Hmm, let's see..the article says 'No connection to Islam' - was it the word 'connection' that confused you?

The guy happens to be Muslim, yes. The Pakistanis being killed are Muslim, yes. Are you arguing that the US is targetting Muslims - or terrorists who happen to be Muslim? The retaliation is against those doing the killing - ergo, it's what Ron Paul says - they want to kill you because you are killing them.

Cheers,
Shafique

Great, let me know if you have something beyond what a headline from an oped article says.

I know you have second grader logic, but you don't actually think most people who are not Muslims will view what you just wrote as some sort of air tight case, right?

So apart from the guys behind the bombings saying why they carried out the bombings (because of the killing of their countrymen), you want more evidence.

Did you even read the article and quotes from other newspapers etc?

Cheers,
Shafique

Uh, yeah I did.

Though, I wondered why Mr. Shahzee was attending a Pakistani terrorist training camp at the time he witnessed the bombings.

I thought the bombings motivated him???

That's all very fascinating (ignoring that Mr Shahzi says he was motivated to take revenge for the killing of Taliban leaders, not civilians), but where exactly is the evidence that Islam had nothing to do with the bombing, again?

Excellent - you did read the article.

So, tell me again - how does the fact that the bombing was in retaliation against the killing of Pakistanis by US drones (arguably illegally) makes this retaliation about Islam?

Cheers,
Shafique

US kills Pakistanis, Pakistanis target US.

The fact that the training camp was in the same country that the US was bombing is hardly surprising.

No link to Islam shown. QED.

Cheers,
Shafique

Right, the times square bomber had no connection to Islam.

He just had connections to Islamist terror groups.

The Times Square Bombing was in retaliation for the US bombing Pakistanis - I'm glad you're eventually catching on.

I presume you're not going to argue that the bombings of Pakistanis was a religious war - so why would the retaliation be anything to do with religion?

The group killing Pakistanis happens to be predominantly non-Muslim (but there are Muslims in the US military), and the Pakistanis fighting back happen to be predominantly Muslim.

But, as Ron Paul - your countryman - puts 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].”

As the author nicely put it:
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.

Your protestations continue to make me chuckle. Just because you believe something to be true, doesn't change the facts, young man.

Cheers,
Shafique

Hey, you first claimed that the Times Square bombing was in retaliation for the killing of Pakistani civilians, yet your own article has the bomber saying he was motivated by the deaths of Taliban leaders.

So, your own article contradicts what you have previously said.

Did you actually read your own article?

Beyond that, I can't see how someone can claim that a guy who traveled to Pakistan to train at an Islamist terror camp was not motivated by Islam.

I really don't think I need to argue this point with you, because I seriously doubt any one else reading this thread agrees with you.

Ha ha. Nice one.

The article says the retaliation is over the killing of Pakistanis by drones. Even your soldiers agree that they have killed civilians, and lawyers in your country doubt the legality of the killings.

It is moot whether the retaliation is over the killing of Pakistani fighters or Pakistani civilians - the point is that the retaliation is over the killings, not over religous differences.

Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot.

I suspect you'll cry foul and insist that it is about religion after all.. but hey, far be it from me to stop you digging a hole - carry on!

Cheers,
Shafique

-- Sat May 15, 2010 12:33 am --

And indeed, this other point is also pertinent:

Of course, there will be a concerted effort to downplay the fact that hundreds of Pakistani civilians have been killed in these drone attacks, or that the drone attacks are illegal under international law.

He was on to something there, wasn't he 'eh'?

The article says the retaliation is over the killing of Pakistanis by drones. Even your soldiers agree that they have killed civilians, and lawyers in your country doubt the legality of the killings.

Uhm, the article was an opinion piece.

The actual quote from the bomber says that he carried out the bombing because of the assassinations of Taliban leaders.

Interesting how your spin is contradicted by reality.

Now, did you actually read the article in full or were deliberately distorting the truth, just as the author did?

-- Sat May 15, 2010 10:07 am --

According to the New York Post, Mr Shahzad witnessed the drone attacks during eight months he recently spent in Pakistan and has told prosecutors that his bomb attempt was supposed to be revenge for the drones’ killing of Taliban leaders.

Seems clear to me.

Shahzad was already in Pakistan training at an Islamist terror camp before he saw the drone attacks and was motivated to take revenge for the killing of Taliban leaders.

But really, just because Mr Shahzad was at a Pakistani terror camp run by the Taliban, that doesn't mean that this bombing and Shahzad's radicalization had anything to do with Islam, right?

Pot, kettle, black..

What facts did the article get wrong?

The Pakistan Taliban said they'd retaliate for US bombings - and followed through. They didn't say they'd bomb the US because they hate Christians/Non-Muslims etc - so just 'imagining' or 'believing' the retaliation is about religion says more about your beliefs rather than the facts on the ground.

(And yes, I read the article - it clearly states and gives evidence for the fact that the attempted attacks were not about religion but retaliation for US bombings in Pakistan)


Cheers,
Shafique

What facts did the article get wrong?

You mean, which facts did the article do the most spinning to?

How about the one I pointed out above?

According to Mr Shahzad's own *admission*, he targeted Times Square as revenge for the killings of Taliban leaders - after he was already attending an Islamist terror camp.

Funny how the author from the rag you quoted from dismisses Shahzad's own statement. The facts aren't important.

When reality doesn't gel with nutters, such as the author of your 'piece' and Chomsky, it needs to be tweaked, ignored or 'corrected' ever so often

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

LoL. The article said the man was already attending an Islamist terror camp when he witnessed a drone attack against a Taliban leader.

You're not actually ignoring the big elephant in the room about why Shahzad was at a Taliban training camp...???

Oh, you are.

Why was he in Pakistan training to go back to the US and attack US citizens is indeed the crux of the matter - the reason is the bombings of Pakistanis by the US. QED

It just appears that your cherished fantasy that all Muslims hate non-Muslims is blinding you from actually reading what is written.

In fact, you've even quoted the article saying the attack was in retaliation for killings! Duh?

Cheers,
Shafique

The article says that he witnessed the drone attacks while in Pakistan. It never clarified whether Shahzad was motivated to train at an Islamist terror camp because of the drone attacks.

Regardless, I have to wonder how someone could come to the conclusion that Islam had absolutely nothing to do with the attack when it is clear that Mr Shahzad is a Muslim fundamentalist who subscribes to jihadist ideology.

You are referring to the article entitled:

"Times Square bombing in retaliation for U.S. drone attacks, No connection to Islam"

aren't you?

Hmm.

Nice attempt at guilt by association.

The reason he gave for trying to emulate Timothy McVeigh (who was a successful American terrorist) was not 'radical Islam' but the bombing of Pakistan by the US.

Like McVeigh, he had his reasons for wanting to blow up his fellow Americans - and like McVeigh it was not because of a book of scripture.

These guys, your fellow countrymen - however, did indeed want to blow up you and your fellow Americans because of their religious book - the Bible:




Nine alleged members of a radical US Christian militia group accused of plotting to wage war against the US have been freed from jail on bond.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8658604.stm

It's amazing that you ignore Shahzad's own statements to perpetuate your own version of reality.

We have a statement from Mr Shahzad saying he wanted to take up the cause of al-Qaeda and radical Islam.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Mr Shahzad was a radical Muslim who traveled to Pakistan to receive training and spiritual guidance at an Islamist terror camp and has explicitly told authorities that he is influenced by al-Qaeda and the sermons of Islamist preacher Anwar Al-Awlaki.

The facts be damned.