Muslims - the Day of Islam and another 911

@Justin,

^ actually he wasnt, he infact asked saudi arabia to lead a jihad against saddam to stop him attacking saudi soil.

The saudis never replied and instead made deals with america regarding its defence.

Politics and the CIA - TIME
Terrorism: Bin Laden wanted to fight against Saddam, says al-Qaeda video - Adnkronos Security

Xris,

I think people should be allowed to govern themselves without outside influence. Let me ask you this, saddam was a bad leader, no one denies this, the evidence about WMD was all made up, again now this is clear. My point is, what if saddam was completely different, and the west had attacked a decent leader based on completely false information? I feel that is where we are going with Iran, indeed this war against saddam has set a dangerous precedent.

@Justin,

Thousands of innocent people died under Suddam. Imo intervention should have happened a lot sooner. I agree they should govern themselves but peacefully not tyrnannised. There's a differance between intervention and interfering. And there was never a doubt what Suddam was doing to his own people, there was plenty of evidence.

@Justin,

Caroline,

With the greatest of respect, I think you are completely missing the bigger picture.

Saddam had been brutalising his people for decades, as soon as a gun barrel pointed towards the oil reserves of kuwait and saudi arabia, he suddenly became a bad man, and the americans intervened, once the oil was safe, they disappeared leaving him to continue the repression.

I find it difficult to accept that after 20+ years of knowing that he is killing his own people, one day, the american government woke up and said, "we have to help those poor iraqies!" It was probably more like, "oil is getting expensive, its now worth taking him on to take iraqi oil, lets conjure up some BS and invade" and thats exactly what they did, and no one denies this now, it is now a fact that the WMD myth was completely fake. In the UK the guy who wrote the report is now dead, he apparently killed himself.

interesting links:

Raw Story 13 doctors say WMD mole did not commit suicide
BBC NEWS | Programmes | Newsnight | Secret US plans for Iraq's oil
So Now Iraq Is For Oil, Bush Admits | The Progressive

@Justin,

Justin;89638 wrote:

Don't divide people? With all the religious warfare going on how is it Relgions don't divide? Isn't gaining power over others the core of many of the popular religions?

It's the core of humanity. Regard the following figures: Alexander of Macedon, Genghis Khan, Tamurlane, Julius Caesar, Attila the Hun, Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler, Hirohito -- NONE of them, not one, was acting because of a religious mandate -- and these are the most brutal conquerors in history.

---------- Post added 09-11-2009 at 09:06 PM ----------

Caroline;89686 wrote:

Thousands of innocent people died under Suddam. Imo intervention should have happened a lot sooner.

Well, if that's the case why not also intervene in the other 50-some countries in the world that had regimes just as bad during Saddam's reign? Why not Uganda under Idi Amin? Why not Zaire under Mobutu? Why not Nigeria under Abacha?

---------- Post added 09-11-2009 at 09:10 PM ----------

ahmedjbh;89681 wrote:

what if the west had attacked a decent leader based on completely false information? I feel that is where we are going with Iran, indeed this war against saddam has set a dangerous precedent.

Iran is hardly a decent regime. It was under Khatami, but it is not now. That is a country whose people are completely held hostage by their government, and with the election this summer it's patently obvious that their presidency has become a lackey of their court and supreme leader.

The people don't suffer, they're not exterminated and subjugated and tortured, unless you happen to be politically outspoken.

@Aedes,

Aedes;89718 wrote:

-Well, if that's the case why not also intervene in the other 50-some countries in the world that had regimes just as bad during Saddam's reign? Why not Uganda under Idi Amin? Why not Zaire under Mobutu? Why not Nigeria under Abacha?

Indeed why not Paul?

---------- Post added 09-11-2009 at 08:14 PM ----------

Aedes;89718 wrote:

It's the core of humanity. Regard the following figures: Alexander of Macedon, Genghis Khan, Tamurlane, Julius Caesar, Attila the Hun, Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler, Hirohito -- NONE of them, not one, was acting because of a religious mandate -- and these are the most brutal conquerors in history.

And hopefully the last!

---------- Post added 09-11-2009 at 08:15 PM ----------

I say enough, enough already.

@Justin,

how many wars can you have at once?

how can you guarantee that your intervention will make things better?

how many of your own citizens can you ask to die for internal conflicts across the world?

how can you get other nations on board?

These are all relevant questions that are 100% pertinent to every conflict in the last 20 years -- Iraq 1, Iraq 2, Afghanistan, Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda, South Sudan, Darfur, Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, Liberia... these questions have been asked in all of these cases (and more).

@ahmedjbh,

Hi!
I have questions similar those in Justin's OP. I'd like to preface my thoughts with this: if anyone finds me to be offensive: please tell me. That's not my intention. I've felt frustration about events in the world for many years, but at the heart of it is that I care about people.

A couple of years after 9/11 I was watching TV and saw a former CIA employee (sorry, don't remember the name) who said that about a month after 9/11, the CIA had received information from a Pakastani source that there was a suitcase bomb in NYC. They received independent confirmation of that from a Russian source complete with details that were disturbing, especially in light of what had just happened. George Tenant brought this to the president's attention. For obvious reasons it wasn't announced. It was assumed that if there was one in NYC, Chicago and Los Angeles might also be targets. Within a year it was decided that no suitcase bomb existed based on the premise that if there had been one, it would have been used sooner rather than later. It surprised me at the time that more wasn't made of this information. What made me lean toward believing it was two things: 1) it made the attack on Iraq seem more understandable, and 2) I've heard Bill Clinton allude to the possibility of suitcase bomb attacks.

My own opinion is that Islam didn't give rise to 9/11. It was basically testosterone. Rage that has no outlet + testosterone = extreme violence.

It was mentioned that the suffering of Americans during 9/11 was nothing to the overlooked suffering of nonAmericans. Can I just say one thing about that? If another 9/11 happened now with suitcase bombs, the global economy would flat out collapse. What sort of suffering would follow that for... Americans, Africans, Chinese, South Americans, Middle Easterners, Europeans, in short.. everybody? I will submit that not many countries outside Sierra Leone have experienced the kind of suffering that would ensue. The poorest countries would be hit the most severely. That's why attacking NYC is different.

I asked the question before because I've been wondering it for so long: I'm looking for the voice of a Muslim holy man. Not to save the US. It just seems to me that there's a kind of vacuum here waiting to be filled by that voice.

@Arjuna,

Arjuna;89726 wrote:

My own opinion is that Islam didn't give rise to 9/11. It was basically testosterone.

Yup. The brownshirts in Munich had a lot of testosterone; so did the interahamwe. It's all angry boys.

Arjuna;89726 wrote:

If another 9/11 happened now with suitcase bombs, the global economy would flat out collapse. What sort of suffering would follow that for... Americans, Africans, Chinese, South Americans, Middle Easterners, Europeans, in short.. everybody?

So does that mean we should stop digging latrines in Bangladesh and sending mosquito nets to Africa so that we can prevent another economic collapse?

The best way to fortify poor countries against this dependency on the economics of the developed world is to build up their basic health / social / economic infrastructure over time.

And I doubt another 9/11-type attack would collapse the economy. It would be no worse than the failure of Lehman Bros was. The financial institutions would still exist -- and we made it through the original 9/11 with a stunned but sound economy (and don't forget it had been in recession from the tech bubble at the time).

@Aedes,

Aedes;89730 wrote:

The best way to fortify poor countries against this dependency on the economics of the developed world is to build up their basic health / social / economic infrastructure over time.

China and Russia have been using the US as a ladder to build their economies. The progress they've made would be shattered by a global great depression. But I agree that to the extent that the US can help poor nations become what they want to be, the world is benefited.

Aedes;89730 wrote:

And I doubt another 9/11-type attack would collapse the economy. It would be no worse than the failure of Lehman Bros was. The financial institutions would still exist -- and we made it through the original 9/11 with a stunned but sound economy (and don't forget it had been in recession from the tech bubble at the time).

The speculative bubble that recently popped has been estimated to represent in excess of $55 trillion dollars. The global economy is not sound right now... it's circling the drain. And since it's still in the midst of floating on bail-out funds, it's not clear at this point if stability is in the near future. We may have to agree to disagree on what the detonation of a suitcase bomb in NYC would do. But NYC, Los Angeles and Chicago? Forget about it.:perplexed:

@Arjuna,

ahmedjbh;89681 wrote:

^ actually he wasnt, he infact asked saudi arabia to lead a jihad against saddam to stop him attacking saudi soil.

The saudis never replied and instead made deals with america regarding its defence.

Yes, and this decision by the saudis to go with America reportedly rubbed Bin Laden the wrong way. Maybe the bit of betrayal there furthered his hate for the west.

ahmedjbh;89688 wrote:

Saddam had been brutalising his people for decades, as soon as a gun barrel pointed towards the oil reserves of kuwait and saudi arabia, he suddenly became a bad man, and the americans intervened, once the oil was safe, they disappeared leaving him to continue the repression.

I find it difficult to accept that after 20+ years of knowing that he is killing his own people, one day, the american government woke up and said, "we have to help those poor iraqies!" It was probably more like, "oil is getting expensive, its now worth taking him on to take iraqi oil, lets conjure up some BS and invade" and thats exactly what they did, and no one denies this now, it is now a fact that the WMD myth was completely fake. In the UK the guy who wrote the report is now dead, he apparently killed himself.

Of course. Our interventionist policies and the goal to 'spread democracy' only come up when the action will help the US (or perhaps keep something bad from happening to us or our interests). And this is a logical policy for the collective state to pursue.

Indeed, as confirmed in the Reigle report, the US government under HW Bush and Reagan was shipping chemical and biological weapons materials to Iraq-- even years after it was clear that Saddam had been gassing the Kurds. Not only did our government simply not care about the atrocities taking place in Iraq; they helped sponsor it.

Arjuna;89726 wrote:

A couple of years after 9/11 I was watching TV and saw a former CIA employee (sorry, don't remember the name) who said that about a month after 9/11, the CIA had received information from a Pakastani source that there was a suitcase bomb in NYC. They received independent confirmation of that from a Russian source complete with details that were disturbing, especially in light of what had just happened. George Tenant brought this to the president's attention. For obvious reasons it wasn't announced. It was assumed that if there was one in NYC, Chicago and Los Angeles might also be targets. Within a year it was decided that no suitcase bomb existed based on the premise that if there had been one, it would have been used sooner rather than later. It surprised me at the time that more wasn't made of this information. What made me lean toward believing it was two things: 1) it made the attack on Iraq seem more understandable, and 2) I've heard Bill Clinton allude to the possibility of suitcase bomb attacks.

More fear mongering; military 'intelligence' or, likely, falsehoods that are leaked to the media with the hopes of riling people up for war.

Quote:

Can I just say one thing about that? If another 9/11 happened now with suitcase bombs, the global economy would flat out collapse. What sort of suffering would follow that for... Americans, Africans, Chinese, South Americans, Middle Easterners, Europeans, in short.. everybody? I will submit that not many countries outside Sierra Leone have experienced the kind of suffering that would ensue. The poorest countries would be hit the most severely. That's why attacking NYC is different.

The economy would not collapse. It was hardly affected by the 9/11 attacks, and it would take a lot more than a few bombs going off to obliterate the global economy. Wall street firms that were hedging their bets too easily have already done much more damage to the economy than any terrorist attack could.

@Justin,

I don't think either Iraq war was completely about oil. In Iraq 1/Persian Gulf War, it was a case of two middle eastern countries that actually like us being invaded by a country that hates us. With or without the added benefit of oil, it was in our best interest to help them defeat Iraq.

In the current war, I would be greatly disapointed in the Bush administration if it was about oil. No because of greed, but because that would be an idiotic way to get the oil. We get plenty of it from the Saudi's and other countries in the area already. Secondly, it would have been so much cheaper to simply buy it from Sadam rather than take it. Now, Bush was a bad president, but even he wouldn't have done something that Idiotic. I truely think that Bush believed that getting rid of Saddam would help create some peace in the middle east. He was wrong, but I don't think his intentions were bad. Like the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

@Shadow Dragon,

So can we expect another 911 or not? The evidence shows that we will have another attack but how or where is the question. It appears Atlantic air travel is the chosen target. Only severe travel restrictions and pointed racial scrutiny will help stop it. Will those of a certain racial group stand that intrusion and can we maintain this high level scrutiny, forever.

If muslims are claiming it has nothing to do with Islam then they should, by the majority, be shouting out loud that Islam does not condone these suicide attacks. The problem is many see justification in these attacks and agree that suicide jihad is part and parcel of Islamic teaching. Join a muslim forum and just see the expressions of support and the abject hatred of the west expressed. Those who claim Islam is a peaceful faith should read the rhetoric and try finding the moderate voices being heard. There are a few but they are in the minority, there are moderate muslim voices but they are drowned by the fundamentalist call for jihad. My opinion of Islam was completey changed by my experiences on a muslim forum and I think many moderate muslims find it hard to reconcile their faith with the expressed views seen there.

@Justin,

xris,

I think you have oversimplified. Bin Laden and his type have very little support, where as their is a general feeling of sympathy towards the Palestinians, Iraqies, Chechens, Kashmiris, Lebanese, Iran etc etc who have been wronged over the years.

Bin Laden is just using the genuine sympathy to try and justify his wacko plans.

@ahmedjbh,

ahmedjbh;89868 wrote:

I think you have oversimplified. Bin Laden and his type have very little support, where as their is a general feeling of sympathy towards the Palestinians, Iraqies, Chechens, Kashmiris, Lebanese, Iran etc etc who have been wronged over the years.

Bin Laden is just using the genuine sympathy to try and justify his wacko plans.

It makes me think about an American named John Brown. He was an abolitionist. He's famous for having led a raid on a federal arsenal in Harper's Ferry, Virginia. He reported that God had told him that he had a special part to play in the freeing of the American slaves and that raiding the arsenal was his divine mission. At the time, an apocolyptic image of black men becoming armed, turning on white Americans, and killing them all was widespread throughout the Southeast. John Brown's action was interpreted as a step toward bringing this about. Southern Democrats accused Abraham Lincoln and other Republicans of being involved in the Harper's Ferry incident and this was widely believed in the Southeast. So when Lincoln was elected, hysteria spread through the south, allowing the Confederacy to be launched.

It would be ridiculous to look at John Brown to gain an understanding of Christianity. Nevertheless I don't doubt that his beliefs were heartfelt, and obviously he represented the feelings of others. Maybe he was a lunatic, but he did have a special part to play in the freeing of the slaves. Who knows what Osama Bin Laden's legacy will be.

@Justin,

John Brown is an excellent example. Of course his case is different because we all take for granted these days that slavery was an abomination, and we DO often judge actions on the merit of the underlying cause.

But take the people who murder abortion providers -- should they be assumed to represent Christians any less than Mohammed Atta represented Muslims?

@Aedes,

Aedes;89920 wrote:

John Brown is an excellent example. Of course his case is different because we all take for granted these days that slavery was an abomination, and we DO often judge actions on the merit of the underlying cause.

Right, but they say that at the time, American abolitionists were considered to be the lunatic fringe, even by other antislavery groups. It's guessed that they represented 3-5% of the white American population... being unique in their quest for a multiracial society which the rest of Americans saw as impossible, not just undesirable. It's one of those bizarre situations where the vision of a small minority became the reality of the next generation.

Aedes;89920 wrote:

But take the people who murder abortion providers -- should they be assumed to represent Christians any less than Mohammed Atta represented Muslims?

Wow. I have to say that in a sense, they do. I heard a Pro-Choice spokesperson a while back. She said, "Abortion is not a matter of morality. It's a matter of a woman's right to choose." Now I support the legality of abortion during the first trimester. After that, I don't think so. But as I heard the woman speak, I wondered if she realized she was using the exact same argument pre-civil war southern Senators used in regard to slavery. They said it wasn't a moral issue, it was about states' rights. I can imagine how this might make an anti-abortion Christian feel. Are John Brown, Wackos who blow up abortion clinics, and Mohammed Atta all in the same category? I guess my condemnation of attacks on abortion clinics will not allow me to see it from any other point of view. The heart says: what's wrong is wrong.

@Justin,

The point is that wackos who kill people because of moralistic vigilantism are murdering wackos. Period. Doesn't matter if you agree with their morals and positions. Insofar as Bin Laden is interested in the prosperity, well-being, and self-determination of Muslims, there is nothing to disagree with. Insofar as he chooses to manufacture enemies and recruit armies to destroy them, there is everything to disagree with. I don't care what you think about abortions, I mean fill yourself with knowledge and vote your conscience. But bombing abortion clinics should be as abominable to sane pro-life people as violent ecoterrorism is to environmentalists.

@Aedes,

Aedes;89927 wrote:

But bombing abortion clinics should be as abominable to sane pro-life people as violent ecoterrorism is to environmentalists.

I don't know of any Christian leaders who condone bombing of clinics (course I'm a little out of touch, there could be some who do.)

No doubt many people in the world who see Osama Bin Laden as a glorious underdog fighting the evil Godzilla, wouldn't destroy a populated orphanage.

But since we don't live in a world dominated by pacifists, there apparently comes a point when violence is considered justified. How that works exactly is confusing to me. But I guess that brings us back to the topic: what part does religion play in this?

@Arjuna,

Arjuna;89947 wrote:

I don't know of any Christian leaders who condone bombing of clinics

But Osama bin Laden isn't a "Muslim leader". He's the head of a militia.

@Aedes,

Aedes;90011 wrote:

But Osama bin Laden isn't a "Muslim leader". He's the head of a militia.

Doesn't he claim to be a holyman?

Imagine that the US, through some sequence of events, heads toward fascism. You and I, and from what I've seen, everybody on this forum, would drop everything and become active in getting things back on track. It wouldn't be: 'I don't care what you think about democracy, just become educated and vote your conscience.' In our case, it would be more like: WAKE UP EVERYBODY. WE'RE SCREWING UP! Right? Let's say that in spite of our efforts, all the lemmings are headed toward the same cliff. One of our youngsters goes nuts and throws a bomb into a crowded Chicago square (Haymarket Incident.) Isn't this youngster physically expressing the outrage of all of us? Maybe we've talked amongst ourselves about how violence is not going to further our cause: it just shows that we're just as bad as those we oppose. On the other hand, we're not going to stand by and allow the US to open up death camps. We'll be out in Minnesota with the militias saying: "OK, how does this gun work?"

Three things: 1) hypotheticals suck because it's not real life, 2) comparing different human stories has limits: car-bombers, clinic-bombers, federal arsenal-raiders. They're not the same. 3) I have a lot of respect for you, Aedes, I hope you don't forget that.

Philosophy Forum

Muslims - the Day of Islam and another 911

Quick Links

My Account

able2know