Steve Dirickson wrote:


> > If McVeigh said he was fighting to make New York State
> > independent, he would
> > have been known as a New York terrorist.  Bin Laden's stated
> > motivation is
> > based in Islam, so it is quite proper he is known as an
> > Islamic terrorist.
>
> No, it isn't, and no, he isn't. His *excuse* relies on twisting,
> misrepresenting, and manipulating Islam-like concepts to try to convince
the
> uncritical that there is a theological basis for his actions. As has been
> noted multiple times, his actions are specifically and directly in
violation
> of Islam law and custom.
[...]
> "On his own authority". What "authority"? Is he recognized as an Islam
> religious leader? If he is such a well-versed Muslim scholar, why are
Islam
> authorities of every stripe disavowing his actions as directly in
violation
> of Islam as they know it?
>
> This isn't the first time terrorism has tried to wrap itself in the robe
of
> religion, and it certainly won't be the last. But saying it doesn't make
it
> so. And it's important to keep the actions of the madman separate from his
> claimed authority, both to avoid providing him undeserved legitimacy and
to
> avoid tarring true followers of the hijacked faith with the same soiled
> brush.

I'm not saying that all or even most Muslims agree with him, but that does
not mean that his motivations are other than religious.  I found the
complete text of the fatwah at  http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm
It was signed by:
"Sheikh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin; Ayman al-Zawahiri, leader of the
Jihad Group in Egypt; Abu- Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, a leader of the Islamic
Group; Sheikh Mir Hamzah, secretary of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan; and
Fazlul Rahman, leader of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh"

What do these people have in common except Islam?  It's nice that most
Muslim leaders have denounced the attacks, but perhaps you've noticed that
members of a religion don't always agree.  Sometimes they even go to war
with each other over religious interpretations.  What do you think the
motivations of bin Laden are?  What motivated the 19 people who were willing
to die to carry out the attack or the dozens--perhaps hundreds--of people
who assisted them?

It may be satisfying to call bin Laden a "madman", but that doesn't really
help us understand how to combat the problem.  Likewise, some--including the
President--have called the terrorists "cowardly"!  That's something I don't
understand at all.  Same with "bullies".

By calling bin Laden an "Islamic terrorist", I am _not_ implying that all or
most Muslims are terrorists. And "legitimacy" has nothing to do with it.
The attacks are not any more or less legitimate whether nationalism,
religion, or profit were the motive.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *