Osama bin Laden Killed

[Richard Wiig]

Infidel has taken a strange name. I wonder why?

For the same reason I own this T-Shirt:

http://patriot.dtgzone.com/shop/view_product/I_m_Geert_Wilders_Tee__Fawstin__?c=242378&n=1365373&o=0

[Libertarian Muslim]

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!

[Libertarian Muslim]

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

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Your perception of the place is very different to mine. A few examples of propaganda, double standards, etc would be nice.

Richard,

You mean more examples, don't you?

You are now intoning this mantra that I don't provide examples and facts when I have provided tons of them. Any reader of my posts knows that. If in doubt, go back and read them. They are there. A is A and all that.

I'm tired of providing facts and examples and links and videos and articles, etc., only to see someone like you blank it all out and then ask for facts and examples as if I never did and as if in all innocence.

That's a ruse, not an argument. A friend of mine in Brazil used to call this trying to win an argument by wearing the other person out with willful ignorance.

I used to think we disagreed, but you were somewhat serious. I see the problem is something else.

When you try to make a point by ignoring the vast amount of information I have provided on this forum--some of which you you have responded to time and time and time again--then pretend that it never existed, it's too much silliness for me to be bothered with. Sorry, my thing is ideas, not games.

I'm not going to discuss anything with you on this level.

I've wasted my time.

Mivchael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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.

LM,

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

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. .

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.

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.

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 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

EDIT: On the statements of bin Laden's son, I don't begrudge him what he says. Even if your father is a monster, he's still your father.

[Libertarian Muslim]

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.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Libertarian Muslim

[anthony]

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.

LM,

Touche!

"But I don't think of you."

Have you been reading Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead?

(OK, never mind.)

No, I could guess at the reception you had on SOLO, but didn't see it.

The difference is, you see, I think of you.

One way or another, it's in my self-interest to do so.

I'm an individualist, and I apply it to everyone I meet. I'm little interested in their background, culture, religion - I'm interested in what they think, and what character they have, (or haven't) built for themselves.

I'll tell you, even if you don't care to hear, what I think is good character: it's someone who doesn't pass the buck. No matter how much has been 'done' to him by nasty people, he takes the responsibility and hurt on himself - and here's the kicker - never even dreams of doing what he's experienced to other innocents.

If you want to analogise this to nations, and violence, feel free to do so.

Another, the biggest test of character, is honesty. That what one says (and does as a result), is the closest to truth as one knows it, at that time.

I've heard that you have character, and in this context I don't give a damn for our difference in philosophy - it is relevant to this discussion that I question your honesty and dedication to peace.

Explanation enough?

As far as the advice you got (and gave to me) from a "wise elder", well, that's simple "do as you would be done by" stuff. It's elementary ethics to any Objectivist.

(The "rights", which I translate as 'duties', between husband and wife will be a sticking point on this forum - not that only Muslims practise this code. It is shared by Orthodox Jews, too. From whom, I've heard, Mohammed borrowed it, and plenty more besides.) B)

Tony

[Brant Gaede]

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

Since he doesn't accept Salafism, no.

--Brant

[Libertarian Muslim]

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.

[Richard Wiig]

LM said: 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.

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.

[Richard Wiig]

Your perception of the place is very different to mine. A few examples of propaganda, double standards, etc would be nice.

Richard,

You mean more examples, don't you?

I mean one example. You haven't provided anything yet that could be called propaganda, or that exposes double standards. I admit that Mr Spencer can be sarcastic, but sarcasm does not equate to propaganda. Jihadwatch is not a one-sided place. They constantly look at and report on news articles and items that have things to say that are contrary to what they believe is the case.

You are now intoning this mantra that I don't provide examples and facts when I have provided tons of them. Any reader of my posts knows that. If in doubt, go back and read them. They are there. A is A and all that.

What you've provided is a couple of things at most, and really only just the headline, which is supposed to prove that Jihadwatch is all about propaganda and skewing the issue.

I'm tired of providing facts and examples and links and videos and articles, etc., only to see someone like you blank it all out and then ask for facts and examples as if I never did and as if in all innocence.

Well you haven't posted heaps of videos and articles and links showing that Jihadwatch is a propaganda site dealing in half-truths or untruths at all. Or if you have I haven't seen them.

That's a ruse, not an argument. A friend of mine in Brazil used to call this trying to win an argument by wearing the other person out with willful ignorance.

I used to think we disagreed, but you were somewhat serious. I see the problem is something else.

The problem isn't something else at all. Just point me to one single thing that shows jihadwatch for the propaganda site it is. I will scrutinise it carefully.

When you try to make a point by ignoring the vast amount of information I have provided on this forum--some of which you you have responded to time and time and time again--then pretend that it never existed, it's too much silliness for me to be bothered with. Sorry, my thing is ideas, not games.

Well you've put across your opinion, opinion that I've largely disagreed with. That isn't playing games, and I don't play games over the issue of Islamic supremacism. The future depends upon people not playing games and the future is important to me.

I'm not going to discuss anything with you on this level.

I've wasted my time.

Mivchael

[Richard Wiig]

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.

Terrorism isn't really the issue. Islamic supremacism is.

[George H. Smith]

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..

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.

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

[Richard Wiig]

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..

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.

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, or example, the freedom to build Christian churches and even atheist centers in Mecca? Would you?

Ghs

Things are not going well in Egypt for the freedom lovers. Even the mainstream media is reporting that now.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I mean one example. You haven't provided anything yet that could be called propaganda, or that exposes double standards.

Richard,

This is a crock of BS.

I don't have time nor the willingness to go back and read through a bunch of posts when this kind of quality--your normal quality--is what I am responding to.

If you don't remember what I posted, that's one thing. Making false statements of fact on purpose--and repeating them over and over--is quite another.

I don't like to use the word dishonesty, but your method is starting to take that direction.

I suggest you do that crap elsewhere.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

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..

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.

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, or example, the freedom to build Christian churches and even atheist centers in Mecca? Would you?

Ghs

Things are not going well in Egypt for the freedom lovers. Even the mainstream media is reporting that now.

This comes as no surprise. Until the proponents of a religion -- any religion -- come to understand the importance of "liberty of conscience" (as it was called during the 18th century), preaching the values of other freedoms to them is (to borrow a phrase from Thomas Paine) like administering medicine to the dead.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

If you read Bernard Lewis on Islam, he mentions that justice is extremely important to the Muslim mind.

The catch is that justice comes from Allah to them, not derived from reason.

Still, working from that angle provides some common ground for discussion and opens a way to introduce the idea of deriving justice from reason.

I see the path as the same as they did before in the West--that God's will is reflected in the laws of nature, not in direct intervention, and so on and so on until you get to rights, justice, and the rest.

I think that works a hell of a lot better (in fact I know it) than keeping up a mantra that Islam is evil, Islam is evil, Islam is evil, Islam is evil, Islam is evil, Islam is evil.

The person who does that is not interested in convincing anyone.

Michael

EDIT: Also, looking at the flop in Egypt shows the folly of aligning with the hard left on trying to promote freedom, which is exactly what the so-called freedom lovers did over there. That is, in addition to the religious stuff.

[George H. Smith]

George,

If you read Bernard Lewis on Islam, he mentions that justice is extremely important to the Muslim mind.

The catch is that justice comes from Allah to them, not derived from reason.

Still, working from that angle provides some common ground for discussion and opens a way to introduce the idea of deriving justice from reason.

I see the path as the same as they did before in the West--that God's will is reflected in the laws of nature, not in direct intervention, and so on and so on until you get to rights, justice, and the rest.

I think that works a hell of a lot better (in fact I know it) than keeping up a mantra that Islam is evil, Islam is evil, Islam is evil, Islam is evil, Islam is evil, Islam is evil.

The person who does that is not interested in convincing anyone.

Michael

EDIT: Also, looking at the flop in Egypt also shows the folly of aligning with the hard left on trying to promote freedom, which is exactly what the so-called freedom lovers did over there..

I have read Lewis on Islam. The most important point he makes, in my mind, is that Islam did not experience something comparable to the Protestant Reformation.

I don't go around saying that Islam per se is "evil," any more than I say that Christianity per se is evil, but neither do I think we should underestimate the degree of irrationalism we are dealing with here. Many Muslims exhibit the kind of "fanaticism" that characterized earlier Christians and that was the focus of the attack launched against Christianity by Voltaire and other Enlightenment figures. To believe that God has revealed special information to you and your group alone, and that he has instructed you to convert the world, has historically been a very dangerous idea. God's justice often bears little resemblance to human justice.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

I don't think you are a person who goes around all the time saying Islam is evil as the be-all and end-all of rational discussion. That honor goes to other folks around here.

I agree with you about underestimating the level of irrationality, but for the life of me, I don't see the fundamental source as religious. Or, to be more precise, I see it in theory, but it is not even close in practice.

What I have seen with my own eyes (on practically all sides when hysterical and/or hardline people speak) reminds me far too much of the racism I grew up with in the South. That was not religion-based, although religion was sometimes used.

In the Islamist problem, religion is far more intense than in Southern racism, but I don't think it is the fundamental source of the bigotry and hatred. In some of the more devout people, maybe that is the case, but I think the religion is more often used as a tool to promote bigotry (all sides).

btw - I believe Islam might be currently going through something like the Protestant reformation. It's not an instant process and it's hard to see because of the proximity of living in the middle of it. And I believe we can help it along by making sure the right ideas get to the right Muslim intellectual leaders.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

Here's a hilarious parody:

http://www.galacticempiretimes.com/2011/05/09/galaxy/outer-rim/obi-wan-kenobi-is-killed.html#idc-cover

“No Stormtroopers were seriously harmed,” Lord Vader said. “They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, I defeated my former master and took custody of his body.” Jedi tradition requires burial within 24 hours, but by doing it in deep space, Imperial authorities presumably were trying to avoid creating a shrine for his followers.

Lord Vader has denied requests to present photographs of the body, describing them as "too gruesome" for the general public.

Scroll down to the comments:

Until body I see, belive [sic] it I will not.

Yoda

[George H. Smith]

George,

I don't think you are a person who goes around all the time saying Islam is evil as the be-all and end-all of rational discussion. That honor goes to other folks around here.

I agree with you about underestimating the level of irrationality, but for the life of me, I don't see the fundamental source as religious. Or, to be more precise, I see it in theory, but it is not even close in practice.

What I have seen with my own eyes (on practically all sides when hysterical and/or hardline people speak) reminds me far too much of the racism I grew up with in the South. That was not religion-based, although religion was sometimes used.

In the Islamist problem, religion is far more intense than in Southern racism, but I don't think it is the fundamental source of the bigotry and hatred. In some of the more devout people, maybe that is the case, but I think the religion is more often used as a tool to promote bigotry (all sides).

btw - I believe Islam might be currently going through something like the Protestant reformation. It's not an instant process and it's hard to see because of the proximity of living in the middle of it. And I believe we can help it along by making sure the right ideas get to the right Muslim intellectual leaders.

Michael

I'm not sure how to reply to this. because when you say that you "don't see the fundamental source as religious," I'm not sure what you are referring to. If you mean the bigotry that some Americans display towards any and all Muslims, then, okay, I might agree with you. But the "fanaticism" which I mentioned in an earlier post referred to the attitude of some Muslims to "infidels." This, I submit, is based almost entirely on religion.

Ghs

[BaalChatzaf]

btw - I believe Islam might be currently going through something like the Protestant reformation. It's not an instant process and it's hard to see because of the proximity of living in the middle of it. And I believe we can help it along by making sure the right ideas get to the right Muslim intellectual leaders.

Michael

Dream on.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Libertarian Muslim]

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..

[Richard Wiig]

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..

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

[Libertarian Muslim]

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.