Jihadi Motivation (Disturbing Essay Episode 3) Come On In, It's Short.

reply to post by seabag

You said we went to war “all in the name of freedom”

I know what I said. No need to put words into my mouth.

When the West bombs Muslims its all in the name of freedom (or whatever else they are calling it these days)... it can never be wrong.

It was illustrating how the west justifies its bombing of Muslims.

You asked “if a foreigner killed the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church” not just “someone”. You're still missing the fact that Westboro Baptist Church never went to another country and killed a few thousand people first.

I don't recall the Taliban ever leaving Afghanistan and killing people in a different country.

Also I'm not saying the WBC killed anybody, but thats besides the point.

The question still remains. If a forieigner killed WBC leaders would they a)be doing Americans a favor or b)would that be an act of terrorism against American citizens?

It was a direct response to OPs question : "Is killing the Taliban a service or a disservice to Muslims?"

So if the West think they are doing Muslims a favor by killing the Taliban, can somebody else assume they would be doing Americans a favor by killing the WBC?

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n

I don't recall the Taliban ever leaving Afghanistan and killing people in a different country.

Hmmm...........

In its January 9, 2013 issue Urdu daily Hindustan Express reported that leader of Tehrik Taliban Pakistan Waliur Rahman Khan announced sending of terrorists in Kashmir and pledged to fight for the imposition of Sharia law in the State.

Taliban declares war on India, wants Sharia law imposed

The Motivation is simple. Imposing ones beliefs and rights on others, using religious extremism on those who don't believe, or want to believe.

The why of it is really a mute point. There is plenty enough blood for everyone. Its well documented not only in this thread but many others in many other forums on many other boards. Its in the heart breaking testimony of an American solider who simply doesn't understand why. Its voiced like steel in the words of one who feels persecuted and violated. All the killing on BOTH sides. When will it end? When people like you and I Charles lay down our weapons as well. When we look for ways to reconcile. Our voice could help to heal or sicken humanity and it is entirely up to us . I wish you peace and leave you with this.

What is tolerance?
It is the consequence of humanity.We are all formed of frailty and error;
let us pardon reciprocally each others folly- that is the first law of nature.

~Voltaire

reply to post by SuicideBankers

Dear SuicideBankers,

The reason I thought the discussion was important was the prospect for peace in the future. Soon, the US will have only a relatively small presence in the Middle-East. If the terrorist attacks are due to our invasion, that justification should end fairly quickly and peace can arise.

If Muslims just have a hatred for the West and want to destroy it, peace will sadly be a long time away.

The article also suggests a way of thinking about the question "Are Muslim terrorists (e.g. Taliban) a tiny fringe element outside of Islam?"

I would like to think I hold no weapons to lay down. Would you be kind enough to explain?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

May I suggest you look at the question from a slightly different angle?

It was a direct response to OPs question : "Is killing the Taliban a service or a disservice to Muslims?"

So if the West think they are doing Muslims a favor by killing the Taliban, can somebody else assume they would be doing Americans a favor by killing the WBC?

The question wasn't concerned in the slightest with whether the West thought it was a service or not, the question is do Muslims think it is?

I don't think it's helpful at all to try to compare the Taliban to Westboro Baptist. They're extremely different.

Oh, yes, asking a question instead of providing an answer is a response, I suppose. I really was hoping for an answer, however.

Read your Pike, the Muslims and the west are going to be plunged into all out war.....this will result in their killing each other to a standstill, and the One World order will be proclaimed

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by SuicideBankers

 

Dear SuicideBankers,

The reason I thought the discussion was important was the prospect for peace in the future. Soon, the US will have only a relatively small presence in the Middle-East. If the terrorist attacks are due to our invasion, that justification should end fairly quickly and peace can arise.

If Muslims just have a hatred for the West and want to destroy it, peace will sadly be a long time away.

The article also suggests a way of thinking about the question "Are Muslim terrorists (e.g. Taliban) a tiny fringe element outside of Islam?"

I would like to think I hold no weapons to lay down. Would you be kind enough to explain?

With respect,
Charles1952

You and I have danced this dance before. I will not deny truth. We really don't know if its a small group or a large group. Whats important is that its a rapidly increasing ever growing number. I think we both agree on that. Let me ask you this. Would you be okay with a foreign army on American soil? Would you be okay if that army changed your life dramatically in many different ways? Would it make anything better if That army made claims to withdraw only to lie? Would you feel any better having "a small presence" of that army in your country?

Your rhetoric is a weapon Charles. Some people on ATS respect you and what you say. You know this.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

May I suggest you look at the question from a slightly different angle?

It was a direct response to OPs question : "Is killing the Taliban a service or a disservice to Muslims?"

So if the West think they are doing Muslims a favor by killing the Taliban, can somebody else assume they would be doing Americans a favor by killing the WBC?

The question wasn't concerned in the slightest with whether the West thought it was a service or not, the question is do Muslims think it is?

I don't think it's helpful at all to try to compare the Taliban to Westboro Baptist. They're extremely different.

Oh, yes, asking a question instead of providing an answer is a response, I suppose. I really was hoping for an answer, however.

Our presence in their country is a disservice to them.

Seriously now, not that I am in favour of the culture and lifestyle present in Afghanistan and around those places but why is it always Afghanistan that takes the blame for everything?

9/11 gave them a bad name. It's hard to make them forget all that and start over, remember they are hurt as well ...and have as much as right to be so, like USA does probably even more than USA right now.

I do not agree with the Afghan culture and government that's for sure, the sad pity is that, we don't accept them in most part due to their lifestyle and religion. That is a fact and no one can change it unless they themselves decide to change it which is hard since it's part of them, and what they have always been taught to do.

Morgan

reply to post by SuicideBankers

Dear SuicideBankers,

My apologies for being repetitive, I truly don't remember having this discussion. Let's chalk it up to age.

I will not deny truth.

Good. Thank you. I'd have little respect for you if you did.

Let me ask you this. Would you be okay with a foreign army on American soil? Would you be okay if that army changed your life dramatically in many different ways? Would it make anything better if That army made claims to withdraw only to lie? Would you feel any better having "a small presence" of that army in your country?

You're going to hate this answer, but it's true. I might be fine with it.

Here's what popped into my head. Consider the French or the Italians in WWII. We invaded their countries, attacked a group of people intent on killing and conquering, people who had taken over life in those countries, yet we were welcomed as heroes and saviors.

I think what the Author (and I) is wondering is, do the people in the Middle-East see us as preventing terrorist groups from taking over their countries? If I recall, they were pretty darn pleased when Saddam fell. Do they believe that we are fighting evil people who are distorting their religion to justify violence. Or, do the groups we're attacking represent the average, run of the mill, Muslim who has done nothing to deserve attack?

Your rhetoric is a weapon Charles. Some people on ATS respect you and what you say. You know this.

IF that is true, then I have a huge responsibility to be careful in my words. I'm really grateful when you or anyone else, stop me and tell me I'm going over the line. I welcome that kind of criticism, and I hope you'll do it often.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

The question wasn't concerned in the slightest with whether the West thought it was a service or not, the question is do Muslims think it is?

Depends who you ask.
The Taliban are largely an Afghan / Pashtun phenomena... the Pashtuns are bonded via their complex tribal systems. Its highly unlikely that the average Afghan Pashtun would want to see western forces killing their own relatives, ( the Taliban are largely comprised of Pashtuns)

Secondly, many Afghan villagers actually prefer the Taliban to the US backed government, who they see as corrupt and inefficient. The Taliban, who control around 70% of Afghanistan are known for their swift justice.

I don't think it's helpful at all to try to compare the Taliban to Westboro Baptist. They're extremely different.

I wasn't comparing the Taliban to the WBC. I was just giving you a perspective.
I was posing the same question to you. Would Americans think it would be a service if a foreigner killed off the WBC's leaders..... or would they be seen as terrorists guilty of killing American citizens.

reply to post by LMorgan

The reason I've been focusing on Afghanistan is that the current leader of our country declared it to be "The Good War," and the one we should have been fighting all along. Also, I think it's pretty much the only country we're doing much in right now.

I do not agree with the Afghan culture and government that's for sure, the sad pity is that, we don't accept them in most part due to their lifestyle and religion. That is a fact and no one can change it unless they themselves decide to change it which is hard since it's part of them, and what they have always been taught to do.

You're right, and depending on what you mean by "lifestyle and religion," I wouldn't want to change it. They found something that works for them and I'm glad for them.

I just had a thought. Maybe part of the problem is the existence of borders. For nomadic people that might be a hard concept to grasp. They probably went pretty freely wherever they wanted. It might be very difficult for them to accept the idea that they should stay on their side of the line and not mess with anybody on the other side.

In any event, I believe most of the people there just want to be left alone, attacked by neither Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or the US. i'd love to see all those forces gone.

reply to post by sonnny1

In its January 9, 2013 issue Urdu daily Hindustan Express reported that leader of Tehrik Taliban Pakistan Waliur Rahman Khan announced sending of terrorists in Kashmir and pledged to fight for the imposition of Sharia law in the State.

I thought the OP was referring exclusively to the Afghan Taliban who are the face of Afghanistan's resistance movement, regardless of anybodys opinions on their methods.

If you want to bring up the lesser known Pakistani Taliban... they are not the same as the ones referred to n the OP. Even then, their violence pales in comparison to the invasions, civilian killings and drone bombings that have been been carried out by the West. They are street hoodlums compared to the hi-tech, organized killing forces of the West.

But of course, Western aggression against Muslims would always be whitewashed into something acceptable.

The Motivation is simple. Imposing ones beliefs and rights on others, using religious extremism on those who don't believe, or want to believe.

The same can be said about the West as well.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by SuicideBankers

 

Dear SuicideBankers,

My apologies for being repetitive, I truly don't remember having this discussion. Let's chalk it up to age.

I will not deny truth.

Good. Thank you. I'd have little respect for you if you did.

Let me ask you this. Would you be okay with a foreign army on American soil? Would you be okay if that army changed your life dramatically in many different ways? Would it make anything better if That army made claims to withdraw only to lie? Would you feel any better having "a small presence" of that army in your country?

You're going to hate this answer, but it's true. I might be fine with it.

Here's what popped into my head. Consider the French or the Italians in WWII. We invaded their countries, attacked a group of people intent on killing and conquering, people who had taken over life in those countries, yet we were welcomed as heroes and saviors.

I think what the Author (and I) is wondering is, do the people in the Middle-East see us as preventing terrorist groups from taking over their countries? If I recall, they were pretty darn pleased when Saddam fell. Do they believe that we are fighting evil people who are distorting their religion to justify violence. Or, do the groups we're attacking represent the average, run of the mill, Muslim who has done nothing to deserve attack?

Your rhetoric is a weapon Charles. Some people on ATS respect you and what you say. You know this.

IF that is true, then I have a huge responsibility to be careful in my words. I'm really grateful when you or anyone else, stop me and tell me I'm going over the line. I welcome that kind of criticism, and I hope you'll do it often.

With respect,
Charles1952

More than likely its some mixture of all those mindsets and more. The deeper question is why are we there and why are we fighting. Not why they are resisting. History repeats itself and the war machine rolls on in the name of this that or the other. We tried war and its not working. How about we try peace and take a road never traveled before.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Dear sk0rpi0n,

Thanks for the information, it's helpful.

To answer your question. I think Americans would strongly object to a foreigner, or probably even another American, killing off Westboro people. They would consider it a crime. We bcame very upset when an abortionist was killed, it was discussed for a long time. (I think his name was Tiller) A better case could be made for killing Tiller (but not a good case) than for killing a Westboro supporter. We would not see it as a service no matter how many people wish it would happen.

If the Taliban, etc. are the government the people want, then why not let them run the show? Assuming that's all they do. A question that I think some Americans ask, even in the White House, is "How barbaric can a government be towards it's citizens before the world has an obligation to step in and stop it?"

But, again, thanks for a very useful post.

With respect,
Charles1952

Reveal who it is who runs / owns / orders the Taliban and the whole 'game is over'.
Everything is shrouded in mists to confuse the issue but only ONE group win in this 'game'.

People cannot see the big picture. Who has time to stand that far back to see what is really going on........and if you do see and you then 'say', who is going to believe you anyway?

In any control mechanism, for example a cult like religion, there is mind control so strong that is imposed from birth by parents, then the 'preacher' and so little time to think for oneself that the sheeple never get a chance to just wonder and realise that they are manipulated. In a cult religion, YOUR religion is 'the Truth'. In a cult like nation, YOUR nation and what YOUR leaders are telling you is 'the Truth'. The unfortunate FACT that the purpose of leaders is to mislead, as they are misled themselves, is neither nor here there. As the 'flock' moves in one direction, it is virtually impossible for a single thinker to move out of the flock without some pain and difficulty and so the flock moves in whatever direction it has been programmed from birth to move in.

In a cult, you think as one. Any deviation and from birth you have been taught to self punish and walls appear as any thought different from the flock appear and the emotion of FEAR! Dare I think like that? Isn't it wrong to question the 'misleaders'?

By the sword or by the book. Isn't the purpose of Islam to have an Islamic planet? As with less volatile cult systems, they may not take violent action to 'take over the world' but they preach that all the world will one day be their own religion when their god finally steps in to destroy all 'non beleivers'.

So the theme of 'the Truth' is a universal one. Each cult having their own version and each moving forward with their own form of jihad, be it verbal or violent.

Should the west interefere in other countries affairs? Depends on the REAL motive.

But the real questions should be, who is pulling the strings and why?

The world religions and governments have been subverted.
The subversion has caused demoralisation as social structures collapse.
Society has become destabilised and cannot stand together.
We now face crisis world wide as the results of the subversion take root.
Finally, will come normalisation. At this point, people may well accept any type of 'government' or 'mind and social control' just for some distant memory of normality and peace.

But who is responsible for the subversion? Find the answer to that and we may be able to stop sleep walking into a hell like existence from which many generations may never have a chance to escape.

And maybe, it doesn't matter any more and it is already too late. Freedom will be a distant memory. Or maybe it never existed anyway.

reply to post by Elliot

Ok, this is off-topic and minimal, but I really thought your post was valuable. It helps expand our thinking, gives things a little shake so we can see things differently.

Nicely done. Thanks

some of you posters are really hilarious,you are blaming the victim,of retaliating and showing reaction toward an act of aggression!....You even analyze and discuss the motivations like they are really hard to observe and comprehend.. ..Violence is not justifiable,doesn't matter who is doing it,but you can not be surprised if a cat bites you when you are standing on his tail.

Originally posted by charles1952
Something I don't understand, and yes, I figure this thread may be hopelessly derailed unless seabag can force people to answer some basic questions, is this business about Israel stealing their country.

As I understand it, The Islamic countries are all hot to get UN recognition for the State of Palestine. Diplomatic and advertising campaigns, money to foundations, everything you can think of. Those countries must believe that UN recognition is something valuable, worth working for and protecting.

Why then, when Israel has UN recognition, the Islamic countries say "It's illegitimate, we'll never accept it, death to Israel." Do those countries want the world to accept UN recognition in one case but not the other?

I know, I know, "But Israel is nasty, devious, murderous, warmongering, etc., etc." Other countries with demonstrably worse histories have their recognition accepted.

How about, the US will never allow Palestinian statehood, until after the world accepts Israel's statehood and right to exist?

The Arab nations have told Israel that if they returned to it's pre 67 borders then it would accept Israel as a nation. Israel refused this and has kept expanding it's borders which is against international law. So how can a nation be legitimate when it's borders keeps moving from one day to the next and is constantly breaking the law?

Btw no nation has a right to exist.

Some information for those that do not understand a global threat or the need for / purpose of troops in such places of insurgency.

INTERPOL recognises terrorist threat

INTERPOL first worked with the 1267 Committee, the Sanctions Committee established in 1999 in relation to Al-Qaida and the Taliban. In 2011, the 1267 Committee was divided into two distinct sanctions regimes, one for Al-Qaida and another for the Taliban:

The  Committee pursuant to resolutions 1267 (1999) and 1989 (2011): this committee oversees sanctions concerning individuals and entities associated with Al-Qaida.

The  Committee pursuant to resolution 1988 (2011): this committee oversees sanctions concerning individuals and entities associated with the Taliban;

UN recognises terrorist threat

U.N. blacklist was created in 1999, after al Qaeda bombings of two U.S. embassies

Those on the blacklist are suspected of connections to al Qaeda or the Taliban

Those on the list are subject to asset freezes and restrictions on international travel

1998 - 2009 Timeline of Al qaeda and Taliban atrocities

Al-Qaeda operatives, led by Osama bin Laden, have planned and committed dozens of attacks over the last two decades.

August 1998: A van packed with explosives blows up outside the US embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, killing 219 people, and it is followed minutes later by an explosion at the sister embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, causing a further 12 deaths. About 5,000 people are injured in the two blasts.

October 2000: Seventeen American sailors die and 39 are injured when suicide bombers steer a boat packed with explosives into the USS Cole in Yemen, blowing a 40sq ft hole in the ship’s hull. Al-Qaeda later claims responsibility.

September 2001: Four aeroplanes are hijacked by men believed to be working for al-Qaeda. Two are flown into the World Trade Center in New York and one hits the Pentagon in Washington, while the fourth is brought down in a field in Pennsylvania. 3,000 people are killed in the attacks, the worst ever on American soil.

December 2001: Richard Reid, later dubbed the “shoe bomber”, is restrained by fellow passengers as he tries to ignite explosives concealed in his shoes while on board a flight from Paris to Miami. In court the Briton declares his loyalty to Bin Laden. He is jailed for life.

October 2002: Two bombs explode in a busy nightclub area on the Indonesian island of Bali, killing 202 people, including 28 Britons. The south east Asian terror group Jemaah Islamiyah, which has been linked to al-Qaeda, was blamed for the attacks.

March 2004: A series of bombs is detonated on four commuter trains in Madrid, killing more than 200 people and wounding 1,500. It is claimed that the attacks were carried out by a terrorist cell inspired by al-Qaeda.

March 2004: Police make a wave of arrests in Operation Crevice, amid reports that Pakistani terrorists are operating in southern England. Five men are later found guilty of plotting to blow up the Bluewater shopping centre and Ministry of Sound nightclub with fertiliser bombs.

August 2004: Dhiren Barot, a British Muslim, is arrested and accused of plotting a series of coordinated terrorist attacks in this country and abroad, including one which was to involve a radioactive “dirty bomb”. He becomes the first Muslim accused of plotting explosions in this country to plead guilty.

July 2005: Bombs on three underground trains and a double decker bus in London on July 7 claim 52 lives, injuring 700 more. Weeks later on July 21, a similar plot is foiled when explosives in rucksacks carried onto underground trains and buses by four men fail to detonate.

August 2006: British police make a series of arrests to prevent the planned bombing of at least seven trans-Atlantic airliners destined for cities across the US and Canada. Eight men are given life sentences.

August 2007: Al Qaida are linked to the deaths of 400 Yazidis - an ancient muslim sect regarded as infidels by extremists - killed in bombings in the Sinjar area of Iraq.

March 2009: Police arrest an al-Qaeda cell of Pakistani students in Manchester who were plotting a bomb attack on shoppers in Manchester. It later emerged the plan was part of a wider series of coordinated attacks in New York and Scandinavia.

October 2009: At least 155 victims die when al Qaida carries out a double suicide bombing in Baghdad. Two months later the group is linked to a series of car bombs in the centre of Baghdad which kill at least 127 people.

December 2009: Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, a Nigerian graduate, tries to blow up an aeroplane. Wearing explosives in his underwear he sets himself alight in a packed Airbus approaching Detroit, in an attack orchestrated by al Qaeda in Yemen.