Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

So BB, if the US was not supporting Israel and not meddling in Middle East affairs, do you think that Muslims would be attacking the US in religious jihad?

kanelli wrote:So BB, if the US was not supporting Israel and not meddling in Middle East affairs, do you think that Muslims would be attacking the US in religious jihad?

You might want to start a new thread with that question.

Well, I'd like to just state that I DO indeed believe there are indeed jihadists and other religiously motivated terrorists out there (Goldstein was one, Brievik another - and there are many Muslim groups who target other sects and religions because of their religious views).

However, the point in the 'motives for suicide bombing thread' is that the reason for many terror attacks by Muslims is actually political.

The WTC 93 bombing is a case in point - here the unequivocable and clear reasons specified do not include religion, but only foreign policy.

The attack was therefore no different from other trans-national terrorist attacks, such as the blowing up of Cuban airliner by terrorists who are living free in the USA.

Baruch Goldstein, on the other hand, was a trans-national terrorist who did kill in the name of religion.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Well, I'd like to just state that I DO indeed believe there are indeed jihadists and other religiously motivated terrorists out there (Goldstein was one, Brievik another - and there are many Muslim groups who target other sects and religions because of their religious views).

However, the point in the 'motives for suicide bombing thread' is that the reason for many terror attacks by Muslims is actually political.

The WTC 93 bombing is a case in point - here the unequivocable and clear reasons specified do not include religion, but only foreign policy.

The attack was therefore no different from other trans-national terrorist attacks, such as the blowing up of Cuban airliner by terrorists who are living free in the USA.

Baruch Goldstein, on the other hand, was a trans-national terrorist who did kill in the name of religion.

Cheers,
Shafique

Good to know that Muslims don't kill in the name of religion. I don't recall reading what terrorist group Baruch Goldstein was affiliated with?? Can you provide the name of that group?

Good grief, did you miss Shaf's first paragraph? He said there are religiously motivated terrorists including Muslims.

Does Baruch Goldstein need to be affiliated with a group of people in order to be a religious terrorist?

Ramzi Yousef:

After a failed attempt to bomb the Israeli embassy in Bangkok, Thailand, Yousef moved back to Pakistan and plotted a bombing inside Iran. Yousef has a deep hatred of Shiite Muslims, and most Iranians are Shiites. On June 20, 1994, a Shiite holy day, Yousef bombed the Imam Reza shrine in Mashhad, Iran, one of the holiest and most important Shiite shrines. The attack killed 26 people and injured over 200. The group Yousef worked with this time included his younger brother, Abdul Muneem, and his own father, who was arrested and detained in Iran. While Yousef generally worked in concert with, or by orders from, Osama bin Laden, the Mashhad bombing ran counter to bin Laden’s efforts that year to work with the Iranian-influenced Hezbollah militant group. [16]

Occupation?

Support for Israel?

I love the spin of these loons to disconnect terrorism and militancy to the religious ideology of terrorists.

It's clear Islamic terrorists eat, breathe and drink Islam. But to think their main occupation in life - being a member of Islamic terror groups - has anything to do with Islam is quickly dismissed.

Wow.

The WTC 93 bombing is a case in point - here the unequivocable and clear reasons specified do not include religion, but only foreign policy.

Is being a member of an Islamic terror group - getting guidance from religious leaders, etc - have anything to do with religion?

I just want to know so we're clear. It seems difficult to believe that the people who cite the texts and teachings of Islam and are members of terror groups that seek the establishment of a 7th century religious theocracy are not motivated by religion in any shape or form.

Bora Bora wrote: I don't recall reading what terrorist group Baruch Goldstein was affiliated with?? Can you provide the name of that group?

He was a member of the Jewish Defence League in the USA - it is a Kahanist terrorist organisation that carried out bombings and assassinations in the USA in the 70's. He then emigrated to Palestine (lived in Hebron) and is today venerated by Kahanist extremists who view him as a saint.

Kahanist terror groups are listed as such by the US government, and indeed the terror attacks in the FBI stats in the UK by Jewish religious terrorists are these same guys.

Today, the French Kahanist organisation is recruiting males who have military service/experience to go to Palestine (supposedly to protect the colonies after the Security Council Vote).

So, yes - I can provide the name of the international terror organisation Goldstein was affiliated with.

Facts, not hype.

(And I guess you've now re-read my post which stated clearly that there ARE Islamic terrorists, but that the WTC 93 terrorist did not give Islam as the reason they launched the attack).

Cheers,
Shafique

Does Ramzi Yousef have multiple personality disorder?

One minute he's blowing Shi'ites up due to his religious beliefs and is a member of an Islamic terrorist group but the next his religious ideology - when working with a religious leader (the Blind Sheikh) - has no bearing in his bomb attack against the WTC?

Is this the winky-dink school of thought again?

Did you vote already, eh?

kanelli wrote:Good grief, did you miss Shaf's first paragraph? He said there are religiously motivated terrorists including Muslims.

Does Baruch Goldstein need to be affiliated with a group of people in order to be a religious terrorist?

I stand corrected Kanelli, thank you. But I believe you know how one can miss a post or 50 as it appears you have playing catch up upon your return.

And look! Goldstein was affiliated with a religious terrorist organization. Now you and I both learned something.

If you don't mind, I would rather not have any exchanges with you as it seems you have an itch that needs to be scratched and I'm not going to accommodate you. You failed to bait me on the "Attack" thread. It appears that there are enough people who are helping you with that itch in the General forum.

Ok folks.

There's been a lot of heat generated and quite a bit of repetition

Let me sum up what the evidence says to me and what my view is. Others can hold different views and can give more credence to other pieces of information.

1. Are there other trans-national terrorist groups like Al Qaeda? Answer: Yes - religiously motivated Jewish terror groups typified by the JDL and other offshoots, and Baruch Goldstein.

2. Did WTC 93 fit in with the 3 criteria Ron Paul gave in the OP for terrorist attacks against USA, or was it actually because 'Islamists hate the West etc'. The reason given for the attack was specifically and exclusively US foreign policy - so the answer is a Yes, it meets the third criterion exactly.

eh can speculate as to why the terrorist didn't mention Islam - rather than thinking zebras, why not think horses.. i.e. because the terror attack was against US interests because of US foreign policy as he specified.

It seems strange to construct elaborate logic hoops to explain why the reasons given did NOT mention Islam, but only foreign policy. It is stranger still to criticise me for not jumping through them.

If there is new evidence/arguments I'll respond - otherwise, I'd say we've flogged this topic enough - what do you say?

Cheers,
Shafique

Soon, al shafique is going to try to convince us that moslem terrorists are just freedom fighters defending their land.

Hey hervey baby - welcome back!

I was wondering whether you'd been recruited by the JDL - given their recruiting in France these days.
dubai-politics-talk/jewish-terrorists-recruiting-france-t47383.html

But, to answer your question - no, I'm not putting words into terrorists' mouths about why they carry out terrorist acts, just quoting the reasons they give. In the case of WTC 93 - US foreign policy.

(See, now you are up to date - no excuses for constructing elaborate fantasies.)

Cheers,
Shafique

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.

I posted my reply at 6 42 am, al shafique was not logged on as a registered.
He logged on and replied to my post at 6 46am, 4 minutes later. then logged off
It means al shafique is living behind his desk , lurking on DF, he is a professional propagandist who is waiting for posts to reply, so his name comes always the last. his agenda is to try to convince that moslems are the best people in the world, that islam is the religion of peace but he is only successful to makes a fool of himself.
Right not he is not logged on, and i predict he will reply in less than 5 minutes

Herve, you come to this forum to try to convince Muslims how terrible they are. A bit daft really.

Hi Kanelli, I don't need to convince anyone, just read the news and the quran, it is all there.
Look, this week alone, 6 convicted in the UK, 5 in spain, 5 in germany, all moslems, all for terrorist conspiracy.
But please enlight me, really, tell me who in this world like moslems beside moslems. Because from where I stand, i see repulsion.
I will never forget my first encounter with a moslem, it was thirty years ago. Young navy officer i shared my cabin with an algerian navy officer who was on training on my ship (We trained the Algerian navy). Every morning i suffered the terrible sighting of his ablutions in the sink, blowing his nose of his boggers with his bare fingers. then one night he trew up in my hamper. did he care? hell no, gentleman, fu(k no. 3 days later i pulled a brick of my clothes solidified with his vomit.
I dont know if you shared privacy with moslems , but they pretty di$gusting.

I see, just because Ramzi Yousef bombed Shi'ites based on his religious fundamentalism, just because he was a member of a religious fundamentalist movement and just because he carried out his plot under the guidance of religious leaders (the Blind Sheikh), one should not come to the conclusion that religion had anything to do with his plot to kill thousands because infidel troops were defiling the holy lands with their impurity or that Muslim land ('Palestine') was occupied by non-Muslims.

Hmmm.

kanelli wrote:Herve, you come to this forum to try to convince Muslims how terrible they are. A bit daft really.

Spot on.

As for eh's comment to explain his denial of the reasons given for WTC 93, let me repeat:

It seems strange to construct elaborate logic hoops to explain why the reasons given did NOT mention Islam, but only foreign policy. It is stranger still to criticise me for not jumping through them.

Cheers,
Shafique

Yes, it's strange to see a link between Ramzi Yousef's extreme beliefs and his extreme, violent interpretation of Islam.

Good point.

I'm glad we agree. It is very strange for me to be criticised for not following your logic and rather quoting the reasons actually given for the WTC 93 attack - i.e. that they were ONLY about US foreign policy. Nothing about Shia etc in the reasons he gave for that attack.

I thought it was an excellent point myself.

Now, by contrast - the self-styled 'Christian Crusader' terrorist Brievik also published his reasons for his attacks. His manifesto praised Bob Spencer (your Guru) and he shares your extreme Islamophobia. He does indeed give reasons why he shot up Norwegian kids - and that does stem from his extremist views.

Would you therefore call Brievik a Christian fundamentalist terrorist?

Cheers,
Shafique

herve wrote:Hi Kanelli, I don't need to convince anyone, just read the news and the quran, it is all there.
Look, this week alone, 6 convicted in the UK, 5 in spain, 5 in germany, all moslems, all for terrorist conspiracy.
But please enlight me, really, tell me who in this world like moslems beside moslems. Because from where I stand, i see repulsion.
I will never forget my first encounter with a moslem, it was thirty years ago. Young navy officer i shared my cabin with an algerian navy officer who was on training on my ship (We trained the Algerian navy). Every morning i suffered the terrible sighting of his ablutions in the sink, blowing his nose of his boggers with his bare fingers. then one night he trew up in my hamper. did he care? hell no, gentleman, fu(k no. 3 days later i pulled a brick of my clothes solidified with his vomit.
I dont know if you shared privacy with moslems , but they pretty di$gusting.

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? And at university I was also se.xually harassed by a Muslim student. I don't let that experience put me off of all Muslim men. I briefly dated a Canadian Pakistani guy. We never made it past a couple of kisses, but he was always well-groomed and smelled great. He was smart, funny and a perfect gentleman.

Now, by contrast - the self-styled 'Christian Crusader' terrorist Brievik also published his reasons for his attacks. His manifesto praised Bob Spencer (your Guru) and he shares your extreme Islamophobia. He does indeed give reasons why he shot up Norwegian kids - and that does stem from his extremist views.

Would you therefore call Brievik a Christian fundamentalist terrorist?

Sure, he was against what Muslims were doing to his nation. Nothing religious about that, in fact the 'self-styled' Crusader opposed the creation of any religious theocracy unlike Ramzi Yousef - who was a religious fanatic and actual member of a religious fundamentalist movement.

Now, if you're aware that Brievik's 'Islamophobic' views stemmed from his religiosity (he described himself as not a particularly religious man) - like Ramzi Yousef's anti-Shia views, then please provide your evidence.

I just find it humorous you would think religion played no role in the bomb attack against the WTC in which all the participants were fanatical Muslims under the spiritual guidance of a religious authority and members of a group whose end goal is the creation of an Islamic theocratic state.

Nope, no don't see religious fanaticism when it's right in front of my face.

No, young one, it is not about what ' I think ' - but rather what the terrorist said were the reasons.

You are the one constructing logic hoops to justify your denial that the reasons given for WTC 93 were ONLY US foreign policy.

Brievik, on the other hand, did indeed give his reasons for his terror attack - and they included religious and Islamophobic elements that you agree with.

So - do you consider Brievik a Christian Fundamentalist Terrorist?

Cheers,
Shafique

Quotes from Anders' manifesto:

Q: Do I have to believe in God or Jesus in order to become a Justiciar Knight?

A: As this is a cultural war, our definition of being a Christian does not necessarily constitute that you are required to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus.

So, 'Christian' is an identity, not an act of faith.

Unlike being a member of al-Qaeda, for instance, which Ramzi Yousef was.

Or, get this,

Christian fundamentalist theocracy is everything we DO NOT want and a secular European society is what we DO want.

And somehow I don't think Ramzi Yousef would have agreed with the following concerning Shi'ites joining al-Qaeda:

It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian-atheist.

So to answer your question, I don't think someone who opposed a Christian state, did not practice his faith regularly, welcomed non-Christians to join his cause and did not personally hold Christian fundamentalist views (say, against Gays, for instance) could possibly be described as a Christian fundamentalist.

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???

EH, of course religion may have been involved, it just wasn't the primary reason for the attack. If the US and it allies are mistreating Muslim nations they likely do feel persecuted as a religion and therefore do use it as partial justification for their attacks. However, the main reason is political, which was what was stated in the terrorists letter.

Again, I can ask anyone...Do you think that if US foreign policy regarding Israel, Palestine and the Middle East was different there would be less terrorist attacks committed by extremist Muslims?

Do you really think it is the goal of foreign religious extremists or even home-grown religious extremists to try to turn the US in a nation under complete Islamic rule?

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?

Cheers,
Shafique

However, the main reason is political, which was what was stated in the terrorists letter.

To me, if you join a religious fundamentalist terrorist organization dedicated to overthrowing secular governments and installing a religious theocracy, then you're a religious fanatic.

I'm curious why the alternatives to joining religious terrorist groups were so bleak for Ramzi Yousef that he must have felt forced to join up with such a group he apparently despised/disagreed ideologically with so much. Weren't there secular terrorist groups he could have joined with?

You know, because if I feel oppressed, I'll join up with the KKK. It's only 'logical', dontchya know? (But don't claim my reasons are ever racist, that would be 'illogical').

Do you think that if US foreign policy regarding Israel, Palestine and the Middle East was different there would be less terrorist attacks committed by extremist Muslims?

I think Ramzi Yousef would still be a fundamentalist Muslims who still would have blown up Shi'ites because in his interpretation of Islam he saw them as heretics or apostates deserving of death. I think Muslims would be just as fundamentalist today and if it's not Israel, then it would be Salman Rushdie books or Muhammad cartoons or the local Christian village accused of insulting Muhammad to set Muslims off to carry out violence in the name of their religion.

Do you really think it is the goal of foreign religious extremists or even home-grown religious extremists to try to turn the US in a nation under complete Islamic rule?

I'm sure these Muslims are far more interested in turning their own nations into backwards 7th century theocracies first.

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?