http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bff_1216724082

Ayatollah Muhammad Hussein Fadhlallah's criticism of Middle Eastern governments:


Quote:

If the [Islamic] nation gets used to thinking, if the nation realizes that it must not let its mind stagnate, and if the nation becomes accustomed to accepting things only after thinking them over with its mind and believing in them – nobody will be able to control us, nobody will be able to become a dictator ruling us, nobody will be able to enslave us. We have been raised to be submissive... You have probably seen this time and again at home. At home, the father does not let anybody else speak. The wife does not have the right to speak. The children do not have the right to speak. The father says: "I make the decisions, and nobody may object or disagree." Right? He is the father. But your children have grown, and maybe your wife is educated and experienced, and you – who are you?! Did Allah give you a brain that is unparalleled? No. Do you know what this education leads to? This education raises children who refrain from opposing the ruler. Their father does not allow anybody to speak, so they learn that they do not have the right to speak. When we consider the political parties – there too nobody opposes, disagrees with, or criticizes [the leader]. Whoever criticizes [the leader] finds himself outside. This is true even for the secular parties. The parties call for freedom. They shout that the ruler denies people their rights, but within the party, people are being denied their rights. When there are centers of power, nobody can express opposition. Whoever expresses opposition finds himself outside. This happens throughout the Middle East. I am not talking about anywhere specific. We raise our people to submit to the strong. Therefore, nobody expresses opposition. They are afraid. It is better to not talk, to not object. That is why we have tyrants who are like gods. Among the Arab and Islamic peoples, you might find people who criticize Allah and the Prophet, God forbid, but can you find people who criticize mortals like the president or the king? No, this is not allowed. Such people go straight to jail or to the gallows. If you say something against Allah – never mind. If you say something against the Prophet or the imam – never mind. But if you say something against the president, the king, the Emir, or any senior politician – that is not allowed. What does this mean? It means that we have succumbed to being slaves, because this is what slavery means.

Thanks for posting that Malik, it is exactly the type of thing we would wish to see from Islam, an awakening of individual thinking.
That there is need to have to tell people to think at all, is another matter.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 9:08am:

Thanks for posting that Malik, it is exactly the type of thing we would wish to see from Islam, an awakening of individual thinking. That there is need to have to tell people to think at all, is another matter.

I'm glad that you think so Mozzaok. I agree completely. Now your seeing some of the things which I see every day.

Here's another for you I think you might like.


Quote:

Fadllah condemns the clebrating occasions by fing shots Following the shooting to celebrate the reelection of the speaker, Nabih Berri, the Religious Authority Ayatullah Al Ozma Sayyed M. H. Fadlullah issued a Fatwa that prohibited firing shots and fireworks among the people in the streets, whatever the occasion may be. His Eminence condemned the shootings that followed the reelection of the Lebanese Speaker, Nabih Berri, considering them as an ignorant or backward way of expressing feelings. His Eminence emphasized that such an action is prohibited due to the negative consequences of scaring the people, disturbing them and even causing causalities, who fell as a result of these practices that reflect a flaw in their religious political or national commitment. It also reflects a backward mentality in dealing with those occasions, whether those of joy or mourning. It also lead to a great loss of lives and of money and to a misuse of arms in the wrong place and in a way that hurts social security and general order. Sayyed Fadlullah further called on all officials concerned to prevent such an attitude from being repeated in any other occasion to safeguard our country and public life.

Good one Malik. I note that the word "fatwa" is in there. The problem with the West and Western media is that words like jihad and fatwa automatically conjures a negative image because the general populace do not know its proper meaning or that they are used in only one context which inevitably becomes the only meaning.

:)

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 9:42am:

Good one Malik. I note that the word "fatwa" is in there. The problem with the West and Western media is that words like jihad and fatwa automatically conjures a negative image because the general populace do not know its proper meaning or that they are used in only one context which inevitably becomes the only meaning. :)

Hi Acid,

Yes a fatwa is a religious ruling on a particular issue, in this case it was regarding firing guns in the air as a celebration. But there can be religious rulings on many different things.

Jihad in itself is is an interesting topic, perhaps I'll start a thread on that with an explanation which properly defines it's characteristics, the different types of Jihad and what can and can't be done when the Jihad progresses into physical conflict.

Exactly! Whenever Western laymen hear the word fatwa they think "death sentence" as in Salman Rushdie. I've tried to explain this many times but it just doesn't seem to sink in because the media only report one aspect of fatwa. Reports such as you've posted will show a different side to such "tainted" words like fatwa and jihad etc.

You should start that thread.

:)

He seems pretty sensible. What is his 'position'?

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 10:36am:

He seems pretty sensible. What is his 'position'?

From my understanding he is the highest ranking Shia religious authority in Lebanon, with the position of Grand Ayatollah

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 11:12am:

freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 2008 at 10:36am: He seems pretty sensible. What is his 'position'? From my understanding he is the highest ranking Shia religious authority in Lebanon, with the position of Grand Ayatollah

Does that mean that his fatwas will only be observed by the Shi'ites?

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 6:06pm:

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 24th, 2008 at 11:12am: freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 2008 at 10:36am: He seems pretty sensible. What is his 'position'? From my understanding he is the highest ranking Shia religious authority in Lebanon, with the position of Grand Ayatollah Does that mean that his fatwas will only be observed by the Shi'ites?

Not necessarily, either way there are very similar fatwa's given by Sunni scholars too.

I've never understood the practice of firing their weapons in celebration.

Tradition? Did they fire their arrows and throw their spears in the air back in the olden days? It seems unlikely.

Don't they do something similar in old westerns?

If you believe in the old western movies.

No they danced around with swords or knives in their hands.

The difference is that with a gun, shooting those bullets in the air is going to make it land on someone which is very dangerous.

Undoubtedly.

But when and why did this practice become such an entrench tradition? It's become almost a unique practice among Muslim groups.

Everytime I see news footages I can't but help but think ironically "Oh, there they go again. Firing the AK47s into the air. It's no wonder the death toll is so high - they're killing each other with their stray bullets".

It is nice to see some muslims in positions of authority, exhibiting some progressive thinking.

I always felt that Islams greatest weakness was a lack of progress, and an ability to move with the times.

I likened it to the old saying;
"The greatest obstacle to learning, is thinking you already know"
Because of the whole god's word is written, and cannot be departed from thing, I feared that Islam would restrict itself solely to medieval thinking.

The aspect of interpretation is their window of opportunity, where they can adapt the positive influences of Islam to remain relevant in a modern world.

Now whether this actually occurs, will very much be up to people like Malik, who live in a modern, secular society, and so are perfectly placed to help Islam find it's place in such societies.

The unfortunate aspect of Islam is that to this point they seem unwilling to accept that being an accepted member of a multicultural society is enough.
They maintain a dream of needing perfect Islamic society, where all follow allah, and Islamic law.
The elevation of this dream to the point of obsessiveness, is a barrier to muslims fully engaging with, and making the most of, their current social position, wherever that may be, but as we see more interaction, and generational change, hopefully a new maturity will develop also.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 7:35pm:

It is nice to see some muslims in positions of authority, exhibiting some progressive thinking.

I'm glad you like this stuff Mozza, here's some more for you:

Sayyed Fadlullah Condemns the London Blasts

Following the explosions that terrorized London, on the 7th of July 2005, the Religious Authority, Sayyed Muhammad Hussein Fadlullah , issued the following communiqué :

These criminal acts that move from one place to another are not accepted by religion, the mind or any religious or lay law. It is a kind of barbarianism that Islam unequivocally rejects; no matter how much some try to suggest that Islam accepts it.

These attacks represent a new episode in the death series planted by agencies or parties that do not respect man, haunt the innocent in their workplaces, and target transport vehicles, are condemned by all human and ethical, standards, regardless of who is behind them.

The tragedies that this destructive madness have inflicted in the world call for an international stand to confront organized state terrorism and that of the groups that use religion or nationalism as a cover, especially that they are acting as a justification, whether directly or indirectly, to the series of criminal acts of several super powers, as well as the plans to widen the scope of occupation or aggression on new Islamic and Arabs countries, both in our region and in the world.

We call on the British, European and Western peoples not to ignore their ethical and humanistic commitments, and retaliate against the Arab and Muslim communities in the West.

On the contrary, they should work together on confronting these acts of evil, by besieging them and containing the emotional reactions that they might trigger, so as to protect the criminals form achieving their goals and executing their plots.

Well I cannot say I was too impressed with that last one Malik, it was a bit like having two bob each way, and more a plea to not take it out on the muslims, just because a bunch of muslims, commit acts of terror in the name of Islam, and Allah.

In the thread about the Israelis shooting the alleged suicide bomber, you maintain your position of the palestinians being justified to attack their Israeli oppressors in any way they can.

As long as Islam keeps throwing up the ideal of a new world order, unified under Islam, then these terrorists can apply the same logic to attack any non-muslim society, as you argue as justified for palestinians, because of it's societies rejection of Islam.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 10:17pm:

Well I cannot say I was too impressed with that last one Malik, it was a bit like having two bob each way, and more a plea to not take it out on the muslims, just because a bunch of muslims, commit acts of terror in the name of Islam, and Allah.

Not quite. It's condemning the terrorism and making it clear in a religious ruling to all Muslims that such behaviour is reprehensable and contrary to the teachings of Islam, it is then calling on the Western world not to take it out on all Muslims because this behaviour is alien to Islamic teachings and Islam is used merely as a justification for disgusting and unislamic behaviour. People will always use a reason to kill to justify their murders but in most cases it comes down to power and money, there was nothing Islamic about 9/11, 7/7, the Madrid and Bali bombings and this behaviour is not Islamic. Why should it be taken out on all Muslims? If someone drives a car but doesn't stick to the road rules and drives like a moron and crashes his car and kills someone is it the road rules fault? He could say he misinterpreted the rules but at the end of the day it would never justify the wrongs he did because the rules are clear and it would be his own fault, it is the same with any religion. Unless you are actually going to say to me that Islam encourages the killing of innocent people and blowing yourself up (which you wouldn't do, because your not that stupid as Islam completely forbids it and there is a huge amount of evidence about that) then you have to accept that this behaviour is not Islamic. So why on earth should all Muslims be held accountable for the actions of some who misuse the name of Islam to do their horrendous crimes.

Furthermore I don't quite get why you are unimpressed, at the end of the day he is doing exactly what you're asking for and criticising Muslims for in many of your posts, he is speaking out against terrorism and condemning terrorists. Will nothing please you or is your hate for Islam and any religion overcoming your own logic?


mozzaok wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 10:17pm:

In the thread about the Israelis shooting the alleged suicide bomber, you maintain your position of the palestinians being justified to attack their Israeli oppressors in any way they can. As long as Islam keeps throwing up the ideal of a new world order, unified under Islam, then these terrorists can apply the same logic to attack any non-muslim society, as you argue as justified for palestinians, because of it's societies rejection of Islam.

I have never tried to justify killing any Israeli by whatever is available. That simply isn't correct and I think you'd actually struggle to find such a statement (unless of course I was showing someone else their logic applied to the Israeli's as I did in the Mahmoud Saleh thread). I have always spoken out against suicide bombing and spoken out against targetting civilians at any point.

You however won't even speak out against the assasination of one man who didn't even get a trial.

That is the hypocrisy, that you criticise Muslims and other religions and say we're barbaric but at the end of the day you as an athiest with your 'holier than thou' attitude are a total hypocrite because you refuse to speak out against an assasination of a man who was unarmed and not given a fair trial. All the things you say the West has moved on from and the progression you've made go out of the window when it comes to a situation like this. I've seen people like you, all high and mighty with your condemning of those who are oppressed and want their freedom but when it's the other way what do you do? You don't give a stuff about human rights and all of your 'civilized' behaviour that you have in the West goes out the window when crap hits the fan.. It's only a thing of convenience for you and you really don't have any steady morals or standards that you hold so passionately that you'd rather die than break them.

People like you only care about your own welfare and wouldn't hesitate to slip down to the lowest of behaviours if it saved your skin. It's all about self preservation for you and that's it. When your life isn't in danger you'll act like you're on some higher moral ground but when your life is in real danger then you'd conveniently put all of those moral standards aside to save your own skin.

Save it for someone else who's stupid and gullible enough to believe it mate because I'm not.

The statement in question was wishy washy, it was not worded at all strongly, and merely comes across as an apology by rote, as a matter of form, while slipping in a dig at opponents of Islam, as a tipping the wink gesture, to the would be martyrs.

As far as providing clear instructions to muslims, well I really would love to see that, but even if that is what he wanted to do, he didn't do it, and if he had, he would probably be murdered for it.
Who would kill him, a western superpower, or a fanatical muslim, who didn't agree with him?
It is not too tough to work out.
You crap on about being willing to die for stuff way too much, what is it with you guys, do you really hold life so cheap that you are itching to shuffle off prematurely in response to real or imagined issues.

Unfortunately for Islam, all the 'unIslamic' terrorist attacks, are committed by muslims, against oppressors of Islam, which broadly speaking can be any people or country who are not Islamic, so the statement was nowhere near emphatic enough to convince me that Islam is really doing anything more than paying lip service to the condemnation of terrorism.
You wonder why some people conclude that a large proportion of muslims give tacit support to terrorism, and you declare it is unfair, but while Islam, and the terrorists, share a common goal, to see the restoration of an Islamic Caliphate, and the unification of the muslims in an Islamic state, under sharia law, then that association will continue to be made.
The fact that hundreds of thousands of muslims celebrated the 9/11 attacks also leads westerners to assume that they are considered by muslims, to be their enemy, and a legitimate target, that produces fear. fear produces mistrust.
That is why I keep coming back to you and saying, Islam needs to clean up it's act.

Now onto the issue of what Islam does and does not condone.
You accept your book as god's word, I do not, but I would point out once more, that if I was picking a god, I would try and pick one who can get the instructions clear, at the very least.
Your book is filled with messages of violent, imperialist tales of taking Islam to the world through violence, yet you try and disassociate Islam from people who believe that same book, is telling them to violently take Islam to the world. You accept talk of martyrs dying for Islam as a matter of course, yet to me it seems the absolute height of delusional behaviour, and I think a statement from one of your holy men condemning the perpetrators of violence as sinners who will burn for eternity, or whatever they do in muslim hell, and that they are definitely not to be considered martyrs, would be a far more effective statement.

As for your personal attacks on my morals, well when I start championing murder and mayhem on behalf of an imaginary friend, you can get back to me on that issue, because I do not agree with your biased analysis of the actions which brought about the death of a palestinian 'martyr', hardly gives you the right to be the judge.

Quote:

while slipping in a dig at opponents of Islam, as a tipping the wink gesture, to the would be martyrs.

I doubt he was tipping any winks to OBL and co. This guy is a shi'a Ayat'Allah and therefore would consider them to be apostate wahabis and enemies.

You're really not all that clued up on this stuf are you mozza? Funny cos you really give the impression you know a lot about it :)

This is about as laughable as ol' dubya's claim that al-Qaeda and Iran were in alliance with one another... Nevermind that they're more ideologically seperated than either party is with the West.. sounds good and gets the rednecks all riled up.

Who considers the wahabis apostates?

Wasn't it quite clear from my post?


Quote:

This guy is a shi'a Ayat'Allah and therefore would consider them to be apostate wahabis and enemies

The Shi'a consider the Wahabis apostate.

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 29^th, 2008 at 9:47pm:

Wasn't it quite clear from my post? Quote: This guy is a shi'a Ayat'Allah and therefore would consider them to be apostate wahabis and enemies The Shi'a consider the Wahabis apostate.

Hmmmm that's a very general statement..

They consider many of the Wahabi teachings as contradictory to Islam but are very careful not to label such a label on the whole group.

Well on the same token the Wahabis consider the Shi'a to be apostate, so it's not a one way street.

Both of them are two extremes.

I pretty much knew the wahabi's were extreme, but I did not realise that shi'ites would be put in the same category.

Does that mean that the sunni's are the moderate ones?

Is there another subset of muslims who have a significant following, that maintain a moderate approach, who may be able to unify Islam in a broadly accepted moderate way?

Is the affiliation to each sub-group usually by choice, or is it mostly traditional, or even possibly divided more along ethnic differences?

If it is along ethnic lines, does swapping affiliation from one group to another create undue risk for those who may wish to change?

What I, as a westerner, hope for is that a moderate and progressive leader may emerge to represent and unite all those muslims who do not wish to be associated, rightly or wrongly, with the extremist elements that have caused the massive mistrust of Islam in the west.

I am very interested if you guys, as muslims, consider that to be unrealistic, or even unfair.

Quote:

I pretty much knew the wahabi's were extreme... Does that mean that the sunni's are the moderate ones?

Since Wahabis are so called "Sunnis", that question doesn't really make much sense.


Quote:

Is there another subset of muslims who have a significant following, that maintain a moderate approach, who may be able to unify Islam in a broadly accepted moderate way?

What you really mean to say is: "Is there anyone, who wears a badge that says Muslim, but pretty much just believes the exact same as I do?".

Perhaps you'd better have a look at the Rand report on classification of Muslims.


Quote:

What I, as a westerner, hope for is that a moderate and progressive leader may emerge to represent and unite all those muslims who do not wish to be associated, rightly or wrongly, with the extremist elements that have caused the massive mistrust of Islam in the west.

This is most certainly not your idea. Such a feeble plan has been in the works for a long time. The Rand thinktank are the most prominent group attempting to deal with Muslims in such a way.

The association of Muslims with barbarism is a deliberate attempt by the Western powers to destroy Islam, if you think you're going to get any significant amount of Muslims assisting you, forget it. The best course of action for Westerners to take is to engage in sincere dialogue and stop attempting this sinister, albeit feeble, campaign to "de-fuse" Islam from within through subterfuge.


Quote:

I am very interested if you guys, as muslims, consider that to be unrealistic, or even unfair.

It's very unrealistic and very insincere on the part of the West who claim to be just wanting to "do good" everywhere in the world. As they say in the West "All's fair in love and war", so I guess we couldn't call it unfair, the West is deeply engaged in a war against Islam, so it's not surprising they've been attempting to achieve such things.

Whoa there Abu, you are one mixed up puppy.

You do not differentiate between wahabi and sunni at all?

Are you saying there is Sunni and Shia, and that is it?

Why does the idea of a non fanatical voice of reason from within Islam offend you?
Why would you reject the idea of a leader who could unite Islam in a peaceful way, to form a co-ordinated, non extremist group from within the Islamic world, which the rest of the world could then respect for their rejection of violence?
Surely moderation and reason are more than worthy of some respect.
I find your attitude puzzling as it seems you have resigned yourself to a violent struggle as your only choice in developing a modern Islamic culture, and this would seem to those outside of Islam as the least likely path to ever steer Islam to a position of respect and authority on the world stage.

Your statement that the west is at war against Islam, is pretty extreme, and somewhat disconcerting, especially in light of the fact that you have expanded on what you consider to be fair in war.
That obviates the next question as to who do you classify as the west, and your enemy, and what actions would you consider justified to use against these perceived enemies?

If you do have the integrity to answer, which I doubt, then I would also like you to ask yourself, if you really believe that Islam 'needs' to engage in violent struggle against the whole non-muslim world, to further it's goal of creating a new caliphate, or can you imagine obtaining your goals through reason and peaceful negotiation as another alternative.

To those outside Islam winning your goals through current strategies of terrorism and other violence, seems so impractical a plan as to be laughable, if not for the fact of the people so deluded as to not recognise that fact, and their continued targeting of innocent civilians around the globe, which makes it frighteningly real.

Aren't the Islamic high schools in Sydney bankrolled by the Wahabi's (the Saudi's)?

Quote:

You do not differentiate between wahabi and sunni at all?

The Wahabi/Salafi movements are movements within the mainstream of Islam (what is often referred to as 'Sunni' Islam). This is a simple fact, not a matter of whether I differentiate or not.

I know you have all these preconceived groupings that you've gleaned from media reports about who's extremist and who's moderate etc. but most of it is very inaccurate.


Quote:

Are you saying there is Sunni and Shia, and that is it

There is the mainstream Muslims (about 80-90%) then there are the Shi'a, within the Shi'a there's a few different sub-sects, and within the mainstream there are some small sub-groupings, not really sects though, as generally they all consider themselves part of the same stream, and the Wahabi/Salafi movement is just one of those movements.


Quote:

Why does the idea of a non fanatical voice of reason from within Islam offend you?

What you're talking about is a defeatist voice that completely surrnders itself to the West and accepts whatever political/military solutions the West devise for them. Since Islam is based around surrender to God, and God alone (in fact the word Islam means surrender/submission), it's quite unrealistic to think we're going to just lay down and surrender ourselves to your tyranny.


Quote:

Your statement that the west is at war against Islam, is pretty extreme, and somewhat disconcerting, especially in light of the fact that you have expanded on what you consider to be fair in war

The West has declared war on Islam, and this is quite obvious to anyone with even an iota of objectivity. What's disconcerting is the fact that the West is engaged in wars against Islam on many fronts, and you are committing all sorts of atrocities, even though you claim to adhere to international standards and regulations.


Quote:

That obviates the next question as to who do you classify as the west, and your enemy, and what actions would you consider justified to use against these perceived enemies?

You're a joke really. You've declared war on us and on our ideology and belief system, and have promoted right here in this thread ideological neutralisation of Islam, yet you ask the question of Muslims about justified acts and perceived enemies???


Quote:

If you do have the integrity to answer, which I doubt, then I would also like you to ask yourself, if you really believe that Islam 'needs' to engage in violent struggle against the whole non-muslim world

Why should I be answering anything when we didn't declare war on the West. Remember "You're either with us or you're aginst us", "This is a crusade", "This is a war between the civilised world and the uncivilised world".... We didn't declare this war, we're just struggling to defend ourselves in it, so please if you want to ask questions about why people are engaged in violent struggle, you should ask yourself first. When you've got the spine to answer yourself, instead of pretending to be all pece-loving and benign, then you can consider asking Muslims to answer your ridiculous questions.


Quote:

To those outside Islam winning your goals through current strategies of terrorism and other violence, seems so impractical a plan as to be laughable

Nowhere have I promoted establishing a Caliphate through acts of terrorism and violence, so this question is just as ridiculous as your others.

The West has declared war on Islam, and this is quite obvious to anyone with even an iota of objectivity.

Rubbish.

You've declared war on us and on our ideology and belief system

The old rulers Afghanistan declared war on the west, but that's about as far as it goes. The west has not declared war on Islam. To suggest they have is absurd.

Quote:

The old rulers Afghanistan declared war on the west, but that's about as far as it goes. The west has not declared war on Islam. To suggest they have is absurd.

I assume we're talking about the Talibaan here. Can you show me a reference for their declaration of war?? As far as I'm aware less than a year prior to the US invasion Talibaan representatives were in the USA discussing possible links. And I've never seen any documentation to support the claim they declared war on the USA. They refused to hand one of their citizens over, but since they didn't have an extradition treaty, is that all that surprising?

I think it is terribly sad that you can justify any crime of any muslim, except the crime of wanting to create a peaceful dialogue with the west.

The US didn't need an extradition treaty

The Taliban even offered to execute Osama themselves if the US was willing to provide evidence for his crimes. But the US, in their arrogance refused and thought they could strong arm the Taliban into it. They obviously don't understand or learn from other people's mistakes in Afghanistan, now they'll learn by suffering themselves.

Afghanistan is not a country you can occupy and take over without the consent of the people, the US and West really only control areas that are a few major cities, in other places they just hide in their bases just as the Soviets did before them.

Quote:

The old rulers Afghanistan declared war on the west, but that's about as far as it goes. The west has not declared war on Islam. To suggest they have is absurd

Still waiting for a reference to this alleged declaration of war freediver...

The absurdity is in your inability to recognise the West's invasion and subsequent occupation of two Muslim lands, and their vitriolic propaganda war against Islam, as being a declaration of war against Islam.

Do you think they did the wrong thing in invading Afghanistan?

freediver wrote on Jul 31^st, 2008 at 10:04pm:

Do you think they did the wrong thing in invading Afghanistan?

how about showing us how the taliban declared war on the US

Quote:

Do you think they did the wrong thing in invading Afghanistan?

Of course I think it's wrong, it's a warmongering invasion and occupation of an innocent Muslim population who did absolutely *nothing* whatsoever to America. Not just that, but America was quite happy to use these poor people over the last 20 or so years to fight their proxy war against the USSR.

That isn't going to excuse you from producing this so called declaration of war though, still waiting...

Were Afghanis behind 9/11?

As far as America tells us, the vast majority of the hijackers were supposedly Saudis.

So, let us assume we're going to follow your warped logic that if the people who carried it out are nationals of a certain country that country should be invaded, then they should've bombed and invaded Saudi Arabia. I don't think *any* of the 19 they claim were responsible were actually Afghan or Iraqi.

your warped logic that if the people who carried it out are nationals of a certain country that country should be invaded

I'm asking if they were behind it, not whether the individual terrorists were residents.

Your guess is as good as mine.

I guess you must believe that since I'm a Muslim and all, I must have a direct line with Mawla Omar or something right?

What I can tell you though is that there's absolutely no evidence presented so far to indicate the Talibaan nor the innocent Afghani people were behind it, yet they've already been judged and sentenced for it.

I thought that the premise for invading Afghanistan was that hijackers were operating under the banner of Al-Qaeda; that Al-qaeda claimed responsibility; that OBL was the leader of Al-Qaeda; that the mastermind of the the 9/11 was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was a close advisor of OBL, and that they were all hiding in some cave system in Afghanistan.

The invasion was to get OBL.

Acid Monkey wrote on Aug 1^st, 2008 at 5:09pm:

I thought that the premise for invading Afghanistan was that hijackers were operating under the banner of Al-Qaeda; that Al-qaeda claimed responsibility; that OBL was the leader of Al-Qaeda; that the mastermind of the the 9/11 was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was a close advisor of OBL, and that they were all hiding in some cave system in Afghanistan. The invasion was to get OBL.

If they really wanted Osama they would have given the Taliban evidence of his guilt after 9/11 like they asked for instead of just telling them to hand him over without any evidence. The Taliban would have either executed him themselves or handed him over.

I find it funny, when George Bush becomes incredibly unpopular before previous elections and at other times Osama makes a video or audio speech threatening the West and George Bush get's a whole lot more popular.

How convenient

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

The War in Afghanistan, which began on October 7, 2001, was launched by the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. It was the beginning of the War on Terror. The stated purpose of the invasion was to capture Osama bin Laden, destroy al-Qaeda, and remove the Taliban regime which had provided support and safe harbor to al-Qaeda.

From May 1996, Osama bin Laden had been living in Afghanistan along with other members of al-Qaeda, operating terrorist training camps in a loose alliance with the Taliban.[19] Following the 1998 US embassy bombings in Africa, the US military launched submarine-based cruise missiles at these camps with limited effect on their overall operations.

The UN Security Council had issued Resolutions 1267 and 1333 in 1999 and 2000 directed towards the Taliban which applied financial and military hardware sanctions to encourage them to turn over bin Laden for trial in the deadly bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa in August 1998, and close terrorist training camps.

On September 22, 2001, the United Arab Emirates, and on the following day, Saudi Arabia withdrew their recognition of the Taliban as the legal government of Afghanistan, leaving neighboring Pakistan as the only remaining country with diplomatic ties.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 30^th, 2008 at 6:37pm:

I think it is terribly sad that you can justify any crime of western nation, except the crime of wanting to create a peaceful dialogue with the muslim world.

Right back at ya  ;)