Hizb ut Tahrir

Don Roley

Senior Master
MTS Alumni
Joined
Sep 25, 2002
Messages
3,522
Reaction score
71
Location
Japan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/3182271.stm

This is something that I think more people should be aware of. You will note that the above documentary was done before the bombings in July.

HT is a big threat because of its message tailored to a lot of Muslims in the world. The anti-capitalistic bent it has resonates with the greed of those that want more and imagine the riches of the wealthy being taken away and given to them. The images of others as oppressors give those that have not done well an excuse to blame other than themselves.

As of right now, there is no proven link between them and violent groups. But their message is obviously a good entry point for those that end up strapping bombs to themselves.

I think that everyone who cares about the war against Islamo-fascism should do a good web search of this group.
 

Xue Sheng

All weight is underside
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
31,814
Reaction score
6,345
Location
North American Tectonic Plate
Hizb ut Tahrir is not unlike any other Middle East Terrorist organization.

They want a unified Muslim people but they are a radical Sunni Muslim organization which instantaneously buts them at odds with all Shiites and Shiite groups. Basically (and this is an over simplification) Sunni and Shiite are killing each other over the legitimate successor to Muhammad.

Hizb ut Tahrir is dangerous and should be watched closely.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hizb-ut-tahrir.htm

As a side to this there are Middle East terrorist organizations that want a unified Muslim world to fight the West and they are looking for the unification of Sunni and Shiite. A big name terrorist that comes to mind that believes this is Osama Bin Laden.
 

Marginal

Senior Master
Joined
Jul 7, 2002
Messages
3,276
Reaction score
66
Location
Colorado
Don Roley said:
I think that everyone who cares about the war against Islamo-fascism should do a good web search of this group.

Thank God the port deal fell through.
 
OP
Don Roley

Don Roley

Senior Master
MTS Alumni
Joined
Sep 25, 2002
Messages
3,522
Reaction score
71
Location
Japan
Marginal said:
Thank God the port deal fell through.

Well, the port deal is about as removed from this thread as humanly possible. It is true that a lot of people were scared about the matter, and there has been a lot of damage done to the reputation of the US as a result of it. But those that know the facts all say that there was no danger from the UAE owning the ports.

But that is not to say that the threat of Islamic fascism does not exist. Some would like us to believe so for their own ends, but you only need to remember what happened on 9-11- 2001 to see that it is not a mirage.

There needs to be a reasoned debate and educating of the people on the matter. People need to know the role various countires have taken in the war on terror, the politics and the mind-set of those that will never, ever stop their war against non-muslims until one side is dead.

You might want to start with the following PDF file.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/usmc/ceto/when_devils_walk_the_earth.pdf
 

Xue Sheng

All weight is underside
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
31,814
Reaction score
6,345
Location
North American Tectonic Plate
I am not sure the term fascism applies, terrorist, or fundamentalist yes.

And there are certainly Islamic terror organizations that have a belief they will not stop until they defeat the west. Others are more interested in the removal and or destruction of Israel and others are more interested in wining the argument over who should control the Muslim world, this is the Shiite and Sunni situation. Many have internal issues that cause the group to splinter and thereby produce other terrorist organizations.

And you are correct people need to be more educated on terrorism in the world today. But it would also be a very good thing to know about the history behind it as well. And there is a lot of it covering a whole lot of time. And people also need to be educated about the fact that not all Muslims or people from the Middle East are terrorists.

After 9/11 attacks against Hindus increased considerably and they are decidedly not Muslim. So I agree education is necessary.

And there are more terrorists that just those that can be called Islamic. There is domestic terrorism as well. Timothy McVeigh sound familiar?

So education is the answer, but it should not be limited to international groups and current events.

 

Marginal

Senior Master
Joined
Jul 7, 2002
Messages
3,276
Reaction score
66
Location
Colorado
Don Roley said:
Well, the port deal is about as removed from this thread as humanly possible.

Not really. It was unfounded fearmongering that killed it. (Things like the assertion that all terrorists are muslim etc) Then the people fostering the fearmongering with made up terms like Islamo-facism (only the Bush administration parrots use the term at all) start alleging racism when it blew up in their faces while crying about political opportunism of the deal's opponents. (Totallly unlike invading Iraq I guess.) Wierd how the fearmongering worked, and how it followed totally irrational pathways like that.

Kinda sad to see that the fearmongers haven't learned anything.
 
OP
Don Roley

Don Roley

Senior Master
MTS Alumni
Joined
Sep 25, 2002
Messages
3,522
Reaction score
71
Location
Japan
Marginal said:
Kinda sad to see that the fearmongers haven't learned anything.

It is not fearmongering to say that there are people out there who want to kill us and set up an Islamic state. It is sad to see that people are trying to deny that there is a threat for political gain. Our goverment tries to reach out to the Muslim world, and too many people just grab the pitchforks and gum up the works. Xue mentioned how hindus were targeted after 9-11, and this was despite the way that Bush took the time to pose with Muslim leaders to call for calm and for us not to blame all muslims.

But at the same time, we do need to understand that there are some terrorists who are muslims and some muslims who are terrorists.

Wafa Sultan had a great interview with Al-Jezera and said the following.

"The clash we are witnessing ... is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on the other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and
those who treat them like human beings."

You can hardly call her a republican fear monger.

Xue Sheng said:
I am not sure the term fascism applies, terrorist, or fundamentalist yes

How would you define fascism? The term is rather broad, but seems to be most used with political movements that subordinate individual rights for some greater cause and have an extreme aversion to diversity of opinion. Anti-capitalist, racial and religious hatred, hatred of marxism, etc. The term does seem to fit the goverment that HT wants to set up.
 

Xue Sheng

All weight is underside
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
31,814
Reaction score
6,345
Location
North American Tectonic Plate
Don Roley said:
How would you define fascism? The term is rather broad, but seems to be most used with political movements that subordinate individual rights for some greater cause and have an extreme aversion to diversity of opinion. Anti-capitalist, racial and religious hatred, hatred of marxism, etc. The term does seem to fit the goverment that HT wants to set up.

Actually fascism is a dictatorship generally in the hands of one person more along the lines of Benito Mussolini not a world based on Shariah rules, which is what Hizb ut Tahrir wants, which by the way is not what Shiites want.

"The group's aim is to resume the Islamic way of life and to convey the Islamic da’wah to the world. The ultimate goal of this secretive sectarian group is to unite the entire ummah, or Islamic world community, into a single caliphate. The aim is to bring the Muslims back to living an Islamic way of life in 'Dar al-Islam' [the land where the rules of Islam are being implemented, as opposed to the non-Islamic world] and in an Islamic society such that all life's affairs in society are administered according to the Shariah rules. "

The above paragraph in quotations comes from
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hizb-ut-tahrir.htm

I am not saying they are not dangerous, any terrorist organization is dangerous; I just do not feel they are any more dangerous than other terrorist organization. If you want something to be concerned about Hamas is not in control of Palestine and they would like a legitimate standing army. Hamas was seriously recruiting women, prior to gaining power, because they make better bombers, they do not fit the profile if you will.

I agree with educating people about terrorism, but I do not agree with the approach of spreading fear in order to do it.

As previously stated there are terrorists organizations right here in the USA that should be watched as well. There is domestic terrorism in many countries, as well as international terrorists to worry about. Learning about and watching His at Tahrir is good thing, but focusing on them and only them is a dangerous thing.
 

Marginal

Senior Master
Joined
Jul 7, 2002
Messages
3,276
Reaction score
66
Location
Colorado
Don Roley said:
It is not fearmongering to say that there are people out there who want to kill us and set up an Islamic state.

Like the last time I commented on this group, it's a question of actual influence. They don't have it. I don't really care about a group with a goal they cannot attain. (Kinda like how I never lost sleep over the plot to blowtorch a bridge in NY.)

Wafa Sultan had a great interview with Al-Jezera and said the following.

[snip]

You can hardly call her a republican fear monger.

I didn't see that oh so magical phrase in her quote either. Where were the islamofacists?
 
OP
Don Roley

Don Roley

Senior Master
MTS Alumni
Joined
Sep 25, 2002
Messages
3,522
Reaction score
71
Location
Japan
Xue Sheng said:
As previously stated there are terrorists organizations right here in the USA that should be watched as well. There is domestic terrorism in many countries, as well as international terrorists to worry about. Learning about and watching His at Tahrir is good thing, but focusing on them and only them is a dangerous thing.

Oh, I am not focusing on them and only them. But there are only so many subjects you can fit into one thread.

And I think that the threat of militant Islam is probably going to be one of the biggest threats in the next few decades to come. The Tamil Tigers use suicide bombers, neo- Christians bomb abortion clinics in America and there are still a few communist movements in the world. But they lack the world wide, common thread that you see in the Islamic movement. From Beslan to Indonesia, you find groups uniting in their propaganda. HT is a big part of that IMO. They can serve as a clearing house for different movements to work in conjunction.

I assume you read the PDF file I posted a link to. The west went through the same type of thing that Islam is now in the 1520s with people like Thomas Muentzer.

The difference is that HT and such work openly in getting their message out to reach those that face a destruction of their world view. With the type of stuff you can get off the internet on making bombs and such, it will be much harder to deal with each and every disaffected muslim who takes the path of jihad. How do you prevent the type of event like the London bombings?

As for your definition of facisim, interesting. There is not really a single definition of the term that I could find that is not disputed elsewhere. I still say that it does not require a single person heading it, only strong centralized power. But I see why you think the term is not appropriate.
 

Xue Sheng

All weight is underside
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
31,814
Reaction score
6,345
Location
North American Tectonic Plate
I agree that the threat of Islamic terrorists should be taken seriously and that the public should be educated on this subject.

But there are also terrorist organizations that should be watched or taken more seriously form other areas of the world as well. There are also domestic terrorists to be considered and watched and the Lone wolf or berserker is also a serious and unpredictable threat.

As for the paper I have read it, I was not going to comment to avoid a possible conflict, and I am sorry, but to be honest it is at best flawed and borders on racism and fear mongering. It is simply not a good source of information on the subject. If this is what you are basing your views of terrorism and terrorists on you need to do more research using this view would be not only incorrect but could be dangerous. If you like I can recommend a couple of fairly good and recently published books on the subject that are by far more accurate and better sources.

This paper for most places has punctuated fiction with fact in order to gain legitimacy. It also is basing its views of terrorists on very old beliefs that have been proven to be at best inaccurate. It appears to declare the "apocalyptic terrorist" as evil and the same as an Islamic or Muslim terrorist or any Muslim or person from Islam for than matter and that is simply incorrect. It borders on glorification of what it calls "Practical terrorists" and appears to feel they have more justification, this is simple not true. It completely ignores the Ku Klux Klan which does also fall under that same definition the paper uses for "Practical terrorists" and they certainly should not be glorified, and they are/were in no way justified. Although I will say that some terrorist organizations resort to terrorism to fight the terrorism that has been perpetrated on them by there government, but the KKK is not one of those.

As for the Myth of the crusades I would not call the deaths of approximately 70,000 Muslims and Christians, every man woman and child, all that were in the city when the Crusaders breached the walls of Jerusalem during the 1st Crusade a myth.

As for Thomas Muentzer, I would not consider him a forerunner to Osama Bin Laden nor even in the same league. History remembers Thomas Muentzer as the man that led a group of about 8000 peasants at the battle of Frankenhausen (15 May 1525) against political and spiritual oppression, convinced that God would intervene on their side. Utterly defeated, captured, imprisoned and tortured, Muentzer recanted and accepted the Catholic mass prior to his beheading in Mühlhausen in Thuringia on May 27, 1525. His head and body were displayed as a warning to all those who might again preach treasonous doctrines. Although there are similarities when it comes to the God would intervene on their side belief, but that belief is not uncommon for fanatics and Zealots

And in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, you should know that the Israelis were the first to resorted terrorism the Palestinians followed the example. That is a very complicated area of the world with a whole lot of outside contributing factors, some of which come form the West.

To better understanding the Middle East and the roots of terrorism a study of Middle Eastern history as it applies to the conflict with the west and terrorism a better place to start.
 
OP
Don Roley

Don Roley

Senior Master
MTS Alumni
Joined
Sep 25, 2002
Messages
3,522
Reaction score
71
Location
Japan
Xue Sheng said:
This paper for most places has punctuated fiction with fact in order to gain legitimacy. It also is basing its views of terrorists on very old beliefs that have been proven to be at best inaccurate. It appears to declare the "apocalyptic terrorist" as evil and the same as an Islamic or Muslim terrorist or any Muslim or person from Islam for than matter and that is simply incorrect. It borders on glorification of what it calls "Practical terrorists" and appears to feel they have more justification, this is simple not true. It completely ignores the Ku Klux Klan which does also fall under that same definition the paper uses for "Practical terrorists" and they certainly should not be glorified, and they are/were in no way justified. Although I will say that some terrorist organizations resort to terrorism to fight the terrorism that has been perpetrated on them by there government, but the KKK is not one of those.

As for the Myth of the crusades I would not call the deaths of approximately 70,000 Muslims and Christians, every man woman and child, all that were in the city when the Crusaders breached the walls of Jerusalem during the 1st Crusade a myth.

Huh?

The KKK is a great example of practical terrorists. They do not seek death and they have a purpose for their terror like the PLO. The apocoplyptic terrorist is another case of someone so at odds with reality itself that they have a unconsious death wish. That is what we are seeing today.

And the author never said the crusades were a myth, only that the idea that the west is the only one to have engaged in one. The muslim world did do more damage to Europe through the Ottoman empire, etc than vice versa.

I think you read it with a bit of bias. I disagree with some of his points at the end, and his conclusions, but the idea that some terrorists are lashing out against reality and seek death is one that should not be rejected out of hand.
 

Marginal

Senior Master
Joined
Jul 7, 2002
Messages
3,276
Reaction score
66
Location
Colorado
Don Roley said:
I still say that it does not require a single person heading it, only strong centralized power. But I see why you think the term is not appropriate.

Stalin = facist?
 

Xue Sheng

All weight is underside
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
31,814
Reaction score
6,345
Location
North American Tectonic Plate
Don Roley said:
Huh?

The KKK is a great example of practical terrorists. They do not seek death and they have a purpose for their terror like the PLO. The apocoplyptic terrorist is another case of someone so at odds with reality itself that they have a unconsious death wish. That is what we are seeing today.

And the author never said the crusades were a myth, only that the idea that the west is the only one to have engaged in one. The muslim world did do more damage to Europe through the Ottoman empire, etc than vice versa.

I think you read it with a bit of bias. I disagree with some of his points at the end, and his conclusions, but the idea that some terrorists are lashing out against reality and seek death is one that should not be rejected out of hand.

I assure you I did not read it with any bias. If you like I will read it again. I have read a lot on the subject, some good some bad, this one is bad.

It started out fine, but it changed to Fiction punctuated with fact. It is simply not a good source, and the author basically says himself that he is not an expert at the end.

If you wish I will give you a couple of titles of books that do a much better job.

I did not say the KKK was a great example, just an example and I still feel the author is making a judgment call that says Practical terrorist are better than apocalyptic terrorists. Bottom line, a terrorist is a terrorist.

And not all Middle east terrorists are apocalyptic nor are all people of the Middle East terrorists.

I will say that as far as negotiations go, you cannot negotiate with terrorists that are a religious fundamentalist, where you may have a chance with a political terrorist. And the categories of terrorists are to general. There is left wing, right wing, political, and religious terrorists.


As for the crusades, the Ottoman Empire, the Mongols, the Romans, the Greeks, the Germans, the Spanish, the English and the French are all guilty of empire building. But they are not crusades. Did the Ottoman Empire commit horrible acts? Yes, they all did. If you are looking for a group that committed horrible acts upon those they conquered and later justified it as social Darwinism look to the British. And the British Empire had this attitude up until it was practiced on them by the Germans in WW II.

As for at odds with reality, this is not a correct assessment either, it is a dangerous one that has been used in the past but is not used much now. Many terrorists are outcasts in their society and they find a group of like minded people, but this is not just on type of terrorist, it is most. They are not mentally unstable, as the paper would have you believe.

It is a different culture that the author did not bother to research or attempt to understand. Basically I get the impression that if it does not comply with the author’s view of the world it is wrong or insane. As for Osama being a hero, he was virtually kicked out of his own country.

I have no bias here I am just speaking from what I know and what I have read. The paper is not educating. It is, for lack of a better word, fear mongering.

I wish it were not, I wish it were better, but it is not.

I am sorry about my evaluation, but it is how I see it.

This is the feeling this paper left me with.
 

still learning

Senior Master
Joined
Nov 8, 2004
Messages
3,749
Reaction score
43
Hello, Religion is a very powerful tool! It makes and dictates people lives.

When there leaders says it is all right, to kill all non-believers and you will go to heaven? many people are willing to die for the cause!

Religions rules the lives for many ? .....if you are a believer...you will obey your priest,church leader, and so on.

What is RIGHT? It depends on where you were brought up! .......Aloha
 
OP
Don Roley

Don Roley

Senior Master
MTS Alumni
Joined
Sep 25, 2002
Messages
3,522
Reaction score
71
Location
Japan
Xue Sheng said:
I did not say the KKK was a great example, just an example and I still feel the author is making a judgment call that says Practical terrorist are better than apocalyptic terrorists. Bottom line, a terrorist is a terrorist.

And not all Middle east terrorists are apocalyptic nor are all people of the Middle East terrorists.

I will say that as far as negotiations go, you cannot negotiate with terrorists that are a religious fundamentalist, where you may have a chance with a political terrorist. And the categories of terrorists are to general. There is left wing, right wing, political, and religious terrorists.

Ok, maybe we can meet on some common ground.

I do not think he said that practical terrorists are better per se, only that you can deal with them as we did with the PLO, the IRA, etc. The apocolptyc terrorist basically falls into what you say about religious terrorist- you can't deal with them. Of course not all middle east terrorists are apocolyptic, we already mentioned Yassir Arafat and the PLO. But there are a lot like Osama Bin Laden and those that end up following him that fall into that catagory.

Hizb ut Tahrir fans the flames of hatred that lead many of them to that point and serves as a means of coordination.


Xue Sheng said:
As for the crusades, the Ottoman Empire, the Mongols, the Romans, the Greeks, the Germans, the Spanish, the English and the French are all guilty of empire building. But they are not crusades. Did the Ottoman Empire commit horrible acts? Yes, they all did. If you are looking for a group that committed horrible acts upon those they conquered and later justified it as social Darwinism look to the British. And the British Empire had this attitude up until it was practiced on them by the Germans in WW II.

I think the point is that the crusades are held up as an example of how the west has attack Islam, but the crimes commited in the name of Islam have been totally ignored.

Xue Sheng said:
As for at odds with reality, this is not a correct assessment either, it is a dangerous one that has been used in the past but is not used much now. Many terrorists are outcasts in their society and they find a group of like minded people, but this is not just on type of terrorist, it is most. They are not mentally unstable, as the paper would have you believe.

It is a different culture that the author did not bother to research or attempt to understand. Basically I get the impression that if it does not comply with the authors view of the world it is wrong or insane. As for Osama being a hero, he was virtually kicked out of his own country.

Well Osama is a hero in the middle east. That is a fact. The goverments want his head, but one of the most common names for newborns in that part of the world is now his.

And it is not the goverments that we should be worried about, but the guys like Osama. There are many people in that part of the world that are at odds with reality. The changes in their society threatens their very way of looking at the world. That is a virtual death for them. Some of them live in the west as well. These outcasts do exist in every society, but HT gives them a reason to hate, kill and die for. The London bombings are a great example. These people have trouble with reality and that is their real enemy. But now the west is a convinient subsitute for their anger.
 

Xue Sheng

All weight is underside
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
31,814
Reaction score
6,345
Location
North American Tectonic Plate
Don Roley said:
I think the point is that the crusades are held up as an example of how the west has attack Islam, but the crimes commited in the name of Islam have been totally ignored.

Almost every society puts more emphasis on the wrongs that have been done to them than the ones they have done themselves.

And it is not just the 1st crusade that is the issue, it is the 2nd crusade and every time a western power sets foot on Muslim land I will admit the majority of Islam thinks it is or could be just another Crusade. And I also admit at times I feel "Just get over it already" But then there is a history there that is long and full of violence and deceit on both sides.

I will leave this with this.

If you truly want to know about the history and the complications and the players in terrorism from the past up until Osama I suggest

Terrorism 4th Edition
2002 Update
Jonathan R. White.

It is a good over view

Another book that is also not bad is

Understanding Terrorism on America
From the Klan to Al Qaeda
Christopher Hewitt.

It tends do be a little more dry with more statistics.

They are, in my opinion, much better sources than the paper and they are less emotional and more factual.

As for Hizb ut Tahrir, they are dangerous and should be watched.
 

Xue Sheng

All weight is underside
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
31,814
Reaction score
6,345
Location
North American Tectonic Plate
I apologize, I know this is off post, and it may or may not apply to Hizb ut Tahrir, but I found this very interesting and a bit scary.

I have been reading
Domestic Terrorism and Incident Management, Issues and Tactics
Miki Vohryzek-Bolden
Gayle Olson-Raymer
Jeffrey O. Whamond

And I found this and thought that it might be interesting

Some experts postulate that one of the greatest changes will be “Seamless terrorism” where the line between foreign and domestic terrorists operating in the United States may become unclear. (Sloan 1997:10)

Yet another factor that signals change and obscures a clear understanding of contemporary terrorists is the groups do not claim credit for their violent exploits as they did in the past. Indeed, we have new adversaries with new motivations, some who embrace amorphous religions and who do not seek notoriety (Hoffamn 1997)
 

Latest Discussions

Top