Bashir Free

[Papewaio]

Howard should convert to Islam, says cleric (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19478162-2,00.html)



Lines of students in black martial arts outfits and red sashes formed a guard of honour in the narrow streets as Bashir arrived at the gates of the Al-Mukmin school in Ngruki, which has been described as an "Ivy League" finishing academy for Islamic militants.

Hundreds more people waited in darkness outside shops and houses for a glimpse of the 68-year-old, who travelled home by road following his release from prison in Jakarta after serving a 25-month sentence for giving blessings to the 2002 Bali bombings.

Banners hung over laneways outside the school's front gates echoed Bashir's radical brand of Jihadist teaching, saying "Be a good Muslim or die" and "There is no other choice - live nobly or die a martyr".



The ageing cleric accused of being the spiritual leader of Jemaah Islamiah described Islamic terrorists in Indonesia - many of whom were graduates of his school - as "mujahidin" holy warriors, although he said they had taken a "wrong step".

"Their wrong step was to use a bomb as a weapon in a safe area," he said.

"Bombs are only to be used in conflict areas.

"In safe areas just preach, and we don't need bombs like that."

Nevertheless, Bashir said the bombers - three of whom are on death row - were mujahidin "because their goals are on the path of Allah".

"Their goal was to defend Islam and Muslim people being slaughtered by America and infidels everywhere," he said to cheers and more punched fists.

I wonder what his sentence would have been had he been found with a couple of ectasy tablets on him...

[Sjakihata]

It's worrying that he still calls the bombers mujahidin after they killed civilians. That will no doubt encourage others to be come 'holy warriors' by killing civilians - since they are still 'on the path to Allah'.

[doc_bean]

Is it one of the basics of Islam that it's a *personal* relationship with God ? So since they thought they were fighting for Allah, they would automatically be holy warriors, or it wouldn't be up to a human they say they weren't.

Regardless he spoke out against bombing public areas, that seems like a good thing doesn't it ? :sweatdrop:

[Keba]

It's a step up at least ... now if only to convince them that bombing is bad everywhere.

And since when does a religion that preaches peace find killing oneself and innocents as the proper path?


Their goal was to defend Islam and Muslim people being slaughtered by America and infidels everywhere.

Does he actually know that we westerners are quite proficent at genocide, and that, if we really tried, we would damn well succeed?

[Papewaio]

[QUOTE=doc_bean
Regardless he spoke out against bombing public areas, that seems like a good thing doesn't it ? :sweatdrop:[/QUOTE]

Nope, only no bombing in safe areas... ie Indonesia, outside is fair game.

[x-dANGEr]

I think he means the cause justifies the way.

[Ironside]

Does he actually know that we westerners are quite proficent at genocide, and that, if we really tried, we would damn well succeed?

Probably, but that wouldn't sound as well in a speech. A true politican (see my sig).


I think he means the cause justifies the way.

The problem for an fanatic idealist is that you'll always end up with the cause lost on the way. And that is among the most dangerous leader that exist, friend or foe alike. The utopian society will always be one thing away, again and again, and suddenly your slaughtering your own people in drowes.

To put an example. The easiest way to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and getting peace is to genocide the Palestinians. But despite this abhorrent and extreme meassurement it would still not bring peace. The deeply upset neighbours would have to be eliminated and so on, and what about those who will complain at the homefront? They would be "silenced" etc (Israel would never even be able to start the first step in this process though). So in the end, the goal isn't reach, but a whole lots of human lives has been wasted on nothing.

And even if successful, what do you think Islam would look like if the suecide bombers won and the world was converted to Islam? What exactly makes you think that the bastardiation of Islam would revert back into itself when the goal is achived? When it already has been so "successful"?

[x-dANGEr]

Probably, but that wouldn't sound as well in a speech. A true politican (see my sig).



The problem for an fanatic idealist is that you'll always end up with the cause lost on the way. And that is among the most dangerous leader that exist, friend or foe alike. The utopian society will always be one thing away, again and again, and suddenly your slaughtering your own people in drowes.

To put an example. The easiest way to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and getting peace is to genocide the Palestinians. But despite this abhorrent and extreme meassurement it would still not bring peace. The deeply upset neighbours would have to be eliminated and so on, and what about those who will complain at the homefront? They would be "silenced" etc (Israel would never even be able to start the first step in this process though). So in the end, the goal isn't reach, but a whole lots of human lives has been wasted on nothing.

And even if successful, what do you think Islam would look like if the suecide bombers won and the world was converted to Islam? What exactly makes you think that the bastardiation of Islam would revert back into itself when the goal is achived? When it already has been so "successful"?
Woow.. You turned this discussion into another in few lines, nice. A bit of clarification for the last paragraph, please?

P.S. I'm not saying I support it.

[Ja'chyra]

I think he means the cause justifies the way.

Is this like the end justifies the means? Cos if it is then you're wrong, such a broad ranging statement can't be anything but wrong.

What if a religion said that all unbelievers must be killed, would that justify them killing everyone else in the world? To them that would be a good and holy cause.

[Ironside]

Woow.. You turned this discussion into another in few lines, nice. A bit of clarification for the last paragraph, please?

P.S. I'm not saying I support it.

If you compare what those movements preach compared to what the average muslim preach you'll see a bit of difference. If those movements gain strength they will focus on those differences and will become increasingly violent and aggresive. At some point they'll reach the strength were they're dominant and at this point they'll probably purge instead of reforming after reaching thier original goals.

[x-dANGEr]

Is this like the end justifies the means? Cos if it is then you're wrong, such a broad ranging statement can't be anything but wrong.

What if a religion said that all unbelievers must be killed, would that justify them killing everyone else in the world? To them that would be a good and holy cause.

P.S. I'm not saying I support it.Doh?!


If you compare what those movements preach compared to what the average muslim preach you'll see a bit of difference.Probably.

If those movements gain strength they will focus on those differences and will become increasingly violent and aggresive. At some point they'll reach the strength were they're dominant and at this point they'll probably purge instead of reforming after reaching thier original goals.Their is no incident to support this. The whole phase will be like: "You can never know".

[Ironside]

Their is no incident to support this. The whole phase will be like: "You can never know".

Not Islamic movements on the top of my mind, but quite a few communistic movements has had that pattern.
Notice that it isn't uncommon that tthe more violent movement is getting couped out if they have been doing well on reching the original goals.

Anyway, any aggresive movement is always dangerous and becomes more dangerous the bigger they become.

[doc_bean]

Doh?!

Probably.
Their is no incident to support this. The whole phase will be like: "You can never know".

Sunnites versus Shiites ?

[PanzerJaeger]

There is something to be said for locking this type of person in an internment camp indefinitely.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

There is something to be said for locking this type of person in an internment camp indefinitely.

I disagree.

If he incites to violence -- not simply says he feels sympathy for the cause -- then by all means prosecute. Short of that, it is the price we all pay for freedom of speech.

I also disagree with his implied support for violence.

[Papewaio]

If those movements gain strength they will focus on those differences and will become increasingly violent and aggresive. At some point they'll reach the strength were they're dominant and at this point they'll probably purge instead of reforming after reaching thier original goals.


Doh?!
Their is no incident to support this. The whole phase will be like: "You can never know".

Actually their is a saying "Who will save the saved from their saviour?" it is a reference to the winners in armed struggles who once they are in power rarely give up their tools of violence. Quite often in countries you can see a violent dictator being fought by "freedom fighters" who have a virtous claim. However once the freedom fighters are in power they give themselves complete control and oppress anyone who will try for true freedom.

Cuba, Zimbabwee, Soviet Revolution, heck even George Washington was given the option of being King of the US ... he is one of the very few who didn't take the option.

I'm sure a brief look at history and you will find Islamic conflicts where someone has taken power against dictators and their ilk with words that they are doing it for the greater good. Later on when they are in power they become another form of dictator.

Very few violent revolutionaries don't stop using their methods after they gain power if they can get away with it.

[_Martyr_]

Well, Ireland is another example of one that didnt...

But granted, your point is a good one.