Acts of Terrorism in pakistan I

[dabong1]

Do you agree, the basis of your view point DaBong is to be protective, defensive against the ugly crusaders in west?

Not at all,the "crusader" is just terminology,if people want to use "jihadist" "islamic militant" you have to expect the same back.

All your points supporting talibs harp protectionism against west's 'plot' to exploit poor muslims.?

If the muslims let themself's get weak,then they deserve all what they get.
My problem is that NATO is saying it wants to bring "human rights" "justice" when all it wants the oil pipeline.
The taliban i respect for the simple reason that they say what they believe...no spin...no bull

I am not informed enough to debate with you on all that though. But, this is a rather personal question I want to ask you -

Do you think an idealogy obsessed only with saving ur a$s can take you to glory?
Do you have an idea of what you would want to do, say if you are thrown to the moon with all ppl you want and no Westerly powers to haunt you?

In other words, do you see the fundamental difference between the two things here?

Bro it is about western/capitalist/atheist against islam.Islam is the only viable ideology left to take on capatalisim and bring justice and fairness for all,not just muslim's.
You have to understand only the muslims have defeated the west......twice.
The eastern roman empire was destroyed by the muslims and then all the crusades which at the end the muslims won.
This has had a psycological effect on the west for centuries.We are now in round 3...but the west has still not learnt its lesson.
It is the west that is obsessed with the muslims.
Afgahanistan...muslim govt...attacked by USA
Algeria.........muslim win elections.......vote cancelled under western pressure/corrupt muslims.
Egypt.......muslim brotherhood would win any fair election.....western pressure/corrupt muslims stops fair elections.
Somalia......muslim govt...attacked by USA/corrupt muslims.
Just a few examples of the wests obsession with the mslims,and do not forget that hamas won the elections and was put under seige by the west.

 

[dabong1]

Bringing peace to a war ravaged country is in fact a major thing. If you have Ahmad Shah Masood in Kabul massacring people, then another warlord in Kunduz massacring another load of people with no laws, then there's impunity. It was at least something that the Taliban brought some sense of normality to Afghanistan, even if by any other country's standards, it was a repressive normaility. It seems as though the Wahhabists had a big influence after the Taliban had gained power, and it could be seen in their backward "edicts".

Peace, security and laws to a country lacking all three is a step forward, being as backward as they were was half a step back, but still half a step forward.

Agree again with most of your point except the ahmed shah mahsood bit.
He was no more violent then all the rest of the bunch including the taliban,i used to be very anti northern alliance until a friend got captured,he was in prison for a few years but then got released.He told me the other side of the story that the NA wanted a islamic state but could not come to an agreement with the taliban.
The taliban/arabs where anti sufi and anti saints and would not except these as islamic.The NA like the majority of afghans are into shrines and saints and if this was classed as illegal then the peace treaty would not be signed,that was one reason why there was no peace.

 

[dabong1]

What were they good in other than they bought 'peace'?

Go find out what afghanistan was like when the warlords where running wild and then you will find out what the taliban did other then bring peace.

 

[dabong1]

It would be nice to see such examples of acceptance and co-existence amongst the rest of the Muslim world and indeed amongst all faiths. But the post raises several issues that, in my mind, present an argument against the creation of a Sharia state in Pakistan, at his time. If you read the joint statement, all it says is that the Scholars of the Al Azhar school have accepted the Shia school of thought as a legitimate sect of Islam. Woop-di -doo-da. If it takes ten years of "exchange" for such a renowned (and moderate by some accounts) Sunni theological school to merely accept the Shia, that does not bode well for the rest of the Muslim world coming to a spiritual place of "acceptance" for sects other than their own, let alone a position from which they can move forward on creating a unified, mutually acceptable "Islamic Constitution"..


Quite honestly, this is where the Mullahs should be expending their energies; creating goodwill, and acceptance between the different sects and trying to find some common ground with the majority of them. Only then, when you have a mutually acceptable outline of what a "Sharia State" would look like, should the discussion about implementing those "mutually acceptable" policies be undertaken.

By the way, you also have to take into account the more contemporary Muslim sects such as the Submitters who only believe in following the Quran as a source of guidance, believing the Hadith to be flawed and contaminated by those who transmitted them. This would imply that to some Muslims a sharia state would have to take no guidance from the Hadith. That will be an extremely hard sell to some schools of thought.

Can not find no fault in your assessment,you are right about the mullah's they should be talking about what we all have in common and try to bring love and understanding into the debate,but i personally would not have a single mullah in charge of any setting up of a sharia system.
There job would be only to see if under scrutiny the could prove any legislation was unislamic.
I would leave the setting up of a islamic welfare state "sharia" to the prof,scientist,scholars,economist ect.
I do not understand where the notion of having mullahs running the country came from.......i have never read in the koran the the mullahs should be judge and jury.
The perfect sharia state for me would be a cross between turkey,malayasia,scandinavia.
The way i have been told a islamic state would work is for example on TV make sure all the woman cover there hair with a hijad,headscrarf,baseball cap whatever they choose.This will send a message to society on what it thinks is acceptable.
Rather then forcing woman to cover there hair let them choose,after a while the influence of the media will change the womans view on fashion and rather then today where the nmedia wants you to show everything, you bring back modesty/family values using the media.

 

[roadrunner]

Agree again with most of your point except the ahmed shah mahsood bit.
He was no more violent then all the rest of the bunch including the taliban,i used to be very anti northern alliance until a friend got captured,he was in prison for a few years but then got released.He told me the other side of the story that the NA wanted a islamic state but could not come to an agreement with the taliban.
The taliban/arabs where anti sufi and anti saints and would not except these as islamic.The NA like the majority of afghans are into shrines and saints and if this was classed as illegal then the peace treaty would not be signed,that was one reason why there was no peace.

This is utter BULLSHYT. Ahmad Shah Massoud was not a Sufi. He belonged to the Jamiat i Islami. He was a radical and extremely anti Hazara/Shia. He met with the Jamiat of Pakistan which IS a radical Salafy outfit countless times. Jamiatt i Islami are radical FUNDAMENTALISTS. There was an Afghan one, which WAS Salafist. Here is a quote from something I dont quote often from (Asia Times).

Islamist organizations such as al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood in the Arab world, the Jamaat-i-Islami in Pakistan, Bangladesh and India, the Hezb-e-Islami Afghanistan, the Jamaat-i-Islami Afghanistan, the Islamic political parties of Indonesia, Malaysia and Algeria, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front in the Philippines, Hamas in Palestine, Chechen fighters etc - all belong to the Salafi branch and all are, or have been, the recipients of Saudi aid in one form or another
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EA04Ak02.html

You do know that it was Ahmad Shah Massoud who gave the Soviet Army free passage to Silang Highway to supply the Soviets in Eastern Afghanistan. It only extended the war. He did deals with a lot of people, and it's right to say that he was no worse than a lot of the other Taliban murderers, but he was no better and he definitely was not a Sufi or a Sufi Saint worshipper or whatever. I suspect your friends are the usual internet cowboys who have been to Afghanistan in their cyber dreams and returned full of tall tales, because what you've just wrote is completely incorrect. You can even take the example of Ismail Khan who was Northern Alliance and a firm Salafist supporter.

 

[roadrunner]

PS..... the taliban leadership where all educated people

Dont think Mullah Omar was educated.

 

[Scorpius]

The way i have been told a islamic state would work is for example on TV make sure all the woman cover there hair with a hijad,headscrarf,baseball cap whatever they choose.This will send a message to society on what it thinks is acceptable.
Rather then forcing woman to cover there hair let them choose,after a while the influence of the media will change the womans view on fashion and rather then today where the nmedia wants you to show everything, you bring back modesty/family values using the media.

What if the women on TV do not wish to wear a headscarf? In your ideal state would refusal to wear appropriate islamic headware on TV result in some kind of discrimination or would it be allowed?

As for the headscarf being a measure of modesty, lol that's not true and you know it. True decency comes from within a person.

 

[Scorpius]

It is the west that is obsessed with the muslims.
Afgahanistan...muslim govt...attacked by USA
Algeria.........muslim win elections.......vote cancelled under western pressure/corrupt muslims.
Egypt.......muslim brotherhood would win any fair election.....western pressure/corrupt muslims stops fair elections.
Somalia......muslim govt...attacked by USA/corrupt muslims.
Just a few examples of the wests obsession with the mslims,and do not forget that hamas won the elections and was put under seige by the west.

Well to be fair most nation's would have done the same thing in Afghanistan.

As for Algeria it was the military who intervened, the ensuing civil was quite disgusting but once again the Jihadis showed there true face.

Google rais and bentalha massacres.

In Egypt Hosni Mubarak was a dictator, he could have declared election results invalid with or without US help. BTW the Brotherhood are the same charming group that produced the likes of Ayman al Zawahiri.

As for Somalia yes I have to agree the US did help but with the Islamic Courts having the same ideology as those fighting them in Iraq and claims of supporting these fighters then it's not really surprising is it.

America didn't start this war, it was the Jihadis who declared war on America in the late 90's with Mr OBL declaring that civilians can be targeted. They followed up there words with attacks on the US embassies in Kenya, the attacks on the USS cole and eventually 9/11.

These Jihadis are the reason why so many muslims have been killed in recent years.

Now tell me something, where do your loyalties lie? To Islam or to the muslim masses?

I suspect it's to the former and please don't kop out by saying both, a servant can only have one master.

You need to make a decision. Do you love your people more then you hate america?

 

[niaz]

Now tell me something, where do your loyalties lie? To Islam or to the muslim masses

I have a problem with this question. No muslim can honestly say that his loyalties donot lie with ISLAM. If Allah wants to destroy the world, Allah's WILL will prevail. This type of question implies that jehadi Islam is the true version.

The proper question should be " Do your loyalties lie with the version of Islam the jehadis want to force down your throat or with the muslim masses".

Sorry, but the same question is asked by the extremists to woo people to their cause.

 

[The Wisdom Tree]

Bro it is about western/capitalist/atheist against islam.Islam is the only viable ideology left to take on capatalisim and bring justice and fairness for all,not just muslim's.

DaBong, I really want you to think about it .. justice and fairness is all fine, but can you live your life only on them? If not for west (and precisely, non-talibs), you wont even know what technology is all about. If they are thrown up on the moon, what would they do? do they have all it takes to build a civilized life? do they have any thing "productive" in them, or their ideology? NO! Its all stinking farce. Just harping about west and hating them is not enough. I asked you earlier as well, think about WTF do you want to do in your life? and think about all that technology, growth and economics has brought you.

If NATO nations are after oil, and you dont see consistency in their approach, or worst, they're f' only trying to exploit muslims

The eastern roman empire was destroyed by the muslims and then all the crusades which at the end the muslims won.
This has had a psycological effect on the west for centuries.We are now in round 3...but the west has still not learnt its lesson.

Do you think winning is more than living a comfortable, educated, religious and sincere life? Do you really think these discrete victories stand above the way impoverished, uneducated and fatalist talibs live continously - every f' moment?

Do you understand/acknowledge the concept of growth, prosperity and happiness?

It is the west that is obsessed with the muslims.
Afgahanistan...muslim govt...attacked by USA
Algeria.........muslim win elections.......vote cancelled under western pressure/corrupt muslims.
Egypt.......muslim brotherhood would win any fair election.....western pressure/corrupt muslims stops fair elections.
Somalia......muslim govt...attacked by USA/corrupt muslims.
Just a few examples of the wests obsession with the mslims,and do not forget that hamas won the elections and was put under seige by the west.

West probably has many more things to do than be obsessed with muslims. They are f' developing technologies, they're f' going to the MARS, they're f' developing infrastructure, and of course they're f' enjoying there lives. And all the ppl you support, are f' dying in hunger or killing ppl on a point blank range to give "justice" - and raising fatwa's and being obsessed with the west. Not the other way around.

 

[Scorpius]

Quote

Now tell me something, where do your loyalties lie? To Islam or to the muslim masses

Unquote

I have a problem with this question. No muslim can honestly say that his loyalties donot lie with ISLAM. If Allah wants to destroy the world, Allah's WILL will prevail. This type of question implies that jehadi Islam is the true version.

The proper question should be " Do your loyalties lie with the version of Islam the jehadis want to force down your throat or with the muslim masses".

Sorry, but the same question is asked by the extremists to woo people to their cause.

I agree, your revised question is more correct.

 

[dabong1]

This is utter BULLSHYT. Ahmad Shah Massoud was not a Sufi. He belonged to the Jamiat i Islami. He was a radical and extremely anti Hazara/Shia. He met with the Jamiat of Pakistan which IS a radical Salafy outfit countless times. Jamiatt i Islami are radical FUNDAMENTALISTS. There was an Afghan one, which WAS Salafist. Here is a quote from something I dont quote often from (Asia Times).

Islamist organizations such as al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood in the Arab world, the Jamaat-i-Islami in Pakistan, Bangladesh and India, the Hezb-e-Islami Afghanistan, the Jamaat-i-Islami Afghanistan, the Islamic political parties of Indonesia, Malaysia and Algeria, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front in the Philippines, Hamas in Palestine, Chechen fighters etc - all belong to the Salafi branch and all are, or have been, the recipients of Saudi aid in one form or another
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EA04Ak02.html

You do know that it was Ahmad Shah Massoud who gave the Soviet Army free passage to Silang Highway to supply the Soviets in Eastern Afghanistan. It only extended the war. He did deals with a lot of people, and it's right to say that he was no worse than a lot of the other Taliban murderers, but he was no better and he definitely was not a Sufi or a Sufi Saint worshipper or whatever. I suspect your friends are the usual internet cowboys who have been to Afghanistan in their cyber dreams and returned full of tall tales, because what you've just wrote is completely incorrect. You can even take the example of Ismail Khan who was Northern Alliance and a firm Salafist supporter.

What absoulte rubbish...you have no idea on what you are talking about.
You cut/paste an article from the internet..wow.
Ahmad Shah Massoud was was know as the "Lion of Panjshir" and fought the commies from day one,but no according to you he was helping the russian.
The Muslim Brotherhood is not a salfi organization as you say but a pan islamic sunni group that incorprates all shades of islamic thinking.
If muslim brotherhood is a salfi org then minaj ul qura,a sunni sufi group that is affiliated to them must also be salfi's.....you really need to go and do a bit more "deep" research and not read the first thing you come across and think its fact.
Go and check where ahmed shah massod is buried
http://www.kabulguide.net/kbl-photostory-panjshir.htm
Strange it looks like a sufi shrine.

This the big differnece between us two,you get all your info from the internet,i know the people that have fought in afghanistan.
Now you want for proof.....no problem.
Google..... anwar khan taliban burnley
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=anwar++khan+taliban+burnley&meta=
Tell me what you get and then i will send you a pic of me and anwar.
Channel four of the UK did a documentry about him ,if you can find it ,that even better.
Sorry on bursting your bubble but its just that some of us do actually have real friends that have fought in kashmir,bonia and afghanistan.

 

[dabong1]

Dont think Mullah Omar was educated.

Return of the taliban (sky news)

Watch it again,especially the bit where she says mullah omar was educated here.

 

[roadrunner]

What absoulte rubbish...you have no idea on what you are talking about.
You cut/paste an article from the internet..wow.

It's known as a reference.

Ahmad Shah Massoud was was know as the "Lion of Panjshir" and fought the commies from day one,but no according to you he was helping the russian.

You should read General Gramov's testimony. I don't suppose there was much to gain by releasing the information recently. It's a well known fact that Massoud let the Soviets in through the Silang Highway in 83. The Soviet commanders were indebted to Najibullah who made it possible because in their words, Massoud's men only needed to throw rocks from the mountains and they would not be able to get through. The resupplies enabled the Soviet soldiers to fight on in the East when they would have been defeated far earlier. Even without the testimony, it was common knowledge that Massoud just let them through Silang, because there was no other way they could have got through it.

The Muslim Brotherhood is not a salfi organization as yo say but a pan islamic sunni group that incorprates all shades of islamic thinking.
If muslim brotherghood is a salfi org then minaj ul qura,a sunni sufi group that is affiliated to them must also be salfi's.....you really need to go and do a bit more "deep" research and not read the first thing you come across and think its fact.
Go and check where ahmed shah massod is buried
http://www.kabulguide.net/kbl-photostory-panjshir.htm
Strange it looks like a sufi shrine.

I'm not so interested in the Muslim Brotherhood, Jamiat i Islami is the group which Massoud headed and this was a Salafist organzation, just like the Jamiat in Pakistan is. Coincidence they share the same name, isn't it?

But as for the Muslim Brotherhood, the article is correct. Salafist Jihad ideology emerged from the Muslim Brotherhood. in the words of an Egyptian professor.. "Salafist jihadism and the activation of the views of the world of the house of Islam and the house of war are the ideas that emerged from the writings and the teachings of the Muslim Brotherhood." You are in denial to believe these are not Salafist groups, or at the very least have not got a big influence from Salafist teaching.

This the big differnece between us two,you get all your info from the internet,i know the people that have fought in afghanistan.
Now you want for proof.....no problem.
Google..... anwar khan taliban burnley
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=anwar++khan+taliban+burnley&meta=
Tell me what you get and then i will send you a pic of me and anwar.
Channel four of the UK did a documentry about him ,if you can find it ,that even better.
Sorry on bursting your bubble but its just that some of us do actually have real friends that have fought in kashmir,bonia and afghanistan.

Even if you did know Taliban guys, what exactly does that prove? That you're some kind of regional expert on Afghanistan? You have already proved you don't know much on Afghan politics or war by thinking Jamiat i Islami is not a Salafist organization, better yet you don't even seem to know about the Silang Highway treaties. You might know a lot of extremists, this does not mean that you, or they, have a greater knowledge of what goes on in Afghanistan than a selection of different reporters. If anything, exposure to a single brainwashed point of view would be greater for said people. Do you deny Silang, and Jamiat being a Salafist outfit? These are my two questions for you.

 

[roadrunner]

Return of the taliban (sky news)

Watch it again,especially the bit where she says mullah omar was educated here.

That "educational institute" is a madrassah, not exactly like Oxford or Harvard I think you have to admit.