Usamah Bin Laden: Freedom Fighter or Terrorist?

Published by Sajid Iqbal on 3 May, 2011 - 16:06

Death of Usamah Bin Laden: Freedom Fighter or Terrorist?

The reaction says it all, there is celebration in the streets of New York, whilst silence in the streets of the Islamic world; freedom fighter or terrorist depends on whose perspective. There is no doubt many in the Islamic world and the non-Islamic world (e.g. Latin America), are privately mourning the death of Usamah Bin Laden, seen as a symbol of resistance to Western imperialism. Unlike Saddam Hussein and his ilk, Usamah Bin Laden died fighting like a Mujahid, as the old proverb says, he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.

It is disgusting the way the media constantly highlights the 3000 that perished in 9/11, as if the American and western lives are more valuable than others. The message construed is simple, its Bin Laden and 9/11, there are no other casualties and no other factors. Indeed, the entire narrative is false. They say 9/11 marks the beginning of the conflict, whereas the conflict started from the end of the First World War; the Arabs seeking independence were betrayed (Sykes-Picot treaty) for their support to the Allied forces. Their lands were carved up to suit the interests of the colonialists, who facilitated the migration of the Zionists to Palestine, paving the way for the creation of Israel. Eventually, the Arabs were ‘rewarded’ with Israel and the Palestinian Diaspora (nakba), for their cooperation and service to the colonialists.

What is even more absurd about the simple narrative of Bin Laden and 9/11 is that America is portrayed as the victim. Just the thought makes you laugh, it’s like you have to imagine the US Soldiers dressed as benign priests, rather than killing Iraqis for fun, as the numerous clips leaked on the internet with the awful images of Abu-Ghraib confirms!

Prior to 9/11, 500,000 Iraqi children were killed through barbaric sanctions, and post 9/11 almost a million innocent Iraqis died for those mythical WMDs! To date, nobody has been bought to account for the illegal war built on lies. The losses of innocence are conveniently classed as collateral damage that can be swept under the carpet like dirt! Has anyone been bought to trial for the carnage in Gaza, when the Israelis unleashed disproportionate force on the civilian population, a clear act of state-terrorism?

It is simplistic to call Usamah Bin Laden a terrorist, when his opponent has murdered much more civilians in Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan, that pre-dates 9/11. Likewise, to call Usamah a religious fanatic is hypocritical, when George Bush is the one claimed to be talking to God who allegedly inspired him to launch the war on the innocent people of Iraq. It is ironic that the Christian God of ‘love’ would order one to wage to war, rather than to turn the other cheek!

Regardless if you agree with the methods used by Usamah and his men, as an individual he outdid his opponents. He was far more eloquent than George Bush, a semi-literate guy with a drink problem, who often embarrassed the US by his numerous idiotic statements. Usamah also had far more integrity than Tony Blair, unlike Blair he never lied and was generous with his wealth, constantly helping the needy, Jason Burke elaborates on this in his book, Al-Qaeda. Whereas it took a lot of media pressure for Tony Blair (who did so well out of the Iraq war), to make some nominal contribution to the British soldiers who suffered losses.

The most important question is – did Usamah succeed to any level or was he a total failure. This depends on how you define success and failure, but we can avoid the debate, by looking at his main objectives. First was to create the Arabic Nahda (revival), this never materialised; despite the war waged over Iraq and the revelations of the gruesome events of Abu-Ghraib, the masses in the Arab/Islamic world did not revolt. In fact, the only uprisings we have seen are the recent revolutions sweeping through the Arab world, where the call is unanimous for a democratic government that is free from corruption and nepotism. The masses want secular freedom and democracy, rather than a Caliphate or an Islamic Emirate, they are no longer burning the American flags and chanting anti-Western slogans, they have come to realise that they need to take responsibility and clean their homes.

Secondly, Usamah failed to topple a single regime in the Arab/Islamic world. This is largely because he misread the situation, whilst many sympathise with his grievances, but do not support the creation of an Islamic State or an Islamic Emirate. It means one has to engage the masses in the Arab world politically to make the case for an Islamic State, how such a state can overcome the numerous issues that divide the Arab and Islamic world, and bring about unity. Thus, instead of waging wars on the West, they should have focused on building a stable prosperous Afghanistan based on the Sharia model that could act as a shining example. They could have shown how the various tribes of Afghanistan unified, overcoming their historical animosity; this would have had greater resonance in the Arab and Islamic world. However, the Taliban remained largely Pashtun based, and the Arabs remained as their guests, despite professing unity based on the Islamic laws and values.

Yamin Zakaria (Abu Usamah)

Submitted by TPOS on 3 May, 2011 - 18:32

No I haven't read all that (yet)

But was looking at the newspapers when I went to get my pepsi Blum 3 and the express front page headline was "A coward till the end" and it said how he used his wife as shield to try and stop being killed LOL I find that quite unbelievable tbh.

And if he did do what he's accused of doing, then definitely a terrorist.

—

"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi

Submitted by You on 3 May, 2011 - 18:29

Terrorist.

—

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Submitted by You on 3 May, 2011 - 18:35

ThE pOwEr Of SiLeNcE wrote:
I find that quite unbelievable tbh.

The TV news (Sky News) were denying that yesterday saying that that was some other person in the buiolding who did that and not him.

—

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Submitted by RI_RS on 4 May, 2011 - 01:57

I'm sorry but I don't know how you've managed to in different ways spell his name wrong in all of the three topics you made :S Even though everything else is spelled right!

If his name was Usamah, he wouldn't be OBL.

I'm just sayin' in case you write an article on it.

Oh and yeah it is rather suspicious but I'm not sure what it takes to be a martyr in Islam.
Is it causing the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians and making life EVEN harder for Muslims just trying to live in the Western world?

—

#Before you look at the thorns of the rose , look at it's beauty. Before you complain about the heat of the sun , enjoy it's light. Before you complain about the blackness of the night, think of it's peace and quiet... #

Submitted by Banjo (not verified) on 4 May, 2011 - 02:23

TheRevivalEditor wrote:
Death of Usamah Bin Laden: Freedom Fighter or Terrorist?

The reaction says it all, there is celebration in the streets of New York, whilst silence in the streets of the Islamic world; freedom fighter or terrorist depends on whose perspective. There is no doubt many in the Islamic world and the non-Islamic world (e.g. Latin America), are privately mourning the death of Usamah Bin Laden, seen as a symbol of resistance to Western imperialism. Unlike Saddam Hussein and his ilk, Usamah Bin Laden died fighting like a Mujahid, as the old proverb says, he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.

Indeed, he walked on fire and got burnt! And the silence on the streets of the Muslims world is pretty telling?

TheRevivalEditor wrote:
It is disgusting the way the media constantly highlights the 3000 that perished in 9/11, as if the American and western lives are more valuable than others. The message construed is simple, its Bin Laden and 9/11, there are no other casualties and no other factors. Indeed, the entire narrative is false. They say 9/11 marks the beginning of the conflict, whereas the conflict started from the end of the First World War; the Arabs seeking independence were betrayed (Sykes-Picot treaty) for their support to the Allied forces. Their lands were carved up to suit the interests of the colonialists, who facilitated the migration of the Zionists to Palestine, paving the way for the creation of Israel. Eventually, the Arabs were ‘rewarded’ with Israel and the Palestinian Diaspora (nakba), for their cooperation and service to the colonialists.

Here is where your logic falls down like a broken lamp shade. When AQ flew those planes into the Twin Towers, or the Bali bombers killed innocents or which ever atrocity AQ have committed, they did it with the INTENT TO KILL AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE!

And blaming the creation of AQ on the Zionists and Colonialists is simplistic at best, there is no evidence to support this claim. And may I draw your attention to the fact that AQ demanded (amongst other things) the return of East Timor back to their former Indonesian Muslim rulers, even though East Timor is predominantly Christian! and despite how the Indonesians raped that country. they even Murdered Sérgio Vieira de Mello in Iraq as revenge for his being the Transitional Administrator for East Timor.

TheRevivalEditor wrote:
What is even more absurd about the simple narrative of Bin Laden and 9/11 is that America is portrayed as the victim. Just the thought makes you laugh, it’s like you have to imagine the US Soldiers dressed as benign priests, rather than killing Iraqis for fun, as the numerous clips leaked on the internet with the awful images of Abu-Ghraib confirms!

So the 3000 people who died on 9/11 are soldiers? And not victims?

As for Abu Ghraib, during the time of Saddam and his mafia family. It was a place where dissidents would die whilst seeing their wives and daughters gang raped. That was considered "good policy" by the then Government of Iraq, the events of Abu Ghraib under the US presence was (and is) considered a shameful act that tarnished a nation.

TheRevivalEditor wrote:
Prior to 9/11, 500,000 Iraqi children were killed through barbaric sanctions, and post 9/11 almost a million innocent Iraqis died for those mythical WMDs! To date, nobody has been bought to account for the illegal war built on lies. The losses of innocence are conveniently classed as collateral damage that can be swept under the carpet like dirt! Has anyone been bought to trial for the carnage in Gaza, when the Israelis unleashed disproportionate force on the civilian population, a clear act of state-terrorism?

"barbaric sanctions"? How would we deal with a mafia boss who gasses people in his own country and invades weaker neighbours? Perhaps sitting with folded arms and going "tsk, tsk, tsk" would have worked then. There was also something called "Oil for food program", and did Saddam bother with that? No, his fellow Iraqi's were the scum of the earth as far as he was concerned, if they did not support him they were as good as dead.

TheRevivalEditor wrote:
It is simplistic to call Usamah Bin Laden a terrorist, when his opponent has murdered much more civilians in Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan, that pre-dates 9/11. Likewise, to call Usamah a religious fanatic is hypocritical, when George Bush is the one claimed to be talking to God who allegedly inspired him to launch the war on the innocent people of Iraq. It is ironic that the Christian God of ‘love’ would order one to wage to war, rather than to turn the other cheek!

Please provide the quotes and links for where George W Bush says he talks to God and God says it was good to go to War? Though I do recall Bin Laden saying soething like "Holy War"??

TheRevivalEditor wrote:
Regardless if you agree with the methods used by Usamah and his men, as an individual he outdid his opponents. He was far more eloquent than George Bush, a semi-literate guy with a drink problem, who often embarrassed the US by his numerous idiotic statements. Usamah also had far more integrity than Tony Blair, unlike Blair he never lied and was generous with his wealth, constantly helping the needy, Jason Burke elaborates on this in his book, Al-Qaeda. Whereas it took a lot of media pressure for Tony Blair (who did so well out of the Iraq war), to make some nominal contribution to the British soldiers who suffered losses.

Bin Laden was a coward who hid in a fortress and then hid behind a woman when the inevitable came knocking at his door. He sat back with his minions and ordered people to be killed or to die for his cause, but never strapped a bomb to himself, as it is unlikely he believed the nonsense he was saying.

"Usamah also had far more integrity than Tony Blair". So this is a direct quote from the editor of "The Revival, the voice of the Muslim youth"! Please, do tell about how Bin Laden was generous with his wealth? How do you know of his charitable deeds?

TheRevivalEditor wrote:
The most important question is – did Usamah succeed to any level or was he a total failure. This depends on how you define success and failure, but we can avoid the debate, by looking at his main objectives. First was to create the Arabic Nahda (revival), this never materialised; despite the war waged over Iraq and the revelations of the gruesome events of Abu-Ghraib, the masses in the Arab/Islamic world did not revolt. In fact, the only uprisings we have seen are the recent revolutions sweeping through the Arab world, where the call is unanimous for a democratic government that is free from corruption and nepotism. The masses want secular freedom and democracy, rather than a Caliphate or an Islamic Emirate, they are no longer burning the American flags and chanting anti-Western slogans, they have come to realise that they need to take responsibility and clean their homes.

So we agree the man was a complete failure at what he set out to do, except of course kill thousands of innocent people (Muslims too).

TheRevivalEditor wrote:
Secondly, Usamah failed to topple a single regime in the Arab/Islamic world. This is largely because he misread the situation, whilst many sympathise with his grievances, but do not support the creation of an Islamic State or an Islamic Emirate. It means one has to engage the masses in the Arab world politically to make the case for an Islamic State, how such a state can overcome the numerous issues that divide the Arab and Islamic world, and bring about unity. Thus, instead of waging wars on the West, they should have focused on building a stable prosperous Afghanistan based on the Sharia model that could act as a shining example. They could have shown how the various tribes of Afghanistan unified, overcoming their historical animosity; this would have had greater resonance in the Arab and Islamic world. However, the Taliban remained largely Pashtun based, and the Arabs remained as their guests, despite professing unity based on the Islamic laws and values.

Here is where I will state, Bin Laden got off lightly with his death. Shame he was not dragged in front of a court in the US and sent to perish in a supermax prison awaiting his end of days!

Submitted by Sajid Iqbal on 4 May, 2011 - 16:00

Muslimeen wrote:
Freedom Fighter.

how?
organising the killing of thousands of innocent civilians world wide and openly praising the attrocities- is that what you call a freedom fighter?

damaging the imag eof islam for ever- is that a freedom fighter?

making life impossible to live for muslims in the west- is that what a freedom fighter aims to acheive?

hiding like a girl in pakistan isnt what a freedom fighter does....

why cant muslims call a spade a spade- just because he has a full beard and a turban and talks about jihad doesnt mean he should fool us.

—

 

Submitted by Sajid Iqbal on 4 May, 2011 - 16:02

Banjo wrote:
TheRevivalEditor wrote:
Death of Usamah Bin Laden: Freedom Fighter or Terrorist?

The reaction says it all, there is celebration in the streets of New York, whilst silence in the streets of the Islamic world; freedom fighter or terrorist depends on whose perspective. There is no doubt many in the Islamic world and the non-Islamic world (e.g. Latin America), are privately mourning the death of Usamah Bin Laden, seen as a symbol of resistance to Western imperialism. Unlike Saddam Hussein and his ilk, Usamah Bin Laden died fighting like a Mujahid, as the old proverb says, he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.

Indeed, he walked on fire and got burnt! And the silence on the streets of the Muslims world is pretty telling?

TheRevivalEditor wrote:
It is disgusting the way the media constantly highlights the 3000 that perished in 9/11, as if the American and western lives are more valuable than others. The message construed is simple, its Bin Laden and 9/11, there are no other casualties and no other factors. Indeed, the entire narrative is false. They say 9/11 marks the beginning of the conflict, whereas the conflict started from the end of the First World War; the Arabs seeking independence were betrayed (Sykes-Picot treaty) for their support to the Allied forces. Their lands were carved up to suit the interests of the colonialists, who facilitated the migration of the Zionists to Palestine, paving the way for the creation of Israel. Eventually, the Arabs were ‘rewarded’ with Israel and the Palestinian Diaspora (nakba), for their cooperation and service to the colonialists.

Here is where your logic falls down like a broken lamp shade. When AQ flew those planes into the Twin Towers, or the Bali bombers killed innocents or which ever atrocity AQ have committed, they did it with the INTENT TO KILL AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE!

And blaming the creation of AQ on the Zionists and Colonialists is simplistic at best, there is no evidence to support this claim. And may I draw your attention to the fact that AQ demanded (amongst other things) the return of East Timor back to their former Indonesian Muslim rulers, even though East Timor is predominantly Christian! and despite how the Indonesians raped that country. they even Murdered Sérgio Vieira de Mello in Iraq as revenge for his being the Transitional Administrator for East Timor.

TheRevivalEditor wrote:
What is even more absurd about the simple narrative of Bin Laden and 9/11 is that America is portrayed as the victim. Just the thought makes you laugh, it’s like you have to imagine the US Soldiers dressed as benign priests, rather than killing Iraqis for fun, as the numerous clips leaked on the internet with the awful images of Abu-Ghraib confirms!

So the 3000 people who died on 9/11 are soldiers? And not victims?

As for Abu Ghraib, during the time of Saddam and his mafia family. It was a place where dissidents would die whilst seeing their wives and daughters gang raped. That was considered "good policy" by the then Government of Iraq, the events of Abu Ghraib under the US presence was (and is) considered a shameful act that tarnished a nation.

TheRevivalEditor wrote:
Prior to 9/11, 500,000 Iraqi children were killed through barbaric sanctions, and post 9/11 almost a million innocent Iraqis died for those mythical WMDs! To date, nobody has been bought to account for the illegal war built on lies. The losses of innocence are conveniently classed as collateral damage that can be swept under the carpet like dirt! Has anyone been bought to trial for the carnage in Gaza, when the Israelis unleashed disproportionate force on the civilian population, a clear act of state-terrorism?

"barbaric sanctions"? How would we deal with a mafia boss who gasses people in his own country and invades weaker neighbours? Perhaps sitting with folded arms and going "tsk, tsk, tsk" would have worked then. There was also something called "Oil for food program", and did Saddam bother with that? No, his fellow Iraqi's were the scum of the earth as far as he was concerned, if they did not support him they were as good as dead.

TheRevivalEditor wrote:
It is simplistic to call Usamah Bin Laden a terrorist, when his opponent has murdered much more civilians in Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan, that pre-dates 9/11. Likewise, to call Usamah a religious fanatic is hypocritical, when George Bush is the one claimed to be talking to God who allegedly inspired him to launch the war on the innocent people of Iraq. It is ironic that the Christian God of ‘love’ would order one to wage to war, rather than to turn the other cheek!

Please provide the quotes and links for where George W Bush says he talks to God and God says it was good to go to War? Though I do recall Bin Laden saying soething like "Holy War"??

TheRevivalEditor wrote:
Regardless if you agree with the methods used by Usamah and his men, as an individual he outdid his opponents. He was far more eloquent than George Bush, a semi-literate guy with a drink problem, who often embarrassed the US by his numerous idiotic statements. Usamah also had far more integrity than Tony Blair, unlike Blair he never lied and was generous with his wealth, constantly helping the needy, Jason Burke elaborates on this in his book, Al-Qaeda. Whereas it took a lot of media pressure for Tony Blair (who did so well out of the Iraq war), to make some nominal contribution to the British soldiers who suffered losses.

Bin Laden was a coward who hid in a fortress and then hid behind a woman when the inevitable came knocking at his door. He sat back with his minions and ordered people to be killed or to die for his cause, but never strapped a bomb to himself, as it is unlikely he believed the nonsense he was saying.

"Usamah also had far more integrity than Tony Blair". So this is a direct quote from the editor of "The Revival, the voice of the Muslim youth"! Please, do tell about how Bin Laden was generous with his wealth? How do you know of his charitable deeds?

TheRevivalEditor wrote:
The most important question is – did Usamah succeed to any level or was he a total failure. This depends on how you define success and failure, but we can avoid the debate, by looking at his main objectives. First was to create the Arabic Nahda (revival), this never materialised; despite the war waged over Iraq and the revelations of the gruesome events of Abu-Ghraib, the masses in the Arab/Islamic world did not revolt. In fact, the only uprisings we have seen are the recent revolutions sweeping through the Arab world, where the call is unanimous for a democratic government that is free from corruption and nepotism. The masses want secular freedom and democracy, rather than a Caliphate or an Islamic Emirate, they are no longer burning the American flags and chanting anti-Western slogans, they have come to realise that they need to take responsibility and clean their homes.

So we agree the man was a complete failure at what he set out to do, except of course kill thousands of innocent people (Muslims too).

TheRevivalEditor wrote:
Secondly, Usamah failed to topple a single regime in the Arab/Islamic world. This is largely because he misread the situation, whilst many sympathise with his grievances, but do not support the creation of an Islamic State or an Islamic Emirate. It means one has to engage the masses in the Arab world politically to make the case for an Islamic State, how such a state can overcome the numerous issues that divide the Arab and Islamic world, and bring about unity. Thus, instead of waging wars on the West, they should have focused on building a stable prosperous Afghanistan based on the Sharia model that could act as a shining example. They could have shown how the various tribes of Afghanistan unified, overcoming their historical animosity; this would have had greater resonance in the Arab and Islamic world. However, the Taliban remained largely Pashtun based, and the Arabs remained as their guests, despite professing unity based on the Islamic laws and values.

Here is where I will state, Bin Laden got off lightly with his death. Shame he was not dragged in front of a court in the US and sent to perish in a supermax prison awaiting his end of days!

totally agree with your arguments...
im not the author of the article
i just posted the article:-)

—

 

Submitted by TPOS on 4 May, 2011 - 16:38

Ed, you should've blockquoted the actual article as Banjo thinks you wrote it and then you're saying you agree with him/her lol

Banjo wrote:

"Usamah also had far more integrity than Tony Blair". So this is a direct quote from the editor of "The Revival, the voice of the Muslim youth"! Please, do tell about how Bin Laden was generous with his wealth? How do you know of his charitable deeds?

@ Banjo, thanks for making it easier to read by breaking it up and providing the opposing arguments too Smile

@Rawrs, the pronunciation of the name is still the same. (or maybe not in the english accent)

—

"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi

Submitted by Ocean* (not verified) on 4 May, 2011 - 16:53

TheRevivalEditor wrote:

hiding like a girl in pakistan isnt what a freedom fighter does....


AHEM!

I'd like to object at this sexist remark... "hiding like a spider" would have worked!

Please refrain from bringing in the female "weakness" and stereotyping into any sort of a simile, thank you.

Submitted by malik on 4 May, 2011 - 19:42

TheRevivalEditor wrote:

Death of Usamah Bin Laden: Freedom Fighter or Terrorist?

It depends who you ask.

If you ask most Salafis, then Bin Laden was a hero. They like his sort.

If you ask Americans, then he was a terrorist.

I believe the Wahhabi guy was a terrorist.

—

Ayatollah rightly named America as "Great Satan".

Submitted by Valkyrie on 4 May, 2011 - 20:17

Ocean* wrote:
TheRevivalEditor wrote:

hiding like a girl in pakistan isnt what a freedom fighter does....


AHEM!

I'd like to object at this sexist remark... "hiding like a spider" would have worked!

Please refrain from bringing in the female "weakness" and stereotyping into any sort of a simile, thank you.

I was just going to comment on this too!
Is it a known thing for girls to hide in Pakistan? I sure haven't

—

 

Submitted by You on 5 May, 2011 - 18:39

Muslimeen wrote:
Yes I say it again, FREEDOM FIGHTER!!

Do you have to buy all the crap the western media feeds just cos they say so??
Any proof of him killing 1000's of innocent civilians?? beside what the Americans say!!
If you wage Jihad then you are damaging the the image of Islam, how??

So... what exactly do you think he was doing?

People who support him easily fall into a trap of supporting events which they then condemn when someone points out they were bad.

An example would be people who wuld support him for masterminding 9/11, but as soon as it is pointed out that 9/11 was a hienous crime, the same people would then blame it on the CIA or other organisation.

"Four Lions" covers this hypocrisy perfectly in the first 50 seconds of this clip:

">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uduI4xwWdDg]

—

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Submitted by laila on 6 May, 2011 - 23:03

He was a rich man living his dream like only the very wealthy can. Still now one boogie man gone who will be next .The world cannot live without hating someone, a face. Governments need a common enemy on whom we can focus all the ills and injustice we suffer. Personally I stand up and shout hate and abuse every time I see the face of Obama that keeps me going for days until I feel glum again and then I just switch on the tv and find him again And vent my anger all over Again - it works for me. And as for Osama well as much as we know about him from the media well he was neither freedom fighter nor terrorist just a wealthy man living his dream like I said before

Submitted by TPOS on 8 May, 2011 - 14:54

His dream?

—

"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi

Submitted by Bilan on 9 May, 2011 - 00:29

Valkyrie wrote:
Ocean* wrote:
TheRevivalEditor wrote:

hiding like a girl in pakistan isnt what a freedom fighter does....


AHEM!

I'd like to object at this sexist remark... "hiding like a spider" would have worked!

Please refrain from bringing in the female "weakness" and stereotyping into any sort of a simile, thank you.

I was just going to comment on this too!
Is it a known thing for girls to hide in Pakistan? I sure haven't

LOOL! +1

—

"Verily, in the remembrance of Allah, do hearts find rest"

Submitted by Sajid Iqbal on 11 May, 2011 - 15:51

Muslimeen wrote:
TheRevivalEditor wrote:
Muslimeen wrote:
Freedom Fighter.

how?
organising the killing of thousands of innocent civilians world wide and openly praising the attrocities- is that what you call a freedom fighter?

damaging the imag eof islam for ever- is that a freedom fighter?

making life impossible to live for muslims in the west- is that what a freedom fighter aims to acheive?

hiding like a girl in pakistan isnt what a freedom fighter does....

why cant muslims call a spade a spade- just because he has a full beard and a turban and talks about jihad doesnt mean he should fool us.

Yes I say it again, FREEDOM FIGHTER!!

Do you have to buy all the crap the western media feeds just cos they say so??
Any proof of him killing 1000's of innocent civilians?? beside what the Americans say!!
If you wage Jihad then you are damaging the the image of Islam, how??

You obviously have not read about the offensive Jihad of muslims in the golden era. The conquest of Syria, spain and many other places, yes we have waged offensive Jihad and not just defensive ones. The difference was there were not many civilian casualties due to the dynamics of warfare back then. In todays times it is a different ball game, though I still don't condone civilian casualties. Perhaps you also object to the coming of Imaam Mahdi and the offensive Jihad he will fight against the Jews??

So he was hiding in Pakistan like a girl hey? Very brave is the American president watching from millions of miles as they killed an unarmed man, well atleast that's what they say. Very brave indeed are your british and american soldiers bombing innocent civilians from 40 thousand feet, brave are the Israeli soldiers fighting stone throwing kids with armoured tanks.

He atleast had the balls to stand up to American oppression and oppose the 2 super powers of our time, the Russian and the Americans. Do you have the same??

FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

time you took ur blinkers off!
he himself praised 9/11- no muslim would do that
he gave fatwa on killing american soldiers and civilians
he praised the bali/madrid bombings- no muslim would do that

a freedom fighter is on the battlefield - not hiding in pakistan in a mansion.

if you think he is doing jihad - you dont know Islam at all.

—

 

Submitted by Hajjar on 13 May, 2011 - 11:14

ii dont believe very much of what the western media tells us, so im not gona jump on the bandwagon and say he was a kaffir Allah knows best. As for hiding in a mansion thats pretty laughable. its very unlikely he was living in that so called mansion for very long. if he had stayed put for long he would have been caught sooner. im sure he was on the move, but he stayed a little too long in this house and was caught out.

as for fighting, there is evidence he did fight, its only in his latter years he slowed down because of health problems, kidneys i think. This idea that he was hiding in a mansion, even using his wife as a shield against the americans firing was perpetuated by the americans for their ideaological war. They want the world to perceive him as a weak coward, who only speaks eloquently and with fire, but doesnt do much himself. The truth was it was not a mansion, it had several floors of which he had two, presumably coz he had two wives with him. the other floor was used by another family. also papers later revealed the deal about his wife being a shield was all a damn lie, so why did they say it in the first place so mugs like us would believe them, and unfortunately a lot of sheep have eaten that patch of grass and its gone down nicely.

do you really think a man who has evaded the americans for such a long time was living in mansion all these years? The guys comes from a very affluent background, if he had love of this world as is being claimed he wouldn't have given that up to live as a wanted man in pakistan/afghanistan.

question : usama bin laden praised 9/11 but hes not the only muslim who has praised it. H never said he did it did he. fact is they dont seem to know who did it. i dont believe muslims had any part in it.

one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. The likes of Blair, Cameron, Bush and Obama will never be considered as freedom fighters to me, they just appear as their ancestors colonisers, and dictators under the guise of democracy, forcing their way of life on countries that dont want it. Helping those countries where they can gain benefit in the form of oil usually, and refusing to help countries even though their is ample bloodshed coz they have nothing to gain i.e mugabe?.

—

“O my people! Truly, this life of the world is nothing but a (quick passing) enjoyment, and verily, the hereafter that is the home that will remain forever.” [Ghafir : 39]

Submitted by You on 13 May, 2011 - 14:49

Hajjar wrote:
one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.

Maybe, but what we need to judge him on is the standard set by the qur'an and sunnah, and not by "other men".

Final judgement is with God, but it doesn't look good...life is sacred and he is responsible for plenty being lost (and that is if we are not even arguing that his "vedicts" put him outside the fold of Islam, something that is not for me to argue).

His grand plan was to invite the US into Afghanistan and defeat them there... even if he was successful, that would be considering afghan lives cheap. Lets not forget the targetting of civillians etc which is not allowed in Islam.

—

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Submitted by You on 13 May, 2011 - 15:07

Just to add, a major indictment against OBL, no matter what you viewed his intentions as, was the utter failure on all of the aspects.

He wanted to harm American prestige, the abnking crisis did a better job of it.

He wanted to overthrow corrupt arab regimes, the people have shown how it is done in Egypt and Tunisia and are in the process in Libya and Syria and all of this no thanks to him, where his actions helped cement the regimes into place.

—

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Submitted by HarajukuDoll on 18 May, 2011 - 18:11

Okay random interruption (where people will stare at this post and say 'where the heck did you come from?').
I thought Bin Laden died 15 years ago :S. Then again I always though he was some made up dude created so the Media could talk about something.
Biggrin (SheepishGrin)

—

 

Submitted by Hajjar on 18 May, 2011 - 19:41

thats what i thought i mean its more likely he died a long time ago. he's been ill very badly with kidney disease since 2001, but the onset was earlier, so to say this guy was on the run with a dialysis machine up the afghan mountains is ridiculous. i dont think he would have survived that long without treatment. i wont be the only one thinking this, they didnt have any respect when they paraded pictures of saddams son, and saddam so why the big sense of "respect" now tis all a farce.

—

“O my people! Truly, this life of the world is nothing but a (quick passing) enjoyment, and verily, the hereafter that is the home that will remain forever.” [Ghafir : 39]

Submitted by TPOS on 19 May, 2011 - 14:21

Apparently Bin Laden praised the arab uprisings.

I came across this news on

But the CNN (linked in that article) website has a longer version of his supposed speech.

—

"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi

Submitted by Hajjar on 19 May, 2011 - 15:36

is that video genuine? i mean its no secret that the usa made some pretty pathetic hoax vids where any small child could tell the dude was a stooge. But im surprised by this news because i was discussing the same thing with my husband, i said if he was still alive all this time im sure he would have something to say about the turmoil in the arab world, yet he has said nothing?

—

“O my people! Truly, this life of the world is nothing but a (quick passing) enjoyment, and verily, the hereafter that is the home that will remain forever.” [Ghafir : 39]

Submitted by TPOS on 19 May, 2011 - 18:52

It doesn't show a video, the newsreader just reads it out, so no idea if it's genuine or not - although how would you tell, even if you saw one?

—

"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi

Submitted by HarajukuDoll on 19 May, 2011 - 18:57

Ocean* wrote:

"hiding like a spider" would have worked!

:O Now you're just being Animalist!! Blum 3

—

 

Submitted by ikhan700 on 29 May, 2011 - 22:05

More Muslims have died, been raped, homes destroyed and countries ruined after 911.
Was Osama a double or triple agent only Allah knows.
The Dhajjal (anti christ) is the biggest problem.
Pray to Allah for help
When Allahs help comes then their is Victory for all.

check this picture a

Pages

Post reply