Japanese parliament questions 9-11 "truth"

[Colonel_here]

Why haven't Middle East united as one front and rose up, because there are no leaders there that could unite. Any leader like that is usually removed before he can accomplish that. Naser in Egypt had the dream of Arabic State. Saddam Hussein wanted to see Iraq as a strong regional power. Even the Iranians right now want to put themselves as regional power and still share the dream of the Shah to have the strong army and a fleet that will patrol Indian Ocean. Any of these developments are dangerous to the western world and many other nations as they would put a large supply of oil in the hands of one nation making it easier to cut off and control the price off. Thus making the likelihood of the oil crisis of 1970s higher, something that no one wants to reappear. This theory is based on what I read from Robert Cooper's book Breaking of Nations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cooper_(diplomat)
With the regards to the third building in 9/11, I am not an engineer but I believe that the fall of two building next to it would produce enough shock for the other one to fall. As for the financial speculations, well puts and calls are bought everyday as they are used to hedge risk so just because there were puts sold during those days does not mean any advanced knowledge, it means regular financial activity was happening as any other day.
I would also imagine that skyscrapers are built with the regards to pose least hazard to the city if they hit by an airplane, since there are chances of that happening without terrorists. There was a plane crash into Empire State Building in 1940s.
Terrorists tactics could be summarized as such they want all western influence out and so will keep attacks up until the west and its supporters decide to quite the Middle East out of fear for their safety. Well, maybe it has not done much to progress that goal but it does not mean they will stop. Germans at the end of WWII were losing, knew it yet still fought against the Allies and Soviet Union.

 

[DarkCorp]

What? Before this shit started, islamism was a fringe ideology, even in muslim countries. Thanks to 9/11 and the consequent attacks on the Middle East, it's gained incredible influence and got a lot more members. They gained a lot of ground.

Terrorists tactics could be summarized as such they want all western influence out and so will keep attacks up until the west and its supporters decide to quite the Middle East out of fear for their safety.

Uh, isn't a muslim someone who adheres to Islam? And yeah, Islam has dated back to the crusades and probably further.

Second, how many objectives have the terrorists achieved in regard to Israel and the United States? For all their killing and posturing, the middle east has yet to be a strong unified nation with the ability to defend its own interests from any foreign power. When there is no presence of a hedgemon, the middle east has yet to be stable enough to form its own version of the EU (albeit I am speaking both economically and militarily).

The whole point is it seems like no matter how hard the middle east tries to unite and become a superstate, too many factors outside keep the vision from happening. So why bother with all the mindless violence when it achieves nothing but continued misery for both sides.

Germans at the end of WWII were losing, knew it yet still fought against the Allies and Soviet Union.

Although Hitler ordered the remaining armed forces to conduct guerilla operations, many of the germans already knew they were defeated and readily accepted it. Much like Japan, the loss of the war ruined the reputation of "the god leaders right to rule and to expand its lands at the expense of everyone else". This hardly compares to the guerilla activity commonly associated with the middle east and the viet cong.

 

[Brother None]

Uh, isn't a muslim someone who adheres to Islam? And yeah, Islam has dated back to the crusades and probably further.

Ugh.

It's funny how many people think they know terrorism and Al Qaida and don't even know what Islamism is. And yes, an Islamist is a Muslim but a Muslim is not an Islamist.

Here, just friggin' wiki it.

Second, how many objectives have the terrorists achieved in regard to Israel and the United States? For all their killing and posturing, the middle east has yet to be a strong unified nation with the ability to defend its own interests from any foreign power.

Uhm...what kind of objectives do you think they have, exactly? Because this:

how hard the middle east tries to unite and become a superstate.

Has absolutely shit-all to do with Islamism's direct goals.

 

[xdarkyrex]

What? Before this shit started, islamism was a fringe ideology, even in muslim countries. Thanks to 9/11 and the consequent attacks on the Middle East, it's gained incredible influence and got a lot more members. They gained a lot of ground.

How far we goin back here?
Because I do think that the religion was infact founded on this ideology of eventually suberting or killing every non-Muslim on earth. The idea is to get all men to accept Allah. In that same note, they actually regard other followers of the religions of Abraham as inferior, but still better than aetheists. Aetheists are to basically be killed on sight.

 

[Starseeker]

When someone accepts certain first impressions as "first truths", it's difficult to convince them otherwise. People normally search for "supporting evidence" that support their beliefs of ideas instead of trying to disprove them which is the reverse of the basic logical argument. One should try to find disproving information before accepting anything as "facts" or "reliable" opinions.

Of course, nobody likes to be told that they are wrong.

Anyway, reading this and Watching GIS: second season at the same time can get the mind wondering.

 

[Brother None]

How far we goin back here?
Because I do think that the religion was infact founded on this ideology of eventually suberting or killing every non-Muslim on earth. The idea is to get all men to accept Allah.

And yet again: ugh. Look up and read up on Islamism and then come back. I'm not talking about Islam, Muslims are not the issue here, Islamists are.

Why does this always happen whenever modern terrorism debates come up? You'd think with the interest the USA has in it, they'd at least inform people about the friggin' ideology you're fighting against, here.

 

[xdarkyrex]

How far we goin back here?
Because I do think that the religion was infact founded on this ideology of eventually suberting or killing every non-Muslim on earth. The idea is to get all men to accept Allah.

And yet again: ugh. Look up and read up on Islamism and then come back. I'm not talking about Islam, Muslims are not the issue here, Islamists are.

Why does this always happen whenever modern terrorism debates come up? You'd think with the interest the USA has in it, they'd at least inform people about the friggin' ideology you're fighting against, here.

I know what Islamism is.
Its fundamental Islam.
Fundamental Islam wasn't a religion devoid of politics, it WAS a political system, and a religious system.

 

[Brother None]

I know what Islamism is.
Its fundamental Islam.

No, it's not. The term fundamental Islam is often misused by when use accurately a "fundamentalist" is someone who believe to going back to the pure roots of his/her religion. Islamism isn't about going back to the roots, it's its own, unique ideology born in the late 19th-early 20th century.

Fundamental Islam wasn't a religion devoid of politics, it WAS a political system, and a religious system.

Huh? You're misusing the term Fundamental Islam, I have no idea why you use the word "was" there and yes, if you're trying to refer to Islamism, it is a socio-political system. I never said otherwise.

Again, Islamism is a separate philosophy, a sub-form of Islam created a century ago. Your considerations on the nature of Islam aren't relevant to the debate, because these are not Fundamentalists, they're Islamists. Big difference.

 

[xdarkyrex]

If the fundamental beliefs of Islam involve a socio-political system (back in the 7th century when Muhammad was still alive), then a fundamentalist is someone trying to return to those roots, yeah?

If Islamism means making the religion into a theocratic state, then all it is doing is espousing the original tenets of what the Muslim religion was all about. Which makes Islamism synonymous with fundamental Islam.

 

[DarkCorp]

Uhm...what kind of objectives do you think they have, exactly? Because this:......Has absolutely shit-all to do with Islamism's direct goals.

Taken from your link:

Islamism (Arabic: al-'islāmiyya) is a term that denotes a set of political ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system, the teachings of which should be preeminent in all facets of society. Islamism holds that Muslims must return to earlier models of Islam by introducing sharia, or Islamic law, into modern society. Islamism often espouses pan-Islamic political unity.

Islamism also often asserts that western military, economic, political, social, or cultural influences in the Muslim world are un-Islamic and should be replaced by purely Islamic influences. Definitions of Islamism vary. Some sources suggest that its tenets urge "support for identity, authenticity, broader regionalism, revivalism, [and] revitalization of the community"[1] while others define it as "an Islamic militant, anti-democratic movement, bearing a holistic vision of Islam whose final aim is the restoration of the caliphate."


That seems to be a very broad defenition and it seems to include some of what the terrorist espouse. They want all foreign intervention out of the middle east. They believe that muslims should return to earlier models of Islam by introducing islamic law into society. They believe in a united therefore strong pan-islamic coalition/unity (atleast in regards to foreign intervention).

I guess in the end I am still confused by what your point is BN. In your opinion, what are the goals of terrorists?

 

[Brother None]

If Islamism means making the religion into a theocratic state, then all it is doing is espousing the original tenets of what the Muslim religion was all about. Which makes Islamism synonymous with fundamental Islam.

That's like saying "Islamism is a car, Fundamentalism is a bike. They both have wheels, hence they must be the same thing."

What kind of ass backwards logic is that? Synonymous? Is that a joke? They don't have any intention of keeping to the exact tenets of the originals and for the relevant part - the part we're discussing (since Islamism is an umbrella definition), namely that of Qutbism - they condone such things as, say, killing other Muslims. Does that sound very Fundamentalist to you? Islamism in a wider sense contains both radical reform groups and some traditionalists, but saying Islamism is the same as Fundamentalism is, again, stupid.

Please do yourself a favour and at least read through the wikipedia articles on Islamism and, more importantly, Qutbism, before preaching that "Fundamentalists" are the problem here. Try and understand how the first enemy of Qutbism are the tyrants in the Islamic regions, who Qutb ordained to be evil in his Al-'adala al-Ijtima'iyya fi-l-Islam...

I guess in the end I am still confused by what your point is BN. In your opinion, what are the goals of terrorists?

...See, that's the thing here, I asked "what kind of objectives do you think they have?" a bit back for a reason. Raise your hand if you actually now Osama Bin Laden's stated primary goal is the overthrowing of the tyrants in the Middle East, and his primary issue with the West is that they block his attempts to do so. Try and read one of his speeches in full, rather than just the news broadcast.

Islamism often espouses pan-Islamic political unity.

I never said it didn't, I said that isn't a part of the direct goals of OBL, outline above.

That seems to be a very broad defenition and it seems to include some of what the terrorist espouse.

I know. The problem here is that "the terrorists" don't espouse a single line. Islamism is an umbrella definition and it's the only definition pretty much all Islamic terrorists fall under because, again, not all terrorists are the same. Some are Fundamentalist, some, like Al-Qaida, are Qutbist, some are Reformist, etc. etc.

"Terrorism" is just a method, you can't pinpoint one ideology or motivation on the diverse organisations. Understanding what Islamism is, is important, though, and if you really want to understand your "direct enemy" and 9/11, understanding Qutbism is key. It disturbs me that so many Americans don't even know of these two terms, let alone understand them. How can you fight an enemy you do not know?

 

[xdarkyrex]

they condone such things as, say, killing other Muslims. Does that sound very Fundamentalist to you?

Yes, infact, it does.
Isn't that what the Sunnis and Shiites have been doing for the last thousand years?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutbism

The main tenet of Qutbist ideology is that the Muslim community (or the Muslim community outside of a vanguard fighting to reestablish it) "has been extinct for a few centuries" [2] having reverted to Godless ignorance (Jahiliyya), and must be re-conquered for Islam.

Qutb outlined his ideas in his book Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq (aka Milestones). Other important principles of Qutbism include
adherence to Sharia as sacred law accessible to humans, without which Islam cannot exist
adherence to Sharia as a complete way of life that will bring not only justice, but complete freedom from servitude, peace, personal serenity, scientific discovery and other benefits;
avoidance of Western and non-Islamic "evil and corruption," including socialism and nationalism;
vigilance against Western and Jewish conspiracies against Islam
a two-pronged attack of 1) preaching to convert and 2) jihad to forcibly eliminate the "structures" of Jahiliyya.
the importance of offensive Jihad to eliminate Jahiliyya not only from the Islamic homeland but from the face of the earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism

Relation between Islam and Islamism

The concept Islamism is controversial, not just because it posits a political role for Islam, but also because Islamists believe their views merely reflect Islam, and that apolitical views of Islam are themselves incorrect. Scholars and observers who deny a political role for Islam include Fred Halliday and John Esposito.

The question asked by Muslims who do not differentiate between Islamism and Islam is, "If Islam is a way of life, how can we say that those who want to live by its principles in legal, social, political, economic, and political spheres of life are not Muslims, but Islamists and believe in Islamism, not [just] Islam"?[10]

The need to distinguish between groups actively seeking to implement Islamic law, such as the Islamic Salvation Front in Algeria[11] or Jamaa Islamiya in Egypt,[12] from other Muslim groups, has led some of the Muslim-owned and -run media to use the terms "Islamist" and "Islamism," as distinguished from Muslim and Islam.

Another source distinguishes Islamist from Islamic "by the fact that the latter refers to a religion and culture in existence over a millennium, whereas the first is a political/religious phenomenon linked to the great events of the 20th century." Islamists have, at least at times, defined themselves as "`Islamiyyoun/Islamists`" to differentiate themselves from `Muslimun/Muslims." [13]

According to Bernard Lewis, Islamists, or as he terms them "activist Muslims", follow the role the Prophet Muhammad played as "rebel" during his time in Medina:[14]

"There are in particular two political traditions, one of which might be called quietist, the other activist. The arguments in favor of both are based, as are most early Islamic arguments, on the Holy Book and on the actions and sayings of the Prophet. The quietist tradition obviously rests on the Prophet as sovereign, as judge and statesman. But before the Prophet became a head of state, he was a rebel. Before he traveled from Mecca to Medina, where he became sovereign, he was an opponent of the existing order. He led an opposition against the pagan oligarchy of Mecca and at a certain point went into exile and formed what in modern language might be called a "government in exile," with which finally he was able to return in triumph to his birthplace and establish the Islamic state in Mecca...The Prophet as rebel has provided a sort of paradigm of revolution—opposition and rejection, withdrawal and departure, exile and return. Time and time again movements of opposition in Islamic history tried to repeat this pattern."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism

Muhammad (c. 570 – July 6, 632) was an Arab religious, political, and military leader who founded the religion of Islam as a historical phenomenon. Muslims view him not as the creator of a new religion, but as the restorer of the original, uncorrupted monotheistic faith of Adam, Abraham and others. In Muslim tradition, Muhammad is viewed as the last and the greatest in a series of prophets—as the man closest to perfection, the possessor of all virtues.[32] For the last 23 years of his life, beginning at age 40, Muhammad reported receiving revelations from God. The content of these revelations, known as the Qur'an, was memorized and recorded by his companions.[33]

The Masjid al-Nabawi ("Mosque of the Prophet") in Medina is the site of Muhammad's tomb.

During this time, Muhammad preached to the people of Mecca, imploring them to abandon polytheism. Although some converted to Islam, Muhammad and his followers were persecuted by the leading Meccan authorities. After 13 years of preaching, Muhammad and the Muslims performed the Hijra ("emigration") to the city of Medina (formerly known as Yathrib) in 622. There, with the Medinan converts (Ansar) and the Meccan migrants (Muhajirun), Muhammad established his political and religious authority. Within years, two battles had been fought against Meccan forces: the Battle of Badr in 624, which was a Muslim victory, and the Battle of Uhud in 625, which ended inconclusively. Conflict with Medinan Jewish clans who opposed the Muslims led to their exile, enslavement or death, and the Jewish enclave of Khaybar was subdued. At the same time, Meccan trade routes were cut off as Muhammad brought surrounding desert tribes under his control.[34] By 629 Muhammad was victorious in the nearly bloodless Conquest of Mecca, and by the time of his death in 632 he ruled over the Arabian peninsula.[35]

In Islam, the "normative" example of Muhammad's life is called the Sunnah (literally "trodden path"). This example is preserved in traditions known as hadith ("reports"), which recount his words, his actions, and his personal characteristics. The classical Muslim jurist ash-Shafi'i (d. 820) emphasized the importance of the Sunnah in Islamic law, and Muslims are encouraged to emulate Muhammad's actions in their daily lives. The Sunnah is seen as crucial to guiding interpretation of the Qur'an.[36]

The Sharia (literally: "the path leading to the watering place") is Islamic law formed by traditional Islamic scholarship. In Islam, Sharia is the expression of the divine will, and "constitutes a system of duties that are incumbent upon a Muslim by virtue of his religious belief".[50]

Islamic law covers all aspects of life, from matters of state, like governance and foreign relations, to issues of daily living. The Qur'an defines hudud as the punishments for five specific crimes: unlawful intercourse, false accusation of unlawful intercourse, consumption of alcohol, theft, and highway robbery. The Qur'an and Sunnah also contain laws of inheritance, marriage, and restitution for injuries and murder, as well as rules for fasting, charity, and prayer. However, these prescriptions and prohibitions may be broad, so their application in practice varies. Islamic scholars (known as ulema) have elaborated systems of law on the basis of these rules and their interpretations.[51]

Fiqh, or "jurisprudence", is defined as the knowledge of the practical rules of the religion. The method Islamic jurists use to derive rulings is known as usul al-fiqh ("legal theory", or "principles of jurisprudence"). According to Islamic legal theory, law has four fundamental roots, which are given precedence in this order: the Qur'an, the Sunnah (actions and sayings of Muhammad), the consensus of the Muslim jurists (ijma), and analogical reasoning (qiyas). For early Islamic jurists, theory was less important than pragmatic application of the law. In the 9th century, the jurist ash-Shafi'i provided a theoretical basis for Islamic law by codifying the principles of jurisprudence (including the four fundamental roots) in his book ar-Risālah.[52]

They're all the same thing.
Some of the words have broader definitions than other, but they can all be used synonymously when referring to, very specifically, fundamentalists. They may have varying views on WHAT the fundamentals of Islam are, but thats what they are all striving for.

 

[DarkCorp]

I know. The problem here is that "the terrorists" don't espouse a single line. Islamism is an umbrella definition and it's the only definition pretty much all Islamic terrorists fall under because, again, not all terrorists are the same. Some are Fundamentalist, some, like Al-Qaida, are Qutbist, some are Reformist, etc. etc.

"Terrorism" is just a method, you can't pinpoint one ideology or motivation on the diverse organisations. Understanding what Islamism is, is important, though, and if you really want to understand your "direct enemy" and 9/11, understanding Qutbism is key

I guess some things just got confused as more people got into the discussion.

In regards to what you said about OBL, your correct. He is against Pan Arabism. I admit I am guilty of generalising the aims of Al Queda although I have knowledge their is a difference between Islam and Qutbism. My original response was to murdochs post. I was stating I do not understand how organisations like Al Qaeda and the military wing of Hamas are benefiting from their attacks. They still have not eliminated western influence in the middle east and still have yet to wipe Israel of the map.

 

[Brother None]

Yes, infact, it does.
Isn't that what the Sunnis and Shiites have been doing for the last thousand years?

Most Sunnis and Shiites do not like Qutb's concept of the extinction of Islam, now do they? Besides, Sunnis and Shiites aren't Fundamentalists. Hell, Shia Islam is the diametric opposite of Fundamentalist Islam. Duh, gypsy.

They're all the same thing.

What.

They may have varying views on WHAT the fundamentals of Islam are, but thats what they are all striving for.

I noticed you skipped on article on Fundamentalism, which shows exactly how you're wrong:
Islamic fundamentalism is a term used to describe religious ideologies seen as advocating literalistic interpretations of the texts of Islam and of Sharia law.[1] Definitions of the term vary. It is sometimes regarded by non-Muslims as synonymous with Islamism,[2] or as an older, less accurate term for that word.
(...)
The definition offered by American historian Ira Lapidus distinguishes between mainstream Islamists and Fundamentalists. Although a fundamentalist may also be an Islamist, a Fundamentalist is "a political individual" in search of a "more original Islam," while the Islamist is pursuing a political agenda. He notes that Islamic fundamentalism "is at best only an umbrella designation for a very wide variety of movements, some intolerant and exclusivist, some pluralistic; some favourable to science, some anti-scientific; some primarily devotional and some primarily political; some democratic, some authoritarian; some pacific, some violent."[7]

In case you still don't get it:

- Qutbism isn't interested in literalistic interpretation of any texts, nor are a number of different forms of Islamism. Qutbism can be said to be a lot of things, but it's not Fundamentalist, and any implication that Fundamentalism and Qutbism could possibly be "synonymous" when Fundamentalist is a broader term and Qutbism refers to only followers of Qutb is laughable, at best. Islamism and Fundamentalism are slightly more related, and one can even mix and match with Islamism and Qutbism (I often do), but Qutbism and Fundamentalism? Hah!
- An Islamist is a Muslim, a Muslim is not an Islamist. An Islamist can be a Fundamentalist, but not all Fundamentalists are Islamists, which means they're not synonymous, as you keep claiming. There's a reason they're different words, y'know.
- Wikipedia toes the line on the issue (it's just wikipedia, after all), but "as an older, less accurate term for that word" basically indicates people used to call Islamists Fundamentalists, but then they learned that this was a simplification and not very accurate. And moved on.
Maybe you should accept that, and also move on, I get the impression you're arguing for the sake of arguing and already realised you're wrong.

I was stating I do not understand how organisations like Al Qaeda and the military wing of Hamas are benefiting from their attacks. They still have not eliminated western influence in the middle east and still have yet to wipe Israel of the map.

They haven't reached a number of their goals, true, but they're growing in strength. "Benefiting" is not synonymous to "getting everything you want, exactly the way you want it". They are benefiting from the situation as it is, even though that does not mean they win by default.

 

[SuAside]

The crater from the crash in the Pentagon? When did the people show up?

i never discussed that...

As for Al Qaeda being involved- the identity of the hijackers was known. Witnesses on the planes also saw them. There were numerous calls- where these also fabricated?

euhm, forgetting that 1 (or was it 2?) of the people on the list have been proven to be alive and unconnected to everything, yet the FBI refuses to revoke the list?

as for your entire point? the fact that Al Qaeda was involved doesn't change the fact that it might as well be a conspiracy? what better than to use some numbnuts extremists and then help them by blowing out the foundations? causing national outrage and unite the nation behind the president?

you should check out what Herman Göring said about that at his trial...

(note, i'm not saying it's like that, just that it's quite possible)

 

[Mord_Sith]

Funny thing is that'd make me "close-minded", but it doesn't. The problem is not that they have a different opinion than me, I have no problem with credible information and documentaries that draw different conclusions than I do after properly using audi alteram partem (which, I must note, Moore, Gore and Loose Change all do not. Strictly speaking that makes them propaganda, not information dissemination), but that they lie. But somehow, "open-minded" means you have to give credibility to people who manipulate, be it Moore, Gore or Loose Change.

I never called you close-minded at all BN, I was curious about your reasoning, as you generally strike me as a logical person I figured you had some pretty good reasons why you would strike up such a position.

I have never bothered with a Moore show personally, the only time I've ever seen Moore is Team America and I hardly think that counts. I saw loose change on a whim and I take the opinions as questions and ask myself if the hypothesis makes sense. I don't take what they say at face value, I actually try to think about it a bit and see if it makes sense, and it is very unlikely that the government is gonna mass-murder 100+ people and manage to hide the bodies without SOMEONE talking.

 

[welsh]

I agree and support BN's point on the last page - you have to judge information not only on what was said, but also who is saying it. Given our inability to get primary evidence- to be the one's one the ground doing the research and our limited expertise- we have to trust certain sources.

Are the sources authoritative? Are they precise? Do they provide a compelling causal argument that is consistent against countervailing theories. Can they account for explanations even if some of the evidence is missing.

For example- the Twin Towers were made to be fire proof. Accidents involving aircraft had happened in the past (and another plane crashed into a building in NY after 9-11). But the argument indicates that the fire proofing of the building was destroyed by the force of the impact. Furthermore, while fire need not have melted the steel, only weakened it, and allowed the weight of tons of steel to bring the buildings down.

As BN points out, you have to judge the sources as well- how thorough is the analysis, how well do they account for causal explanations, what is there expertise?

Why? Because you can't listen to everyone, nor should you. Time is a limited commodity in life, and it makes little sense wasting it. If you listened to everything that everyone said on anything- your head would explode.

As for why haven't big powers united with regard to the middle east- because today's terrorism is akin to the piracy of the 17th and 18th centuries. Pirates played political purposes and the major nations had other national interests that frustrated effective cooperation in rooting out pirates or terrorists. Only when the terrorists begin to raise problems for their own national interests and diplomatic policies do you see cooperation against terrroists or pirates. That's why you saw more cooperation after 9-11 than before and considerably less cooperation now.

WHy doesn't the Middle East unite- because most of the leaders are rather happy with the status quo and wish to avoid the rather nasty wars that would arise if these countries actually tried to unify. At present the middle east lacks the political structure or the culture that would allow for easy unification. Simply, the region is too divided internally. And yes, even if such elements existed, the West would still oppose such a unification.

 

[Mord_Sith]

Thank you Welsh,

I hadn't actually thought of it that way, but I still don't understand why it pancaked, we have weakened metal (even though the building was supposed to be fire proofed) from the heat, structural damage(minor compared to the scale of the building), unless they had help from inside the building as well to bring it down I don't think the planes themselves would have collapsed the tower, broken it, yes, but not make it collapse into a pile of slag.

Some people have stated that it was designed to collapse like that, however I'm not so sure of that, they would have had to go through the core of the building's support in order to initiate that kind of free fall...

It would also explain why they were searching for people throughout NY who were affiliated with terrorist groups in any way, trying to find those who operated on the inside.

 

[xdarkyrex]

Maybe you should accept that, and also move on, I get the impression you're arguing for the sake of arguing and already realised you're wrong.

I may have overstated my point.
The difference is hardly apples and oranges, or bikes and cars as you so eloquently put. The difference is something along the lines of a two different kinds of bikes, or two different kinds of apples. They are RELATIVELY similar, and and I do believe that they all most certinaly have the same end goal, even if they intend to go about it in different ways. All 3 want a politically unified Muslim nation, and want to bring it about by force. Sure, they may have disagreements on who the real enemy is, but they most certainly intend to accomplish the same goal through a similar means. A militant Muslim theocratic government that adheres to the visions of Muhammad, brought about by force and political control, as the Qu'ran preaches. Perhaps calling them synonymous was wrong... but they're pretty damn close.

 

[Brother None]

The difference is hardly apples and oranges, or bikes and cars as you so eloquently put. The difference is something along the lines of a two different kinds of bikes, or two different kinds of apples. They are RELATIVELY similar, and and I do believe that they all most certinaly have the same end goal, even if they intend to go about it in different ways. All 3 want a politically unified Muslim nation, and want to bring it about by force. Sure, they may have disagreements on who the real enemy is, but they most certainly intend to accomplish the same goal through a similar means. A militant Muslim theocratic government that adheres to the visions of Muhammad, brought about by force and political control, as the Qu'ran preaches. Perhaps calling them synonymous was wrong... but they're pretty damn close.

Ah, but that's just it, they don't have the same goals, and you can't really battle your enemy if you don't understand their goals.

Traditionalists generally don't have problems with tyrants in Islamic countries as long as they are not Shia and run the country according to the Sharia. Many Fundamentalists also vary in their goals for Islamic-run countries, though many wouldn't stop until the whole world is Islamic.

Qutbists generally only want to regain the lands held by Islam centuries ago, which is from the Iberian Peninsula to Pakistan I guess. They also have serious issues with tyrants in Islamic countries, Muslim or not, only religious leaders have the right to lead.

The distinction is very important because the immediately stated goals are vastly different. The most pressing goal for Fundamentalists is to get rid of Israel and any secular tyrannies or democracies. The most pressing goal for Qutbists is to get rid of tyrants. So they both hated, say, Saddam Hussein, but only Qutbists have an immediate problem with Musharaff, he's only secondary for Fundamentalists.

If you just heap them easily into one pile, you'll never understand what they're about.