Ancalagon the Black Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/bali-bombing-was-in-good-faith-bashir/2008/01/15/1200159431753.html 'Bali bombers acted in good faith' January 15, 2008 - 3:49PM The three Bali bombers acted in good faith to defend Islam, but were wrong to indiscriminately target civilians, says controversial Indonesian cleric Abu Bakar Bashir. The three, Imam Samudra, Mukhlas and Amrozi - dubbed "the smiling bomber" because of his constant grin at his trial - have run out of legal avenues for appeal but could still seek presidential clemency, an option they have already ruled out. They were sentenced to death for their role in two nightclub blasts on Bali's Kuta strip on October 12, 2002, in which 88 Australians were among the 202 people killed. "Their intention is good; to defend fellow Muslims who have been terrorised by America and its allies. They didn't seek popularity, they didn't seek worldly possessions, they didn't seek any position. "All they looked for was Allah's favour," Bashir said at his house in the central Java city of Solo. Farther on: The cleric has in the past praised bin Laden as a "true Muslim fighter". Article continues at link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 "I'm fighting America too' date=' but by means of preaching. I don't agree with using bombs in a peaceful zone," said Bashir, dressed in white Muslim garb.[/quote']He and I might disagree about what constitutes a "peaceful zone" (downtown NYC for instance) but the above is an important quote from the article too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siven Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Napalm his sorry ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siven Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 He and I might disagree about what constitutes a "peaceful zone" (downtown NYC for instance) but the above is an important quote from the article too. I don't see how a nightclub full of Australians constitutes (defending Islam) From what? White people who can't dance? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZE2OzguWHo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 I don't see how a nightclub full of Australians constitutes (defending Islam) From what? White people who can't dance? Read it again. He's saying he agrees with what they believe, but not what they did. He specifically denounced that attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Read it again. He's saying he agrees with what they believe, but not what they did. He specifically denounced that attack.He praises them for defending Islam. He agrees with what they did, just not how they did it. He is "fighting America" too. He is preaching (recruiting) fundamentalists who will "defend Islam" against the atrocities of America and her allies. How do you think they will do that? By attacking us wherever the opportunity presents itself. He perpetuates the problem by preaching and teaching that America is the giant infidel out to rape Islam. That is the issue. If we didn't have the radicals preaching, we wouldn't have half the willing attackers. So yes, he qualifies as a terrorist just as Charles Manson qualifies as a murderer even though we have no evidence he actually killed anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 I was hoping this thread would be about Tony Romo sits to pee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.