Canadian police prevent terrorist attack in Ontario

[CptStern]

Muslim men are allowed to have jewish and christian wives.

As far as I'm concern, it doesn't really matter if they used Islam as an excuse or if they really believed that they were doing God a favour or something, they've been caught now, and that's what's most important.


“There are no atheists in foxholes" isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes”

no, finding out why they planned to do it and preventing it from happening again is most important. If you ignore the "why" you're allowing the same set circumstances to breed once more

 

[Ome_Vince]

nice try but please stop twisting words and changing what was said ..it's clear what I meant and it's also clear what you meant ..you said they were religious fanatics and I said they werent (with evidence to back it up) ..now you're trying to change it to mean something else all together.

btw, a nice expresso before starting the day gives me a morale boost, so does taking a dump under the right conditions ...so saying that they used the term "Allah Ackbar" for a morale boost is pretty much a given but it wasnt what we were discussing



who were they trying to indoctrinate seconds before they slammed into the side of a building?

and I cant give you an opinion because they're dead so I cant examine their psychological state of mind ...I'm surprised you'd even ask that ..specifically as I dont see how that relates to whether they were religious fanatics or not

Here ya go, the first post where i stated what i thought:

..which imo proves that the religious aspect was a main motivation to actually carry the act through (like some sort of sick moral support)..

This is the sentence in the first post where i discussed Islam was used as some sick morale support to actually carry the act through.

I discussed the religious morale boost in every post i made, and the arguments you mentioned about them visiting strip clubs i simply countered explaining how even the most religious people are hypocrits and screw around.

The discussion was about their motives, and i simply stated Islam was used as main morale support, and that you can read it from their own words.
You're assumptions filled in the rest.

 

[CptStern]

Here ya go, the first post where i stated what i thought:



This is the sentence in the first post where i discussed Islam was used as some sick morale support to actually carry the act through.

I discussed the religious morale boost in every post i made, and the arguments you mentioned about them visiting strip clubs i simply countered explaining how even the most religious people are hypocrits and screw around.

The discussion was about their motives, and i simply stated Islam was used as main morale support, and that you can read it from their own words.
You're assumptions filled in the rest.

why does every debate with you devolve into a one sided debate about the meaning of words?

I can bold sentences too:

..which imo proves that the religious aspect was a main motivation to actually carry the act through (like some sort of sick moral support)..

this sentence is open to interpretation because the evidence is hardly ironclad:

like some sort of sick moral support

this sentence isnt, it means what it means:

which imo proves that the religious aspect

now can we move onto something else or will we continue nitpicking this point to death?

 

[Ome_Vince]

Because you assume to much. It always takes me pages back to show you the initial post. Which.. here it is:

On top of that there are cockpit recordings in which in the transcripts you can read they yelled "Allah Ackbar Allah Ackbar"(allah is the greatest), which imo proves that the religious aspect was a main motivation to actually carry the act through (like some sort of sick moral support).

From that sentence you can see i'm saying i believe the fact that they yelled Allah Ackbar before commiting the terrorist act clearly indicates a religious aspect was a main motivation/morale support for the terrorists to actually carry the act through.

How can this sentence mean anything else???

 

[Solaris]

Because you assume to much. It always takes me pages back to show you the initial post. Which.. here it is:



From that sentence you can see i'm saying i believe the fact that they yelled Allah Ackbar before commiting the terrorist act clearly indicates a religious aspect was a main motivation/morale support for the terrorists to actually carry the act through.

What I said.

Ever see in war films where people say "God help me" before doing something dangerous? Maybe they no they're going to die, and are so praising god with their last words so they go to heaven?

 

[CptStern]

Because you assume to much. It always takes me pages back to show you the initial post. Which.. here it is:



From that sentence you can see i'm saying i believe the fact that they yelled Allah Ackbar before commiting the terrorist act clearly indicates a religious aspect was a main motivation/morale support for the terrorists to actually carry the act through.

How can this sentence mean anything else???

main motivation and morale support are 2 distinctly different things ..I say "dear god" or "omg" or "for god's sakes" ...no one would ever argue that I'm religious

sorry but in this instance you're wrong ..yelling "Allah Ackbar" is not evidence that religion was their main motivating factor as you suggest ...I'm willing to concede that perhaps it could have been a morale boost but that's not the same as saying it was their main motivator

 

[Ome_Vince]

An interesting point Solaris, although i think the situation differs. The difference is "scared of death but the situation is not in your hands", and "sacrificing yourself for a cause = you control the situation".

@Stern,
Yet when i mention its their main motivation to actually carry the act through, like some sort of sick morale support (that all 1 on sentence), you take a few words out of their context...

I also doubt you can compare "Dear God" with "Allah is the Greatest"....

 

[CptStern]

An interesting point Solaris, although i think the situation differs. The difference is "scared of death but the situation is not in your hands", and "sacrificing yourself for a cause = you control the situation".

@Stern,
Yet when i mention its their main motivation to actually carry the act through, like some sort of sick morale support (that all 1 on sentence), you take a few words out of their context...

I also doubt you can compare "Dear God" with "Allah is the Greatest"....

I took words out of context? please explain how this can possibly mean something else:

which imo proves that the religious aspect

allah means "god" ..so it's "god is the greatest"

Allah Akbar means a lot of things

This phrase is recited by Muslims in numerous different situations. For example, when they are happy or wish to express approval, when an animal is slaughtered in a halāl fashion, when they want to praise a speaker, during battles, and even times of extreme stress or euphoria.

The phrase is said during each stage of both obligatory prayers, which are supposed to be performed five times a day, and superogatory prayers, which are performed at will. The Muslim call to prayer, or adhan, and to commence the prayer, or iqama, also contains the phrase, which is heard in cities all over the Muslim world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allahu_Akbar#Definition_and_grammar

so it's quite common and isnt evidence of fanaticism (in itself)

 

[Ome_Vince]

Hmm, interesting find on wiki about Mohammed Atta:

While in Germany, Atta became more and more religious, especially after a pilgrimage to Mecca in 1995. A German terrorist of Syrian origin, Mohammed Haydar Zammar, claims he met Atta at this time and recruited him into al-Qaeda. Atta started attending an Islamic prayer group at the university, and is thought to have recruited for fundamentalist causes there. Other students remember him making strident anti-American and anti-Semitic statements. That year he also made an unconditional loan of $25,000 to help Muharrem Acar start up a Turkish bakery.

In a visit home to Egypt in 1998, his former friends noticed that he had become much more of a religious fundamentalist than he had been before.

SOURCE

I wonder if the American foreign policy + Israel are the reasons Mohammed turned radical.

EDIT
@Stern
Because your only quoting the first few words = taking stuff out of context. Simple as that.
Take the entire sentence please

 

[CptStern]

I did take it in context ..it says what it says

you said it was the main motivation

 

[K e r b e r o s]

erestheux's Ben affleck analogy works (lol at Affleck and acting in the same sentence), yours doesnt

btw it's the mona lisa, not De



btw some of you may not realise that I live in the vicinity of the groups target

I'll return to the batcave to solve my analogies. You also have my sympathy CptStern, and I'm glad what things they were planning were'nt carried out. Glad your still here.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Wow I just skimmed past page 6 but I haven't read the thread. What the hell could there possibly be to argue about in this thread? If anything I thought most of the responses would be "Hooray" etc.

I'll come back and edit this with a reply later when I see what you guys are bickering about.

edit: It's fairly surprising anyone could try to claim this isn't religious fanatacisism. It's the same mindset that these groups like the Westborough Baptists Church have (the ones that protest soldier's funerals)

They're batshit insane and need to be eliminated because they're so far beyond any rehabilitation to a normal state of mind.

 

[Ome_Vince]

I did take it in context ..it says what it says

you said it was the main motivation

omg.
Allright Stern, here you go:

I took the liberty to analyse those words with Dictionary.com's help (yes its sad but with Stern you have to do this stuff):

Motivation: Something that motivates; an inducement or incentive.
Moral Support: Emotional or psychological backing

Now if you analyse the sentence you'll see i'm refering to religious aspects being their main motivation to actually carry the act through, with in that same sentence (in brackets) a further explanation: "as some sort of sick moral support".

Sorry Stern, but you're simply wrong. Now stop quoting the first few words taking it out of context.

Also, about the religious support for the hijackers (note i'm not refering to the reasons or actual motives for the planned attack).
Bin Laden declared a Holy War and a Fatwa against the americans. You can see he's trying to load his political claim with a religious depth, in the hopes "fellow muslims" will follow his radical views.

Its clear the ones who actually have to carry the act through are brainwashed and are given a religious moral support to carry the act through on top of the attack's "reasons".

Mohammed Atta (Leader Terrorist) is described by his former Egyptian friends as becoming more of a religious fundementalist than he was before, when they met him in 1998 (years before the attack..).
Also in his lugage arabic documents which were later found, the other terrorists had copies, containing texts like: "because the time between you and your marriage in heaven is very short,"
All these hints and much more link that the political reasons are morally being supported by religious aspects.

The more i read through the profiles and history of the other hijackers the more "religious fundementalism" pops up, radical mosque's and imams etc.
These werent your average islamic chaps, these were indoctrinated fundementalists, who may have started out normal once.

The motives for the attack all seem to point at America's foreign policy vs muslim countries and its support for Israel. That we all know. The attacks were not to "kill the infidel" or "convert to islam". Its a simple response to the US foreign policy.

The only hijackers who's story is different, and is probably the one Mr Stern is refering to is Ziad Jarrah who had a Turkish girlfriend, drank beer and seemed western (not fundementalist).
Though others claim he actually was, there is no clear answer here.

What we do know is that Mohammed Atta had lots of trouble with Jarrah, and rumors go he was training somebody else to replace him, or cancel the attack.

Also, "Allah Ackbar" (God is great) has a different meaning depending on who says it and when it is said.
If i yell "Allah Ackbar" during a wedding, yes, but having a fundementalist background, and yelling "Allah Ackbar" before crashing a plane in a suicide attack i doubt has a very "cheerful" harmless meening...

So now that we know the hijckers had religious/fundementalist views/backgrounds, including their leader Bin Laden calling for a holy war, am i now right to think that them yelling "Allah Ackbar" before killing thousands in a suicide attack, indicates religious aspects were the hijackers main motivation to actually carry the act through (like some sort of sick moral support)?

If needed i'll start quoting more sources and backgrounds on the hijackers, i just dont have time right now. Let me know and i'll start copy pasting stuff in later on.
:smoking:

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Hold up Stern, the terrorists acted like average happy people as part of their cover.

All this talk about how religious extremism wasn't a factor sounds distinctly conspiracy-theorish.

 

[CptStern]

omg.
Allright Stern, here you go:

I took the liberty to analyse those words with Dictionary.com's help (yes its sad but with Stern you have to do this stuff):

Motivation: Something that motivates; an inducement or incentive.
Moral Support: Emotional or psychological backing

Now if you analyse the sentence you'll see i'm refering to religious aspects being their main motivation to actually carry the act through, with in that same sentence (in brackets) a further explanation: "as some sort of sick moral support".

Sorry Stern, but you're simply wrong. Now stop quoting the first few words taking it out of context.

Also, about the religious support for the hijackers (note i'm not refering to the reasons or actual motives for the planned attack).
Bin Laden declared a Holy War and a Fatwa against the americans. You can see he's trying to load his political claim with a religious depth, in the hopes "fellow muslims" will follow his radical views.

Its clear the ones who actually have to carry the act through are brainwashed and are given a religious moral support to carry the act through on top of the attack's "reasons".

Mohammed Atta (Leader Terrorist) is described by his former Egyptian friends as becoming more of a religious fundementalist than he was before, when they met him in 1998 (years before the attack..).
Also in his lugage arabic documents which were later found, the other terrorists had copies, containing texts like: "because the time between you and your marriage in heaven is very short,"
All these hints and much more link that the political reasons are morally being supported by religious aspects.

The more i read through the profiles and history of the other hijackers the more "religious fundementalism" pops up, radical mosque's and imams etc.
These werent your average islamic chaps, these were indoctrinated fundementalists, who may have started out normal once.

The motives for the attack all seem to point at America's foreign policy vs muslim countries and its support for Israel. That we all know. The attacks were not to "kill the infidel" or "convert to islam". Its a simple response to the US foreign policy.

The only hijackers who's story is different, and is probably the one Mr Stern is refering to is Ziad Jarrah who had a Turkish girlfriend, drank beer and seemed western (not fundementalist).
Though others claim he actually was, there is no clear answer here.

What we do know is that Mohammed Atta had lots of trouble with Jarrah, and rumors go he was training somebody else to replace him, or cancel the attack.

Also, "Allah Ackbar" (God is great) has a different meaning depending on who says it and when it is said.
If i yell "Allah Ackbar" during a wedding, yes, but having a fundementalist background, and yelling "Allah Ackbar" before crashing a plane in a suicide attack i doubt has a very "cheerful" harmless meening...

So now that we know the hijckers had religious/fundementalist views/backgrounds, including their leader Bin Laden calling for a holy war, am i now right to think that them yelling "Allah Ackbar" before killing thousands in a suicide attack, indicates religious aspects were the hijackers main motivation to actually carry the act through (like some sort of sick moral support)?

If needed i'll start quoting more sources and backgrounds on the hijackers, i just dont have time right now. Let me know and i'll start copy pasting stuff in later on.
:smoking:

you prove my point and contradict yourself when you say this:

The motives for the attack all seem to point at America's foreign policy vs muslim countries and its support for Israel. That we all know. The attacks were not to "kill the infidel" or "convert to islam". Its a simple response to the US foreign policy.

that what I was saying from the very beginning ..I did not say that religion played no part in this ..you said it was the main justification, I said it wasnt (I've always maintained it was a number of reasons, primarily US foreign policy) ..end of story. Can we please move along?

 

[Ome_Vince]

you prove my point and contradict yourself when you say this:

that what I was saying from the very beginning ..I did not say that religion played no part in this ..you said it was the main justification, I said it wasnt (I've always maintained it was a number of reasons, primarily US foreign policy) ..end of story. Can we please move along?

I NEVER said it was their main justification. Where? Which post did i say that? Post it.
I always referred to their religion being used as their main motivation/moral support to actually carry the act through (like some sort of sick moral support). There's a world of difference there.
I knew the reasons for the 9/11 attack, Bin Laden wasnt to shy as to explain this over the years that followed.

Now drop the case, for we clearly agree on the issue, yet you seem to have illusions of what i think based on fictive posts i never made.

 

[CptStern]

I NEVER said it was their main justification. Where? Which post did i say that? Post it.

maybe I'm just imagining things:

..which imo proves that the religious aspect was a main motivation to actually carry the act through

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=1913008&postcount=54

 

[Ome_Vince]

Yes you are imagining things, or more importantly, you are twisting things.
The REAL sentence is:

On top of that there are cockpit recordings in which in the transcripts you can read they yelled "Allah Ackbar Allah Ackbar"(allah is the greatest), which imo proves that the religious aspect was a main motivation to actually carry the act through (like some sort of sick moral support).

Nice try to "strategically" edit the sentence leaving out the important parts explaining the meening of the sentence.

On top of that last time i checked motivation and justification were different things Stern (and thats leaving out the moral support which i mentioned in the same sentence)

 

[CptStern]

it doesnt matter that I only copied half the sentence ..the other half is not a quantifier to the first half ..it does nothing to clarify your statement

your sentence says exactly what it means

"which imo proves that the religious aspect was a main motivation to actually carry the act through (like some sort of sick moral support)."

this is the only part of this sentence that matters when discussing what you meant:

"which imo proves that the religious aspect was a main motivation"


seriously I cant see how it could be any more apparent





look, you could have easily said something like "maybe I should clarify and say that I actually meant this" ...instead you've spent pages denying you said what is painfully obvious for all to see ...bear with me here

quantifying words:

imo
proves
main motivation

there is no other implication in your statement, no eluding to other motivations etc ..you specifically say "main motivation"

like you said "motivation" = "justification"


really Vince this is hardly surprising because every single one of our "debates" ends like this ...funny how I only have that problem with you and one other person on this board

 

[Ome_Vince]

it doesnt matter that I only copied half the sentence ..the other half is not a quantifier to the first half ..it does nothing to clarify your statement

your sentence says exactly what it means

"which imo proves that the religious aspect was a main motivation to actually carry the act through (like some sort of sick moral support)."

this is the only part of this sentence that matters when discussing what you meant:

"which imo proves that the religious aspect was a main motivation"


seriously I cant see how it could be any more apparent





look, you could have easily said something like "maybe I should clarify and say that I actually meant this" ...instead you've spent pages denying you said what is painfully obvious for all to see ...bear with me here

quantifying words:

imo
proves
main motivation

there is no other implication in your statement, no eluding to other motivations etc ..you specifically say "main motivation"

like you said "motivation" = "justification"


really Vince this is hardly surprising because every single one of our "debates" ends like this ...funny how I only have that problem with you and one other person on this board

o..m...g...
So you take the first part of a sentence cutting off the rest including a clarifying piece in brackets (clarifying the meening) and then base the meening of the entire sentence on that? LOL
"Main motivation to actually carry the act through (like some sort of sick moral support)". THATS WHAT I SAID and stop cutting out stuff which "you think is not relevant".

You simply cant do that stern, your simply reading it wrong. And i spend posts after that debating if they were religious fundementalists, which you denied with your "beers and non-muslim girlfriends" argument.

THATS what the discussion was about. NOT about the reasons behind 9/11 Stern..
Jeez, indeed its not surprising since i ONLY have this problem with you, and with nobody else on none of the other forums i visit.

You are the only person i know who cuts up posts and sentences of other people asuming you know the meening and then hammering on that.

 

[CptStern]

sigh I dont see how adding "like some sick morale support" adds/changes anything ..it actually supports your notion that it was the main motivation



but I'm really tired of revisiting the same idiotic sentence over and over again ...say/believe what you will but my involvement in this line of discussion has come to an end ..it's clear you will not concede to anything so continuing this line of reasoning is completely pointless

 

[Ome_Vince]

Because that part explains the first part as it being some sick morale support.
I'm also sick of this, and have loads of stuff to do, so i suggest we drop this....

 

[jverne]

sigh I dont see how adding "like some sick morale support" adds/changes anything ..it actually supports your notion that it was the main motivation

yep, i agree, it just adds it up.

and Ome...the last part doesn't explain the first...it's in brackets, which mean it is sub-important.
if it does explain...then you're just contradicting yourself!

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Hold up Stern, the terrorists acted like average happy people as part of their cover.

Well, would'nt have acting like a bunch of average mad terrorists have blown they're cover much earlier?

 

[Ome_Vince]

yep, i agree, it just adds it up.

and Ome...the last part doesn't explain the first...it's in brackets, which mean it is sub-important.
if it does explain...then you're just contradicting yourself!

Grammar definition of a bracket:

Brackets are marks used in writing to separate additional information from the main information in a sentence.

In this case the brackets provided additional information to the main information in the sentence.
Now about that main information:

Now, lets compare Moral support with Motivation

How would i be contradicting myself if the simple meaning of the words are:
Moral support: Emotional or psychological backing,
Motivation: Something that motivates; an inducement or incentive

, and i put them both in 1 sentence relating to their religion...


I think religion was one of the main pieces of motivation to actually carry the act through (yes, here we go again -> like some sort of sick indoctrinated moral support of martyrdom).

The cockpit messages + Bin Laden's own words + the backgrounds of the hijackers + the hijackers own written words all seem to confirm this.

The actual reasons for 9/11 are the US's foreign policy, its apparantly offensive bases (somewhere i forgot the name) in the Middle-East, its support to dictators in the middle-east to destabalise muslim nations and above all its support for Israel.

Now i hope this solves/explains the matter.

 

[pvtbones]

perhaps this thread should be locked, Stern and Ome are going to argue until the cows come home.