|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Mother 'offered herself and five-month-old son for martyrdom'
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Mother 'offered herself and five-month-old son for martyrdom'
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| Stonewall |
Wife 'offered herself and five-month-old son for martyrdom'
Last updated at 16:07pm on 30th May 2007
An Islamic religious leader and his wife flew into the UK with missile blueprints and bomb recipes to be used against the West, a court has heard.
Yassin Nassari, 28, was caught carrying instructions to build the same rockets used by the Palastinian terrorist group Hamas as well as a chilling library of extreme Islamic documents, jurors heard.
The Old Bailey heard his wife, Bouchra El-Hor, 24, actively encouraged her husband to become a terrorist and had offered herself and the couple's five-month-old son for martyrdom.
Prosecutor Aftab Jafferjee said: "It is the prosecution's case that they are not merely radicalised Muslims but that Nassari was going to engage in what he and others like him would call a 'jihad' but what the law describes as terrorism.
"He possessed both the ideology and the technology with which that could be achieved either by him or by some other like-minded people.
"His wife was not only aware of his intention, but positively encouraged it - despite that fact that his actions would almost certainly result in his death in some form of combat and would also result in their son being without a father.
"These are mindsets which are beyond ordinary understanding and which possess a chilling resilience."
Nassari and El-Hor were stopped coming into Luton airport on an easyJet flight from Amsterdam on May 13 last year.
A hard drive belonging to Nassari was seized and police were shocked to find it contained detailed instructions to build Al Qassam rockets and explosives.
"From the material held on Nassari's hard drive a viable missile could be manufactured," said Mr Jafferjee.
Among other files, police uncovered hate-filled lectures from radical Islamic clerics including a speech by Dr Azzam entitled "We are terrorists and terrorism is an obligation".
The court heard how Nassari was born in London in 1979 and lived in Ealing.
In 2001 he enrolled on a cognitive science course at the University of Westminster.
But he disappeared between 2002 and 2003 and although previously described as "friendly , thoughtful and wearing Western clothes" he returned to the university a changed man.
Mr Jafferjee said: "He was now sporting long robes and wearing head-wear. He claimed he was the religious leader of the Islamic Society at the University's campus in Harrow.
"To put it bluntly he was now radicalised. Attention to his academic obligations was intermittent and he did not achieve his degree."
Nassari married Dutch national El-Hor on March 24 2005 and the pair moved to Syria shortly afterwards, where Nassari worked as an English teacher and clothing supplier.
His wife returned to Holland in November 2005 to have the couple's first child, Mohammed, and Nassari joined her on April 30.
Just weeks before his departure he had downloaded rocket plans and Jihadi literature onto his hard drive.
"It was material do to with the construction of missiles and the handling of those and other explosives such as landmines," said the prosecutor. "Material, and a vast amount of it, to do with Jihad - both the ideology of Jihad and video files of the gruesome application of Jihad in a variety of conflict zones."
The jury was shown blueprints for the type of rockets "widely known to be used by Hamas" as well as instructions for making highly explosive "Urea Nitrate".
Also hidden in the files were articles entitled "Virtues of martyrdom in the path of Allah" and "Islamic Ruling on the Permissibility of Self-Sacrifical Operation - Suicide or Martyrdom?".
"He also had a variety of material regarding Jihad fitness training, martial arts and hand to hand combat," said Mr Jafferjee.
The prosecutor said other material relating to Nassari's Cognitive Science degree and clothing business proved he was responsible for the content of the hard-drive.
"He was clearly going either to create or to enter a conflict zone," said Mr Jafferjee.
"The technology was in place, the ideology was in place. The construction of the rockets - even though designed to be long range - is a dangerous activity.
"Handling land mines is a dangerous activity. His decision to die is his right. His decision to injury or kill is not.
"Nor in law is it defensible for his wife to withhold information she plainly possessed."
Nassari, from Ealing, denies possessing an article for the purposes of terrorism and possession of a document of record likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.
El-Hor, also from Ealing, denies failing to disclose information about acts of terrorism.
The jury was shown a series of pictures and diagrams found on Nassari's computer which gave detailed instructions to build a rocket.
The documents were hidden away in a number of files which were downloaded from the Internet on the day he bought his new laptop in April last year.
Mr Jafferjee said computer experts will say Nassari was in contact with others on Internet discussion forums about the construction of rockets, similar to the Al Qassam missile used by Hamas.
He said: "Experts will tell you that the first five images comprise images and diagrams of the apparent component parts of a rocket engine.
"The expert on Al Qassam rockets concludes that the images all depict rocket bodies with a single nozzle which show a similarity to the Nassan rocket which is widely used by Hamas."
The computer files showed detailed measurements and information about the missile components, how to make the explosive charge and the assembly of the completed rocket.
They also included instructions to the rocket-makers to use driveshafts from the Peugeot 504 "found in breakers' yards" for the fuselage, if good quality stainless steel was not available.
Mr Jafferjee said: "It is the considered view of two military experts that this document when taken together with other documents you have seen appears to refer to an Al Qassam 1.5 rocket and does provide details of how to construct the missile and methods of making the propellant.
"From the material we have just been looking at it is the military experts' view that a viable missile could be manufactured."
He continued: "That Nassari should possess such damning material is no unfortunate coincidence - it's by design.
"That's amply documented by other material on the hard drive and some CDs in the house in Ealing, it reveals the ideology behind the possession of the explosives material.
"You will have to decide whether the material you have seen can have any explanation for anything other than a terrorist purpose or likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.
"Be it Nassari or others who would be supplied with that material by him."
The trial continues.
©2007 Associated Newspapers Ltd · Terms & Conditions · Privacy
Daily Mail...UK |
|
|
| ICE CUBAN |
and you people wont even offer to slow down on oil consumption, sign up for the military, or make any sort of sacrifice for the cause of spreading freedumb.
You are so gonna get your asses kicked. :p |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by ICE CUBAN
and you people wont even offer to slow down on oil consumption, sign up for the military, or make any sort of sacrifice for the cause of spreading freedumb.
You are so gonna get your asses kicked. :p |
I don't think any point you brought up means anything in regard to the article.
We cannot bomb our way out of it, conserve our way out of it. A Mother willing to destroy herself and her child, unimaginable. We usually associate that with mental illness, and this case is about a mental illness called Islam. A taught mental illness. One that infected the mind of a desert wandering Arab in the 7th Century, now infects 1.5 Billion people. A learned, taught... insanity. |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
Stonewall, not all 1.5 billion Muslim buy into this horseshit. Not even .01 percent buy into this bullshit. Radicalized Islamists are a cult-like, ideological-driven group who then may or may not act out a violent agenda.
The problem is it doesn't take too many to cause big problems. We have got to start going after the recruiters and the radical Imams need to have their ass shipped back to where-ever they came from. Hate-speech and inciting violence should be a no-no for these twisted-fuck Imams. They need to shut them down. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
Stonewall, not all 1.5 billion Muslim buy into this horseshit. Not even .01 percent buy into this bullshit. Radicalized Islamists are a cult-like, ideological-driven group who then may or may not act out a violent agenda.
The problem is it doesn't take too many to cause big problems. We have got to start going after the recruiters and the radical Imams need to have their ass shipped back to where-ever they came from. Hate-speech and inciting violence should be a no-no for these twisted-fuck Imams. They need to shut them down. |
All 1.5 Billion do not "buy into it"? It is Islam. Maybe all 1.5 Billion do not follow Al Qaeda. That would be a correct statement.
What is "radical"? Do we determine that? Where do we begin?
Not all cannibals eat people. Some just trade recipes... |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
All 1.5 Billion do not "buy into it"? It is Islam. Maybe all 1.5 Billion do not follow Al Qaeda. That would be a correct statement.
What is "radical"? Do we determine that? Where do we begin?
Not all cannibals eat people. Some just trade recipes... |
Radical means actively engaged in activity that will cause death and destruction. That's an awfully small number but like I said, they are an extremely dangerous group.
Make no mistake, radical Islamists are suicidal, cultish ideologues and they are a tiny minority. I can't believe we are having this discussion. They are 26 million Muslims in Iraq and 150,000 US soldiers. Do the math my friend, do the math... |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
Radical means actively engaged in activity that will cause death and destruction. That's an awfully small number but like I said, they are an extremely dangerous group.
Make no mistake, radical Islamists are suicidal, cultish ideologues and they are a tiny minority. I can't believe we are having this discussion. They are 26 million Muslims in Iraq and 150,000 US soldiers. Do the math my friend, do the math... |
"Radical" must mean more than that. Under your definition we have to wait until attacked to define the attacker.
All the Muslims who went to Afghanistan in the 1980's, were they "radicals"?
The ones who did not go... "Moderates"?
A radical is one who takes their beliefs to an extreme exaggerated confused manner. If we begin with the teachings of a religion and following the proper understanding of those teachings, then you cannot call that "radical" or "extreme". It would be radical and extreme to go outside of those teachings.
Al Qaeda is not extreme. Not under the definition of Islam.
They do things we consider extreme.
There is no difference between those killing U.S. troops in Iraq and those who are not. No difference within Islam. The difference is only some follow the Iraqi government or a Cleric who has a sort of peace agreement with us, and some who do not and follow a different Cleric or Organization. Both can be correct. Simply because one is on our side and one is not does not make one extreme and one not. |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
That's where you're wrong my friend.
People who takes up arms and kill innocents are radicals.
Those that don't haven't bought into the bullshit. It's really that simple. You're trying to convict people for something they haven't done. I was raised a Catholic and I don't believe or buy into any of that bullshit. What does that make me? |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
That's where you're wrong my friend.
People who takes up arms and kill innocents are radicals.
Those that don't haven't bought into the bullshit. It's really that simple. You're trying to convict people for something they haven't done. I was raised a Catholic and I don't believe or buy into any of that bullshit. What does that make me? |
I'm not "convicting" anyone.
You have used yourself as an example, Catholic. They have certain beliefs. It is not a 'buying into" anything. You either believe or you do not. There is no believing some of it and disregarding other things. That does not make sense. What it makes you I do not know.
If a religion has certain beliefs and you follow those beliefs that is not a radical position. We are not discussing a political party where we can have levels of agreement within it. This is religion we are discussing.
Those Muslims who attack the U.S. they are no more radical than a Muslim who does not attack the U.S..
You can believe otherwise but that position is impossible to defend and in the end your argument will be your opinion of how you define "radical".
We are far from understanding if we determine what is an Islamic Radical based on our ideas and values. Under that I would agree with you that Al Qaeda is radical, from our perspective. But, it does very little good in actual reality of "radical" in Islam. And, that is what we are discussing.
An example is death for apostasy in Islam. Killing that person is not "radical". To me it is, but that is useless. It's not about me. It's about Islam and in Islam all 5 major schools of Islam agree that death for apostasy is the road you are on if your a Muslim and have rejected the faith.
We are dealing with a whole new definition of "radical". |
|
|
| artie84 |
its easy to define radical in Islam
the interpretation of jihad is what defines a radical and a non-radical
jihad to one man is a moral or holy struggle to be the best person he can be
jihad to another man might mean destroying America because it conflicts with his beliefs
to another it might mean fighting in defense of Muslim land
is it radical to fight in defense? ...no...
is it radical to attack and kill people because they don't follow the same beliefs as you?....yes |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by artie84
its easy to define radical in Islam
the interpretation of jihad is what defines a radical and a non-radical
jihad to one man is a moral or holy struggle to be the best person he can be
jihad to another man might mean destroying America because it conflicts with his beliefs
to another it might mean fighting in defense of Muslim land
is it radical to fight in defense? ...no...
is it radical to attack and kill people because they don't follow the same beliefs as you?....yes |
The greater Jihad is coming into compliance with Islam. A personal struggle to accept Islam and all of it's teachings... which when you are a success in that greater Jihad, the lesser Jihad is a natural thing. An easy thing. The tough part completed. The teaching and obeying Islam. Once that is complete it's easy to fly planes into buildings. Blow yourself up... whatever. You write the best he can be, I'll add the best Muslim he can be. In Islam it is not "radical" to attack others, even leading to death, to create domination of Islam on the earth. That is Islam. It's not "radical". It's not radical to kill someone for apostasy. It's not radical to apply Islamic Law. It is not radical if the 5 major schools of Islam teach it. That is just mainstream Islam. To us it is "radical".
Your post is not bad it just needs tweaked a little. Otherwise it is very good. It at least is a beginning of understanding and a knowledge most do not care to learn. |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
The greater Jihad is coming into compliance with Islam. A personal struggle to accept Islam and all of it's teachings... which when you are a success in that greater Jihad, the lesser Jihad is a natural thing. An easy thing. The tough part completed. The teaching and obeying Islam. Once that is complete it's easy to fly planes into buildings. Blow yourself up... whatever. You write the best he can be, I'll add the best Muslim he can be. In Islam it is not "radical" to attack others, even leading to death, to create domination of Islam on the earth. That is Islam. It's not "radical". It's not radical to kill someone for apostasy. It's not radical to apply Islamic Law. It is not radical if the 5 major schools of Islam teach it. That is just mainstream Islam. To us it is "radical".
Your post is not bad it just needs tweaked a little. Otherwise it is very good. It at least is a beginning of understanding and a knowledge most do not care to learn. |
You neglect the human aspect Stonewall, and seem to expect those of the Muslim faith to buy in to the "radical" aspects of Islam and that's where you are wrong. As I stated, I was raised a Catholic and reject most of it's teachings but I do remain a Christian. I filtered what I wanted to believe and rejected what I thought was "bullshit." Other humans do the same, whether Muslim, Hindu or Christian. The Muslim faith is not the problem, the problem is those that corrupt it and inspire others to kill in it's name. Hitler was guilty of the same thing.
We are splitting hairs my friend, because we both agree there are radical Muslims in the world who are bent on our destruction and would have no hesitation to kill millions if they could. I think we disagree on the solution. I think you have to go after the protagonists of hate who wrap themselves in Islam. They are nothing more than power seekers, hoping to influence others to raise themselves. This is a fact, otherwise OBL would have blown himself up long ago, he prefers others to do that, so he could breath other day, breathing is important to him and his ilk, just like any other purveyor of hate, they are the true cowards. People of strength in the Muslim faith will have to step forward and condemn such creatures. If that can happen, radical Islamists can be defeated in short order. Many pieces have to be in place for such an event happen but it can be made to happen. At the end of the day, radical Islamists are nothing more than proselytizing politicians seeking converts to the cause they themselves refuse to give their live for. It can be defeated if done the right way. We are not doing it the right way, we are doing the exact opposite and we may pay dearly for our mistake. |
|
|
| artie84 |
the Qu'ran is open to interpretation just like the bible
what would happen if you lived your life COMPLETELY by the bible and enforced it on others... made laws based on it...it would be radical
things become radical when you enforce beliefs on others...thats the line
which will be the down fall of any religious state
id say sharia law is a radical form of government...i wouldn't say Islam its self is more radical then any other religion
because interpretations is key...one mans jihad might be to be a moral person and another a murderer
and id bet money...it doesn't directly say to murder someone for apostasy in the Quran ...but it does in sharia law |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by artie84
the Qu'ran is open to interpretation just like the bible
what would happen if you lived your life COMPLETELY by the bible and enforced it on others... made laws based on it...it would be radical
things become radical when you enforce beliefs on others...thats the line
which will be the down fall of any religious state
id say sharia law is a radical form of government...i wouldn't say Islam its self is more radical then any other religion
because interpretations is key...one mans jihad might be to be a moral person and another a murderer
and id bet money...it doesn't directly say to murder someone for apostasy in the Quran ...but it does in sharia law |
Your last sentence, you are correct that it does not say in the Koran that punishment for Apostacy is death. But, Muslims do not just go by the Koran. The Sunnah, the example of Muhammad is used in conjunction with the Koran.
You have given a proper description of how you define "radical". I agree with you in most of what you say, but it is meaningless... our understanding of "radical". That is not the same for Muslims. And certainly not for those Muslims who are Arabs in the Middle East or Afghan Muslims. Or, Pakistani.
Interpretation of Islam is a science. It's not up to everyone to come up with meanings. They have Clerics and schools and precedent. These questions were decided long ago and that is what has to be combated. Islam needs a re-interpretation. But, not just so it can be tamed. Not just so we can change things we do not like. It has to be an interpretation that is widely accepted in the Muslim World. Just like the 5 Major Schools of Islam are mainstream. That is the problem that so called "Moderates" have. They are rejected because they are not valid. They have much the same ideas you have or I have, but they have no message. They cannot create a new interpretation that is valid.
The single greatest authority in Islam, worldwide, is Al-Azhar in Egypt. It has graduated some of the worlds top terrorists. That site is a watered down version of what occurs there. However here is one article that shows the "mainstream" Islamic teachings on Equality between Men and Women in Islam.
Islam is a radical religion. It creates a system where humans become a slave to the system. I keep saying study, study, study, because with understanding confusion is lifted. Then a rational solution based on facts can possibly be found.
Your personal views on "radical" need to be set aside and then find out what Islam believes a radical is.
Islam is not Christianity. There is no separation of church and state like we understand that term. Look at Saudi Arabia as an example. That place is set-up almost perfectly under Islam. You have a ruler and then you have Islamic Courts. The Court rules by Islamic Law. But the ruler can overturn any sentence. Commute, Pardon, etc.. There is a careful balancing act between the ruling political family and the Islamic Clerics. Of course there the Salafi's reign but they still most of the time stick within the 4 Sunni Schools of Islam and the Salafi teachings are taught at al-Azhar University in Egypt.
Mainstream Islam cannot be "radical". To us it may be. We are not trying to change our hearts and minds. We are not trying to convince ourselves. We need to understand them and deal with reality. Most of the Islamic World considers us at war with Islam. And we are. We attack almost everything they do and call it "radical" and "terrorist". It's not radical to them. It might not be "terrorist" to them. |
|
|
| erik28com |
| Here's my solution: ban religion. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
You neglect the human aspect Stonewall, and seem to expect those of the Muslim faith to buy in to the "radical" aspects of Islam and that's where you are wrong. As I stated, I was raised a Catholic and reject most of it's teachings but I do remain a Christian. I filtered what I wanted to believe and rejected what I thought was "bullshit." Other humans do the same, whether Muslim, Hindu or Christian. The Muslim faith is not the problem, the problem is those that corrupt it and inspire others to kill in it's name. Hitler was guilty of the same thing.
We are splitting hairs my friend, because we both agree there are radical Muslims in the world who are bent on our destruction and would have no hesitation to kill millions if they could. I think we disagree on the solution. I think you have to go after the protagonists of hate who wrap themselves in Islam. They are nothing more than power seekers, hoping to influence others to raise themselves. This is a fact, otherwise OBL would have blown himself up long ago, he prefers others to do that, so he could breath other day, breathing is important to him and his ilk, just like any other purveyor of hate, they are the true cowards. People of strength in the Muslim faith will have to step forward and condemn such creatures. If that can happen, radical Islamists can be defeated in short order. Many pieces have to be in place for such an event happen but it can be made to happen. At the end of the day, radical Islamists are nothing more than proselytizing politicians seeking converts to the cause they themselves refuse to give their live for. It can be defeated if done the right way. We are not doing it the right way, we are doing the exact opposite and we may pay dearly for our mistake. |
I don't think I neglect the human aspect. I always say that Muslims are victims of their religion and when some in the family begin to study, learn, and understand their religion those around them are the first terrorized. The Islamic countries are slave plantations.
It all feeds on the misery of Islam. A vicious circle.
The Muslim faith is not being corrupted. That is false. In order to make Islam "nice" you have to corrupt it. Change meanings. Unfortunately it is the exact opposite of what you are putting forth.
How can we kill Islamic Radicals when Islam itself is the radical element?
It cannot be defeated right away as you seem to believe. It has never been "defeated". It has been put in remission. Like we did with the Philippines in the early years of the 20th Century, but they are baaack. Look at Kashmir. Look at Africa, Asia, etc.. Look at Turkey. It is a never ending condition. History proves that time and time again. |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
I don't think I neglect the human aspect. I always say that Muslims are victims of their religion and when some in the family begin to study, learn, and understand their religion those around them are the first terrorized. The Islamic countries are slave plantations.
It all feeds on the misery of Islam. A vicious circle.
The Muslim faith is not being corrupted. That is false. In order to make Islam "nice" you have to corrupt it. Change meanings. Unfortunately it is the exact opposite of what you are putting forth.
How can we kill Islamic Radicals when Islam itself is the radical element?
It cannot be defeated right away as you seem to believe. It has never been "defeated". It has been put in remission. Like we did with the Philippines in the early years of the 20th Century, but they are baaack. Look at Kashmir. Look at Africa, Asia, etc.. Look at Turkey. It is a never ending condition. History proves that time and time again. |
I agree with most of your points and Islam is ripe for changing because people are still people and will generally not maim and murder because the Koran or some cleric tells them they should. Just as Turkey does, restraints must be put on these Imams and hate-speech can not be tolerated. I understand your points about Islamic teachings but what I'm telling you is the average Muslim finds them extreme and won't go anywhere near them. The problem is with the tiny few that will. How to find them, kill them and stop the propagation of murder and hate. |
|
|
| Reed Rothchild |
| Why can't these guys just make a video talking about how great "Islam" is and how the infidels will burn in hell or whatever, and then set themselves on fire or something, and leave the rest of us alone? |
|
|
|
|
|
