Posted on 06/17/2002 3:48:48 PM PDT by scarface367
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:33:59 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
He's not Taliban. His loyalty was to bin Laden; Walker had claimed he and tried to join the Taliban and they sent him to al-Qeada's arab army because he did not speak the Pushtun language very well. Pushtun was the language used by the native Afghan Taliban, not Arabic, a foreign language.
Walker admitted membership in Ansar. Ansar was part of bin Laden's personal army.
In one of bin Laden's tapes made in 1996 he references Ansar:
...I remind the youths of the Islamic world, who fought in Afghanistan and Bosnia-Herzegovina with their wealth, pens, tongues and themselves that the battle had not finished yet. I remind them about the talk between Jibreel (Gabriel) and the messenger of Allah (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on both of them) after the battle of Ahzab when the messenger of Allah (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) returned to Medina and before putting his sword aside; when Jibreel (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) descend saying: "are you putting your sword aside? by Allah the angels haven't dropped their arms yet; march with your companions to Bani Quraydah, I am (going) ahead of you to throw fears in their hearts and to shake their fortresses on them." Jibreel marched with the angels (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on them all), followed by the messenger of Allah (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) marching with the immigrants, Muhajeroon, and supporters, Ansar. (narrated by Al-Bukhary).
These youths know that: if one is not to be killed one will die (anyway) and the most honourable death is to be killed in the way of Allah. They are even more determined after the martyrdom of the four heroes who bombed the Americans in Riyadh. Those youths who raised high the head of the Ummah and humiliated the Americans-the occupier- by their operation in Riyadh....
Quite simply couldn't miss this stuff- his conversation with his dad when the USS Cole was bombed indicated as much. He wasn't some unknowing dupe who *merely* wanted to kill Afghans and Indians and force them to submit to his religion; these movements to which he belonged made no secret of trying to push their ways throughout the world, and obviously this meant it would conflict with the United States. When Walker met with bin Laden can anyone picture binny failing to mention his war with the US, the centerpiece of Usama's existance? When Wlker was surrounded by other fighters, did he miss their comments regarding Americans? Did he, by all accounts a very well-read student of jihad, not hear Osama's 1998 fatwa against the US, while serving in the ranks of bin Laden's army?
Did he miss it when he went off to 'serve' in the Pakistani terrorist group fighting in Kashmir? His defenders claim he *only* wanted to fight the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan to create a pure Islamic state. If so, who was he fighting in Kashmir? Theere was no Northern Alliance in Kashmir; only Indians. Clearly the boundaries of his 'pure Islamic state' extended much further than Afghanistan. Just where would he not fight to extend his 'pure Islamic state,' the Ummah?
Would its borders stop at Afghanistan, Kashmir, and the middle east? In the Phillippines? In Miami? It was already spreading beyond Afghanistan and he knew it because he had participated in it outside of Afghanistan. When Walker was referring to this Islamic state, he was referring to the core belief of the fundamentalist movement- the global Ummah where there would be shariah law wherever there were muslims.
Including here, eventually.
Walker wasn't a Taliban, and he should not be labeled as 'Johnnie Taliban.' His interests were much broader than the Pushtun tribal cause. He wasn't interested in the Pushtun people. He was interested in spreading Islamic fundamentalist rule by the sword, interested in taking people's freedom to worship, interested in taking freedom not in spreading it. In sharia law there is no such thing as freedom.
You mean the poor traitor. The dumb bastard was caught fighting with terrorists in Afganistan. Sounds like a pretty open and shut case. I don't think he was taking pictures for National Geographic.
Pull your liberal head out of your ass.
First the trial, then the verdict, then you can call him a traitor if he's been convicted of treason.
Of course, for a lynching all the pissy little details go away.
This is the United States of America. I can call him anything I want, and I don't need to get your permission or the Government's permission.
Just like I can call O. J. Simpson a murderer, and Bill Clinton a perjurer, even though neither has been convicted in open court.
If Jihad John, O. J. or Clinton don't like it, the law allows them to them file a slander or libel suit.
Of course, you can compel your accuser to testify in a civil case, and that individual cannot plead the Fifth Amendment in a civil case. Furthermore testimony in a civil case can be used as evidence in a criminal case, so I don't expect that any of those three will have the nerve to go that route.
So what's your problem? Really.
Two problems:
First, the way all you 'Constitutional' conservatives are suddenly going around saying "we don't need to show heem no stinkin' Constitution."
Second, the way you're letting the Bush administration use Lindh to distract you from the fact that the War on Terror is over and they're just stalling until it's safe to back away from all the tough talk of last fall.
Remember - Ken Starr and the Republican Senate are the rule; spinelessness isn't a defect with the Republicans, it's a characteristic.
First, the way all you 'Constitutional' conservatives are suddenly going around saying "we don't need to show heem no stinkin' Constitution."
When have I stated that? My position is that the Bush Administration has proceeded Constitutionally. They have a responsibility to try Jihad Johnny for violating American laws, and are doing so.
Obviously this does not square with your interpretation of the Constitution, but that does not really worry me. Considering the absurd statements you have made previously on this thread (including statements that abridge First Amendment rights) I have to conclude that your understanding of the Constitution is so seriously flawed as to be unimportant.
Second, the way you're letting the Bush administration use Lindh to distract you from the fact that the War on Terror is over and they're just stalling until it's safe to back away from all the tough talk of last fall.
I take it the only part of the newspaper you read are the funnies and crossword, and that your favorite comic is "Boondocks."
You seem to have missed the activity in the Philippines, Packistan, Singapore, Iraq and several other countries that have occurred within the last week or so. This war is far from over, whatever you are reading on the tin-foil helmet sites.
I'd be glad to discuss this further once you read the rest of the newspaper.
The evidence in this case is more overwhelming than it was for Charlie Manson and his pals back in 1969. This is like leading by 8 touchdowns with 2 minutes left. It is over. The guy was caught fighting US soldiers.
Either you are waiting for the finality of a trial to make it "official" or you're goddamned stupid. The defense knows its over by attempting to convince a judge he had a constitutional right to associate with enemies of the United States.
Peace, love, dope.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.