Why They Did It

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

The Author is Iranian

Guest contributors

July 08, 2005

And this is why they did it
Amir Taheri
There is no way to reason with the terrorists, but the thinking behind their actions is perfectly clear
THE FIRST QUESTION that comes to mind is: what took them so long? The answer may be that in the past four years the British authorities have succeeded in preventing attacks on a number of occasions. David Blunkett, who was then Home Secretary, was often mocked for suggesting that this was the case.

It may take some time before the full identity of the attackers is established. But the ideology that motivates them, the networks that sustain them and the groups that finance them are all too well known.

*
Moments after yesterday's attacks my telephone was buzzing with requests for interviews with one recurring question: but what do they want? That reminded me of Theo van Gogh, the Dutch film-maker, who was shot by an Islamist assassin on his way to work in Amsterdam last November. According to witnesses, Van Gogh begged for mercy and tried to reason with his assailant. "Surely we can discuss this," he kept saying as the shots kept coming. "Let us talk it over."

Van Gogh, who had angered Islamists with his documentary about the mistreatment of women in Islam, was reacting like BBC reporters did yesterday, assuming that the man who was killing him may have some reasonable demands which could be discussed in a calm, democratic atmosphere.

But sorry, old chaps, you are dealing with an enemy that does not want anything specific, and cannot be talked back into reason through anger management or round-table discussions. Or, rather, this enemy does want something specific: to take full control of your lives, dictate every single move you make round the clock and, if you dare resist, he will feel it his divine duty to kill you.

The ideological soil in which alQaeda, and the many groups using its brand name, grow was described by one of its original masterminds, the Pakistani Abul-Ala al-Maudoodi more than 40 years ago. It goes something like this: when God created mankind He made all their bodily needs and movements subject to inescapable biological rules but decided to leave their spiritual, social and political needs and movements largely subject to their will. Soon, however, it became clear that Man cannot run his affairs the way God wants. So God started sending prophets to warn man and try to goad him on to the right path. A total of 128,000 prophets were sent, including Moses and Jesus. They all failed. Finally, God sent Muhammad as the last of His prophets and the bearer of His ultimate message, Islam. With the advent of Islam all previous religions were "abrogated" (mansukh), and their followers regarded as "infidel" (kuffar). The aim of all good Muslims, therefore, is to convert humanity to Islam, which regulates Man's spiritual, economic, political and social moves to the last detail.

But what if non-Muslims refuse to take the right path? Here answers diverge. Some believe that the answer is dialogue and argument until followers of the "abrogated faiths" recognise their error and agree to be saved by converting to Islam. This is the view of most of the imams preaching in the mosques in the West. But others, including Osama bin Laden, a disciple of al-Maudoodi, believe that the Western-dominated world is too mired in corruption to hear any argument, and must be shocked into conversion through spectacular ghazavat (raids) of the kind we saw in New York and Washington in 2001, in Madrid last year, and now in London.

That yesterday's attack was intended as a ghazava was confirmed in a statement by the Secret Organisation Group of al-Qaeda of Jihad Organisation in Europe, an Islamist group that claimed responsibility for yesterday's atrocity. It said "We have fulfilled our promise and carried out our blessed military raid (ghazava) in Britain after our mujahideen exerted strenuous efforts over a long period of time to ensure the success of the raid." Those who carry out these missions are the ghazis, the highest of all Islamic distinctions just below that of the shahid or martyr. A ghazi who also becomes a shahid will be doubly meritorious.

There are many Muslims who believe that the idea that all other faiths have been "abrogated" and that the whole of mankind should be united under the banner of Islam must be dropped as a dangerous anachronism. But to the Islamist those Muslims who think like that are themselves regarded as lapsed, and deserving of death.

It is, of course, possible, as many in the West love to do, to ignore the strategic goal of the Islamists altogether and focus only on their tactical goals. These goals are well known and include driving the "Cross-worshippers" (Christian powers) out of the Muslim world, wiping Israel off the map of the Middle East, and replacing the governments of all Muslim countries with truly Islamic regimes like the one created by Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran and by the Taleban in Afghanistan.

How to achieve those objectives has been the subject of much debate in Islamist circles throughout the world, including in London, since 9/11. Bin Laden has consistently argued in favour of further ghazavat inside the West. He firmly believes that the West is too cowardly to fight back and, if terrorised in a big way, will do "what it must do". That view was strengthened last year when al-Qaeda changed the Spanish Government with its deadly attack in Madrid. At the time bin Laden used his "Madrid victory" to call on other European countries to distance themselves from the United States or face similar "punishment".

Bin Laden's view has been challenged by his supposed No 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who insists that the Islamists should first win the war inside several vulnerable Muslim countries, notably Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Until yesterday it seemed that al-Zawahiri was winning the argument, especially by heating things up in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yesterday, the bin Laden doctrine struck back in London.

The author is an Iranian commentator on Middle Eastern affairs.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,233 • Replies: 19

No top replies

This is a refreshing point of view, Rayban, especially in light of all the anti-American diatribes mostly blaming George Bush for every atrocity committed by everybody since the beginning of the last millenium. Such as those think it is racist or at least politically incorrect to observe that it is a extreme radical militant fundamentalist Islam that is at the heart of most of modern terrorism.

They further think that if we acknowledge and apologize for our guilt that caused extreme radical fundamentalist Islam to murder hundred and thousands of innocent men, women, and children and just meekly submit, extreme radical fundamentalist Islam would put up their bombs, bullets, and knives, there would be peace. After all being under extreme radical fundamentalist Islamic law wouldn't be all that bad, would it?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

After all being under extreme radical fundamentalist Islamic law wouldn't be all that bad, would it?

you know what i'm just dying to say to this, don't you foxy? Laughing

at least for myself, i hold the doers responsible for their violent actions. in fact i don't know anyone that supportsd them.

but, it is only logical to wonder why they hate us (and they do...) and if our actions have fostered that hatred in any way. simply aknowledging that hatred and violent terrorism doesn't spring up in a vacum doesn't mean that "you hate america" or any of that claptrap.

it's just plain smart to try and understand a problem so you can fix it.

personally i don't care to live under any extreme radical fundamentalist religious law. foreign or domestic.

0 Replies

From the article Rayban posted, DTOM:

Quote:

The ideological soil in which alQaeda, and the many groups using its brand name, grow was described by one of its original masterminds, the Pakistani Abul-Ala al-Maudoodi more than 40 years ago. It goes something like this: when God created mankind He made all their bodily needs and movements subject to inescapable biological rules but decided to leave their spiritual, social and political needs and movements largely subject to their will. Soon, however, it became clear that Man cannot run his affairs the way God wants. So God started sending prophets to warn man and try to goad him on to the right path. A total of 128,000 prophets were sent, including Moses and Jesus. They all failed. Finally, God sent Muhammad as the last of His prophets and the bearer of His ultimate message, Islam. With the advent of Islam all previous religions were "abrogated" (mansukh), and their followers regarded as "infidel" (kuffar). The aim of all good Muslims, therefore, is to convert humanity to Islam, which regulates Man's spiritual, economic, political and social moves to the last detail.

If you go back to the beginning of the modern era of Islamic terrorism, here is where the roots are. That we fight back, that we live our lives as we choose, that we have our own culture, our own religion(s), and our own way of life is pointed to as an excuse, but the roots are right there as the writer explains it.

What has radical fundamentalist extremist Islam done to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, heal the sick, rescue the opressed, restore the devastated, etc. etc. etc.? Again and again Americans, Christian or not, have been there giving generously of themselves, their blood, and their treasure. Are we saints? No way. Are we perfect? Not even close. Do we make mistakes, even sin at times? Absolutely. But we don't have to hang our heads and shame or wring our hands that we made bloodthirsty, ruthless terrorists angry. They were already angry, and it wasn't us that made them that way.

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

it's just plain smart to try and understand a problem so you can fix it.

"And when the sacred months are passed, kill those who join other gods with God [Allah] wherever ye shall find them; and seize them, besiege them with every kind of ambush; but if they shall convert, and observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go their way, for God [Allah] is Gracious, Merciful." -Koran (Surah IX. 5,6)

And the words of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh's murderer:

"I can assure you that one day, should I be set free, I would do exactly the same, exactly the same," he said, speaking slowly in sometimes halted Dutch.

He said he felt an obligation to Van Gogh's mother Anneke, present in court, to speak, but offered no sympathy.

"I have to admit I do not feel for you, I do not feel your pain, I cannot -- I don't know what it is like to lose a child," he said as Van Gogh's family and friends looked on.

"I cannot feel for you ... because I believe you are an infidel," he added.

Mr. Van Gogh's crime was, according to this man, insulting his religion. So, Mr. Van Gogh had to die.

Of course, you are right to want to try to understand this problem. But, to the radical segment of this religion, it's not just us they hate. It's all infidels, or anyone who doesn't believe as they do.

As for your point of not knowing anyone who supports these radicals, neither do I. But neither have I seen many in that faith raising their voices to condemn those who would be so intolerant of others.

0 Replies

DTOM wrote:

but, it is only logical to wonder why they hate us (and they do...) and if our actions have fostered that hatred in any way. simply aknowledging that hatred and violent terrorism doesn't spring up in a vacum doesn't mean that "you hate america" or any of that claptrap.

it's just plain smart to try and understand a problem so you can fix it.

I certainly agree that it is smart to try and understand a problem and then try and fix it, but in view of the fact that Wahabism started in approx. 1750 in what is now Saudi Arabia and it can be defined as a revolution within a religion, it doesn't make much sense to blame ourselves for something they've been doing for over 200 years. They used violence, beheadings and other such forms of violence, to bring moderate Muslims and sometime Muslims under the the strict interpretation of the Koran that the current crop of fanatics are striving for.

If they were using terrorism to subdue other Muslims 200 plus years ago, don't you think it might be possible that they have adapted to todays media technology and are using anything and everything as an excuse to blame the US for the current situation.....particularly when they know the media will pass on their propaganda. Now I know you are an intelligent person and you wouldn't fall for any of the stupid commercials on TV, but you seem to swallow every scrap of info that blames us for all the problems of the world.

Try to read the article that I presented with an open mind.......I believe the author is knowledgeable and does not have a political agenda. He is trying to educate, not indoctrinate.

0 Replies

David Ignatius is probably the most fair minded commentator in the vast mix of current event analysts and this is what he thinks about the war on terrorism.

Winning A Battle Of Wills

By David Ignatius

Wednesday, July 13, 2005; Page A21

The real threat posed by last week's brutal bombings in London is that the Muslim terrorists who apparently planted the bombs still think they can win. Breaking that psychology is the fundamental challenge for responsible leaders in the West and the Muslim world.

Compare the first statements from both sides, and you can see the essential battle of wills. A group calling itself the Secret Organization of al Qaeda in Europe posted a triumphal statement immediately after the London attacks last Thursday, claiming that "Britain is now burning with fear, terror and panic." That was untrue, as anyone watching Londoners on television could see. But the attacks showed the determination and resourcefulness of the terrorist underground.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair's first statement after the bombings also went to the heart of the matter: "Our determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than their determination to cause death and destruction." Later in the day Blair put it more succinctly: "We shall prevail, and they shall not."

But what does "winning" mean, and how does it fit public sentiments on both sides of the battle? That's the subject of two fascinating studies that surfaced just before the London bombings. Taken together they help clarify some of the strategic issues facing the Bush administration and its allies.

The terrorists' motivation is outlined in a disturbing new book by political scientist Robert A. Pape, "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism." He analyzed the 315 suicide attacks that occurred around the world from 1980 to 2003 and concluded that in nearly every case terrorists were resisting what they regarded as foreign occupation. Their goal was "to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland," Pape writes. They turned to suicide attacks because, in their judgment, they worked against democratic societies, which have difficulty absorbing the pain the terrorists can inflict.

Pape quotes a 2003 sermon by Osama bin Laden that focused on what bin Laden saw as America's vulnerability to such attacks: "America is a great power possessed of tremendous military might and a wide-ranging economy, but all this is built on an unstable foundation which can be targeted, with special attention to its obvious weak spots. If America is hit in one hundredth of these weak spots, God willing, it will stumble, wither away and relinquish world leadership."

But what is the real psychological base line of America and its allies? Here I turn to a new paper by three Duke University political scientists -- Christopher F. Gelpi, Peter D. Feaver and Jason Reifler -- titled "Casualty Sensitivity and the War in Iraq" and available on the Internet. They argue that it isn't casualties per se that drive U.S. public opinion about war. Instead, it's the public perception of whether a war is winnable.

"When the public believes the mission will succeed, then the public is willing to continue supporting the mission, even as costs mount. When the public thinks victory is not likely, even small costs will be highly corrosive," the authors write. (Feaver is currently working for the Bush National Security Council staff.) Putting these two studies together, we can see that the challenge for the United States and its allies is to define "winning" in an achievable way, so that public support can be maintained. To win, says Pape, the United States must "defeat the current pool of terrorists now actively planning to kill Americans" and at the same time "prevent a new, potentially larger generation from rising up." As long as a war can be characterized as resistance to foreign occupation, the terrorists will maintain support from their public.

That's the puzzle the Bush administration confronts in Iraq. There aren't any easy solutions, but it seems to me that the administration is on the right track with its plans, reported in a leaked British memo last week, to reduce troop levels in Iraq by more than half by early next year and turn over 14 of 18 provinces to Iraqi control. That will allow the United States to focus on training Iraqi security forces, which are the only ones that can stabilize the country in the long run. The administration is also wise to seek a political settlement with Iraq's Sunni Muslims, in the recognition, as Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick said in Amman, Jordan, this week, that "military means alone are not capable of defeating the insurgency."

The most reassuring fact, a week after the London bombings, is that the terrorists clearly failed to achieve their goals. The West is not terrorized, and Western governments are more united now than before. The West isn't going to lose. But what will "winning" look like?

[email protected]

0 Replies

I think you should post that over on the Iraq thread...the BIG thread, Rayban. Some there are still operating under the delusion that if we just play nice with the terrorists, they will play nice.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I think you should post that over on the Iraq thread...the BIG thread, Rayban. Some there are still operating under the delusion that if we just play nice with the terrorists, they will play nice.

Yes.....you're correct , it would be more appropriate there but I gave up on that thread long ago........too many raving fanatics there.

0 Replies

Good post Rayban.

However, I struggle with what you have postulated and the continued responses from within (moderate?) Islam...such as this:

Quote:

Saudi Arabia's grand mufti strongly condemned the deadly blasts that rocked London and are believed to be the work of Al-Qaeda, saying Islam strictly prohibits the slaughter of innocent people.

The explosions that ripped through central London's transport system on Thursday, "targeting peaceable people, are not condoned by Islam, and are indeed prohibited by our religion," Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh said Friday in a statement carried by the official SPA news agency.

"Attributing to Islam acts of individual or collective killings, bombings, destruction of properties and the terrorizing of peaceable people is unfair, because they are alien to the religion," said Sheikh, who heads the Council of Senior Ulema, Saudi Arabia's highest religious authority.

Source

On a recent radio program, I heard a profile of the bombers' religious history...and they sounded more like angst-laden outcasts who adopted an extreme form of Islam late in life, only then finding a sense of meaning and belonging in their life.
I can't find this profile on the internet, but these guys sounded like they would have been deep throating a 9mm when Kurt Cobain offed himself.

0 Replies

Candidone wrote:

Attributing to Islam acts of individual or collective killings, bombings, destruction of properties and the terrorizing of peaceable people is unfair, because they are alien to the religion," said Sheikh, who heads the Council of Senior Ulema, Saudi Arabia's highest religious authority.

Candide

Saudi Arabia is THE LEAST tolerant of any of the Muslim nations when it comes to other religions and to believe ANYTHING from one of these zealots is sheer lunacy.....please forgive the expression but really, how can you attribute any credibility to any religious figure in Saudi Arabia. This is where Wahabism originated and Wahabism still wields the greatest influence on Muslims in that country, primarily because of intimidation.

In Saudi Arabia, you can and probably will be killed JUST for carrying a BIBLE. Instead of respecting us for allowing complete religious freedom in this country.......they think we are weak and stupid.

0 Replies

rayban1 wrote:

Saudi Arabia is THE LEAST tolerant of any of the Muslim nations when it comes to other religions and to believe ANYTHING from one of these zealots is sheer lunacy.....please forgive the expression but really, how can you attribute any credibility to any religious figure in Saudi Arabia.

Probably because I have the ability to see that one "zealot" is of a different kind than another "zealot".
Osama bin Laden/al-Zarqawi brand Wahhabism do not equal global representations of Islam.

Quote:

(2003)
Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh urged Muslims yesterday to shun extremism and avoid waging unjustified jihad as the Kingdom cracks down on militants.
In a lengthy statement, Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh told Saudis to listen to their religious authorities and ignore fanatical interpretations of Islam.
"A Muslim must understand his religion. It is the duty of the young and the whole Muslim world to know that violence is not a way to achieve reform," Al-Sheikh said.

Source

Quote:

The Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah Al Al-Sheikh said that Islam does not tolerate the shedding of blood or the random killing of either Muslims or non-Muslims. In a lecture given at King Faisal Auditorium on Monday evening, Al Al-Sheikh warned against acts of terrorism, and emphasised the detriment they cause to society.

Source

As the Grand Mufti, the highest official of religious law, and given the consistency with which he condemns violence in the name of jihad or of greater Islam, although a Sunni, I would trust the words of this "zealot" before I swept him under the umbrella with the Wahhabists with whom you attribute his affiliation.

rayban1 wrote:

This is where Wahabism originated and Wahabism still wields the greatest influence on Muslims in that country, primarily because of intimidation.

In Saudi Arabia, you can and probably will be killed JUST for carrying a BIBLE. Instead of respecting us for allowing complete religious freedom in this country.......they think we are weak and stupid.

Well, probably not killed.
Deported, maybe, lashed, perhaps....but not killed.

**Edited to add source link**

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

From the article Rayban posted, DTOM:

Quote:
The ideological soil in which alQaeda, and the many groups using its brand name, grow ....With the advent of Islam all previous religions were "abrogated" (mansukh), and their followers regarded as "infidel" (kuffar). The aim of all good Muslims, therefore, is to convert humanity to Islam, which regulates Man's spiritual, economic, political and social moves to the last detail.

honestly, i don't know that much about the history of al qaida previous to osama bin rotten's rise. so i'll take the article's view on good faith.

as far as islam's self view as the one "truth", that in itself isn't that different from the others. why be avis when you can say that you're hertz?

and the same goes for the evangelical, or conversion, component. others believe in spreading the word as well.

but, and it's a big but, (why yes, it is, dtom. and those tight jeans aren't helping ya any...) what is different in islam is the view that infidels have two choices; one is to convert to the faith. failure to convert results in the infidel's destruction. i haven't read the koran since the '70s, so i dont remember the exact wording, but it was quite clear what the intent was. so, in this aspect, we are in full agreement.

over the years i've known several muslim people, mostly from afghanistan, iran and iraq. like most people who identify as an adherent of a religion, some were strict observers and others were MINOs (muslim in name only). so, it seems logical to me that not all middle easterners who dislike or hate us do so simply by way of our status as infidels.

there is a certain amount of hostility due to the history of the crusades and more left over, and recycled in the young people, from colonial days of the british empire. they did get kind of dinked around by the brits. so, then they see america show up looking for oil or whatever and what they see is another empire coming to rob them.

it doesn't matter that america has been reasonably equitable with most of the middle eastern countries in business dealings, because most of the governments are either royals, corrupt or both. whatever wealth that america doles out never hits the streets where the common people see it. so, you can understand how the average youseff sees us simply as just another bunch of greedy interlopers sniffing around for whatever we can get. a view i don't subscribe to, btw.

the whole thing is a big perpetual motion machine. some people say that it can be fixed with democracy. some say it can be fixed with bombs. some say that the best thing to do is divest ourselves of any need to interact with the middle east at all.

the third option seems like a winner as far as oil and cheap imports, etc. however, even when you take that stuff out of the mix, the world is shrinking by the day and it's needed for everybody to interact in a civilized way going forward.

unfortunately, while you can lead a horse to water, you can't make him drink. and that's pretty much why i think in the long run, the iraq thing will not be quite the result that people are looking for. i would really like to be wrong about that, but....

this is kind of a tip of the iceberg explanation of where i'm coming from. suffice it to say that, as i posted earlier, it makes sense to me to get some idea of what people are thinking when dealing with them. then you have a better chance of success.

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
it's just plain smart to try and understand a problem so you can fix it.

"And when the sacred months are passed, kill those who join other gods with God [Allah] wherever ye shall find them; and seize them, besiege them with every kind of ambush; but if they shall convert, and observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go their way, for God [Allah] is Gracious, Merciful." -Koran (Surah IX. 5,6)

Of course, you are right to want to try to understand this problem. But, to the radical segment of this religion, it's not just us they hate. It's all infidels, or anyone who doesn't believe as they do.

As for your point of not knowing anyone who supports these radicals, neither do I. But neither have I seen many in that faith raising their voices to condemn those who would be so intolerant of others.

but, "islam means love". rightttttt....

hiya, jw. now if i'd only read down one more post...thanks for posting the surah. i think that's the one that had me dropping my copy of the koran off at the used book store all those years ago.

true, we seem to hear relatively very few muslims condemning the terrorist's actions. that in itself should tell us something, right ?

ultimately, it is the middle eastern people that are going to have to get over their "issues" such as tribalism, religion and misogyny to join up with the modern world. i have similar thoughts regarding africa. makes me unpopular with my more liberal friends, i gotta say...

0 Replies

rayban1 wrote:

DTOM wrote:
but, it is only logical to wonder why they hate us (and they do...) and if our actions have fostered that hatred in any way. simply aknowledging that hatred and violent terrorism doesn't spring up in a vacum doesn't mean that "you hate america" or any of that claptrap.

it's just plain smart to try and understand a problem so you can fix it.

I certainly agree that it is smart to try and understand a problem and then try and fix it, .... but you seem to swallow every scrap of info that blames us for all the problems of the world.

ray, ray, ray... ya gotta get over that "blame america first" thing. at least in regards to my pov's.

a) it's not true. and b) it's getting annoying to have to read it in every single response you make to me. take a chill pill and try to think about what i write. you don't have to agree with everything i say, but at least realize that disagreement with you or your more conservative views doesn't equal hating america.

also, i rarely swallow anybody's opinion without question. other than my wife's of course. :wink:

now,i pretty much agree with what you posted about wahabism and radical islam in general.

there. see how easy that was ?

0 Replies

I gotta agree that DTOM is not in the "hate America first" camp, Ray. He's a little soft on the war thing, maybe, but he is generally one of the good guys. Smile

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I gotta agree that DTOM is not in the "hate America first" camp, Ray. He's a little soft on the war thing, maybe, but he is generally one of the good guys.

OK...Fox......Sorry about that DTOM, I promise to remove you from the Hate America First list. Very Happy

0 Replies

it's cool. moving on...

in a piece i saw the other day, it seems that some islamic clerics are hesitant to condemn the violence fearing repercussions from the higher ups. that fear extends to even aknowledging that osama set up the 9/11 attacks.

sounds about right. i didn't know this till just a year or so ago (since i lost interest in islam a long way back), but remember salmon rushdie ? the fella that had a fetwa issued against him for putting out "the satanic verses".

as it turns out, "the satanic verses" are surahs, and such, that were subsequently removed from the koran. much of the material deals with being tolerant of other religions, from what i understand. really need to look into it more.

so the , essentially, rushdie was condemned to death simply for publishing the parts of the koran that actually did profess peaceful intentions.

0 Replies

That's really interesting DTOM. I can't remember what I was doing through all that but it apparently wasn't studying up on Islam or paying much more than casual attention to all the news about Rusdie. I just remember he had to seek asylum from the guys out to get him.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

That's really interesting DTOM. I can't remember what I was doing through all that but it apparently wasn't studying up on Islam or paying much more than casual attention to all the news about Rusdie. I just remember he had to seek asylum from the guys out to get him.

i just googled it again to see what's up. more than i have time for today, but there looks to be several views of the subject. we'll have to pick up on it after i have researched it. unless someone else here knows the details already...

0 Replies

Why They Did It

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know