Rift in al-qaeda? Radical Muslims now saying violence is sinful.

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


You are totally off base. As with the religious right in this country... its not so much about winning, though that would be nice (in their opinion, not mine) but to stand in opposition to injustice, real or imaginary... is far more important.

Sooner or later, the extremists will give up violence but that is when they become far more troublesome... when they actually aim for the halls of power.

Surrender as it were, is simply not in the equation for either Islamic extremists, or Christian, or Jewish or any other extremist for that matter.

reply to post by grover


Correct - but it is a legit action to undertake. I think you know this and your real issue is political. That is, you don't like GWB therefore, he is the root of all evil and by extension, so are we which means the war is ‘illegal’ or ‘unjust’.

Political speeches aside, there is going to be no change in our middle east policy no matter who is in the White House. It's going to be a rude awakening for the politically 'left' when they finally realize this.

As I said in another reply, but I think it's worth repeating: sometimes war is the answer. If Islamic extremists are but 10% of the Muslim population in the world, we are talking about 200 million people who don’t want to sing camp fire songs, commune with trees, wear Birkenstocks, celebrate not shaving their legs, not wearing bras or waste time with 'diplomacy'.

They want to kill us.

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by grover

 

Correct - but it is a legit action to undertake. I think you know this and your real issue is political. That is, you don't like GWB therefore, he is the root of all evil and by extension, so are we which means the war is ‘illegal’ or ‘unjust’.

BULLHOOEY!!!

The war IS illegal and unjust... that was not and never was my point.

Terrorism is the weapon of choice of the powerless and it always has been... it is not a matter of it being Islam or not.

And in that context they consider their actions as you say legitimate.

[edit on 26-5-2008 by grover]

reply to post by grover


Perfect example of what I am talking about.

They aren't fighting for 'injustice'. They are fighting for the extermination of non-Muslims. Radical extremists aren't looking for dialogue, they are looking to kill non-Muslims.

The ongoing conflict between Muslims and the West, and India, and in Africa, and also I guess against the Chinese, and in the Philippines, and the Spice Islands, you get my drift, it about more than 9-11, and the numerous other attacks against the U.S..

Maybe the radicals are starting to realize we all worship the same God, and that talking is much better than throwing bombs and cutting peoples heads off.

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


You have no idea what you are talking about.

You are working from an opinion you have already made and have no interest in what is actually being discussed in this thread... that there is a rift among the extremists about the use of violence, you just want to push your opinion.

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by grover

 

Perfect example of what I am talking about.

They aren't fighting for 'injustice'. They are fighting for the extermination of non-Muslims. Radical extremists aren't looking for dialog, they are looking to kill non-Muslims.

Here's where the confusion between Muslim, Radical Muslim, and Al-Qaeda starts.

Technically Al-Qaeda's ultimate goal isn't to kill non-Muslims. It's to prevent external interference from hindering their local decisions. You can look back to before this mess started to check that out.

Remember Al-Qaeda has members who aren't Muslim. They've even had a couple of Christians in their ranks.


The Qur'an is very specific in that killing is sinful.
So, technically, the radical Muslims are the ones who believe killing is justified.

Which then makes the entire original article we are discussing bogus, because if they believe against killing... THEY AREN'T RADICALS.


Remember, it's an op-ed piece. It's the authors opinion, and I didn't find any stated facts.
Take it as such.



And on another note... it would be lovely to see more Christians decide killing and torturing is wrong.

reply to post by grover


Bull-hockey back at'cha!

That's wonderful that you have a deep understanding with those that don't care one iota about "understanding" your position.

And I agree with you: they are terrorists and Muslim. How or why they got that way is irrelevant. (I can see your eyes crossing). I don't excuse the behavior, nor do I see the U.S. as the root of all evil.

If only we had engaged in more diplomacy WWII would have never happened, correct? Opps, we did and it still happened. As a matter of fact, apologists wanted to continue to talk after we had declared war. The case has been made (in my opinion successfully) that our diplomacy efforts (with Hitler) only served to strengthen his pre-war position, thereby dragging the suffering out even longer than if we had interceded earlier.

If you would prefer to engage in self-loathing and embark upon 'diplomacy' missions to the middle east to better understand those that want to saw off your head - have at it. Personally, I am not interested in any more sob stories about how these animals (IMO) are some how enlightened or “freedom fighters” struggling against the big, bad, oppressive United States.

The problem with your position isn't that it's political in nature, it's that your just plain wrong. I'm not saying you are: history is.

That's the thing about your position: it's nothing new; no matter how 'enlightened' you might think it is.

reply to post by MsSmartypants


very interesting..

this kind of shows the truth in that good people get to go to the next level and evil people must figure that out.

Originally posted by Pjotr

Originally posted by USMC-oorah
reply to post by Pjotr

 

One might say, "if were all peaceful monks, or peaceful people, then there would be no war, or violence." Well, assuming were all Human Beings there is eventually going to be a group, or even one man. That is going to disagree and break the peace. Then who is going to stop his violence? Who is going to break their peace and go to war?

[edit on 26-5-2008 by USMC-oorah]

Thanks for the response. I understand your position. As for your proposition: we do not have to be monks, but if want a better live we will have to grow, and I think we have the faculties in general. And if one man breaks the peace, we will have to put him behind bars and educate him untill he is really changed.

The ultimate master is he who convinces his slave that he is free, that he chooses himself to be a soldier. And give the soldier the idea he is a leader in this world, a defender of the premises. That is the matrix most of us are in.

The man who breaks the peace is the man who convinces others to pick a fight. It is not to difficult to single out the guy who starts. I have seen lots of fights, there is always one indvidual with the power to rally others. That is the one you put behind bars or simply refuse to listen to. The socalled "leaders".


[edit on 26-5-2008 by Pjotr]

This is why I think that the concept of peace is totally flawed. Your saying that people that dont' agree with this so called "peace" have to be imprisoned and technically brainwashed? And the leaders of groups with different perspectives on things ignored and put in prison? This does not sound like peace to me. More like a fascist government. Peace will not ever work.

double post: sorry

[edit on 26-5-2008 by USMC-oorah]

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
At the risk of being accused of "pedestrian" or "unenlightened" thinking the answer is much simpiler and obvious:

You get your ass soundly kicked for six years and you start to reevaluate the need to fight in the first place - America haters and pointed head, elitist thinking aside.

This reality is a fact of history.

I agree. It's nice to see someone NOT over-complicating things.

And I don't think anyone would see these radicals changing their position as the beginning of world peace or anything of that sort. But it's progress. It's good news.

We all know there's always going to be wars. Why bring negativity into a thread about something positive? Take it for it is, a change for the better, and leave it at that. One of the first posts on this thread was about the anti-christ. What does that really have to do with anything?

There's plenty of threads where all you pessimists and doomsday preachers can vent. I mean this is ATS. There's never a shortage of pessimism.

Originally posted by MsSmartypants


I have to admit, I didn't see this one coming. Could this be God moving on their hearts here in The End Times?

www.npr.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

End times?? What 'end tmes'???

No, they've simply realised it's a pointless and fruitless tactic...simple.

J.

Originally posted by USMC-oorah
Why December of 2012? It always boggles my mind when people come up with these random dates for bad things to happen. Why not have random dates for very good things to happen? What if in December of 2012 the whole entire world dropped their weapons and hugged? In December of 2012 i'm going to be celebrating Christmas and getting drunk. Not awaiting Planet X, Jesus, or the anti-christ. And if for some very odd reason this stuff happens, so be it. You die, big deal.

I'd like a psychologists view on the ones that always have to be predicting the horrible things. I don't understand what is to gain from it.

Why live your life always waiting for the end? Why not enjoy life even more if you think it'll be over soon. It just sounds like a big cop out to me.

So yes, I too will be enjoying the holidays with my wife and hopefully a kid or two by then. Then we'll just have to wait for the next big predicted catastrophe to come around.

reply to post by PaceIsTheTrick


Exactly. I'm never going to live my life in fear. I want to enjoy every second of it that I can. We cannot prevent the doomsday if it's supposed to happen. You couldn't of said it better.

maybe one of them had a visit from god and he told them the 72 virgins you get was not true and as for the end of the world will not know till it happens dont try to think about it,just live life to the fullest and be fruitfull and multiply,just be right with whatever god you believe in.

I think a lot of people in this post show a great amount of naivete. This isnt a "war on terror" its a war of aggression and occupation. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, almost all the hijackers were saudi. what we define as their "terrorrism" is a populist uprising of iraqi citizens against illegal foreign occupation, and thier fight for self determination. As far as them wanting to kill infidels....well if you look at EVERY SINGLE SPEECH given by the "terrorrists" not once do they mention us having to die because of our "freedom", "christianity", or way of life. Each time they have said plainly that they will continue to fight until we leave them alone, and indeed, this is what Osama said after the destruction of the twins. Even if the whole world rejected violence, do you truly think that our government would go around giving out money, medicine, and food? no, they would continue to press their consolidations of resources and power because that is what we are about. Dont tell me that the middle east "has always been at war with itsself, and we're there to help them stop it". Thats BS. They have skirmishes there from time to time yes, but we are now responsible for the death of 1.2 MILLION iraqi's!!! never have THEY killed so many of each other. and this is our regular practice, we killed 2 million vietnamese, 750000 cambodians and laosians, 500000 philipinos, we have killed japanese, germans, russians, koreans, arawaks, mexicans. What country in the middle east can claim as much???
As to us negotiating with germany helping hitler consolidate his power. No, it wasnt our negotiating, it was us providing them with weapons, steel, and oil, at the same time that we were providing their enemies with the same. We as americans dont WANT peace, and thats why we dont negotiate, its not because we think it doesnt work, its because we are afraid it will. Japan was begging us to accept their surrender 6 months BEFORE we dropped the atom bombs. Osama bin laden was offered to our government 3 times. Saddam Hussein begged to surrender before the first war in the gulf, and we refused...despite the fact that we had assured him prior that we wouldnt conflict with his desire to occupy kuwait. He also again offered to abdicate his throne before this last war in the gulf, but we couldnt have that because then we wouldnt have an excuse to occupy iraq. So yeah, the muslims can embrace peace all they want but that wont stop america's attempts to control their resources and dictate the way they live.

Hmm, I thought that we were attacked on 9-11, and numerous other times because we had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia.

We had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia because of Saddam Husain's aggression.

So it did come round full circle.

Heck, if the radicals would allow a representative government to form in Iraq, U.S. soldiers would be able to go home.

I THINK WE ALL WOULD LIKE U.S. SOLDIERS TO ALL COME HOME FROM IRAQ.

RIGHT?[/B]