Why isn’t this called TERRORISM?

Then we wonder why the hate us!

Advertisements
Comments
  1. jonolan says:

    ATW,

    Without in any way disputing that the Qu’ran states that the only acceptle war is a war of self defense or liberation, I maintain that 2:191 specifically allows for attacking places of worship in specific instances.

    2:191 And slay them wherever you may come upon them, and drive them away from wherever they drove you away – for oppression is even worse than killing. And fight not against them near the Inviolable House of Worship unless they fight against you there first; but if they fight against you, slay them: such shall be the recompense of those who deny the truth.

    I believe that would constitute a “shred of evidence”. I honestly don’t know why we’re arguing about this; I stated that I had no problems with the idea so it’s not like I’m saying it’s a horrible thing.

  2. jonolan,

    You statement doesn’t does change the fact that attacking enemies within a “church” is allowed by Islam if the enemy is using that “church” to fight from.

    You insist that the above is true without a shred of evidence! No where in hadith or Quran is there such a statement. As stated before, the Islamic history and hadith still negate your claim or assumptions.

    ATW

  3. jonolan says:

    You statement doesn’t does change the fact that attacking enemies within a “church” is allowed by Islam if the enemy is using that “church” to fight from. You just added the rest of the conditions for war – good conditions IMHO. I suppose I should have started with 2:190 instead of 2:191.

    Thank you for clairfication on Qur’anic verse vs. Hadith. I get very confused about the relative import of the various texts used as sources for Shari’ah – and more confused by the varying interpretations. But that’s the same in all the religions I’ve studied.

  4. jonolan,

    The quotes here are from the Quran and therefore are not a hadith. It seems that you know about Islamic history or maybe you just read a bit about it. A hadith is what Muhammad said as advice or command. The Quran is the word of God which to Muslims is the unequivocal truth and is read as a Bible is read (for worship purposes). A hadith has guidance value but is not recited in prayers or worship.

    Now, looking up the verses you quote as hadith, one quickly learns that one cannot take just one verse (as I stated earlier in Religion: Love, Violence or Terrorism – see https://attendingtheworld.wordpress.com/2007/08/14/religion-love-violence-or-terrorism/) from a source and base an argument on “part” of the story. When you start from the beginning (verse 190 and through 193) anyone can see that what you say Muhammad said, is in fact taken totally out of context.

    Here’s why:

    2:190 AND FIGHT in God’s cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression-for, verily, God does not love aggressors.

    This and the following verses lay down unequivocally that only self-defense (in the widest sense of the word) makes war permissible for Muslims. Most of the commentators agree in that the Arabic expression “la ta’tadu” signifies, in this context, “do not commit aggression”; while by al mu’tadin “those who commit aggression” are meant. The defensive character of a fight “in God’s cause” – that is, in the cause of the ethical principles ordained by God – is, moreover, self-evident in the reference to “those who wage war against you”, and has been still further clarified in 22:39 – “permission [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged” – which, according to all available Traditions, constitutes the earliest (and therefore fundamental) Qur’anic reference to the question of jihad. That this early, fundamental principle of self-defense as the only possible justification of war has been maintained throughout the Qur’an is evident from 60:8, as well as from the concluding sentence of 4:91, both of which belong to a later period than the above verse

    2:191 And slay them wherever you may come upon them, and drive them away from wherever they drove you away – for oppression is even worse than killing. And fight not against them near the Inviolable House of Worship unless they fight against you there first; but if they fight against you, slay them: such shall be the recompense of those who deny the truth.

    In view of the preceding ordinance, the injunction “slay them wherever you may come upon them” is valid only within the context of hostilities already in progress, on the understanding that “those who wage war against you” are the aggressors or oppressors (a war of liberation being a war “in God’s cause”). The translation, in this context, of fitnah as “oppression” is justified by the application of this term to any affliction which may cause man to go astray and to lose his faith in spiritual values

    2:192 But if they desist-behold, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.

    This reference to warfare in the vicinity of Mecca is due to the fact that at the time of the revelation of this verse the Holy City was still in the possession of the pagan Quraysh, who were hostile to the Muslims. However – as is always the case with historical references in the Qur’an – the above injunction has a general import, and is valid for all times and circumstances

    ATW

  5. jonolan says:

    ATW,

    Sorry the the double comment, but I found the reference – Qur’an 2:191-193. 2:191 covers fighting within places of worship whereas 2:192-193 describe how the fighting should cease when the cause is achieved and [I think] not continue out of hate or revenge.

  6. jonolan says:

    ATW,

    It is a hadith but I can’t quote the exact text – sorry. The passage “generally” says that you should kill your enemy but not in a church unless he fights from within that church, fight him to death, but show mercy if he surrenders.

    It one of those passages that the Right likes to quote only the first part of – the part about striking off the heads of unbelievers and your enemies.

  7. David, Cafe dog,

    Great points! Thanks for sharing.

    jonolan,

    I’m interested in your comment:

    According to Muhhamed (pbuh) if St. Patrick’s was housing militants / combatants it would be a legitimate target.

    When did Muhamad say this? Is this a hadith or misinformation courtesy jonolan?

    In Islamic history, Muhammad advised his troops not to attack anyone unless attacked; not to kill women, children, elderly; not to cut-down a tree and most importantly, he said, not to attack people praying in their temples or churches…

    Therefore if everyone, not just Muslims, abide by such guidelines, the world maybe a better place.

    ATW

  8. Cafe dog says:

    (idiot me hit submit!) to continue:

    League of Nations in 1937: all criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public.

    The earliest known usage of the Terrorism by Robespierre(the guy with rose colored glasses) in 1794 : “Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is not so much a special principle as it is a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country’s most urgent needs.”

    and best of all U.N top investigator M. C. Bassiouni said in 2001:
    “‘Terrorism’ has never been defined.

    The problem is certain words have only a subjective meaning at best, and “terrorism” is a term used by Nations, societies, or groups who always seem to exclude themselves from their own definition.

    I for one am suspicious of the coersive language that is out there today.
    words like “terrorism” “islamistic” “zionist” and the total misuse of “jihad” in the media such as the “poppy jihad” -CNNs discription of afghan opium farmers .

    unfortunately some words just need thrown out because they no longer serve to communicate.

  9. Cafe dog says:

    unfortunately we have a problem in answering: “Is this Terrorism?”…because we don’t have an answer to :
    “what exactly is terrorism?”
    After reading this post and some replies i had to look in to the question for myself:
    some definitions:

    U S Dep of Def: the “calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

  10. jonolan says:

    David,

    According to Muhhamed (pbuh) if St. Patrick’s was housing militants / combatants it would be a legitimate target. The Catholic church might be outraged though, since they hold all churches inviolate at all times.

    My opinion is that, if you choose to fight from within a structure you have made that structure into a valid military target. It’s much the same as placing weapons plants / dumps and such in the middle of densely packed civilian buildings; the fault falls on those who do so not those who respond.

  11. David Tyler says:

    I don’t remember who said:

    “Terrorism is the poor man’s war, War is the rich mans terrorism.”

    Would St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City be a legitimate target for bombing then? By the logic of some of the comments above it would.

  12. tinyfrog says:

    I highly doubt that soldiers sitting in a tank are calling in air-strikes on completely innocent mosques. If the mosque was completely unguarded, they’d destroy it the same way they destroy weapons depots – by setting up explosives. Further, at the distance the soldiers are from the mosque, I wouldn’t expect gunfire. Only a sniper would be able to hit someone from that distance. I also take the “and these guys still want to fuck with us” comment as a commentary on the futility of Iraqi militia trying to attack US troops (who can call in air-strikes).

  13. Excellent point dianarn. Thank you.

    Jak, I’m asking the question. Pure and simple. This “young” kid represents the American people when he acts the way he did. This is what the world (especially Iraqis or whoever views such idiotic clips) sees, not “our” logic and/or justification.

    Similarly, the Abu Ghraib story led the Dept of Defense to 17 officers and soldiers for “misconduct” and “dereliction” of duty. Now, were these soldiers and officers wearing the American flag? You bet! That brought us shame! If we went there to liberate, then going on a “killing spree” because some &^%$-up kid is frustrated, does not accomplish our “mission.”

    By the way, I saw a news report in which many Iraqis are now saying they were better off under a dictator than under the current “liberating” army!

    We only call it propaganda when something seems to disagree with our views or way of thinking.

  14. Jak says:

    seriously. without context, your label and question make this purely propaganda. submit valid details of the event above and a serious discussion can follow. until then it is some young american kid verbally taking out his frustration and a vivid picture of war.

  15. dianarn says:

    Terrorism is whatever the government says their little false-flag operations are in order to blame it on invisible boogie men far away, so they can scare its citizens into giving their rights away in exchange for “protection.” When those pipelines in Mexico were blown up yesterday, they didn’t call it “terrorism,” they said it was done by “saboteurs.” What the troops are doing over in Iraq and Afganistan should be called terrorism, but instead it’s “liberation,” as in “liberating millions of innocent souls from their bodies.”

  16. jonolan says:

    You have provided no context, so it is difficult to determine the validity of the attack. If there were combatants in the mosque than it was a “legitimate” target. The Qur’an states that mosques should not be attacked unless enemy combatants are hiding in them or fighting from them; then a mosque is an allowed target.

    You are completely right though, that a similar act perpetrated by muslims would be seen as terrorism no matter what the act’s context was.

  17. My guess is that some militia ran into the mosque.

    In the absence of more facts, we cannot assume. All we see is a quiet neighborhood with no guns being fired at the troops. There’s no evidence of any fighting that may have taken place earlier: no smoke, fires, etc. that would lead us to conclude that fighters were present. We have a video of US soldiers acting as barbarians, “celebrating” the destruction of a mosque. The soldier’s comments are disturbing! He seems to be enjoying this as if it was a video game. If Muslims bombed a church or a synagogue (even when empty) the act was called terrorism because Muslims are involved.

    Among other definitions, terrorism is:

    the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes

    If we were to agree it’s not terrorism, then is it barbarism? I am interested in your views of the Abu Ghraib debacle!

    ATW

  18. Cafe dog says:

    so you have joined the news media and propa ganists in mis using words like “terrorist” and jihad… and “islamist”?

    Terrorism is a deliberate attempt to cause fear and panic by killing in mass.
    This vid or its content isnt terrorism.

    I dont no motivation behind this bombing (its not clear in the video).

    I recently saw a CNN clip describing poppy farmers (on farms where the poppies have been the crop for a century)in Afganistan as
    “poppy jihad”

    lets be responsible before we get sucked into the bulls**t. 😉

  19. tinyfrog says:

    I’m not quite clear why this would be terrorism. Terrorism typically involves the killing of random civilians and using the media to make sure everyone sees it – thereby using fear to control the population. My guess is that some militia ran into the mosque. This has been a common tactic of fighters – to use the mosques as “safehouses”. If we treat the mosques as off-limits, then it gives militia a convenient resting place. If we attack the mosque with soldiers, it damages the mosque, gets some of our soldiers killed, and also makes the people angry. If we bomb it, it destroys the mosque, makes *more* people angry, but no US soldiers are put into danger. Bombing it seemed excessive. Certainly, it will make more people angry than the other two options. For the soldiers in the field, bombing it was likely the most convenient option for them, and accomplished their goal (kill the militia, don’t get killed) – which is probably why they did it. I still don’t know why anyone would call it terrorism. It would only be terrorism if they were destroying some mosque that had no militia in it, but we intending to kill a bunch of random civilians inside.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s