No he’s not. He has been asked several times what his point is and has simply continued railing against (some ill-defined segment of) Islam. The point of challenging his use of the term fatwa is to demonstrate the ignorance of Islam (along with the ignorance of history) with which he opened this latest campaign of hatred against Muslims.
It was clear to me what he meant in a general sense as well and I wasn’t snotty ( unless you consider the ‘inflammatory’ comment snotty, in which case I simply disagree ). But he was incorrect in his usage to the point where it made him sound ignorant. I thought a correction was perfectly in line, both for his sake and the board.
I, at least, did not do any hammering. I think you are being a little oversenstive Sam.
Maybe I’m just incredibly stupid, but I didn’t draw that conclusion. I thought he was confusing the word ‘jihad’ with ‘fatwa’.
Of the ones we don’t know for sure? I don’t know, since we don’t know for sure. However, although I can imagine a weak network of linkage between say the Chechen rebels and ObL ( some suppoosedly trained in his camps ), I don’t think many, if any, take orders from al-Qaida. Same for terrorists in Kashmir. Or Algeria. etc. As tom pointed out a diffuse structural linkage there may be ( or not ), but a strong command linkage is extremely doubtful. Remember until recently ObL was more a funding source and a facilitator.
Outside his narrow circle of true believers? I don’t think so. But I freely admit this is my impression only. For one thing ObL is very arguably not qualified to issue a fatwa at all, though some of his associates are. But it’s not like he has enormous theological standing in the Muslim community.
Personally I’m of the opinion that there is little evidence to form an opinion one way or another. If it turns out he was recruited by some al-Qaida cell it won’t at all shock me. It also won’t surprise me if he is just a free-lance nut. Either way, so what?
We already know al-Qaida and its ideologues are a threat. Crush them, I say. If we find a strong linkage in Bali, pursue it for all it’s worth. But I happen to think december’s apparent hypothesis that all Islam-centered violence in the world stems from a single over-arching source ( i.e. ObL and his fatwa ) to be based on very flimsy evidence indeed. Like none at all. What in the world do Muslim guerillas engaged in a death match with India over Kashmir ( or for that matter Muslim peasants indulging in tit-for-tat killings with Hindus in Gujarat ) have to do with ObL’s anti-Americanism? Are the Chechens mad at the Russians because they are American allies? Give me a break - it’s overreaching paranoia that is drifting into the realm of conspiracy theory. I am not an Islamophilic apologist and pacifist ( despite perhaps the opinions of some 
), but c’mon, a little perspective is called for.
More like 50 in the 19th century ;). Plus years of fighting in the 1780’s conquest. And they completely expelled the Russians during the first takeover attempt in 1722. Tough buggers.
- Tamerlane
I have not seen the same Muslims “go ballistic” over “crusade” while calling for jihad. For this discussion I will accept, for the moment, the not entirely historical use of jihad to mean religious war (for which I will hold various Muslim fanatics responsible since they are the ones who used it, if incorrectly, first).
However, the idiots who are calling for jihad are about on a par with Robertson and Falwell (and, apparently, december), choosing to identify everyone of the other faith as “bad.”
The reason that there was an outcry when Dubya tripped over the word crusade was that he had already received the condolences (and public offers of assistance) from many Muslim leaders, and he chose to use the word that specifically began by meaning “let’s go kill those Muslims and take their property.”
As I said, the souce of Islamic terrorism may well rrelate to culture. We haven’t seen the Pope issue an encyclical calling for the killing of all heathans or the Rabbi of Chelm call for murder all the goyim. Such a thing would be unthinkable in those religions. Granted, Christianity took a different POV during the Crusades and during the Spanish Inquisition, but not today.
BTW the OP’s theme is explained by columnist Mark Steyn, master of sarcastic humor.
Could you tell me where December or anyone has identified everyone of the other faith as bad? I went back and re-read the OP again, and if the title wasn’t clear enough, in the same OP it stated only a “by a segment of Islam.”
JZ
The OP carefully said,
tomndebb, the fact that you overlooked what I actually wrote suggests that you may be like the people discussed in Mark Steyn’s cied article.
Bullshit. December is engaging in his usual drooling idiocy linking unrelated issues in some vague conspiracy mongering, although I suppose it requires some vast optimism to hope that you might be able to discern that, however dimly.
Indeed we do, as
(a) it hardly was clear to me
(b) it is harldy clear to me this great and wonderous ObL ‘fatwa’ is of any relevance at all to the majority of incidents listed.
Neither of these questions is knowable or answerable without a rigorous survey and definition of the incidents. As the majority of items listed clearly are not in any way related to the ObL fatwa -however much your ideological comic books like to get their ignorant diapers into a twisted knot over the infamous item.
Now as to this hysterical chicken little whinging:
(a) Last name only to Muhammed, and as (i) last name Muhammed and (ii) keeping Xian first names are highly unorthodox and as his general MO revolved around robberies and random murders, and his assitants to my reading of the news to date show no sign of being "Islamic Radicals"™ oh my oh fearful me, it doesn’t look terribly convincing.
I further note the sympathy expressions etc I have not seen as more than rumors. In any case, it strikes me as fitting the insance malcontent rather the Islamist angle.
Yes, his evidently equally mentally ill “son”
What? Suggests nothing of the sort, this is not an either or case Sammy boy, although your capacity to see bizarro world conspiracy connexions (e.g. in re the Sniper thread and your "theories in re the Vans and the poor Central American bastids who got busted at the phone) leads me to discount your capacity for rational analysis on this point.
The default assumption for you… well that really says it all actually. I’m sure if you could cook up an Iraq connexion you’d be even happier.
Rational analysis rather indicates it makes no sense as “Islamic terrorism” and rather makes more sense as one sick fucker with 2 accomplicies, all three bound up in some free floating hate of current society, one of whom John Allen Mohammed/Williams happened to sieze on some Nation of Islamesque quasi-Islam to express himself.
Because there is no such fucking evidence, because if one has but some familiarity with Islamist movements, nothing about this makes any fucking sense in that context, whereas the “twists” you claim are in fact the Occams razor explanation.
Bloody idiocy.
As for december’s last piece of … whatever regarding a comparision btw the Pope and ObL, I point out to december that the analogy exceeds even his normal levels of idiocy in analogy making as ObL is not even a trained theologian in Islamic terms - he’s just a corner preacher type issuing religious edicts in a religion where any dude, including newly converted december might do so.
I really wish that some of you would start buying a clue or two in re the subject of Islam and radicalism.
How would one describe this comment using Collounsbury’s style? What adjectives would be used?
Not being Collounsbury, I will merely characterize it as incomplete. Regardless of OBL’s standing in the religious heirarchy, he has enormous popularity throughout the Muslim world, as Collounsbury well knows. As evidence, there was a period last year when “Osama” was the most popular name for Muslim baby boys. E.g.
Furthermore, set aside the Pope. Collounsbury knows he could not identify any widely popular Christian leader who has demanded the killing of the entire populace of some country as well as all heathens. The very idea is ludicrous.
No. The fact that this is your fifty-third or seventy-seventh (or some similarly high number) factually inaccurate thread in which you paint Islam with broad strokes of hatred and then throw in some weasel words to let yourself an out suggests that you do not realize that your persistence on this topic tells us much more than your little hedging phrases. After several requests in this thread as to what your point might be, you have continued to post non sequiturs and this little gem:
You haven’t? “Jihad against the crusaders” pretty much sums up the attitude of radical Islam these days.
But how many “mujadeen” are there compared to how many Falwellites?
The reason that there was an outcry when Dubya tripped over the word crusade was that he had already received the condolences (and public offers of assistance) from many Muslim leaders, and he chose to use the word that specifically began by meaning “let’s go kill those Muslims and take their property.”
Tell that to Batman and Robin 
“crusade against terrorism”
vs
“jihad against America”
It should be simple enough to tell the meaning of both terms from the context.
If I were Bush I’d have said, “OK, fine. I’ll call for a ‘jihad’ against terrorism”.
Some of you are so blinded by your anti-December positions that if he said the sky was blue, you’d bash him. Sad.
Anyway, how many Roman Catholic or Jewish leaders are calling for the deaths of anyone? Hmm, exactly ZERO.
Yet, OBL, various Egyptian, Iranian, Ahfghani religious leaders HAVE called for the deaths of Jews, Americans, Infidels, take your pick.
Yep, Islam is a peaceful religion. I’ll take bullshit for $200, Alex.
Maybe this is just a phase that many religions go through, a phase in which the more extreme adherents get a bit unhinged.
While it’s not generally true today, Christianity has certainly gone through its “slaughter the infidels” periods. Can you say “Crusades?” Sure you can. Add to that the repeated incidents of witch-burning and inquisitions (everyone cites the Spanish Inquisition, but Torquemada was a sweetheart compared to the loonies in some other bastions of Christianity). Maybe Islam, being about 600 years younger than Christianity is, in some developmental way, about where Christianity was around 1400.
I’m not really familiar with the history of Judaism, but from my admittedly limited knowledge of the Bible, it seems that there was an awful lot of bloodletting taking place. Joshua didn’t politely ask for Jericho, did he?
Perhaps once the followers of a religion become more secure, less paranoid about their place in the world, they shake off the feeling that they need to either convert or kill everyone else in the world.
Of course, if they were all rational atheists, there’d be none of this mindless slaughter going on, now would there?
Oh, and december, haven’t you forgotten to mention all the support the Clinton White House provided to extremist Islamic fundamentalists? Please don’t disappoint us.
Right. We’d all be as peace-loving as Joseph Stalin.
I forget, when Anne Coulter suggested we (“we” being Americans, I suppose) should go to the Middle East and kill their leaders, what religion did she propose we forcibly convert them to?
Red herring? Ad Hominem and Non-Sequitor at best. Poor form either way. Try to keep coherent, it keeps people from thinking you’re a raving loon. Maybe you should check into stormfront if you’re going to discount people on basis of their national origin instead of actually addressing their point. We don’t do that here. **
Cite? And it better show large populations(at least high double-digits) in many(think double digits here as well, but the teens/twenties will do ) predominantly Muslim countries/communities. Otherwise this is ad hoc reasoning. You’re making the anti-American sentiment seem far greater than it acutally is. I’m not saying there isn’t anti-American sentiment, we’ve made our fair share of enemies, some for good reasons, some for bad, but I fail to see the outpouring of support for the fatwa OBL used to justify his activities that you seem to be so concerned about. In fact I’ve seen the opposite
Now I guess you’ll say these are not true Muslims in the same vein as my friend who wears briefs under his kilt is not a true Scotsman.
Please define what you mean by “the culture” here. I think you’ll have every bit as tough a time with this question as Sionnach had trying to define “White Culture”. Because if you’re trying to say this “culture” is a group we should be actively monitoring/working against, then you had better have a damn good way of identifying who, exactly, is and is not a member of this “culture”. “All Muslims” doesn’t even come close.
Enjoy,
Steven
Umm, I don’t think an OP which boils down to “Islam IS out to get us, I don’t care WHAT they say on the news” is quite on par with “the sky is blue” as far as obvious truths go. People taking issue with the veracity of his statement are also perfectly capable of taking issue with his attitude. One does not necessarially cause the other, although there seems to be strong correlation. Hmm, maybe because he ticks off both groups of people every time he posts stuff like this?**
And various Egyptian, Iranian, Syrian, Pakistani, too many nationalities to list, [Islamic]religious leaders HAVE DENOUNCED the calls for the deaths of Jews, Americans, Infidels, take your pick. Islam is, for the most part, a peaceful religion. But the existance of extremists causes people to think otherwise. Well, guess what, the existance of an ordained minister who runs godhatesfags.org makes Christianity look bad. Is Christianity a “culture” we should watch? After all, they produce people like these. Peaceful? Bullshit.
Approximately 20% of the world’s population is Muslim. With that as a given, here’s a statement on par with the obvious truth of “the sky is blue”. If Muslims were really accepting of OBL’s fatwa, we’d not be writing these pretty words. We’d be ducking bullets and trying to stay alive. WWIII is the least of what would happen if mainstream Islam supported OBL.
Enjoy,
Steven
Collounsbury: Hey, you ever heard of speculation, buddy? Don’t you like exploring various ideas, throwing out scenarios to the board and seeing if they can dissect it? I do. I do that quite a bit.
Here’s an example: I just saw a science report on TV of a new device researchers have called an ‘Ocean Glider’. It’s really cool. It’s basically a big long torpedo with wings. Its sole source of propulsion is a pump that pumps air into bouyancy tanks. It moves by gliding forwards as it sinks. Then it gets to a certain depth, blows up its bouyancy bladder, and glides on the way to the surface. When it gets to the surface, it take a GPS reading to find out where it is, and adjusts its course.
These things can cross an ocean on a battery. The really cool ones power themselves from the thermal difference between the surface and deep ocean, and can go anywhere in the world, for an indefinite time. The military and various scientific agencies want to have thousands of these things patrolling the oceans, measuring temperatures, tracking currents, listening for subs, etc.
So this got me thinking - this is a pretty stealthy way to get a nuke close enough to a major coastal city to take it out. These things are surprisingly low-tech - GPS and battery technology make them possible, and I’ll bet anyone with a large machine shop and some expertise could build one. It’d be easy for a government.
See? So now I’m just thinking about that, because it’s interesting speculation. That doesn’t mean I’m about to run out and scream to have the oceans scoured for gliding bombs.
…or they could always train dolphins and porpoises with bombs strapped on their backs. Hope I’m not giving ideas to the enemy.
samclem: That was a bad movie ;).
- Tamerlane
The Navy and dolphins. Read the history, declassified of course.
Oh, nutty Muslims, they are starting to piss me off. One question: how many “lone nuts” doing roughly the same thing does a movement make?