uk no 1 al qaeda target

  • Thread starter Thread starter nishom
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 47
  • Views Views 7K
DeepOcean said:
Basically 2 wrongs don't make a right. At least thats what I got from the post.
Click to expand...

Since a person isn't "happy" with the U.S. and U.K and they don't like Condaleeza Rice that offsets whatever blame extremists have for blowing up people? That is basically saying "I don't defend terrorists but since I don't like Condaleeza Rice I can just blame her." This inability some have to be critical of people who proclaim to have the same faith is very troubling to me, but by now it is hardly a surprise.
 
Keltoi said:
Since a person isn't "happy" with the U.S. and U.K and they don't like Condaleeza Rice that offsets whatever blame extremists have for blowing up people? That is basically saying "I don't defend terrorists but since I don't like Condaleeza Rice I can just blame her." This inability some have to be critical of people who proclaim to have the same faith is very troubling to me, but by now it is hardly a surprise.
Click to expand...


Hi keltoi.


It's not really that. The real reason we don't like people like her is due to the fact that they go to the muslim land's and kill our brothers and sisters. It's got nothing to do with what the "terrorists" are doing in these lands, both are totally different topics.

The American government is justifying what their doing by going to the muslim lands and causing corruption there, while they use "terrorists" as a form of side track to keep the people thinking that what their doing is justified.



Allaah Almighty knows best.



Peace.
 
Fi_Sabilillah said:
Hi keltoi.


It's not really that. The real reason we don't like people like her is due to the fact that they go to the muslim land's and kill our brothers and sisters. It's got nothing to do with what the "terrorists" are doing in these lands, both are totally different topics.

The American government is justifying what their doing by going to the muslim lands and causing corruption there, while they use "terrorists" as a form of side track to keep the people thinking that what their doing is justified.



Allaah Almighty knows best.



Peace.
Click to expand...

It would be nice to believe that terrorism is a "side" issue, but unfortunately it is not. At least not to me and not the majority of U.S. and British citizens. Not to mention the Spanish. Religious extremists who are willing to kill themselves and as many people as they can take with them are not a side issue to "trick" the poor dumb citizens of the West. I know it would be comforting for some people to believe that.
 
Keltoi said:
It would be nice to believe that terrorism is a "side" issue, but unfortunately it is not. At least not to me and not the majority of U.S. and British citizens. Not to mention the Spanish. Religious extremists who are willing to kill themselves and as many people as they can take with them are not a side issue to "trick" the poor dumb citizens of the West. I know it would be comforting for some people to believe that.
Click to expand...

where do u get this from keltoi?

as you will no, no man of religious islamic understanding would simply and stupidly blow a portion of a city up. there is no point to that at all. It is simply not strategic !
 
Mazed said:
where do u get this from keltoi?

as you will no, no man of religious islamic understanding would simply and stupidly blow a portion of a city up. there is no point to that at all. It is simply not strategic !
Click to expand...
Maybe they lack "religious islamic understanding".
I think we all assume that.
 
Keltoi said:
It would be nice to believe that terrorism is a "side" issue, but unfortunately it is not. At least not to me and not the majority of U.S. and British citizens. Not to mention the Spanish. Religious extremists who are willing to kill themselves and as many people as they can take with them are not a side issue to "trick" the poor dumb citizens of the West. I know it would be comforting for some people to believe that.
Click to expand...


I know it doesn't seem like that to the majority of the west, but remember when bush said "you're either with us or against us" - i wonder why he said that. It's obvious that anyone who is against the wars is supposedly on the opposition. Which mean's the person isn't on the side of the US.

Now the irony is that we already know this, there are two parties [even though now is the grey area] - a party of pure belief and a party of total disbelief. Allaah Almighty know's best, but these event's may even lead upto the time of ad-dajaal, the anti christ.


You might have realised that islaam is being attacked from all sides; kashmir, iraq, palestine, chechnya, bosnia, afghanistan, muslims in the west etc. Why is this? It's because the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) told us that Allaah would humiliate us, until we returned back to our religion. And what time are people more likely to turn to Allaah? It's when they are getting harmed. This global scale is what may lead to the final event's, and Allaah the Exalted knows best.



Peace.
 
wilberhum said:
There is war in every corner of the world. So People are being attacked from all sides.
Click to expand...

yes but if you take a look around at france, at london, at canada etc etc we hear many stories of masjids being raided, sisters being victimised, brothers being accused of terrorism, we even see cab drivers appear on the headlines of mainstream newspapers just for refusing to let a guide dog in. We are most certainly todays focus!
 
Mazed said:
yes but if you take a look around at france, at london, at canada etc etc we hear many stories of masjids being raided, sisters being victimised, brothers being accused of terrorism, we even see cab drivers appear on the headlines of mainstream newspapers just for refusing to let a guide dog in. We are most certainly todays focus!
Click to expand...
How is that different than what happens to the Jews? It's wrong, but it happens to many different people. I quess the main difference is I attack all discrimination. I care not if the victoms are Muslim, Jewish or WallaWallaBingBangs.

Though I am particulary concerned when agnostics are targeted. :hiding: ;D
 
wilberhum said:
How is that different than what happens to the Jews? It's wrong, but it happens to many different people. I quess the main difference is I attack all discrimination. I care not if the victoms are Muslim, Jewish or WallaWallaBingBangs.

Though I am particulary concerned when agnostics are targeted. :hiding: ;D
Click to expand...

have you compared the magnamity of the attacks at the jews/muslims and walawalabingbangs?
Clearly muslims are targetting the most furiously and the jews... i havent even really heard much on that so i cant say, as for the walawalabingbangs, lol man psychiatrist !!!
 
IbnAbdulHakim said:
have you compared the magnamity of the attacks at the jews/muslims and walawalabingbangs?
Clearly muslims are targetting the most furiously and the jews... i havent even really heard much on that so i cant say, as for the walawalabingbangs, lol man psychiatrist !!!
Click to expand...
The walawalabingbangs have received so much discrimination that almost no one knows anything about them. :giggling: :giggling:
On the serious side, discrimination must be attacked from all sides. Discrimination is a sickness within society.

I find it dormitory to attack discrimination of only one group.
 
Keltoi said:
Which leads me to another issue I have a problem with. From posts like Woodrow's, and many others, it seems that when Al-Qaeda or terrorism is brought up many Muslims will automatically throw themselves in the same boat with them. Not by saying "I support them" obviously, but by this moral relativism. Woodrow mentions that to "some" the U.K. is seen as the #1 aggressor. What exactly does that mean in the context of this conversation? Is that supposed to be a defense for people who WANT to blow up women and children? I know Woodrow doesn't mean it in that way, but what other way can I look at a statement like that? Because the U.K. has trust issues with the Muslim community they are being aggressive? Again, a cause and effect in play there. I'm not trying to offend anyone, and I hopefully I was able to make my point in the right way.
Click to expand...

Interesting. When I made that statement I had intended to to be a generality with no reference. I was trying to point out that opposing views will see the same thing differently.

I apologise for not having made it clearer.

I am not offended, I appreciate the input on the manner in which it could be seen.

I do agree with your term of cause and effect.


Much of what we see is "self fulfilling prophecy" if people believe Muslims are terrorists, some Muslims will try to prove them right and live up to the label, verifying what is believed. The opposite is also true if Muslims believe the government is singling them out the easy it will be so see rules/laws that do single them out and any protesting of the said rules/laws will verity the thought and lead to more restrictive rules/laws.

A share of communication is a good method of breaking the barriers of misinterpretation. Communication consist of three parts a message, a sender and a reciever. All too often the sender never knows what the reciever heard and then makes the error of assuming it was what he thought he sent.

Feed back from eachother is the best way for us all to know if what was heard matches what was said.
 
This is a prime time to blow something up in UK, I wouldn't surprised if someone did bomb things in the next 3 months as we all know AL-Qaeda or Muslims are going to be blamed for it.
Maybe the we will see the revival of the IRA behind the scenes :?
 
WnbSlveOfAllah said:
This is a prime time to blow something up in UK, I wouldn't surprised if someone did bomb things in the next 3 months as we all know AL-Qaeda or Muslims are going to be blamed for it.
Maybe the we will see the revival of the IRA behind the scenes :?
Click to expand...

You say "Al-Qaeda and Muslims" will be blamed for it. As if they aren't to blame for it and it is all some secret cover-up meant to make Muslims look bad. That is exactly the mentality that I'm talking about.
 
Iqram said:
Well to tell you the truth...I've seen many people....rather heard... Non-Muslims saying that they are interested in these terrorist groups and would like to become members and carry out attacks...as it makes them look 'good'...or in modern terms 'gansta'.

Surely there will be 'Muslims' ^o) among them, but what I'm trying to say is, media portrays these Muslims and non Muslims to be one body...hence showing that the only people involved in these bombings/wrongful acts as to be Muslims, And ONLY muslims......

Think about it.....Chavs....All they want to do is create havoc....
Click to expand...

Well, might be, but Muslim groups always identify their acts against 'unbelievers' and in the name of Allah, while non-muslim groups always have a political background. That is the main difference, plus, I can only hardly believe non-muslims join muslim extremist groups, just because they want to be a 'gangsta', means, I don't think, there are mixed groups out there !
 
guyabano said:
Well, might be, but Muslim groups always identify their acts against 'unbelievers' and in the name of Allah, while non-muslim groups always have a political background. That is the main difference, plus, I can only hardly believe non-muslims join muslim extremist groups, just because they want to be a 'gangsta', means, I don't think, there are mixed groups out there !
Click to expand...


Remember that according to islaam, if a person is following another religion besides the religion of Allaah, then their non muslim - because they havn't submitted themselves to Allah, and thats what islaam actually means. so what about the christians who fight in the name of religion? What about the hindus? the sikhs? etc.


What you said above is biased, because where some muslims use religion as their title, so do people from other faiths, and this is obvious when people keep mentioning the crusaders to christians. And other groups from other religions.


So it's not only islaam, but nearly every other religion.




Allaah Almighty knows best.




Peace. :)
 
Keltoi said:
Since a person isn't "happy" with the U.S. and U.K and they don't like Condaleeza Rice that offsets whatever blame extremists have for blowing up people?
Click to expand...

You know, it's that type of statement that probably causes all this confusion. With the exception of Al Qaeda, no one else took up arms (which is how they got labelled extremists) until after the U.S. invasions (they didn't believe the actions of Al Qaeda justified U.S. occupation of their lands), and even Al Qaeda argues the invasion of Palestine is where this all began. It's kind of like breaking up a fight between your kids. You ask each child what happened and together, they reply: Well... he started it!

The other problem I have, what upsets me about all the 'extremist' reporting is their tendency to lump all these different groups together. When New Orleans went into a state of chaos, everyone lost control. It wasn't just the thugs ripping off plasma TVs, the cops were doing it too! But western media knew there was a big difference between thugs and cops and they made major ratings for reporting the difference... Cops getting caught stealing was big news! But they don't distinguish between fighter groups in Iraq. That's one of the problems Zarqawi was trying to address in his last video. He identified them as:

The first kind is the one trying to attach themselves with the Mujahedeen, although they never lived the Mujahedeen life...

What he was talking about were groups who called themselves Mujahedeen (borrowed the cool name), but didn't behave like the Mujahedeen. In short, local thugs and other Mujahedeen wannabes who lacked moral fortitude and discipline. Their actions were diectly responsible for tarnishing the reputation of the Mujahedeen in the same way Private Green ruined the reputation of the U.S. soldiers by commiting acts of rape and murder.

Add to this, western media continuously attaches every horrific act onto the name of the Mujahedeen, even events that turned out to be caused by American operations and other militias, and voile... dangerous reporting! The pen becomes an effective weapon in the War on Terror. But this is a manipulation. I have to ask myself why I could land my butt in hot water for printing a few simple facts to shed some light on certain subjects, or creating more desirable image files? I can honestly say I don't particularly like my government pointing their weapons at me in order to try and control what I have to say. Did you know for instance, that everyone who opposes the War in Iraq are named in a DB of potential subversives? You can get paid good money for saying something for the Iraq War but you can go to jail for saying something against it... or... how did they put it? Promoting the cause of a known terrorist organization (only because their cause happens to be against the Iraq War)?

Ninth Scribe
 
Last edited:

Similar Threads

Back
Top