The Unabomber used to be edgy but he just isn't spicy anymore. Let's discuss other terrorist writing...

The Unabomber used to be edgy but he just isn't spicy anymore. Let's discuss other terrorist writing. To start: Bin Laden vs al-Suri, who had it right?

Attached: Osama Bin Laden 2a.jpg (850x400, 78K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Omar
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage#/media/File:Global_prevalence_of_consanguinity.svg
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Abul Ala Maududi is very influential in Salafi and Wahabi circles. I've never read Bin Laden.

Sayyid Qutb

Yeah but obviously the Salafi movement doesn't come from Maturidi/Hanafi thought like Maududi and the Taliban. The Salafi movement came from Zahiri, Athari and Hanbali thought, like al-Shawakani, Ibn Hazm and Ibn Taymiyya and

>terrorist
Opposing imperialism is the least anyone should do. Bin Laden had great takes on environmentalism too. al-Suri was ... too pragmatic for the movement he was in.

Basado

>The American is primitive in his artistic tastes, whether in his judgment of art or his own artistic works. Jazz music is his music of choice. It is this music that the savage bushmen created to satisfy their primitive desires, and their desire for noise on the one hand, and the abundance of animal noises on the other. The American’s enjoyment of jazz does not fully begin until he couples it with singing like crude screaming. And the louder the noise of the voices and instruments, until it rings in the ears to an unbearable degree, the greater the appreciation of the listeners. The voices of appreciation are raised, and palms are raised in continuous clapping that could deafen ears.

Attached: sayyid_qutb.png (720x672, 345K)

>Opposing imperialism
*supplanting American imperialism with Saudi imperialism

I need to become a Muslim honestly. They just too based

There is a big difference between Saudi (nationality) and Saudi (loyalist to the House of Saud). Bin Laden was definitely not the latter, he spearheaded the Sahwa movement

Maududi is solid too

Attached: Maududi.png (720x867, 264K)

You know, he might actually be onto something...

>There is a big difference between Saudi (nationality) and Saudi (loyalist to the House of Saud). Bin Laden was definitely not the latter
Bullshit, he was a pawn for Saudi interests just like any other terrorist from Saudi Arabia.

Attached: Qutb.png (720x1080, 134K)

Ok Boomer.

Brb taking shahadah

From "My Life With the Taliban"

Attached: Screenshot_2020-03-03-10-04-27.png (720x1280, 1.23M)

Attached: Screenshot_2020-03-03-10-04-35.png (720x1280, 1021K)

Based. Although how do the Taliban respect life again?

You should read the book. They do but in a very different way than Christians. For example if a man kills your son, forgiving him rather than killing him I considered noble. And if anyone comes to you for refuge, even a robber, you must protect him

>Nothing is dearer to me than a frosty night in the company of an infantry of Muhajirun when we are to attack the disbelievers in the morning. Not even the night in which I was wedded to a new bride or received the glad tidings of the birth of a new child.

-Khalid ibn al Walid

Attached: militants.jpg (800x480, 32K)

I can see it working in a desert. Problem is that there is no more true desert what with air conditioning nowadays. Where resources are scarce, stuff gets weird.

How can they apply the old idea of tribes to a city usually consisting of multiple ones?

>Women are free to walk about if they are accompanied by their husband, father uncle or brother
Which is already pretty shitty, but what part of Islam forbids them from working and getting an education? Stuff that's basic even in Saudi Arabia and Iran.

The Jewish betrayal took place in Medina and tribes are a huge thing in Afghanistan

Women were forbidden from these by the Taliban as opportunities were very scarce at the time and since men are legally obligated to provide for their wives, children and parents (whereas women aren't obligated to provide for anyone), the Taliban banned women from these to ensure men got priority, they have explained this several times. It's no longer their policy

You have a horribly warped concept of lift in Iran.

That does make sense. I'd feel better if it were limited to divorced and widowed.

The only wife that Muhammad, salla Allahu alayhe wassallam, had who was neither widowed nor divorced, was A'isha, radhi Allahu anha

Kek this pleb has awful taste in music

>convinced America is the source of all degeneracy
>hates negroes
>never got laid, blames Egyptian women for being westernized whores
>just wanted to return to the simple village life of his childhood
>gets executed by Nasser
>60 years later his ideas flourish while Nasserism is dead

Fuck Guenon, Qutb is truly /ourguy/

Music is crap

>blames Egyptian women for being westernized whores
He considered American women (and men) to be vulgar and sexual, not Egyptian women

How come there is so much overlap between Islamic and Fascist thought? That page might as well has been written by some lesser Fascist author.

If a theory actually has truth it won't be surprising it appears multiple times independently. See also Ideas Have Consequences, which likewise sounds similar and was neither Islamic not fascist

This thread is disgusting.

Attached: 1583173568652.webm (398x224, 2.86M)

Except they don’t act that way, you little dipshit.

2 IQ post

>NOOO, buddy, you can't just make jihad on the infilderinos! the great Shaytan is protected by the NAP even when he occupies you and allies with the Jews!

Attached: feelthebern.jpg (720x960, 50K)

Retard alert.
T. Can’t tell the difference between political totalitarian ideology and a desert religion

Hope Bernie gave him a salute after that.

There is a huge difference. Islam is actually, politically, less totalitarian that liberalism. For example wiretapping even with a warrant is haram, and confessing during interrogation I invalid unless it's repeated four times, but even then it can be withdrawn at any time. Oaths cannot be compelled in court (breaking an oath I a serious crime) except for adultery so perjury in your own defense is permitted as long as you don't incriminate innocents. Taxation is only on capital

Sounds like you’re trying to justify a religion to yourself. Nothing you said really matters. Trivialities.

Marine detected

Tawhid is all that justifies Islam

Aquinas > Sunni Islam

"DUDE, PROSTITUTION IS NOT THE STATE'S BUSINESS TO BAN LOL. Horny men need it"

I notice you said Sunni. I'm not surprised Thomists love Shi'ites

Attached: shia5.png (720x875, 251K)

>Protecting women by locking them away" is a bad joke.

Yeah not doing that worked out great in your society didnt it cuckboy? LOL.

Or Adorno

Sorry, can’t help you with your britbong island monkey problems. Home made colonial bs, lol. Fix your pleb classes.

Oh, also this: Islam is derivative and a false mythology. Just to be clear.

That's a Shi'ite practice. They allow temporary marriage to be made by just oral agreement and set to expire after twenty minutes to an hour, generally the man pays for it. The reason being is that A'isha, radhi Allahu anha, said that Muhammad, salla Allahu alayhe wassallam, said this is forbidden. Shi'ites think she was a witch and so do it because she would have to be lying

You need to put the logos back into your country. The one that Henry 8 destroyed. Gtfo utilitarianism and positivism and get back into German idealism where you belong

Islam is the only monotheistic faith

German idealism, originating with Kant, is based on the premise that reality begins with the individual subject.

Or, and consider the possibility, it’s just plain criminal behaviour caused by being a shitmong.

It also says that it’s wrong to commit a victimless crime. It says such things about morals, the ones that are dead in the UK.

Banned in purgatory

It's halal in their fiqh

Its morals are begging the question

Given a priori. To those not suffering from Henry 8 or any other such anti logos nonsense.

your naive focus on narrow psychological differences between people who are inevitably used as pawns (as in) is representative of a much wider tendency to misinterpret political events
you unironically parrot the very views that those in power want you to believe

Your idea of Logos is liberalism and endless dialectic without decision

bernster getting taken in by psyop photo-op

You unironically parrot pop beliefs. Bin Laden specifically became a terrorist because he turned on the House of Saud for allying with America and Israel. He had to flee the country as a fugitive and Saud requested America kill him. He became outraged by the Sabra and Shatila massacre (a mass killing of Shi'ite women and children engineered by Israel) which made him determined to engage in reprisals

My idea of logos is doing what’s right as in the golden rule and acting in harmony with nature, the greater good and most importantly, self evident ideals. I don’t care if morals are objective or subjective, it’s not a debate I need to have. I go from Plato, the Stoics to Kant. I do not follow Hegels ideas. I do like Russells precision and respect for sense and logics, for example. Alien to me: Anglo concept of the “deal”, service industry and high frequency trading, London. You know, things like that.

Nonsense empty of concepts. As Carl Schmitt says, natural law means the rules written by the designated "authorities" on natural law

Russell said he would never die for a cause because he could be wrong. No doubt you wish we were as cowardly as he was

Not empty nonsense at all. You’re just blind to it all, or think you are.

Oh, and Schmitt is mistaken there. But of course, I’d say that.

Russell was anything but a coward.

No one will ever die for natural law. Because they know deep down that it's bogus. Like the common good Augustine and Aquinas used to defend prostitution. But many men will die for Shari'a. Because they know it's truth

Attached: letter.jpg (890x1280, 204K)

I apologize for being rude. It was entirely unjustified.
I don't have any reason to dispute the specific points you mention. I just think that, in the end, terrorists, (regardless of their actual, specific beliefs, which beliefs will never be understood or cared about by the masses (even if it's as simple as "you blow up my village I blow up yours"), always end up being used, one way or another, by those in power to advance their own interests.
Rulers consolidate their power by acquiring the means of control to exert that power
The most politically expedient way to acquire such means is to get the public to pay for it
The public is a) easily manipulated and b) willing to pay a great deal to counter a perceived existential threat
People like bin Laden and Kaczinski end up unwittingly providing the excuse the rulers need to open up the public purse strings.

Warfare is terrorism. Terrorist is just a pejorative for non state partisan

Attached: hll.png (709x1210, 451K)

You err. Plenty of people have died doing the right thing, or for the sake of altruism. Instead of thinking they’ll be rewarded with sex slaves in the afterlife.

Americans have bad aim.

Polygamy is natural. Women’s reproductive drive is satisfied by a single man, men can impregnate many women and keep going. Islam recognizes this and makes it lawful, as long as it takes place within marriage and stays within reason. Of course it cannot be common, but it is perfectly moral and natural

While it once might have been natural, it ultimately denies women full rights. That is anti logos and therefore bad. Polygamy causes harm.

Fascism is a rejection of liberalism and an affirmation of hierarchy and tradition, albeit with a modern twist. It’s no surprise that Islam is appealing to fascists (speaking from experience)

Also, inreeding and low iq problems rampant in the Muslim world. Fucking your family does tend to erode the gene pool after a while.

I agree.
Just wanted to add
>Saud requested America kill him.
And America could have, many, many times over. Yet they decided to keep him around.
>all these goddamn cars and bicycles

>it ultimately denies women full rights.
Women are not entitled to the same rights as men. The equal will be treated equally, the unequal unequally. Women are not men, and therefore have different God-ordained duties and different natures. Nominal equality and rights with men is a sign of decadence.

It's almost definitely due to the people themselves rather than Islam magically turning you into a cousin-fucker. To prove this go to Wikipedia's article on cousin marriage and look at the map on global prevalance of consanguine marriage. It's entirely centered in the Middle East, parts of Central Asia, Pakistan and India. There are several large Muslim majority countries which have less cousin marriage than parts of Europe according to the map, namely Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikstan, Azerbaijan, not to mention Albania, Bosnia and Kosovo. It's clear that Semites and other varieties of sand-people are what fuck their cousins. I have a hard time believing that they didn't' do this until 1,400 years ago. From all accounts Arabia alone was far more degenerate prior to Islam than it is today if the Qur'an is to be trusted (women with multiple husbands, men marrying both a woman and her mother, dancing naked around idols, sticking animals with bones and sucking the blood out of them, women sharpening their teeth for beauty, etc)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage#/media/File:Global_prevalence_of_consanguinity.svg

See, there begins your larp. Women are full equals because they have a human soul. That is self evident.

The right thing meaning the Zeitgeist, or Biblical morality?

Begging the question. A wife's rights are to be supported and protected by her husband

I know you're joking, but this is a delusion believed in by many.
>what is psychological warfare

I read Qutb’s Milestones and it sucks. It’s by far one of the worst books on Islam I’ve read.

The rights of a person are natural and not given.

Yet their souls are housed in an objectively inferior material body. Spiritual equality does not translate into political and social equality, which are madness. The idea of spiritual equality is sadly so often used by Jews to subvert societies, hence why the Tokugawa Japanese stamped them Christcucks out as best as they could

Yes and in marriage the husband has rights given by God and so does the wife. Each Different. The wife has a right to support and protection, the husband doesn't have a right to these from her

This isn't Islamic except for Alawites

You are contorting and bending a simple truth because it hurts your notion of you as superior. Women are full humans. As are retarded cousin fuckers. This is also why slavery is wrong. Jews as a collective have nothing to do with this fact.

In practice, Muslim women are chattel. All I need to know.

Ask Muslim women

Oh I have. The few ones visibly Muslim disagree and western ones agree.

>This is also why slavery is wrong
There is nothing wrong with slavery. There are rulers, and there are ruled. Some people are so subject to falling prey to their own passions and lower natures to such an extent that they are naturally slavish. Seeing as how they are unable to use reason, they require a master to be usefully employed. This is a relationship quite beneficial to both master and natural slave, as the slave is fulfilled through work, and the master is afforded leisure. We see that this is widespread today as it has been always, as most wagecucks think that work is virtuous and that anything outside of it is parasitical, worthless and that no one should surpass their condition – typical slave morality. When a natural master rules, and a natural slave obeys this is actually a quite harmonious relationship

Western as in showing awrah?

Attached: ruh roh.png (720x1078, 545K)

Sorry, but those are not European enlightenment values I could support or justify. To me, it’s shortsighted, malevolent and medieval. Personally, I don’t like gays much. I hate the left and I hate the right. Doesn’t mean it’s ok to bow to Islam because a bearded man wants people to carry his sword where it doesn’t belong just for the right to own people.

You guys should have followed Averroe. But you just couldn’t resist the temptations.

The Enlightenment is overrated

Why would we follow someone trying to alter our doctrines?

>Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve
the absolute state of Yea Forums

You know those were feeble arguments.

I didn't make them. The reason for slavery in Islam is simply as a reward for jihad and because it helps bring people to Islam. Several hostages of the Taliban converted, like Timothy Weeks. This illustrates the goodness of slavery to Muslims