Hello Momus,
I am genuinely sorry if anything I wrote smacked of self-righteousness, if you would like to point out what I wrote that particularly struck you that way, I will be happy to apologize for it.
I am also sorry we differ in your not acknowledging the steady expansion of the Islamic revival and attendent surge in terrorist attacks and activity (as most terrorist attacks against Western targets are still foiled before they come to fruition).
The point I was making was that attacks against America and American interests were ramping up long before the attack on Iraq.
As for leaders in the Muslim Brotherhood "repudiating" the 9/11 attacks, this is disingenuous to say the least. The first Muslim Brotherhood/Al Qaeda attack on the WTC occurred in 1993 under the direction of Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman an Egyptian with strong ties to Egypt's various Muslim Brotherhood wings, Ramzey Yousef is of course the nephew of Kalid Shaikh Muhammed who was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks and also involved in the planning and staging of the 1993 bombings. To say that the Muslim Brotherhood, "opposed" the attacks their members carried out not once, but twice, is absurd. Especially when attacking civilian targets to advance the Jihad is their stock and trade. The official Al-Qaeda statement on the 9/11 attacks is far more in keeping with their actual ideology:
"By means of this document we send a message to America and those behind it. We are coming, by the will of God almighty, no matter what America does. It will never be safe from the fury of Muslims. America is the one who began the war, and it will lose the battle by the permission of God almighty."
-- Al-Qaeda statement, April 24, 2002
It's interesting also that less than a year after signing this statement, Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan had assisting in the bombing of the US consulate in Karachi. Apparently, they oppose all attacks against civilians that don't include the use of their own explosives.
What is going on Momus, is that they play on the fact that most Westerners understand neither the principles of Abrogation or Holy Deception. Firstly, that the Quranic passages written during the earlier Mecca period advocating tolerance of "the peoples of the book" are abrogated by the later Medina period suras advocating that these "apes and pigs" be violently subjugated or put to death. Secondly, the Quran allows for and even compliments the use of blatant deception when dealing with the enemies of Allah. Therefore, when it comes to dealing with the West it is laudible, and not sinful at all to say one thing and do something entirely different. A lie told to an infidel is no sin.
We eat up both of course, because like to many beaten wives we are desperate to believe that our tormentor will stop, that he really loves us, and that if we would just stop enraging him with our "mistakes" we would be able to live in peace. "Look what you made me do!" he says as we once again find our eyes blackened and our teeth knocked out. "It's because of something I did" we repeat, because the truth that it is really all about his problem and that he really is not going to stop is just too painful for us to bear.
- SEAGOON
