Tweet
Originally posted by Karachi
View Post
It is really hard for me to answer you since every other word you say is a curse/vulgar word coming out of your ass mouth. That's very Islamic of you lol, what an idiot
LOOOOOL. You are proving my point. I keep telling you, you f$^&& moron that its you that decided to label people with the terms of "Islamic" "Islamist" etc with someone who has been arguing PURELY secular points of contention bonehead. Your brain emits pure sh-it so rather its your ass-mouth.
Second, who said I supported Harper? I voted for the Liberal part as I consider myself liberal in most things, why would I vote for conservative? again stop making **** up
Because you peddle in their contrived nonsense and justify every one of their acts with your illogic and lack of evidence.
3rd. How does Shamlawar know you are not a Salafi/Wahabhi, can he read your mind or something?
No Jack as-s he can tell based on our differing views of everything from governance systems to cultural motifs. He can read into statements I have made based on actual statements I have made not nonsensical "secret" statements I have not made that you allege I want to make. Idiot.
You have defended Salafi/Wahabhis from day one on this forum, in the beginning you even defended Saudi Arabia all the time.
Evidence? Where? When have I defended those clowns? This is you making sh-it up to save face in front of some random girl you are trying to impress now hoping she might be "the one" light skinned girl to give you the time of day.
So you if you're not Salafi, what are you? most likly Deobandi who are wannabe Wahabhis from South Asia
Wrong again, fool.
4th. How in the world are you separating Salafi/Wahabhis and Takfiris,
You are really asking this? Have you read Tamiyah's opinions according to his protege Dhahabi??? He was ardently against takfir in CONFIRMED statements. This shows how ignorant you really are. Keep talking and reveal your dumbassery
when they exactly act the same way by calling anyone non muslims/Kaffirs and always start violence with even fellow muslims.
Provide a practical example and context.
As we have noted there are nuances that even Western authors recognize between a no holds barred group like Shabbab and other groups like Nusra etc. In either case, both are RESPONSIVE constructs to their environments IMPOSED on them. As a fool that cannot take a panoramic view into what human beings do under duress in war and make global assessments of how, say the IRA for instance or FARC or Guevaras rebels all were responsive elements to asymmetric war- you invent a fairy tale scenario that somehow makes it so that a Syrian Arab or an Afghan has to act like some sort of nonexistent, resistant to all real life stressors type of human being.
So for example, even the Vietcong did strict, horrible things to other Vietnamese (the South) but in general the world recognized that there would be no Vietcong if there were no invasions by France and then America and that the moral imperative rested on their side.
They are same, you are lying again. I dealt with these people for so long in my university.
I told you, biryani circles dont count.
Shamlawar is a Salafi and you know how he acts here on this forum. Also not all Salafis are violent, but their ideology is, that is my point
Validate this statement. Every ideology has can be honed for defensive violence, from Islam to Christianity to Judaism etc when cornered. Otherwise, your concept that literalist, salafist etc Muslims are just inherently prone to violence is retarded. Even Tamiyah voiced his fatwas regarding Mongol Hordes that occupied the Arab regions.
5th. The concept of offensive Jihad is very well established, yes it was revived by guys like Qutb and Azzam,
That statement right there shows how little you know as there are massive differences between the defensive posturing of Azzam and Qutb. Thats more of that Robert Spencer Trash right there. Azzams whole set of principles in backing the Afghan War was predicated on defensive war.
but Salafis have used this concept more then others in modern times to expand their ideology and influence across the world. Even guys like Anwar Al-waki spoke about it, since he was a big fan of Qutbs writings.
I have not read Al Awlaki, but if you take the concept of Caliphate and its resurrection to be "offensive" posturing then you're being absurd since the Muslim world is a diverse and non monolithic entity with vibrant variations. Its no different than the Christian concept of the "Kingdom Come." Its often an idealistic belief but the real action today is in defensive posturing across the Muslim world with even the supposedly offensive groups like ISIS pretty much relegated to defensive posturing while spouting off rhetoric.
In the west, this term is only used in Salafi circles, this is why Salafis are spreading their version of Islam so rapidly in the west, of course helped by the Saudi money
I dont deny that the idiot monarchy has a strain of its belief system that preaches obedience to "the throne" without context and one that is actually more aggressive than the strain practiced by resistance groups that you decided to lump together with them. This is why even in Salafist writings like the ones posted online by the US naval academy Salafists debate the debauchery of the Saudi Kingdom. You're being a retard by assuming that even Salafism is monolithic.
6th. Again, you saying that western invasion is the only cause of muslim terrorism/extremism is very laughable,
It is the primary driver according to all the leading experts. Those groups that have taken actions have consistently stated that aspect of interventionalism as driving recruits to their cause and driving them into action. Whats laughable is your biryani logic of stating somethign without evidence based validation to impress Jennifer.
as if muslims were never cutting each others heads of before the west even came in to the picture.
Apples and oranges. So were Catholics and Protestants and various Jewish factions under Bar Kochba etc vs the Romanists. But the current wars across the Muslim world are only NOW turning into the full on shia sunni conflageration... otherwise most of these radical groups are a direct response to actions in the Muslim world and direct quotations , writings and even Western investigations as well as the 9/11 report itself validate this. Your continued retarded appeal to random historical events centering on Muslims killing Muslims as somehow invalidating this is whats idiotic here.
Just look at our history man, it is stained with blood every where, in which brothers were killing brothers, sons killing fathers etc... This so called Islamic Utopia, Golden age hardly existed, it existed only in pockets, before some other muslim army came and destroyed it.
Once again, this has nothing to do and in no way detracts from the FACT that the stated goals, actions, and discernible data for why men like Awlaki, Gadahn, etc STATED they were doing what they did and why authors like Pape analyzed their statements admitted BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AT HAND that most of what these guys alleged about interventionalism fueling their causes and recruitment
Also dont forget the age old rivalry of Sunnis and Shias, which continues to kill millions of muslims to this day and you say muslims are not violent?
Why are you making sh-it up? I never said they are violent or nonviolent. I have repeatedly said that the people you call terrorists and violent in the Contexts you describe are the result of western interventionalism. For example, I am a sunni, but I can easily admit that Iranian theocracy is a DIRECT response to the brutality of the Shah, who was imposed after they deposed Mossadegh by force who was democratically elected.
And I have clearly stated cause and effect goes beyond just Muslims. Ghaznavi Nadir Shah and others who invaded India multiple times did not do so for Islamic causes - they looted it and Modi and Hinduvati and Indian Nationalism is a direct result of some of these prior actions.
You are an idiot with minimal correlative and analytical skills.
western invasions create environment for these people to kill each other even more, so of course west has a huge fault here, I have never denied this. I mean why in the world would I want USA to plunder the resources of the muslim world by invading them, am I stupid? I was always against people like Bush, Harper, Trumps etc... But again my point is, look in the mirror first and look what is happening with in your own people.
We don't disagree here.
If your were strong/united to begin with, west wouldn't invade anyways.
We dont disagree here.
Instead Salafis want to divide a divided people even more.
This is idiotic. So Kemalists in Turkey who attempted to even go up against Nurci, or the forced ripping off of the veil and imposition of boots and suits by Amanullah that led to the Shinwar rebellion and a host of other examples where hyper militant secularists subverted the will of the rural masses (e.g. Egypt under Morsi and American support for Sisi) are the fault of Salafis? This is what I mean by you being an idiot. You wont destroy Salafis by making these sorts of irrational and nonevidence based statements - you will just join the Kemalist camp and be viewed as one fo those subverters and outside influenced people who want to crush out what you view as "salafi" Islam. Instead you will end up forcing moderates to radicalize to stop bas-tards like you.
Lastly, the goal of Islam itself is to establish the Khilafat across the world, are you going to deny this now too?
Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc have multiple goals - some of them spiritual, some of them purposefully stated as nonrealizable but worth struggle, and some tangible. I referred to the Christian equivalent concept of "Kingdom Come" - to isolate Islam and point out something idealistic in its composition is an example of your Robert Spencer type bigotry at worst and at least your subservience and slavery and worship of your Caucasian self imposed masters.
of course some people want to this peacefully, which they do, while others in violent ways. This has been going since the foundation of Islam, this is why within 150 years of Islam, Islam reached from Spain to India, both in violent and peaceful ways. The modern extremists want to do this in violent ways.
There you go again, making sh-it up. As I have said, name the violent extremist groups in the last 10 years: AQ, Nusra, Shabaab, Boko, The Algerian radicals, etc all of them state defensive posturing goals. Only now ISIS has some offensive posturing statements since they claim to be the Caliphate - but even they are a composite response of the wrongs done to Sunnis in Anbar where I provided you DIRECT INCONTROVERTIBLE evidence of tribal leaders who were secular siding with them because of the shiite government playing favorites.
The rest of your post is garbage like usual, no need to reply to that
Says the guy that rates Bollywood dresses
LOOOOOL. You are proving my point. I keep telling you, you f$^&& moron that its you that decided to label people with the terms of "Islamic" "Islamist" etc with someone who has been arguing PURELY secular points of contention bonehead. Your brain emits pure sh-it so rather its your ass-mouth.
Second, who said I supported Harper? I voted for the Liberal part as I consider myself liberal in most things, why would I vote for conservative? again stop making **** up
Because you peddle in their contrived nonsense and justify every one of their acts with your illogic and lack of evidence.
3rd. How does Shamlawar know you are not a Salafi/Wahabhi, can he read your mind or something?
No Jack as-s he can tell based on our differing views of everything from governance systems to cultural motifs. He can read into statements I have made based on actual statements I have made not nonsensical "secret" statements I have not made that you allege I want to make. Idiot.
You have defended Salafi/Wahabhis from day one on this forum, in the beginning you even defended Saudi Arabia all the time.
Evidence? Where? When have I defended those clowns? This is you making sh-it up to save face in front of some random girl you are trying to impress now hoping she might be "the one" light skinned girl to give you the time of day.
So you if you're not Salafi, what are you? most likly Deobandi who are wannabe Wahabhis from South Asia
Wrong again, fool.
4th. How in the world are you separating Salafi/Wahabhis and Takfiris,
You are really asking this? Have you read Tamiyah's opinions according to his protege Dhahabi??? He was ardently against takfir in CONFIRMED statements. This shows how ignorant you really are. Keep talking and reveal your dumbassery
when they exactly act the same way by calling anyone non muslims/Kaffirs and always start violence with even fellow muslims.
Provide a practical example and context.
As we have noted there are nuances that even Western authors recognize between a no holds barred group like Shabbab and other groups like Nusra etc. In either case, both are RESPONSIVE constructs to their environments IMPOSED on them. As a fool that cannot take a panoramic view into what human beings do under duress in war and make global assessments of how, say the IRA for instance or FARC or Guevaras rebels all were responsive elements to asymmetric war- you invent a fairy tale scenario that somehow makes it so that a Syrian Arab or an Afghan has to act like some sort of nonexistent, resistant to all real life stressors type of human being.
So for example, even the Vietcong did strict, horrible things to other Vietnamese (the South) but in general the world recognized that there would be no Vietcong if there were no invasions by France and then America and that the moral imperative rested on their side.
They are same, you are lying again. I dealt with these people for so long in my university.
I told you, biryani circles dont count.
Shamlawar is a Salafi and you know how he acts here on this forum. Also not all Salafis are violent, but their ideology is, that is my point
Validate this statement. Every ideology has can be honed for defensive violence, from Islam to Christianity to Judaism etc when cornered. Otherwise, your concept that literalist, salafist etc Muslims are just inherently prone to violence is retarded. Even Tamiyah voiced his fatwas regarding Mongol Hordes that occupied the Arab regions.
5th. The concept of offensive Jihad is very well established, yes it was revived by guys like Qutb and Azzam,
That statement right there shows how little you know as there are massive differences between the defensive posturing of Azzam and Qutb. Thats more of that Robert Spencer Trash right there. Azzams whole set of principles in backing the Afghan War was predicated on defensive war.
but Salafis have used this concept more then others in modern times to expand their ideology and influence across the world. Even guys like Anwar Al-waki spoke about it, since he was a big fan of Qutbs writings.
I have not read Al Awlaki, but if you take the concept of Caliphate and its resurrection to be "offensive" posturing then you're being absurd since the Muslim world is a diverse and non monolithic entity with vibrant variations. Its no different than the Christian concept of the "Kingdom Come." Its often an idealistic belief but the real action today is in defensive posturing across the Muslim world with even the supposedly offensive groups like ISIS pretty much relegated to defensive posturing while spouting off rhetoric.
In the west, this term is only used in Salafi circles, this is why Salafis are spreading their version of Islam so rapidly in the west, of course helped by the Saudi money
I dont deny that the idiot monarchy has a strain of its belief system that preaches obedience to "the throne" without context and one that is actually more aggressive than the strain practiced by resistance groups that you decided to lump together with them. This is why even in Salafist writings like the ones posted online by the US naval academy Salafists debate the debauchery of the Saudi Kingdom. You're being a retard by assuming that even Salafism is monolithic.
6th. Again, you saying that western invasion is the only cause of muslim terrorism/extremism is very laughable,
It is the primary driver according to all the leading experts. Those groups that have taken actions have consistently stated that aspect of interventionalism as driving recruits to their cause and driving them into action. Whats laughable is your biryani logic of stating somethign without evidence based validation to impress Jennifer.
as if muslims were never cutting each others heads of before the west even came in to the picture.
Apples and oranges. So were Catholics and Protestants and various Jewish factions under Bar Kochba etc vs the Romanists. But the current wars across the Muslim world are only NOW turning into the full on shia sunni conflageration... otherwise most of these radical groups are a direct response to actions in the Muslim world and direct quotations , writings and even Western investigations as well as the 9/11 report itself validate this. Your continued retarded appeal to random historical events centering on Muslims killing Muslims as somehow invalidating this is whats idiotic here.
Just look at our history man, it is stained with blood every where, in which brothers were killing brothers, sons killing fathers etc... This so called Islamic Utopia, Golden age hardly existed, it existed only in pockets, before some other muslim army came and destroyed it.
Once again, this has nothing to do and in no way detracts from the FACT that the stated goals, actions, and discernible data for why men like Awlaki, Gadahn, etc STATED they were doing what they did and why authors like Pape analyzed their statements admitted BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AT HAND that most of what these guys alleged about interventionalism fueling their causes and recruitment
Also dont forget the age old rivalry of Sunnis and Shias, which continues to kill millions of muslims to this day and you say muslims are not violent?
Why are you making sh-it up? I never said they are violent or nonviolent. I have repeatedly said that the people you call terrorists and violent in the Contexts you describe are the result of western interventionalism. For example, I am a sunni, but I can easily admit that Iranian theocracy is a DIRECT response to the brutality of the Shah, who was imposed after they deposed Mossadegh by force who was democratically elected.
And I have clearly stated cause and effect goes beyond just Muslims. Ghaznavi Nadir Shah and others who invaded India multiple times did not do so for Islamic causes - they looted it and Modi and Hinduvati and Indian Nationalism is a direct result of some of these prior actions.
You are an idiot with minimal correlative and analytical skills.
western invasions create environment for these people to kill each other even more, so of course west has a huge fault here, I have never denied this. I mean why in the world would I want USA to plunder the resources of the muslim world by invading them, am I stupid? I was always against people like Bush, Harper, Trumps etc... But again my point is, look in the mirror first and look what is happening with in your own people.
We don't disagree here.
If your were strong/united to begin with, west wouldn't invade anyways.
We dont disagree here.
Instead Salafis want to divide a divided people even more.
This is idiotic. So Kemalists in Turkey who attempted to even go up against Nurci, or the forced ripping off of the veil and imposition of boots and suits by Amanullah that led to the Shinwar rebellion and a host of other examples where hyper militant secularists subverted the will of the rural masses (e.g. Egypt under Morsi and American support for Sisi) are the fault of Salafis? This is what I mean by you being an idiot. You wont destroy Salafis by making these sorts of irrational and nonevidence based statements - you will just join the Kemalist camp and be viewed as one fo those subverters and outside influenced people who want to crush out what you view as "salafi" Islam. Instead you will end up forcing moderates to radicalize to stop bas-tards like you.
Lastly, the goal of Islam itself is to establish the Khilafat across the world, are you going to deny this now too?
Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc have multiple goals - some of them spiritual, some of them purposefully stated as nonrealizable but worth struggle, and some tangible. I referred to the Christian equivalent concept of "Kingdom Come" - to isolate Islam and point out something idealistic in its composition is an example of your Robert Spencer type bigotry at worst and at least your subservience and slavery and worship of your Caucasian self imposed masters.
of course some people want to this peacefully, which they do, while others in violent ways. This has been going since the foundation of Islam, this is why within 150 years of Islam, Islam reached from Spain to India, both in violent and peaceful ways. The modern extremists want to do this in violent ways.
There you go again, making sh-it up. As I have said, name the violent extremist groups in the last 10 years: AQ, Nusra, Shabaab, Boko, The Algerian radicals, etc all of them state defensive posturing goals. Only now ISIS has some offensive posturing statements since they claim to be the Caliphate - but even they are a composite response of the wrongs done to Sunnis in Anbar where I provided you DIRECT INCONTROVERTIBLE evidence of tribal leaders who were secular siding with them because of the shiite government playing favorites.
The rest of your post is garbage like usual, no need to reply to that
Says the guy that rates Bollywood dresses
Comment