Utah gunman, 18, was Muslim from Bosnia

Status
Not open for further replies.
What is the difference between some lone jihadi loon, some lone anti-social loon, and some lone psychopathic loon?

lone psychopathic loons, usually do not inspire many followers.
lone anti-social loons, usually do not have the blessings of many religious leaders.
lone jihad loons sometimes have both.
 
If it gets bad enough (nuke in LA, NY, Paris, London, wherever; or some similar outrage) the large portion of the USA/Western Civ will wake, suddenly, to the threat.

May qualify as the under-statement of the day.

What is the difference between some lone jihadi loon, some lone anti-social loon, and some lone psychopathic loon?

Lone Jihadi loon is a contradiction in terms. There's a difference between thinking you're Napoleon and being one of millions of Napoleons.
 
Try not to expand beyond the question I asked. IMHO there is no discernable difference between them other than post-hoc rationalizations. Especially in this scenario where the shooter doesn't fit the profile, according to all reports he was just a white kid with a European accent. How do you determine who is a religious nutjob?

What is the big sign they all wear?
 
Kaylee,

Milestones is actually on the web. I was wondering if perhaps you could point me to the parts that make terrorism legitimate, and that advocate the killing of non-Muslims solely for the sake of their being non Muslims?
http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_li...ld/index_2.asp


I'm really in agreement with many of you that we're in a situation eerily similar to that of pre-war Germany. The difference is that I think the new Nazis are all those who like to invent theories about how Muslims are involved in this or that worldwide conspiracy to destroy everybody.

So you're all right...there is a serious worldwide threat here. This is exactly the same kind of rhetoric that was levelled against Jews, and it's being recycled against Muslims. There is absolutely zero danger of foreign Nazis invading and conquering the US or Europe (there isn't an army capable of doing it, period). The real danger is that, because of paranoia and religious hatred, we'll be the New Nazis.

The claims of people about the religion of Islam being supportive of violence belie a complete and total lack of experience with its texts. This business about sanctioning the killing of infidels is especially ridiculous....not even Al Qaeda claims that it's permissible in Islam to kill someone for being of a different faith. Allegations of this kind are rooted 100 percent in fear and ignorance of both mainstream and radical Muslim teachings. They have no basis in any, and I mean any, religious teachings, no matter how extreme.
 
BTW I'm not saying I know the answer here, I'm asking because I don't. Back in the 70's when I was a kid, religious nutjobs here in Utah killed a bunch of people. They were members of my ward, I played with their kids. Am I a religious nutjob too?
 
I'm really in agreement with many of you that we're in a situation eerily similar to that of pre-war Germany. The difference is that I think the new Nazis are all those who like to invent theories about how Muslims are involved in this or that worldwide conspiracy to destroy everybody.

Somehow I don't recall angry Jews marching in the thousands and shouting "Death to the Gentile!"

I think we make our judgments based on what Muslims themselves say and do. That doesn't mean we must per force generalize to all Muslims, obviously.
 
Simple...let Homeland Defense/Security people go in and investigate the local Mosque's teachings. Why has this, "He's always been such a good boy" become the raging maniac that is willing to kill your wife and daughter when they go to the Mall. Much like the case in Seattle (wherein leftwingers attempted to sweep the whole incident under the carpet...using your kind of logic I might add); the shooter was inundated with Anti-Jewish teachings...anti American rhetoric in the local masque right here in the USA. What are you going to do...wait til they begin giving bomb making classes before you question this? Look at France, 30% moslem and we watched from the US as the malcontents burned cars by the hundreds last year. You would have probably questioned our actions after Pearl Harbor methinks. "Oh...we do not have enough information". "Perhaps those were some lost Japaneese flyers who mistook our harbor for a boming range? "How do you know those weren't Jewish flyers in those zeros"? "Oh you conservative reactionarys!"
 
It's amusing to me that someone talked about Suleiman the Magnificent converting at the point of "a bloody sword."

'Cuz, you know, Christianity has never used violence as a means to an end. Never.
 
SS - I'd suggest re-reading pretty much all of chapter 4. ;)

When we take this broad meaning of the word 'defense', we understand the true character of Islam, and that it is a universal proclamation of the freedom of man from servitude to other men, the establishment of the sovereignty of God and His Lordship throughout the world, the end of man's arrogance and selfishness, and the implementation of the rule of the Divine Shari'ah in human affairs.

In other words, the "defense" of Islam in the context in which Qutb is using it means "true freedom comes from abolishing human governance and replacing it with Sharia" This includes such petty man-made notions as national borders. :uhoh:

That (and related beliefs, such as declaring all Muslims who weren't equally militant as takfir and thus also free game for the sword) fuels the violence we see from the militant groups. The first biggies I can recall are the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, but it's spread over the region since.
 
you of course...ref #78....sorry I did not itemize it. I am in a bit of flurry...attempting to work and flying back and forth to this manifesto going on here...
 
he was just a white kid with a european accent? Good Lord man...I could describe Hitler that way and people like you would say, "True...so true".
 
Kaylee,

Yeah, I zeroed in on Chapter 4 too. That seems to lay out a sort of Islamic nationalism, but I didn't see one iota of a suggestion that killing non-believers was permissible.

The concluding paragraph also makes explicit that in this Islamic state, belief has to be left up to the individual.

So I agree, this definitely calls for Muslims to establish Islamic states...but you go further and say:

That (and related beliefs, such as declaring all Muslims who weren't equally militant as takfir and thus also free game for the sword) fuels the violence we see from the militant groups.

Where is this? Qutb specifically says that Christians and Jews who follow the moral law are not non-believers. He also specifically says that belief is a matter for individual conscience, not to be enforced by the state.

The interesting thing about the Muslim Brotherhood is that it is the single largest agitator for democracy in both Egypt and Jordan. They are constantly protesting dictatorship and demanding elections in those countries...so again, I'm not seeing the connection to "killing all Muslims who don't agree" either.

Is there maybe something other than Milestones that you got these ideas from you could point me to? Or if the killing piece is in Milestones, I'd like to see where.

Thanks for the response, and I appreciate that you're willing to discuss this in a reasoned and calm fashion.
 
There's not enough information to draw a conclusion about this yet. But I don't trust the media to play straight. They have a long track record of trying to play down Islamic terrorism at home, from the man who attacked clerks at the El Al ticket counter to the home brewed dignity patrols that smashed liquor stores in Oakland to impose Islamic law. We are not getting the full story.

The government is also all to eager to cover these things up or write them off as isolated events. And they'll keep on pretending it's not Islamic terrorism until the body count gets too high. It's a game for them. They have to keep us in fear of Islamic terror, but they also have to make it seem as though they're stopping it from coming here.

Qutb specifically says that Christians and Jews who follow the moral law are not non-believers.

Oh, THAT makes me feel warm and fuzzy! So as long as you obey your Islamic masters and pay the requisite religious taxes you won't be slaughtered. If that's the ideal of Dar al-Islam I'll stick with Dar al-Harb, thanks just the same.
 
Cosmoline,

I agree it's radical and far outside what we'd want. I'm not saying this is a good book, or that it's a moderate book, or that everyone should go out and support Qutb.

I'm just pointing out that even the extreme fringe in Islam do not agree that killing people simply for being non-Muslim is legitimate. So the accusation that Islam condones this, or that even a minority of Muslims accept it, is wrong.

Terrorists justify what they do not by claiming that religion sanctions killing anyone who isn't Muslim; they justify it by claiming that the people they kill are actually involved in some way in attacks and wars on Muslims. And that's what I find so disturbing about efforts to claim that all bad deeds done by Muslim terrorists are part of some broader "Islamic strategy" to do this or that...it smacks of an effort to recast innocent people as combatants based on factors other than direct participation in combat.
 
Could I make a suggestion?

When dealing with TODAY's muslim and christian and jewish and buddhist and whatever religions, let's not bring up what happened centuries ago.

I don't CARE that a thousand years ago everyone was all peaceful and hugging or bloodthirsty and stabbing.

What I care about is TODAY.

And TOMORROW...

Today, lots of people aren't all that peaceful, but they keep seeming to want to say that they were... once... Well, I don't care if you hit the first 24 clay pigeons - unless you hit the 25th, you ain't got yourself a perfect round.
 
Yeah, I can understand what the Marine in the begining is saying. THOSE are the guys it feels good to shoot. Evil people. As bad as it sounds, these are the same type people that would drive a truck full of explosives into a school full of young Muslims just because they have females inside learning. So their death protects another.

But back on topic a bit, we have a friend that works in/around the morgue where the shooter was taken. He is going to see if the guy had been prepaired for Myrtardom. We are also trying to find out back channel what the scope of the investigation is on relationship between him and the Mosque 3 blocks from the sight is. What ever they can tell us that would not affect an ongoing investigation I will pass on. But so far he looks like a regular old nutjob. One that happened to be Muslim instead or Jewish, or Christian, or.....
 
This business about sanctioning the killing of infidels is especially ridiculous....not even Al Qaeda claims that it's permissible in Islam to kill someone for being of a different faith

Maybe not kill, but there are worse things.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi

The interesting thing about the Muslim Brotherhood is that it is the single largest agitator for democracy in both Egypt and Jordan. They are constantly protesting dictatorship and demanding elections in those countries...

And after they gain power through elections, there will be no need for any more elections. Where have we seen this before?

I agree we don't know enough to judge the motives yet, but I also agree that we probably won't hear the truth from the national media. I've noticed after previous incidents that the local media may do a better job finding out the truth. I hope our local members can keep us updated.
 
I'm just pointing out that even the extreme fringe in Islam do not agree that killing people simply for being non-Muslim is legitimate.

I seem to recall that not to long ago there was someone in Afghanistan who was almost stoned to death for converting to christianity ??? Plus weren't there a couple of teenage girls from the US who also almost met the same fate ???

Also, IIRC, the penalty for practicing any religion other then Islam in Saudi Arabia, is death by either stoning or hanging.

And I guess that "The Base" is not the extreme fringe of Islam even though they murdered 3,000+ people one morning a couple years back.

I'm not anti-Muslim, I'm anti-Muslims-who-want-to-kill-me-and-my-family-destroy-my-way-of-life-and-my-country.
 
ozarkhillbilly said:
Give me one from the Bible or Torah?


When you approach a city to do battle with it you should call to it in peace. And if they respond in peace and they open the city to you, all the people in the city shall pay taxes to you and be subservient. And if they do not make peace with you, you shall wage war with them and you may besiege them. Deuteronomy 20:10-12

Pay up, obey, or die. Kind of like "convert or die" but just a little greedier.
 
Maybe if the media is hesitating to discuss his religion or possible motives, it's because they were rightfully criticized for jumping to conclusions over the OK City bombing. Remember the early reports of dark, swarthy suspects, and all of the speculation about Middle-eastern terrorists? At this stage, for the media to speculate about his motives would be something I would expect out of Savage and WND, but not any responsible journalists.
 
The only way this guy's religion matters is IF it influenced his actions. If the guy shot all these people for a reason not related to his religion, it's moot. However, if he was trying to do his part to kill the infidel, then it's relevant. We might never know. As of now, it's just a fact. This guy was a muslim.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top