Muslim scholar issues fatwa against terrorism

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Mrs.Lucysnow, Mar 2, 2010.

  1. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    I don't necessarily disagree, but I don't recall it.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. StrawDog disseminated primatemaia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,373
    Of course terrorism should be condemned, and any voice speaking out against such should be praised. But before stating misconceptions, note what motivated the actions leading to 9/11. According to the alleged main perp.

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Indeed, Mohammed Atta wrote his will and last testament, forbade his family to grieve for his death and signed up [allegedly] for the WTC mission, immediately after what happened in Qana.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_shelling_of_Qana

    Some things once seen, cannot be unseen.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    I'd rephrase that slightly: a long time ago, SAM had posted stuff from various clerics, etc. condemning this or that.

    I don't recall seeing such in recent months.
     
  8. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    True. I watched the Gaza massacre live last January and I realised how pretentious it is to condemn people there for wanting to live

    I also saw how that massacre was received by the "honest" brokers and "peace" processors. I have nothing in common with those who would justify that slaughter.
     
  9. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    And thousands of the soldiers occupying Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. were radicalized by what they saw in NYC and Washington.

    So perhaps justice isn't attained by seeking revenge, pledging oneself to the service of political masters, etc. - no matter how righteous one's anger.

    This whole "you started it" rhetoric is extremely childish, and guaranteed to prolong - rather than curtail - conflict. As I've pointed out before, and as any reasonable adult understands.

    Which leaves two options for describing those who promulgate it: they are unreasonable children, nursed on self-righteous chauvinism, or they are adults who know what they are doing and wish to foment war, division and hatred.

    Neither strikes me as particularly flattering.
     
  10. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Isn't it though? How much Americans will weep for two buildings, will they not? How many they will kill, burn, dismember and torture for just two buildings. And yet, they want their victims of over a century to issue fatwas when they protest their treatment.

    How amusing it is really. Just like children throwing a tantrum.
     
  11. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    If that was supposed to undermine my implication that your agenda is about division, hatred and war, then it didn't work very well.

    You're a very nasty, ugly person.
     
  12. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    The truth is not pretty and neither are mirrors. The odd Mohammed Atta a student of architecture who probably had dreams of building towers and who watched the massacre in Qana and [allegedly] decided to bring down towers instead is an outlier. For every Mohammed Atta there are millions who suffered silently. Who did nothing. And who continue to suffer silently and do nothing. Justice is not a priority for any of them, is it? And for every Mohammed Atta, there is one who collaborated with those who killed. Ultimately though, the issue is not one of terrorism, which is reactive. Students of architecture don't, on a regular basis, dream of giving up their lives and future because they are enraged by injustice and killing. They don't represent me or 1.5 billion other people, and I see no reason to pretend they do.

    But as Gandhi said, the alternative option cannot be cowardice. If there is no faith in the force of truth, if one cannot face the bombs and die knowing that eventually, what we call the paap ka ghada or the vessel of sin will overflow and karma will knock on the door to collect its due, then the alternative is violence

    Not surprisingly, it is those who lose faith that usually resort to violence. Not everyone can be a martyr.
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2010
  13. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    WTC "mission"?
     
  14. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    We could call it Operation. Operation Autumn Clouds? Wait, that was the Qana massacre wasn't it? Or was it Gaza 2006? Qana Massacre was probably Operation Bluebells or Butterflies? Operation Summer Rains? Operation Light Breeze? Wait, Operation Candle Light? I don't think thats taken.
     
  15. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    And for every Lynndie England, there are millions who suffered silently, or who actively resisted war and revenge, and who continue to suffer silenty and/or resist.

    ? Are you implying that one must either become a terrorist or renounce justice? That AQ terrorism represents the pursuit of "justice" at all? That those who instead work for peace and understanding are not advancing justice, but instead are traitors to the cause?

    Then why do you keep advocating for their position? Why keep justifying his position? Why keep conflating the worst offenders with America as a whole, and demonizing us, and insisting that there is no alternative but war? This stuff is straight out of AQ's propaganda playbook, so it isn't the sort of thing you should go around trumpetting if you also want to disclaim them as representing you.

    The lack of such faith is the true cowardice. It takes real strength and courage to persevere in one's faith in peace and unity in the face of violence. The way one fights back against war and violence is through knowledge and humanity, not counter-reaction. Those who pursue terror are not "fighting back," but joining the march towards destruction, and assaulting the faith in humanity of millions of others. With the predictable result of increased division and strife.

    Advance such a nihilist position if you please, but know that it leads only to war and death, and that the balance of power on that count is not in your favor.
     
  16. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Well, so long as she doesn't also insist that terrorism is a purely criminal, as opposed to military, act, then I can't really complain about the use of military terminology.

    Call me back when you see Strawdog describing 9/11 in military terms.
     
  17. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Hmm you're right. For every Mohammed Atta, how many Americans sign up to bomb and kill, do you think? Whats the strength of the volunteer forces and their support system? Who funds trains and arms them? What percentage of people do not support them?

    Recognising that not all are capable of suffering silently and waiting for justice is not "advancing such a position". Even Mandela spent 25 years in prison because he refused to renounce violence. If you kick a thousand men, eventually one of them will kick back, thats realism not nihilism.

    Still the current train wreck that is the US is sufficient evidence that karma does knock on the door eventually and exacts its toll. The collateral damages do add up.
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2010
  18. Shadow1 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,160
    .


    you got that right

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Tell you what: you demonstrate good faith by rephrasing those questions in a non-loaded way (strike the conflation of any participation in or support of the military as such with embrace of oppressive goals, for starters), and then answer them as they apply to Islamic terrorism, and then I'll have a crack at it.

    Or you can persist in your bigoted views of Americans as evil oppressors, and I'll keep observing that you're not helping anything by doing so.

    Promoting the worldview in question - that they face a choice between "suffering silently" or mass-murdering random civilians, that the US is an evil empire bent on oppressing them, etc. - is. You vocally advance all the major components of the propaganda frame in question, gleefully mock the suffering of America, etc., and then bitch at people for drawing the logical conclusion. That's cheap and spineless. Either get serious about rejecting terrorism, or own up to the consequences of not doing so.

    So? What did that violence get him, exactly? Apartheid wasn't ended through terrorism and violence, you may recall.

    So where are your blase dismissals of complaints about American reactions to terrorism, then?

    After all, you kick America, America kicks back. Realism, right? Why criticize that? The cycle of violence is inevitable, apparently, so all that remains is to pick your side, insist that they other guy is to blame, and revel in the hate.

    Just don't call that progress, or peace. It's nihilism.
     
  20. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    No it wasn't. Violence doesn't work. If you were a karmic person, like me, you would recognise that. But if you were to walk into your home and see your wife or kid being mutilated or raped. Or see them lying on the floor, dismembered, with you possibly being next. Or if you drove over some bumps on the road got out and saw that it was not bumps but a street full of hacked people you were driving on, you'd find that "knowledge and humanity" might not be what you reach for in self defense.

    Its easy to be philosophical when its not your kid who has just been beheaded by a missile.

    American reactions to terrorism are hypocritical. They cannot complain about two buildings when they level entire countries. There is no balanced view of oppression. Calling it "foreign policy" doesn't legitimise mass murder. When you've kicked a million men and 15 of them kick back, and then you kick a million more, who will take it seriously when you whine about the kicks you received? Especially when you continue to kick millions?
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2010
  21. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    And I'd be weaker for it, if it weren't.

    And note that we have again the implication that the attacks on the World Trade Center represent legitimate self-defense, comparable to fighting off a home invader who has just murdered one's family.

    And as far as that goes I never complained much about attacks on American military installations in the Middle East, or even the targetting of the Pentagon.

    But if we're to accept your analogy, we'd have the stricken home-owner exercising "self defense" by grabbing a weapon and breaking into his attacker's house to butcher his family. That's revenge, not self-defense.

    How do you know it isn't? How many Americans had their children beheaded by missile attacks on 9/11?

    And, in which case, why do you keep expecting Americans to be philosophical in such a situation?

    As are terrorist responses to American foreign policy. So why the imbalance of criticism?

    Again we have the minimization of American suffering and the exaggeration of American destruction. As if 9/11 were no worse than a couple of building demolitions, and as if Iraq and Afghanistan were depopulated sheets of glass today.

    We do have the power to literally level entire countries, you realize. But we haven't done so.

    Nor does calling it "resistance" or "fighting back" or whatever.

    Again we see the callous dismissal of American suffering: we "whine" about "a couple of buildings."

    And your rhetoric is easily reversed: why should we have sympathy for Palestinian suffering when they vote for butchers that proudly car-bomb civilians? If the standard for expecting sympathy is a renunciation of violence, then there aren't many political grouping that deserve sympathy.

    But the answer to those purportedly rhetorical questions is obvious: adults who understand the destructive, reactive nature of violence and hatred, and who possess the humanity and strength to resist it.

    A category which does not include you, apparently.
     
  22. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Exactly, Osama can die only once. He needs a constant supply of Atta Mohammeds to perpetuate violence. So its not the handlers that determine if terrorism works, its the ones who choose to carry out the violent acts. No General won a war without an army. And terrorists who renouced terrorism because of their mothers saved more lives than soldiers doing their duty. As long as Americans are supporting their troops, they will fight a war on terrorism. Just as soldiers from Breaking the Silence killed no children in Gaza.
     
  23. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,383
    Peaceful methods can work if your enemy has a conscience. Innocent unarmed peaceful people marching to their death probably would even soften Israeli hearts even if the people dying were Arabs. Had the British been willing to kill a hundred million Indians they could have defeated Gandhi's movement and probably could have defeated the violent insurrection that would have followed and might still be in control. If the USA was willing to kill all the Vietnamese the USA could have won the Vietnam war.

    Terrorism and relative disregard for "collateral damage" are almost morally comparable and when you consider the quantity of collateral damage inflicted by the relatively strong being so much larger than the quantity of terrorism inflicted by the relatively weak the collateral damage is actually morally worse than the terrorism.

    I would prefer if the terrorist just kill individual relevant people rather than killing numerous irrelevant people who are disposable and whose deaths only help the propaganda campaign of the the pro war faction. Perhaps terrorists should kill the CEO of Lockheed; or kill high ranking members of AIPAK or kill a US Senator because influencing those people might actually influence us policy while killing ignorant pwerless Americans accomplishes nothing.

    But the I have to remember that just as Cheney wanted wanted America to be hit by a terrorist attack so he could have his wars, Bin Laden also wanted the Islamic world to be hit by bloody American attacks so that the Islamic world could be turned more extremist and he could have his wars.

    It is unfair and ridiculous to ask the terrorist to give up their dream of driving the foreign forces out of their nations and out of their nations's civil wars. Every nation should be free to choose it's economic policy and military alliances without foreign interference and every nation should be free to chose its own cultural values and whether or not to tolerate hedonism as the price a nation must pay if it wants to grant individual freedom. I personally don't like the religious right regardless whether they be Christian or Muslim but foreigners have no business interfering in other nations culture wars.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2010

Share This Page