Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The cause of terrorism - An Article...

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 10:04 PM
link   
I have come across an article that does a decent job of explaining things I think, you might disagree but this article does not slam Muslims to hard and it shouldn't but it does not pull punches either.





WHAT IS THE CAUSE OF TERRORISM? I've been trying to find an answer to that question since September 11th. I started citizenwarrior.com shortly after the towers came down to create a clearinghouse for information related to the cause of terrorism and have gotten a tremendous amount of help from people all over the world. I've studied everything relevant I could get my hands on. But the answer finally crystallized when I read the book, The Sword of the Prophet. If there is one book that can give you a clear understanding of the cause of terrorism — especially the cause of Islamic terrorism (which is the most prevalent and dangerous) — it is this book.


source of the confusion

Why does the Koran offer conflicting quotations? You hear the terrorists quoting the Koran. And you think the Koran must be about killing unbelievers. Then you hear moderate Muslims quote the Koran and you think the book must be about compassion and forgiveness. Most Americans, I think, write it off by saying, "Well the Bible contains conflicting quotes too." But the Koran is different. It was written entirely by a single author. Why would he put conflicting passages in his book?

Here's how it happened. When he first received his revelations (the Koran is a collection of the revelations Mohammed received from the angel Gabriel who was giving Mohammed Allah's message) the revelations were full of compassion and love and peace and goodwill. At that time Mohammed lived in Mecca, a large city. The population didn't immediately convert in large numbers. A few did, but the rulers of Mecca didn't really like any threats to their authority, so they gave Mohammed a lot of trouble. So he moved with a few of his followers to another city. There Mohammed was able to gain a larger following. He eventually ruled that city and then made war on Mecca and eventually ruled Mecca too.

Meanwhile, the revelations kept coming. Until Mohammed died, he would get a revelation every once in awhile. After his death they were all bound into a book. That's the Koran. As Mohammed gained power, the revelations changed in nature. They were more about conquering and ruling than about tolerance and compassion. That's why in a single book written by one man you have conflicting passages.






In the Koran, a later passage says, "When we decide to destroy a population, we send a definite order to them who have the good things in life and yet transgress; so that Allah's word is proved true against them: then we destroy them utterly."

The Koran is considered my many people in the Middle East as the perfect, absolute word of the Creator. What will they do with a clear command like this? You saw what they will do on September 11th. "Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them." So says the Koran. "So let it be so," say many of its followers.





muslim propaganda

I've read lots of pro-Muslim books and articles — and probably most of them are by good people. For the most part they completely ignore the violence lurking in the Koran, pretending it isn't there. That isn't helpful. That ends up helping terrorists. For example, they say Islam means "peace." But the combination of the letters "slm" means submission, protection, safety, security, peace, and surrender. In most of the Muslim writings I have come across, they most often define Islam as "submission to the will of Allah," and getting all others in the world to submit.

It is part of Muslim propaganda in the West to say things like, "Islam is totally against violence. The word Islam itself means 'peace.' Islam is a religion of tolerance and compassion." Haven't you heard this? Yes, the Saudi-funded Muslims within our borders have flooded the airwaves with this stuff. It's part of a huge public relations campaign.

The situation is similar to the publications of Hitler's book, Mein Kampf. The Koran is nothing like Mein Kampf and the two cannot be compared, but America's response to it is identical. Hitler outlined his plans while he was in jail. He published it as a book, telling the whole world what he intended to do. Hardly anyone in America read it. After he had built his war machine and was invading other countries, then people read it.




"Between Muhammad's death and the second siege of Vienna," writes Trifkovic, "just over a thousand years later, Islam expanded — at first very rapidly, then intermittently — at the expense of everything and everyone in the way of its warriors. Unleashed as a militant faith of a nomadic war band, Islam turned its boundary with the outside world into a perpetual war zone."



One of the primary barriers to the Islamic takeover of the world has been the western powers, most specifically, the United States. America supported Egypt in its attempt to keep the terrorists from seizing control of their government. America supported Iraq in its fight against the invasion of the Islamic state, Iran. So the terrorists have turned their attention to us, violently attacking us, and perhaps more devastating in the long run, launching a propaganda campaign to disarm us — emotionally and politically — so we cannot defend ourselves against the relentless push for Islamic domination.


This does not mean we should wage war against all Muslims. The majority of Muslims are peace-loving people who basically ignore the Koran's command to kill the unbelievers. What needs to ultimately happen is for the majority of these moderate Muslims to publicly admit the Koran isn't perfect. Once that becomes an established fact, the cause of terrorism will be substantially weakened.









cause of terrorism




posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 10:36 PM
link   
First, Islam is imperfect and so is the Koran. But to ask Followers of Islam to admit such is to them sacrilege punishable by death. Christianity accepts free will. You are free to believe that Bible is imperfect, thus so many denominations and so weak many of their faith.

The main problem with Islam is that it teaches that "The end justifies the means" You can do anything you want as long as you do it in the name of Allah.

Allah knows and will judge those accordingly.


Sep

posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Now I undrestand why the IRA does what it does. Its those damn Muslims. Thanks for the information.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 01:34 AM
link   
good article edsinger. i imagine i liked it most because of it's simplicity. also a good followup Reagan, great comparison. Sep, obviously the thread title should have specified ISLAMIC terrorism as this article can't apply to the IRA, but still a good read i think.


Sep

posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by astroblade
Sep, obviously the thread title should have specified ISLAMIC terrorism as this article can't apply to the IRA, but still a good read i think.


Well the aricle didnt say ISLAMIC terrorism. It said terrorism. With that the author is applying that all terrorists are Muslim and are mislead by the Quran and Muhamad. What I am saying is that this is not true. There have been Christian and Jewish terrorists as well. Does that mean the holy Bible is responsible? No.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 05:54 AM
link   
Quote: "Well the article didn’t say ISLAMIC Terrorism. It said Terrorism. With that the author is applying that all Terrorists are Muslim and are mislead by the Quran and Muhammad. What I am saying is that this is not true. There have been *Christian and Jewish Terrorists* as well. Does that mean the Holy Bible is responsible?"

I agree with the above statement. There are Good & Bad people of ALL Religions - to only blame One Religion as the Source of ALL Terrorism is NON-SENSE! How about mentioning how 20% of the Worlds Population Controls 80% of its Wealth! Try talking about Illiteracy! Try talking about State Propaganda - were the State try’s to Distract the people of a Country by blaming the Source of that Countries Problems on another Country & their People! This is usually a Diversionary Tactic - usually to hide the Governments/State's Corrupted Status!



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Well ok so his title doesnt mention the IRA, but lets be seriuos a minute, who is behind 95% of the worlds Terrrorism in the last 20 years?


As I said he doesnt pull punches and neither do I?



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 09:19 AM
link   
So what drove the CIA to use a carbomb to target the Hezbnolla leader Fadlallah in beirut in 85?

Were they reading the koran too?


The biggest propblem with this article is that "terrorsim" doesnt exitst an sich... its just a name we give to the "other side", because they surely dont differ in tactics (CIA just as dirty if not more so).. they dont differenciate in targets (the CIA took out 80 civillians in the beirut incident mentioned above while missing Fadlallah) so what do they differ in?

Funding and equipment ONLY... the CIA has loads of both, whareas the "other side" uses homemade and improvised weapons.

Thats "terrorsism" for you ... ooooohh sacry.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   
This statement strikes me,

"When we decide to destroy a population, we send a definite order to them who have the good things in life and yet transgress; so that Allah's word is proved true against them: then we destroy them utterly."

I interpret this as, when the time for war comes, we warn the leader to follow the law but they ignore it; so they prove themselves criminal: then we destroy them.

Maybe its just me but that sounds familiar.

Keep in mind that the western world has based most of its laws on Christianity.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corinthas
So what drove the CIA to use a carbomb to target the Hezbnolla leader Fadlallah in beirut in 85?

Were they reading the koran too?


The biggest propblem with this article is that "terrorsim" doesnt exitst an sich... its just a name we give to the "other side", because they surely dont differ in tactics (CIA just as dirty if not more so).. they dont differenciate in targets (the CIA took out 80 civillians in the beirut incident mentioned above while missing Fadlallah) so what do they differ in?

Funding and equipment ONLY... the CIA has loads of both, whareas the "other side" uses homemade and improvised weapons.

Thats "terrorsism" for you ... ooooohh sacry.


whats wrong with the car bomb? it killed an enemy military leader, not civilians.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedDragon

whats wrong with the car bomb? it killed an enemy military leader, not civilians.


Di you actually bother reading my post? they took out 80 civillains and MISSED the hezbolla leader



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Ughhh, this article does a very poor job at explaining terrorism.

It is just another simplified, incomplete, inaccurate version of the whole.






Here's how it happened. When he first received his revelations (the Koran is a collection of the revelations Mohammed received from the angel Gabriel who was giving Mohammed Allah's message) the revelations were full of compassion and love and peace and goodwill. At that time Mohammed lived in Mecca, a large city. *snip, snip*
As Mohammed gained power, the revelations changed in nature. They were more about conquering and ruling than about tolerance and compassion.
*snip, snip*


If you think about it, when it all started, it was all about gaining converts. But the opposition towards this "new" religion was huge. Muslims were attacked from pretty much every side. So, as they defended themselves and tried, just like any other religion on planet earth, to gain more converts, rules of engagement in war were neccessary, for example "do not kill innocent women and children", or "spare those who seal a contract of peace with you", or "those who do not attack you, let them pass", stuff like that. They were not comandments to just kill people, they were RULES OF WAR imposed on Muslims due to the situation back then. Anyone who has read the Qur'an thoroughly knows this, but this Trifkovic dude obviously is not aware of it.




In the Koran, a later passage says, "When we decide to destroy a population, we send a definite order to them who have the good things in life and yet transgress; so that Allah's word is proved true against them: then we destroy them utterly."


"We" in Qur'an means God. Every Muslim knows that. Just like every Christian knows what Trinity is. There are a lot of examples of God destroying nations, civilisations, a fairly common thing in the Bible too. Divine Punishment. Such punishment can only be enforced by God, and not by men though.
So this quote is very out of context of this whole topic, since we are discussing what men are allowed to do. Is God morbid or not is another topic all together





It is part of Muslim propaganda in the West to say things like, "Islam is totally against violence.


Again, a slight error there. Islam is against sensless violence and killing of innocents, and exactly that is being propagated everywhere, for better understanding of Islam.
Violence in self-defence is allowed, hence the whole "rules of engagement" part of Qur'an. In some cases, fighting is a duty, for example when someone is trying to kill your whole family, conquer your land, force you to convert, etc, etc. Muslims are peaceful, but not stupid. They won't just sit back and let you kill them.

On a side note, a lot of people whining about this have absolutely no problem with american forces killing thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq in the name of uhmm security, uhmm wait no, it was WMD, uhmm wait again no, it was democracy... uhmmm difficult to keep track of lies indeed. They are still civilised, their nation is not primitive, they personaly are not killers and their religion is still "religion of peace with peaceful non-violent message of Jesus", despite all that killing.

ANyways, back on topic...




The situation is similar to the publications of Hitler's book, Mein Kampf




Well, that didn't take long. Godwin's Law smack down in the middle of article, inclusive Hitler's pic for better mental images. Interesting psycho tactics.




Let see... Trifkovic ignored different fractions of terrorists, with totaly different goals, which for most part have nothing to do with world domination. He ignores the political reasons and focuses on solely religion and history, in most cases only partial info, innacurate and incomplete. Most terrorist don't even kill in the name of God, they kill for revenge, political goals, fight for power, freedom etc, etc. They just happen to have a Muslim name.

Initial goal of Al-Qaeda (and those who preceded them) was to gain control of an islamic country and that failed several times, example: Egypt.
After that they became scatered groups, who used violence to promote their goal, but have largely failed to gain enough supporters to start an uprising somewhere. (Note here: do not confuse islamic regimes in Saudi Arabia and Iran with terrorist groups. They are two very different things. In fact, Bin Laden had to flee from the Saudis and hide in Afganistan, Saudi Arabia is helping in the war on terror, arresting suspects, etc, etc).





The majority of Muslims are peace-loving people who basically ignore the Koran's command to kill the unbelievers.


Another false statement. Muslims do not ignore anything in Qur'an, it is a book from God, you do not ignore it. The fact that most Muslims do not go out on a killing spree is because there is no such commandment in Qur'an. It is more likely that terrorists who kill in the name of God are misinterpreting certain things.

To sumarize, it is an inacurate and incomplete analysis of the issue of terror.
It is very simplified though and it might appeal to masses because of it.
Do not be fooled, the reality is much more complicated then Mr. Trifkovic is presenting it here.

On a side note: I clicked around a bit on his site, he seems to be organizing some kind of Citizen Army with "Citizen Warrior Basic Battle Plan" to fight terror... what the *self-censored*....


I think there a lot of more qualified experts on this subject outthere.
For a start I recomend books by Gilles Kepel.


Sep

posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Well ok so his title doesnt mention the IRA, but lets be seriuos a minute, who is behind 95% of the worlds Terrrorism in the last 20 years?


95%? So killing of thousands in South America only counts for 5% of Terrorism in the last 20 years? How about the IRA killing hundreds? How about American terrorists that have killed hundreds of Americans on American soil? These are just a few examples. There are terrorists in Spain who are proud Christians called the ETA. But none of these people reflect any religion or culture. Currently the media has zoomed in on Muslims, but the are many other terrorist none Islamic orgonizations out there. Try and keep an open mind.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Well then I guess the Muslims are the most successful terrorists then , how about that?



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Sep, most terrorists in the world are Muslims. Except that fact! Admit it! Stop beating around the bush.

Also don't ask me what "most" infers. If you don't already know then please spare me your reply.


Sep

posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Well then I guess the Muslims are the most successful terrorists then , how about that?


Depends on what you mean by successful. More people have died in South America than in Middle East as a result of terrorism.


Sep

posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by verfed
Sep, most terrorists in the world are Muslims. Except that fact!


Its accept, and no. Terrorists are present all around the world. They are mostly a result of poverty and lack of education. When these problems are fixed then there will not be any of these problems.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 01:54 AM
link   
All religious texts can be used to wrongly justify "terrorist" acts if one only reads and assimilates what one wants to read and assimilate... There is is just as many things in the Holy Bible that have led to "terrorist" activities...

What about all the white supremists that have killed thousands of inocent black people in the name of "god"... Just recently some #ing white supremist wrote "The White Mans Bible"... and in that he suggests if not orders! white people to destroy the "non-whites"...

While all you americans bitch about terrorism abroad, muslim this - muslim that... What about the thousands of terrorists you allow to live in your country with little to nothing trying to stop and destroy those organisations such as the KKK





posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghostsoldier
While all you americans bitch about terrorism abroad, muslim this - muslim that... What about the thousands of terrorists you allow to live in your country with little to nothing trying to stop and destroy those organisations such as the KKK




Because they are irrelevant, and they are not out murdering people, I do not like them either but in our country you can have free speech, when it leads to violence you go to jail...they are scum but they are not blowing up grocery stores.


As for South America, well # if you talk like that you should throw Cambodia in, it had millions.

In Modern Times, when the word Terrorist is first said, most if not all immediately think of a Muslim one.....deal with it.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by verfed
Sep, most terrorists in the world are Muslims. Except that fact! Admit it! Stop beating around the bush.



Terrorists are olny there where you stick the label !

If you stck the label on your Grandma she would be a terrorist.. funny how that works isnt it?

Grandma one moment.. then on goes the label and.. "pop".. there is a terrorist!!

AMAZING HUH?!?!?!?







top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join