Libertarian Muslim

LM:

This makes sense at the public international level.

However, we, through whatever intermediaries we can muster with our decimated espionage structure, should be assisting the anti Assad forces as strongly and as covertly as possible.

My major concern is the fact that the Assad family is knee deep in money and power accumulated over decades of immersion in the drug, arms and human being trade that they have major IOU's out there that can cause severe damage to the US.

Adam

Drug trade? I doubt it. Arms? Probably.. Human trafficking? I also doubt it unless you're talking about the multitudes of Russian prostitutes I came across.

Whatever the US does behind the scenes is another story, lending support covertly to the opposition that the US finds most acceptable ideologically is always a give in. I just don't want to see another Libya.. There is no way in hell the Syrians would accept that at all.

It is not in my power to do so. I am just one person. But I can wish in my heart for the end of Islam (the Devil's own meme) which I consider to be one of the chief evils vexing the human race. So I must be satisfied with wishing you guys the uttermost worst of luck and warm myself with occasional bouts of schadenfreude. Other than that I am in no position to do violence or destruction.

Ba'al Chatzaf

And if you had the power to do so? Would you launch a war against Islam and Muslims and try and rid the world of us?

One thing for sure. The people who are doing dirt in this situation are Muslims.

Ba'al Chatzaf

So why don't you just declare war on Islam and all Muslims and have a war against us then..

Why?

Because more and more people are protesting, if the US gets involved it will make the people support Assad because they don't want foreign intervention.. Let them continue on this course and it'll work out well.

There are obviously very big issues. Though I think that remnants of the security forces of Mubarak are responsible for the majority of the atrocities.

America would be wise to stay out of Syria.

In response to LM's question; America ain't over yet:

Oh please.. What a load of BS.

That is outrageously stupid.

It is okay to rape your maids? BS.. Rape is a crime where the rapist is punished, the victim is supposed to be treated like a victim and not blamed for the crime against them..

What she's describing is not Islam, rather it's the cultural tendencies of the region that not only occur within the Muslim community, but also occur within the Christian community too and other communities in the region..

Infidel, if you really believe this rubbish then I really feel sorry for anyone associated with you.

And you claim that 'America ain't over yet'?

It's too late.. It was over for America when Americans had defecated on their Founding Fathers by not being vigilant in protecting the values that their nation was founded on and sold the soul of their nation and gave into the military industrial complex and the international bankers who provided Americans with a cocoon of ignorance, stupidity and laziness to wrap themselves in whilst both committed unspeakable crimes in their name. America could never be defeated except by the negligence of its own people.. This has definitely occurred..

So what are you going to do America? Are you going to take it back? Can you even be successful at it if you try? I sure hope so otherwise there are going to be several hundred million Americans that wake up one day soon and realize that they've lost it all and have been swindled by these vermin that will just move onto their next victim without remorse like a rapist..

LM:

Precisely what my understanding is of Osama's overall game plan and we stepped right into it and are ensnared on the flypaper precisely as planned.

We are spiraling in debt. Essentially we have lost our will, focus and mythology.

We are lost like a giant blinded cyclops stumbling in the worlds valley, accidentally stepping on a village or two and raising our club to the sky proclaiming victory.

Adam

Yes exactly, and what is worse is that by the actions that the US has taken over the last 50 years in supporting dictatorships and monarchies, the US sold out all of its values.. All of the things that made the US great and have a moral high ground were there and have now been lost.. The murder of Osama bin Laden was the nail in the US Government's coffin.

What happened America?

Collateral damage. One of the less happy aspects of modern war. In any war there will be collateral damage. One cannot allow sentimentality to divert one of the main objective which is to Win The War.

The U.S. Killed over one million Japanese non-combatants in the Pacific War. So sorry. Maybe the Japanese should have thought of that before they bombed Pearl Harbor.

In a word, collateral damage does not bother me one little bit.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I'm sure that's how Al-Qaeda felt in launching the 9/11 attacks.. They wanted to attack the US Economy and Military in a move so daring but they didn't have missiles or jet fighters and therefore decided to use passenger jets to do it, they knew innocent people would be killed but thought that if they were lucky.. Their attacks would cause the Americans to be so angry by it, that instead of just targeting Al Qaeda through targeted attacks on a small scale that they'd attack Afghanistan as a whole and invade the country.. That would then make it easier for Al Qaeda to attack US Soldiers like they'd wanted to do all along.

It would also draw the US Empire into a battle which would last so long that it would drain the US economy and morale and cause the US to waste a lot in Afghanistan, just like the Soviet Union did.. It may even cause the US Empire to collapse, at the very least the end result would be that Americans lose their blood lust for war and stop trying to dominate and control all of the countries in the region, perhaps it would even stop the US government from supporting dictatorships in the region.

Sure there were lives lost of innocent civilians in the US but to Al Qaeda, they were just collateral damage in a war that they felt justified in fighting..

You seem rather similar..

I am proud of every enemy corpse I helped to make. The pen is mightier than the sword and the algorithm is mightier than the bullet.

And how do you feel about the many innocent civilian corpses that are due to the algorithms that you've created? Proud of that too?

I live by the sword (or canon, or bomber, or nuclear device) and my enemies die by the same. Who won the Pacific War of 1941-1945?

Simple rule for surviving on Earth:

Cherish your family and friends and defenders, destroy your enemies. It is a sure fire winning rule.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Before you destroy your enemy you should actually know who they are first. It appears you're still struggling with that part.

Geert Wilders like the Islamists use the democratic values like freedom of speech as a means to get into power, and then try and then would like to take that right away from others.

Is Geert Wilders inciting hatred? Yes, for anyone to deny is just silly.. Should he be sent to prison for it or be barred from political office.. No.. To do so would undermine the idea that logic will overrule craziness and that the checks and balances of power, such as the judiciary would prevent crazy people like him in power to carry out their crazy ideas even if they are elected.

Regarding the idea that you can strike at the leadership of those crazy groups such as Al Qaeda and somehow diffuse them, it is not correct. They consider themselves true believers who are fighting God's war, they don't do it for Osama bin Laden, they do it for God.. They are amongst a civilian population that is largely unaware of their actions and for the most part are against what their ideology states, for some of those civilians they are on the fence and neither support openly nor condemn the actions of those extremists because they haven't made their mind up.. By massacring the civilians you'll only make all of the people hate you and they'll either start fighting you because you killed their families, friends and coreligionists or they'll be convinced that the ideas of the extremists are correct and you'll make them extreme too.. It's counter productive..

The only way to defeat them is not through bombs, it's a war of ideologies and the people in between are the target.. You need to show how your ideals are better and how the Islamist's ideas are both Islamically and logically incorrect and full of hate.. You need to be a good example and you can't do so by bombing everyone.. If you show the people that your ideas are better then many of the Islamists will see it too and will defect, there will always be a hardcore minority that still remains and fights because they can't be convinced of anything.. But once you have the majority on your side they'll fight against those hardcore extremists..

That's how you win this war, anything else will lose it..

And for those that think that a war on Islam will be successful and you can somehow kill all Muslims or make us change our belief.. It's silly.. You couldn't be bombed out of your sincerest beliefs so to expect to be able to do the same to us is just illogical, know that you can't bomb an idea and you'll end up just creating more extreme people who will fight against you, it will lead to your own destruction because you'll never be able to afford it, it'll destroy the ideals that you built your nations on and Muslims will have more than a billion people that will fight to the death rather than give up their religion.. You can't beat that no matter how hard you try and it would only encourage people to come to Islam in the West..

Don't you have to read the fine print?

The Qur'an claims that Jews do not worship God alone, because they regard Ezra as the Son of God.

The Qur'an claims that Christians do not worship God alone, because they regard Jesus as the Son of God.

The second claim isn't hard to follow. Belief in the divinity of Christ or in the Trinity is not strict monotheism (although the Qur'an puts Mary in the Trinity, in place of the Holy Spirit).

The first, on the other hand, may not describe any form of Jewish belief that ever existed. But it does disqualify Jews from genuinely believing in Allah.

As for the Last Day, for centuries most Christians believed that there would Day of Judgment and the fundamentalists still do (because the liberal Christians of today do not, they are presumably all guaranteed a one-way ticket to Hell when they die).

How many Jews believe that there will be a Last Day, on which God will judge the quick and the dead, sending some to Heaven and dropping the rest into the Lake of Fire? My understanding is that apocalyptics have been strongly deemphasized in mainstream Jewish belief for a very long time. But other participants here may be able to correct me.

Robert Campbell

Hi Robert, that is an excuse that some extremists also use.. Nevertheless it's one of faulted logic..

We must remember that the Qur'an acknowledged that the Jews and Christians held those beliefs yet still stated the Christians and Jews etc would have nothing to grieve.. I will also state this, the verse I quoted before is from one of the last chapters of the Qur'an revealed to man and was not abrogated.

We are all human beings, of that there is little doubt (well, except for some) but each of us follows a philosophy of one kind or another. Islam imparts a philosophy which shapes the person, as does Objectivism. Islam teaches that an adherents first loyalty should be to the Ummah, which transcends geographical and political boundaries. Islam has its own politics, a politics that is contrary to the principles of the United States. It is a valid question, especially seeing as I saw LM's post as being nothing but more of his moral equivalence.

I'm not sure where you got this idea.. But Islam doesn't teach that an adherents first loyalty should be to the Ummah at all.. Islam teaches us that we're supposed to have a loyalty to God and that the measure of our loyalties and the sides we choose on particular issues should be justice and not our connection to our family, our tribe nor fellow Muslims if those Muslims are in the wrong..

Justice is the measure of our loyalties.. Not whether someone is Muslim or not..

In your estimation, what's the 'pecking order' for Muslims' acceptance or rejection of other faith and ideology: is worshipping some God better than no god?

Depends who you ask I guess? I don't think there is one, I do know however that we have an affinity for the People of the Book as it's an honored title.

"Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews..." -- Qur'an 5:82

The verse states:

Thou wilt find the most vehement of mankind in hostility to those who believe (to be) the Jews and the idolaters. And thou wilt find the nearest of them in affection to those who believe (to be) those who say: Lo! We are Christians. That is because there are among them priests and monks, and because they are not (Qur'an 5:82)

First note how it states that Jews and Idolators are two different groups, hence the earlier made assertion that they were idolators was incorrect.

Nevertheless, let us address the verse as a whole. This statement was not untrue for its time, the Pagan Arabs and the Jews of the region were in fact the most hostile people towards Islam there. Islam upset the social order of both groups.. The Pagans of Quraish and the Jews of Yathrib (Medina) benefited greatly off of the unjust practices of the region. Islam came and changed the social order which benefited them so they disliked Islam.

The Jews of Yathrib were amazing craftsmen and would make and sell the weapons and armor to be used in the wars between the Pagan tribes of Yathrib, they'd then give loans with huge interest rates to the Pagans of the Yathrib to be able to purchase those weapons.

Islam upset that social order because the Pagan tribes of Yathrib became Muslim and there was no more wars between them.

That is not to say that the Jews in general are the most hateful of Islam or that all Jews are damned to Hellfire. Nothing could be further from the truth, the Qur'an even states in the same chapter:

Lo! those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Sabaeans, and Christians - Whosoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve. (Qur'an 5:69)

"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." Qur'an 5:51

Hmmm.. This comes from a root word which can either mean protector or friend.

The context is not in friendship, as the verse previously mentioned the Christians of that time as being nearest in affection to the Muslims.. That definitely describes friendship.

What this is referring to is specifically protection.. Muslims should not allow their security or safety to be in the hands of non Muslims and rely solely on them for protection. It encourages Muslims to protect themselves as the Muslims were always persecuted by the Pagans after other Pagans that had some treaty with the Muslims that included the protection of those Muslims had either broken the treaty or the treaty became invalid due to the passing of the tribal leader that took them under his protection..

I wouldn't expect Jews to only rely on the protection of non Jews because history shows that this is not a sufficient way to protect ones' self. Therefore I don't think that Muslims, nor any group should have to rely on different groups to protect them.

I will keep that in mind the next time I hear about Muslims blowing up a synagogue or killing a Jew. Do you remember what happened to Daniel Perle? I do.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Perhaps not, but Jews have committed many other horrendous crimes with their religion as a motive but that doesn't mean we should judge all Jews based on that.. Just as it's silly to judge all Muslims of it.

Do these Koranic verses refer to all idolators, for all time, or just the Quraysh and any other specific tribes that had conflicts with the Muslims in the 7th century?

You make the argument that Abraham built the Kaaba, which amounts to a historical claim that that shrine belongs solely to the Abrahamic faiths, yet the idolators worshiped there as well, as far back as history records its existence. Why shouldn't it be open to everyone?

All Idolators, for all time.

It is the case that Pagans used the Kaaba for worship when polytheism was introduced into the Arabian Peninsula, but this was long after the Kaaba was built and was an abomination.

No, we won't allow idol worship back into the Kaaba

Your suggestion that there are no atheists in the Middle East is highly disingenuous, as is your suggestion that religious dissenters have nothing to fear. A minute of searching the web would reveal evidence to the contrary. Consider this excerpt from an interview with an atheist from the UAE, conducted in 2006.

I didn't suggest that there's no atheists in the Middle East. I said that Arabs would find the idea as confusing.

As for LM's understanding of atheism/agnosticism, I honestly think it is nil. He accused Xray of being a fanatical atheist (when she has honestly announced to be agnostic). I can only imagine what he thinks of my actual atheism.

I'm sorry but I don't take the time of ponder on your atheism.. It's your own business and not mine. I wish you the best.

LM is not stupid, not unkind, not full of unreasoning hate, but I believe he is trapped between commitments to two imaginary worlds: a wonderland of Islamic Pollyanna loveliness and a wonderland of pure, sweet Western values in action. I appreciate his rather sweet naivete about human nature, but wish he could admit to the conflicts in his mind.

I don't see the conflicts that you're referring to.

He will always keep his Western citizenship, I bet. His harsh, flip denunciations of Muslim authorities (such as Hassan of Morocco) reflect his delightfully arrogant assumption that he knows better than anyone the perfect True Islam. Since he cannot read or effectively communicate in Arabic, has never received religious instruction -- while demanding that no one can speak for Islam except after a grueling formal education (viz. Hassan), his self-appointment as an authority on Islam resembles that of Richard Wiig. Absurd.

I will keep Western citizenship of course, I was born in the West and for all purposes am a Westerner.

I also don't proclaim to know everything or better than anyone the perfect true Islam, I'm still learning. I can read Arabic and can speak basic Arabic. In terms of religious instruction.. Not a formal education no.. But now 10 years of intense study and bouncing my ideas off of and asking questions of the scholars I had around me and overseas.

You did deny that Islamic forces conducted wars of conquest in the two centuries after Muhammad's death. I asked you specifically about the conquest of Sind (now part of Pakistan), and about various conquests in North Africa.

Perhaps you can show me where I've said that?

If you really don't think that conquest played a significant role in spreading Islam—not just during those two centuries, but also during the early days of the Ottoman Empire, or during a series of protracted conflicts in India and in other parts of the world—then consider the following:

I don't think that people accepting Islam was as a result of conquest and that they felt obligated to do so.. When I think of people accepting religion because of conquest I do think about the conquistadors going into Peru and other places in the name of Christ and forcibly converting people.

I don't believe that Islam spread like that.

I'm an actual atheist, too. And I never did get a response from LM about a couple of ahadith that appear to license the execution of atheists.

Which hadiths where you referring to?

LM said:Those are the policies of the government, not of Islam..

Sura 9:28 O ye who believe! The idolaters only are unclean. So let them not come near the Inviolable Place of Worship after this their year. If ye fear poverty (from the loss of their merchandise) Allah shall preserve you of His bounty if He will. Lo! Allah is Knower, Wise.

We don't see Christians or Jews as idol worshippers like the pagan Arabs were. So I don't see the justification for not allowing Christians or Jews or other monotheist religions there.

Did it ever occur to you that Milddle Eastern atheists are smart enough to keep their disbelief to themselves? (There are in fact atheists in the Middle East; I've had personal contact with a number of them over the years.)

As for your hypothetical response to atheist centers: I refuse to believe that all Muslims are as ignorant and childish as you make them out to be.

Ghs

Afraid of what George? I was in super secular countries like Syria and Lebanon. There's no apostasy rulings there and anyone guilty of harming someone for their beliefs get punished very severely in the courts.

Have you ever been to the Middle East as a civilian? If so, where?

Also, it's not ignorance or being childish at all.. From my experience and what I've seen they just don't seem to understand why people wouldn't believe in God.

And yet not only can’t they build, they can’t even visit. There are special highway bypasses and non-Muslims are subject to prosecution if they lie in order to visit Mecca or Medina.

I’d be interested to visit, just to see everything. I’ve been to many of the famous Christian churches in Europe, anyone can go. There’s a bit of security to get into St. Peters in Rome, and the one in Bologna, which has a Renaissance fresco of Muhammad being tortured in hell had notably tight security when I went, otherwise these buildings are wide open.

I don't see a reason why you shouldn't be able to visit. I have never read anything in the Qur'an nor in any authentic hadiths that would indicate that non Muslims can't visit Mecca..

Those are the policies of the government, not of Islam.. They even used to ban non Wahhabis from visiting Mecca.

The desire for freedom for oneself is not unusual, and it doesn't mean zilch. What counts is the conviction that others, regardless of their beliefs, should enjoy equal freedom.

Agreed, I believe that is the case.

The struggle for religious freedom was the foundation for the emergence of libertarian ideals in the west. So how widespread is the advocacy of complete religious freedom among your Muslim friends? Would they advocate, for example, the freedom to build Christian churches and even atheist centers in Mecca? Would you?

Ghs

In terms of building Christian Churches or Jewish Synagogues, I don't see it as too much of an issue at all. The Kaaba was made as a destination for religious pilgrimage for all monotheistic religions as it was built by Abraham and his son Ishmael, peace be upon them.

In terms of Atheist centers? I'm not sure you'd find it popular there at all.. I have never met an atheist in the Middle East, from the Gulf to Syria or Lebanon I didn't find one at all. I found a few people who were against the religious teachings of their parents both from Christian and Muslim backgrounds, some who didn't know what the right religion was yet still believed in God.. Some who left their religion such as Islam or Christianity because they disagreed with not the religion itself, but how the cultural practices introduced certain things into it which were oppressive to them.

I'm sure you could give it a go if you wanted, but it would leave the Arabs scratching their heads..

Their response would probably be something like "You mean you want to build a building here, devoted to having the belief that there is nothing to believe in? Why not leave it vacant then?"

BTW, when you say "we", do you say that as an American, or as a muslim?

Perhaps actually read the things that you've quoted and see whether this 'we' would more readily apply to Muslims or to the US?

If it's still too difficult to figure out then perhaps just stop replying.

You're foolish, or perhaps worse, in thinking that killing Osama was lowering ourselves to their level. Moral equivalence like that is really aimed at one thing - undermining the good. America need make no apologies to anyone for killing Osama who got better than he deserved.

Oh my God, you're right Infidel! Thank you for showing me the light!

We kill their civilians and they kill ours.. Their civilians' lives surely can't be worth as much as our civilians' lives right? Savages..

We destabilize governments there and install and support tyrants that torture and murder the people there and they dare call us hypocrites.. Barbarians!

We put sanctions on their countries to hurt the monsters we create and instead kill 1.5million of their citizenry while the monster lives in luxury and they have the audacity to call us the real terrorists.. Freedom hating liars!

We bomb,invade and occupy their nations and they have the gall to resist us by attacking our soldiers.. Terrorists!!!

Yeah you're right.. They're much worse than we are, far beneath us..

By providing a platform for LM are we COLLABORATING WITH THE ENEMY?

Since he doesn't accept Salafism, no.

--Brant

I have not said that all salafists or even all wahhabis or even a majority or both groups support terrorism, that isn't the case at all.

I agree with this and have written about it several times. I have seen some of it up close.

I bet you have. I appreciate that you are able to see it.

This is my dilemma.

The only thing I think that justifies choosing any such "empire" is that the American one is open to correction based on individual rights. Even though it's not fully there in practice, it's there in the charter documents and there is a mechanism for constant change of rulers.

But just like with nuclear weapons, it would be great to see all of this go away.

Agreed! I suppose I was talking about the lesser of those evils.

On the Iran issue, I take your point that Iran did not use chemical weapons against Iraq--but that means against Muslims. How about against The Little Satan and The Great Satan?

That's all speculation, though.

Hmmm.. Iran has never given Hezbollah nor any of the other organizations it supports chemical weapons to use against US or Israeli forces as we gave Iran's enemies to use against them.

Iran (I mean the Iranian government here, not the general population) has supported a lot of covert terrorism abroad. It works in the shadows, not in the daylight. In the experience of most people I know, they have been burned by people like that and don't trust folks who do bad things in the shadows. Frankly, I don't either. The idea of giving major firepower to sneaky manipulators who support terrorism is not a very comforting thought.

I agree 100%. But having said that, let's not forget that we spend millions of dollars every year supporting terrorists to attack the Iranian government, and I'm not talking about uprisings of the people, I'm talking about us using people aligned with Al Qaeda to commit attacks in Iran against civilian government institutions.

I actually feel sorry for the Iranian people. They did not deserve the Shah the USA installed (with the loathsome Savak) and they do not deserve the government that followed--the one they now have. When I see the peaceful demonstrations that are put down with brutality over there, the voting fraud, etc., my heart goes out to them. The Iranians who fight for freedom are the ones I would be honored to know. May they keep fighting until they win.

Michael

You know the thing is Michael, we can help the Iranians achieve freedom.. Most Iranians love the US and love the ideas of liberty. However ever time we fund terrorists to attack their country, or threaten to bomb their country ourselves we put them in a position where they would rather choose a hardline government that protects their nation, rather than a reformist government that is weak on self defense.

They lost millions of people in the war against Saddam Hussein when he attacked their country and was supported and encouraged to do so by us. They are, like us, a proud people..

Change can only come at their hands..

The beauty of Libertarianism is that we can show them the greatness of our system through the example we set.. It's an idea that when there is a good example of it being applied it spreads like wild fire..

I have friends in Bahrain, friends in Egypt, friends in Tunisia.. They all want freedom now.. They always knew something was wrong but couldn't put their finger on it..

If we had done what we were supposed to do and provided a good example of liberty, they'd know exactly what they wanted to transition to.. But we didn't. So there will be many teething problems for them.. Right now even in Tunisia they're in the middle of what they're calling the second revolution against the government that is in power after bin Ali's departure..

I long for the day Michael when we in the West realize that the people in the Middle East are just like us, they have hopes and dreams like us, they care about and love their children and want the best for them and they want to live their lives free of any interruption from any government or power. As soon as we see their humanity correctly we'll be able to see that these wars are useless and only hurt the innocent and lay waste to soldiers who shouldn't be put in harm's way unless it's absolutely necessary.

Our actions over the last 50 years, and in particular the last 10 have been anti freedom, and not pro freedom like they should be.

Bin Laden son questions killing

Fourth eldest son says family wants "conclusive evidence" to prove events surrounding al-Qaeda leader's death.

Last Modified: 11 May 2011 06:15

A statement purporting to come from a son of Osama bin Laden has questioned the legitimacy of the al-Qaeda leader's killing.

The statement, published by the New York Times and attributed to Omar bin Laden, bin Laden's fourth eldest son, said the al-Qaeda chief's children reserved the right to take legal action in the United States and

internationally to determine the true fate of their vanished father.

"We are not convinced on the available evidence in the absence of dead body, photographs, and video evidence that our natural father is dead," the statement read, adding that the family was seeking "conclusive evidence" confirming bin Laden's death.

Obama announced bin Laden was killed in a raid by US forces on a compound in the Pakistani town of Abbottabad. His body was quickly buried at sea, according to the US. Obama has vetoed the release of photos of bin Laden's body.

The statement from the family continued, saying that if bin Laden was indeed dead, "then we are just in questioning as per media reports... why an unarmed man was not arrested and tried in a court of law so that truth is revealed to the people of the world".

"If he has been summarily executed then, we question the propriety of such assassination where not only international law has been blatantly violated but USA has set a very different example whereby right to have a fair trial, and presumption of innocence until proven guilty by a court of law, has been sacrificed."

The statement said bin Laden's "sudden and unwitnessed burial at sea has deprived the family of performing religious rights of a Muslim man".

Photo evidence

Questions have multiplied since the White House said the al-Qaeda leader was unarmed when US helicopter-borne commandos raided the villa where he was hiding.

Some in the US senate have said that they too need to see photographic proof to confirm that bin Laden was truly dead.

US senators serving on the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee will be able to see post-mortem photos of bin Laden by making a special appointment with the CIA, according to reports.

Three Republican senators, including Saxby Chambliss, vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, initially claimed to have seen the photos last week, before acknowledging they were likely duped by photoshopped fakes.

The statement from bin Laden's family made sure to distance his son from the al-Qaeda leader's ideology, saying: "In making this statement, we want to remind the world that Omar Ossam Binladin [sic], the fourth-born son of our father, always disagreed with our father regarding any violence and always sent messages to our father, that he must change his ways and that no civilians should be attacked under any circumstances".

The statement added that it was "unworthy" of US special forces to shoot unarmed female members of the Bin Laden family.

It also urged the government of Pakistan "to release and hand over all minors of the family and [ensure] all the family members are reunited at one place and are repatriated to their country of origin".

It ended by calling for a response from the US within 30 days. Failure to answer the family's questions would result in their seeking redress with bodies such as the UN or the International Criminal Court, it said.

Source

I did make other remarks you have chosen not to respond to; okay, your right.

Tony, the reason for that is because what you were saying was mostly your opinion of me, of which I could care less about. I'm not here to seek your nor anyone elses' approval. I state my opinions and that is it. I enjoy our dialogue on this website and I can say that I've found it greatly beneficial. But please don't mistake that to mean I care about what your opinion of me is. I simply don't.. You are most likely aware of the type of attitudes I came across on the SOLO website with Lindsay Perigo and his fanatical minions, they have said far worse about me yet I still didn't respond in turn.

I did respond to your comment about veiled threats because you made an assertion about me that is incorrect and I felt that it would be prudent to challenge it.

One 'gap' is that between initiation of force, and retaliatory (or recriminatory) force. Who did what to whom, first, and why, can become highly uncertain and ethically complex...which means anyone can be 'justified' in the use of force, at any time. Quid pro quo, right?

The other 'gap', is when one side holds itself to high moral and legal standards, and the other supposedly 'doesn't know any better'. Therefore, the first is obligated to practise what it preaches - always, but the other can do what it pleases - always. The double standards 'gap'.

Well I suppose our own history in the West, and especially the US is a perfect example of double standards.

We put military bases close to countries that see it as a threat to them but we'd never accept others doing that to us.

We kill the citizens of other countries without a legal right to do so but wouldn't accept other nations doing that in our country.

We don't hand over terrorist suspects that are accused of crimes such as blowing up passenger aircraft even when they provide evidence showing that there is probable cause for their arrest and extradition to face a trial in other countries yet we demand other countries hand over suspects of terrorism without even providing those nations with evidence of their guilt.

We support dictators and tyrants who oppress their people with rape, torture and murder yet try to claim that we stand up against tyranny in countries that we don't like whilst conveniently leaving our friends alone.

All of these are indeed double standards which we are guilty of.

It boils down very simply: Libertarianism holds for peace, primarily, but with clear-cut standards of retaliation against the initiator of force.

And Islam, you state, is a religion of peace.

You are both things, ideologically.

OK, show it.

Yet we expect no one to retaliate when we are the initiators of force, of which we are the greater initiator of force and injustice in those regions.

Any rational person knows that 9/11 drew a definite line in the sand. That 'action' can never, ever, be justified by anything that happened before it, and can justify much (if certainly not every action), that comes after it.

Really? So are you saying that our lives are more important than theirs? We've been responsible many more dead innocent people in their countries than they have been of innocent people in ours.. So who is to dictate the line here?

I'll give you some advice a wise old elder in my community gave me when I got married. Perhaps if you apply it in your every day life you'll be more successful. We shouldn't only apply it to marriage but also apply it to all of our interactions with other people.

He told me, "If your wife is ever upset with you or not fulfilling one of your rights over her, then before you start demanding your rights of her, perhaps you should first sit back and question yourself whether you have fulfilled all of her rights over you in the first place, more often than not you will find that someone's behavior towards you is a reaction to your own behavior towards them and if you go through life first trying to make sure that you've given your wife all of her rights first, you will have a harmonious marriage".

In any form of Conflict Resolution it's important for us to look at the reasons the conflict is there, to be so stupid so as to believe the lines that we are being attacked because the terrorists hate our freedoms is ridiculous, that is not the reason it is occurring.. We do need to examine our foreign policy and make the appropriate changes to ensure that we're not making the mistake of infringing on the rights of innocent people. Especially when we claim to be the bastions of freedom and democracy. That is not to say that we deserve any type of attack on innocent people here, there is never a legitimate excuse of killing unarmed people. Rather it's to say that we also need to make sure we're doing the right thing.

You have expended thousands of words on how else the US could have handled bin Laden without killing him, and now it would be gratifying to see if you can spend as many words condemning every single civilian slaughter, whether in Basra, Islamabad, Damascus or Tehran - by brutal dictators, or by those you call "guerilla" groups. Without the ifs and buts. Occasional throw-away disclaimers of your opposition to civilian casualties is not enough.

I've been there and done that and continue to do so, I don't find great use doing it too much here because my audience here aren't Muslims. I can assure you that I do so within the Muslim community.

For a man of peace, force is implicit in your arguments. To match Israel's nuclear weapons, Iran has nuclear capability as well, you've indicated earlier.

Much to say, that the two are equal, morally, when it is obvious to the most prejudiced observer that one nation is defensive in intent, and the other agggressive. Also, your pragmatism about the tactical efficiency of suicide bombers in Israel is another example.

As far as I'm aware Iran post 1979 has never been the aggressor in a conventional war with another nation, in addition to that even when Iran has been attacked with chemical weapons that the West has provided its attackers with Iran still did not respond by using those same weapons.

Therefore I don't see any reason why Iran can't have nuclear weapons as a deterrent if Israel is allowed to have them. To be honest I'd prefer that no one have them at all and the Middle East, if not the world be Nuclear Weapon Free but if that isn't going to happen and nations that pose an immediate threat to Iran are allowed to have them, Iran should be able to also.

Also, you talk about my pragmatism about the tactical efficiency of suicide bombers in Israel (and anywhere else). I'm sorry if you find my looking at the tactical side of things as being improper, but I always look at the efficiency and usefulness of tactics being used and it has shown me that in this case, not only is suicide bombing forbidden in Islam, but it's also a tactic that is counter productive. I'd rather put as many arguments against something I disagree with rather than just one. It tends to convince people more.

Getting back to your question; in my book, not acknowledging the chasm between initiatory force and responsive force, or between two moralities, ultimately reduces down to "anything goes", which I view as a veiled threat.

A veiled threat, which you've accused me of making is where I would threaten you without actually typing or speaking the words directly but through implying it so you understand it very clearly to be that case. If you believe I have then please do show evidence of this and I'm sure the moderators will take immediate action against me, if you can't then I'd like you to retract your accusation against me.

What percentage of those 1.6 billion people are good Muslims, from your point of view?

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.....

How many do you estimate you'll have left?

I'm not playing this silly game with you, the majority of Muslims in the world are great people, I wonder how many Muslims you know Robert? I also wonder how many countries in the Middle East, Africa and South East Asia have you visited? Or How many Muslims from those places do you know?

If your top priority is getting Muslims to adopt more enlightened attitudes, how many of those 1.6 billion do you suppose you can count on? How many can you reasonably express solidarity with?

I believe that through education and through open and respectful dialogue and not bombs, the great majority will come to a similar understanding. A perfect example of that is what's happening in the Middle East now.. People are rising up against tyranny.

If, on the other hand, your top priority is Islamic empire spanning much of the globe in the near future, and individual rights maybe a long while later, how many of those 1.6 billion can you reasonably express solidarity with?

Hardly any, I think you'll find the majority of Muslims find this idea repulsive.

You have made it clear that you oppose American empire.

You can probably be counted on to oppose a couple of other kinds, such as Russian or Chinese empire.

What's your view of Islamic empire?

I don't support either. Actually if I had to choose any I'd choose an American Empire because the other three options are far less trustworthy and are capable of far worse than what the US is. .

My recollection is that you have never admitted for the first 200 or 300 years, Islam was largely spread by conquest, and that later rulers and empires in the Islamic world continued from time to time to spread their religion the same way.

I don't believe you've ever asked. The empire, like any, was certainly expanded by conquest, but I don't believe that the religion spread due to this conquest.

Would you really mind whether, say, the current Iranian regime conquered far and wide in the name of your religion?

And then got around to matters of life, liberty, and property in 1332 years, give or take a few?

The ends never justifies the means, if we infringe on the rights of people to achieve our goals then we've overstepped our authority and begun transgressing in a way which we have no right to.

God dislikes transgressors.

I don't think a trial would have worked to our advantage at all. The notion that our enemies are fighting to enforce individual rights and liberty on us is fanciful. Killing Bin Laden was not contrary to individual rights and liberty, it was entirely in accordance with them. LM suggests that peaceful muslims are going to reject the United States (that is, reject individual rights and liberty) in favour of tyranny, because they see the killing of a tyrant in a combat situation as tyranny. The fact is, if they believed in and stood for individual rights and liberty, they'd reject tyrant America and tyrant Islam and work for something better than both. LM doesn't say that's what they'll do though. He actually says they'll choose tyrant Islam and he uses that as a threat.

So instead of taking the high moral road and showing how our ideas are better than theirs, let's lower ourselves down to their level and just pray this wins the war..

You're foolish to think this will work. The war on terrorism will never be won with bombs nor guns. It's sad that even 10 years on, people don't realize that.. This is why we will fail in Afghanistan.

I also am not sure where you are getting an idea that I have stated that I think that people are rejecting tyrant America and accepting tyrant Islam as you call it. I don't believe that I've said any such thing.

Michael wrote:

In my opinion, we should have gone over there, dismantled the Taliban (for harboring our attacker) and hunted down Al Qaeda as much as possible, then left with a warning: "Try something like that again and we'll be back with much, much worse."

Or instead of spending 3 trillion dollars and wasted countless soldiers and civilians lives when we could have supplied the Taliban with the evidence they required to be able to extradite or even try Osama bin Laden for 9/11 as they had requested so many times before we attacked.

But Nooooo! We're America and we have the guns and we want blood that we didn't need to follow the simple protocol that any nation should be following to get justice..

Instead we wanted blood and revenge, we wanted to drop some bombs and kill some terrorist Hajjis! Because we are America! F*ck Yeah!!!!

Agreed. By providing a platform for LM are we COLLABORATING WITH THE ENEMY?

Peter Taylor

Oh no, you're collaborating with the terrorists, that must make you a terrorist too!

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?