ISIS as Salafī, or why this label is accurate

[Audie]

I doubt the muscle on board even knew 9-11 was a suicide mission.

Ok, well, the more you dodge questions and
make excuses the more disingenuous you appear.

 

[james dixon]

As soon as the terrorism ends some of that may
start to matter.

Dybmh, you need to understand the history of terrorist acts, Muslims did not start these terrorist acts, they are just responded to it. The old saying, “what goes around comes around” comes to mind—

November 6, 1944. Zionist terrorists of the Stern Gang assassinated the British Minister Resident in the Middle East, Lord Moyne, in Cairo.

October 1, 1946. The British Embassy in Rome was badly damaged by bomb explosions, for which Irgun claimed responsibility.

September 3, 1947. A postal bomb addressed to the British War Office exploded in the post office sorting room in London, injuring 2 persons. It was attributed to Irgun or Stern Gangs. (The Sunday Times, Sept. 24, 1972, p.8)

December ll, 1947. Six Arabs were killed and 30 wounded when bombs were thrown from Jewish trucks at Arab buses in Haifa; 12 Arabs were killed and others injured in an attack by armed Zionists on an Arab coastal village near Haifa.

December 19, 1947. Haganah terrorists attacked an Arab village near Safad, blowing up two houses in the ruins of which were found the bodies of 10 Arabs, including 5 children. Haganah admitted responsibility for the attack.

December 13, 1947 -- February 10, 1948. Seven incidents of bomb-tossing at innocent Arab civilians in cafes and markets, killing 138 and wounding 271 others, During this period, there were 9 attacks on Arab buses. Zionists mined passenger trains on at least 4 occasions, killing 93 persons and wounding 161 others.

December 29, 1947. Two British constables and 11 Arabs were killed and 32 Arabs injured, at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem when Irgun members threw a bomb from a taxi.

June 1947. Letters sent to British Cabinet Ministers were found to contain bombs.

December ll, 1947. Six Arabs were killed and 30 wounded when bombs were thrown from Jewish trucks at Arab buses in Haifa ; 12 Arabs were killed and others injured in an attack by armed Zionists on an Arab coastal village near Haifa.

December 29, 1947. Two British constables and 11 Arabs were killed and 32 Arabs injured, at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem when Irgun members threw a bomb from a taxi.

January 4, 1948. Haganah terrorists wearing British Army uniforms penetrated into the center of Jaffa and blew up the Serai (the old Turkish Government House) killing more than 40 persons and wounding 98 others.

The Israelis at Liberty State Park were dressed in Arab-style clothing when they were witnessed celebrating the first attack. The FBI later confiscated a videotape they filmed of the first attack. conducting surveillance of the activities of the 9-11 hijackers
CNN.com - Hijackers conducted surveillance flights ahead of 9/11 - Sep. 27, 2002

January 5, 1948. The Arab-owned Semiramis Hotel in Jerusalem was blown up, killing 20 persons.

January 7, 1948. Seventeen Arabs were killed by a bomb at the Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem, 3 of them while trying to escape. Further casualties, including the murder of a British officer near Hebron, were reported from different parts of the country.

January 16, 1948. Zionists blew up three Arab buildings. In the first, 8 children between the ages of 18 months and 12 years, died.

March 22, 1948. A housing block in Iraq Street in Haifa was blown up killing 17 and injuring 100 others. Four members of the Stern Gang drove two truck-loads of explosives into the street and abandoned the vehicles before the explosion.

May 3, 1948. A book bomb addressed to a British Army officer, who had been stationed in Palestine exploded, killing his brother, Rex Farran.

May11, 1948. A letter bomb addressed to Sir Evelyn Barker, former Commanding Officer in Palestine, was detected in the nick of time by his wife.

Dybmh, the above is just the tip of the iceberg.
Google- “stern gang” & “Haganah gang”



-

 

[dybmh]

EVEN IF some other ideology doth surpass islam as
a source of terrorism, that hardly gets islam off of any
hook.

Based on what I know about you, Audie, I think we probably agree on this more than we disagree. Example below:

If someone now is civilized enough to be recovering
from Islam and seeing the problem with that, terrif.

If I read your first quote all on its own, it sounds like you feel 100% of Islam and 100% of Muslims are "on the hook" as a source for terrorism. But reading your second quote, there is a limit: "if a civilized person sees the problem... it's terrific". So, in my mind that means the first quote is slightly exaggerated? If i read it in this way:

"... that hardly gets extremist dangerous violent versions of Islam off the hook ..."

Then we agree. It's just a bit insulting to group all of Islam and all of Muslims together in one statement. I don't think I'm being excessive here, Audie. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a Muslim to be insulted by the implication of what you are saying.

Consider the inaccurate stereotypical claims against atheists: unfeeling, lacking emotion, lacking morals, spiritually deficient, lacking empathy, etc...

This stereotype is insulting, isn't it?

Is it unfair or somehow imbalanced for a Muslim to be insulted when their religion is stereotyped?

Can you honestly say that the entire religion of Islam should be on the hook for terrorism?

Please, forgive me for going back to the gun analogy, but I think it's a really good example of how unfair indicting the entire Islamic religion for being guilty of promoting terrorism.

Gun rights activists make the valid argument: "Guns don't kill people; people kill people." It's a valid argument because a gun doesn't have a brain. A gun doesn't have morals, parents, friends, children, etc... Blaming the gun for the violence doesn't make sense.

Blaming people for gun violence? That makes sense.

I am making the same argument for Islam. Islam doesn't kill people; people kill people. Islam doesn't have a brain, Islam doesn't make the choice to harm innocent people.

However, I think it's natural for non-Muslims to blame Islam for terrorism. I think it makes sense. But there was a time when it made sense to look at the Earth and conclude that it's flat. Sometimes, things aren't what they appear to be. Even recently, there's evidence that Einstein's conclusion that the speed of light as universal maximum may be false.

Claiming something is ridiculous, is actually very weak evidence, Audie. But you can ridicule me if you want. You have my permission. Ridicule me all you want. But I think blaming all of Islam for being the leading source of Terrorism. I'm sorry, I just don't see evidence for that. I think there's some evidence to support it; but I think there's evidence that doesn't support it as well.

That's why I can "push the post button" ( see below: )

harming innocent people. So even if Bin Laden knew the Qur'an better than me, those actions were not supported by the Qur'an.

How can you even push your fingers to post
such a blatant falsehood?

If I knew it was false, I wouldn't post it Audie. Maybe I'm ignorant, but I'm not intentionally spreading miss-information.

I take it from your quote above that you believe it is blatantly false that the Qur'an does not support the attack on the WTC? It has been shown here on RF, in print, and on other websites that the Qur'an does not support the attack on WTC. If it is blatantly false, please, respectfully, bring your evidence to support it.

But

At the end of the back and forth between us, what we will see is that the Qur'an in its entirety overwhelmingly prohibits the attack on the WTC. And we will see that there are a handful of verses when taken on their own can be used to support the attacks.

Question: Would showing you that the Qur'an prohibits terrorism make any difference to you? Would showing you that the Majority of Islamic scholars and Jurists have concluded that Islam prohibits harming innocents make any difference to you?

If not, why not?

I think that answer is:

As long as terrorism keeps occurring, what is in the Qur'an and the legal rulings don't matter to you. And that's my point.

I think that Islam-critics are looking for a silver bullet. End of Islam, less violence. But it's more complicated than that. Many Atheists look at global problems and see Theism as the root cause. But it's not. It would be nice if the problem was that simple and there was a silver bullet. End Theism, less dominance, less prejudice, more reason, more science, etc... But it's not that simple.

AND, as you can show there is no correct reading of
the koran, nor can anyone else, and the boys of 911
and ISIS have been quite ready to give their lives for
the faith (doing so for family, country, faith is
considered quite the sign of virtuous sincerity)
I'd say their version is as good as the next.

This is an over simplified view of the Islamic faith. You are choosing the version that supports your position: "The world would be better without Islam". It's a bias. It's your bias, based on your knowledge and personal experience. And I think it has merit. But it's weighted and it's not objective. That's why I said that your statement before was a race to the bottom. There are more than one way to look at the Islamic religion. But you are choosing to validate the violent minority. That makes matters worse.

I say again:

Validating the violent minority makes matters worse. And that's a perfect segue to this:

Now, back to the source of ideology. WHAT, if not
Islam, IS the ideology that drives the terrorists?
I dont think they chant "Woodstock Uber Alles"
when diving their airplanes, or setting fire to
caged captives. What is it they chant?
What ideology is it about?

You asked: "WHAT, if not Islam, IS the ideology that drives terrorists?"

Answer: Militarism "the belief or the desire of a government or a people that a state should maintain a strong military capability and to use it aggressively to expand national interests and/or values."

hyperlink >>> wikipedia.org - Militarism

Note: **aggressively expand** Not defense. Offense. Not limited. Expansive. Global.

Please take a look at post#16 in this thread: hyperlink >>> religiousforums.com - post#16

"A declared or undeclared Salafist Principality... This is exactly what the supporting powers of the opposition want."

Why do they want it?

Well... in America, there is a militaristic ideology which states that The World would benefit from American Military Dominance. And in order to accomplish that. America would need:

1) Another Pearl Habor Event
2) Which triggers increased Military Spending
3) Which is supported by the demands of fighting multiple foreign enemies simultaneously.


This ideology is described by the a consortium of right wing american politicians and political scientists. This consortium was called: "The Project for a New American Century". The 3 steps I listed above are written in a document called, "Rebuilding America's Defenses".

hyperlink >>> wikipedia.org - Project for the New American Century

I think the most important aspect to focus on is the idea that America needs to fight and win **multiple simultaneous major theater wars**. How does a Government do that? How does that happen?

Source: Rebuilding America's Defenses, page iv
hyperlink >>> web.archive.org - RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

How else do politicians benefit from terrorism?

War is good for the economy.
In times of war, American voters elect incumbent presidents.
Increased nationalism coming from a demonized foreign enemy.

I propose that if extreme violent versions of Islam didn't exist, Militarism would seek out other violent enemies or allies depending on what is needed to perpetuate Military funding and right wing political victories in America.

So what is the Ideology that drives terrorism? Militarism. Salafists are Militaristic ( i think ). Right Wing American Conservatism... also militaristic. That's the link. A belief that violence is a problem solving tactic.

Ah, it is America's fault.

Just to be clear. I don't think it's America's fault. But I think Right Wing American Conservative politicians and the American Military Suppliers benefit. It's a hard pill to swallow. I'm an American. My tax dollars pay for it. I vote. But, I'm young, naive, ignorant. I'm not to blame, and neither is America, and neither is Islam.

@james dixon, I saw your reply. I'll read it and reply. Thank you.

 

[dybmh]

@james dixon ,

I hear you. But I think it's too late to start looking for who threw the first stone.

 

[Audie]

Based on what I know about you, Audie, I think we probably agree on this more than we disagree. Example below:

If I read your first quote all on its own, it sounds like you feel 100% of Islam and 100% of Muslims are "on the hook" as a source for terrorism. But reading your second quote, there is a limit: "if a civilized person sees the problem... it's terrific". So, in my mind that means the first quote is slightly exaggerated? If i read it in this way:

"... that hardly gets extremist dangerous violent versions of Islam off the hook ..."

Then we agree. It's just a bit insulting to group all of Islam and all of Muslims together in one statement. I don't think I'm being excessive here, Audie. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a Muslim to be insulted by the implication of what you are saying.

Consider the inaccurate stereotypical claims against atheists: unfeeling, lacking emotion, lacking morals, spiritually deficient, lacking empathy, etc...

This stereotype is insulting, isn't it?

Is it unfair or somehow imbalanced for a Muslim to be insulted when their religion is stereotyped?

Can you honestly say that the entire religion of Islam should be on the hook for terrorism?

Please, forgive me for going back to the gun analogy, but I think it's a really good example of how unfair indicting the entire Islamic religion for being guilty of promoting terrorism.

Gun rights activists make the valid argument: "Guns don't kill people; people kill people." It's a valid argument because a gun doesn't have a brain. A gun doesn't have morals, parents, friends, children, etc... Blaming the gun for the violence doesn't make sense.

Blaming people for gun violence? That makes sense.

I am making the same argument for Islam. Islam doesn't kill people; people kill people. Islam doesn't have a brain, Islam doesn't make the choice to harm innocent people.

However, I think it's natural for non-Muslims to blame Islam for terrorism. I think it makes sense. But there was a time when it made sense to look at the Earth and conclude that it's flat. Sometimes, things aren't what they appear to be. Even recently, there's evidence that Einstein's conclusion that the speed of light as universal maximum may be false.

Claiming something is ridiculous, is actually very weak evidence, Audie. But you can ridicule me if you want. You have my permission. Ridicule me all you want. But I think blaming all of Islam for being the leading source of Terrorism. I'm sorry, I just don't see evidence for that. I think there's some evidence to support it; but I think there's evidence that doesn't support it as well.

That's why I can "push the post button" ( see below: )

If I knew it was false, I wouldn't post it Audie. Maybe I'm ignorant, but I'm not intentionally spreading miss-information.

I take it from your quote above that you believe it is blatantly false that the Qur'an does not support the attack on the WTC? It has been shown here on RF, in print, and on other websites that the Qur'an does not support the attack on WTC. If it is blatantly false, please, respectfully, bring your evidence to support it.

But

At the end of the back and forth between us, what we will see is that the Qur'an in its entirety overwhelmingly prohibits the attack on the WTC. And we will see that there are a handful of verses when taken on their own can be used to support the attacks.

Question: Would showing you that the Qur'an prohibits terrorism make any difference to you? Would showing you that the Majority of Islamic scholars and Jurists have concluded that Islam prohibits harming innocents make any difference to you?

If not, why not?

I think that answer is:

As long as terrorism keeps occurring, what is in the Qur'an and the legal rulings don't matter to you. And that's my point.

I think that Islam-critics are looking for a silver bullet. End of Islam, less violence. But it's more complicated than that. Many Atheists look at global problems and see Theism as the root cause. But it's not. It would be nice if the problem was that simple and there was a silver bullet. End Theism, less dominance, less prejudice, more reason, more science, etc... But it's not that simple.

This is an over simplified view of the Islamic faith. You are choosing the version that supports your position: "The world would be better without Islam". It's a bias. It's your bias, based on your knowledge and personal experience. And I think it has merit. But it's weighted and it's not objective. That's why I said that your statement before was a race to the bottom. There are more than one way to look at the Islamic religion. But you are choosing to validate the violent minority. That makes matters worse.

I say again:

Validating the violent minority makes matters worse. And that's a perfect segue to this:



You asked: "WHAT, if not Islam, IS the ideology that drives terrorists?"

Answer: Militarism

Please take a look at post#16 in this thread: hyperlink >>> religiousforums.com - post#16

View attachment 29195

"A declared or undeclared Salafist Principality... This is exactly what the supporting powers of the opposition want."

Why do they want it?

Well... in America, there is a militaristic ideology which states that The World would benefit from American Military Dominance. And in order to accomplish that. America would need:

1) Another Pearl Habor Event
2) Which triggers increased Military Spending
3) Which is supported by the demands of fighting multiple foreign enemies simultaneously.


This ideology is described by the a consortium of right wing american politicians and political scientists. This consortium was called: "The Project for a New American Century". The 3 steps I listed above are written in a document called, "Rebuilding America's Defenses".

hyperlink >>> wikipedia.org - Project for the New American Century

I think the most important aspect to focus on is the idea that America needs to fight and win **multiple simultaneous major theater wars**. How does a Government do that? How does that happen?

View attachment 29196

Source: Rebuilding America's Defenses, page iv
hyperlink >>> web.archive.org - RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

How else do politicians benefit from terrorism?

War is good for the economy.
In times of war, American voters elect incumbent presidents.
Increased nationalism coming from a demonized foreign enemy.

I propose that if extreme violent versions of Islam didn't exist, Militarism would seek out other violent enemies or allies depending on what is needed to perpetuate Military funding and right wing political victories in America.

So what is the Ideology that drives terrorism? Militarism. Salafists are Militaristic ( i think ). Right Wing American Conservatism... also militaristic. That's the link. A belief that violence is a problem solving tactic.



Just to be clear. I don't think it's America's fault. But I think Right Wing American Conservative politicians and the American Military Suppliers benefit. It's a hard pill to swallow. I'm an American. My tax dollars pay for it. I vote. But, I'm young, naive, ignorant. I'm not to blame, and neither is America, and neither is Islam.

@james dixon, I saw your reply. I'll read it and reply. Thank you.

Sorry-ah, but your post is too long for a response.

but this..if islam is not the world leader in
terrorism ideology, then, what is?

oh, and, how is it ok for Mohammed to attack
civilian merchants (for supporting the enemy)
but now it is not ok?

 

[dybmh]

but this..if islam is not the world leader in
terrorism ideology, then, what is?

Summarized from the above post:

Militarism "the belief or the desire of a government or a people that a state should maintain a strong military capability and to use it aggressively to expand national interests and/or values."

oh, and, how is it ok for Mohammed to attack
civilian merchants (for supporting the enemy)
but now it is not ok?

It's a good point, but I would like to review your source.

Please note: This is a complicated issue, and now I'm being super brief. SO I would appreciate if you would be kind with your criticism of my comments... ( not that you've been unkind... I'm just saying. there's a lot of nuance in what I am proposing. I hope you understand. )

 

[Audie]

Summarized from the above post:

Militarism "the belief or the desire of a government or a people that a state should maintain a strong military capability and to use it aggressively to expand national interests and/or values."

It's a good point, but I would like to review your source.
The one about islam being the source of the terrorist ideology.

I am no student of islam, but, it is my understanding that

Please note: This is a complicated issue, and now I'm being super brief. SO I would appreciate if you would be kind with your criticism of my comments... ( not that you've been unkind... I'm just saying. there's a lot of nuance in what I am proposing. I hope you understand. )

You are more polite than I.
Your first response does not seem responsive,
My thought is that the terr ideology comes straight
from islam, and nobody is in a position to prove
they have the wrong idea..esp as the 911 boys
were following the lead of Mohammed.

Attacking innocent non combatants to
weaken the enemy.


Why did Prophet Muhammad raid caravans in Medina?

 

[dybmh]

You are more polite than I.
Your first response does not seem responsive,
My thought is that the terr ideology comes straight
from islam, and nobody is in a position to prove
they have the wrong idea..esp as the 911 boys
were following the lead of Mohammed.

Attacking innocent non combatants to
weaken the enemy.


Why did Prophet Muhammad raid caravans in Medina?

Thanks for the link. I'll read it and reply ( if i can be brief ).

 

[dybmh]

Attacking innocent non combatants to
weaken the enemy.

From the source you provided:

"the Prophet commanded the Muslims to adhere to the highest standard of conduct"

"the Prophet forbade Muslims from killing non-combatants and civilians, and he commanded them to behave magnanimously with the enemy."

This behavior is reflected in the Qur'an as well. According to the source you provided, the attack on WTC is not at all congruent to the attack on the caravans in Medina.

 

[Audie]

From the source you provided:

"the Prophet commanded the Muslims to adhere to the highest standard of conduct"

"the Prophet forbade Muslims from killing non-combatants and civilians, and he commanded them to behave magnanimously with the enemy."

This behavior is reflected in the Qur'an as well. According to the source you provided, the attack on WTC is not at all congruent to the attack on the caravans in Medina.

Joke is on me, I did not read the article

Of course, I dont trust islamic apologist sites
any more than i do christian ones. I will look
further into it.

It would be nice if your take is entirely correct.

Did you find anything that explains the terr
pov, re islam and justifying their deeds?

Quick glance.. not sure who these guys are...

The Religious Sources of Islamic Terrorism

 

[dybmh]

Of course, I dont trust islamic apologist sites
any more than i do christian ones. I will look
further into it.

What I think you will find on closer examination of the source you provided is the story about Muhammad attacking the caravan comes from hadith. The limits imposed by Muhammad on the actions taken towards non-combatants and civilians in the caravan also comes from hadith. If I understand how hadith works, one should be able to identify the reliability of each hadith based on who reported it and possibly who witnessed it. The source you provided contains this information ( which hadith and who verified it ). That's, essentially, a primitive version of a paper-trial that would help to determine the reliability of story of the caravan and the instructions that Muhammad provided.

What does this mean?

It means,I think you brought an excellent source. It includes enough information for the reader to verify the data. It's actually a pretty cool system, IMHO.

The other important thing to note. If a person believes that the story about the caravan actually occurred, then that means that this same person should have some measure of academic respect for other hadith as well. And this is where a lot of arguments from Islam-critics fall apart. They believe the hadith that paints Muhammad negatively, and ignore the hadith that paints Muhammad positively without any awareness of which hadith is reliable, and which hadith is closer to unsubstantiated rumor.

I'll look into the rest of your reply later. I don't want this post to turn into a monologue / filibuster.

 

[dybmh]

@Audie, I have read the article from hoover.org.

And now i am reviewing multiple articles returned via the google search: "how are islamic terrorists radicalized".

If you are interested in discussing this further, please let me know.

 

[sooda]

Ok, well, the more you dodge questions and
make excuses the more disingenuous you appear.

Of al these countries in the ME KSA is the easiest to a get a US student visa. especially if the clerc is a Yemenese.

 

[sooda]

Dybmh, you need to understand the history of terrorist acts, Muslims did not start these terrorist acts, they are just responded to it. The old saying, “what goes around comes around” comes to mind—

November 6, 1944. Zionist terrorists of the Stern Gang assassinated the British Minister Resident in the Middle East, Lord Moyne, in Cairo.

October 1, 1946. The British Embassy in Rome was badly damaged by bomb explosions, for which Irgun claimed responsibility.

September 3, 1947. A postal bomb addressed to the British War Office exploded in the post office sorting room in London, injuring 2 persons. It was attributed to Irgun or Stern Gangs. (The Sunday Times, Sept. 24, 1972, p.8)

December ll, 1947. Six Arabs were killed and 30 wounded when bombs were thrown from Jewish trucks at Arab buses in Haifa; 12 Arabs were killed and others injured in an attack by armed Zionists on an Arab coastal village near Haifa.

December 19, 1947. Haganah terrorists attacked an Arab village near Safad, blowing up two houses in the ruins of which were found the bodies of 10 Arabs, including 5 children. Haganah admitted responsibility for the attack.

December 13, 1947 -- February 10, 1948. Seven incidents of bomb-tossing at innocent Arab civilians in cafes and markets, killing 138 and wounding 271 others, During this period, there were 9 attacks on Arab buses. Zionists mined passenger trains on at least 4 occasions, killing 93 persons and wounding 161 others.

December 29, 1947. Two British constables and 11 Arabs were killed and 32 Arabs injured, at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem when Irgun members threw a bomb from a taxi.

June 1947. Letters sent to British Cabinet Ministers were found to contain bombs.

December ll, 1947. Six Arabs were killed and 30 wounded when bombs were thrown from Jewish trucks at Arab buses in Haifa ; 12 Arabs were killed and others injured in an attack by armed Zionists on an Arab coastal village near Haifa.

December 29, 1947. Two British constables and 11 Arabs were killed and 32 Arabs injured, at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem when Irgun members threw a bomb from a taxi.

January 4, 1948. Haganah terrorists wearing British Army uniforms penetrated into the center of Jaffa and blew up the Serai (the old Turkish Government House) killing more than 40 persons and wounding 98 others.

The Israelis at Liberty State Park were dressed in Arab-style clothing when they were witnessed celebrating the first attack. The FBI later confiscated a videotape they filmed of the first attack. conducting surveillance of the activities of the 9-11 hijackers
CNN.com - Hijackers conducted surveillance flights ahead of 9/11 - Sep. 27, 2002

January 5, 1948. The Arab-owned Semiramis Hotel in Jerusalem was blown up, killing 20 persons.

January 7, 1948. Seventeen Arabs were killed by a bomb at the Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem, 3 of them while trying to escape. Further casualties, including the murder of a British officer near Hebron, were reported from different parts of the country.

January 16, 1948. Zionists blew up three Arab buildings. In the first, 8 children between the ages of 18 months and 12 years, died.

March 22, 1948. A housing block in Iraq Street in Haifa was blown up killing 17 and injuring 100 others. Four members of the Stern Gang drove two truck-loads of explosives into the street and abandoned the vehicles before the explosion.

May 3, 1948. A book bomb addressed to a British Army officer, who had been stationed in Palestine exploded, killing his brother, Rex Farran.

May11, 1948. A letter bomb addressed to Sir Evelyn Barker, former Commanding Officer in Palestine, was detected in the nick of time by his wife.

Dybmh, the above is just the tip of the iceberg.
Google- “stern gang” & “Haganah gang”



-

You left out the Swedish guy that saved 30,000 Jews from the Holocaust...

not Raoul Gustaf Wallenberg the Swedish architect..
Count Bernadotte.

 

[sooda]

Sorry-ah, but your post is too long for a response.

but this..if islam is not the world leader in
terrorism ideology, then, what is?

oh, and, how is it ok for Mohammed to attack
civilian merchants (for supporting the enemy)
but now it is not ok?

Haifa Oil Refinery massacre - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haifa_Oil_Refinery_massacre
The Haifa Oil Refinery massacre took place on 30 December 1947 in Mandatory Palestine.It began when six Arabs were killed and 42 wounded after members of the Zionist paramilitary organisation, the Irgun, threw a number of grenades at a crowd of about 100 Arab day-labourers. These Arab day-labourers had gathered outside the main gate of the then British-owned Haifa Oil Refinery to look for …

• Location: Haifa
• Deaths: 45

• Date: 30 December 1947
• Non-fatal injuries: 91

 

[sooda]

You are more polite than I.
Your first response does not seem responsive,
My thought is that the terr ideology comes straight
from islam, and nobody is in a position to prove
they have the wrong idea..esp as the 911 boys
were following the lead of Mohammed.

Attacking innocent non combatants to
weaken the enemy.


Why did Prophet Muhammad raid caravans in Medina?

Muhammed LIVED in Medina. Mahammed Atta an Egyptian followed the teaching of Gutb an al Banna.

 

[Audie]

Haifa Oil Refinery massacre - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haifa_Oil_Refinery_massacre
The Haifa Oil Refinery massacre took place on 30 December 1947 in Mandatory Palestine.It began when six Arabs were killed and 42 wounded after members of the Zionist paramilitary organisation, the Irgun, threw a number of grenades at a crowd of about 100 Arab day-labourers. These Arab day-labourers had gathered outside the main gate of the then British-owned Haifa Oil Refinery to look for …

• Location: Haifa
• Deaths: 45

• Date: 30 December 1947
• Non-fatal injuries: 91

So?

 

[Audie]

Of al these countries in the ME KSA is the easiest to a get a US student visa. especially if the clerc is a Yemenese.

Was something said about disingenuous dodges?

 

[Audie]

@Audie, I have read the article from hoover.org.

And now i am reviewing multiple articles returned via the google search: "how are islamic terrorists radicalized".

If you are interested in discussing this further, please let me know.

Oh, not particularly.

I have commented on now Islam is the
source of terr ideology, and as it is that
god is great stuff they chant, rather than
something else, I kind of think I am right.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Dybmh, you need to understand the history of terrorist acts, Muslims did not start these terrorist acts, they are just responded to it. The old saying, “what goes around comes around” comes to mind—

November 6, 1944. Zionist terrorists of the Stern Gang assassinated the British Minister Resident in the Middle East, Lord Moyne, in Cairo.

October 1, 1946. The British Embassy in Rome was badly damaged by bomb explosions, for which Irgun claimed responsibility.

September 3, 1947. A postal bomb addressed to the British War Office exploded in the post office sorting room in London, injuring 2 persons. It was attributed to Irgun or Stern Gangs. (The Sunday Times, Sept. 24, 1972, p.8)

December ll, 1947. Six Arabs were killed and 30 wounded when bombs were thrown from Jewish trucks at Arab buses in Haifa; 12 Arabs were killed and others injured in an attack by armed Zionists on an Arab coastal village near Haifa.

December 19, 1947. Haganah terrorists attacked an Arab village near Safad, blowing up two houses in the ruins of which were found the bodies of 10 Arabs, including 5 children. Haganah admitted responsibility for the attack.

December 13, 1947 -- February 10, 1948. Seven incidents of bomb-tossing at innocent Arab civilians in cafes and markets, killing 138 and wounding 271 others, During this period, there were 9 attacks on Arab buses. Zionists mined passenger trains on at least 4 occasions, killing 93 persons and wounding 161 others.

December 29, 1947. Two British constables and 11 Arabs were killed and 32 Arabs injured, at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem when Irgun members threw a bomb from a taxi.

June 1947. Letters sent to British Cabinet Ministers were found to contain bombs.

December ll, 1947. Six Arabs were killed and 30 wounded when bombs were thrown from Jewish trucks at Arab buses in Haifa ; 12 Arabs were killed and others injured in an attack by armed Zionists on an Arab coastal village near Haifa.

December 29, 1947. Two British constables and 11 Arabs were killed and 32 Arabs injured, at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem when Irgun members threw a bomb from a taxi.

January 4, 1948. Haganah terrorists wearing British Army uniforms penetrated into the center of Jaffa and blew up the Serai (the old Turkish Government House) killing more than 40 persons and wounding 98 others.

The Israelis at Liberty State Park were dressed in Arab-style clothing when they were witnessed celebrating the first attack. The FBI later confiscated a videotape they filmed of the first attack. conducting surveillance of the activities of the 9-11 hijackers
CNN.com - Hijackers conducted surveillance flights ahead of 9/11 - Sep. 27, 2002

January 5, 1948. The Arab-owned Semiramis Hotel in Jerusalem was blown up, killing 20 persons.

January 7, 1948. Seventeen Arabs were killed by a bomb at the Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem, 3 of them while trying to escape. Further casualties, including the murder of a British officer near Hebron, were reported from different parts of the country.

January 16, 1948. Zionists blew up three Arab buildings. In the first, 8 children between the ages of 18 months and 12 years, died.

March 22, 1948. A housing block in Iraq Street in Haifa was blown up killing 17 and injuring 100 others. Four members of the Stern Gang drove two truck-loads of explosives into the street and abandoned the vehicles before the explosion.

May 3, 1948. A book bomb addressed to a British Army officer, who had been stationed in Palestine exploded, killing his brother, Rex Farran.

May11, 1948. A letter bomb addressed to Sir Evelyn Barker, former Commanding Officer in Palestine, was detected in the nick of time by his wife.

Dybmh, the above is just the tip of the iceberg.
Google- “stern gang” & “Haganah gang”



-

Pathetic.

Note the dates.
How does any of this excuse the monstrocities committed by the likes of Al-qaida and ISIS?

I can see it before me now....
Al-bagdadi standing in trial and giving as defence "but, but.... look at what those zionists did 70 years ago! So throwing gay people of off buildings and shooting concert goers in Le Bataclan was totally justified!"