If You Want to Stop Terrorism, Stop Killing Muslims!

I thought this guy hit the nail on the hammer on this one.



this was a response video to this video with Paul Finley. (In us congress for 22 years)



I am not going to share my thoughts in the OP, i am just sharing 2 videos that i thought should be added here.

Hate and fear really is self perpetuating.

I didn't watch the film but I wholeheartedly agree with the premise.

Star and flag.

reply to post by Wertdagf


you sound a radical in your response, perhaps you should of thought about what you said before you hit submit.

they didn't just start blowing themselves up out of nowhere. there had to be a cause. most Muslims are peaceful, you have some radicals, but they are fueled by crimes committed against them. im not a sympathizer, 2 wrongs don't make a right, but we can make a right by leaving them alone and stop messing with other countries.

The classification of what constitutes "terrorism" is a purely subjective thing...some people call certain groups "terrorists", while others call them "rebels" or "freedom fighters"...whatever the case may be, violence is never the answer...it only begets more violence.

[edit on 15-12-2009 by polychronopolis]

reply to post by ugie1028


Well for a people that are only angry at the west, the fact that they walk into public places and blow up innocent people of their own country/religion is really confusing. "yeah we'll show the great satan. we'll blow up our own people".
It's unfortunate that those battling the western, financially motivated "invasion" are lumped into the same category as these other idiots.

reply to post by Wertdagf


I live in a town with quite a large muslim population. Why aren't they all running through the streets slaughtering everyone?

I have two muslim friends. Why haven't they or their families attempted to murder me on all the ocassions i've met them?

Muslim Extremists (not Muslim's), have distorted some essential traditional Islamic concepts to justify their campaigns of terror.
"Extremism" typically connotes beliefs which are irrational, counterproductive, unjustifiable, and unacceptable to ANY civil society. Muslim Extremists will cut your head off with a dull machete and not think twice about doing so. There is a hughe difference between the two.

Riiiight. And just where is their tolerance of other religions? There isn't any, with the muslims it's "You will believe or convert to islam or else." After watching the first vid I give it a major BS vote. Terrorism won't stop till in their eyes everyone is converted to their beliefs period.

This has been clearly stated by Osama Bin Laden himself in all of his messages, and it is backed by the Quran. One message from him, explicitly to the American people, explains all of this. I have posted many times about why what is happening is taking place.

No I do not support Bin Laden, I just merely understand what he has been trying to tell us. He says it is up to the American people to make a difference by voting. I think a lot of people thought they were this last time, but are finding out how wrong they were.

The text of most of his speeches is available on line, and I think many people would find it rather amazing that he has outlined the truth about our government many many times. If he were not who he is, he would fit well into ATS.

I don't believe many people really read what he had to say...

Here is his address to the American people:
www.worldpress.org...

No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours.

The Quran states the only time it is permissible to kill is when the Muslim people are being killed, opressed, and taken over in their own lands.

But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11th, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus, the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred.

So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken, for you to consider.

I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.

Here, he openly states about the oppression, and basically how they felt obligated to do something.

The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced.

I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.

Is this any different than how we feel about being attacked?

In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.

And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.

He explains here about the symbolism of the two towers in Lebanon and the twin towers in New York. He lays out again why they felt justified.

And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. Destruction is freedom and democracy, while resistance is terrorism and intolerance.

Is this not even moreso the truth today,as anyone who is against Obama is labeled a terrorist?

This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children - also in Iraq - as Bush Jr did, in order to remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to assist in the pilfering of Iraq's oil and other outrages.

So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs, should a man be blamed for defending his sanctuary?

And now, it is Obama's war. Nothing has changed, hence, one can reason the attacks will continue.

Is defending oneself and punishing the aggressor in kind, objectionable terrorism? If it is such, then it is unavoidable for us.

This is the message which I sought to communicate to you in word and deed, repeatedly, for years before September 11th.

And you can read this, if you wish, in my interview with Scott in Time Magazine in 1996, or with Peter Arnett on CNN in 1997, or my meeting with John Weiner in 1998.

You can observe it practically, if you wish, in Kenya and Tanzania and in Aden. And you can read it in my interview with Abdul Bari Atwan, as well as my interviews with Robert Fisk.

Again, he explains he has tried to reach out to the Americans on more than one occasion, and even gives references, dates, and articles! Honestly, how many people bothered to read or listen to his speeches?

The latter is one of your compatriots and co-religionists and I consider him to be neutral. So are the pretenders of freedom at the White House and the channels controlled by them able to run an interview with him? So that he may relay to the American people what he has understood from us to be the reasons for our fight against you?

If you were to avoid these reasons, you will have taken the correct path that will lead America to the security that it was in before September 11th. This concerned the causes of the war.

Here he talks about his reasoning being hidden from us. And, it was.

Our experience with them is lengthy, and both types are replete with those who are characterised by pride, arrogance, greed and misappropriation of wealth. This resemblance began after the visits of Bush Sr. to the region.

Read the link, if you never have.

You speak more truth than you probably realize.

So he took dictatorship and suppression of freedoms to his son and they named it the Patriot Act, under the pretence of fighting terrorism.

So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy.

the part i dont get , if there god is the greatest, and god created this lovely place and its creatures in which they dwell, then wouldnt it be a complete insult to your god to blow yourself up taking gods other creations with you??

I bet those 72 virgins arnt females, wouldnt that be a poke in the eye with a hot stick......

reply to post by Kram09


I said radical i never said muslim.... You sir have failed. This is type of behavior applys to all religions.

Don't look at me man... I never had a problem with em... but those hardliners who never meet me,never bothered to find out if I was a good person or not... decided I was less than, unworthy of respect or equal rights. Heck those extremist who never laid eyes on me want me dead simply because I am unwilling to submit... this guy needs to grow up, maybe come out of his sheltered office and learn what the real world is all about. let me enlighten you to some facts of real life

"An Islamic state is essentially an ideological state, and is thus radically different from a national state." This statement made by Mawdudi lays the basic foundation for the political, economical, social, and religious system of all Islamic countries which impose the Islamic law. This ideological system intentionally discriminates between people according to their religious affiliations. Mawdudi, a prominent Pakistani Muslim scholar, summarizes the basic differences between Islamic and secular states as follows:

1)
An Islamic state is ideological. People who reside in it are divided into Muslims, who believe in its ideology and non-Muslims who do not believe.

2)
Responsibility for policy and administration of such a state "should rest primarily with those who believe in the Islamic ideology." Non-Muslims, therefore, cannot be asked to undertake or be entrusted with the responsibility of policymaking.

3)
An Islamic state is bound to distinguish (i.e. discriminates) between Muslims and non-Muslims. However the Islamic law "Shari`a" guarantees to non-Muslims "certain specifically stated rights beyond which they are not permitted to meddle in the affairs of the state because they do not subscribe to its ideology." Once they embrace the Islamic faith, they "become equal participants in all matters concerning the state and the government."

The above view is the representative of the Hanifites, one of the four Islamic schools of jurisprudence. The other three schools are the Malikites, the Hanbilites (the strictest and the most fundamentalist of all), and the Shafi`ites. All four schools agree dogmatically on the basic creeds of Islam but differ in their interpretations of Islamic law which is derived from four sources:


a)
Qur'an (read or recite): The sacred book of Muslim community containing direct quotes from Allah as allegedly dictated by Gabriel.

b)
Hadith (narrative): The collections of Islamic traditions including sayings and deeds of Muhammad as heard by his contemporaries, first, second, and third hand.

c)
Al-Qiyas (analogy or comparison): The legal decision drawn by Islamic Jurists based on precedent cases.

d)
Ijma' (consensus): The interpretations of Islamic laws handed down by the consensus of reputed Muslim scholars in a certain country.
Textual laws prescribed in the Qur'an are few. The door is left wide open for prominent scholars versed in the Qur'an, the Hadith, and other Islamic discipline to present their Fatwa (legal opinion) as we shall see later.

Classification of Non-Muslims:
In his article, "The Ordinances of the People of the Covenant and the Minorities in an Islamic State," Sheikh Najih Ibrahim Ibn Abdullah remarks that legists classify non-Muslims or infidels into two categories: Dar-ul-Harb or the household of War, which refers to non-Muslims who are not bound by a peace treaty, or covenant, and whose blood and property are not protected by the law of vendetta or retaliation; and Dar-us-Salam or the household of Peace, which refers to those who fall into three classifications:

1)
Zimmis (those in custody) are non-Muslim subjects who live in Muslim countries and agree to pay the Jizya (tribute) in exchange for protection and safety, and to be subject to Islamic law. These enjoy a permanent covenant.

2)
People of the Hudna (truce) are those who sign a peace treaty with Muslims after being defeated in war. They agree to reside in their own land, yet to be subject to the legal jurisprudence of Islam like Zimmis, provided they do not wage war against Muslims.

3)
Musta'min (protected one) are persons who come to an Islamic country as messengers, merchants, visitors, or student wanting to learn about Islam. A Musta'min should not wage war against Muslims and he is not obliged to pay Jizya, but he would be urged to embrace Islam. If a Musta'min does not accept Islam, he is allowed to return safely to his own country. Muslims are forbidden to hurt him in any way. When he is back in his own homeland, he is treated as one who belongs to the Household of War.

A big reason fundamentalist Iranians don't like the west is we have never bowed too or paid Jizya...

Sheik Najih Ibrahim Ibn Abdulla summarizes the purpose of the Jizya. He says, quoting Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, that the Jizya is enacted:

"...to spare the blood (of the Zimmis), to be a symbol of humiliation of the infidels and as an insult and punishment to them, and as the Shafi`ites indicate, the Jizya is offered in exchange for residing in an Islamic country." Thus Ibn Qayyim adds, "Since the entire religion belongs to God, it aims at humiliating ungodliness and its followers, and insulting them. Imposing the Jizya on the followers of ungodliness and oppressing them is required by God's religion. The Qur'anic text hints at this meaning when it says: `until they give the tribute by force with humiliation.' (Qur'an 9:29). What contradicts this is leaving the infidels to enjoy their might and practice their religion as they wish so that they would have power and authority."

Because we never paid tribute that would classify us as Dar-ul-Harb...
Now I'm no expert on the subject so maybe one of you more enlightened people can clue us all in on the subject?

reply to post by Wertdagf


I took it out of context as well,

But now i see your point.

be a bit clearer next time!

All in all, radicals are radical because of upbringing, and brainwashing. being educated, you find other means of finding justice. killing another is not justice, it just adds more fuel to the fire, and causes more problems than it solves. as i said before. wrongs don't make it right.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Wertdagf


i apologize, admit a mistake, and your still rude?

but anyway, dodging the censors, im surprised your post wasn't removed.

reply to post by ugie1028


...
I was going to write a response but now I feel like it is not even worth the effort. There is so much ignorance on this website about the actual topic that even bringing a response to full swing takes so much effort it becomes futile. Please read about teh past on most of these countries, who was involved in stiring the hornets next, why outside countries are actually interested in these countries. Then read between the lines on the people in power and their global chess match. Then you might start to understand.

But for sake of arguement, please stop saying "we" as in Americans. Most of the mess "we" are cleaning up (military members live this daily) are not something "we" even started; however, over the last few decades "we" have been chasing greed more and liberating cruelty or relieving tyranny and agressors less. "we" have a lost country that is being ruled under the thumb of either highly intelligent people or ignorantly stupid people, but that does not mean you can run around and say "we" without even understanding the entire situation.

It is human nature to kill, that is not worth looking into, but why are we killing is the real question.

Keep in mind, both sides have their reasons, and neither will listen to the other. This is typical human nature.

But why should Muslims have all the fun of killing Muslims? Why can't we get involved too? What is this guy a racist? So now only Muslims are allowed to slaughter Muslims?

Seriously though, this guys whole premise is bull#. The US and the West in general fought to save Muslims in Bosnia, and Kuwait. Meanwhile radical Muslims were slaughtering less radical Muslims wholesale, torturing them, and oppressing them for decades.

The simple fact is the biggest killer of Muslims worldwide, is Muslims.

"If You Want to Stop Terrorism, Stop Killing Muslims!"

It would be nice IF it were a perfect world and the solution was that simple.
Unfortunately it is not. Noam Chomsky makes some very good points, however he is naive beyond belief. Another one of those who would walk into a tiger's cage with a bowl of milk and say "here kitty kitty kitty".

Islam is simply not compatible with any other religion. So you are either Islamic or in the teachings of the koran you are the enemy and not worthy of life. Until that mentality changes there will be no peace and it will never change.

Originally posted by Chance321
Riiiight. And just where is their tolerance of other religions? There isn't any, with the Muslims it's "You will believe or convert to islam or else." After watching the first vid I give it a major BS vote. Terrorism won't stop till in their eyes everyone is converted to their beliefs period.

Period he, absolute thuth to you i guess...

Sigh...Everytime i think, now I've seen the lowest of the lowest statements here on ATS, some bigoted poster comes out of the woodwork to prove me wrong and display a blatand case of Islamophobia....

Seriously the statements by the above poster are pure spoonfed propaganda... Based on misinformation. watch Faux news a lot ?

Let's apply some logic:
There are more then a billion muslims on the earth, of which maybe 2-3% are wack nutjobs extremist but the media in the west is bend on demonising, and portraying those 2-3% as the representatives of the entire Muslim faith.
Muslims became the new "commies" in the west...

Good thing the rest of the world doens't look at 2-3% of the extremist in Americans and makes up their mind about America based on only that...the picture wouldn't be pretty. See my point?