Discussing the guantanamo situation, I was pretty much shocked by the defense of guantanamo by others.
All I could put it down to was fear.
'Its better them being locked up than allowing to blow up civillians.'
'Why were they in Afghanistan in the first place? you cannot allow such people freedom to blow us up.'
'It does not matter if we can prove their intent. Its better to be careful than have another 7/7'
That is the impression I was getting.
So are many people spooked? what is your impression?
Come to think of it that's pretty much my attitude about Guantanamo... I'm not precisely sure what's going on over there but I'm disinclined to believe people sent there are telling the truth about their innocence or what happened to them.
It's difficult to sort out a soft or silent enemy and when it comes down to your safety or the safety of loved ones you hesitate to give them that margin of error to destroy you.
People who defend it need their own parenss locked up in Guantamano to make 'em feel the pain.
Alot of the guys there are not guilty of anything. The Yanks seems to pick up anyone - like the three brothers from tipton.
Theyre just in their coz of "American intelligence" and we all know how dodgy that is.
Vedeno,
With respect, we also know that you support jihad for all Muslims everywhere, and if there is truth in what you are saying it is diminished by who is saying it.
[size=10]I feel I'm gonna move on back down south
you know where the water tastes like cherry wine[/size]
Just to clarify, mainly for Hayder, my claim above refers to the physical jihad.
[size=10]I feel I'm gonna move on back down south
you know where the water tastes like cherry wine[/size]
Whats your problem with that? Most Muslims support Jihad - its an Islamic duty.
I think its some people definition of Jihad and what is Islamic duty that some people have a problem with.
Back in BLACK
It is a big problem to believe your faith tells you to fight people everywhere until you dominate. I have recently asked questions about this here and if I have understood, not many people think there is any justification for that belief. If you believe only in fighting where you are oppressed, and I for one accept that Russia has been brutish to its neighbours for cynical gain for a long time, then that is a different logic obviously more acceptable, however I also believe that the modus operandi of the jihadis in using hostages and massacring innocents is vile and unhinged.
In any event it means that when you defend Muslims in Guantanemo you don't have much credibility, because it is in your interest to see them freed no matter what they have done and no matter what they intend to do. So if you make America your enemy, America should not react to your apparent concerns. Since you have fought in many wars you will be aware that it is a vital strategy of jihadi warfare to use every means including taqqiyeh, including false claims of torture and including any legal means to get out of a fix. So really that makes it even harder on the innocents, because Americans are not as stupid as you might think and have cottoned on to this. Basically the more ruthless you are the more ruthless you can expect your enemy to be.
Btw another member has recently commented that words like jihadi and mujahideen should not be used to refer to people who fight and that this is offensive to Muslims who are not into violence. What is your reaction to that?
[size=10]I feel I'm gonna move on back down south
you know where the water tastes like cherry wine[/size]
Exactly how many Mujahideen groups are you seeing invading other countries?
What is happening is a defensive war (something that becomes obligatory on all Muslims) for the defense of Muslim lands.
As for massacring innocents - there will always be a s,all amout of people who believe i an eye for an eye. And when they see there own people being massacred they wil retaliate any similar fashion. That doesnt justify it but thats what happens.
Yes i support Muslims. Are you going to ignore every bit of condemndation that has come the way of Guantamano from individuals and groups who have visited it and just preted that torture doesnt happen?
What about the testimony of former hostages in Guantamano and that of their lawyers?
[code:1]Btw another member has recently commented that words like jihadi and mujahideen should not be used to refer to people who fight and that this is offensive to Muslims who are not into violence. What is your reaction to that?[/code:1]
Well i think Mujahideen is the right word for those who have sacrificed their lives and are sincerely on the path of defending Muslim lands.
As for Muslims "who are not into violence" - defending muslim lands is an obligation so violence (assuming defending your land is violence) is a part of Islam.
Dont be fooled by the modernists who are trying to change their Deen into something else.
So it doesn't justify it. I hope you make that a top priority when you fight. Your first statement is largely correct but that I see these guys planting explosions all over the world, and a defensive war involves fighting off those who attack you. To claim that is what mujahideen do in Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Sudan, Malaysia and Turkey requires very unusual definitions of "Muslim lands" and "defense". Perhaps you will take issue over my including Israel, which I do for my own integrity, but focus on the other examples.
Did you actually read my point? The torture gets investigated but so does stuff like [url=http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/manualpart1_1.pdf]this[/url]. I don't believe all the testimonies of the captured men, nobody but an idiot would. That doesn't mean I don't believe any. But additionally some people have given inconsistent reports and some have actually been very happy with their treatment. I didn't see that in the manual!
Thank you for that. The fact that you tell me not to be fooled by them tells me that you reject them, and that they believe in their objections, and actually raises my esteem for them. It doesn't clear up whether I should avoid the word for their sakes but it basically confirms what I observed about general use of it. Mujahideen seems clearer than jihadi so I will prefer that.
[size=10]I feel I'm gonna move on back down south
you know where the water tastes like cherry wine[/size]
Salam
Well Israel is a defensive war if there ever was one. As for the others there is alot of contreversy surrounding those. Most attacks seem to be against the economy in the hope of bringing down the corrupt governments.
Also theres alot of mis-information concerning what Muslim groups are responsible for and what theyre not.
In Russia , Muslims were blamed for killing 300 in the apartment bombings without any proof or claims of responsibility.
Most analysts believe that the bombings were an inside job, esp. as FSB agents were actually caught by the local police planting some of the bombs. Its just one example.
So you believe the ones (if indeed there are any) that claim to be happy at being taken to Guantamano and their treatment there? Lol
Yes expect non-muslims to be happy with those who change their Deen to please non-muslims. I wander what these people have to say to the fact that the prophet
was a warrior amongst other things.
That is untrue.
That is misleading. Every day there are explosions against innocents including at mosques, that are claimed by mujahideen. People like to say that the US committed 9/11, which is similar to your argument, but of course bin Laden has claimed responsibility
That is unfounded and amounts to a complete inability to respond to the point about false claims.
Well, there's the issue. See, you don't just believe in defensive war at all.
[size=10]I feel I'm gonna move on back down south
you know where the water tastes like cherry wine[/size]
Ive had many a long discussions with pro-israelis about "Israel", i cant be asked to go into another one.
Palestine will be free inshallah. We will see how the situation ends up.
Wheres your proof that theyre claimed by Mujahideen? Do you know what a Mujahid is?
You do know that a Baathist cannot be a Mujahid , right?
9-11 is a different matter , its alot more clear ( for me anyway) whereas nothing comes out by explosions in Egypt say.
I dont think i understand. Can you please explain further?
Well, they issue many statements under lofty sounding titles that get reported by Jihad Unspun and al Jazeera and the like, if you especially need me to Google some for you, ask again, but I think you know what I mean. I'm not sure I understood the last bit of your above point.
Mohammed, in your words, was a warrior. At that time there was no singular Islamic rule and Mohammed fought over quite a wide area. Those were not defensive wars, they were all-out offensives.
[size=10]I feel I'm gonna move on back down south
you know where the water tastes like cherry wine[/size]
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Guantanamo and other camps where Muslims are tortured are part of an effort to perpetuate the [size=16]War[/size] [size=20]on[/size] [size=26]Terror[/size].
Fans of the war need a steady stream of young Muslims who will blow themslves in Western cities and therefore justify US military presence and intervention all around the world and keep military spending as high as a crap-scared American public would allow.
Just as I said I'm disinclined to believe people sent there are telling the truth about their innocence or what happened to them; I have never been convinced the Muslim world nor Muslims on an individual level will ever fully "be on board" or fully appreciate the threat of terrorism. I think I remember asking on this board a long time ago what measures Muslims have proposed against terrorism, in light of a thread condemning Blair's anti-terror measures.
I think this reciprocol attitude is because it's difficult to sort out a soft or silent enemy and when it comes down to your safety or the safety of loved ones you hesitate to give the enemy that margin of error to destroy you.
For my part I am deliberately forgetting or letting go of the possibility of hurting innocent people (within a boundary I can't really articulate) if that means getting those responsible for 9/11 and minimizing the possibility of that happening again. Likewise I see Muslims routinely and deliberately forget or let go of the possibility that dangerous people will be back on the street due to their constant objection to effective anti-terror measures which create serious abuse and deprive rights of possibly innocent people.
A large part of this is a matter of identifying with people. That's not to say Muslims identify with terrorism or non-Muslims with imperialism - but rather that Muslims will identify with Muslims and non-Muslims with non-Muslims. To put that into more "real" terms, Bush is more like me than Ruhal Ahmed does and I'm more inclined to believe the latter over the former.
It's a tradeoff and I think people choose to minimize the most obvious and immediate threat to them and those closest to them - a sort of every man for himself. I'm making generalizations of course - but in the end it is foolish to believe any one group with so much at stake in the War on Terror can be truly "objective."