Zarqawi justifies killing of civilians

[Sarge]

Al Reuters and their "militants"

"Terrorists" is a fout letter word to them:rolleyes:

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20051007-103200-6479r.htm

REUTERS NEWS AGENCY

Iraq's al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Zarqawi said militants were justified under Islam in killing civilians as long as they are infidels, according to a new audiotape attributed to him yesterday.

"Islam does not differentiate between civilians and military, but rather distinguishes between Muslims and infidels," said the man on the tape posted on the Internet, who sounded like Zarqawi.

"Muslim blood must be spared ... but it is permissible to spill infidel blood," said the speaker.

The comments appeared a day after the Pentagon said it had obtained a letter to Zarqawi from al Qaeda's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahri, saying tactics being used such as bombing mosques and killing hostages might alienate the Muslim masses.

"In this letter, he talks about believing that the eventual governance of Iraq must include the Muslim masses, and that they are at risk of alienating those," Pentagon spokesman Brian Whitman told reporters in Washington.

Zarqawi's group has been fighting U.S. forces and their Shi'ite allies, who gained power after the 2003 U.S.-led war ousted dictator Saddam Hussein.

Zarqawi has declared all-out war against the Shi'ites, about 60 percent of Iraq's 25 million people, saying they were heretics who allied themselves with the enemies of Islam to seize control of Iraq.

Yesterday's tape was posted on a Web site that usually carries statements and videotapes from al Qaeda's wing in Iraq.

The speaker said the concept of jihad ("holy war") was coming under distorting attacks by "the enemies of Islam" trying to portray it as a tool "for spreading bloodshed and destruction."

"Many Muslims have been affected by this campaign, and they began shying away from using this term [jihad] for fear of being accused of terrorism. They instead replaced it with the term 'resistance' ...

"This has tarnished jihad and its supporters and led to the inclusion of factions that have nothing to do with jihad, such as the rejectionist [shi'ite] Hezbollah, Fatah movement and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine," he said, referring to the Lebanese and Palestinian guerrilla groups.

"All this has been done under the pretext that whoever defends his country against the enemy and fights an occupier is involved in resistance, but jihad is much deeper than that."

Zarqawi's group has claimed responsibility for a series of killings, hostage beheadings and most major suicide bombings in Iraq, including the bombings of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad and the Shi'ite Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf.

In describing the letter a day earlier, the Pentagon's Mr. Whitman said the United States considered the document authentic.

But he refused to say how, when or where it was obtained or by whom in order to protect "sources and methods" used.

Mr. Whitman described the letter as "recent," but was not more precise.

Mr. Whitman declined to release the letter, which was in Arabic.

He also said al-Zawahri makes a plea to Zarqawi for financial support.

Mr. Whitman declined to say whether Zarqawi responded in any way to the letter.

"Zawahri says that they've lost many of their key leaders and that they've virtually resigned themselves to defeat in Afghanistan, that their lines of communication and funding have been severely disrupted."

Mr. Whitman said the letter emphasizes that Muslim extremists intend to create a broad Islamic state centered on Iraq and expanding into neighboring Muslim countries.

[DeanCollins]

It's remarkable that Zarqawi is told that his terriorist tactics are too over the top, by Zawahri, the funtional leader of al-Qaeda!, but it had happen.

The Worlds's muslim population, whose leaders have almost never denounced the terrorism, is finally realizing that Zarqawi is targeting and killing mostly muslims in the name of Islam. I wonder how long they will remain silent for the sake of secret solidarity?

[chomerics]

Sarge, didn't we just get Al Qaeda's #2 this week?. . . well what is Zarqawi?

Also, I think everyone pretty much knows this guy is a major problem for stability in Iraq, I don't need the timed to tell me this.

[chomerics]

The Worlds's muslim population, whose leaders have almost never denounced the terrorism, is finally realizing that Zarqawi is targeting and killing mostly muslims in the name of Islam. I wonder how long they will remain silent for the sake of secret solidarity?

That's not true. SHF has posten NUMEROUS articles where the Muslim leadership had denounced terrorism. The US media just does not publish nor shed light on them.

[DeanCollins]

That's not true. SHF has posten NUMEROUS articles where the Muslim leadership had denounced terrorism. The US media just does not publish nor shed light on them.

SHF? I'd like to see that, can you name a few?. What I meant, Chom, was that in general, from 9-11 till recently, it is rare that a Muslim Leader has made any statements denouncing al-Qaeda and thier acts.

What should have happened, and hasn't, is for the leaders of Muslim countries to collectively hold a news confrence and denounce al-Qaeda,

Bin Laden, 9-11, and at least Zarqawi's killing of Iraqi's. So with their silence, also goes their approval, and probably men, money and weapons.

[chomerics]

SHF? I'd like to see that, can you name a few?. What I meant, Chom, was that in general, from 9-11 till recently, it is rare that a Muslim Leader has made any statements denouncing al-Qaeda and thier acts.

What should have happened, and hasn't, is for the leaders of Muslim countries to collectively hold a news confrence and denounce al-Qaeda,

Bin Laden, 9-11, and at least Zarqawi's killing of Iraqi's. So with their silence, also goes their approval, and probably men, money and weapons.

Here is one. . .

http://extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107074&highlight=muslim+leader

It isn't rare that a muslim leader speaks out against Islam, it is just rare that the media covers it. If they showed Muslim leaders denouncing terrorism, they would "undermine the effert" as Rumsfield like to say.

[twa]

There has been a slowly gathering movement by Muslim's to denounce terrorist,helped by Sistani's proclamations and the toll the attacks are taking on muslims.

Now if the UN would ever get around to condemning it...or at least DEFINING it.

[DeanCollins]

Here is one. . .

http://extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107074&highlight=muslim+leader

It isn't rare that a muslim leader speaks out against Islam, it is just rare that the media covers it. If they showed Muslim leaders denouncing terrorism, they would "undermine the effert" as Rumsfield like to say.

"The fatwa, to be released at a news conference in Washington, was prompted by the condemnation of terrorism in a similar ruling from the Muslim Council of Britain after the July 7 terrorist attacks in London, Hooper said."

"The British fatwa did not name al Qaeda leader Osama bin Ladend neither does the ruling to be issued today. But a March 11 fatwa from the Spanish Muslim Council on the first anniversary of the Madrid train attacks received widespread publicity because of its harsh denunciation of bin Laden by name."

I read that, but that was a group of Muslim scholars in America (about 4 years late I might add, who failed to denounce Bin Laden) not Leaders of middle eastern and north african countries. It was a good first step perhaps, or silent support for Bin Laden, but apears to be done under duress for damage control to thier repective organizational interests.

A lot more needs to done (and won't be). For example, the same groups mentioned above, should also include, in thier statements of denouncement, gratitude for US efforts world wide to help muslims and muslim nations, such as ending the slaughter in Bosnia, and the muslims in Albania, feeding millions of their people in Africa. Do the wealthy muslim nations get involved to help their own people, not that I'm aware of.

[Thiebear]

Islamic leaders coming out against Alqaeda = Catholic leadership adopting 0 tolerance for priests that molest little boys... They make weak attempts that go nowhere....

or thats what the people think.... and that is all that matters when it comes to religion.

[Dallsux]

You need to change the title of this thread to "TRIES to justify." There is no way, in my mind, he could actually do it, logically.

[chomerics]

You need to change the title of this thread to "TRIES to justify." There is no way, in my mind, he could actually do it, logically.

Good point. . . but using your analogy, the same could be said of Bush. How many civillians have been killed in Iraq? He has justified this war many, many times and through deductive reasoning, you could argue that Bush "justifies killing civilians" as well.

Not arguing the point, just showing how the other side can see it, and how it is hypocritical.

[Prosperity]

Good point. . . but using your analogy, the same could be said of Bush. How many civillians have been killed in Iraq? He has justified this war many, many times and through deductive reasoning, you could argue that Bush "justifies killing civilians" as well.

Not arguing the point, just showing how the other side can see it, and how it is hypocritical.

It is hypocrtical coming from people that support the bombardment of cities. I don't know Cowboysuckazz's opinion, but there are definitely people with that view.

[Ryman of the North]

Im gonna take flack for this but any country that harbours terrorists is fair game. If they target civillians to achieve military objectives then they are terrorists and should be dealt with accordingly. we should simply assasinate all the major leaders of the extremist factions thenlet them kill themsleves struggling for power.

Everyone attacks Israel for demolishing houses and using missiles to retaialte for mortar attacks but those people sheltering terrorsist and enabling them to attack women and children are themsleves terrorists if they dont do something to stop it.

[Fergasun]

Chom... I don't want to say this because I know you'll be able to find some similar argument about my post... but... just for the heck of it...

The argument about the media not paying attention when Muslims denounce terrorism is like arguing that the media always reports it when child molestors rape and kill little kids.

Do you go around screaming... "Well, there are plenty of people who don't go around raping and murdering little kids... but the media wants to focus on those who do. I don't get it."?

I think that in some places this issue is getting worse.

You can read about a teacher in Norway who was forced to remove a Star of David he wore because it could offend Muslims and provoke them to violence.... article is here.

Or you can read about an Imam who is upset with a newspaper for running images of Muhammed. He claims that an uncensored press is useless for Democarcy and provokes extreme Muslims.... article is here

Or you can recall the Danish artist murdered for making a film critical of Islam.

These crazy Muslim's have the a mindset like these... "How dare you criticize my religion... don't you know we are the religion of peace? If you say something wrong about my religion of peace I might have to hurt you."

I will agree it's probably not a majority... but it seems like a large enough subset to make the a lot of parts of the world go BOOM!

[chomerics]

These crazy Muslim's have the a mindset like these... "How dare you criticize my religion... don't you know we are the religion of peace? If you say something wrong about my religion of peace I might have to hurt you."

And how exactly is this any different from our crazy Christians? EVERY religon has its fair share of nutjobs, and if you go LOOKING for those nutjobs, you will find them. For every article that talks about theocratical Muslims, I can find another talking about Evangelicals doing similar things. We seem all to quick to forget that Timothy McVeigh did the same thing as the crazy muslims.

It is thoughts like your's that create an underlying guise of hatred. The way you look at Muslims, and how you feel violated by their lawsuits, I feel the same against Christians. You see, it isn't just ONE religion with me, but ALL religons. I look at the Muslims and I see fanatical Christians that are just as bad. I don't hve the same preconcieved bias inherent in the fact that I think ALL religons are bunk, not just Islam.

[Fergasun]

I look at the Muslims and I see fanatical Christians that are just as bad.

I'm sick of hearing about McVeigh and Rudolph. There must be some statistical means we can identify them as outliers in the world of global terrorism. Maybe before 9/11 it would be rational to discount Islamic terrorists... but not now and not after so many deadly bombings, beheadings and violent acts.

I don't know about the lawsuit stuff. In general, we are becoming people of pretty thin skin who whine to our lawyer and file too many lawsuits. I wish there some way of correcting it.

I don't think it's all that good that America is becoming more atheistic... which is where the "Separation Clause" is taking our country. At the same time, maybe God and Christianity has been injected into this country unconstitutionally before people were around to whine and complain about it.

[Sarge]

And how exactly is this any different from our crazy Christians? EVERY religon has its fair share of nutjobs, and if you go LOOKING for those nutjobs, you will find them. For every article that talks about theocratical Muslims, I can find another talking about Evangelicals doing similar things. We seem all to quick to forget that Timothy McVeigh did the same thing as the crazy muslims.

Wanna bet I can find more articles about muslims killing people than you can find about Christians killling people?

[chomerics]

Wanna bet I can find more articles about muslims killing people than you can find about Christians killling people?

That's not the point Sarge, and you know it. The media in the US promotes the radical Muslim viewpoint because it promotes their case. They never show the radical Christian groups which are just as bad as the theocratical Muslim groups. Do you think Fred Phelps of the godhatesfags.com fame thinks any different? NO, he thinks along the same exact lines as radical Islam.

ALL religons have their fare share of nutjobs, it isn't the religon of Islam that has nutjobs, but religon in general. If the situation was completely reversed, do you actually think Christians would act any different then Muslims? If we were the ones in the ME, and the Muslims were the one with the money, do you honestly think the "Christians" wouldn't be doing the same thing? Of course they would.

[chomerics]

I'm sick of hearing about McVeigh and Rudolph. There must be some statistical means we can identify them as outliers in the world of global terrorism. Maybe before 9/11 it would be rational to discount Islamic terrorists... but not now and not after so many deadly bombings, beheadings and violent acts.

I'm not discounting radical Islam, I am just giving you an example of our religon, the one we hold above all others, do the exact same thing. McVeigh was absolutely no different then Atta.

I don't know about the lawsuit stuff. In general, we are becoming people of pretty thin skin who whine to our lawyer and file too many lawsuits. I wish there some way of correcting it.

You'll have a chance to back up this assertion below

I don't think it's all that good that America is becoming more atheistic... which is where the "Separation Clause" is taking our country.

What country do you live in? The USA is not becoming more "atheistic", if anything it is the complete oposite. Look at all the lawsuits by religous groups trying to force their ideology on society. Thisgs like the 10commandments in a courthouse, suing a school board to force them to teach creationism, etc etc. The lawsuits you despise, are being used by religous organizations to FORCE their religon on society. We are not becoming more "atheistic", we are becoming the opposite.

At the same time, maybe God and Christianity has been injected into this country unconstitutionally before people were around to whine and complain about it.

Ummmm, no it wasn't. There was a reason for the seperation of Church and State, and you are witnessing right now what the problems are. We are trying to turn back the clock of science by 80 years, and teach our kids as they did in the 19th century right now. . . And those frivolous lawsuits are being used to promote an ideology that agrees with your opinion. So am I to assume that you are against those lawsuits as well?

[Ryman of the North]

Wanna bet I can find more articles about muslims killing people than you can find about Christians killling people?

tHATS A SUCKER BET! Bottom line is that Christianity has evolved because we as a society (christians) tend to be more Open, you can point at the inquisition and other barbarities as examples of christians killing but that was a long time ago. Islam has been around as long as christianity but hasnt evolved hence their "new" inquisition where they want to kill non Muslims and Muslims who are outside what they consider to be the norm.

That's not the point Sarge, and you know it. The media in the US promotes the radical Muslim viewpoint because it promotes their case. They never show the radical Christian groups which are just as bad as the theocratical Muslim groups. Do you think Fred Phelps of the godhatesfags.com fame thinks any different? NO, he thinks along the same exact lines as radical Islam..

Terrible Chom just terrible, The Media promotes the radical View because it is the MAIN muslim viewpoint Bottom line is that while Islam may have been a religion of Peace a long time ago its is not now and has devolved into a religion of war and oppression. You cannot use the teachings of Mohhammed to hide behind if you dont follow them all. Unfortuantely modern Islam is easy to warp and the fanatics are adept at doing so. Your last point was childish, Fred Phelps is an intolerant but he doesnt blow up School Busses to make his point!

ALL religons have their fare share of nutjobs, it isn't the religon of Islam that has nutjobs, but religon in general. If the situation was completely reversed, do you actually think Christians would act any different then Muslims? If we were the ones in the ME, and the Muslims were the one with the money, do you honestly think the "Christians" wouldn't be doing the same thing? Of course they would.

Actually as someone who studied religion at the post secondary level I know that christians would not behave the same way any longer, we have moved past our "our version of christianity is better phase" 300 years ago. Ireland is the last place where there are stuggles over religion (and when examined closely you realise its less about religion than you would think.) Bottom line is Islam is a violent religion NOW and the extremists have taken over from the moderates much like christianity during the inquisition.

What the Muslims need to do is stop with all the "they are out numbered and outgunned so they fight with the tools they have", support of the homicide bombers, denounce all terrorism and excomunicate all those associated with the killing of civiliians. Then they need to move into the 20 th century by reinstating their original tenets of peaceful coexistence.

[Ryman of the North]

I'm not discounting radical Islam, I am just giving you an example of our religon, the one we hold above all others, do the exact same thing. McVeigh was absolutely no different then Atta.

except for one small detail that users tend to omit form these arguments, The Attas way outnumber the mcveighs because christianity is not anywahere near such a hotbed for fanatics as Islam.

What country do you live in? The USA is not becoming more "atheistic", if anything it is the complete oposite. Look at all the lawsuits by religous groups trying to force their ideology on society. Thisgs like the 10commandments in a courthouse, suing a school board to force them to teach creationism, etc etc. The lawsuits you despise, are being used by religous organizations to FORCE their religon on society. We are not becoming more "atheistic", we are becoming the opposite.

Riduculous this country was founded by christians therefore there should be no sepration of church and state! The Ten commandments are what our entire law system and value codes are based on!

[Sarge]

That's not the point Sarge, and you know it. The media in the US promotes the radical Muslim viewpoint because it promotes their case. They never show the radical Christian groups which are just as bad as the theocratical Muslim groups. Do you think Fred Phelps of the godhatesfags.com fame thinks any different? NO, he thinks along the same exact lines as radical Islam.

ALL religons have their fare share of nutjobs, it isn't the religon of Islam that has nutjobs, but religon in general. If the situation was completely reversed, do you actually think Christians would act any different then Muslims? If we were the ones in the ME, and the Muslims were the one with the money, do you honestly think the "Christians" wouldn't be doing the same thing? Of course they would.

Para 1 - Good dodge. You know I'd win that bet without even trying

Para 2 - I do think they'd act differntly because the teachings of Jesus are non violent, as opposed to the teachings of mohammad, who taught to spread islam by whatever means necessary, including the sword. Violence begets violence.

[Sarge]

Ummmm, no it wasn't. There was a reason for the seperation of Church and State, and you are witnessing right now what the problems are. We are trying to turn back the clock of science by 80 years, and teach our kids as they did in the 19th century right now. . . And those frivolous lawsuits are being used to promote an ideology that agrees with your opinion. So am I to assume that you are against those lawsuits as well?

There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. That has been made into precedent over the years be commie ACLU lawyers.

As for teaching our kids like we did 80 years ago, maybe we need to really do that. There were far less disciplinary problems in schools 80 years ago, and I feel pretty safe in saying that kids received a better education back then as well

[chiefhogskin48]

Chomerics is just impossible to reason with anymore. You could say the sky is blue and he'll provide a link proving otherwise and saying that we can't stereotype the sky like that. :laugh:

[dreamingwolf]

Im confused to why athesists and people who hate america point to mcveigh as a christian terrorist? What on earth causes people to give linkage between him and christianity?

Everything Ive ever heard about him was that he was a loner that had women trouble, hated the administration and thought it was an evil empire and totally corrupt, and let all the hate he had for that administration turn him into a tool for other people who hated the administration and turned him into a terroristic tool.

I doubt that guy saw a church since the last time his dad forced him to go to one. Him calling a priest before he felt the cold embrace of eternal sleep, was just a scared rabbit move facing eternity.