Japanese parliament questions 9-11 "truth"

[xdarkyrex]

well, here are what the fundamentalists and Qutbists are after I beleive, as well as the majority of the Islamists:

And wouldn't it be true to say that the Qutbists intentions following the purging of tyrants is to establish an Islamic fundamentalist nation? Different target, same goal?

Fundamentalists that adhere to the text SHOULD also be against tyrants as well, considering the Qu'ran speaks of a largely non-tyrannical nation, ruled by the people for the people (likely a theocratic oligarchy, republic, or democracy).
(reference for you: http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Articles/politics/democracy_in_islamic_perspective.htm)

That being said, Islamists are a varied group, I will give you that, but I feel it is more than fair to say that fundamentalists and Qutbists are both Islamist, and quite a few Qutbists are likely fundamentalists, making the three overlap quite a bit, even if they are not synonymous. All three are the enemy of the rest of the world as long as they follow their religion strictly, largely due to its call for complete domination. As per many religions that exist today, it is a threat to the majority of the worlds ideals if it does not "evolve" in the same way Catholicism and Christianity have to mesh with modern culture, although I honestly think of the idea of a religion evolving is utterly ridiculous and defiles the meaning of the religion. The fact is that fundamentalism and extremism of many religions is a serious threat to all respective heathens, and religions of that nature, for lack of other options, need to be destroyed. They can not coexist unless they go against their own writings, and if they do that, what is the point of even calling themselves Muslim or Christian or whatever else?

I think I strayed on the topic a bit
Uhh, the point is, while I believe that personal religion is something all men and women should have, theological doctrines are all idiotic regardless of what they say. Although it is fair to say that pacifistic religions are somewhat more realistic in the modern world.

 

[Brother None]

well, here are what the fundamentalists and Qutbists are after I beleive

Qutbists generally limit themselves to that area. Fundamentalists often do not.

And wouldn't it be true to say that the Qutbists intentions following the purging of tyrants is to establish an Islamic fundamentalist nation? Different target, same goal?

Not the same goal. There's a distinct difference between a tyrant running an Islamic nation, fundamentalist or not, or a religiously led nation, especially for international politics. The significance isn't that big for people living there, but it is for us in dealing with those nations.

Fundamentalists that adhere to the text SHOULD also be against tyrants as well, considering the Qu'ran speaks of a largely non-tyrannical nation, ruled by the people for the people

Should be but aren't. A lot of fundamentalists don't like Qutb's attitude on democracy. At all.

quite a few Qutbists are likely fundamentalists

That's a contradictio in terminis. Qutbists believe in the writing of Said Qutb. Just like Shia muslims who believe in different writings than Sunnis, that means they are not Fundamentalist per definition.

All three are the enemy of the rest of the world as long as they follow their religion strictly, largely due to its call for complete domination.

I repeat, for clarity, Qutbists generally are not interested in Islamic world domination.

Uhh, the point is, while I believe that personal religion is something all men and women should have, theological doctrines are all idiotic regardless of what they say. Although it is fair to say that pacifistic religions are somewhat more realistic in the modern world.

Sikhs are not a doctrinal religion at all, yet they still went to war with the Muslims.

Blaming religions for human folly is just circumventing the main issue. People are stupid. As long as people are stupid, there will be war. Let's not get all Fukuyama "End of History" here or start being naive enough that any philosophy, humanist or not, becoming dominant would mean world piece. The philosophies have never been the problem, the people adhering to them have been.

 

[xdarkyrex]

Well, I'm not claiming a one world philosophy would be better, or even that religion as a whole is all bad, I just thinkin purging certain philosophies might be useful, mostly the ones that preach the destruction of all other philosophies. Somewhat strangely, I feel that diversity is BETTER reached by destroying certain types of idealogies that are intent on being the one true philosophy. I know it seems self-contradictory, but I think that may be an overly limited way of looking at it. Conversely, I'm also sort of into the whole "chaotic world" thing, and feel strongly about a certain infamous quote by Voltaire, "Everything is for the best in this best of possible worlds." I haven't reconciled on the contradiction of beliefs yet, but then again, I'm not sure I need to.

As for Sikhs... I don't know anything about them, so that analogy was lost on me

I suppose my stance makes it weird that the girl I currently like is a Sunni Muslim, haha.

 

[Brother None]

Somewhat strangely, I feel that diversity is BETTER reached by destroying certain types of idealogies that are intent on being the one true philosophy.

It doesn't matter. The problem, again, is not the religion, it's the people who follow it. Take away their "one true philosophy" and they'll just make a new one. You're looking for the answer in the wrong place.

As for Sikhs... I don't know anything about them, so that analogy was lost on me

Sikhism is a monotheistic religion, mostly big in India and Commonwealth countries. It's a very nice religion, though Sikhs are often confused for Muslims (they grow beards and let their hair grow long, wrapping it in turbans. For some reason everyone take 'em for Muslims).

One of the doctrines of the Sikhs is that anyone can believe what he wants, and that while they believe there's one true God, it doesn't matter if you want to worship him in another way than they do (Christians, Muslims, Jews). If you don't worship him at all, they'll urge please to change your mind, but they have no doctrine about killing or discriminating other-thinking people (neither do Christians, though, again, Christ's philosophy is not the problem, Christians are).

Yet they still went to war. Bloody war.

 

[xdarkyrex]

Isn't that very similar to Hindu in that way?
I thought Hindu was like that too, they believe that all gods are different aspects of the same god, and their own polytheism is only actually supposed to represent multiple facets of the same god, which makes them technically a monotheism but in a rather odd way.

 

[Brother None]

Isn't that very similar to Hindu in that way?

Sikhism is a very young religion, and borrowed a lot of elements from Christianity, Islam and Hinduism.

I thought Hindu was like that too, they believe that all gods are different aspects of the same god, and their own polytheism is only actually supposed to represent multiple facets of the same god, which makes them technically a monotheism but in a rather odd way.

Christianity believes in different representations of a single God too. Only three, true, yet it is still the same idea.

 

[xdarkyrex]

Christianity believes in different representations of a single God too. Only three, true, yet it is still the same idea.

Yeah, I know, but very few people (in my experience) regard it as three literal entities... which is different to Hindu I believe, as they even have sects that focus their worship on specific aspects, similar to Greek cults back in the day, but the cults do regard eachother as being of the same religion. Then again, there is Deism and its polar opposite, Mormonism within the 'Christian' faith...

I dunno, trying to make sense of comparisons of religious denominations is not worth my time at the moment, I'd be here forever.

On subject:
I think the plane took the towers down.
Seems reasonable to me that the impact mixed with the jet fuel could have wekened one floor of the structures support beams enough to cause all the floors above it to fall, and the mix between the weight and the kinetic energy caused the building to pancake hardly seems impossible.

Building 7 is the only iffy thing to me.
But I've heard of buildings collapsing for surprising reasons, being "unlikely" is hardly the same as being "impossible".\

Now in regards to the Japanese question... it would be pretty easy for the stock thing to be a coincidence, or more likely that someone part of a terror network had enough knowledge of economics to realize that they could also make money off of this, win/win.

As for whether our government knew anything about it, thats up in the air, but I do think that conspiracy theorists greatly play down the power of chance and luck.

 

[welsh]

Thank you Welsh,

You're welcome.

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.

Help from inside the building would suggest that, in addition to two planes you had controlled explosions from within- that would be, I imagine, quite a trick to pull off. Also, I can't recall any evidence of an explosion on the bottom of the World Trade Center. Having set an explosion on, or about, the level that the planes crashed would be tricky. Implementing such a program would be very difficult.

Remember- this wasn't the first attempt. Al Qaeda tried to blow up the buildings from the basement a few years before. But even the evidence of Al Qaeda's involvement suggests that few expected the building to collapse as they did (although supposed Osama, an engineer, had anticipated the collapse).

Recall that the World Trade Center was a fairly modern building- finished in the mid 1970s and a number of risks were considered.
It used to be thought that the WTC could withstand a nuclear attack on NYC. So there was a lot of belief that the WTC could withstand an airplane crash. But you are talking about a plane crash plus a rather nasty fire that occurred mid-level in the building.
Tons of steel and concrete were above it.

Also the WTC had, as I recall, a different structure than many other buildings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center

Note that the construction relied on an inner core but also the weight of upper floors was shared with the exterior walls. If those walls were damaged or weakened - if one floor could not hold up the others, than the building collapsed, pancaking from floor to floor.

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.

Well remember that NYC had received terrorist attacks before and that the police had an active intelligence unit. Plus you have the FBI and there had been warning of an impending attack.

As for the controlled blast theory-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contro...is_for_the_collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center
Engineers generally refute it.

Is that going to satisfy everyone? No. There are people who will insist that there was a controlled blast and a conspiracy was at play. But that case still needs to be proven.

 

[Brother None]

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?)

The FBI doesn't need to revoke anything, it's the BBC who revoked...their claim that these people are still alive.
Here:
The story has been cited ever since by some as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were part of a US government conspiracy.

We later reported on the list of hijackers, thereby superseding the earlier report. In the intervening years we have also reported in detail on the investigation into the attacks, the 9/11 commission and its report.

We’ve carried the full report, executive summary and main findings and, as part of the recent fifth anniversary coverage, a detailed guide to what’s known about what happened on the day. But conspiracy theories have persisted. The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names.

 

[Mord_Sith]

Wouldn't the main column stay intact though on the lower floors? making it something of a macabre pine tree as the top levels sheared off of it?

The whole building wasn't set ablaze, only about 5-10 floors if memory serves, the rest of the column should have had enough stopping power to if not shrug off, then pierce the upper floors coming down upon it?

 

[welsh]

The problem was one of weight. Remember, the core beams were to carry only part of the load, not the entire thing.

I suspect had a similar event happened to the Empire State Building- with a very different structure- the building might have survived. And while the WTC was tested against an airplane crash- the plane that was used was smaller and slower and probably carried less fuel.

Based on this it seems that the floors that were on fire began to buckle and could no longer contain the heat, but once those buckled, than the rest of the floor caved in because that floor could no longer hold up the rest.

Think of a house of cards that goes up about 100 stories. Each level is designed to hold up the one above it, maybe even the one above that. But more than that and you're in trouble. Remember, the WTC did have fire proofing- but that was damaged by the impact of the airplane. And while the fire didn't melt the steal, it merely had to weaken in.

So lets look at the house of cards. The first 80 or so are fine. but then 81 buckles under and a side falls in. All the cards above it collapse. The new weight on floor 80 forces that one to collapse, forcing the one below to cave as the weight increases in ways that the lower floors were not deisgned to withstand.

You didn't have to set the hole building on fire, nor even melt the steal. You only needed to bring down one floor to force the others to collapse above.

Remember- the WTC was one of the lightest buildings constructed, even given its size. That lightness had to do with the structural plans that ran against more traditional construction. But each floor was designed to certain load bearing limits. Once those limits were exceeded, the building came down.

 

[Mord_Sith]

But my main point is the core column, a shot of steel going up, shouldn't it have driven through... then again it could very well have gone through the ground instead, do you know if the column went into the ground instead?

 

[welsh]

End of the day, I suspect you'd have to ask an engineer. It seems you suspect that the central core should have pierced the tons of floors above it and not just forced it to crumble. I suspect those central core columns broke down under the weight of the tons of steel coming down atop of them.

 

[Mord_Sith]

True enough,

I still find it kinda funny that the trade towers took out an anti-terrorist insurance policy not more than 6 months prior to the incident.

Probably ties in quite a bit to the whole profiteering on the 911 incident something fierce.

 

[Blakut]

Well, I'm not claiming a one world philosophy would be better, or even that religion as a whole is all bad, I just thinkin purging certain philosophies might be useful, mostly the ones that preach the destruction of all other philosophies.

Almost every religion regards its philosophy as 'the true one' and the rest as 'fakes'.

End of the day, I suspect you'd have to ask an engineer. It seems you suspect that the central core should have pierced the tons of floors above it and not just forced it to crumble. I suspect those central core columns broke down under the weight of the tons of steel coming down atop of them.

I got this from wikipedia:
At 9:59 a.m., 56 minutes after impact, the sagging floors finally caused the eastern face of 2 WTC to buckle, transferring its loads back to the failing core through the hat truss and initiating the collapse; the section above the impact area then tilted in the direction of the failed wall. At 10:28 a.m., 102 minutes after the impact, the south wall of 1 WTC buckled, with similar consequences. After collapse ensued, the total collapse of the towers was inevitable due to the enormous weight of the towers above the impact areas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center

 

[maximaz]

I am muslim (Insha Allah) and I can't say that I know it all when it comes to Islam or religion in general. However, I know enough to say that there are quite a few things that both BN and darkyrex got wrong. You both have very good points but I'm leaning more towards BN's ideas because he emphasizes the differences between the ideologies in question.

Look in wikipedia all you want, but among Muslims, the distinctions between Qutbists, Islamists and Fundamentalists are pretty damn significant. They simply cannot be understood properly without good knowledge of Islam, even as far as their political views are concerned. The bottom line is that a person can 'qualify' to be both Islamist and Fundamentalist but the ideologies are absolutely unique from each other. To be of one of those ideologies does not mean to be of the other. That point is more important than it seems because the differences are much bigger than they seem. The important thing here is to acknowledge that they ARE different and then clearly decide which one you are fighting.

Darkyrex, you seem to have a false idea of what ISLAM is about. I might have misunderstood you but that's the impression I get from reading your posts. It isn't based on the ideology of killing or subverting every non-muslim on Earth and it's not about creating a theocratic Muslim state. One important thing for you to understand is that Sharia (the Islamic 'law' that you were referring to) is based on Quran, Sunnah, Arabic traditions and original laws, and was developed over several centuries by muslim scholars. There was no Sharia or Sunnah during the years of Muhammad (SAW). For that reason, many traditionalist muslims consider it Bid'a (novelty). They argue that the only source of Muslim laws should be the Quran. What that means, as far as this post is concerned, is that the three ideologies in question are not about staying as close to original Islam as possible, as Sharia is at their center to different extents. On the contrary, Islamism, Fundamentalism, and Qutbism are considered by some, to be as far away from original Islam, as those who welcome novelties. Thus, the following statement is false:
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.

You were right, Islam does not tolerate atheism or paganism. Others, however, are considered to be sister religions of Islam. According to Islam, Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe in the same God and are regarded as "the people of the book". Abraham and Jesus are among many other Prophets that Muslims regard the same way as Mohammad. According to them, faith was gradually revealed with every Prophet who also got rid of novelties that people created. Muslims consider Mohammad's message most important because he was the last Prophet and his message, or Quran, has been unchanged. The others have been altered too much to remain credible, if you will. However, Jesus, Moses, David are all of the same importance as Mohammad to them. Both Jews and Christians are Muslims that did not update, as far as Islam is concerned. The point here is that Islam is not about converting everyone, and does tollerate other religions... well some.

 

[Brother None]

Look in wikipedia all you want, but among Muslims, the distinctions between Qutbists, Islamists and Fundamentalists are pretty damn significant. They simply cannot be understood properly without good knowledge of Islam, even as far as their political views are concerned.

What, you think I get my information from Wikipedia? I refer others to it because I know they'll just look it up there, but I got mine knowledge from books, boy. Said books!

Qutbism is, sadly, the only thing that mildly interests me. I don't really give a damn about Islam, and definitely not about Fundamentalism, so any mistakes I make just stem from me not caring. I was mostly just correctin' darkyre, I'm no Islam scholar and don't mean to become one.

The important thing here is to acknowledge that they ARE different and then clearly decide which one you are fighting.

I will fight them all!

 

[xdarkyrex]

snip

I actually essentially knew all of that. Well, except that Sharia was not part of the Qu'ran, I thought that it was. That was my misunderstanding.

But the reason I made the statement I did was because of the ideals of Muhammad. With the exception of the other children of Abraham, didn't he want to violently remove all other religions? And after that, he wanted to eventually convert all of the remaining non-Muslims to believe in the Qu'ran, yeah? That is what I meant by kill and convert. Don't get me wrong, I don't pretend to think that all Muslims want to kill all non-Abrahamic religion following people, but I do believe that was the old world view from my understanding, one that is central to the life of Muhammad as best as I know (I am far from an expert on the subject though, I would appreciate it if you set me straight). Qutbism is a new idea to me and I have never heard of it before yesterday, so I suppose the spotty reading I did to try to fill my gaps in knowledge must have been off a bit. I thought I had read about it enough to get a good general view of it, but I guess it might have been a bit too generalized.

In any case, as an agnostic I think it's mean that Muslims want to hate my beliefs, I don't hate theirs... actually I think it's quite interesting. I do not know whether it was in the Qu'ran (Hadith?) or in Sharia law that I read it, but it did kill for the killing of all godless men or some such thing.

 

[maximaz]

What, you think I get my information from Wikipedia? I refer others to it because I know they'll just look it up there, but I got mine knowledge from books, boy. Said books!

I wasn't necessarily talking about you, it was meant to be more general.

Qutbism is, sadly, the only thing that mildly interests me. I don't really give a damn about Islam, and definitely not about Fundamentalism, so any mistakes I make just stem from me not caring. I was mostly just correctin' darkyre, I'm no Islam scholar and don't mean to become one.

Well, you were talking about Fundamentalism, Islamism, Qutbism and the differences between them. Then, maybe you shouldn't have? I know that all you did was bring up the fact that they were different but you're being so defensive that i feel provoked over here

I will fight them all!

Then there is no point in this discussion at all.


xdarkyrex,

I do not know whether it was in the Qu'ran (Hadith?) or in Sharia law that I read it, but it did kill for the killing of all godless men or some such thing.

There are many places you could have read that, including the Quran. There are no verses that actually advise killing non-believers. However, there are some that talk negatively about them and quite a few that say the opposite. The problem is in the translations.

The Quran is written in old Arabic which is hard to translate into some languages. Quite a few words and expressions cannot be accurately translated into English, they can only be explained. The problem is that they have to translate the Quran word for word as it's not allowed to add to the text in any way. So the words with the closest meaning have to do. Because of that the translations vary and can be understood differently. Some of them are considered to be less accurate or close to the original than others.

There are a few tricks to counter that. First, well, it's highly recommended to read the Quran in Arabic. It is also required to include the original Arabic text on every page of every Quran. Those who don't know Arabic, including me, read a few 'best rated' translations to know what the verses actually say, and more importantly, the context. Most translations will also include little boxes in the text that elaborate on the wording.

Whenever the Quran is quoted, all of those tricks are lost. The context is lost, the boxes are not there and only one version is usually presented. It's true for both muslims and non-muslims to only provide the versions that support their points the most. Unfortunately, it is easy to do. While I don't think there is a verse in any translation that's that negative, you may see people quote some that would lead you to your conclusion. It's not uncommon for Muslims to conclude the same thing, as you know.


Now, to get to the damn point and answer your question... most Muslim scholars will tell you that the Quran advocates being respectful to other religions. What it does say, is to stay away from non-Muslim way of life. Foreign laws, traditions, and behaviors are not to be emulated as many of those are based on ideas that may conflict with Islam. Kids are also advised to be raised among Muslims as they are impressionable and might pick up a few unislamic behaviors.

That's the explanation for the verses that advocate fighting non-believers. Quite a few of them have the word "fight", while the original word actually means resist, argue against, deny and does not imply physical fighting. Their central idea is to keep your Iman (faith or commitment to Islam) strong. Basically, you should fight not to sell out, you are to struggle against things that lead you away from faith. That mental struggle is called Jihad, which is nowadays known to most non-muslims as the holy war against non-believers. People who do fight holy wars can have Jihad at heart but their physical act of fighting is not what Jihad is. A person who really wanted to get wasted but decides against it for the sake of Islam, is doing Jihad. A person who goes out of his way to help someone for the sake of Allah, is doing Jihad. etc.

The Quran says that God prohibits a Muslim to fight anyone not fighting him or his fellow Muslims for religion (someone who refuses them freedom of Faith) or invading his home (drives him out of his home). Defending those are a fair game and sort of a duty even. Other than that, a Muslim cannot kill.
"If you kill one human being, it is as grave as if you killed the whole humanity." (Qu'ran 5:32).

As far as Muhammad (SAW), he was a military commander so fighting and killing was definitely going on. I'm not a historian but this is what Muslims say, which may or may not differ from what you would hear from non-Muslims. When he set up his Ummah (Muslim rule I guess) in Medina, his followers were getting kicked out of Mecca. They urged him to fight but he reportedly kept refusing to go to war. Eventually, he agreed stating that Muslims have the right to defend themselves and it had gotten to that. So the fighting commenced.

Also, under that Ummah, he did not require any Jewish tribes around Medina to convert, they were left alone to practice their beliefs. Later, he married the daughter of one of the chiefs of those tribes. Then, there is a very well known Sunnah (an account of Muhammad's life) that tells of a Jewish neighbor woman who would throw garbage in front of him on purpose. When he came back to his hometown years later and heard that she was sick he visited her.

You will find some info that differs and you will find Muslims who think differently but most muslims and the most popular ideas are mentioned above. I normally don't give a damn what people think about Islam as it's mostly negative anyway. I know I'm a muslim and what everyone else believes is their own business. But it's still kind of refreshing to have someone ask. So I wrote the friggin book of a post (holy shit). I do appreciate it. Thanks for your interest, it was my pleasure to provide the best answer I could.

 

[Brother None]

Well, you were talking about Fundamentalism, Islamism, Qutbism and the differences between them. Then, maybe you shouldn't have? I know that all you did was bring up the fact that they were different but you're being so defensive that i feel provoked over here

Provoked, by what?

I was talking about the differences because even I know enough to know that they are, in fact, different. Duh gypsy.

Then there is no point in this discussion at all.

I will fight discussions!