Britain’s Terrorist Plot

Posted on July 2, 2007
Filed Under Evil Terrorists, Intoxication, UK |

It needs no introduction. It’s all over the news. And guess who did it? The Irish! Oh yes, it was them, believe me, “we” had absolutely nothing to do with it. Bleh.

It’s sickening what those filthy butchers are trying to inflect upon innocent people. But what sickens me even more is how too many Muslims are in denial that we have a major major problem. “Oh it must be the Jooooz!” they proclaim. Don’t let me forget the other retards like far-leftist Alex Jones who simply help reinforce the denial syndrome too many Muslims suffer from. We need more of the Sabir types.

Of course, the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not terrorists, nor are all terrorists Muslim. But we’d be kidding ourselves if we claimed that a disproportionate number of terrorists aren’t Muslim or that the most destructive and deadly terrorist attacks aren’t perpetrated by Muslims fighting under the banner of Islam. Furthermore, terrorism is but an extreme manifestation of a rejectionist mentality that is all too common amongst Muslims. Though few Muslims attempt to justify terrorist attacks, many steadfastly deny that Muslims were ultimately responsible, attributing them to elaborate conspiracy theories in which the Muslim hijackers/bombers were unwitting pawns in a grand plot directed by America/Israel/India/Freemasons. Even if such views are to be taken at face value, their advocates seem disturbingly unconcerned about the propensity of Muslims to be brainwashed and unwittingly recruited into shadowy non-Muslim conspiracies.

Read it all here.

Too often I come across those 2 types of Muslims, the terrorist supporters and the ones in denial. The ones in denial are drowned in victimhood. As for the ones who support the Bin Laden types, they’re just blinded by anger and pure hatred. I know a few people who fit that category and I remember debating with them recently. They were still persistent in their support of Bin Laden. I then asked them a few simple questions. “What kind of life do you think you and your sisters will have once those people are in power and ruling over us? What kind of harsh Sharia do you think they’ll be shoving down our throats? If I rewind back time, would you like to live under the Taliban in Afghanistan?” … and suddenly… silence.

(hat tip for picture: Umar Lee)

Anger and hatred are powerful intoxicants. I fear we won’t wake up until it’s too late. This cancer is spreading too fast within our Muslim communities.

Comments

82 Responses to “Britain’s Terrorist Plot”

Andrew Brehm on July 2nd, 2007 11:53 am

The problem is that the western media, even if we ignore their agenda, have no easy time reporting these things.

They can be politically correct and blame “youths” and “Asians” and thus make it appear as if the attacks were isolated incidents comparable to a teenager shoplifting.

Or they can blame “Muslims” and re-inforce Muslim belief that the terrorists are indeed representing the true Islam. They preach it, the enemy believes it, after all.

That’s one reason why I don’t like Little Green Footballs. They blame “Muslims” and hence play exactly into the terrorists’ hands. The terrorists WANT to be Muslims and they WANT to be acknowledged as such. It’s only natural, in their world view, that evil Christians and Jews fear _Muslims_. That’s how their ideology survives.

It’s like referring to the Germans in World War II as the “Master Race”, as if acknowledging that they were, indeed, the superior race, but that the coalition will fight them anyway.

If the terrorists are Muslims they cannot lose. This is what Islam tells us. If Islam is true, the terrorists will win (and the terrorists will be the good guys). LGF’s theory is that Islam is not true, hence the terrorists will not necessarily win and are not the good guys. But that doesn’t help.

The truth is that Islam may or may not be true, but a lot of it is (from a Jewish or Christian point of view) and the terrorists are NOT Muslims. The terrorists, both Shia and Wahabi specifically reject the most basic principles of Islam and all Abrahamic religions. They are heretics, pagans, unbelievers, call them what you will but don’t call them Muslims.

The only way we can win this is by taking away their most valuable asset: their claim that they represent G-d.

I don’t know which little demon they represent, but they do not represent G-d.

Once the first news paper reports that pagans or heretical Muslims have committed a terror attack, the terrorists will have lost.

Once people associate terror not with true Islam but with heresy, both Islam and the world we be safe from the terrorists.

And this must be consistent. The media must also report that Iran is not an “Islamic republic” but simply a “republic” (better yet, a “dictatorship”). And Saudi Arabia is not a country based on Islam, but a country based on the Wahabi heresy. There is no need for western commentators to propagate the claim that Wahabiism is the true Islam.
Drima on July 2nd, 2007 2:40 pm

“The media must also report that Iran is not an “Islamic republic” but simply a “republic” (better yet, a “dictatorship”). And Saudi Arabia is not a country based on Islam, but a country based on the Wahabi heresy. There is no need for western commentators to propagate the claim that Wahabiism is the true Islam.”

Very well said!
Howie on July 2nd, 2007 4:19 pm

A thoughtful, insightful post and a nice response by A.B.

As Drima and I have been discussing…there is still another part of the problem…lack of freedom; to speak, to challenge ideas, to exchange information. However, there are Muslims in free countries, obviously, who still get into this brainwashed, hate-driven, denial/blame based thinking.

I fully understand the idealism of youth “we will do it the ‘right” way”.

I have so many thoughts on this subject, I am losing my train of thought.

But it is a critical subject…thank goodness for folks like Drima…I admire him.
Nabel1611 on July 2nd, 2007 4:38 pm

Drima, you crack me up. “…and suddenly… silence.” Very funny, and I’m sure very true. I would love to see your comments on this article?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2115832,00.html
My plea to fellow Muslims: you must renounce terror.

I read about these leaders that send a new crop of suicide bombers out against innocents and nobody seems to say “Hey buddy you first” or “When all of your children have gone first” Leaders should lead by example, No?
Craig on July 2nd, 2007 5:48 pm

Great post, Drima. I wish Muslims would speak out publicly against terrorism more often.
Howie on July 2nd, 2007 6:44 pm

I remember some poor Palestinian lady whose son had just carried out a suicide attack, was interviewed…This might even had been the case where they used a guy that was retarded or learning disabled…too many to keep them all straight…

Anyhow…she was no wild-eyed radical..just a lady that ran an eating establishment…her claim to radical Islam was humos and pita.

Anyhow…between her tears, I remember the words, “why don’ t the leaders do this if they believe in suicide so strongly? Why don’t they go first?”.

You know, especially some of these mullahs (and I have the same comlpaint about some rabbis that preach a bunch of aggression, but never set foot near being a soldier) that sit in a mosque and are very willing to go to Jihad, as long as it is OPL (Other People’s Lives).
Andrew Brehm on July 2nd, 2007 6:46 pm

“and I have the same complaint about some rabbis that preach a bunch of aggression”

I have not heard of many rabbis who preach aggression.
Roman Kalik on July 2nd, 2007 6:55 pm

The leaders of terrorists often believe fully in their cause. It’s easier to dub them as hypocrites (which is sometimes the case), but many of them climbed the ranks of fanatical heirarchy and proved themselves along the way.

They do not go and blow themselves up because suicide bombers are not people for them, but weapons for a higher cause who have no other use, and they as leaders are useful for that cause in other means.

Do not doubt fanatics. Corner a terrorist leader and he will fight.
Howie on July 2nd, 2007 7:32 pm

AB-

Rabbis that preach aggression….you bet…

The most extreme are guys like Levinger or Kahane….but they are (were) way on the edge and a minority…

But groups like Chabad, who by the way, I have enormous respect for and attend their services, often have rabbis yelling and screaming about how soft the Israeli government is or how soft the IDF is…

They are entitled to their opinion…but as connected to this conversation…if you are SO ready to send 18 year old boys out to fight and kill…then be ready to send your own sons, which, in the vast majority of cases, they do not.

That is my point…If you are going to ccream for others to jump and grab a gun…and criticism them for being way to soft…then get up and do it…lead the way…or tone down your rhetoric. Otherwise…they are just about as hypocritical as these mullahs…not as bad…but moving in that direction.
Roman Kalik on July 2nd, 2007 8:02 pm

Howie, Chabadniks serve in the army, at least those living in Israel. My own Rabbi was called up to participate in Operation Shield Wall.

So, as a community, they earned the right to demand.
Howie on July 2nd, 2007 8:37 pm

RK-

Some serve…some don’t…but the way some talk here in the USA…I feel like saying…OK…move to Israel and do your thing.
Roman Kalik on July 2nd, 2007 8:57 pm

Many do, man. And those who don’t often do morale-boosting campaigns for soldiers. Religious-themed, yes, but still morale-boosting.

I can’t really comment on the US Chabadniks though, not being too familiar with them. But if you feel that they should live in Israel and serve in the army before being entitled to speak about what the IDF should do, tell it to them.
Andrew Brehm on July 2nd, 2007 9:27 pm

“But groups like Chabad, who by the way, I have enormous respect for and attend their services, often have rabbis yelling and screaming about how soft the Israeli government is or how soft the IDF is…”

But that’s hardly the same as calling for genocide. These rabbis advocate violence against _terrorists_. And while I do not agree that a rabbi should ever preach violence against anyone, I do not believe that that is morally the same or even comparable to advocating violence against innocent people.

Now, if you can show me a mainstream rabbi who regularly preaches genocide (i.e. “kill all Arabs” or anything of the sort), then we’d have got something.

Kahane was an experienced nutter but his demands were hardly more extreme than the equivalent calls made by so-called “moderate” Arab leaders (i.e. expulsion of the unwanted ethnic group, state laws based on religious laws of a particular interpretation, limiting citizenship to one ethnic group etc.). I don’t think he ever called for the killing of all Arabs in Palestine or for the destruction of any Arab country founded in the mid-20th century.
Howie on July 2nd, 2007 9:47 pm

AB and RK-

I am not drawing a moral equivalent here dudes…and I have a been a participant in and supporter of Chabad for 25 years…love em…but they ain’t perfect.

But the only religious guys I know to consistently serve are the “kippah serugah” types…who, I believe…tend to be among the best soldiers.

Black hat and beard types…sorry…I don’t see a whole lot of them out in the down and dirty…I sure have heard them yell and scream about get tough policies though.
Halim Kazi on July 2nd, 2007 11:02 pm

“The media must also report that Iran is not an “Islamic republic” but simply a “republic” (better yet, a “dictatorship”). And Saudi Arabia is not a country based on Islam, but a country based on the Wahabi heresy. There is no need for western commentators to propagate the claim that Wahabiism is the true Islam.”

Very well said!”

Practise before you preach. Tell me why those states are the member
of Organisation of Islamic conference. Why they are not expeled as
enemy of true islam. Do you know they are guiding force of muslim Umma.
Roman Kalik on July 2nd, 2007 11:23 pm

Howie, Chabadniks tend to break that rule, as do (to a lesser extent) the Sephardic haredim.

Those of the ultra-orthodox who have become xenophobic and afraid of outside influences are those who tend not to serve, and you should know as well as I that Chabad oppose to that mentality.
howie on July 3rd, 2007 4:52 am

RK-

Did a little survey…my wife, for example, served in the IDF for 5 years and did not meet ONE Chabadnik…I don’t think many of the others I know have either…including my nephew who just finished…and I will ask the nephew who is in right now…Even my nephew that was in Hesder didn’t talk about Chabadniks…

So on this one…I completely disagree with you. I do know that the Chabad guys go out to the camps and try to help and do all the stuff that Chabad is good at…but fighters…all my experience is lots of mouthing off…and little action.
Roman Kalik on July 3rd, 2007 9:07 am

Howie, are the uniformed people moving between Shchunat Chabad and the train station here in Lod an optical illusion, then?
And of the Chabadniks I’m friends with, all served in the army.

Howie, keep in mind that there aren’t that many Chabadniks around, and that there’s neon sign flashing over them. They’d just get a beard permit and ask for glatt kosher food, and *maybe* wear a specific type of yarmulke.
Andrew Brehm on July 3rd, 2007 9:37 am

“Practise before you preach. Tell me why those states are the member
of Organisation of Islamic conference. Why they are not expeled as
enemy of true islam. Do you know they are guiding force of muslim Umma.”

Yes, we know they are the “guiding force” of the “Umma”. That doesn’t make them any less heretical.

Islam is about following (the will of G-d), not about leading. And that is only one of the things that makes it look suspicious.

A true Muslim is a believer whose faith in G-d stands above his own interests or the interests of his family, tribe, or nation.

A true Muslim is a man who will publicly recite the fifth Sura, confirming that G-d told the Jews to live in the holy land and not to turn back, even though he knows that his fellow “Muslims” might kill him for his beliefs.

A true Muslim is willing to die for his faith, he shows at least as much faith as a Christian in Afghanistan.

A true Muslim is knowledgeable, well-read, and capable of defending the truth he believes in with arguments, because he knows that the truth will prevail for the power inherent in the word of G-d.

But a heretical Muslim is an egoist or nationalist, rejects the teachings he doesn’t like, murders for his convictions, and doesn’t read the very books he protests against.

And he believes that G-d is too weak to enforce His will by Himself.
Drima on July 3rd, 2007 9:42 am

“Do you know they are guiding force of muslim Umma.”

Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaight, Halim…

Muslim states, yes. Islamic states, no, not really…
Drima on July 3rd, 2007 9:49 am

Nabel1611, one part which I like about that article is the following:

“I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.”

If America and the UK withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistant today and if Israel withdraws fully from the West Bank and Gaza today, many many Muslims will be happy and will cool down. However…

There will always be a portion remaining who are pissed off and who will continue their offensive acts of aggression. For others it’s a matter of revenge/resistance a lot of the time but for these guys, it’s a matter of spreading their vision of Islam and establishing a world wide Caliphate. Nothing will please them, not even a Western pacifist foreign policy. They will only be pleased until they achieve their long term goal. Those kind of people are the real true headache. Most of the time, you simply can’t compromise with them.
Peter on July 3rd, 2007 10:09 am

Back to topic:
Its ironic how an old text supposed to be final can be intepreted in so many ways. Oh, the never ending discussion of the “true religious meaning” of some old text. To me as an outsider anyone who claim to be a muslim should be called a muslim. That seems to be the only polite thing to do. What is importent, is whether we share some basic values like democary, equality and non-violence. Here in Denmark leading imams just started to cooperate with Hizb-ut Tahrir. We all know what they think of jihad, infidels, jews… What I would like to know, is what the “silent majority” among muslims in Denmark (and elswhere) thinks.
Andrew Brehm on July 3rd, 2007 10:48 am

“If America and the UK withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistant today and if Israel withdraws fully from the West Bank and Gaza today, many many Muslims will be happy and will cool down.”

Those uninvolved might cool down. But many Muslims would die.

Hamas and the PLO would start slaughtering each other and the population as has happened before 1967 when Jordan was the de-jure ruler of the West Bank.

Sunnis and Shi’ites in Iraq would go back to the old ways, except that now the Sunnis are no longer in complete power which meant that both sides can kill a few hundred thousands of the other.

The Kurds will fortify their border even more and declare independence, fearing another gas attack once Arab Iraq sorted out who would be the new dictator.

And the Taliban would take over Afghanistan again and slaughter those who disagree.

It seems the choice for the west is between angry live Muslims and half happy Muslims, half dead Muslims. Unfortunately, for the west, the west is committed to supporting life.

“To me as an outsider anyone who claim to be a muslim should be called a muslim. That seems to be the only polite thing to do.”

I think it is very impolite to do that. You would put people who are proud of their faith in the same category as murderers.

“Muslim” has a definition: a “Muslim” is someone who submits to G-d’s will. The definition is NOT “someone who claims to be a Muslim”.

If I respect Islam, I will have to respect its definitions.

I respect Islam, NOT a pack of illiterate thugs who claim to be Muslims.

I think in the long run showing respect for a religion that is after all based on the teachings I acknowledge as part of the truth is more important than showing respect for people whose behaviour is clearly wrong (and goes against that very truth referred to above).
Andrew Brehm on July 3rd, 2007 11:26 am

http://michaelyon-online.com/wp/bless-the-beasts-and-children.htm

The article details what American and Iraqi soldiers found in an Iraqi village that was infested by Al-Qaeda, who claim they are Muslims.

Most of the Iraqi soldiers were probably Muslims. Some of the American soldiers might have been.

But considering the destruction and death Al-Qaeda left behind in that village, and everywhere they ever existed, I don’t think it would be right to call them “Muslims”, even if it might be impolite not to acknowledge their claim that they were.

I cannot in good conscience agree that the murderers of that village and the Iraqi soldiers who fought them are of the same mindset.
Peter on July 3rd, 2007 11:30 am

“If I respect Islam, I will have to respect its definitions.”

But what does it mean for someone to “submits to G-d’s will” ? I will leave that to those who claim to believe i G-d. Some of them obviously think thats what they are doing, when they blow themselves up.

I dont respect people, whose behaviour is clearly wrong. It always puzzeled me, how some muslims seem to think, they can bully others into respecting them. Respect is earned.
Roman Kalik on July 3rd, 2007 11:59 am

But what does it mean for someone to “submits to G-d’s will” ? I will leave that to those who claim to believe i G-d. Some of them obviously think thats what they are doing, when they blow themselves up.

The fact that they believe this does not mean that we have to believe this as well. I.E, believe that their beliefs are legitimate. Or sane, for that matter.
Andrew Brehm on July 3rd, 2007 12:02 pm

“But what does it mean for someone to “submits to G-d’s will” ? I will leave that to those who claim to believe i G-d.”

It depends on the god they claim to believe in. If somebody claims to believe in the god of Islam, they better follow at least one of the scriptures that allegedly reveal that particulart god’s will.

I think I believe that somebody submits to G-d’s will when I see him do something which is against his own interests or the interests of his family/tribe/nation and helps others because the holy scripture says he should do it.

As I said a Muslim who honours the right of the Jews to live in the holy land in the face of popular opposition is a true Muslim, because he has submitted to the will of G-d as revealed in the Qur’an and shown faith in G-d by doing so in the face of obvious danger. His faith is thus greater than his fear. That’s Islam.

“Some of them obviously think thats what they are doing, when they blow themselves up.”

Yes. And I do not doubt that they have a strong feith in _a_ god. It’s just not the god of Islam.

That’s why I tend to describe these people as pagans (as they believe in a god who is not the god of the Jewish people) or heretics (as they believe in a distorted version of that god).
Andrew Brehm on July 3rd, 2007 12:42 pm

“The fact that they believe this does not mean that we have to believe this as well. I.E, believe that their beliefs are legitimate. Or sane, for that matter.”

Exactly.

For example, I find the belief that Muhammed was the last prophet of G-d entirely sane, though I don’t share it.

But the belief that murdering Jews brings one closer to heaven doesn’t seem quite as sane.

Belief in a prophet is sane, belief in murder is not.
Peter on July 3rd, 2007 1:13 pm

I dont have a problem with people finding some personal, moral compass in an old text. But when it comes to public discourse we need rational, reasonable arguments. In Denmark an increasing number of immigrants from the middle east tend to refer to old texts, when they criticize and complaint about laws and cultural practices here. And that doesnt fly.

The “true religious meaning” of some old text reminds me of a Woody Allen movie, I once saw. Woodys psychologist gave him the Rorschach test. What he saw in the random inkblots was an elephant fornicating with a ping-pong table.
Andrew Brehm on July 3rd, 2007 1:31 pm

“But when it comes to public discourse we need rational, reasonable arguments.”

Ancient texts are a rational and reasonable argument when it comes to the rules we should live under.

All law, including western law, is based on ancient texts, be they the Bible, the Qur’an, or Roman legal theory.

Many ancient texts have very clear answers to problems that come up again and again, which is most countries do not make up laws and rules as they go along but base their legal system on existing frameworks. For example most of the English-speaking world use Germanic (common) law while most of Europe and the rest of the world use Roman (civil) law. Both law systems are, in effect, ancient texts. They were heavily modified, of course.

“In Denmark an increasing number of immigrants from the middle east tend to refer to old texts, when they criticize and complaint about laws and cultural practices here. And that doesnt fly.”

It does, although they must learn what old text to refer to. The Qur’an is simply not appropriate. In Denmark the ancient texts of relevance would be old Danish legal texts, probably old Scandinavian and German laws, Roman law, and, to an extent certainly, the Christian Bible; NOT the Qur’an.

Rejecting ancient texts is not reasonable. It is as irrational as rejecting a legal framework per se is, and anarchism is not rational as such.

Reason is here the ability to know which text to refer to, whether ancient or new.

When in doubt, I prefer the older, more established work; because nothing is more valuable than an existing set of rules one can rely on.

And that’s what Abrahamic religions are: rules. The Tora was a legal text, it still is in some countries where relevant. The Qur’an is a collection of laws as well. (But ignoring them and claiming that one follows them is not the same as referring to an ancient text.)
Halim Kazi on July 3rd, 2007 1:40 pm

“Yes, we know they are the “guiding force” of the “Umma”. That doesn’t make them any less heretical.

Islam is about following (the will of G-d), not about leading. And that is only one of the things that makes it look suspicious”.

Hi Andrew, You are lebelling them as heretical drifted away from the teaching of islam. The teaching of islam means to me the commandment of Allah and his messanger prophet Mohammad.
Same argument is very easily applicable to you as heretic distorting
the true message of god(Allah) and leading islam to ashtray. Yes
they will accept your islam is true if you could show them a authorisation endorsing your way from your Lord Allah. Give a try.
Andrew Brehm on July 3rd, 2007 1:55 pm

“Hi Andrew, You are lebelling them as heretical drifted away from the teaching of islam.”

Yes.

“The teaching of islam means to me the commandment of Allah and his messanger prophet Mohammad.”

Right.

“Same argument is very easily applicable to you as heretic distorting
the true message of god(Allah) and leading islam to ashtray.”

True.

“Yes they will accept your islam is true if you could show them a authorisation endorsing your way from your Lord Allah. Give a try.”

I don’t believe Islam is true and I have never claimed that I was a Muslim.

What I believe in is what Muhammed has said is distorted but acceptable, so from an Islamic point of view I am fine. And yes, I could point you to the authorisation. It’s in the Qur’an.

However, the claim that Jews must not settle in “Palestine” is not in the Qur’an, neither is the term “Palestine” to describe the region (but the term “Israel” in relation to the region is used). What is in the Qur’an is the story of G-d telling the Jews to settle in the land and not retreat.

An individual who is neither Muslim nor Jew or Christian or an adherent of another revealed monotheistic religion is an infidel or pagan.

An individual who claims to be Muslim but distorts or ignores the Qur’an is a heretic.

Judaism and Christianity are certainly heretical in parts according to Islamic teaching, HOWEVER, the Qur’an specifically lists them as acceptable (there is your authorisation) and merely forbids Muslims to take Jews or Christians as mentors (presumably in matters of claims that Islam is wrong, since Muhammed himself has accepted Jewish and Christian teachings when they did not contradict what he believed was the truth).

So, sorry, my friend, I have the authorisation. But where is the written permission for the Wahabis to take away the right of the Jews to live in the land of Israel or the written permission for Iran’s mullahs to advocate the expelling of those Jews to Europe and America?

If you want to see an authorisation from me for my views, would you not require authorisation to accept their views as well?

The authorisation:

“And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our God and your God is One, and to Him do we submit.” 29:46
Peter on July 3rd, 2007 2:43 pm

“Rejecting ancient texts is not reasonable. It is as irrational as rejecting a legal framework per se is”

The danish constitution was changed in 1241, 1665, 1849, 1915 and 1955. Currently the need for a new version is debated. In general its a move from religious legitimacy to modern, liberal values. Today everybody agrees, that laws are manmade and legitimacy is based on the political proces and consensus.
So in a way old texts have been rejected. For example: Back in the 17. century a married woman had to carry a scarf as a symbol of submission to her husband. This law was backed by interpretations of “old religious texts”. Today this sounds completely rediculous, and nobody subscribe to this view. Exept of the muslim emmigrants of course, who try to take us back in time.
Andrew Brehm on July 3rd, 2007 3:15 pm

Peter, you are not getting my point.

I am not saying that we must adhere to ancient texts. I am saying that “ancient” is not an attribute that makes a text less relevant or legitimate.

I am sure Danish law never changed the basic idea of “do not murder” or “do not steal”, even though they are, as laws, ancient.

Danmark also has a state motto that includes the phrase “The Help of God”, which I very much believe is a reference to an ancient text that comes from a very different country too. I don’t see the motto as unreasonable, unless you want to argue that only atheism is reasonable?
Howie on July 3rd, 2007 3:54 pm

AB-

“I respect Islam, NOT a pack of illiterate thugs who claim to be Muslims.”

Why do people think that somehow education makes folks better people? The father of the Muslim Brotherhood was an MD…apparently 4 of the guys involved in the latest British thing were MD’s.

I was thinking about it today…brilliant minds can have some pretty scary ideas, and Islam does not have the market cornered on brilliant minds with terrible ideas…but they do lead the market in turning bad thoughts into terror these days.

Oh…and these brilliant minds often seem to have a way to get more simple minds to do the dirty work for them…but we have discussed that already i think.
Andrew Brehm on July 3rd, 2007 4:56 pm

“Why do people think that somehow education makes folks better people?”

I don’t think that. But I still respect Islam more than a pack of illiterate thugs who claim to be Muslims.

That doesn’t mean that I _generally_ or in all possible cases always believe that the more educated person is “better” than the other.
Peter on July 3rd, 2007 5:20 pm

Andrew Brehm:
“unless you want to argue that only atheism is reasonable?”

No I dont.
But I want to argue, that noone should impose their personel interpretations of religion on others in an authoritarian way. Enough of that.

By the way, I think its funny, you know the true Islamic point of view given the fact, that muslims dont seem to agree on that.

And then again, I know what its like. I hear Elvis’ voice. He has left to “the other side” and is singing from the back of the moon. He wants me to tell you, that he has special plans for you regarding how to eat, dress, live your lives etc. I will get back with further instuctions. Until then just remember: love and forgive each other.
Howie on July 3rd, 2007 5:36 pm

“However, the claim that Jews must not settle in “Palestine” is not in the Qur’an, neither is the term “Palestine” to describe the region (but the term “Israel” in relation to the region is used). What is in the Qur’an is the story of G-d telling the Jews to settle in the land and not retreat.”

Not quite right…I have read it with my own eyes…though I don’t remember where in the Koran…but there is a CLEAR reference along the lines of “the Jews should go back to or live in their land”.

Of course, everybody could argue about where “their land” is…like maybe Mohamed was referring to Manhattan…but in the 626 or whatever…where WERE they referrning to? Geez.

Issue is…you can take old text, new text, Beatle songs (ala Charles Manson) and pretty much do what you want with them…you can interpret them to support goodness and, obviously, interpret them to do bad. Jews have done both, as have Christians, Muslims and whomever. Ain’t nothing new there.

Peter…got any big problem with say…the 10 Commandments? Picture a world where people just tried real hard with those 10 ideas only…even say…8 of em
Andrew Brehm on July 3rd, 2007 5:57 pm

“Not quite right…I have read it with my own eyes…though I don’t remember where in the Koran…but there is a CLEAR reference along the lines of “the Jews should go back to or live in their land”.”

I don’t remember that part, but I do remember that the Qur’an is quite clear about where “their land” is.

If the Qur’an also says that the Jews should go back to or live in their land, after telling us that the land of the Jews is the land Moses led them to, then the militant Zionists are quite right, from a Muslim point of view.

“And when Moses said to his people: ‘O my people, call in remembrance the favour of God unto you, when he produced prophets among you, made you kings, and gave to you what He had not given to any other among the peoples. O my people, enter the Holy Land which God has assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin.’” [Qur’an 5:20-21]

The point is that the idea that the Jews should live in the region around Jerusalem is an integral part of Abrahamic religions, even Zoroastrianism features the belief (Zoroastrianism is philosophically close to the religion of Abraham).

That legend is told in the Tora and the Qur’an and was a constant in the monotheists’ fight against other powers.

For a self pro-claimed Muslim to reject a basic principle of Abrahamic faith, a principle referred to and re-affirmed in the Qur’an _is_ heresy.

And you will find that Sunnis did not, traditionally, oppose Zionism, but have only done so after being influenced by Wahabism and Arab nationalism (which is a secular philosophy) and also that Shiites did not, traditionally, oppose Zionism, but have only done so after the new Iranian version of Shiism has spread. (The Shiites of Lebanon were very supportive of Israel until Israel misbehaved towards them and they turned to Iran). Iran used to support Israel before the revolution.

Islam’s traditional position on Zionism was the call for the Jews to return as their exile was over.

And that’s why I think that Wahabism and the new Iranian Shiism are heresies. And that view about Wahabism is not new. T.S. Lawrence wrote about it and did Sunni scholars before the 1950s.
The Raccoon on July 3rd, 2007 6:42 pm

Andrew -

You are a part of a society if you and the majority of the said society consider you to be a part of it.

Ergo, Wahabis and Salafis are Muslims. Alawis are not.

It’s not up to you to decide who’s a Muslim and who is not, mate… unless you’re a new prophet of Islam?
Peter on July 3rd, 2007 7:44 pm

I’m delighted to tell you, that the Only-One-And-Only Elsvis (OOAO) has been singing again.

He (OOAO) claims, he (OOAO) is a parasite on the cognitive evolution. He (OOAO) also claims, I made him up im my own image (LOL). And now he (OOAO) insists, he (OOAO) is a projection of, what I think, other people think.
I think he (OOAO) is angry at me, so I must try to improve.

I asked him (OOAO) about the 10 commandments, Howie, but all he (OOAO)sang was “oh why dont you grow up and figure it out yourself. Talk to the others, discuss stuff and make an agreement. It should not be that difficult. Remember you are all humans”.

And then he (OOAO) suddently stopped singing. I feel kind of lonely.
Halim Kazi on July 3rd, 2007 7:45 pm

“So, sorry, my friend, I have the authorisation. But where is the written permission for the Wahabis to take away the right of the Jews to live in the land of Israel or the written permission for Iran’s mullahs to advocate the expelling of those Jews to Europe and America?

If you want to see an authorisation from me for my views, would you not require authorisation to accept their views as well?”

Exactly, in the same manner they claim they have authorisation from
God’s book ‘ The Holy Kuran.’ Just they are following the ultimate mandate of Kuran.. Now if you claim you are right and they are wrong you need to bring the author of the book by your side. He is the arbitrator to decide who is right and who is wrong. You speak so volume about Him it seems to me you just finished breakfast with him.

“you will find that Sunnis did not, traditionally, oppose Zionism, but have only done so after being influenced by Wahabism and Arab nationalism (which is a secular philosophy) and also that Shiites did not, traditionally, oppose Zionism, but have only done so after the new Iranian version of Shiism has spread. (The Shiites of Lebanon were very supportive of Israel until Israel misbehaved towards them and they turned to Iran). Iran used to support Israel before the revolution.”

Not quiet so. Since the inception of Israel in 1948, not a single muslim majority nation recognised the existence of Israel by establishing diplomatic relation. In 1964, Yasar Arafat formed PLO with a single minded goal to eliminate Israel from the land of islamic
Palestine.At that time Gaza and West Bank was part of Egypt and Jordan. There is nothing to claim as Wahbism. Abdul wahbi is the
interprator of islamic text Kuran. Exactly like you here interpreting
God’s book. You did not like his interpretation so sling mud on him.
Roman Kalik on July 3rd, 2007 9:25 pm

Um, we did have secret diplomatic communications with Jordan for a very long time. Jordan couldn’t formalize relations with Israel because of the Arab world, not the Muslim world. Pan-Arabism was the one to mark Israel as an enemy.
Andrew Brehm on July 3rd, 2007 10:17 pm

“Exactly, in the same manner they claim they have authorisation from
God’s book ‘ The Holy Kuran.’ Just they are following the ultimate mandate of Kuran.. Now if you claim you are right and they are wrong you need to bring the author of the book by your side. He is the arbitrator to decide who is right and who is wrong. You speak so volume about Him it seems to me you just finished breakfast with him.”

I read his book. I don’t care about claimed authorisations. I am perfectly capable of checking whether somebody tells the truth or not.

If somebody tells me that book X says Y and I read it and know it doesn’t, I have my answer. And there is no reason on earth that I should pretend that book X says Y anyway, just because some guy claims such.

You seem to have misunderstood my point. It was not about the ability to make claims, it was about the ability to read.

“Since the inception of Israel in 1948, not a single muslim majority nation recognised the existence of Israel by establishing diplomatic relation.”

That’s not true. Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, all the Muslim countries of the former Soviet Union, Albania, Bosnia, Mauretania, they all have diplomatic relations with Israel. And Morocco and Qatar have trade offices. Iran had diplomatic relations until the pagans took over.

Perhaps you meant that most Arab countries, and especially those which were ruled by secular rulers have no relations with Israel? But then you would prove my point: that anti-Zionism is a secular, not an Islamic position.

The King of Hejaz had an agreement with the founders of Israel. That would have been diplomatic relations had Arabia not fallen to the Wahabi heresy and had the cities of Mecca and Medina not been lost my the Hashemites, of Muhammed’s clan and traditional rulers of the holy cities.

I wonder where you got your information from.

The word “Palestine” that is used by Israel’s enemies should give you a hint. The Qur’an doesn’t call it “Palestine”. Muhammed did not call it “Palestine”. “Palestine” was the word the enemies of the one true G-d gave to the country to erase its connection with G-d. The Roman Empire, which Muhammed so produly announced was defeated, the pagan Roman Empire named the land “Palestine”.

Before that it was Israel (and Judaea) and now it is again.

“Abdul wahbi is the interprator of islamic text Kuran. Exactly like you here interpreting
God’s book. You did not like his interpretation so sling mud on him.”

As did T.S. Lawrence and countless Sunni scholars. Abdul Wahab did not “interpret” the Qur’an, he made stuff up. And without oil Saudi Arabia would never had had the money to spread that nonsense.

Think, think. Don’t just assume that all opinions have the same claim to the truth. They do not.

The facts are these:

1. The land was called Israel before pagans named it Palestine.

2. Islam, as all Abrahamic religions plus Zoroastrianism, acknowledges the Jewish claim to the land.

3. The last sharif of Mecca acknowledged the Jewish claim to the land.

4. The Qur’an acknowledges the Jewish claim to the land. As does the Torah and hence the Christian Bible.

5. Denying that fact is NOT an “interpretation”, it is a simple lie and can be easily disproved just by picking up a copy of the Qur’an and studying it.

6. Muslim majority countries, chiefly those who were outside the influence of secular Arab nationalism and the Wahabi heresy had and have diplomatic relations with Israel.

7. Arab countries governed by non-nationalist non-Wahabi rulers have ties with Israel. Jordan has helped Israel several times (and vice versa).

8. Israel’s enemy is not “Islam” but Arab nationalism and the two heresies. Islam has not traditionally rejected the Jewish claim to the land nor has Islam ever fought the Jews before Arab nationalism and the Wahabi heresy took hold.

Feel free to disprove any of these claims. But I can already tell you that you cannot.

You can verify the above by reading the Torah, the Qur’an, history books, and whatever source you want to use about diplomatic relations (Wikipedia ought to be good enough).

I also feel that Iraqi Kurdistan, should it declare independence, would have normal relations with Israel.
Andrew Brehm on July 3rd, 2007 10:18 pm

“Exactly like you here interpreting God’s book.”

a) I did not claim that the Qur’an is His book.

b) I did not interpret, I quoted.
Andrew Brehm on July 3rd, 2007 10:23 pm

“You are a part of a society if you and the majority of the said society consider you to be a part of it.”

I don’t think Muslim society and the Muslim faith are the same thing.

If you and I and millions others believed we were rabbits, that wouldn’t make us rabbits. And neither would anybody else we think of as a rabbit be a rabbit.

Any biologist or interested party with a biology book could prove us wrong.

We would be the rabbit society, I suppose, but we wouldn’t be rabbits.
salman on July 3rd, 2007 10:42 pm

These attacks are happening for a reason, they are not happening in a vacuum. It’s important to understand the context. The “filthy butchers” you are referring to didn’t wake up suddenly and decided to unleash their anger at whomever is around.

One of the guys arrested was an Iraqi whose family/friends have been slaughtered in Iraq.
ratedr on July 3rd, 2007 11:52 pm

Indeed Salman so why weren’t these terrorists targetting other muslims. It is mostly muslims killing muslims in Iraq. Btw Hey Drima!!!
Andrew Brehm on July 4th, 2007 8:54 am

“These attacks are happening for a reason,”

Of course they are. Sunnis hate Shiites, Shiites hate Sunnis, and both often believe that killing a Jew is a gateway to heaven.

“they are not happening in a vacuum. It’s important to understand the context.”

We understand the context. Poor, desperate people in Africa don’t commit terror attacks. But “Muslim” fundamentalists and Arab fascists do.

There’s your context. Heresy and fascism cause violence. Always.
ImNotSleeping on July 4th, 2007 1:05 pm

bin laden DID NOT bring those towers down, when the hell are people going to realize that? go watch the collapsing videos by yourself and tell me there was no bombs inside the buildings, if you couldn’t see them then your blind. wake up yall, they make mad money while you people are blaming the wrong group, and the more you get angry and blame that group, this group will get angry too and start blaming you instead of your corrupted goverments.. and they don’t care if you call them “islamic fascists”, cuz you’re a fascist too in their eyes.
Andrew Brehm on July 4th, 2007 1:16 pm

“bin laden DID NOT bring those towers down, when the hell are people going to realize that?”

As soon as he stops claiming that he did it.

“go watch the collapsing videos by yourself and tell me there was no bombs inside the buildings, if you couldn’t see them then your blind.”

You saw bombs in the buildings?
ImNotSleeping on July 4th, 2007 2:02 pm

lol, yeah right.. then why did he deny it in his FIRST message to Al-Jazeera that you probably didnt see?
then suddenly, US army said they found a video tape in an abandoned house in Afghanistan, they must think we’re really stupid..
instead of asking me, go and look for yourself.. or wait, when did a plane hit a building and caused it to collapse? the empire state building was hit by a B52 (that’s a real big pane btw) and it didnt turn to dust like the twin towers. comon, the twin towers turned to DUST. they said its the fire that caused the collapse, well, some buildings BURNED for DAYS and didn’t collapse like that. how can that happen from a plane crash on the 100s floors? what caused the lower floors to collapse like that? the section that was hit by the planes is the only section that supposed to collapse, the sections under it where supposed to stop it, but nah, it all went down in a FREE FALL SPEED.. its only a clicks away, watch some videos on youtube, maybe this will shed some light
http://youtube.com/watch?v=X2aJSbSX-Kw&mode=related&search=

funny thing is, bush said he saw the attacks on first tower on tv on 9/11.. lol, footage wasn’t aired untill the next day, where did he see it?
DZA on July 4th, 2007 2:20 pm

Andrew Brehm:
You can verify the above by reading the Torah, the Qur’an, history books, and whatever source you want to use about diplomatic relations (Wikipedia ought to be good enough).

one of my favorite books
http://www.amazon.com/Invention-Ancient-Israel-Silencing-Palestinian/dp/0415107598

your land huh? what happened in Palestine, and what is still going on is the same thing that happened when the spaniards came to the so-called Americas.
Andrew Brehm on July 4th, 2007 2:20 pm

a) I have no idea how the Americans could arrive at the conclusion that you are really stupid.

b) I don’t believe that the Americans or Zionists or Green Dwarfs or Freemasons (or whoever you want to blame) are not capable of destroying a building in such a way that YOU cannot tell they did it.

c) I saw the attacks on TV that same day too.

d) The people who escaped the towers saw the planes. They did not, however, notice any internal explosions or bombs.

e) Read the comments for the video you link to. The people explain everything nicely and I am sure if you pay some attention you will understand it. The theme seems to be that things break if you throw stuff at them.
ImNotSleeping on July 4th, 2007 2:39 pm

lol, you saw the attacks on TV? how the hell u saw it? the only attacks shown on 9/11 was the attack on the second tower. the first tower wasn’t shown that day you idiot.
and no i dont blame the freemasons or anyone, cuz its obvious who we should blame. the people who are using the attacks as a reason to go to war. the people behind the War on Terror. and of course ignorants like you should be blamed too.
you’re (D) is funny, cuz almost every eye witness said that he heared “several explosions” .. you know what, can you just explain to me what made the debris fly that way? or at least explain me what caused tower number 7 to collapse, it wasn’t hit by a plane you know? it just collapsed like any other building under controlled demolition. and i dont need to read people’s comments, the video is clear. there’s something else going on, and its not a plane hijacked by arabs. wake up fool
Andrew Brehm on July 4th, 2007 3:17 pm

Oh, boy, DZA…

Do read the Qur’an, please! Reading about it is not enough. The Qur’an does not differentiate between the Jews and the “sons of Israel” and the Quraish are NOT Jews (they are an Arab tribe originally from the Mecca region). I assume the rest of the book is almost as well-researched as the parts commented on on Amazon.

I’m afraid your comparison doesn’t work either. The Indians never tried to exterminate the Spaniards. And if you think that the Jews, a Semitic-speaking people, are not from the same region as the other Semitic speaking peoples, you will have some explaining to do.

Please, do use sources, not fantasy books for your argument. We already have one 911 nutter here.

If you read old texts you will find that Hebrew and Arabic texts speak of the land as Jewish land, that scriptures found from 2300 years who in the region are written in Hebrew, that the Roman Empire fought _Jews_ in Israel (not “Palestinians”) and that the Babylonians exiled the _Jews_ from Israel, not the “Palestinians”.

Yes, it is Jewish land. It always was, it always will be. The Tora, the Bible, the Qur’an say so, the Roman Empire found the land as Jewish land, and history tells of Jewish tribes living there.

Why else would Arabs fear archaelogists?
Halim Kazi on July 4th, 2007 3:21 pm

“I did not claim that the Qur’an is His book.

b) I did not interpret, I quoted.:

No where you mentioned somebody else authored the book. Indication everywhere in your writing that Mr God( Allah) authored the book. Don’t fool yourself.
Notonly you quote, you interpret and drawing conclusion in your way.
You picking up some sugar coated Meccan verses to validate your point and keeping yourself totally blind to latter Medinan verses.
My point is don’t insult them as heresies, pagan, fascists, terrosists.
Recognise them as muslims following Kuran and sunnah.

“The land was called Israel before pagans named it Palestine.”

You right. The northern 10 tribes called the ‘ House of Israel’. The southern tribes the “House of Judah” or Jews.

” Muslim majority countries, chiefly those who were outside the influence of secular Arab nationalism and the Wahabi heresy had and have diplomatic relations with Israel.”

Muslim majority nation in south east Asia like Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Malayasia till today has no diplomaic relation with Israel.
The citizen of those nation barred from visiting Israel. By the intense pressure from muslim minority’ India followed the same route. Your argument that Arab nationalism, wahbism, Khomenism is only barrier
holds no water. Islam and islamic brotherhood has enormous influence in shaping the anti-israeli centiment within global muslim
population. Here you trying to hide this hard fact under the carpet by blaming Arab nationalism, wahbism so and so. Hey, hey, hey.
Andrew Brehm on July 4th, 2007 3:30 pm

“lol, you saw the attacks on TV?”

Yes.

“how the hell u saw it?”

Turns out many television stations have cameras in NY.

“the only attacks shown on 9/11 was the attack on the second tower. the first tower wasn’t shown that day you idiot.”

It might have escaped your investigations that the first tower fell after the second tower.

Instead of laughing at George Bush for talking about seeing the first tower fall, you should have taken the clue and perhaps read about the towers.

In short 1 World Trade Center was the northern tower and 2 World Trade Center was the southern tower. The first tower fell after the second and it was shown on television just like you quote George Bush saying.

You have no reason to assume that George Bush would YOUR numbering rather than the normal numbering other than you want him to have made a mistake.

Now, as for the coincidence of a few Arabs stealing aircraft and flying them into several buildings on the very day the American government (or whoever) wanted to blow up the WTC, I leave that to your fellow conspiracy theorists to explain.

And if you think that the government instigated this to start a war you will also have to explain why the Bush administration would have wanted a war. Afghanistan is not a rich country, neither is Iraq (the value of oil is misunderstood by those who fail to compare GDPs between countries).

Perhaps the towers were destroyed by the Kurds or Iraqi Shi’ites or the women in Afghanistan? There are many groups who have real reasons to want a war against the pervious Iraqi and Afghani governments. George Bush was not among them.
Andrew Brehm on July 4th, 2007 3:54 pm

“No where you mentioned somebody else authored the book.”

I mentioned what book I am talking about. I did not assign an author to it.

“You picking up some sugar coated Meccan verses to validate your point and keeping yourself totally blind to latter Medinan verses.”

What makes the verse “sugar-coated”? Did G-d or whoever wrote the Quran sugar-quote a few verses? That I keep myself blind to the later verses is your claim, not a proven point. I am not aware of any later verses that contradict the statements about Israel in sura 5. Feel free to quote.

“My point is don’t insult them as heresies, pagan, fascists, terrosists.”

Why not?

“Recognise them as muslims following Kuran and sunnah.”

I will when they do.

But if they pick and choose, you can hardly expect me to recognise them as Muslims.

Listen, you asked me for authorisation for my own belief, which is not identical with Islam, and I gave you the authorisation. The Qur’an specifically says that my religion is acceptable.

Feel free to provide authorisation for the Wahabi heresy, like a verse that would say that it is acceptable to ignore sura 5 or something like that.

“By the intense pressure from muslim minority’ India followed the same route.”

Indian citizens can visit Israel.

“Your argument that Arab nationalism, wahbism, Khomenism is only barrier holds no water. Islam and islamic brotherhood has enormous influence in shaping the anti-israeli centiment within global muslim population.”

I never said that I consider the “Muslim brotherhood” to be true Muslims either. Again, I only accept as Muslims those who follow the Qur’an, never those who ignore or reject certain statements in the Qur’an. If the “Muslim brotherhood” teaches people that the Jews do not have the right to the land of Israel, that doesn’t make the right less valid, but the brotherhood less Islamic.

But regardless, it is still true that those Muslim countries that were NOT under Arab nationalist or Wahabi or Khomeini influence have diplomatic relations with Israel.

You were simply wrong about no Muslim country having diplomatic relations with Israel.

Again:

The king of Hejaz had an agreement with the Zionists.

Pre-Khomeini Iran had diplomatic relations with Israel.

The Muslim countries that were once part of the Soviet Union have relations with Israel.

Turkey has relations with Israel.

Jordan and Egypt and Mauritania have relations with Israel. Morocco has trade relations. Tunisia allows Tunisian Jews to visit Tunisia on Israeli passports.

It is ONLY those “Muslim” countries that have been influenced by one of the heresies or secular Arab nationalism that follow the principle that Jews do not have a right to live in Israel.

Your claim that no Muslim country has relations with Israel or that a later verse in the Qur’an somehow allows Muslims to ignore earlier verses is not a very good argument. The first is simply wrong, the second is strange, to say the least.

To summarise:

1. I will NOT recognise as Muslims those who do not follow the Qur’an on the subject of who owns the land of Israel.

2. I do see the source of “Muslim” anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism coming from Arab nationalism and the Wahabi and other heresies.

Point number 1 appears to be a matter of opinion, but I find it odd that you wanted see an authorisation for my beliefs, but not for Wahabi beliefs.

Point number 2 is either true or not. Feel free to provide sources that prove that those Muslims that follow sura 5 as well as the rest of the Qur’an have traditionally, i.e. before Arab nationalism, Wahabiism, and Khomeini, opposed the Jews’ claim to the land of Israel.

Listing south-Asian nations is fine but doesn’t prove anything. I didn’t claim that Indonesia supports the Jews’ right to the land, I claimed that the Qur’an does. Telling me that Indonesia doesn’t support Israel, doesn’t change anything.

You should also take into account that the traditional Muslim sects disagreed about principles established after the Qur’an, not about principles listed in the Qur’an. But you are arguing that those who don’t follow the Qur’an can still be Muslims, if they are only “leading”. But that is wrong.

A Muslim is somebody who believes everything that’s in the Qur’an, because Muslims believe that the Qur’an is the word of G-d. Quote a random statement from the Qur’an (in context, obviously). A Muslim would sign and support all of them, even the ones that permit Judaism and Christianity and the Jewish right to the holy land.

A heretic, on the other hand, will reject certain statements.
Andrew Brehm on July 4th, 2007 4:11 pm

“My point is don’t insult them as heresies, pagan, fascists, terrosists.
Recognise them as muslims following Kuran and sunnah.”

If somebody calls himself a Muslim but ignores basic principles of his faith, he is a heretic.

If somebody idolises Muhammed as those who get so angry when somebody insults an individual who is, after all, a human being, I call him a pagan.

If somebody is a fascist, like an Arab or German nationalist, I call him a fascist.

If somebody attacks civilians for political purposes, I call him a terrorist.

Calling any of these people “Muslim” is too big an insult for a faith that is, after all, based on the same basic ideas that I believe in.
Halim Kazi on July 4th, 2007 4:22 pm

“Now, as for the coincidence of a few Arabs stealing aircraft and flying them into several buildings on the very day the American government (or whoever) wanted to blow up the WTC, I leave that to your fellow conspiracy theorists to explain.

And if you think that the government instigated this to start a war you will also have to explain why the Bush administration would have wanted a war. Afghanistan is not a rich country, neither is Iraq (the value of oil is misunderstood by those who fail to compare GDPs between countries).

Perhaps the towers were destroyed by the Kurds or Iraqi Shi’ites or the women in Afghanistan? There are many groups who have real reasons to want a war against the pervious Iraqi and Afghani governments. George Bush was not among them.”

Hi Andrew, Don’t argue with those nuts. Soon after 9/11 the far leftist,
communist picked up the tragic event and hatched conspiracy theories with a sole aim to sell it muslim and Arab world. The clique
worked boundless. Arab and muslims instantly swallowed it. There are lots other conspiracy theories hatched and sold to muslims

1) Jews are behind birth of communism. 2) American crusader are
behind the rise of Khomeni.3) The rise of Osama, Aymen, Mullah Omar,Abu musa Zakariya is the brain child of zionist.. 4) Taliban is created, organised, financed by American Zionist to destroy islam.4)
US invaded Iraq, Afganisthan to plunder oil and opium resources.
The far left knows the idiocy of Arabs. Now they are happily riding on the horse of the sons of Ismahal. Look at George Gallaway, how he is
ripping of the Arabs and muslims. The far left has their political mission and goals and they need fundamentalist muslims very badly.
Andrew Brehm on July 4th, 2007 4:30 pm

“Hi Andrew, Don’t argue with those nuts.”

Yeah, you are right. I have let them suck me into their game.

“There are lots other conspiracy theories hatched and sold to muslims”

True enough.
Roman Kalik on July 4th, 2007 7:49 pm

Regarding India, as far as I know we not only have diplomatic relations, but also thriving trade and tourism with India.

As for 9/11, basic engineering (specifically the part that talks about critical frequencies) and a bit of knowledge about jet fuel are always good. But some really like self-victimization, it seems…
Halim Kazi on July 4th, 2007 9:08 pm

“Regarding India, as far as I know we not only have diplomatic relations, but also thriving trade and tourism with India”

Yes, diplomatic ties established since 1993 after the deal between Arafat and Robins. When jordon and other few Arab nation started to recognise Israel India grapsed the opportune moment and lifted the travel restriction. Majority nonmuslim Indian is very sympathetic to Israel and right wing political parties staunchly pro-israel. India enormously benifited from mutual relation with israel. Personally I firmly stand with Israel and I don’t care what this god that god told in Kuran,Bible, Zen Avesta. I stand on historical documents not on fairy tales of ancient scripture.
Andrew Brehm on July 5th, 2007 8:41 am

Halim, the Qur’an is a historical document.

I’m not saying that Israel is Jewish because the Tora/Bible/Qur’an says so.

I am saying that Islam acknowledges that the land of Israel belongs to the Jews. That is faith, not fact. I happen to believe it too, but it’s not an argument for or against Israel.

But it is an argument against heretical Muslims who try to base their anti-Semitism on their faith.

(Perhaps “rabbit society” is a good term for these people?)

Jordan had unofficial relations with the Zionists since before Israel existed.
conspiracy theorist on July 7th, 2007 8:18 am

loooool
jet fuel huh? half of the jet fuel as lost in the big faire ball at the second of impact.
so you really buy what the 9/11 commision said about the reason of collapsing, the fire, the heat caused the steel frames to melt and it collapsed. how freakin funny. never in history a building collapsed from fire. plus, if it was so hot at the impact point, how come there’s people there alive and waving, you didnt see that did u?
and why can’t u explain to me why the buildings fall in free fall speed, that’s just doesn’t make sense if the cause of collapse was a plane impact, the lower floors are supposed to slow down the floors above them, thats basic engineering.
why almost every eye witness said they heared multiple explosions?
what about the debris shattering INFRONT of your eyes in directions that are impossible if it was a simple plane crash.
how in gods name can a building turn to POWDER just cuz a plane hit it, why the empire state building didnt act like that?
who’s the head of security of WTC? its george bush’s brother, and every employee on WTC said there was suspecious work going on two weeks before the attacks.
and why did they got rid of bomb sniffing dogs before the attacks?
goverment 9/11 commission completely ignored that.
what caused building 7 to collapse?
did u even listen to the calls of those who were on flight 93? the plane that crashed in pennsylvania ? go ahead and listen to them and tell me that these people are acting like people whos their plane got hijacked..
USA got the best air defense system, why didnt they bring down the plane that hit the pentagon though it happened along time after they knew they’re “Under Attack”.

i can keep talking about that day for hours without mentionin anything related to conspiracy theories, all am talking about is questions that any person who loves truth would ask, but people who lives in denial will ignore it, basically cuz they know it won’t effect their lives since they are on the other side of “War on Terror”.. the war on terror that only started after 9/11, and caused innocent people to die in afghanistan and in iraq and god knows where else..
plus, calling these facts conspiracy theories shows how blind you are. i aint alex jones you ignorant.
Suzanne on July 7th, 2007 5:07 pm

@Imnotsleeping:

The plane that hit the Empire State building was NOT a B52, but a B25. The bomber.crashed in there in 1945.

to give you an idea of that particular plane:
http://images.google.nl/images?hl=nl&q=b25%20bomber&btnG=Zoeken&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi

As you can see it is NOT EVEN COMPARABLE to a boeing 757:
http://images.google.nl/images?hl=nl&q=boeing%20757&btnG=Zoeken&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi

And furthermore, even if they both were boeings, the results of damage netween the two different constructions can be different.
And why so? Simply because you cannot compare construction A to construction B if their construction is completely different but have one thing in common and that is height.
Suzanne on July 7th, 2007 5:13 pm

Explosions can have different causes and are not exclusively related to bombs or explosives.

Simple chloride can explode if you combine with other stuff. A whole bathroom was destroyed in Amsterdam after a nutcase was cleaing its toilet with the wrong stuff.
Suzanne on July 7th, 2007 5:14 pm

Oh. And the war on terror got its name after 11 september, but it sure existed before. Or you consider all terrorist attacks before 9/11 as not to have taken place? I guess you are the one living in denial. I feel pity for you.
The Raccoon on July 7th, 2007 5:37 pm

I am with Mr. Kazi on this
Andrew Brehm on July 7th, 2007 8:14 pm

Suzanne, it doesn’t matter what you tell them.

They STARTED with the “knowledge” that George Bush wanted a war in Afghanistan (why not?) and hence would destroy the WTC to start one (because that is apparently the obvious method to start wars in Afghanistan).

Once that conclusion was reached they just look for anything that supports their “argument”, no matter how made-up or idiotic.

If I had been the George Bush of their world, I would have wanted a war with some country that is not quite as remote and worthless as Afghanistan and I would have found some other reason. It’s not like there are not enough reasons to go to war around.

They conspiracy theorists have everything they need (since they accept absolutely anything as “proof”), can ignore everything they don’t need (they won’t even address it). The only thing they don’t have is a reason to pick the worst possible theory they can, but that’s what they did.

In fact, I have come up with a party game based on that. Tell one group to select a random tragic event from the news paper, tell another group to pick an agency (”The American government”, “The Zionists”, “The Queen”, “The CIA”, one of those), and then the entire party can try to find the weirdest possible explanation for why the agency picked caused the tragic event selected:

“The Zionists were trying to keep women out of big business by paying a lawyer to suggest to a blond business woman that she can drive without a licence if she is drunk enough…”

“The CIA invented Osama Bin Laden (come on, nobody has a beard like that!) to…” (I have no idea why… it’s not like there are not enough nutters to choose from in the middle east if one merely needs somebody to blame for a terror attack.)

“The Queen manoeuvred George Bush into the position of president of the US so her prime minister would look smarter.”

Once you get the hang of it you can come up with these four in a minute.
Bec on July 8th, 2007 2:13 am

This lady is like a breath of fresh air (in case you’d like one about now…)

Ishad Manji
Roman Kalik on July 8th, 2007 6:18 am

Halim, are from India, by chance?

As for yet another round of stupid conspiracy crap, I’ll address one lame aspect of it. Because I’m a little bored this morning.

and why can’t u explain to me why the buildings fall in free fall speed, that’s just doesn’t make sense if the cause of collapse was a plane impact, the lower floors are supposed to slow down the floors above them, thats basic engineering.

No, basic engineering says quite the opposite. Firstly, because the towers falling at free-fall speed is a myth. Unless, of course, the debris falling from the building as it was collapsing had rockets attached to them, what with them far out-pacing the fall of the building and all (note the mocking tone, *do* note the mocking tone).

Now that we have that amusing part behind us, allow me to explain something about Physics 101 to you. Say you have a building. Each floor in the building is built to support a certain mass. Say one floor crashes on another. Now, weaken the support of this floor that now holds the mass of two floors. It collapses, hitting the floor below with a much stronger force than before (the mass being double that of the previous impact).

Repeat until the impact force is strong enough to pancake floor after floor down. It’s quite simple, really, if you don’t look for conspiracies to satisfy your preconditioned opinions.

If you’d like a slightly more advanced explanation, the heat and not the pancaking was the main reason for the collapse. Which is to say, once the supports started collapsing in on themselves at the top, the pancaking became the inevitable by-product.

http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

Have fun!
Andrew Brehm on July 8th, 2007 9:19 am

Oh, come on, Roman, what do you know about collapsing buildings?

You are an engineering student after all, not a film star; hardly a typical source of information for a conspiracy nut.
Andrew Brehm on July 8th, 2007 9:21 am

Roman, please email me: ajbrehm@gmail.com.
Roman Kalik on July 8th, 2007 9:36 am

Oh, come on, Roman, what do you know about collapsing buildings?

You are an engineering student after all, not a film star; hardly a typical source of information for a conspiracy nut.

Heh, so true.
Suzanne on July 8th, 2007 1:07 pm

So why does only Roman gets an invitation to e-mail you, Andrew?
Roman Kalik on July 8th, 2007 1:41 pm

And just as importantly, why isn’t there a reply?
Andrew Brehm on July 8th, 2007 1:50 pm

Suzanne, feel free to email me too.

ajbrehm@gmail.com

Roman, because I never received an email from you!
Roman Kalik on July 8th, 2007 1:57 pm

Well, I’ve just sent another one. Tell me how it goes.
Andrew Brehm on July 8th, 2007 2:23 pm

Amazing success!
Roman Kalik on July 8th, 2007 2:32 pm

Indeed.

Leave a Reply

The Sudanese Thinker

A sociopolitical blog on Sudan, the “crazy” Middle East, Africa, the United States, Islam and new media.
Ads
Blogroll
1- Islam
2- Sudanese News
3- Friends of Sudan
4- Sudanese Bloggers
5- Sudanese Stuff
6- Fun Reads
7- Middle East Blogs
8- Blogs on Africa
9- Muslims: Apostates & Converts
The Vast Spectrum
Categories
Recently Written
Archives

Hello!

Welcome to the blogging spot of a full time Sudanese-born college student and a part-time multi genre music producing freak, aspiring entrepreneur and political junkie.

WARNING: I’m very sarcastic!
Email Me

sudanesethinker@yahoo DOT com
I Write for Global Voices
I'm on Toot
Search
Just Practicing My Right

SUDANESE CONSTITUTION, PART TWO: BILL OF RIGHTS

Freedom of Expression and Media

39 (1) Every citizen shall have an unrestricted right to the freedom of expression, reception and dissemination of information, publication, and access to the press without prejudice to order, safety or public morals as determined by law.

(2) The State shall guarantee the freedom of the press and other media as shall be regulated by law in a democratic society.

(3) All media shall abide by professional ethics, shall refrain from inciting religious, ethnic, racial or cultural hatred and shall not agitate for violence or war.
Causes
I'm for Coexistance