Osama bin Laden Killed

[Richard Wiig]

Not at all.. The war on terror can't be won with bombs,

For starters it's not a war on terror, it's a war on certain doctrinal elements of Islam and the behaviour that it manifests.

it has to be won by removing the initiative of the enemy to fight.. When that enemy believes that dying from this war gives them paradise it encourages them to fight even if they will die..

That's an example of doctrine within Islam, which we must fight. When they say we are at war with Islam, it is literally true. Hiding from and obscuring that will not help us. Contrary to what you say, we must not convince them that we are not fighting Islam, but that we are, and that we are resolute in it.

If you instead remove the reasons for them to fight, such as the Islamist narrative that the US is at war with Islam and wants to destroy it and that the US is hypocritical and would discard the justice and democratic ideals that it claims to stand for when it suits it then you destroy the Islamist narrative and then the islamists won't be able to get people to fight for them as easily..

We cannot remove that, because we are at war with Islam, or at least with the parts of Islam that makes it necessary for us to defend ourselves.

Giving bin Laden a fair trial and due process would have destroyed much of the narrative, but instead the Obama administration has just proven it right. Now the US will, without a doubt lose the war on terror.

Giving Bin Laden a trial would have done little more than provide a grandstand for the jihad cause - the cause will go on in life or in death. You really want us to believe that people who are out to impose Sharia, who will kill merely for someone drawing a cartoon, care about individual rights and the US constitution? Look at whose eyes you're trying to pull the wool over and then ask yourself what chance you have of success.

[Brant Gaede]

. . .

The Islamist narrative that the US is at war with Islam and wants to destroy it and that the US is hypocritical and would discard the justice and democratic ideals that it claims to stand for when it suits it . . . .

The Obama administration has just proven it right. Now the US will, without a doubt, lose the war on terror.

You wish.

Vile words. Forked tongue.

. . .

Terror is a tactic. A war against terror can neither be won nor lost.

LM has always been essentially disingenuous. Well educated he must come from a fairly well off family or gets sponsorship elsewhere. That's my guess. He has to be careful of his rear in a way you and I don't have to. His opinions are too well oiled and manage to get through any crack. One thing for sure, his is not an independent soul.

--Brant

[Greybird]

[...] The Islamist narrative [is] that the US is at war with Islam and wants to destroy it and that the US is hypocritical and would discard the justice and democratic ideals that it claims to stand for when it suits it. [...] The Obama administration has just proven it right. Now the US will, without a doubt, lose the war on terror.

You wish. Vile words. Forked tongue. [... link to comments of similar caliber omitted]

I never thought that the even-tempered, judicious Steve Boydstun would be reduced to spluttering (and mistaken) rage, and imputing attitudes to others without justification, but that's what has happened. Nonetheless, I forge onward:

LM's description of the Islamist attitude matches everything I've seen in veracious reporting. (Not in the neocons' narrative of a self-contradictory and incoherent "Islamofascism," but that's their fever dream for justifying perpetual war, and not an argument.)

I see, and have seen, no "hatred for our freedoms," despite Dubya's fantasies. I see a great deal of contempt for hypocrisy and for the neocons' imperial project, both of which long pre-date the Imperium that began in earnest with the Cold War. That "they" are not justified in a murderous response to it does not alter "our" having begun it, mostly for motives of oil and other resources, only recently with humanitarian glosses sometimes given to it.

Beyond the historical record, though, how have "we," those beset by a welfare and warfare State that few of us have explicitly endorsed (other than accepting benefits), not "lost" the putative War on Terror already?

With domestic surveillance, militarized police, capital controls, movement restrictions, internal passports through DMVs, sexual molestation and radiation damage at airports, and Stasi-informer attitudes encouraged at every turn? All of this in addition to a gutting of any last tiny vestiges of reluctance, in the military's culture, to applying blunt force without clearly stated purposes? That the U.S. authorities are busily throwing away any shreds of the dollar's value merely ices this cake.

Where I would differ with LM is that the contempt cast upon U.S. government-and-elite hypocrisy has merely been given a bigger, "celebrity" focus with bin Laden's and others' being targeted for assassination. The contempt and outrage over the grinding, punishing slaughter of ten, fifteen, a hundred at a time, mostly civilians, has been fueled by and been shown on incessant worldwide news coverage that is given almost no play on this continent, allowing "us" to pretend it does not exist.

As it has always been, the only way to a "winning" move in any such war that proceeds without principles, limits, shame, or perspective is the same one given by the perspicacious war-waging computer in "WarGames." And that is, quite simply, not to play. Tend to the task of actually defending this physical land and those who inhabit it, and forget about projecting power.

Few of us will learn it, of course, as few in any Empire ever do, until the self-generated destruction rains down fully upon their own heads.

[Brant Gaede]

My taken out of its context quote refers to the war policies of the Obama administration and the administration that proceeded it.

There wasn't much context there; I thought you were making a critique on the premise that they could have captured him and didn't try to. And maybe they didn't try to, we may never know what the orders were.

SEALs don't have "itchy trigger fingers." Their training and experience thoroughly seasons them. They thoroughly prepared for the operation.

By "itchy trigger fingers" I meant the orders were such that there was no likely scenario where bin Laden would be captured alive. I didn't mean to suggest unprofessionalism on their part.

LM ripped the context, not you.

--Brant

[Martin Radwin]

It is somewhat peculiar even to call the killing of bin Laden an "act of war." This expression is normally used to signify an act that initiates a state of war that did not previously exist, such as the bombing of Pearl Harbor. War, as Locke indicates, is a condition, or state of affairs, not a single act.

Peculiar?

Dayaamm!

Do you mean something like the invasion of Normandy was not an "act of war" because the USA did not "initiate" the war? Your words are conveying this to me. Is my understanding of your meaning correct?

Any violent action that occurs within the context of a war is technically an "act of war." This applies to the killing of bin Laden as well. My point was that this is so obvious that it seems peculiar to call attention to it. When U.S. soldiers engage in firefights with members of the Taliban, these are not normally reported as "acts of war." This is understood as part of the context.

So what does it mean to say that the killing of bin Laden was primarily an act of war rather than an act of justice? I don't understand the basis for the comparison. The killing of bin Laden, since it occurred in the context of a state of war that has been in effect for a decade, would have been an "act of war" regardless of whether it was just or unjust.

You object to the selling of the killing as "an act of justice," because you view it primarily as an act of war. Maybe you mean that justice was not the primary motive of those who authorized and implemented the attack. I don't know one way or the other, but I suspect that the Navy Seals who participated in the attack viewed it principally as "payback" -- i.e., retribution -- which is a type of justice.

I prefer to say--on that level--that bin Laden made war on us, so we made war back and killed him. I think the public can understand that a lot easier than going around in circles about Locke.

I cited Locke because he provides an excellent framework for distinctions that are vital to libertarian theory. Whether we should attempt to educate the public about Lockean theory in this realm is a judgment call. It is also irrelevant to the point I was making. I cited Locke in the course of suggesting how libertarians should view the killing of bin Laden.

Ghs

Whether the killing of Bin Laden is consistent with libertarian principles seems strangely irrelevant in the context of the world we live in today and the kind of government that rules over us. The U.S. today is a bankrupt, decaying empire ruled by a government that is fighting wars with multiple countries around the world and murdering countless numbers of innocent people. The U.S. government, in its quest for world domination, has murdered far more innocent people than Bin Laden and his fellow terrorists could ever hope to accomplish. This was a point long ago made by James Bovard, that governments are and always have been the world's principle terrorists, having the means at their disposal to kill vastly greater numbers of people than all of the private terrorists combined.

With regard to your comment in post #151 about Bin Laden as an enemy combatant, as far as the U.S. government is concerned, we are all now enemy combatants or ready candidates to be labeled as such. Obama has declared that he has the power to order the murder of any person in the world, including American citizens, without evidence or trial. As far as the ruling clique that runs this country is concerned, we are all terrorists (or at least potential terrorists) now.

Whether or not any particular act committed by the U.S. government may be judged to be consistent with libertarian principles, the U.S. government doesn't give a damn about libertarian principles or ethics. Its sole aim is world domination, both abroad and at home.

Martin

[Brant Gaede]

[...] The Islamist narrative [is] that the US is at war with Islam and wants to destroy it and that the US is hypocritical and would discard the justice and democratic ideals that it claims to stand for when it suits it. [...] The Obama administration has just proven it right. Now the US will, without a doubt, lose the war on terror.

You wish. Vile words. Forked tongue. [... link to comments of similar caliber omitted]

I never thought that the even-tempered, judicious Steve Boydstun would be reduced to spluttering (and mistaken) rage, and imputing attitudes to others without justification, but that's what has happened. Nonetheless, I forge onward:

LM's description of the Islamist attitude matches everything I've seen in veracious reporting. (Not in the neocons' narrative of a self-contradictory and incoherent "Islamofascism," but that's their fever dream for justifying perpetual war, and not an argument.)

I see, and have seen, no "hatred for our freedoms," despite Dubya's fantasies. I see a great deal of contempt for hypocrisy and for the neocons' imperial project, both of which long pre-date the Imperium that began in earnest with the Cold War. That "they" are not justified in a murderous response to it does not alter "our" having begun it, mostly for motives of oil and other resources, only recently with humanitarian glosses sometimes given to it.

Beyond the historical record, though, how have "we," those beset by a welfare and warfare State that few of us have explicitly endorsed (other than accepting benefits), not "lost" the putative War on Terror already?

With domestic surveillance, militarized police, capital controls, movement restrictions, internal passports through DMVs, sexual molestation and radiation damage at airports, and Stasi-informer attitudes encouraged at every turn? All of this in addition to a gutting of any last tiny vestiges of reluctance, in the military's culture, to applying blunt force without clearly stated purposes? That the U.S. authorities are busily throwing away any shreds of the dollar's value merely ices this cake.

Where I would differ with LM is that the contempt cast upon U.S. government-and-elite hypocrisy has merely been given a bigger, "celebrity" focus with bin Laden's and others' being targeted for assassination. The contempt and outrage over the grinding, punishing slaughter of ten, fifteen, a hundred at a time, mostly civilians, has been fueled by and been shown on incessant worldwide news coverage that is given almost no play on this continent, allowing "us" to pretend it does not exist.

As it has always been, the only way to a "winning" move in any such war that proceeds without principles, limits, shame, or perspective is the same one given by the perspicacious war-waging computer in "WarGames." And that is, quite simply, not to play. Tend to the task of actually defending this physical land and those who inhabit it, and forget about projecting power.

Few of us will learn it, of course, as few in any Empire ever do, until the self-generated destruction rains down fully upon their own heads.

I think US power should be projected in the sense of keeping sea lanes open, but seldom on foreign soil. In that sense it was valuable for the US to conquer Hawaii, but not the Philippines. The entire Pacific is essentially an American lake. The worry about the Straits of Hormuz is a joke, for neither Saudi Arabia nor Iran want that oil flow cut off. The stupidity of Obama-Bush is not knowing that the reason power is projected is so you don't have to use it. The statists never could help themselves helping make a better world on whatever scale available to them. Ayn Rand never got this bigger picture, at least out of more immediate concerns. Her utopian vision was to counter another utopian vision necessarily sacrificing true individualism and eventually devolving into more neocon than not. Objectivism never got a proper emphasis on individual rights. There was too much stress on philosophy generally and ethics/morality particularly and she lost all her natural allies to a radical vision for rights themselves are implicitly moralistic.

--Brant

Edited May 8, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Martin Radwin]

Giving bin Laden a fair trial and due process would have destroyed much of the narrative, but instead the Obama administration has just proven it right. Now the US will, without a doubt lose the war on terror.

Or we might win by killing billions of people. We shall see. We will see if Allah can do sh*t to stop us.

Ba'al Chafatz

Congratulations on your brilliant insights, Ba'al. Only you, along with a claque of aspiring future Hitlers, could imagine that we could somehow "win" by killing bilions of people.

Martin

[Brant Gaede]

Whether or not any particular act committed by the U.S. government may be judged to be consistent with libertarian principles, the U.S. government doesn't give a damn about libertarian principles or ethics. Its sole aim is world domination, both abroad and at home.

No. I'd say its aim is United States domination of Americans wherever they are with the rest as lagniappe. The power of the rulers comes from the willingly ruled and flows back to them in the form of exploited and exploiters. Do the parasites care about the TSA? Do the brain dead? Foreign wars re-enforce the rulers by their purported necessity and a queer kind of entertainment value, a modern bread and circus. Tear off the scab and the pus flows out.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Giving bin Laden a fair trial and due process would have destroyed much of the narrative, but instead the Obama administration has just proven it right. Now the US will, without a doubt lose the war on terror.

Or we might win by killing billions of people. We shall see. We will see if Allah can do sh*t to stop us.

Ba'al Chafatz

Congratulations on your brilliant insights, Ba'al. Only you, along with a claque of aspiring future Hitlers, could imagine that we could somehow "win" by killing bilions of people.

Martin

The only way to kill billions of people, aside from an asteroid or comet strike, is with high altitude detonations of multi-megaton nuclear bombs. A 30 megaton bomb exploded at 30,000 feet over NYC will blow up and burn up everything and everybody in a circle encompassing Washington and Boston. That was the briefing I heard from an Air Force Officer at the University of Arizona in 1959 when I was a young teenager. I doubt if any 30 megaton bombs even exist any more.

--Brant

don't mind Bob too much; he thinks his ignorance and hubris and blind-spot stupidity constitutes an irrefutable moral and practical argument he tirelessly repeats

[Libertarian Muslim]

We cannot remove that, because we are at war with Islam, or at least with the parts of Islam that makes it necessary for us to defend ourselves.

See if that were the case and you were at war with Islam, rather than just terrorism, you'd be at war with more than 1.6 billion people and you'd lose that war even quicker than you're losing this one I can assure you of that..

Giving Bin Laden a trial would have done little more than provide a grandstand for the jihad cause - the cause will go on in life or in death. You really want us to believe that people who are out to impose Sharia, who will kill merely for someone drawing a cartoon, care about individual rights and the US constitution? Look at whose eyes you're trying to pull the wool over and then ask yourself what chance you have of success.

Jefferson said it's better to allow people with ideas you would consider wrong to be able to voice their opinion rather than try and shut them up and to instead defeat their ideas with better opinions.. The very fact that he would have been given a fair trial would have defeated a lot of the arguments of the Islamist narrative..

Terror is a tactic. A war against terror can neither be won nor lost.

LM has always been essentially disingenuous. Well educated he must come from a fairly well off family or gets sponsorship elsewhere. That's my guess. He has to be careful of his rear in a way you and I don't have to. His opinions are too well oiled and manage to get through any crack. One thing for sure, his is not an independent soul.

--Brant

That's funny!

I suppose in a way that I should find it flattering that you think so. But actually, nothing could be further from the truth.

[9thdoctor]

Congratulations on your brilliant insights, Ba'al. Only you, along with a claque of aspiring future Hitlers, could imagine that we could somehow "win" by killing bilions of people.

He has a claque? I'm being paid to boo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuN1D6Np1y8&feature=related

[william.scherk]

LM has always been essentially disingenuous. Well educated he must come from a fairly well off family or gets sponsorship elsewhere. That's my guess. He has to be careful of his rear in a way you and I don't have to. His opinions are too well oiled and manage to get through any crack. One thing for sure, his is not an independent soul.

I feel very sorry for LM, for several reasons.

He is by citizenship Australian, born and raised. His (ethnoracial) background is Cypriot -- half Greek on father's side, and half Turkish on mother's. He is currently living, studying and working in New Zealand, in pursuit of a BA in Conflict Resolution/Criminology. He spent much time in the Middle East, and has experience of the marvelous religious tolerance of Syria . . .

He self-identifies as a Muslim, yet does not say anything about his faith that would identify him as a follower of a particular branch of Islam. He may be Ismaili, he may be Sunni or Shi'a, and he may be an adherent of one of the many distinct branches of Islamic thought and jurisprudence. One of his blogs, The Vital Issue, is closed to all but invitees, and no one from OL has seen what it contains. However, one recommendation on the web praises it for its Shi'a quality; it is unclear if that praise is accurate or not.

As a 'revert' to Islam, LM was raised in a Christian faith by may have taken on a religious colouration from his mom , but Cypriot Muslims are overwhelmingly Sunni, and belong to a trend of Islamic thought much influenced by Sufism. I note that LM has strongly condemned Wahhabi Islam and also Salafis, as well as terrorist acts in the name of Islam. He condemns bin Laden. He condemns the 9/11 attacks. He condemns Salafi attacks in Egypt. He condemns the regime of Bashar al-Assad, the Pakistani regime and its extremist jihadis.

He also considers that the only Sharia-compliant nation on earth is the USA.

Although LM maintains that Islamic 'sects' are not really sects (since he claims that a majority of Muslim scholars recognize each other group and therefore they are simply just schools of thought), he denounces 'sects' that do not conform to his reading of Islam. At the same time, he does not accept any criticism of Hamas and is silent on Hezbollah (the first is Sunni, the second Shi'a).

Oddly, he reserves his utmost condemnation for condemns 'fanatical atheists' (Xray), comparing them to Salafis . . .

All these observations underly my feeling of empathy for LM. In my opinion he is attempting to integrate multiple and contradictory identities, political leanings and politico-religious impulses. It cannot be easy to defend on one hand stoning of adulterers and on the other hand condemn those regimes (Talibani/Wahhabis/Salafis/Twelver Shi'as) who actually carry out such religion-based punishments.

In sum, I think LM is a good and very decent man who is conflicted yet not aware of the conflicts -- as with most of us faced with cognitive dissonance, he does not accept that one or several held beliefs/stances are incompatible with the others, or that there is a lack of coherence to his personal philosophy . . .

One discussion I would pay good money to witness and study would be between newcomer Bal Simon and LM.

As for Boydstun's cryptic dismissal of LM as some kind of monster, to my eyes this is off-beam jingoism. LM is not spotted with evul, merely self-imprisoned within religious delusion and extremely naive about human nature and politics. it is signal to me that he shifts between 'you' and 'we' in discussion of The West/Them, having half-legs in some mythical Islamic wonderland and the other in some mythical Jeffersonian USA. May we have mercy on his confusions.

Ultimately, he styles himself as a committed libertarian and as a freedom-loving American at heart. At OL, he is thus several rankings above me and my fellow Canuckistani statist monsters.

_____________

Edited to correct a few details; thanks to LM.

Edited May 9, 2011 by william.scherk

[anthony]

William,

My default attitude is peace be upon him or her who practises his faith privately.

They have my respect, if not my admiration.

When that faith is inextricably embroiled in politics, and much worse, violence, the truly thinking and honest person should clearly and unequivocally condemn it at every turn - not make counter-accusations, rationalizations, or excuses.

That's why I found LM disturbingly ambiguous from the start.

His argument was always, and is: "they did this to us ...what do you expect? Besides, if you're not careful, we can do such-and-such back at you."

A blame and veiled-threat game.

But I've also had periods of concern for the fellow. Wondered what he's really up to, if he is building bridges, or if he's got himself involved with a particularly nasty bunch who might be using his erudition and passion as a propaganda tool - and so on.

Let him answer for himself, without defensiveness or disingenuousness, and I'd like to hear him speak from his heart about his hopes and fears for Islam.

(Besides, in the heat of exchange on forums, we easily forget that many here are thoroughly decent and likeable fellows, with good character, who in real life would not be evul. LM conflicted? yes, I've thought that a possibility.)

Well said, by the way.

Tony

Edited May 8, 2011 by whYNOT

[BaalChatzaf]

Congratulations on your brilliant insights, Ba'al. Only you, along with a claque of aspiring future Hitlers, could imagine that we could somehow "win" by killing bilions of people.

Martin

The last one standing is the Winner.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Peter]

Tony wrote:

Quote

But I've also had periods of concern for the fellow. Wondered what he's really up to, if he's got himself involved with a particularly nasty bunch who might be using his erudition and passion as a propaganda tool - and so on.

End quote

I wish him the best.

I wonder what form the Jihadist's revenge will take? Indiscriminate slaughter or targeted mayhem? I was just watching a rerun of The Unit, where Muslims took over a US school, and wired it to explode. One of the Unit infiltrated the school, with "camera glasses" and posed as a teacher and was herded in with the students.

With that real time info, The Unit came in and flat out shot them all, with no, "Put your hands up," or any offer to spare them. Their tactics were similar to Navy Seals.

I remember reading that Osama promised to go out fighting and even had a valet / aide who was going to kill him if he were wounded and unable to kill himself, rather than be captured. And where were the promised explosives and why weren't they set off. What a bloody coward Osama was. I will raise a glass and toast our Armed Forces tonight.

Peter Taylor

Edited May 8, 2011 by Peter Taylor

[Guyau]

.

President Obama on the Mission to Kill bin Laden

May 8, 2011

KROFT: Is this the first time that you've ever ordered someone killed?

OBAMA: Well, keep in mind that every time I make a decision about launching a missile, every time I make a decision about sending troops into battle, I understand that this will result in people being killed. And that is a sobering fact. But it is one that comes with the job.

KROFT: This was one man. This is somebody who has cast a shadow, has been cast a shadow in this place, in the White House for almost...a decade.

OBAMA: As nervous as I was about this whole process, the one thing I didn't lose sleep over was the possibility of taking bin Laden out. Justice was done. And I think that anyone who would question that the perpetrator of mass murder on American soil didn't deserve what he got needs to have their head examined.

Andy Rooney

Reprise: A, B,

[Brant Gaede]

All things I've considered so far have led to the conclusion that there are more reasons to think bin Laden died years ago and was neither killed nor captured by the SEAL operation.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Obama has started his campaign for re-election with downing the "birthers" and now with downing Osama. He's the greatest politician ever. Beats Clinton. Clinton only fired off a few Tomahawks, Bush sent an army, Obama got Osama--yeah, right.

--Brant

way of the American world: war, war, war

[Richard Wiig]

See if that were the case and you were at war with Islam, rather than just terrorism,

That is disingenuous. We are not at war with "just terrorism". We are at war with a particular type of terrorism, a terrorism that stands entirely on Islamic doctrine and which aims at advancing the supremacy of Islam.

you'd be at war with more than 1.6 billion people and you'd lose that war even quicker than you're losing this one I can assure you of that..

Islam isn't a united monolith, and Islamic law doesn't call for all muslims to become mujahideen and strike terror into the hearts of infidels. There are many laws for many circumstances and more ways of advancing Islam than striking terror. Terror tactics are really just a softening up that goes go hand in hand to work with and compliment those other methods. We are at war with those, supposedly, 1.6 billion muslims if the doctrines underpinning the jihad is part of the Islamic jurisprudence of their sect. Whether or not they adhere to it, or even know it exists, is irrelevant. If we lose this war, it won't be because of taking out an enemy of war, it will be because of peoples widespred inability/refusal to face reality.

Jefferson said it's better to allow people with ideas you would consider wrong to be able to voice their opinion rather than try and shut them up and to instead defeat their ideas with better opinions.. The very fact that he would have been given a fair trial would have defeated a lot of the arguments of the Islamist narrative..

Islamic supremacists have been freely expressing their ideas in the West for a long time but it hasn't destroyed their Islamic supremacist narrative one bit. Bin Laden is not someone who has been oppressed by the West and denied a voice. He is an enemy of war who murdered thousands of people, and continued to murder, until the day he was assassinated.

[Libertarian Muslim]

I feel very sorry for LM, for several reasons.

Please don't feel sorry for me.. I'm doing okay!

He is by citizenship Australian, born and raised. His (ethnoracial) background is Cypriot -- half Greek on father's side, and half Turkish on mother's. He is currently living, studying and working in New Zealand, in pursuit of a BA in Conflict Resolution/Criminology. He spent much time in the Middle East, and has experience of the marvelous religious tolerance of Syria . . .

Born and raised in Melbourne, Australia of Greek and Turkish parents but not a Cypriot.

Also, I am in pursuit of a degree, though I find university study incredibly difficult as I have learning disabilities..

He self-identifies as a Muslim, yet does not say anything about his faith that would identify him as a follower of a particular branch of Islam. He may be Ismaili, he may be Sunni or Shi'a, and he may be an adherent of one of the many distinct branches of Islamic thought and jurisprudence. One of his blogs, The Vital Issue, is closed to all but invitees, and no one from OL has seen what it contains. |However, one recommendation on the web praises it for its Shi'a quality; it is unclear if that praise is accurate or not.

True, I don't like any form of sectarianism. It's unislamic.

The Prophet peace be upon him warned against it. I also find the labels of Sunni and Shia to be dangerous.. To claim one is Sunni means that they exclusively follow the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh and Shia means that you could claim to be of the people that supported Imam Ali, both claims are incorrect and make each group arrogant and full of pride to the extent where some can't accept the others as Muslim.

As a 'revert' to Islam, LM may have taken on a religious colouration from his mom, but Cypriot Muslims are overwhelmingly Sunni, and belong to a trend of Islamic thought much influenced by Sufism. I note that LM has strongly condemned Wahhabi Islam and also Salafis, as well as terrorist acts in the name of Islam. He condemns bin Laden. He condemns the 9/11 attacks. He condemns Salafi attacks in Egypt. He condemns the regime of Bashar al-Assad, the Pakistani regime and its extremist jihadis

No, oddly enough I was raised Christian by my mother.

It's true that I condemn Wahhabism and aspects of Salafism and definitely terrorism..

He also considers that the only Sharia-compliant nation on earth is the USA.

True.

Although LM maintains that Islamic 'sects' are not really sects (since he claims that a majority of Muslim scholars recognize each other group and therefore they are simply just schools of thought), he denounces 'sects' that do not conform to his reading of Islam. At the same time, he does not accept any criticism of Hamas and is silent on Hezbollah (the first is Sunni, the second Shi'a).

No, I denounce sectarianism..

I do accept criticism of Hamas and Hezbollah. I'll also criticize their actions too.

Oddly, he reserves his utmost condemnation for 'fanatical atheists' (Xray), comparing them to Salafis . . .

I don't think that is my utmost condemnation..

All these observations underly my feeling of empathy for LM. In my opinion he is attempting to integrate multiple and contradictory identities, political leanings and politico-religious impulses. It cannot be easy to defend on one hand stoning of adulterers and on the other hand condemn those regimes (Talibani/Wahhabis/Salafis/Twelver Shi'as) who actually carry out such religion-based punishments.

In sum, I think LM is a good and very decent man who is conflicted yet not aware of the conflicts -- as with most of us faced with cognitive dissonance, he does not accept that one or several held beliefs/stances are incompatible with the others, or that there is a lack of coherence to his personal philosophy . . .

Thank you for saying you think I'm a good and decent man..

But I don't think that some of my beliefs are incompatible to others that I hold..

One discussion I would pay good money to witness and study would be between newcomer Bal Simon and LM.

I don't know who that is sorry.

[Libertarian Muslim]

That's why I found LM disturbingly ambiguous from the start.

His argument was always, and is: "they did this to us ...what do you expect? Besides, if you're not careful, we can do such-and-such back at you."

A blame and veiled-threat game.

Who made such veiled threats?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

We are at war with those, supposedly, 1.6 billion muslims if the doctrines underpinning the jihad is part of the Islamic jurisprudence of their sect. Whether or not they adhere to it, or even know it exists, is irrelevant.

That's great logic.

We are at war with a people who are not aware that there is anything wrong, and don't even practice it.

A people not intending anything wrong, and not doing anything wrong, is irrelevant to Richard when he wants to wage war against them.

Either this idea needs a bit of an overhaul or this is a striking case of bigotry by any definition of the term.

I opt for the first. I believe it's a hopelessly muddled idea.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

Andy Rooney

I saw Andy Rooney’s segment last night and bristled at the statement, about Hitler and bin Laden, that “They didn't do it for their countrymen either. They did it for themselves.” There are plenty of choice Hitler quotes I could roll out here, maybe later. And no doubt there are matching bin Laden quotes.

[bmacwilliam]

It would have made a huge difference.. It would have won the war because the majority of the Islamists believe in the same narrative which has just been reinforced because Osama bin Laden was not given the chance to have a fair trial like our values state a criminal like him should have, they believe we are hypocrites when it comes to the application of our values and of justice, that we will discard these values when it suits us and apply them when it is beneficial for us to do so.. We proved them right in killing an unarmed Osama bin Laden.. I believe without exaggeration that act has lost the war for us..

I'll tell you what would have happened if Osama bin Laden were to have been given a chance to face a court for his actions and be held accountable in a fair trial..

If he were found guilty, he probably would have been executed.. And no one could say we were hypocrites..

Not sure if this would have "won the war", but nevertheless I think that in this case and some other comments you have made on this topic are accurate and rather insightful. This is the "high road" that seems so elusive to Michael.

However, I think we need to be careful not to jump to conclusions until we fully understand what happened. We should not make accusations without appropriate knowledge (I refer to the SEALS).

That being said, a bullet in the head is most likely justice for this monster. But even in war, where killing is justified, it is not categorically justified under all circumstances - especially when the threat has been eliminated. If OBL was unarmed and not a threat, ultimately justice may have been done, but certainly not done properly or morally. But again, there's a big "if" at the start of that sentence.

Bob

Edited May 9, 2011 by Bob_Mac

[bmacwilliam]

We are at war with those, supposedly, 1.6 billion muslims if the doctrines underpinning the jihad is part of the Islamic jurisprudence of their sect.

All the more reason to put him on trial (if possible) and show the 1.6 billion a superior way no?

Bob