well with all this talk about jihad and this and that, here's a poll let me preface with this: we've all heard a lot of well this isnt jihad, that isnt jihad. if america invades afghanistan, which is a muslim country, them defending themselves IS jihad, because they're being attacked. yes, before we all jump the gun on 'they should just give him up' number 1, i dont think it would make much of a difference, i think we'd have the war either way number 2, why is the us so intent on declaring war on them, just give taliban the evidence saying bin laden did it and they'll give him up. yes i know he's been indicted for the embassy bombings, but that just means theres enough evidence to goto trial. and 3, im about 90% sure on this one (altho i dont have a citation for it handy) when mullah omar said to the council of clerics to decide, he said he was going to follow their advice, so when they said bin laden SHOULD go, its pretty much the same as, ok he's leaving... but kinda take your time. personally, im against this war thing alltogether for the following reasons: 1. give up the evidence on bin laden, and problem is solved. if you dont have enough evidence, then declaring war is UNBELIEVABLY unjust. 2. its hypocritical, if we're wiping out all terrorism (as is the stated goal of this war) why are we still allies with israel? which brings us to the poll, as a muslim, i kind of see this as a way of seeing "where their islam really is" (ie abt afghanistan) because if the PEOPLE (not the govt) are good practicing muslims, who are now going to be unjustly attacked and oppressed are fighting back, then God WILL give them victory, i dont care how much u try to nuke them. so, if afghanistan wins, will you be convinced islam is the true religion?
Is the opposite true jamma34? If the Taliban is completely destroyed, what will your opinion be of Allah or Islam? I would think your opinion wouldn't change. BTW, I'd be glad to hear your true feelings on this matter. Rather than us dancing around about what Islam is or is not, or what Muslim Americans do or do not think about the US... what do you think about all of this? It wasn't too long ago that you completely defended the Taliban w/ all of your might. While they showed their true colors by destroying humanity's artifacts, or subjugating females... we played word games. Who would have thought those initial indicators would preface the killing of thousands of innocents in the World Trade Center. Also... do you think that the death of a Muslim is more horrific than the death of a non-Muslim? Is there a point in which guilt on the side of the Muslim would overwhelm your disgust with the infidels?
achebe, first, look what i said carefully, as for taliban, i still agree with their decision to be able to destroy the statues 100% about the women, their situation could be a lot better yes, but at the same time, it IS a lot better than it was BEFORE the taliban took over. also, lets get some things straight, the taliban did not carry out these attacks. in fact the actual suspects and ppl thought to have done it are some random egyptian and saudi guys LIVING IN THE US, not afghanis. there's "high suspicion" that bin laden was behind it, however bin laden is not the same as the taliban. the relationship of bin laden to the taliban is about the same as the unabomber's relationship to the us government. bin laden's a citizen there, and when they get the actual evidence proving he did something, they'll give him up. cant blame them for that can we? us govt would do the same. im not sure i quite understand what youre asking, can you clarify it a bit then ill try to answer.
Hardly. The una-bomber was taking out aggression on the figurines of US consumeristic culture. Bin Laden and the Taliban agree on everything. Bin Laden is a good Muslim in the eyes of the Taliban. The US government hunted down the Unabomber, kind of like the way the Taliban kills dissidents in the soccer stadium. A better analogy would be if Stormin' Norman started fighting his own wars with his own wealth (in line w/ US foreign policy) and the US refused to turn him over. That last question I asked had more fang than was probably necessary. I'll try to ask it in a better light: Is there a moral difference in the following three acts? a) a Muslim killing a Muslim. b) a Muslim killing a non-Muslim. c) a non-Muslim killing a Muslim. IMO, the answer would be no. I've read hints in your posts that you believe something else. Am I off base?
i think the taliban would hand over bin laden.. if given the proof. if they're given the proof and they still refuse to hand him over, then ill go back, but first establish the proof. innocent untilproven guilty right? they're all immoral unless justified. and by justified i mean: muslim killing a muslim if that muslim committed a murder or something that deserves the death penalty. muslim killing a nonmuslim if that nonmuslim is attacking him (ie afghanis killing american soldiers in defense of invasion) nonmuslim killing a muslim is the same as the above 2 killing is wrong no matter how you look at it. what the ppl did at wtc is wrong, however, going in and doing the same thing to some innocent afghanis isnt the way to rectify it.
Whoah now, jamma34. Your analogy with the unabomber/Bin Laden is way off. Bin Laden is worshipped as a hero over there. The US already confronted the Taliban with evidence linking Bin Laden to the Cole- more than once. The answer to our request for extradition was always a firm 'no.' In my opinion, the only reason the Taliban would hand him over is if they knew they would completely have their asses kicked otherwise and lose rulership. If they were given evidence, they wouldn't just hand him over and say "yeah, you know, we kinda thought he was a shady character. How did he get in here anyway?" Dude, the Taliban did not take one of the most politically and militarily important people in the region under their wing by accident. UBL's forces are and have been fighting the northern alliance because he supports the Taliban, and the Taliban support him. Are you clear on what the Taliban regime has done to the women there? If you are, I don't see how you could say 'yeah, but it's better than it was.'
The people of Afghanistan have been oppresed ever since the Taliban took over. There is no such thing as a true religion. Religion was created by man. Do you realize how many religions there are in the world today? And one final point: <b>There are no winners in war!!!</b>
ok man, if this was really about the uss cole, they would have invaded a loooong time ago. secondly about women: ok you got two options here: before taliban: women get no education women get raped left and right by random people after taliban women get no education women no longer getting raped left and right take your pick. (btw i still think it NEEDS TO improve a LOT, but it has improved significantly from what it was) and nolen, you're kinda missing it here, regardless of how the taliban reacts, establishing the proof is still necessary. if we go in and kill em all without the proof, then the american government is no different from the people who blew up wtc. bobfinn.. this whole no religion is the truth thing is another thread alltogether...
From my understanding, the Bush administration has already presented the proof to several governments. Is this not true?
bfinn.. correct me if im wrong, but except for atheists, pretty much everyone thinks thier religion is the true one right? anyway, here's a criteria ill give for determining it: first we agree there is a God (if you disagree here, which is what i assumed -- this this argument probably needs a different thread) secondly, if there is a God, He is Just. if He is Just, He will tell us why He created us. as far as i know (with the exception of some jewish sects) everyone who believes in God also believes in a heaven and a hell. so how do you figure out how to get to heaven and away from hell? well if He created us, He wont leave us in the dark, so we go and look for what he's revealed, what the prophets and messengers say, etc. then you more or less analyze which one is most correct, right?
LOL jamma34, that's sad. Here's the seemingly average Muslim take on the situation. #1. I condemn these attacks. #2-#150,000 Reasons why we deserved it and why we should not attack Afghanistan. LMAO The ironic thing about this is that if some American terrorists killed 7,000 Muslims in a terrorist attack, these supposedly peace loving Muslims would be out for blood like no other. Spare me...
i do condemn these attacks, and i also condemn the forthcoming invasion of afghanistan. i dont think we deserved it, i dont think ANYONE deserved it. the reason i condemn the wtc attacks is cuz they were WRONG. but on the other hand, attacking innocent afghanis is ALSO wrong. tough concept, i know, but you dont find it the least bit odd ppl's attitude these days is "killing civilians is wrong, lets turn around and do it to another country" nope, peace loving muslims like me would only want to get the ones responsible, and islamically, doing that means first we gotta have irrefutable proof proving someone did it, then you kill whoever's responsible for this kind of atrocity. us peace loving muslims would never call for bloodthirsty revenge like this. besides, everyone seems to be missing another point, im not buying this whole "war on terrorism" cuz if it was true, we'd be attacking afghanistan with one squadron and israel with another. but we're not. we support one group of terrorists and want to wipe out another. pretty fair right?
So, let me see if I understand where you are coming from. bin Laden and the Taliban are as one. bin Laden is a well known terrorist. A leader and hero to many muslims. In his eyes, America is evil. So in order for him and his follower to get to "heaven" he must destroy the "evil". F.D.Kahn's post is a very good read. And he is muslim.
I'm not sure anyone here has the intuition to "kill civilians". If US policy was to kill civilians, they would have done so by now. I trust that the Bush administration is hypersensitive to the image of attacking an Islamic country, so they're taking their due time. If this had been France, or Canada, or whomever... this 'war' would have been over 10 days ago.
You know why that is soooooooo hypocritical jamma? If an American terrorist flew a hijacked airliner into the biggest mosque in Mecca and killed everyone in sight, every Muslim nation in the Middle East would be out for blood talking Jihad this and Jihad that. Every single one. There would be riots, flag burning, hate crimes, all kinds of unbelievable things going on yet, the US must use restraint here because innocent people might die? Why haven't the Muslim nations of the world tried to stop terrorism before this if Islam is so peaceful and so forth? I don't think any Muslim nation has much right to question US retaliation when their own backyards are the world lab for terrorism. C'mon man...
im not sure where you get this from my posts. lets clarify, 1. bin laden and taliban are separate. not the same. 2. "bin laden feels to get to heaven he must destroy evil (america)" this quote is true, thats what bin laden feels. however, islamically thats wrong, and i in no way support his actions, or his methodology for that matter. go back and read my prev posts on this, and the thread about the statements of islamic scholars on this issue. if bin laden died fighting jihad sincerely, yes i think he'd goto heaven. but these kind of acts are not jihad. if some innocent afghanis die *defending* themselves, that IS jihad.
if thats true timing, why didnt it happen when hindu terrorist blew up the babari mosque in india? what about when sharon went to al-aqsa mosque (third holiest site in all of islam) and pronounced he was gonna take it over and build a jewish temple there? you know what IS soooooooo hypocritical though, is saying its ok to go kill innocent civilians.
