Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - Muslims call for the death of English school teacher...

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - Muslims call for the death of English school teacher... (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/128137-muslims-call-death-english-school-teacher.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

That's because his followers don't live in an impoverished, war torn region. If you remove war and poverty from the Middle East, you remove the bite of radical fundamentalism. That's my point.

You could make an argument that the war and poverty are what the leaders of the religion really want, because it creates a reason for people to listen to them.

Again, same thing happened in pre-Renaissance Europe with the Church.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

Saudi has more oil than anyone (other than maybe the Russian empire - depending on where you draw the lines of that empire), and is by far the most volatile and extreme in terms of STATE religion (as well as the feelings of the working class)

The people are impoverished because the ruling families suck ass.

I agree with roachboy that knowing more about the Sudan might help us understand exactly what's happening there. I don't see how arguing whether Christianity or Islam is worse historically helps to understand this particular legal case in the Sudan.

I also agree with Charlatan that understanding the social, political, and economic systems in which "Radical Islam" resides might better explain the actions of adherents to "Radical Islam". That people in many other Muslim nations name their sons "Mohammed" without controversy suggests that there must be something going on here other than or in addition to "Radical Islam". That some Muslim countries, like Turkey, seem relatively stable suggests to me that this case and other cited examples of "Radical Islam" may not actually be about Islam. That the vast, vast majority of Muslim individuals in the world don't appear to be blowing up buildings, imprisoning English teachers, etc. suggest to me that there may be something other than or in addition to Islam going on in these cases.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I've never once been ignorant in my life.

I have been ignorant many, many times in my life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sapiens

I have been ignorant many, many times in my life.

Oh, I respond like that whenever someone attacks my intelligence. I've made mistakes and have been ignorant before, in reality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

"radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America." - Rosie O'Donnel

I kinda think Rosie was holding back a bit when she said this, but that's not the point. The point is, Will, you obviously agree with her....and that is as ignorant as ignorant can get. Any attempt at comparing Christianity to the OP is so far off base it can only be considered hatred for Christianity.

You're such a terrorist Will, and you don't even know it.

...as an afterthought...read through this thread.

At some point, don't you people think to yourselves there's something wrong with this reaction:

When I hear of 600 people calling publicly for the death of a schoolteacher who was there to teach their children, or an entire geographic area calls for the death of a cartoonist because something offended them...my immediate reaction is to use my years of psychological, sociological, and political training to put it into perspective.

But when I hear about these crazy f'ers knocking on doors trying to tell me about their jahova.....pull out the fucking guillotine.

I won't ask because you've probably been poked in the eye by shards of glass from an exploding abortion clinic, and shot in the knee by a member of the KKK as you were walking by a church, but you seem willing enough to accept that the OP doesn't represent Islam, couldn't you at least give Christianity the same courtesy?

IMO, the opinions you expressed in your post are outrageously biased and inaccurate. Militant zionism in the US and the influence over the US military, the federal government and it's foreign policy, and the media by militant evangelical christians is at least equally troubling.

Our military and the CIC/decider who directs them, under the recently outsized evangelical christian and zionist influences, is responsible for the deaths of more innocent muslim civilians than I can tally. Your one sided POV, in view of the facts, elicits countering opinions that you then perceive perceive to be one sided. They're not because they come from people who view "both sides" as extreme, petty, ignorant, anachranistic, and equal examples of the nonsense that is organized religion, responsible for more senseless killing and persecution than any other catalyst in history.

Christians have no record of measured compassion for "the other", than muslims have demonstrated.

Until you're willing to accept that neither christians nor muslims have any claim to a higher moral authority than the other, you work consciously or not, to the dead it makes no difference.... to help make it a certainty that there will be plenty more dead.

They die on both "sides", because of the ignorance and intolerance of some "on those sides". Get in the middle. Stop the nonsense. Lessen the tension and misunderstanding that foments the killing.

The blind one sided point of view that fuels and justifies the violence in the name of WHATEVER, isn't working, and you would say that it's "will's fault" or it's "host's fault" because we believe that the killing it cannot be justified by neocon BS "islamo-fascist" rhetoric and delirium. Bush, Cheney, Bolton, and their neocon/JINSA/CNP propaganda and their, advocacy of waterboarding makes the Irania president look reasonable in comparison, and you never ever notice, do you?

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0071107-1.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
November 7, 2007

Interview of the President by RTL and N-TV, German TV
Map Room

November 6, 2007

....Q Who do you think it's going to be?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I can't tell you that because -- I think it will be a Republican. I truly do. I think someone from my party will win, but, you know, I'm not going to speculate because the American press, of course, would take my speculation; you know, "Bush is" --

Q Of course. But you think it's going to be a Republican?

THE PRESIDENT: I really do, yes. The economy is in pretty good shape, and we've got some issues, but the economy is pretty strong, which -- and the other side does want to raise taxes. And I do believe taxes are a big issue in America. <h3>And then the foreign policy -- and if you will listen to the debate, our candidates have got a strong, firm view of how to conduct foreign policy and the American people innately understand that there's -- there's still threats out there. And our biggest job is to protect our -- see, that's an interesting difference between, say, Germany and America. We've been attacked. We feel like another attack is coming, and therefore, you know, our actions ought to be to protect our country.</h3> And, you know, I'm not so sure that it's that same sense of anxiety in other parts of Europe or in Germany.

Q Well, we have some old fears. I mean, we were on the border of the Cold War. I mean, we had this Iron Curtain in our country, in that respect. We know a little bit about that, too. But I can understand your position as well, sure.

THE PRESIDENT: You know, look, there's -- and one of the things I would like to assure the German public about is that I really don't want to have increased tensions with Russia. As a matter of fact, I've worked hard to create an environment that is not hostile, but --

Q Also with the missile shield --

THE PRESIDENT: That's what I was about to describe -- that this is not aimed at Russia. I mean, it -- and frankly it's absurd for somebody to say it is aimed at Russia, because the number of interceptors that would be there -- the rockets to knock down the other rocket -- will be limited in number and therefore somebody who has got a handful of rockets can overwhelm the system. It's just really aimed at, you know, a rogue nation that wants to hold a --

Q Like Iran.

THE PRESIDENT: -- hostage. Like Iran, absolutely. And hopefully, again, you know, the system becomes moot or not needed, by getting the Iranians to back off their ambitions.

And, you know, we did something really interesting with Russia on this Iranian issue. The Iranians said, it's our sovereign right to have nuclear power. And I said, yes, it is; it is your sovereign right. But we can't trust you to enrich because you've been hiding your program from international inspectors, and so therefore we will join -- we agree with Russia when they said, you can have a plant and we, Russia, will provide you the fuel and collect the fuel; which I strongly support.

And so -- the only reason I bring that up is I know that people think that our relations with Russia are, you know, may not be conducive to constructive action, but we got -- we do -- and there's no question there's tensions on some issues.

Q Okay.

THE PRESIDENT: But we can work together as well.

Q Okay. Final question: You will have one year in office. How do you think you will be remembered as a President?

THE PRESIDENT: I think I'll be remembered as a guy who, you know, was dealt some pretty tough issues to deal with and I dealt with them head-on and I didn't try to shy away. I didn't, you know, I didn't sacrifice -- I was firm and that I made decisions based upon principles, not based upon the latest Gallup Poll. And that I helped this country protect itself, <h3>and at the same time was unashamed, unabashed at spreading <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2333730&postcount=3">certain values</a> to others --

<center><img src="http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l176/musiclover1992/dicenporahi_bush_saudi1.jpg"></center>

the main one being liberty, whether it be the freedom from forms of government or the freedom from disease and hunger.</h3> And that we had a very robust foreign policy in the name of peace....

Quote:

Originally Posted by sapiens

I'm going to guess that naming an inanimate object like a teddy bear = idol worship, and therefore (obvious) she must die because that is explicitly prohibited, in the same vein as showing any image of the 'profit' Mohamed.

South Park handled it best, Comedy Central refused to allow them to show Mohamed in an non-offensive bit but did allow this in the same episode...

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CeVbOoat5rE&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CeVbOoat5rE&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Whats funny is they snuck it in here though....

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qTsR820ofEQ&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qTsR820ofEQ&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Don't tell anyone or they might kill a nun again and riot across Europe.

insulting calling a teddy Muhammad? there was at least 10 kids in my school called Muhammad no where near as nice as a teddy!!. surely that's not right how cocky is that?? "hi this is my son god" a while ago i worked with a man called Muhammad he was the most vile smelly rude lazy man i have ever come across his parents should be locked up for 15 days!! what the hell is wrong with the world she was a teacher she was there to help these people not insult them so i say send her home its there loss, in London some Muslims take to the street and preach against us and we send police to protect them!! the hole world has gone crazy.

Just to be clear this:

"You're such a terrorist Will, and you don't even know it."

should have had a smiley face after it I don't really think you're a terrorist, Will. I was being ironic, the fear/ignorance thing. I also wasn't talking about my own reaction to 600 protesters....oh nevermind.

But really? Only a few thousand radical Muslims?

This is all I have to say on people blaming Radical Islam on economic reasons. If that were true we'd have people from Sub-Saharan Africa tossing planes into our buildings, not upper-middle class members in an oil rich country.

Seaver, those so-called middle class members of oil-rich countries all came into radicalization while doing time at schools in the west. Their path to radicalization had more to do with alienation, disenfranchisement and humiliation than anything else. This has been seen time and again with immigrants that have been radicalized.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

This sounds a bit too much like blaming the victim for me. Maybe they came into radicalization while in the west but what about the radicals who never have come to the West?

Having had a large contingent of Islamic students in my department, and seeing the extreme pressure they put themselves under to be 'good Muslims', how they alienate themselves, and how they treat/intimidate those Muslims who do try to adopt western ways, I think you are off the mark. The problem is inherent to their culture not the West.

Ustwo... it was not my intention to blame the victim, rather it is an attempt, after much reading about the subject, to understand the causes.

I would agree that the problem lies in their culture (lack of free speech, lack of democracy, combined with corrupt leadership and a radicalized religion) but it is when that culture intersects in the West that some of the more intense forms of radicalization have occurred.

As you have pointed out, you have seen the, "extreme pressure they put themselves under to be 'good Muslims', how they alienate themselves, and how they treat/intimidate those Muslims who do try to adopt western ways". It clearly isn't *just* the West that I am pointing to rather it is the two in combination.

Poverty doesnt explain it all. There is massive poverty in the far east, in Christian parts of Africa, in South America... and not the same movements.

I never said that there are not other problems in the world, and I never claimed that the majority of Muslim's are peaceful and industrious people. But the trend for extremism and violence in Islam IS growing rapidly.

The situation of every nation is unique, but we can see commonality in Pakistan, in Northern Iraq, in Iran, in Afghanistan, in Somalia, in Sudan... in many other places.

This is a recent trend. Historically, Islam supported the rights of women far more than other "religions of the book" - this corruption of Islam has only really been seen since the end of WWII and onwards in my opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

That's because his followers don't live in an impoverished, war torn region. If you remove war and poverty from the Middle East, you remove the bite of radical fundamentalism. That's my point.

The region isn't impoverished because of war. The poverty was there before the war.

Poverty is rampant in the ME because of the oil. The ruling elite don't have to tap their citizens to create wealth all they need do is tap the earth for oil. The nations that have run out or never had oil to begin with are the ones in the middle east that are the most liberal, have democracies (even if they are just starting out like Bahrain) and encourage diversity.

A nation that has to rely on its people for wealth and prosperity, rather than natural resources, cannot afford to ignore 50% of its populace. So they tend to be more liberal with women's rights.

Those same nations, if they are to tap the resources of their people, must invest in education (upgrades in the software of their people if you will).

They must also rely, increasingly, on trade and interaction with other nations. This inevitably results in a more cosmopolitan outlook.

However, when the opposite is true and all the elite need do to create wealth is drill into the ground and sell their natural resources, they do not have pay attention to their populations other than to keep an eye on them to ensure that they do not rise up to overthrow them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

The region isn't impoverished because of war.

I didn't say it was. I'm saying both poverty and war, as two different realities in the region are more responsible for the radicalization of the people than religion ever could. Religion is simply the straw that breaks the camel's back or the fuse that lights the explosives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

Poverty doesnt explain it all. There is massive poverty in the far east, in Christian parts of Africa, in South America... and not the same movements. (snip)

This is a recent trend. Historically, Islam supported the rights of women far more than other "religions of the book" - this corruption of Islam has only really been seen since the end of WWII and onwards in my opinion.

You are right. Poverty doesn't explain it all.

Add to this mix the fact that there is a lack of democracy (read: input into how things are done by the people), a lack of free speech (read: no outlet for grievances), massive corruption, etc.

It is interesting to note that India has the second largest Muslim population and yet there were no Indian Muslims involved in 9/11. There were no Indian Muslims clamouring to join Al-Queda in Afghanistan (this is not to say that there are no issues between Hindus and Muslims in India, I am just pointing out their absence in the larger trend we are discussing here). As I read it, Muslims in India have an outlet for their issues in democratic India. There have been not only Muslim Prime Ministers of India but Muslim women Prime Ministers.

Looking at the hot spots around the world today I see a lack of democracy, a lack of free press, a lack of education and opportunities for their populations, a lack of personal freedoms. This is not simply a problem of Islam. To paraphrase Ustwo... Islam isn't the problem, it is the lightning rod.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Ok I misunderstood.

Anyway, they have pardonned her and let her go.

gee, that means that all this blather in this thread about this fiction "radial islam" didn't account for or illuminate anything about this situation in the sudan, doesn't it?

what a shock.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

gee, that means that all this blather in this thread about this fiction "radial islam" didn't account for or illuminate anything about this situation in the sudan, doesn't it?

what a shock.

Yes obviously the people calling for her death were in on it :rolleyes:

Someone was using radical Islam for their own goals, shocking that religious fanatics would be used as a weapon right?

i already stated my position on the "analysis" you have put up, and on the related "analyses"...i thought them a waste of time before i found out about how this came about (i knew quite early on in the thread, just by reading articles on the actual situation)...they have been demonstrated to be a waste of time now.

You know, a lady was on the radio the other day and explained something about "radical Islam" in these dirt poor countries - many of the people are illiterate, and if they are literate in Urdu or Pustan or some other language, they still cannot read Arabic, the language in which the Koran and other sacred Islamic documents are written.

Thus, they are highly susceptible to whatever a given imam or village loudmouth tells them and cannot easily interpret these documents for themselves. And if the imam tells them "Teddy Bears cannot be named Mohammed" - then that's what they end up believing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

Undoubtedly some are as you describe, but it goes deeper than that.

http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/5656/19jtd7.jpg

These guys could read the Koran just fine. (Suras 2-9)

How do you know they were all Muslim?

Will's right. They were pawns of the Mossad.

it's not so surprising--american conservatives believe in this bogeyman called "radical islam"--they confuse it with a single coherent entity despite all empirical evidence to the contrary (even in this thread, the problem turned up--via seaver, charlatan, will and others--that you can't say anything singular about class composition, that you cant offer a single explanation that refers to anything beyond nationalist-driven paranoia)....

some conservatives seem to believe that a category constructed to market the bush administration and then to market war, a category which made cynical use of 9/11/2001 for its own political advantage (while decrying its use for political advantage) refers to something in the world. its laughable, but it functions.

so there is little difference between the demos you read about calling for death to the namer of teddy bears and what you read from ustwo and others calling for some campaign against this fantasm of a single, unified "radical islam"...

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

How do you know they were all Muslim?

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/3875/sagainji7.jpg

Maybe it isn't that there is a single "unified" radical Islam, just that Islam by and tends to be radical, just as it tends to be repressive and intolerant.

Case examples are not merely limited British teachers in Sudan, but how about Darfur, countries like Iran, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Tribal Pakistan, Iraq without secular rule take your pick between Al Qaeda or the Sunni/Shiite's going at it, even countries that were more moderate like Indonesia have been put on watch lists for new found repressive of other religions and upticks in radicalization.

So I guess I can point to all this evidence of problems, which by and large came at the behest of Muslims (radical ones), in Muslim countries. But according to RB this isn't real, there is no connection, its incoherent, and a construct. Islamic jihadism existed before Shrub, and it will be there after him too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

I can't say anything singular about class composition. Can you be more specific? I named the royal families as a probable cause of some of the issues with poverty and war. I doubt anyone could disagree.

Ustwo, Fayez Banihammad was probably agnostic and was motivated by anti-westernism, not Islam. His youth in the UAE was spent with his parents, who are not Muslim.

there are radicalised movements in any number of places.
the causes that lay behind them are as varied as the places, as the situations.
that they are in some cases drawing on similar options, and probably are elements in a cassette exchange network (you can formalize sending casettes around as a network, but that does not imply that it is centrally directed).
the unification of these movements into a single thing is a construct.
THAT is the point i am making: it's not so hard to grasp. geez.

will: just so you know, i tried to make a separation between stuff that you and charlatan and seaver had posted (mojo came late to this, so is excluded from what my post today are about--nice to see you, btw, mojo...) and the posts by ustwo (and a few others) that recycle the worthless huntington thesis.
i'll just repeat it here--i think that the problems that the thread ran into in trying to say anything singular about "radical islam" demonstrates what i am arguing--and besides, the other main argument was that this situation was ABOUT THE SUDAN.

i have objected to the generalizing drift in this thread from the beginning.
i think it was, is, and remains entirely unjustified.
i should add that i understand the temptation to do it--and that is behind the objections as well.

anyway...

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

the unification of these movements into a single thing is a construct.

I follow you completely. So the idea that all Islamic fundamentalists are somehow unified or even share a causation is flawed. I agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

will: just so you know, i tried to make a separation between stuff that you and charlatan and seaver had posted (mojo came late to this, so is excluded from what my post today are about--nice to see you, btw, mojo...) and the posts by ustwo (and a few others) that recycle the worthless huntington thesis.

I kinda figured that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Undoubtedly some are as you describe, but it goes deeper than that.

http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/5656/19jtd7.jpg

These guys could read the Koran just fine. (Suras 2-9)

I suppose there are pictures of George Bush and Tony Blair on various mid-east boards, but are they, even as elected officials, representative of the feelings of all or even the majority of Americans and Brits?

Again today, a British teacher in Khartoum called in to Five Live (a BBC radio staion) and said that there were a few hundred crackpots in a city of a couple of million people who were demonstrating and calling for severe punishment to be given the teacher. Virtually every Muslim he worked with at his school thought that while the teacher who caused the offence wasn't very bright, they (the local Muslims) have been pretty embarrassed by this situation, just as most (but not all) Americans are embarassed by Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, for instance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

The people are impoverished because the ruling families suck ass.

More along the lines of years of instability created by the invading imperialists from the West. But I digress.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Undoubtedly some are as you describe, but it goes deeper than that.

http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/5656/19jtd7.jpg

These guys could read the Koran just fine. (Suras 2-9)

Ustwo, you've bought a line of incoherent bullshit from "the government". Your blind, unquestioning acceptance of authority's official "story", as incomplete and riddled with contradictions as it is, is unfortunately the reason that they could foist this crap on the world and not even bother to correct or update it:

Quote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag....%2011,%202001

By JAMES RISEN AND DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: August 2, 2003

The classified part of a Congressional report on the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, says that two Saudi citizens who had at least indirect links with two hijackers were probably Saudi intelligence agents and may have reported to Saudi government officials, according to people who have seen the report.

These findings, according to several people who have read the report, help to explain why the classified part of the report has become so politically charged, causing strains between the United States and Saudi Arabia. Senior Saudi officials have denied any links between their government and the attacks and have asked that the section be declassified, but President Bush has refused...

....Today, 46 Democratic senators asked that the deleted material be released, saying the national security issues Mr. Bush cited as the reason the material was classified could be addressed by careful editing. Republicans, including Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, a former Intelligence Committee chairman, have also called for its release.

Several Congressional officials familiar with the report say that only a small part of the classified section dealing with the specifics of F.B.I. counterintelligence and counterterrorism activities should remain classified. Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said, ''Keeping this material classified only strengthens the theory that some in the U.S. government are hellbent on covering up for the Saudis.''....

http://web.archive.org/web/200612300...urec0903.shtml
Terror Two Years After
As we mark the second anniversary of 9/11, questions remain about San Diego’s links to terrorists operating on U.S. soil

By Jamie Reno

This month marks the two-year anniversary of the terrorist attacks on America. But do we now have a clear understanding of all the facts behind the horrible events of September 11, 2001? In many ways, no. Though a report on the congressional probe (with 28 censored pages) was finally released in late July, after months of political haggling, there appears to be belated and only tepid interest by our federal government in following the 9/11 money trail to Saudi Arabia.

Terrorists could not have pulled off such an ambitious offensive without substantial financial and logistical support, here and abroad. However, countless intelligence leads that might help solve this mystery appear to have been underinvestigated or completely overlooked by the FBI, particularly in San Diego.....

Quote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...5AC0A9679C8B63

September 21, 2001
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE HIJACKERS; Confusion Over Names Clouds Identities of Attackers on Jets
By NEIL MACFARQUHAR

Many of the 19 hijacking suspects in the terror attacks last week remain shrouded in confusion, with almost nothing known about some and up to five apparent cases of mistaken identity.

The F.B.I. list of hijacking suspects does include the names of at least six missing Saudi Arabian men who left their country, ostensibly to join the Islamic fighters battling the Russians in Chechnya, plus four others whose parents have lost contact with them.

But the lack of the details about the suspects, plus the assertions of mistaken identity, have left their parents refusing to mourn and Saudi Arabian officials dismissive of the entire list.

''The haste in publishing the names of suspects in the attacks has made the media fall into the error of involving innocent people, especially Saudis,'' Prince Mit'eb bin Abdullah, the deputy commander of the Saudi National Guard, complained to reporters in Riyadh.

The use of wrong names and pictures may indicate that the hijackers filched the identities of fellow Saudis.

In the United States, Robert Mueller, the director of the F.B.I., acknowledged Thursday that there were questions about the identities of several of the hijackers on the list.

''We have several hijackers whose identities were those of the names on the manifest, we have several others who are still in question,'' Mr. Mueller said while touring the crash site in Pennsylvania of one hijacked plane.

An official at the Saudi Embassy in Washington said there were five mistaken identities on the list, adding that all the men were alive and living abroad.

Saudi officials say part of the problem stems from the proliferation of similar names in Saudi Arabia, as well as the numerous varieties of spelling them in English.

One of the most common surnames on the F.B.I. list is Alshehri. But in English various members of the clan might spell it Alshahri or Alshehiri or Al-Shehri, entangling search efforts.

Far more difficult is the fact that the country's huge tribes repeat the same names over and over again....

Quote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1553754.stm
Friday, 21 September, 2001, 11:08 GMT 12:08 UK
FBI probes hijackers' identities

...The FBI has said that the identities of some of its list of 19 hijackers behind last week's devastating attacks are in doubt.

It believes that some of the hijackers used false identities, possibly even names of people who are still alive, which could significantly complicate the manhunt. ...

Quote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1556096.stm
Friday, 21 September, 2001, 12:24 GMT 13:24 UK
The last moments of Flight 11

... A US official praised Ms Sweeney's ability to keep calm and describe the crisis as it unfolded but the mother-of-two's words ended in horror and disbelief.

When Ms Sweeney came on the phone to ground staff in Boston it was to report that a hijack was in progress.

Four attackers had cut the throat of a passenger in business class and stabbed two others, she said.

Three of the hijackers had been sitting in business class themselves and one spoke very good English.

Composure

As Ms Sweeney was giving their seat numbers, they reached the cockpit and it was then, as the plane suddenly changed course, that she spoke her last reported words: ....

..."She was very, very composed, very detailed," he said.

"It was impressive that she could do that."

Ms Sweeney's account of the hijacking provides unique evidence of what took place but it also appears to conflict with previous information.

The FBI has named five hijackers on board Flight 11, whereas Ms Sweeney spotted only four.

Also, the seat numbers she gave were different from those registered in the hijackers' names.

Quote:

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/092701hjpic.htm

For Immediate Release
September 27, 2001

Washington D.C.
FBI National Press Office
(202) 324-3691

The FBI releases 19 photographs of individuals believed to be the hijackers
of the four airliners that crashed on September 11, 01

View Photographs

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is today releasing 19 photographs of individuals believed to be the hijackers of the four airliners that crashed on September 11, 2001, into the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon, and in Stony Creek Township, Pennsylvania. The FBI requests the public's assistance in obtaining more information about these individuals.

It should be noted that attempts to confirm the true identities of these individuals are still under way. The FBI asks anyone who has ever seen or has information about these individuals to immediately contact the nearest FBI office or the toll free hotline number 1-866-483-5137 or submit information at WWW.IFCCFBI.GOV. The photographs can be viewed at WWW.FBI.GOV.

AMERICAN AIRLINES #77
BOEING 757

1) Khalid Almihdhar - Possible Saudi national

-Possible resident of San Diego, California, and New York

-Alias: Sannan Al-Makki; Khalid Bin Muhammad; 'Addallah Al-Mihdhar; Khalid Mohammad Al-Saqaf

2) Majed Moqed - Possible Saudi national

-Alias: Majed M.GH Moqed; Majed Moqed, Majed Mashaan Moqed

3) Nawaf Alhazmi - Possible Saudi national

-Possible resident of Fort Lee, New Jersey; Wayne, New Jersey; San Diego, California

-Alias: Nawaf Al-Hazmi; Nawaf Al Hazmi; Nawaf M.S. Al Hazmi

4) Salem Alhazmi - Possible Saudi national

-Possible resident of Fort Lee, New Jersey; Wayne, New Jersey

5) Hani Hanjour -

-Possible resident of Phoenix, Arizona, and San Diego, California

-Alias: Hani Saleh Hanjour; Hani Saleh; Hani Hanjour, Hani Saleh H. Hanjour...

Quote:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2001/1...ees011102.html

Arab Americans worry about profiling, civil liberties
Last Updated: Saturday, November 3, 2001 | 2:15 AM ET
CBC News

....FBI Director Robert Mueller said Friday investigators have established the true identities of all 19 of the Sept. 11 hijackers and have found places outside the United States where the plot was hatched......

http://multimedia.belointeractive.co...stigation.html
FBI clear on hijackers' identities

11/03/2001

By KAREN GULLO
Associated Press Writer

.....The identities of some of the hijackers were in question for weeks after the attacks because investigators were not sure whether some were carrying false identification when they boarded planes in Washington and Boston.

``We at this point definitely know the 19 hijackers who were responsible,'' Mueller said.

The FBI has confirmed that the hijackers' names released in late September are the true identities of all 19 men, said a law enforcement source, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The names were those listed on the planes' passenger manifests and investigators were certain that those were the names the hijackers used when they entered the United States. But questions remained about whether they were the hijackers' true identities, partly because some of their names are common in the Arab world and some of the hijackers fraudulently obtained state identification cards before the hijackings.

Investigators now believe the names released on Sept. 28 are the hijackers' real names.

The Saudi Institute, an independent human rights watchdog group that has researched the hijackers' identities, said at least one of the hijackers identified by the FBI used stolen identification.

Abdulaziz Alomari was identified by the FBI one of the hijackers of an American Airlines plane that was crashed into the World Trade Center. Ali Al-Ahmed, the Saudi Institute's director, said Alomari used someone else's passport. ....

Quote:

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/pen...identified.htm
....Investigators have identified remains of 184 people who were aboard American Airlines Flight 77 or inside the Pentagon, including those of the five hijackers, but they say it is impossible to match what is left with the five missing people.

...The remains of the five hijackers have been identified through a process of exclusion, as they did not match DNA samples contributed by family members of all 183 victims who died at the site.

The hijackers' remains will be turned over to the FBI and held as evidence, FBI spokesman Chris Murray said. After the investigation is concluded, the State Department will decide what is to be done with the remains.

Posted: 21 November 2001

Quote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...23/widen23.xml
Revealed: the men with stolen identities

By David Harrison
Last Updated: 2:03am BST 23/09/2001

....The other two men accused of being terrorists are Salem Al-Hamzi and Ahmed Al-Nami. Mr Al-Hamzi is 26 and had just returned to work at a petrochemical complex in the industrial eastern city of Yanbou after a holiday in Saudi Arabia when the hijackers struck. He was accused of hijacking the American Airlines Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon.

He said: "I have never been to the United States and have not been out of Saudi Arabia in the past two years." The FBI described him as 21 and said that his possible residences were Fort Lee or Wayne, both in New Jersey.....

Quote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september1...601550,00.html

Special report: terrorism in the US

Nick Hopkins in New York
Friday September 21, 2001
The Guardian

....After analysis of the passenger lists of the four hijacked flights and other immigration documents, investigators identified Salem Al-Hazmi and Abdulaziz Al-Omari as two of the terrorists.

The real Salem Al-Hazmi, however, is alive and indignant in Saudi Arabia, and not one of the people who perished in the American Airlines flight that crashed on the Pentagon. He works at a government-owned petroleum and chemical plant in the city of Yanbu. .....

....The FBI said it was reviewing the information about those on board the flights and that "the possibility that some of the identities are in question is being actively pursued".

The confusion has added to the problems of investigators. They have discovered that one of the men arrested, Badr Mohammed Hamzi, a radiologist from San Antonio, Texas, <h3>regularly used the name Khalid Al-Midhar</h3>, who has been named as another of the hijackers.....

And Rudi Gulliani whispered "9/11".

Threadjack much guys?

I just don't see where anything is gained by generalizing. All it does is attempt to simplify a complex issue and in the process ends up demonizing those moderates who would support your point of view.

And make no mistake the moderates are there.

Moderates are few in far between in the Middle East, and they have even less influence than presence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Moderates are few in far between in the Middle East, and they have even less influence than presence.

Mojo, your own words tell me that you are akin to a mirror image, in your thinking (and the emotion that wells up from it..) of those (the non-moderates) in the middle east:<br>
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=2054684#post2054684">Do YOU think Iran is developing nuclear weapons?</a>

Quote:

Originally Posted by <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2054684&postcount=38">Mojo_PeiPei</a>

It's funny people bring Bush into it, somehow this problem, a 25 year old problem, is his fault. And for that matter, there is plenty of evidence to support the claim that Iran is seeking to get nuclear weapons, it just happens you choose not to except it. I like that people buy into the Ayatollahs Fatwa, a man who supports terrorism, with known operational ties to Hezbollah and Al Qaeda, yeah his fatwas are legit. Then people are saying that the Diplomatic game is Bush's fault, that's cute. Under their last president Khatami, a reformist, we were making a lot of head way, they claim to halted their programs for a substantial period of time under him to work on (I don't buy it), the second Ahmadinejad took office he resumed his programs.

They have been enriching Uranium for 25 years; they claim only recently to have successfully done (for the first time as of April 2006) it to 3.5% a number that is significantly lower than what is necessary for a nuclear weapon. In reality soil samples around Iran were found at much high levels, Iran claims that it was due to contaminated material which they had purchased from Pakistan, or namely Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani scientist who was caught for selling nuclear technology, nuclear materials, and nuclear weaponry outlines to Libya, Iran, and North Korea... Wow, that sure is a jolly old bunch, I wonder what they might be after?

It's funny how people so easily buy into the inconsistencies, rhetoric, and lies, all because of their distaste for one man, who is in no way responsible for this problem. Sort of cute how in November of 2003 Baradei of the IAEA released a report spanning 30 pages which had found Iran has successfully completed the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle being Uranium mining and milling, conversion, enrichement, fuel fabrication, heavy water production, a light water reactor, a heavy water research reactor, as well as various other developmental facilities... all in secret. They happen to forget to disclose the imports of uranium metal, yellow cake, uranium hexaflouride, and depleted uranium, that is conveneient. Or tell how it works out that Iran only recently said they had enriched Uranium as I pointed out above, at very modest levels, yet they were discovered by Division B of the IAEA to have already enriched uranium to extremely high levels in 2003, and the tests suggested that the samples had even been "cleaned" up. It's a fact since the George H. W. Bush administration their have been reports given to congress, stating that Iran had a "continuing interest" in nuclear weaopns and related technology, and that they were in the early stages of a weapons program. In 1982 it was disclosed that Iran had imported 531 meteric tons of yellowcake, that's more then Brazils nuclear reactors produce in a year; ofcourse they didn't disclose that they had been importing materials or enriching until 2003, again the program was at that point 22 years old. Here are a few examples I pulled from a book I got "Countdown to Crisis" by Kenneth Timmerman, a nobel peace prize nominee.

It's all good if you don't care about this whole situation, but it's absurd to sit there and make baseless claims that are contrary to reality.

What you have in common, in the US/UK and in the M.E., is that those who believe the worst of the motives and intentions of their mirror opposites and thus conclude that a violent "solution" is "rational" are the last to recognize that they are part of the problem, and not part of the solution.

Everything I wrote is fact, and documented, the evidence didn't yield the end results of Iran going after nuclear weapons, all the same the information was accurate.

Why would I not believe the worst motives of the Iranian regime, they have been nothing but problematic for American policy in the last 30 years, the way they treat their people is even more testament to problems in Islam, as it is a theocratic regime ran by clerics.

And I don't see where I was necessarily advocated a violent position or action/reaction. Note the head way and reform that was achieved under Khatemi before Ahmadinejad, that was while Bush was in office and things were looking up. The Iranian government and populace made their bed from there whether voting in that cook, and all of his subsequent policy choices.

And I don't get how that makes me part of the problem. Noting information, and not trusting a government that has pulibcally called for our destruction, actively works against our policies, and has long had ties to extremism. Sorry I'm not into some hippy song and dance where I am assume the best in everyone.