No, the thing is I totally agree about the religion just being used as an excuse. But the problem lies in the fact that there is a substantial subset of muslims that follow this extreme form of the religion that actually endorses and encourages these attacks. This is what the rest of us are worried about. We realize that the majority of muslims don't agree with these attacks and condemn them. However, we wish they would bring their condemnation out into the open. Many fundamentalist Christians claim to carry out attacks in the name of God. The vast majority of Christians don't agree with this but the fact remains that the people carrying out the attacks HONESTLY feel that's what God wants them to do. This is what we're worried about with regards to fundamental Islam. In both regards it is extremely dangerous because these people actually believe that this is what they're supposed to be doing. These are the type of Muslims that the rest of us are talking about. It's not the religion itself that most of us disagree with on the whole but the perverse fundamental version of it that's been adopted by those carrying out these attacks. To give these people a pass because it's been done by other religions is (in my opinion) the opposite of what we should be doing. We should seek to destroy religious fundamentalism of any sort (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc.) as it is extremely dangerous as it leaves no room for interpretation of any kind.
As stated by others, the issue is that most Muslim community leaders do not appear to do enough to condemn acts of Islamic militant terrorism. After the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks, many were and still are in a state of denial - claiming it to be an American-Zionist plot to denigrate Muslims. Many of the mosques in the UK are controlled by radicals who want to see nothing less than the destruction of western pluralistic liberal values which they find abhorrent and decadent. There are documented cases of indoctrinated British Pakistani Muslims guys making the trip to Afghanistan to join the Taliban. Omar Bakri, head of recently disbanded Al Muhajiroun group, is one of most notorious UK-based advocates of international jihad, and has used online chat websites to declare war on Britain. Sheikh Abu Hamza is another leader who has declared jihad on Britain. Not all Muslims are terrrorists, but right now, it would appear that all terrorists are Muslims. Some more info on Omar Bakri: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/05/wosse705.xml Some more info on Abu Hamza: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3752517.stm http://observer.guardian.co.uk/islam/story/0,1442,577943,00.html
They have to get them out to all the people that need them so the easiest way is to publish them. Remember, as citizens we don't necessarily have to do anything but we should probably be aware when the threat is higher so that we actually pay attention in case instructions come down. Besides, by publishing the threats it makes the government look like its doing something. If they didn't publish them people would complain that they were hiding "the truth". Of course, I'm just guessing here. You all could be right and it could just be stupid. I think France has a similar system, btw...
What an asinine statement. It is like saying: "I am not saying Omar Qadafi of Libya was RESPONSIBLE ( fill in any leader or country) for 9/11, however he not a hindrance and it's possible that he was a resource for the attackers" Give it up. Bush largely has, except for hints to the uniformed. Why not go with the love of Iraqi democracy angle? It is less ridiculous.
Oh well yes sir! I bow before your infinite wisdom! How dare a plebian like myself engage in any conduct contrary to the beliefs of someone so learned in the ways of the world.
NJRocket has shown over and over again that he is a anti-Muslim bigot of the crudest type. Maybe he feels that this is pro Zionist or something. this seems to go beyond the typical loyal Bush supporter. Anybody know what his deal is?
basso, this same tired reason is trotted out whenever this subject comes up. The Bush Administartion lied before and after the invasion of Iraq about Saddam and his "connection" to 9/11. They lied. They misrepresented. They twisted the facts to suit their purposes. They still do. As to London, the way this terrorist act was planned and executed points to a very sophisticated network being behind it. Things are beginning to look grim in Afghanistan, and China is working closely with Russia to pry the US out of the region, if they can. This is where we should have concentrated our efforts. You trotted out an old excuse, so I'll trot out an old phrase... we had Saddam in a box. He wasn't a credible threat. There were and are credible threats in Afghanistan and the neighboring countries. Invading Iraq when we did was an act of criminal stupidity, in my opinion. That intelligent people like you still make these excuses for George W. Bush boggles the mind. Keep D&D Civil!!
right...because I condemn the dirtbags that carry out these attacks (all muslim by the way)...i am an anti-muslim bigot...
When you include others, such as the innocent Muslims in London, in the same group as the dirtbags, then you are an anti-Muslim bigot. Also, have they confirmed who did this yet?
you may or may not be a anti-muslim bigot, I dunno, but what else are people here to think when you only pop in to bash muslims? If I started a thread about this? would you condem Christianity the same way?
halfbreed, The real problem here is not that various Muslim scholars/leaders are condemning these attacks, it's that our mass media doesn't include them in their news coverage. The real problem is that you are not looking hard enough to find those condemnations, which will take you upwards of a couple of hours to read all of them (I have posted an extensive, extensive list of names of Islamic scholars/leaders who condemned 9/11, for example. Go to www.cair-net.com and then search for the post-9/11 condemnations, I challenge you to tell me those are not enough). Sorry, halfbreed, but where the hell are you getting this idea that I am "giving those people" a "pass" on their actions? Go to the earlier part of the thread and see my condemnation of their actions. That's a misleading statement on your part. I don't give them a pass, I have previously called extremists within Islam a "virus" that needs to be wiped out. How is that giving them a pass/ Agree with destroying extremists who carry out violence against others, but the problem with what you said is that you can't dictate what people think, freedom of thought (even extremist thought according to you and I) is a fundamental aspect of our society and our ideals as Americans. What you deem as "fundamental thought" could be used as a license to go around and silence dissentors, since there is no objective definition of "fundamentalist" thought. So while it sounds intruiging, it's not something that could be implemented.
If the group responsible isn't a fundamentalist Islamic group, I'll donate 10 dollars to the tip jar.
No, I have been wondering about this for quite a while You have literally dozens of posts in which you insult Muslims/ Arabs a whole, advocate bombing Muslims, torturing them etc. What is the basis of your bigotry? Do you think you are being patriotic? Do you come from a racist backsground? and not how realize how you come off? What is the deal?
Well it does not matter who did it as the crime has already been committed. The problem is a whole group should not be punished or profiled based on the actions of a few.
From your posts, it seems all of the above. Who did you think he meant when he said prayers for his Muslim brothers and sisters? Al Queda?
I'm not saying we should punish an entire group. But when you look at it the vast majority of these terrorist attacks are carried out by groups following fundamentalist Islam. When will the time come that people face this realization? It's not racist if it's true. As has been stated, most muslims aren't terrorists but it certainly seems that most terrorists are muslim (albeit the fundamentalist variety).
