Yet another Misunderstander of Islam comes to the crazy idea that jihad involves more than just inner spiritual struggle. "Jury hears of 'do-it-yourself jihad' book," by Margaret Scheikowski for AAP, August 21 (thanks to JE):
A DO-IT-YOURSELF jihad book provided terrorists with the basics of a "recipe for disaster", a Sydney jury has been told.Giving evidence at the trial of Belal Saadallah Khazaal today, US international terrorism consultant Evan Kohlmann agreed the book did not give instructions on how to make explosives or poisonous materials.
But he told crown prosecutor Peter Neil, SC, it could be used by "homegrown cells'' in combination with such instructions as could be found elsewhere.
"It is a recipe for disaster when you mix them together you have a cocktail for a terrorist attack,'' he said in the NSW Supreme Court.
Khazaal, of Lakemba in Sydney's southwest, has pleaded not guilty to knowingly making a document connected with assistance in a terrorist act....
Khazaal is accused of producing a 110-page book in September 2003 and later causing it to be posted on an internet website.
The book is titled: Provisions on the rules of jihad - short judicial rulings and organisational instructions for fighters and mujadideen against infidels.
Mr Kohlmann told the jury the book was "do-it-yourself jihad''.
He said some assassination methods listed in the book had been used in successful terrorist acts, while others had been used in attempted acts.
He gave examples of terrorists using some of the 12 assassination methods listed, including sniping, booby trapping cars and shooting down planes.
Khazaal's barrister George Thomas suggested the descriptions of the methods were ``very, very general''.
But Mr Kohlmann said the book was "guiding people how to use their own special expertise'' - for example, the booby trapping section was helpful to those with a knowledge about car electricity....
another "moderate" muslim, no doubt.
australia, its a good thing that your gov't took up all your arms, its a concept of sharia law: no kuffars to bear arms
JIHAD FOR DUMMIES
Coming to your nearest book store soon.
What we need is an anti-jihad DIY manual, or some site or blog of that nature.
Yea, that's the ticket.
http://freemendo.typepad.com/
Khazaal is accused of producing a 110-page book in September 2003 and later causing it to be posted on an internet website.
He couldn't have been the first one to publish a how-to book on jihad. Aren't they found everywhere in Islamdom? There must be dozens of jihad how-to websites.
Not only that, the man was arrested! For shame! What does this do the self-publishing industry? Way to put a damper on the entrepreneurial spirit.
/sarc off
The way it should be:
Anti-American comments = summary firing squad
Bit hard on the liberals though, isn't it...
;)
After doing away with words like 'jihad, mujaheddin. Islamic terrorism' the UK successfully eliminates some problem some more:
MI5 has concluded that there is no easy way to identify those who become involved in terrorism in Britain, according to a classified internal research document on radicalisation seen by the Guardian.
The sophisticated analysis, based on hundreds of case studies by the security service, says there is no single pathway to violent extremism.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/20/uksecurity.terrorism1
See; if you look away, don't talk about it and make a lot of smoke around it it just disappears.
Its magic!
Look on the bright side.
However this trial turns out: who wants to bet that the jurors, and their relatives, and their friends, or their other acquaintance, might not just sit down afterwards at their computers and try a little quiet googling? Search term - 'jihad'?
What if they decide to take a squiz at the very website where Khazaal posted his 'book'??
What if they stumble upon *other* jihadist websites?
What if they come across *this* website? Or sheikyermami's?
What about Mr Kohlmann's site? - given that it's been mentioned during the trial, surely any juror or reporter would be curious, and want to have a look at it for themselves.
Australia is a small country, 20 million people. It doesn't take much for a dozen people and their connection, becoming enlightened, to share their knowledge with others, and then with others...There are those who have kin serving in Afghanistan, or who have served in Iraq, or who went into East Timor and saw the awful mess left behind by Indonesian jihadists. There are all those who had family, or friends, or workmates, or team-mates, killed or injured in the Bali jihad bombings. Lots of people for whom this site, say, could be the Rosetta Stone, causing everything to - finally - make sense.
Final thought: from the article -
"Khazaal, of Lakemba in Sydney's southwest, has pleaded not guilty to knowingly making a document connected with assistance in a terrorist act.
"He also had denied attempting to incite the commission of a terrorist act."
Of course he's denying it. Kitman - partial truth. You see: for a pious Muslim, what he was doing ISN'T 'terrorism'. It was perfectly lawful, an act of piety, jihad fi sabil allah.
Only KAFIR 'aggression' against, or 'oppression' of, Muslims - which can be actions as simple as saying No to da'wa, or refusing to permit the construction of a mosque or an islamic school, or forbidding the practice of such things as polygyny, wife-beating, and marriage to nine-year-old girls, or daring to prosecute Muslims for traffic violations/ welfare fraud/ drug-smuggling/ robbery/ assault/ rape of kafir Aussie girls etc etc etc - is 'terrorism'.
And according to classic Muslim doctrine, ONLY kafir are 'guilty'. ALL Muslims, always and everywhere, unless they infringe against sharia, are 'innocent'. In a dispute between Muslim and kafir, the Muslim is right and innocent qua Muslim, the kafir qua kafir is in the wrong, and guilty.
So of course this creep pleads 'not guilty', no matter how bizarre this may seem to the kafir police and jurors.
Put it this way - I suspect that even if he had been caught in the very act of lighting the fuse of a large bomb placed in a shopping mall, he would *still* be pleading 'not guilty' ...and, most likely, supported by tearful and indignant relations, proclaiming his 'innocence' and accusing the kafir of 'oppressing' him and conspiring against him.