• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Austin bomber was ‘domestic terrorist,’ police chief says

The Mark said:
I view radical Islamic groups as politicians commandeering religious motives for their personal political goals.
The individual members may believe in their group's positions as a religion, but I consider it mainly political.

And in some ways, there are crossovers between belief in a religion and belief in a political group.
Click to expand...

What was Mohammed Atta's personal political goal? He didn't have one. He died a martyr, intentionally. In the name of his religion.

Yes, there are crossovers between religious beliefs and political beliefs. Some Evangelicals want the Ten Commandments hung in their offices and courtrooms because they want the unholy Liberal out of office so they can impose their Christian beliefs on the government. I've said that a few times already. But since I'm only posting about the 9/11 hijackers, this isn't one of those times. Atta was not trying to make George W. Bush leave the White House in favor of another politician.
 
tres borrachos said:
What was Mohammed Atta's personal political goal? He didn't have one. He died a martyr, intentionally. In the name of his religion.

Yes, there are crossovers between religious beliefs and political beliefs. Some Evangelicals want the Ten Commandments hung in their offices and courtrooms because they want the unholy Liberal out of office so they can impose their Christian beliefs on the government. I've said that a few times already. But since I'm only posting about the 9/11 hijackers, this isn't one of those times. Atta was not trying to make George W. Bush leave the White House in favor of another politician.
Click to expand...
I ascribe the political motives to those who convinced him to kill himself for his beliefs.
 
The Mark said:
I ascribe the political motives to those who convinced him to kill himself for his beliefs.
Click to expand...

And again, I wasn't talking about the people who convinced them of anything. I was quite clear on who I was talking about. The 9/11 hijackers. You and the other poster seem to be struggling with that.
 
tres borrachos said:
And again, I wasn't talking about the people who convinced them of anything. I was quite clear on who I was talking about. The 9/11 hijackers. You and the other poster seem to be struggling with that.
Click to expand...

It seems an unreasonable distinction to separate the two.
The motive for the act was that the leaders wanted it for political reasons, and the hijackers carried out those desires.

It's the reasoning behind it that made it terrorism, you can't reasonably claim that simply because the hijackers believed it was the will of god that they do this, they weren't committing a terrorist act.

Besides, I'm not convinced they weren't at least somewhat aware of the political reasons for it, and we can't talk to them now.
 
The Mark said:
It seems an unreasonable distinction to separate the two.
The motive for the act was that the leaders wanted it for political reasons, and the hijackers carried out those desires.

It's the reasoning behind it that made it terrorism, you can't reasonably claim that simply because the hijackers believed it was the will of god that they do this, they weren't committing a terrorist act.

Besides, I'm not convinced they weren't at least somewhat aware of the political reasons for it, and we can't talk to them now.
Click to expand...

Let's try this one more time.

I wasn't posting about the "leaders". That's why I said, repeatedly, the 9/11 hijackers. Not Bin Laden or anyone else.

I also have no idea what this means:

you can't reasonably claim that simply because the hijackers believed it was the will of god that they do this, they weren't committing a terrorist act.

If you're trying to send that message to someone who said those words, then please quote that person and direct it at him or her. Since I never said anything even remotely close to that, and never hinted anything close to that, then either you're extremely confused, or you think I'm someone else.

So to sum this up, and alleviate the confusion you have, the 9/11 hijackers committed a terrorist attack in the name of their religion. This isn't really complicated but you are complicating it.
 
tres borrachos said:
Let's try this one more time.

I wasn't posting about the "leaders". That's why I said, repeatedly, the 9/11 hijackers. Not Bin Laden or anyone else.

I also have no idea what this means:

you can't reasonably claim that simply because the hijackers believed it was the will of god that they do this, they weren't committing a terrorist act.

If you're trying to send that message to someone who said those words, then please quote that person and direct it at him or her. Since I never said anything even remotely close to that, and never hinted anything close to that, then either you're extremely confused, or you think I'm someone else.

So to sum this up, and alleviate the confusion you have, the 9/11 hijackers committed a terrorist attack in the name of their religion. This isn't really complicated but you are complicating it.
Click to expand...
Ah, I misunderstood.
I thought you were saying they didn't commit terrorism because it wasn't politically motivated.

I still think it WAS politically motivated, but I did misunderstand that portion of what you said.
 
stevecanuck said:
Nope. As I clearly said, if he's yelling allahu akbar while killing people, then he's clearly a terrorist. You gonna dispute that?
Click to expand...

And as I clearly said (in my reply to somebody else which you butted in to), people base their assumption of motivation on name and skin color. Which the guy that I quoted quite clearly did.

I'll quote again the guy who I was originally responding to:

MSgt said:
Oh c'mon.

It is human nature to confidently define an event in accordance to an understood identity. Thus "Muhammad" or "Waheed," and a mass murder of civilians in the modern age, equals an Islamist attack, thus terrorism.
Click to expand...

Sorry Stevecanuck, that not every conversation is about you, you don't get to take my argument and try to make it about something completely different?

stevecanuck said:
1. Alhumdulillah is MUCH more commonly said. Allahu akbar is pretty much reserved for prayer.
2. When allahu akbar is shouted during a killing spree, it's a declaration that said killing spree is for the advancement of Islam.
Click to expand...

1. which isn't actually contrary to my point
2. and when it's not shouted during a killing spree, which is 99.999999% of the time, it's not, so again, not

stevecanuck said:
Then why are you responding to me?
Click to expand...

Caring about whether you think progressives are relevant or not is completely different to correcting you when you are wrong.
 
Last edited:
tres borrachos said:
Do you not understand that your post has nothing to do with what I posted.

I said the 9/11 hijackers didn't have a political motive. You commented on how that was the stupidest post you've seen in years. I posted that to show that my post was correct - the 9/11 hijackers did not have a political motive.
Click to expand...

You do realize that "political" refers to more than "American domestic electoral politics" don ...

Oh, right
 
stevecanuck said:
2. When allahu akbar is shouted during a killing spree, it's a declaration that said killing spree is for the advancement of Islam.
Click to expand...

Actually the phrase means closer to "IF God wills it." rather than "It is God's will."

But I think that we are in agreement that "the advancement of Islam" is a "political" thing in the correct use of the term "political".
 
tres borrachos said:
Wow, I see you are prone to extremely dishonest posts. Let's look at the next lines after what you posted.

The terrorists were not simply a band of fanatics who, as so many officials and pundits had repeatedly stated, after 9/11, had simply "hijacked a religion." Because of a fear of engendering charges of racism by Muslim leaders, a charge that is routinely applied to anything critical of militant Islam, there has been an assiduous effort to avoid labeling the terrorists of 9/11 for what they were: militant Islamic terrorists. Their behavior was informed and guided by their misguided interpretation of Islam. Unfortunately, efforts to sanitize the discussion of Islamic terrorism has led to explanations of 9/11 that exonerate the masterminds and ideological perpetrators of any responsibility for their actions: A special Hollywood broadcast after 9/11 noted that the attack of 9/11 was simply "pure evil" and had nothing to do with religion.

Please annoy someone else. I don't waste time discussing American history with people who can't follow the discussion. I have other more important things to do. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Click to expand...

Ok, here's my final take on the subject, and then the floor is yours for as long as you want it.

You are 100% right when you say religion is their motivation. Everything they do, they do because they truly believe God wants them to. And why the terrorism? Because it is their tool to change the way in which the world is governed. They want world-wide Islamic rule (as demanded in 9:29), and that is as political as it gets. Their religion IS their politics, and vice versa. The End.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Actually the phrase means closer to "IF God wills it." rather than "It is God's will."

But I think that we are in agreement that "the advancement of Islam" is a "political" thing in the correct use of the term "political".
Click to expand...

Yes, we're absolutely on the same page. There are others here who aren't even in the same book.

Btw, you're thinking of insha'allah, which means 'God willing'. Allahu akbar when broken down word for word means:

Allah - 'The god'
u - suffix meaning 'he'
akbar - 'greatest'.

Changing that into English syntax, it means 'God is greatest'.
 
stevecanuck said:
The pink "me too" hat must to lead-lined, because no matter how many people point this out, it just bounces right off.
Click to expand...

Insulting me and not even quoting me? Double win! :mrgreen:
 
stevecanuck said:
Ok, here's my final take on the subject, and then the floor is yours for as long as you want it.

You are 100% right when you say religion is their motivation. Everything they do, they do because they truly believe God wants them to. And why the terrorism? Because it is their tool to change the way in which the world is governed. They want world-wide Islamic rule (as demanded in 9:29), and that is as political as it gets. Their religion IS their politics, and vice versa. The End.
Click to expand...

Thank you. You could have ended it right at the bigger words. That was what I said at the beginning, and now you're admitting I was right. Hope you have a good day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom