Essentially, these defendants are arguing, "My religion makes me do it (Jihad), so we should not be guilty for doing it." To quote one of the terrorists' lawyers, a Mr. Karahan:
"If you punish them for this, tomorrow, will you punish them for fasting or for praying?...If non-Muslims go into Muslim lands, it is every Muslim's obligation to fight them," Karahan said.
[editor's note: Muslims, their prophet, and the Quran all ultimately claim the entire planet as 'Muslim lands'.]
If this defense sounds familiar, it's because the Nazis that were tried at Nuremburg over 50 years ago tried the same "we were just following orders" defense (and look how well it worked for them). It's not the first time the Jihadists borrowed ideas from the Nazis, but I digress.
So what's different this time around? The naked fact that violent, aggressive Jihad is a part of Islam's timeless core, and is an inherent duty for every Muslim, is being admitted in open court as part of the terrorists' defense. If this doesn't prove that we're right, then I don't know what does.
Jihad and terror is not 'extreme' Islam, nor is it 'radical' Islam. It is traditional, time-honored, and mainstream Muslim thinking, and this trial proves that yet again. But is anyone in the West paying attention?