What makes a terrorist? - Page 3

02-04-2010, 16:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by T-Rock

That's the whole point I think you're missing, anyone can twist religion to justify violence, yet...Shari'ah Law demands violence, it's in accordance with the Qur'an - no twisting whatsoever. Shari'ah Law is on the side of extremism, don't take my word for it though, examine Shari'ah Law for yourself - The principle source of Shari'ah is the Qur'an itself. It is the Islamic source material for the muslims Law, confirmed by any number of ulema.
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GLOSSARY/SHARIA.HTM

It guides the muslim in every aspect of life - listen to this guy (00:10 - 01:22 - 01:55)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qxjocm5fCc

This book pretty much covers Shar'iah, it is the book I quoted from in my previous posts - The Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Law - get one here:
http://www.amazon.com/Reliance-Trave.../dp/0915957728

For the muslim, "it is imperative for every muslim to mold his or her life according to the teachings of the Qur'an. Our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "None of you can become a true believer until his desires become subordinate to what I have brought." and the true believers consider "the pathetic and disastrous condition of the Muslim Ummah throughout the world is due to the abandoning of the Qur'an by the Muslims. The attitude of indifference that we constantly show towards the last of the Allah's Revelations, along with our hypocritical lip-service, is tantamount to ridiculing it. Instead, we must clearly understand our responsibilities towards the Qur'an and try our very best in fulfilling them."
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...ah%2FLSELayout

The last of the Allah's Revelations (Medina) are what extremists are abiding by - Sayyid Qutb barely scratches the surface, if you really interested in reading the craziness, check out the writings of: Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa’d, Wakidi, and Ibn Taymiyyah. Qutb's ideas came from the early ulema:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=ac...6c79a56c95bda8

This too is a worthwhile read:

http://www.strategycenter.net/docLib...emistJihad.pdf

Again great links and information,
I think I was so adament about proving you wrong because of the first post you made where you used "therefore." I still defend my first initial point where I stated you couldnt link those 2 passages together. Yet, after all these posts and all this discussion and me really looking into the Qur'an and Sharia very deeply, I can see your point.

I still defend the fact that Islam teaches peace as well as stating violence, but I can definitely understand your points detailing where it does point out very obvious statements that can so easily be manipulated. I'm almost more inclined to call the Qur'an a poorly written book which was written for a time period and should have been left in that time period, rather then a book which all Muslims should follow completely without question.

I have access to the texts you've mentioned and as much as I can counter your statements with history and other passages, I think you make your point very well when it's realized that the extremists who read the Qur'an, do not look at anything else, other then what the book says. And if we look at the book at such a superficial level, then it can be stated that it is violent, and it calls for the killing of many people in the name of Islam. I don't look at the book in such a way because I am a history person, so I try and take into account what was written and where and why.

I'll fold on the river card, and I guess I owe you a drink.

T-Rock · 02-04-2010, 23:12

Quote:

I think I was so adamant about proving you wrong because of the first post you made where you used "therefore." I still defend my first initial point where I stated you couldn’t link those 2 passages together.

No problem, it’s not about proving me wrong, it’s about proving them wrong. I sincerely would like to be wrong…

In linking those two passages together, 1400 years of history makes the case against you argument - it is the legacy of “Jihad” - it is Islam. Islam means submission and only when the world (Dar al-Harb) submits to Shari’ah, will there be peace - so they say…LOL
http://www.andrewbostom.org/loj/
http://www.andrewbostom.org/loj//content/view/59/31/

Quote:

I still defend the fact that Islam teaches peace…

On what and whose terms?

The terms defined by the “book of mecca” or those defined by the “book of medina” ?

I will agree with you that some muslims teach peace, but the peace they’re preachin is not what Islam demands.

According to the Qur’an, Sira, Hadith, and Shari’ah Law, non-muslims are to be subdued and treated as second class citizens - coerced and intimidated to convert to Islam, if not, humiliating taxes like the jizya are/were to be imposed - the 1400 year historical record proves this true. How can this be peace - the subjugation of others?

Take a brief moment and look at the movement towards dhimmitude in the Philippines - by allowing the “Jizya” - will this bring peace or subjugation?
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news...0201-n8nu.html
http://moneyjihad.wordpress.com/2010...collect-taxes/
http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.p...02-02&SO=&HC=2
http://www.historyofjihad.org/philippines.html

When Qur’anic source materials are examined, it becomes evident that surah 9:5 is part of the theology of Jihad - Jihad is/was violent, and those that reject/rejected Islam are/were to be killed.

The significance of my use of therefore has to do with the chronological order of the Qur’an and its so-called progressive revelation, which is useful information, if one is to halfway make any sense of what Islam teaches.

Quote:

I think you make your point very well when it's realized that the extremists who read the Qur'an, do not look at anything else, other then what the book says.

The use of “therefore” and linking the two passages together dates back to the 7th century, it has everything to do with the Qur’an, Sira, Hadith, and Shari’ah Law.

Muhammad’s followers noticed he was contradicting himself quite frequently since he claimed that his revelations were from the angel Gabriel - and then later - Muhammad would tell his followers that allah had invalidated it. I do not believe it is acceptable or sensible to think that allah changes his mind so frequently unless he‘s a fraud, a cultural icon. Nevertheless, since Islam is a dualistic system, we will always be facing the never-ending threat of its teachings - which are - the inspiration of what makes an Islamic terrorist.

Quote:

I'll fold on the river card, and I guess I owe you a drink.

Nah, don’t worry about that…LOL…if you ever find you way down here in the south, the drinks are on me

02-07-2010, 15:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by T-Rock

No problem, it’s not about proving me wrong, it’s about proving them wrong. I sincerely would like to be wrong…

In linking those two passages together, 1400 years of history makes the case against you argument - it is the legacy of “Jihad” - it is Islam. Islam means submission and only when the world (Dar al-Harb) submits to Shari’ah, will there be peace - so they say…LOL
http://www.andrewbostom.org/loj/
http://www.andrewbostom.org/loj//content/view/59/31/

On what and whose terms?

The terms defined by the “book of mecca” or those defined by the “book of medina” ?

I will agree with you that some muslims teach peace, but the peace they’re preachin is not what Islam demands.

According to the Qur’an, Sira, Hadith, and Shari’ah Law, non-muslims are to be subdued and treated as second class citizens - coerced and intimidated to convert to Islam, if not, humiliating taxes like the jizya are/were to be imposed - the 1400 year historical record proves this true. How can this be peace - the subjugation of others?

Take a brief moment and look at the movement towards dhimmitude in the Philippines - by allowing the “Jizya” - will this bring peace or subjugation?
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news...0201-n8nu.html
http://moneyjihad.wordpress.com/2010...collect-taxes/
http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.p...02-02&SO=&HC=2
http://www.historyofjihad.org/philippines.html

When Qur’anic source materials are examined, it becomes evident that surah 9:5 is part of the theology of Jihad - Jihad is/was violent, and those that reject/rejected Islam are/were to be killed.

The significance of my use of therefore has to do with the chronological order of the Qur’an and its so-called progressive revelation, which is useful information, if one is to halfway make any sense of what Islam teaches.

The use of “therefore” and linking the two passages together dates back to the 7th century, it has everything to do with the Qur’an, Sira, Hadith, and Shari’ah Law.

Muhammad’s followers noticed he was contradicting himself quite frequently since he claimed that his revelations were from the angel Gabriel - and then later - Muhammad would tell his followers that allah had invalidated it. I do not believe it is acceptable or sensible to think that allah changes his mind so frequently unless he‘s a fraud, a cultural icon. Nevertheless, since Islam is a dualistic system, we will always be facing the never-ending threat of its teachings - which are - the inspiration of what makes an Islamic terrorist.

Nah, don’t worry about that…LOL…if you ever find you way down here in the south, the drinks are on me

Didn't forget about this... just have no time to respond.

T-Rock · 01-03-2011, 00:43

An enlightening interview from the Aramaic Broadcasting Network with Omar Bakri Mohammed, Anjem Chouhary, Walid Shoebat, and Kamal Saleem. It's all about the Sharia...

"Is al-Qaeda justified by Islam"

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-A9MK6UlNE

akv · 01-03-2011, 02:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by T-Rock

An enlightening interview from the Aramaic Broadcasting Network with Omar Bakri Mohammed, Anjem Chouhary, Walid Shoebat, and Kamal Saleem. It's all about the Sharia...

Enlightening is a powerful word. IMHO Justice Scalia's opinions for example are often enlightening but YMMV. Chouhary and Omar are clearly folks proctologists should study. Kamal Saleem has written a book The Blood of Lambs, I have not read this book. Doug Howard, (who to be fair alleges Saleem is a fake) has written a scathing review, an excerpt follows,

Quote:

In The Blood of Lambs, Kamal Saleem writes, "I wanted to be like Bond." In these pages he is Bond, James Bond, in size 6X. He gets those emphatic rivals, the PLO and the Muslim Brotherhood, both to recruit him. He recalls the intricate details of raids he carried out at age seven. Abu Jihad himself teaches him how to use an AK-47. He is shown off by Yasser Arafat as a model warrior. In Libya at age 14 he has Muammar Qaddafi gushing in gratitude. In Iraq, he waves to Saddam Hussein. He only meets one man smarter than himself, an American commander of the mujahidin at al-Qaeda, "the base," in Afghanistan. No major war of liberation in the Arab world seems to have gone off without his expertise. He schmoozes with rich oil sheikhs in the Emirates and Saudi Arabia and makes love to the beautiful daughter of one of them in London. Even if one were disposed to give these entertaining claims the benefit of the doubt, the book's frequent mistakes give the reader pause. The Islamic umma does not mean one world government, and it is not "coming." The PLO was a secular organization even though Yasser Arafat prayed and quoted the Qur'an.

The Blood of Lambs describes so many deaths and killings, in such pornographic detail, that we wonder whether indulging this secret lust is the whole point.

The book tries to make readers feel ashamed for asking nagging questions, but I am unmoved. Every other chapter is devoted to coyly reminding us of the dangers Kamal Saleem faces when he speaks publicly against "Radical Islam." Describing the controversy surrounding his 2008 appearance at the Air Force Academy, he writes that "a college professor specifically called me a 'fraud.' " I was that college professor, and having now read his book, I see no reason to withdraw the assessment. I want to know why a person who so vividly recalls maneuvers carried out when he was seven years old has such vague memories of his twenties. How did he come to the United States, exactly? When asked that question at Calvin, he answered "as a student, like you." In the book, he refers to students being funded by Arab oil money, which of course is true. But he avoids saying he was a student himself, and it would seem to have been impossible, since he says he was forced to drop out of school as a youngster to work for a cruel uncle. He writes that he got a temporary visa in Abu Dhabi and had $35,000 in his bank account from "an Islamist sheikh whom I had introduced to three very accommodating French girls." Did he really get a visa to come to Wassau, Wisconsin, to "freelance" around college campuses and in poor neighborhoods, evangelizing for the Muslim Brotherhood and recruiting for jihad? Then he "moved to a major southern city." Why not say which one? Was he working, and if so, where? Within a few pages four years pass, and he has his car accident. After his conversion to Christianity he meets his wife. Nobody knows that he was a "former terrorist," not even his wife, and not Immigration and Naturalization officials, not until 9/11.

It is obvious Mr. Howard has an agenda, but I wonder has anyone here read this book, because if the events described in this review are an accurate depiction of the claims in the book, with all due respect doesn't this Saleem guy seem like the Wolfgang Hammersmith of Terrorism? Enlightenment sometimes reveals itself from an unanticipated direction.

http://www.booksandculture.com/artic...edmessage.html

T-Rock · 01-03-2011, 02:32

Quote:

Enlightenment sometimes reveals itself from an unanticipated direction.

It does doesn't it

I was pretty much focused on what Bakri and Choudary were saying and didn't really pay much attention to the others...

ETA

What I found interesting is that the basic ideas, goals and objectives {Sharia} of the Taliban, or say AQ, are no different from those championed by the Islamic Circle of North America, or the Hizb ut-Tahrir.
http://www.unitedstatesaction.com/real/ht/HT.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Jbnn2qKJ3o
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org...pub_detail.asp

The same totalitarian political ideology that seeks to exterminate us culturally and physically, espoused from the mouth of Bakri and Choudary, are no different from the ideological stance Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf embraces and advocates.

Terrorism is an intrinsic and inseparable part of Islam and the only option for defeating it, or keeping it in check, is to undermine it by a slow process of ideological warfare, similar in the way we undermined communism and Nazism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT8s1a1E4nk

IMO, Self flagellation, apologia, and appeasement didn’t work in the past, and it won’t work now - it only serves to embolden.

Claemore · 01-21-2011, 23:27

Just got through reading this thread. Have to say, thanks T-Rock. I enjoyed reading your insight and knowledge on the subject.

T-Rock · 01-22-2011, 02:39

Quote:

Just got through reading this thread. Have to say, thanks T-Rock. I enjoyed reading your insight and knowledge on the subject

Why thank you Sir. But I gotta say…, credit should be given where credit is due…, to those who‘ve shaped my perspective… I’m no scholar but a regurgitator

regurgitating what little I can remember from the scholarship of those I’ve immersed myself in since the murder of Robert Stethem.

Below are some of the works that have shaped my perspective, for they deserve the credit…, for their insight, knowledge, and scholarship…

T-Rock · 04-27-2013, 00:18

Considering the events in Boston, this article IMO was interesting.

“…This ostrich theory of terror assumes that if we blind ourselves to the motives of the terrorists, then potential terrorists will likewise be blinded to their own motives…
…Any law enforcement protocol that prevents investigators from understanding the motives of the killers in the hope that this will take away that motive from the killers is absurdly backward…”

Quote:

Terrorism Without a Motive

By Daniel Greenfield
April 24, 2013.

Means, opportunity and motive are the three crucial elements of investigating a crime and establishing the guilt of its perpetrator. Means and opportunity tell us how the crime could have been committed while motive tells us why it was committed. Many crimes cannot be narrowed down by motive until a suspect is on the scene; but acts of terrorism can be. Almost anyone might be responsible for a random killing; but political killings are carried out by those who subscribe to common beliefs.

Eliminate motive from terrorism and it becomes no different than investigating a random killing. If investigators are not allowed to profile potential terrorists based on shared beliefs rooted in violence, that makes it harder to catch terrorists after an act of terror and incredibly difficult before the act of terror takes place.

The roadblock isn't only technical; it's conceptual. Investigations consist of connecting the dots. If you can't conceive of a connection, then the investigation is stuck. If you can't make the leap from A to B or add two to two and get four, then you are dependent on lucky breaks. And lucky breaks go both ways. Sometimes investigators get lucky and other times the terrorists get lucky.

Federal law enforcement was repeatedly warned by the Russians that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was dangerous, but operating under the influence of a political culture that refused to see Islam as a motive for terrorism, it failed to connect the dots between Chechen violence in Russia and potential terrorism in the United States, and because it could not see Islam as a motive, as a causal factor rather than a casual factor, it could find no reason why Tamerlan was a threat not just to Russia, but also to the United States.

The missing motive factor has led to a rash of lone wolf terrorists whose acts are classified as individual crimes. Nidal Hasan's killing spree at Fort Hood was put down to workplace violence, but workplace violence isn't a motive, it's a bland description. The motive was obvious in Hasan's background and his behavior; but the military, an organization that by its nature has to be able to predict the actions of the enemy, had been crippled and left unable to see Islam as a motive.

The current working concept is that by refusing to allow our military and law enforcement to identify Islam as a motive, we are stifling terrorist recruitment by preventing Muslim from identifying terrorist attacks with Islam. This ostrich theory of terror assumes that if we blind ourselves to the motives of the terrorists, then potential terrorists will likewise be blinded to their own motives.

Any law enforcement protocol that prevents investigators from understanding the motives of the killers in the hope that this will take away that motive from the killers is absurdly backward. The investigators of terror are not the instigators of terror. A police detective arresting a rapist does not create rape. An FBI agent arresting a terrorist does not create terror. Identifying a crime does not create the crime. It makes it easier for law enforcement and the public to fight that crime.

The insidious infiltration of blowback theory into terrorist investigations has dangerously subverted the ability of investigators to get to the truth and to catch the terrorists. Blowback theory assigns each act of Islamic terror an origin point in our actions. Everything that Muslim terrorists do is caused by something that we did. To those who believe in this linkage, the only way to fight Muslim terror is to stop inspiring it. The only way to defeat Islamic terrorism is to defeat ourselves.

Blowback theory has been dressed up in academic language and expert jargon, but all it amounts to is Stockholm Syndrome with a lecture hall. Its essential postulate is that if we become more passive in our responses, a strategy that is usually described with the complementary term, "smart", as in "smart war" and "smart investigation", then the enemy will become more passive in response to our passivity because we are no longer inspiring his violence.

Smart wars and smart investigations are those that don't offend Muslims. The cost of the smart war in Afghanistan has been a very expensive and bloody defeat. The cost of the smart investigation can be seen in the streets of Boston or in Fort Hood.

Any smart tactic based on inaction and ignorance, on throwing away advantages to seem less provocative, is not smart; it's stupid. When things go unsaid because they are politically incorrect, then they will eventually go undone. And when they are both unsaid and undone, then it becomes impossible to think them. The concepts fade out of reach, the connections in what, Hercule Poirot, called the little grey cells, are no longer made and what was once a familiar mental shortcut becomes an entirely alien concept.

Defeating ourselves in order to defeat Islamic terrorism is a dead end because we are not the source of that terrorism; we are its target. When we handicap ourselves out of a misguided notion that the best way to fight terrorism is with one hand tied behind our backs and an eyepatch on one eye, then Americans die.

T-Rock · 04-27-2013, 00:20

Quote:

Islamic terrorism, once the starting point of any rational investigation, has become an uncomfortable endpoint uttered by uncooperative suspects who refuse to go along with the stress-motivated killing spree defense their lawyers are eager to put forward for them. It is the dark thing at the end of every investigation that politicians don't want to talk about, reporters don't want to write about and prosecutors grow reluctant to discuss for fear of offending judges and stifling career prospects.

Without Islam as a motive, there is no way to fight the larger threat except as a discrete collection of seemingly random events. What connects a Tamerlan Tsarnaev to a Nidal Hasan to Ahmed in Jersey City or Mohamed in Minneapolis plotting the next attack? The official answer is nothing. One was a boxer and another was an army doctor and the third is just an Egyptian student or a Somali bank clerk. They have no motive in common except that of Islam.

Motives identify links. They make it easier to stack events together as a trend. They make it possible to predict the next attack by looking at the common denominators that matter as opposed to the ones that don't. And above all else, they combine together to give us a rational picture of the world so that we understand what we are experiencing and what we have to do about it.

A man dropped onto a battlefield without having the concept of an army or a war will be bewildered and horrified by the incomprehensible experience of large numbers of individuals shooting at him for no reason. "Why do they all want to kill me?" he thinks. "Was it something I did?"

Crime is personal. War is impersonal. The murderer has personal motives for his actions, but the motives of the soldier are irrelevant. In war, it is the organization that matters more than the individual. Wasting time predicting the movements of individual soldiers instead of armies is not productive. Attempting to understand terrorists as individuals, rather than members of a mass movement is equally a waste of time.

Media accounts have presented various exculpatory motives for Tamerlan Tsarnaev ranging from the possible head injuries he may have suffered as a boxer to the murder of a best friend that investigators suspect he may carried out. All these motives are irrelevant, not because they may not have some figment of truth to them, but because they stopped mattering once he became what he was. One soldier may join the army because his girlfriend broke up with him, another because he lost his job and a third because he wants to impress his friends. Those motives may all be true, but they don't matter. Once organized into a collective, their individual motives stop mattering and the collective motive takes over.

Islamic terrorism is a collective motive. There is limited variation in the tactics and the thinking of terrorists. Whatever they may have been before they fully committed themselves to the war against civilization is an incidental matter. And the only piece of individual identity that matters is still the collective one of their Islamic background. That is still the greatest predictive factor of terrorism.

The Islamic terrorist abandons his individuality and takes on an identity that asks him to love death more than life. His motives are no longer personal, but collective. He is a soldier in the Islamic war against civilization. His marching orders may come from Jihadi videos and magazines, but they provide him with training and an esprit de corps sufficient to the purposes of his campaign of terror. To strive to understand him as a father or a son, as a boxer or a doctor, is a waste of time. These biographical footnotes no longer represent him. They are the things he has discarded to become a messenger of death in obedience to a faith that values death more than life.

Without understanding that, the terrorist becomes a cipher, another nice young man who suddenly turned violent, and the trend of terrorist attacks ceases to be a pattern and becomes a rash of horrifying incidents that can happen at any time.

Terrorism is a form of war. It cannot be won without understanding that there is a battlefield and an enemy fighting for control of that battlefield. Without that understanding, our superiority in strength and our possession of the battlefield can only result in a temporary stalemate leading to a permanent defeat.

Terrorism denial turns terrorist attacks into a cipher without a motive. If Tamerlan and Dzhokar Tsarnaev had not carried out their attack at a public event in the age of the ubiquitous camera, then how long would law enforcement have chased down dead ends or searched for the Tea Party tax protesters that the political establishment expected them to find?

Without a motive, there is no place to begin searching. Without Islam, there is no motive. Terrorism denial isn't just an intellectual error; it is a grave danger to the lives of Americans. Terrorism denial created a space in which the Tsarnaev brothers were free to plot and kill. Terrorism denial cost the lives of three Americans and the bodily integrity of hundreds of others. Denying the Islamic motive for terror, makes it harder for law enforcement officer to do their job and easier for Muslim terrorists to do theirs.

Source: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2013...ut-motive.html

pcfixer · 08-12-2013, 09:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by T-Rock

Considering the events in Boston, this article IMO was interesting.

“…This ostrich theory of terror assumes that if we blind ourselves to the motives of the terrorists, then potential terrorists will likewise be blinded to their own motives…
…Any law enforcement protocol that prevents investigators from understanding the motives of the killers in the hope that this will take away that motive from the killers is absurdly backward…”

T-Rock;
Daniel Greenfield further explains the "motive of Islam" on your post #40

About Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.

Quote:

Crime is personal. War is impersonal. The murderer has personal motives for his actions, but the motives of the soldier are irrelevant. In war, it is the organization that matters more than the individual. Wasting time predicting the movements of individual soldiers instead of armies is not productive. Attempting to understand terrorists as individuals, rather than members of a mass movement is equally a waste of time.

Media accounts have presented various exculpatory motives for Tamerlan Tsarnaev ranging from the possible head injuries he may have suffered as a boxer to the murder of a best friend that investigators suspect he may carried out. All these motives are irrelevant, not because they may not have some figment of truth to them, but because they stopped mattering once he became what he was. One soldier may join the army because his girlfriend broke up with him, another because he lost his job and a third because he wants to impress his friends. Those motives may all be true, but they don't matter. Once organized into a collective, their individual motives stop mattering and the collective motive takes over.

Islamic terrorism is a collective motive. There is limited variation in the tactics and the thinking of terrorists. Whatever they may have been before they fully committed themselves to the war against civilization is an incidental matter. And the only piece of individual identity that matters is still the collective one of their Islamic background. That is still the greatest predictive factor of terrorism.

Reason dictates that the FBI and is not being trained to recognize this motive.

Quote:

“The Obama administration needs to stop putting the tender sensibilities of radical Islamists above the safety of the American people,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/06/...g-guides-75453

Quote:

Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole confirmed on Wednesday that the Obama administration was pulling back all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities, in order to eliminate all references to Islam that some Muslim groups have claimed are offensive.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/21/ob...#ixzz2blof6NPW