Awlaki 2002 Vs. Awlaki 2010

[Wrayun]

You should understand that this war between belief and unbelief, between Islam and unbelief, between America and Islam, didn't start after the september 11th attacks on New York and Washington, nor did it start after the call of jihad against the US by Osama bin Laden or Anwar Al Awlaki. This war started the day the pure Islam was preached and practiced by the prophet (pbuh) and his companions. The tyrants and oppressors of the world can't tolerate this liberating message of Islam, this message of real freedom and the worship of one Lord, that's why the battles began between the muslims against the idolators, disbelievers, pagans, jews, Romans, Persians. Later on with the Crusaders, Mongols. And that has continued with the colonisation and subjugation of the muslim world by these kufaar and it continues untill today with the modern day crusader and zionist campaighn against the muslim and Islam, under the slogan of war on terror. They want to root out the Islam that was revealed tot the prophet (pbuh). They want the muslim ummah not to defend itself or its religion. They want an American Islam which will accept their occupation, bombarding, killing, plundering, raping etc. That's why the use Sheikh Anwar al Awlaki, Sheikh Osama bin Laden and others as symbols to attack muslim countries like Afghanistan, Irak, Somalia, Yemen, to root out the remnants of the real Islam (shariah) and subjugate the muslims, occupy their countries. Just like the Qurash would attack the first islamic state in Medina. Their real enemy is Islam and muslims, especially those muslims who want to speak the truth against these tyrants and expose their evil and wicked plans and deeds. They want to silence first of all those outspoken muslims, by assassinating them and their characters and then collectively punnishing the whole population, so that a distance is created between the mujahideen (defenders of the ummah) and the laymen. They do this in Israel, Pakistan, Somalia, everywhere. But they don't realise that the ordinary muslims support the mujahideen and people like Anwar al Awlaki and they will fill their ranks if some of them become martyrs, this is also happening in Afghanistan. So the more they repress the ordinary people and bombard their villages, the more people will join the mujahideen and in that way the revival of the ummah will speed up, inshallah in the near future all those forces in different parts of the globe will be united and the khilafah can be established and Al-Quds will be liberated. As far as the munafiqs and those people who have chose the side of the kufar are concerned, they will be humiliated in this world and face a tormenting punnishment in the hereafter inshallah. Most likely they will in the long run be deported or killed in the western countries by the same governments and people that they now support, just like what happened with the muslims of Al-Andalus (former Spain).

^I know.

The point is that people like Awlaki are either willing or unwilling pawns who can't see beyond their own egos. Mr. Awlaki is nothing but a pretext to invade and subdue another Muslim region, a good one at that. Their underwear, shoe, thong, and bikini bombs can't protect Muslims if that's what they think. You have to weigh out the pros and cons of the conflict. What damage has the "enemies" of Islam acquired because of Sep.11, or for that matter from any Jihad? All we see is that the condition of Muslims is deplorable. On one hand Muslims argue that Muslims can't be behind such attacks, yet on other hand you have men like Osama, Awlaki, condoning them, giving justification to the persecution of the Muslim masses in result of it. It is like they purposefully wish to instigate the subjugation of the Muslims just so their dreams can materialize. At the expense of who? The ordinary and average Muslim woman and child.

Any true, genuine, sincere Muslim will consider the safety of another Muslim, particularly MILLIONS OF THEM like Iraq or Afghanistan. But that's not what we see, they continuously fan the fire and most often twisting scripture. So it begs to question whose interest are they really working for.

All you need is a charismatic shepherd into leading the sheep to the butchery.

[Maiwand]

^I know.

The point is that people like Awlaki are either willing or unwilling pawns who can't see beyond their own egos. Mr. Awlaki is nothing but a pretext to invade and subdue another Muslim region, a good one at that. Their underwear, shoe, thong, and bikini bombs can't protect Muslims if that's what they think. You have to weigh out the pros and cons of the conflict. What damage has the "enemies" of Islam acquired because of Sep.11, or for that matter from any Jihad? All we see is that the condition of Muslims is deplorable. On one hand Muslims argue that Muslims can't be behind such attacks, yet on other hand you have men like Osama, Awlaki, condoning them, giving justification to the persecution of the Muslim masses in result of it. It is like they purposefully wish to instigate the subjugation of the Muslims just so their dreams can materialize. At the expense of who? The ordinary and average Muslim woman and child.

Any true, genuine, sincere Muslim will consider the safety of another Muslim, particularly MILLIONS OF THEM like Iraq or Afghanistan. But that's not what we see, they continuously fan the fire and most often twisting scripture. So it begs to question whose interest are they really working for.

All you need is a charismatic shepherd into leading the sheep to the butchery.

You don't undertand. What I wanted to make clear is that even when there wasn't Awlaki or Osama, America would still have attacked Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq and Yemen. They just don't want the independence of muslims and the application and implementation of shariah, because in that case "their interests" are at stake, in other words, they can't plunder the resources of those nations, can't subjugate the masses, will not rule by proxy through the puppets that they have installed etc.

In the time of the crusaders there was no Osama or Awlaki, when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan at that time they weren't attacked by Awlaki or Osama, in the seventy years of the wars that Israel is waging on the palestinians and lebanees people, there was no Osama or Awlaki, when they abbolished the Khilafah and afterwards colonised and killed the muslims on mass scale, there was no Awlaki or Osama. They just can't tolerate independent muslim nations who are sovereign and defend themselves, everyone who takes up arms against them or incites people against them, they will be branded as terrorists etc. and demonised in the media and by the politicians.

[Wrayun]

You don't undertand. What I wanted to make clear is that even when there wasn't Awlaki or Osama, America would still have attacked Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq and Yemen. They just don't want the independence of muslims and the application and implementation of shariah, because in that case "their interests" are at stake, in other words, they can't plunder the resources of those nations, can't subjugate the masses, will not rule by proxy through the puppets that they have installed etc.

In the time of the crusaders there was no Osama or Awlaki, when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan at that time they weren't attacked by Awlaki or Osama, in the seventy years of the wars that Israel is waging on the palestinians and lebanees people, there was no Osama or Awlaki, when they abbolished the Khilafah and afterwards colonised and killed the muslims on mass scale, there was no Awlaki or Osama. They just can't tolerate independent muslim nations who are sovereign and defend themselves, everyone who takes up arms against them or incites people against them, they will be branded as terrorists etc. and demonised in the media and by the politicians.

If Muslim countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia were going to be invaded regardless of the existence of Awlaki or Osama, it would then make sense to not propagate these men as custodians of Muslim resistance since they are used to justify those invasions to begin with. I'm not saying you do, but many Muslims do out of ignorance. My point is that people like Awlaki and Osama, are used to do just that, the point which you are stressing (invasions of Muslim countries). They provide the necessary pretexts. You are arguing that the intention is the invasion of Muslims, regardless whether they use Awlaki/Osama...okay. I am arguing that men like Awlaki and Osama are the tools which are used to materialize such intentions. Thus they should be curbed, not propagated or cheer leaded. You have to understand that if they have plans to invade Muslim nations, no mater what, they would need justifications.....who provides said justifications? Men like Awlaki/Osama.

Hope thats clear enough.

[Maiwand]

If Muslim countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia were going to be invaded regardless of the existence of Awlaki or Osama, it would then make sense to not propagate these men as custodians of Muslim resistance since they are used to justify those invasions to begin with. I'm not saying you do, but many Muslims do out of ignorance. My point is that people like Awlaki and Osama, are used to do just that, the point which you are stressing (invasions of Muslim countries). They provide the necessary pretexts. You are arguing that the intention is the invasion of Muslims, regardless whether they use Awlaki/Osama...okay. I am arguing that men like Awlaki and Osama are the tools which are used to materialize such intentions. Thus they should be curbed, not propagated or cheer leaded. You have to understand that if they have plans to invade Muslim nations, no mater what, they would need justifications.....who provides said justifications? Men like Awlaki/Osama.

Hope thats clear enough.

It's not at all difficult for them to make "justifications" based on false "intelligence reports" etc. They have the whole media in their hands, they can make white black and black white. Look for example how they have attacked Iraq on false pretexts and justification, based on Weapons of Mass Destruction reports and other lies made up by the Pentagon and repeated over and over again in the media. They could do the same for Afghanistan and other countries anyway, like liberation of the oppressed women etc.

My point is now that we all know that they want to attack muslim countries and uproot Islam and occupy those countries, we shouldn't sit idly by and do nothing. We need resistance to these injustices and fighters who take revenge. That's part of natural human laws. So you would get people like Anwar al Awaki, Osama bin Laden who incite the muslims to fight these tyrants etc. That's a natural reaction to this state terrorism and mass killings of muslims. Of course the kufaar would demonise those leaders and mujahideen who are at the forefront in the fight againsts these aggressors, they even demonise the prophet (pbuh) and make up all kinds of stories about him etc. So we should not blame the leaders of the innocents and the people who just defend themselves, we should blame the aggressors and those who started these injuctices and mass killings in the first place. We shouldn't fall in the trap of the kuffaar and think that it is the fault of the people who have taken up arms to defend themselves, their religion, their country, honour and dignity. But I guess the majority of the people are indeed like sheeps, they are daily brainwashed and indoctrinated by the mass media and then they go and repeat that nonsense on forums and in public.

[Wrayun]

The irony is that the invasion of Iraq wouldn't have been possible without the Sep.11 attacks, the parading of Osama on TV, his speeches, and the so-called Al-Qaeda "connection" to Saddam. You see, pretexts and tools. If they had brought up those false intelligence reports in any other scenario instead of right after Sep.11 attacks on America, the outcome would have been much different.

Saddam was a thug, and a zealot machismo fool like many fundies, not a diplomat. Gungho on his ego and idiocy he never saw it coming. His downfall happened because he lacked diplomacy. If he didn't have WMD's, he should have allowed inspections. In this case, Iran is a smarter player, they know politics. Though sometimes I wonder if Ahmadinejad is a tool as well (his rhetorical speeches are self-defeating).

Anyways....

[Maiwand]

The irony is that the invasion of Iraq wouldn't have been possible without the Sep.11 attacks, the parading of Osama on TV, his speeches, and the so-called Al-Qaeda "connection" to Saddam. You see, pretexts and tools. If they had brought up those false intelligence reports in any other scenario instead of right after Sep.11 attacks on America, the outcome would have been much different.

Saddam was a thug, and a zealot machismo fool like many fundies, not a diplomat. Gungho on his ego and idiocy he never saw it coming. His downfall happened because he lacked diplomacy. If he didn't have WMD's, he should have allowed inspections. In this case, Iran is a smarter player, they know politics. Though sometimes I wonder if Ahmadinejad is a tool as well (his rhetorical speeches are self-defeating).

Anyways....

They would hae attacked Iraq anyway, it had nothing to do with september 11th. Before that time, they had attacked it in the Gulf War and stationed their troops in Saudi Arabia, that had nothing to do with Osama. In 1993 they have attacked Somalia, that had nothing to do with Osama. In the Balkan wars in the nineties they have attacked Bosnia, under the watchful eye of the UN more than 8000 muslims were butchered. After that they threatened the Taliban regime after the Unocal deal was not accepted by the Taliban, they threatened that they would carpet bomb Afghanistan. In the mean time they have supported the French massacre of Algerians, the Israeli massacre of Palestinians and Libanese, the Russian massacre of Chechens, the Philipine and Thai massacre of their muslims. They have supported the puppets and dictators in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Jordan to suppress the muslims in those countries and plunder their resources. They have supported the Indian massacre of Kashmini muslims. All those things had absolutely nothing to do with Osama.

By the way Saddam did allow inspections, the former inspectors Hans Blix said many times that Iraq didn't have WMD. But who cares, now after 7 years, we heard from the recent Wikileaks, that more than 100.000 Iraqi muslims were massacres, many tortured, imprisoned, raped, who cares about them anyway? Are the culprits brought to justice? Indeed the muslim blood is very cheap in their eyes. Muslims have no human rights in their eyes and that has definetely nothing to do with Osama. That is just in the nature of kaafirs, they can tolerate everything except for Islam and muslims, they can tolerate homosexuals, rapists, killers, pedophiles, but they will never tolerate believers. This conflict between belief and unbelief didn't started after september 11th, only their ugly faces and true wicked intentions have been exposed.

[unknownprince]

They would hae attacked Iraq anyway, it had nothing to do with september 11th. Before that time, they had attacked it in the Gulf War and stationed their troops in Saudi Arabia, that had nothing to do with Osama. In 1993 they have attacked Somalia, that had nothing to do with Osama. In the Balkan wars in the nineties they have attacked Bosnia, under the watchful eye of the UN more than 8000 muslims were butchered. After that they threatened the Taliban regime after the Unocal deal was not accepted by the Taliban, they threatened that they would carpet bomb Afghanistan. In the mean time they have supported the French massacre of Algerians, the Israeli massacre of Palestinians and Libanese, the Russian massacre of Chechens, the Philipine and Thai massacre of their muslims. They have supported the puppets and dictators in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Jordan to suppress the muslims in those countries and plunder their resources. They have supported the Indian massacre of Kashmini muslims. All those things had absolutely nothing to do with Osama.

By the way Saddam did allow inspections, the former inspectors Hans Blix said many times that Iraq didn't have WMD. But who cares, now after 7 years, we heard from the recent Wikileaks, that more than 100.000 Iraqi muslims were massacres, many tortured, imprisoned, raped, who cares about them anyway? Are the culprits brought to justice? Indeed the muslim blood is very cheap in their eyes. Muslims have no human rights in their eyes and that has definetely nothing to do with Osama. That is just in the nature of kaafirs, they can tolerate everything except for Islam and muslims, they can tolerate homosexuals, rapists, killers, pedophiles, but they will never tolerate believers. This conflict between belief and unbelief didn't started after september 11th, only their ugly faces and true wicked intentions have been exposed.

These two paragraphs^^^ sum up how I feel about everything related to the ongoing suffering of Muslim. This war began way before 9/11. This war against Islam started in 1924 when Ataturk dissolved the Khilafa. Im pretty sure this is how everyone else feels, but does not know yet how to express their feelings. I remember back in 2003 when Iraq war began, this is how I felt.

[Maiwand]

Inshallah, victory is near:

[Catya Sher]

Inshallah!

Good going, you two guys, also Khushal made some good points. I had missed out on the discussion but am starting to catch up. Will reply later. Will get the videos by the weekend.
EEK about how they already are starting to take them off. I better hurry!