The Orlando shooting and the motivation for Islamic terrorism...

[Solar]

This is so devoid of factual information it is scary.  Our government and the CIA literally, directly created and funded Osama bin Laden and radical Islamic groups as a deliberate anti-Soviet Union Cold War strategy.  Our government under Ronald Reagan supported the Mujahideen, funded radical madrassa schools because they thought they'd provide a bulwark against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and elsewhere.  The Mujahideen became Al Qaeda a decade latter.

The proliferation of radical Islamic groups throughout the Middle East, in modern times at least, can be directly traced to US military interventions and US funding. 

Here is a short article written around the time Osama bin Laden was killed:

http://www.thenation.com/article/osama-bin-laden-monster-our-own-creation/

This article was written by Robert Scheer and is called "Osama bin Laden:  A Monster of Our Own Creation".

So when you say things like "We didn't create terrorism" and "Osama bin Laden has always hated the United States" you are wrong on both counts.  Osama liked the United States just fine when the CIA was funding him and our government supported him, and radical Mujahideen members, against the Soviet Union. 

Look, if you get a kick out of hating Islam, then knock yourself out.  That's your thing.  But you have to accept the facts.  The modern day terrorist problem that the United States is facing is entirely a product of decades of US military intervention.  The CIA calls this "blowback". 

Take off your partisan goggles for a few minutes and just look at the objective facts.  Watch the Robert Pape video, learn about the history of the US government funding and supporting the Mujahideen and radical madrassa schools during the 1980s.

Yet you fail to recognize who created them initially. Wahabism, dating back centuries.
Why are you being so myopic and focusing on inconsequential details? It matters not where they get their funding or training, what matters is a nation state is breeding fanaticism solely to stay in in power as a Royal family.

[Solar]

I am not an expert

no shuit!

on that particular conflict, but I have a strong suspicion that the motivations were more complex than merely religious fundamentalism.  But even if the Tripoli attack on American ships over two hundred years ago had been motivated purely by religion, what are you attempting to prove by citing a single incident hundreds of years ago?  By that logic, I could cite the Crusades and show how evil modern day Christians are.

Wow, the ignorance is strong with this one.
Based on your level of intellect, I'll assume you're in your early 20s, which would explain your failure in understanding the big picture.
The motivation of these people is that they were raise believing the law of the jungle, and if you are not a Muscum like them, then everything you own is deservedly theirs, including your life.
They do not function in the world you know, where ownership of another human is wrong, and their religion/political system says so.

What actual researchers do is they study many incidents of terrorism, not a single isolated case, to determine if the attacks follow any sort of pattern and what the general motivating factors are.

That is what Robert Pape has done in his extensive research on the subject.  Why don't ISIS and Al Qaeda attack Switzerland?  There are many countries around the world that are libertine in attitude, allow women to vote and go to college, and have social values that are contrary to Islamic teaching.  Yet, with few exceptions, Muslim terrorists don't launch attacks against them.  The victims of terrorist attacks in recent history have almost exclusively been nations that have either been intervening in the home nations of the terrorists, or were providing material support for these interventions.

Wherein lies the problem, they aren't contrary to the teachings of a mad man pedophile.

Another surefire way to know that the terrorists who have launched these attacks were not motivated by Islamic fundamentalism is that they did not live in accordance with Islamic teaching themselves.  The pilots in the 9/11 attacks spent much of their US stay visited strip clubs, doing drugs, paying prostitutes and generally living hedonistic lives.  If they were serious about their religion and it's teachings, why were they breaking all the social tenets of their faith?

I suggest you do a bit more reading before you expose more of your ignorance.
The leaders of the 911 plot tricked nearly everyone involved into thinking this wasn't a suicide mission, that as payment they were absolved of sin for the evening.
It's all in the CIA report.

This recent attack was perpetrated by a man who was born in the United States.  His parents moved from Afghanistan.  He was radicalized through ISIS propaganda on the internet.  And what was this propaganda?  Terrorist recruitment propaganda has almost always focused on showing the harm to innocent lives from US military intervention.  They show children dying from drone strikes and things like that.  This is why people are motivated to join ISIS and Al Qaeda.  People become appalled by the consequences to innocent civilians due to US foreign policy and they want to strike back any way they can.

It is NOT "blaming us" to admit to the motivating factor in the minds of most modern-day Islamic terrorists.

Again, we are merely the latest target of Islum, why is that so hard to understand?

It also shouldn't be a surprise that most people who nominally belong to a certain religion don't particularly take seriously all, or even most, of it's teachings.  Just looking at the actions of Al Qaeda and ISIS members should make that clear.  This is why appealing to the words of Mohammed or one passage or another from the Quran is not very persuasive.  Most people have other motivations and use religion as a cover or a pretext.

I agree, but religion is their excuse to take what isn't theirs.

This recent attacker was gay, okay?  The last I heard, homosexuality is frowned upon by fundamentalist Islam.  And he made it explicitly clear why he killed all those people.  He wants the US government to stop occupying and bombing his home country of Afghanistan.

I don't know why you are afraid to look at that video.  Pape is a social scientist and researcher of the highest order.  He is not a partisan in any way.  He has been attempting to get through to people like you about the motivations for suicide terrorism for a decade, yet you seem content to stick your head in the sand and be willfully ignorant of crucial information.  And, to be clear, this ignorance about what this terrorism problem is really about has led to the deaths of many innocent Americans and you are putting many more Americans at risk by not understanding what Pape and others have been trying to tell us.

Decades? You don't get it do you? These people have been acting like animals for centuries, murdering, raping, pillaging, taking slaves, forcing people to worship their savior at the point of a sword and forcing them to pay a tax the rest of their lives for not being born a Muscum.

How is it America was responsible for all the death centuries before our existence?
Did you even read the quote to Jefferson as to why they attacked our ships? How does Pape explain that away?

[taxed]

I've posted on these forums a considerable while ago, but I'd like to get a sense of the conservative view on the recent Orlando terrorist attack at the gay nightclub and about terrorism in general and the so-called "War on Terror" in particular.

I am a libertarian anarchist, also sometimes referred to as "voluntaryist", just so you are reminded of my ideological persuasion.

What's left out of this discussion about the Orlando shooter was a key piece of information about his motivation, which was reported in the Los Angeles Times:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-nightclub-shooting-20160614-snap-story.html

Libertarians have always maintained that the motivations for Islamic terrorist attacks against the United States have always been about our foreign policy.  It is NOT about the religion of Islam.  Al Qaeda and, more recently, ISIS have been primarily motivated by anger and resentment about US interventions, drone bombings, nation building and general disregard for the corpses, numbering in the millions, of Arab Muslims caused by our military excursions into the Middle East over the past several decades.

This is not to say that, absent our meddling into the affairs of middle eastern nations, that radical Islamic elements would disappear.  But attacks against the United States would almost certainly disappear.  The problem of radical Islam would become an internal problem for moderate Muslims in the region to deal with, or not deal with.  It would no longer be our concern.

Robert Pape has studied the motivations for suicide terrorism and his conclusion is that this war is about political goals, not religious goals.  There is a strategic objective that Islamic terrorists seek through the use of terrorism.  They seek to change our foreign policy through generating fear of civilian deaths among the democratic populace of the occupying nation.  The goal is that people end up realizing that the military occupation of foreign nations is not worth the resulting threat to civilian safety from the terrorist response to said occupation and that people rise up and make their leaders change their policy, withdrawing troops, lifting sanctions and so forth.

See Robert Pape's book "Dying to Win:  The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism".


This recent Orlando shooting is yet another example of blowback.  Our so-called "War on Terrorism" and the preceding decades of sanctions, bombs, and the overthrow of elected leaders in the middle east has, and will continue, to directly result in the deaths of American civilians. 

Give you dummies a script, and you run with it.  These attacks on our soil occur because the Islamo-Marxists who have infiltrated our government are encouraging it and allowing it to happen.  Cult followers who wipe their butts with their hands aren't a threat to us without the importing of terror.  Otherwise, they'd be stuck in the sand trying to find some shade.

If you support these military interventions you must share some of the culpability for the blowback that has predictably resulted from those ill-conceived actions.

Ron Paul is just a man.  Try not to be so devoted.  Think once in a while.

[taxed]

Yet you fail to recognize who created them initially. Wahabism, dating back centuries.
Why are you being so myopic and focusing on inconsequential details? It matters not where they get their funding or training, what matters is a nation state is breeding fanaticism solely to stay in in power as a Royal family.

These open-border geniuses don't understand it happens over here because we let them over here.  If we went against his position and secured the border, we wouldn't have attacks, except just for the regular ol' fashioned Acorn/SEIU sponsored ones.

[Solar]

These open-border geniuses don't understand it happens over here because we let them over here.  If we went against his position and secured the border, we wouldn't have attacks, except just for the regular ol' fashioned Acorn/SEIU sponsored ones.

Exactly! We have enough trouble with actual communists in power via the Dim party to worry about without having to keep an eye on the border too.
The Dim party knows quite well that flooding the nation with leftists from third world countries will only help their cause of destroying the country.
What bothers me the most, is how brainwashed these kids are and their willingness to ignore history as an indicator of the future.

[tac]

Exactly! We have enough trouble with actual communists in power via the Dim party to worry about without having to keep an eye on the border too.
The Dim party knows quite well that flooding the nation with leftists from third world countries will only help their cause of destroying the country.
What bothers me the most, is how brainwashed these kids are and their willingness to ignore history as an indicator of the future.

We have the government gulags and the media to thank for the brainwashing.

[Solar]

We have the government gulags and the media to thank for the brainwashing.

I know, it's so disheartening, Hell, they elect a Marxist, then like sheep, promote a lib nationalist to the party.

[jrodefeld]

One question. So what motivated the Moors to invade and enslave southern Europe 1,000 years ago?

What relevance does this question have?  There are many factors that can motivate one people to attack and invade another.  In our modern era though, the problem we are concerned with is terrorism, and more specifically suicide terrorism.  And, as Robert Pape has demonstrated, virtually all modern instances of suicide terrorism have been motivated by anger and resentment over a foreign military occupation.  There is no military in the world that can challenge the United States, but terrorism as a tactic has proven to be the most successful way to lash out against a much more powerful adversary. 

Be more specific about why you are asking this question.  You obviously have a point to make, so go ahead and make it.

[Billy's bayonet]

This is so devoid of factual information it is scary.  Our government and the CIA literally, directly created and funded Osama bin Laden and radical Islamic groups as a deliberate anti-Soviet Union Cold War strategy.  Our government under Ronald Reagan supported the Mujahideen, funded radical madrassa schools because they thought they'd provide a bulwark against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and elsewhere.  The Mujahideen became Al Qaeda a decade latter.

The proliferation of radical Islamic groups throughout the Middle East, in modern times at least, can be directly traced to US military interventions and US funding. 

Here is a short article written around the time Osama bin Laden was killed:

http://www.thenation.com/article/osama-bin-laden-monster-our-own-creation/

This article was written by Robert Scheer and is called "Osama bin Laden:  A Monster of Our Own Creation".

So when you say things like "We didn't create terrorism" and "Osama bin Laden has always hated the United States" you are wrong on both counts.  Osama liked the United States just fine when the CIA was funding him and our government supported him, and radical Mujahideen members, against the Soviet Union. 

Look, if you get a kick out of hating Islam, then knock yourself out.  That's your thing.  But you have to accept the facts.  The modern day terrorist problem that the United States is facing is entirely a product of decades of US military intervention.  The CIA calls this "blowback". 

Take off your partisan goggles for a few minutes and just look at the objective facts.  Watch the Robert Pape video, learn about the history of the US government funding and supporting the Mujahideen and radical madrassa schools during the 1980s.

I don;t know where you, Robert Pape, Scheer or the freaking Easter Bunny are getting your "facts" from but lemme clue you on something....Social Scientists and researchers have their own agenda, put a set of letters behind their name and they can sell anything(Usually a book where they take Theoretical license) to anybody who are impressed by advanced education, academic intelligensia.  Few people will call them on it....except for guys like me. I wonder if either of these two literary warriors have been out from behind their desks.

Those of us who spent our lives in the trenches and on the street don't give them much credibility.

So let us begin with your education:

There are NO FACTS supporting OBL's involvement with the USA/CIA DOD or Military vis a vis His role in Afghanistan, OBL himself denied seeking or obtaining aide from the USA many times.  Here is why.

OBL was the scoin of a rich Saudi Family, actually the black sheep because he wanted to force the Whabbi agenda and remove the house of Saud from power, one reason was that he hated their dealings with the USA, and was particualry upset over the fact that there was a US Army of infidels occupying Territory so close to the two Holiest of Muslim Holy sites, Medina and Mecca. So he cause a little stir, lost his gambit and had to flee the country. Some sources say he managed to move his vast fortune made from construction out of the country (TO SWITZERLAND) some say he fled penniless and managed to obtain support from the Whabbi network or donations from richer under families to the rulng Saudi.
THAT MEANS HE WAS A TERRORIST WAAAYYYYY BEFORE THE USSR INVADED AFGHANISTAN AND THE LATER USA INVOLVEMENT.

When the USSR INVADED Afghanistan, he saw his life's calling and traveled there financing Muhajadeen operations against the USSR.

If Pape had done his homework he would have learned that AFghanistan was a kingdom of warring factions/tribes and ethnic groups loosely held together by a ruling body with ties to the Old King. SOme of these tribes/groups threw in with the USSR, and, in an age old story began to turn their attentions on rebellious factions and tribes that refused to play along....enter OBL and his largely mercenary army of Muslim fanatics. THAT IS HOW THE USSR or rather the KGB Operate. Aside...take a look at Syria today....

Now the USA DID support various factions....mostly what was known as the northern alliance (MORE ON THIS LATER) but there is no evidence they supported OBL, as a matter of fact OBL stated he flat out refused "Infidel" help;

But to say that we "created" OBL is flat false, misleading and more of an urban myth than anything else.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/rand-pauls-bin-laden-claim-is-urban-myth/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/03/osama-bin-laden-10-myths-cia-arsenal

Now two weeks before 9/11, OBL took the precaution of killing one US ally, the fellow known as the lion of the north Amad Shah Masur....OBL knew the US would likely come gunning for him and use this fellow and his army who was contesting OBL.

And as I mentioned previously one reason why you don;t have terrorists targeting Switzerland is that Switzerland has no power and very little bearing on world affairs. They serve as bankers to anybody and everybody....especially terrorists, as gold nourishes war why would you attack those who keep your gold safe from the world eye's?


Now you got to stop buying into the left's agenda that the US is "creating" terrorists, its the same nonsense they preach about how the Racist USA 'Creates" all the problems and crime in the country due to our "racist policies, and social injustice" we don't give the black man a chance, discriminate against him so he turns to crime out of rage and a sense of injustice....much the same a terrorist does. That's what these marxist fiends who occupy the halls of Govt have promulgated over the last 25-30 yrs. Its all bullshit, people need to be held responsible for their actions.

Last, if any country is responsible for "creating terrorism" I suggest you start with Great Britain during their colonial period and the USSR with their world domination policies of the last century.

[jrodefeld]

Give you dummies a script, and you run with it.  These attacks on our soil occur because the Islamo-Marxists who have infiltrated our government are encouraging it and allowing it to happen.  Cult followers who wipe their butts with their hands aren't a threat to us without the importing of terror.  Otherwise, they'd be stuck in the sand trying to find some shade.

Ron Paul is just a man.  Try not to be so devoted.  Think once in a while.

Islamo-Marxists?!  Seems to me to be just as meaningless and inaccurate a term as the previous smear word "Islamo-Fascist".  Our government is made up almost entirely of Christians, with a small percentage of Jews and other denominations. 

I will agree with one thing though.  I totally believe that some people in our government would like to have intermittent terrorist attacks because it provides the perfect pretext to pass all sorts of laws that restrict our civil liberties.  It allows them an excuse to launch wars.

While this may be true, this still does not explain the motivations for the terrorist attacks. 

Can you agree with me that our government has provided reasonable, non-fundamentalist Muslims in the middle east plenty of reasons to hate the United States?  If you could only imagine what it would be like if your family was murdered by a drone, you could have some empathy for the non-radicalized Arab population that has had to suffer needlessly due to US military policy.

It has been said many times that in order for the world to fight against radical extremists like ISIS, we need moderate Muslims and other Middle Eastern nations to stand up  against them.  But outside military occupation and bombings only serve to unify the disparate Muslim factions against a common enemy.  Moderate groups who might otherwise stand in opposition to ISIS are incentivized to tacitly cheer on when an ISIS-affiliated group launches an attack against the United States, getting revenge for the innocents that the US military has killed.

By the way, I didn't mention Ron Paul at all so I don't know what purpose it serves to bring his name up.  He gets it right on foreign policy in my view, but a whole lot of experts support his view.  I'm not getting my information from one source.

[Possum]

Islamo-Marxists?!  Seems to me to be just as meaningless and inaccurate a term as the previous smear word "Islamo-Fascist".  Our government is made up almost entirely of Christians, with a small percentage of Jews and other denominations. 

I will agree with one thing though.  I totally believe that some people in our government would like to have intermittent terrorist attacks because it provides the perfect pretext to pass all sorts of laws that restrict our civil liberties.  It allows them an excuse to launch wars.

While this may be true, this still does not explain the motivations for the terrorist attacks. 

Can you agree with me that our government has provided reasonable, non-fundamentalist Muslims in the middle east plenty of reasons to hate the United States?  If you could only imagine what it would be like if your family was murdered by a drone, you could have some empathy for the non-radicalized Arab population that has had to suffer needlessly due to US military policy.

It has been said many times that in order for the world to fight against radical extremists like ISIS, we need moderate Muslims and other Middle Eastern nations to stand up  against them.  But outside military occupation and bombings only serve to unify the disparate Muslim factions against a common enemy.  Moderate groups who might otherwise stand in opposition to ISIS are incentivized to tacitly cheer on when an ISIS-affiliated group launches an attack against the United States, getting revenge for the innocents that the US military has killed.

By the way, I didn't mention Ron Paul at all so I don't know what purpose it serves to bring his name up.  He gets it right on foreign policy in my view, but a whole lot of experts support his view.  I'm not getting my information from one source.

One point that has been made several times in replies to you that you seem to keep ignoring: muslins have been killing for a long time because that is who they are, that is what they are taught and what they believe, long before there was a United States. Maybe you can have your professor explain that one if he can take the time away from blaming the U.S.

Maybe you can answer this one, do you believe that the middle east countries have provided reasons for the U.S. to hate them? or does that only work one way?

[Billy's bayonet]

Islamo-Marxists?!  Seems to me to be just as meaningless and inaccurate a term as the previous smear word "Islamo-Fascist".  Our government is made up almost entirely of Christians, with a small percentage of Jews and other denominations. 

I will agree with one thing though.  I totally believe that some people in our government would like to have intermittent terrorist attacks because it provides the perfect pretext to pass all sorts of laws that restrict our civil liberties.  It allows them an excuse to launch wars.

While this may be true, this still does not explain the motivations for the terrorist attacks. 

Can you agree with me that our government has provided reasonable, non-fundamentalist Muslims in the middle east plenty of reasons to hate the United States?  If you could only imagine what it would be like if your family was murdered by a drone, you could have some empathy for the non-radicalized Arab population that has had to suffer needlessly due to US military policy.

It has been said many times that in order for the world to fight against radical extremists like ISIS, we need moderate Muslims and other Middle Eastern nations to stand up  against them.  But outside military occupation and bombings only serve to unify the disparate Muslim factions against a common enemy.  Moderate groups who might otherwise stand in opposition to ISIS are incentivized to tacitly cheer on when an ISIS-affiliated group launches an attack against the United States, getting revenge for the innocents that the US military has killed.

By the way, I didn't mention Ron Paul at all so I don't know what purpose it serves to bring his name up.  He gets it right on foreign policy in my view, but a whole lot of experts support his view.  I'm not getting my information from one source.

How do you explain the fact that Muslim mostly kill other Muslims, usually  other tribes or ethnicities. You miss the point entirely, most of these ISIS terrorist, Al Q'iea etc started out fighting those in power in their respective countries. It is about achieving power, control and establishing a world wide caliphate. The US and Great Britain and a few other countries stand in the way....it's never gonna happen while the US is top dog in the world economically or militarily....that's why the effort to undermine us, from within and without.

[je_freedom]

Anyone who thinks that Islamic terrorism
is solely a reaction against outside interference
has never studied Muhammad.
Here are a few articles that can help:

http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/new-board/a-short-biography-of-muhammad/
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/new-board/jesus-vs-muhammad-a-comparison/
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/new-board/islamfacts-or-dreams-by-andrew-mccarthy/
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/is-'true-islam'-peaceful/
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/isis-plans-on-killing-hundreds-of-millions/
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/new-board/real-islam-wants-an-end-time-battle/

Has the USA interfered in the Middle East with less than pure motives?
Absolutely! 
The fact that a country is being invaded for profit
is completely independent of whether or not
the country is populated by savages.

Reaction against interference might explain Islamic aggression for the last 40 years,
but it certainly doesn't explain all of the Islamic aggression for the last 1400 years!
There were hundreds of years of Islamic aggression
before any Crusades were attempted.
And the Crusades were to liberate conquered people!
They were Europe's reaction against Islamic aggression!

The "brutal dictators" installed by the West
have been, by and large, much less brutal than
the democratically elected savages the people choose over there!
Just look at Egypt over the last five years!

When terrorists strike America and Europe,
they deliberately target civilians.
When America conducts airstrikes on the Middle East,
they target only combatants.
Any civilians who are killed are "collateral damage"
and that's mostly because the savages
are using women and children as "human shields!"

The best resource for revealing the true nature of Islam is
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
How many terrorist attacks have there been since 9-11?
20?  50?  100?
How many countries have Islamic terrorists struck since 9-11?
5?  10?  20?
How many of those countries have ever launched ANY kind of strike
against Islamic countries?  (Drone or otherwise)
See   http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/   to get some perspective.

[Solar]

What relevance does this question have?  There are many factors that can motivate one people to attack and invade another.  In our modern era though, the problem we are concerned with is terrorism, and more specifically suicide terrorism.  And, as Robert Pape has demonstrated, virtually all modern instances of suicide terrorism have been motivated by anger and resentment over a foreign military occupation.  There is no military in the world that can challenge the United States, but terrorism as a tactic has proven to be the most successful way to lash out against a much more powerful adversary. 

Be more specific about why you are asking this question.  You obviously have a point to make, so go ahead and make it.

So, again you avoid all my points and myopically cling to us, Americans as the cause, neglecting the fact that they are killing Christians, beheading and burning them in crucifixion, and for no other reason than being Christians.
Or how about beheading their own for not following the koran.
Explain how the US plays a part in their wholesale slaughter of their own people. Hell, while you're at it, explain why Iran speaks publicly that they will wipe the US off the map.

Let me guess, you're an apologist Muscum, aren't you?

[tac]

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule.

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you" leading some to believe that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is disingenuous (the actual Arabic words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The word used instead, "fitna", can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned "until religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.

Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx

Posted by: jrodefeld
« on: Today at 06:33:19 PM » Insert Quote
... this still does not explain the motivations for the terrorist attacks.