How far would AQ and Bin Laden push it?

[Kalish]

I've read that they want to restore the Caliphate. From what I understand this includes part of Europe. Any thoughts on this?

[pitohui]

1. don't doubt it for a moment

ultimately you cannot keep the womenfolk locked up if they know other womenfolk are free

i imagine the fantasy is destruction of the modern way of life

as an interim fantasy, restoring the caliphate will do

it cannot be about $$$ for Osama already has more $$$ than a man could spend

it is about power and control

[Kalish]

2. I think that's true

they're uncomfortable with modernity and science. But I don't see how they can expect to be able to turn back the clock. They're fighting a losing battle.

[One_Life_To_Give]

3. Muslim Ruled World

There will be some in AQ who want nothing less than complete control. A entire world ruled by Muslim Law under a single ruler. Ohters might settle for only rebuilding the old Caliphate. As for Bin Laden himself. It seems clear he wants fundamentalist law in place throughout the old Ottoman empire. But I havn't hear the he personnaly has endorsed recapturing Spain.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

4. And where have you read this?

[geek tragedy]

5. Their primary goal is to end the movement to reform and modernize

Islamic societies. Muslim moderates, liberals, reformers, secularists, and women's rights advocates are their primary targets.

Once they purge the Islamic world of those "heretics," they'd turn their attention to conquering the infidels. Which of course is physically impossible.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

56. That philosophy sounds eerily familiar.

[Misunderestimator]

6. Link?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

7. Don't hold yer breath

:eyes:

[Misunderestimator]

8. Yeah, I kinda figured.

:eyes:

[Kalish]

12. .

"This is an easy one. Bin Laden has been very explicit: He wants a return of the Caliphate. In other words, he wants a re-unified Islamic nation stretching from Indonesia to Morocco, governed by leaders faithful to the Koran."

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Anatomy_of_Terrorism

[Misunderestimator]

14. Yes, but what parts of Europe were you referring to?

[Kalish]

15. from what I understand

the Caliphate did extend into parts of Europe, in particular Spain...

[Misunderestimator]

16. From what I understand and have read, it did not extend past Turkey

with the Ottomon Caliphate, aside from a very short period where a couple of guys in Spain declared themselves Caliphs (the Caliphs of Cordoba)... but were never officially recognized. In any case, I believe the idea would be to restore the Caliphate as a philosophy.... I doubt that it has any geographical impact.

[Kalish]

17. don't you think they'd want territory too,

territory and booty?

From what I know of human nature such is inevitable.

Of course I don't think they have a snowball's chance in ever achieving a true restored Caliphate....but I think it is an underlying goal of some of them.

[Misunderestimator]

18. Sure, they'd want it, but you said you worried about Europe.

Why?

Also, can you answer the other question I asked you in another thread, which is why you responded to a post of mine in which I said I did not know any women who hated men... with "aren't there some lesbians who don't like men at all?"

It struck me as very odd that you would post that to me not knowing me at all, and having just joined DU. So what gives with that?

Two things... Why did you bring "lesbians" into it, not knowing me?

And... why did you assume I lied when I said I didn't know any women who hated men, not knowing me?

[Kalish]

19. I still don't know anything about you

It was brought in purely on the basis of my own experience.

[Misunderestimator]

31. But I still don't get it, and your lack of a real reply...

just leaves me with more suspicion about your motivations... but whatever.

[Kraklen]

22. Yup.

1. lesbians hate men.

2. Koran says suicide bombers get 72 virgins.

3. Osama wants to bring back the Caliphate.

[Kalish]

23. touche

well

the first one is wrong, I never said it.

the second one is wrong, I never said it, I asked about it and we had a good discussion on it, I actually learned something.

the third is correct, they do want to bring back the Caliphate or some version thereof.

Your move.

[Kraklen]

25. My move?

Is this some kind of game to you?

[Kalish]

27. not

to me.

[Misunderestimator]

33. Exactly.

:shrug:

[rockymountaindem]

133. Wrong.

The Spanish Caliphate of Al-Andalus (Andalucia) was established in 969 and lasted until the fall of Cordoba in 1492. That's hardly what I would call a "very short period". It was also recognized as a rightful regime by other Muslim governments at the time.

Furthermore, the Ottomans extended their rule far into Southeastern Europe. That's why Kosovars and Albanians are Muslims. It is also why Greece and Turkey have such a strained relationship, as the Greek war of independence from the Ottomans in 1829 was quite bloody. In fact, the Ottoman army nearly marched as far a Vienna in the 1600s. Lastly, Chechnya is also part of Europe, and the conflict there is considered tied to the resurrection of the Caliphate by those that want it back.

You seem to be misinformed on this topic. Read "Against All Enemies" by Richard Clarke. It's all in there.

[Xithras]

108. It really depends on when in history you're referring to.

At various points in history, the "Caliphate" has extended from India through the ME to Morocco and across into Spain. It's also included large sections of Europe encompassing the entire Black Sea at points, and large parts of southern Europe stretching from Greece into Albania, Serbia, and parts of modern day Poland, Austria, Hungary, Russia, and Ukraine. Theoretically, somebody calling for the restoration of the Caliphate could legitimately claim those areas as parts of its "historical lands".

Things get a bit murkier when we start talking about timelines though.

The original first Caliphate lands pretty much only included the countries we consider "core" middle-eastern nations today. Egypt, Arabia, Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia (Iraq), Armenia, and Iran. Turkey was Christian and wasn't a part of it.

At the time of the Abbasid Caliphate several hundred years later (circa 1000), the Caliph had expanded to the west well into India, and to the East across North Africa and into Spain. Interestingly, Turkey and Europe still weren't Muslim and none of their lands were part of the Caliphate at that time.

By the time of the Ottomans in the 1400's, things had changed a bit. Turkey, Greece, and large parts of southeastern Europe had been conquered and rolled into the Caliphate, but other sections had fallen out of it. Most of Arabia was no longer in the Caliphate, and neither were Persia (Iran) and the rest of the Asian nations. The areas we know as Libya and Morrocco were no longer under the influence of the Caliphate, and Spain had been liberated militarily. This boundary was established by the 1600's and remained unchanged until the allies stripped it of lands after WWI and the rest of it was abolished in 1924.

[progmom]

9. more info?

i hadn't read about this.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

10. Don't count on it

:boring:

[Kalish]

13. some

"This is an easy one. Bin Laden has been very explicit: He wants a return of the Caliphate. In other words, he wants a re-unified Islamic nation stretching from Indonesia to Morocco, governed by leaders faithful to the Koran."

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Anatomy_of_Terrorism

[Igel]

11. There was one reference to al-Andalus.

People act like it was some sort of accidental reference; it was impolitic, and Bin Laden isn't exactly an idiot. He wants his side to win, and is intelligent enough to tailor his message to two groups: Islamists and Islamist wannabes, and Westerners that are looking for an escape from the conflict.

The al-Andalus reference was clear enough to the first; saying in the '90s that the Caliphate would start in Afghanistan was also clear enough; dating the start of intense Muslim humiliation to when the Caliphate was repudiated. He hasn't repudiated these statements. But some people like to downplay them, interpret them not as one of Bin Laden's followers, and make it seem like his arguments and theirs coincide.

[Disturbed]

20. Hello Amerika

Osama Letter


In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful,"Permission to fight (against disbelievers) is given to those (believers) who are fought against, because they have been wronged and surely, Allah is Able to give them (believers) victory"

"Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (anything worshipped other than Allah e.g. Satan). So fight you against the friends of Satan; ever feeble is indeed the plot of Satan." Quran 4:76

Some American writers have published articles under the title 'On what basis are we fighting?' These articles have generated a number of responses, some of which adhered to the truth and were based on Islamic Law, and others which have not. Here we wanted to outline the truth - as an explanation and warning - hoping for Allah's reward, seeking success and support from Him.While seeking Allah's help, we form our reply based on two questions directed at the Americans:

(Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?

Q2)What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you? As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you?

The answer is very simple:

(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

a) You attacked us in Palestine:

(i) Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80 years.

The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel.

The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily. (ii) It brings us both laughter and tears to see that you have not yet tired of repeating your fabricated lies that the Jews have a historical right to Palestine, as it was promised to them in the Torah. Anyone who disputes with them on this alleged fact is accused of anti-semitism. This is one of the most fallacious, widely-circulated fabrications in history.

The people of Palestine are pure Arabs and original Semites. It is the Muslims who are the inheritors of Moses (peace be upon him) and the inheritors of the real Torah that has not been changed. Muslims believe in all of the Prophets, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all. If the followers of Moses have been promised a right to Palestine in the Torah, then the Muslims are the most worthy nation of this.

When the Muslims conquered Palestine and drove out the Romans, Palestine and Jerusalem returned to Islaam, the religion of all the Prophets peace be upon them. Therefore, the call to a historical right to Palestine cannot be raised against the Islamic Ummah that believes in all the Prophets of Allah (peace and blessings be upon them) - and we make no distinction between them.

(iii) The blood pouring out of Palestine must be equally revenged. You must know that the Palestinians do not cry alone; their women are not widowed alone; their sons are not orphaned alone.

(b) You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon. (c) Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis;

(i) These governments prevent our people from establishing the Islamic Shariah, using violence and lies to do so.

(ii) These governments give us a taste of humiliation, and places us in a large prison of fear and subdual.

iii) These governments steal our Ummah's wealth and sell them to you at a paltry price.

(iv) These governments have surrendered to the Jews, and handed them most of Palestine, acknowledging the existence of their state over the dismembered limbs of their own people.

v) The removal of these governments is an obligation upon us, and a necessary step to free the Ummah, to make the Shariah the supreme law and to regain Palestine. And our fight against these governments is not separate from out fight against you.

(d) You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of you international influence and military threats. This theft is indeed the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world.

(e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.

f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down.

(g) You have supported the Jews in their idea that Jerusalem is their eternal capital, and agreed to move your embassy there. With your help and under your protection, the Israelis are planning to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque. Under the protection of your weapons, Sharon entered the Al-Aqsa mosque, to pollute it as a preparation to capture and destroy it.

(2) These tragedies and calamities are only a few examples of your oppression and aggression against us. It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge. Is it in any way rational to expect that after America has attacked us for more than half a century, that we will then leave her to live in security and peace?!!

(3) You may then dispute that all the above does not justify aggression against civilians, for crimes they did not commit and offenses in which they did not partake:

(a) This argument contradicts your continuous repetition that America is the land of freedom, and its leaders in this world. Therefore, the American people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies. Thus the American people have chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, the occupation and usurpation of their land, and its continuous killing, torture, punishment and expulsion of the Palestinians. The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want.

(b) The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack us and penetrate our lands. So the American people are the ones who fund the attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates.

(c) Also the American army is part of the American people. It is this very same people who are shamelessly helping the Jews fight against us.

(d) The American people are the ones who employ both their men and their women in the American Forces which attack us.

(e) This is why the American people cannot be not innocent of all the crimes committed by the Americans and Jews against us.

(f) Allah, the Almighty, legislated the permission and the option to take revenge. Thus, if we are attacked, then we have the right to attack back. Whoever has destroyed our villages and towns, then we have the right to destroy their villages and towns. Whoever has stolen our wealth, then we have the right to destroy their economy. And whoever has killed our civilians, then we have the right to kill theirs.

The American Government and press still refuses to answer the question: Why did they attack us in New York and Washington? If Sharon is a man of peace in the eyes of Bush, then we are also men of peace!!! America does not understand the language of manners and principles, so we are addressing it using the language it understands.

Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

(a) The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam is the religion of all the prophets, and makes no distinction between them - peace be upon them all. It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions. It is the religion of Unification of God, sincerity, the best of manners, righteousness, mercy, honour, purity, and piety. It is the religion of showing kindness to others, establishing justice between them, granting them their rights, and defending the oppressed and the persecuted. It is the religion of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil with the hand, tongue and heart. It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah's Word and religion reign Supreme. And it is the religion of unity and agreement on the obedience to Allah, and total equality between all people, without regarding their colour, sex, or language.

(b) It is the religion whose book - the Quran - will remained preserved and unchanged, after the other Divine books and messages have been changed. The Quran is the miracle until the Day of Judgment. Allah has challenged anyone to bring a book like the Quran or even ten verses like it.

2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.

(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest. We call you to all of this that you may be freed from that which you have become caught up in; that you may be freed from the deceptive lies that you are a great nation, that your leaders spread amongst you to conceal from you the despicable state to which you have reached.

(b) It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind:

(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?

(ii) You are the nation that permits Usury, which has been forbidden by all the religions. Yet you build your economy and investments on Usury. As a result of this, in all its different forms and guises, the Jews have taken control of your economy, through which they have then taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense; precisely what Benjamin Franklin warned you against.

(iii) You are a nation that permits the production, trading and usage of intoxicants. You also permit drugs, and only forbid the trade of them, even though your nation is the largest consumer of them.

(iv) You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom. You have continued to sink down this abyss from level to level until incest has spread amongst you, in the face of which neither your sense of honour nor your laws object. Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?

(v) You are a nation that permits gambling in its all forms. The companies practice this as well, resulting in the investments becoming active and the criminals becoming rich.

(vi) You are a nation that exploits women like consumer products or advertising tools calling upon customers to purchase them. You use women to serve passengers, visitors, and strangers to increase your profit margins. You then rant that you support the liberation of women.

(vii) You are a nation that practices the trade of sex in all its forms, directly and indirectly. Giant corporations and establishments are established on this, under the name of art, entertainment, tourism and freedom, and other deceptive names you attribute to it.

(viii) And because of all this, you have been described in history as a nation that spreads diseases that were unknown to man in the past. Go ahead and boast to the nations of man, that you brought them AIDS as a Satanic American Invention.

(xi) You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies and*industries.

(x) Your law is the law of the rich and wealthy people, who hold sway in their political parties, and fund their election campaigns with their gifts. Behind them stand the Jews, who control your policies, media and economy.

(xi) That which you are singled out for in the history of mankind, is that you have used your force to destroy mankind more than any other nation in history; not to defend principles and values, but to hasten to secure your interests and profits. You who dropped a nuclear bomb on Japan, even though Japan was ready to negotiate an end to the war. How many acts of oppression, tyranny and injustice have you carried out, O callers to freedom?

(xii) Let us not forget one of your major characteristics: your duality in both manners and values; your hypocrisy in manners and principles. All*manners, principles and values have two scales: one for you and one for the others.

(a)The freedom and democracy that you call to is for yourselves and for white race only; as for the rest of the world, you impose upon them your monstrous, destructive policies and Governments, which you call the 'American friends'. Yet you prevent them from establishing democracies. When the Islamic party in Algeria wanted to practice democracy and they won the election, you unleashed your agents in the Algerian army onto them, and to attack them with tanks and guns, to imprison them and torture them - a new lesson from the 'American book of democracy'!!!

(b)Your policy on prohibiting and forcibly removing weapons of mass destruction to ensure world peace: it only applies to those countries which you do not permit to possess such weapons. As for the countries you consent to, such as Israel, then they are allowed to keep and use such weapons to defend their security. Anyone else who you suspect might be manufacturing or keeping these kinds of weapons, you call them criminals and you take military action against them.

(c)You are the last ones to respect the resolutions and policies of International Law, yet you claim to want to selectively punish anyone else who does the same. Israel has for more than 50 years been pushing UN resolutions and rules against the wall with the full support of America.

(d)As for the war criminals which you censure and form criminal courts for - you shamelessly ask that your own are granted immunity!! However, history will not forget the war crimes that you committed against the Muslims and the rest of the world; those you have killed in Japan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Lebanon and Iraq will remain a shame that you will never be able to escape. It will suffice to remind you of your latest war crimes in Afghanistan, in which densely populated innocent civilian villages were destroyed, bombs were dropped on mosques causing the roof of the mosque to come crashing down on the heads of the Muslims praying inside. You are the ones who broke the agreement with the Mujahideen when they left Qunduz, bombing them in Jangi fort, and killing more than 1,000 of your prisoners through suffocation and thirst. Allah alone knows how many people have died by torture at the hands of you and your agents. Your planes remain in the Afghan skies, looking for anyone remotely suspicious.

(e)You have claimed to be the vanguards of Human Rights, and your Ministry of Foreign affairs issues annual reports containing statistics of those countries that violate any Human Rights. However, all these things vanished when the Mujahideen hit you, and you then implemented the methods of the same documented governments that you used to curse. In America, you captured thousands the Muslims and Arabs, took them into custody with neither reason, court trial, nor even disclosing their names. You issued newer, harsher laws. What happens in Guatanamo is a historical embarrassment to America and its values, and it screams into your faces - you hypocrites, "What is the value of your signature on any agreement or treaty?"

(3) What we call you to thirdly is to take an honest stance with yourselves - and I doubt you will do so - to discover that you are a nation without principles or manners, and that the values and principles to you are something which you merely demand from others, not that which you yourself must adhere to.

(4) We also advise you to stop supporting Israel, and to end your support of the Indians in Kashmir, the Russians against the Chechens and to also cease supporting the Manila Government against the Muslims in Southern Philippines.

(5) We also advise you to pack your luggage and get out of our lands. We desire for your goodness, guidance, and righteousness, so do not force us to send you back as cargo in coffins.

(6) Sixthly, we call upon you to end your support of the corrupt leaders in our countries. Do not interfere in our politics and method of education. Leave us alone, or else expect us in New York and Washington.

(7) We also call you to deal with us and interact with us on the basis of mutual interests and benefits, rather than the policies of sub dual, theft and occupation, and not to continue your policy of supporting the Jews because this will result in more disasters for you. If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight with the Islamic Nation. The Nation of Monotheism, that puts complete trust on Allah and fears none other than Him. The Nation which is addressed by its Quran with the words: "Do you fear them? Allah has more right that you should fear Him if you are believers. Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of believing people. And remove the anger of their (believers') hearts. Allah accepts the repentance of whom He wills. Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise."

The Nation of honour and respect: "But honour, power and glory belong to Allah, and to His Messenger (Muhammad- peace be upon him) and to the believers."

"So do not become weak (against your enemy), nor be sad, and you will be*superior ( in victory )if you are indeed (true) believers"

The Nation of Martyrdom; the Nation that desires death more than you desire life: "Think not of those who are killed in the way of Allah as dead. Nay, they are alive with their Lord, and they are being provided for. They rejoice in what Allah has bestowed upon them from His bounty and rejoice for the sake of those who have not yet joined them, but are left behind (not yet martyred) that on them no fear shall come, nor shall they grieve. They rejoice in a grace and a bounty from Allah, and that Allah will not waste the reward of the believers."

The Nation of victory and success that Allah has promised: "It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad peace be upon him) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it victorious over all other religions even though the Polytheists hate it."

"Allah has decreed that 'Verily it is I and My Messengers who shall be victorious.' Verily Allah is All-Powerful, All-Mighty."

The Islamic Nation that was able to dismiss and destroy the previous evil Empires like yourself; the Nation that rejects your attacks, wishes to remove your evils, and is prepared to fight you. You are well aware that the Islamic Nation, from the very core of its soul, despises your haughtiness and arrogance. If the Americans refuse to listen to our advice and the goodness, guidance and righteousness that we call them to, then be aware that you will lose this Crusade Bush began, just like the other previous Crusades in which you were humiliated by the hands of the Mujahideen, fleeing to your home in great silence and disgrace.

If the Americans do not respond, then their fate will be that of the Soviets who fled from Afghanistan to deal with their military defeat, political breakup, ideological downfall, and economic bankruptcy. This is our message to the Americans, as an answer to theirs. Do they now know why we fight them and over which form of ignorance, by the permission of Allah, we shall be victorious?

[Kalish]

26. If that statement is correct and is from his own hand it seems

they also want to convert us:

"The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam."

And secondly he has a really low opinion of America (what a fuckwit, like the Taliban was better? what an asshat!)

"It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind"

It should be noted he also blames us for AIDS. Fuckface.

[Kraklen]

29. He might just be right about the AIDS part.

If Reagan hadn't been so homophobic he might have called for a quarantine and the disease would never had advanced beyond a few hundred cases.

[Kalish]

30. you know as well as I do

that's not what he meant.

[Kraklen]

32. You're probably right.

Reagan and the Muhjahdeen had great respect for one another. That's why Reagan gave them so much training and weapons.

I wouldn't be surprised if bin Laden considered Reagan a hero for Islam.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

76. A quarantine of sub-Saharan Africa? How would Reagan have done that?

But I digress...

[Kraklen]

105. Well he wouldn't have done that...

but the AIDS epidemic started in the United States. HIV was around in Africa for who knows how long, and it didn't start an epidemic.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

127. 1 reason (of many) he didn't do it was there wasn't accurate test for HIV

back then. Heck, they weren't even entirely sure what caused AIDS.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

36. Lots of people and countries have very low opinions of America

that is nothing new.

[Kalish]

37. not necessarily that low

[Kraklen]

38. Pretty close.

Surveys of world opinion routinely find that George W. Bush is more hated than Osama bin Laden.

[Kraklen]

39. Pretty close.

Surveys of world opinion routinely find that George W. Bush is more hated than Osama bin Laden.

[Kalish]

40. "the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind"

that's not just GW...that includes all of America. If you read the letter it's not just foreign policy he has a gripe with, it's modernity itself, which America of course exemplifies.

according to OBL we are the worst, at the absolute bottom.

[Kraklen]

42. Lot's of people would agree with that.

They've got a point, don't you agree?

[Kalish]

43. the worst?

I absolutely do not agree with that. Every civilization has good actors and bad actors. There have been civilations that have carried out what is depicted in that picture on a much much larger scale.

[Kraklen]

44. Well, if you want to discuss history...

you'd be hard pressed to find a civilization that's wiped out more human beings than the United States.

[The Magistrate]

46. That Is An Awfully Bold Statement, Sir

Competition for that title has been fierce throughout human history, and the U.S. is a very late and pretty balky entry in the stakes....

[Kraklen]

48. How many millions of Native Americans were killed by the U.S.?

I suppose the Communist Chinese, the Soviet purges, and maybe the Spanish Conquistador's rank up there, but like I said, it's hard pressed.

[The Magistrate]

57. Figures Are Hard To Come By, Sir, In That Regard

The great dying came long before the U.S. existed, and was not a purposeful thing, but the consequence of contact between previously isolated peoples infested with different suites of viral diseases.

Your suggested list, too, leaves out a good many prior claimants: even in absolute terms, many of the ancients are in the running with the moderns, and had to work harder to be so, as they had smaller populations to work on....

[Kraklen]

61. You could say that the Conquistadors...

aren't to blame for smallpox plagues, obviously.

That can't be said so certainly about the U.S. which sold smallpox blankets to Native Americans with the express purpose of wiping them out. It was just one of many solutions to the Indian problem. The genocide of Native Americans whether by smallpox or direct massacre was certainly a purposeful thing.

[Kalish]

67. Ok I give up

America fucking sucks. It is the worst country in the history of the world. Maybe I should just commit suicide right now.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Kathy in Cambridge]

70. I didn't see Kraklen say that anywhere

don't put words in his mouth. You're just trying to paint DUers as America haters and unpatriotic. And that's complete bullshit.

[Kalish]

71. I don't see much love on this thread

from you two...

I see nothing but pointing out how bad America is...actually arguing for Bin Laden's point that it is the worst country in the history of humanity.

Is it? Or is it not?

[Kraklen]

74. It's precisely because we love America...

that we take it to task for the things that it does wrong.

Lying about America and pretending that it never does wrong is the worst thing that an American could do for his or her country.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

77. ...

:applause:

[Kalish]

79. If that's the case then fine

If you love it you must fine some good in it.

I just wish you'd express it a little more. That right there is the cure for a lot of our ills.

I admitted America has done wrong. I want to see you admit that America has also done good.

[Kraklen]

81. Like I said, America has lots of liberals.

That's the good part. Too bad there are conservatives in charge.

What would cure America's ills would be for the "patriots" to admit we're fucking everything up.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kalish]

80. It's the cherry-pickin'

that annoys me...

[Kraklen]

83. cherry pickin?

As in bin Laden's trying to restore the Caliphate?

[Kalish]

89. cherry pickin'

as in pointing out the bad and ignoring the good to paint a bleak picture.

And Bin Laden and his followers do want to restore the Caliphate or some version thereof, that's hardly cherry picking.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

93. No one is ignoring the good. We're responding to your lack of a cogent

argument and providing you with FACTS.

I'm off to dinner for more intelligent, enlightened dialogue. :hi:

Good job, Kraklen! :yourock:

[Kraklen]

100. Cherry picking means picking out the good, ignoring the bad.

Which you're certainly doing.

You've come up with some nonsense about the Caliphate (in a fairly feeble attempt at attacking Islam, while purposefully ignoring U.S. foreign policy culpability) while ignoring that:

1. The U.S. has killed a hundred times the number of civilians that bin Laden has killed.

and

2. The U.S. actually IS committing imperialism and setting up their own Caliphate, if you will, across the world.

[The Magistrate]

113. The Problem With That, Sir

Is that the jihadis do wish establishment of a global Caliphite. The term should not be taken as refering merely to some previous passage of history; its meaning is the temporal authority over all believers. Further, these persons stress verses and traditions that enjoin believers to rule over unbelievers, and require the latter's submission to believers, as "dhimis" under the protection and authority of the Caliph. That there is not the slightest chance of this ever coming to pass does not alter the fact that it is a central element of their politicized theology; indeed, the unnattainablilty of the goal is one of the things that makes the strain of thought dangerous. There is no reason for it to stop, because it cannot succeed, so long as there are people sufficiently in thrall to the belief, and the surety of divine favor eventually coming to their material assistance, that they will be moved to act in furtherance of what they belive to be a divinely mandated goal.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

88. That's what you're doing. And you're not using facts to back up your BS

You present a statement, Kraklen and I give you facts, and then you don't like them. :cry:

Boo-fucking-hoo!

[Kalish]

90. You will only allow negative facts

into your sizing up of America.

Lame.

[Kraklen]

95. I'm only allowing facts.

For example, I illustrated Bosnia. (you still didn't answer my question).

The only thing I've disagrees with is how the U.S. singlehandedly defeated the Allies in WWII.

[Kalish]

98. 'single handedly'?

never said that.

[The Magistrate]

72. Not My Argument, Sir

Initial contact, in the period of the sixteeenth and seventeenth centuries, seems to have killed off well over half the existing population, though of course this requires estimations on the basis of ecological carrying capacity, and of populations later encountered. By the time English and later U.S. authorities did this on a small scale, there was a degree of immunity in the intended victimes, and it did not work nearly so well as the earlier inadvertance. Nothing done in the matter in the nineteenth century, after the creationn of the United Staes, approaches in scale the earlier disaster. The history of humanity for at least the last forty thousand years is largely the history of the displacement of one people by another, usually in a murderous wise.

"I know of nothing said against him except that he is a human being: that is enough to hang any man."

[Kalish]

47. when it comes to brute murderous motives

that would have been sustained if they had lasted longer there are undoubtedly civiliations that beat out America in this department.

America has the ability to change, because we have fundamental freedoms that are always being expanded in our country. America allowed slavery. Then it abolished it. The civil rights movement happened and it pushed foward and won. These days, despite the backlash (which will fail), gays are getting more rights as well. I have no doubt that in the future gay marriage will be legal. It's the freedom that has persisted in our country that has allowed these things to happen. It's not perfect, but it continues.

We also defeated the Nazis and the Soviet Union, which in the long run was good for the entire world.

There is a certain rapaciousness that is just endemic in human nature and you can find it in any civilization. Injustices have been committed throughout human history long before American came into existence. You can't fault America for the faults of human nature in general. America makes mistakes, but it also has the ability to correct those mistakes.

[Kraklen]

49. It was the Soviet Union that beat the Nazis.

But I'm not sure I understand your first sentence. You're saying that the U.S. is good because it gets rid of awful dictators?

That might be true if the U.S. didn't also support awful dictators. Take Saddam for example. Or the new guy they replaced him with.

[Kalish]

51. We played a role

the invasion of Normandy. We also took out their allies in the Pacific.

Yeah we've propped up dictators, but every great power has done so. We've also at times worked for freedom in the world.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

58. "We've also at times worked for freedom in the world."

Governments work out of self-interest, not altruism. One of the only times we worked to stop a genocide was when we intervened in Kosovo. And that was years after a genocide in the same region (Bosnia).

[Kalish]

60. Your generic use of the term 'governments'

kinda proves my overall point here.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

62. and what would that point be, other than you've shown a superficial

grasp of history?

All governments work in their own self-interest. If you think America is any more virtuous than the next government, I want what your smoking. :smoke:

[Kalish]

64. America's govt. is not the worst in history - that's my point

and the freedom that our government has allowed individuals in this country has allowed for much achievement that has and will continue to benefit the world.

Can you say anything good about America?

[Kraklen]

You haven't been able to substantiate that claim very well.

So I don't know why you're surprised that most of the world doesn't believe you.

Say something nice about America? OK, it's got a lot of liberals.

[Kraklen]

66. dupe

[Kathy in Cambridge]

68. Of course I can. I love my country, and I can see how you want to paint us

DUers. I was just kind enough to correct your assumptions about WWII and the fall of the Soviet Union. You don't think Reagan's policies lead to the fall of the Soviet Union, do you?

[Kalish]

69. Lots of factors led to the fall of the SU

I don't give Reagan a ton of credit.

I do give America a lot of credit for holing on to its original freedoms and expanding on those freedoms. I do give America a lot of credit for fostering an environment that allows the flourishing of artistic and scientific advancement. I do give America credit for creating the largest middle class (or one of the largest) in the history of the world. I do give America credit for helping defeat the Axis. I do give America credit for passing landmark civil rights bills that are consonant with our original Constitution and Decl. of Ind. which have served as models of human freedom around the world.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

73. "I don't give Reagan a ton of credit."

You shouldn't give Reagan any credit.

I do give America a lot of credit for holing on to its original freedoms and expanding on those freedoms.

Please explain this. Do you mean the Patriot Act? I have some questions for you:

I do give America a lot of credit for fostering an environment that allows the flourishing of artistic and scientific advancement.

All those budget cuts in arts and education under Bush sure has increased our status. Oh, and what about stem cell research?

I do give America credit for creating the largest middle class (or one of the largest) in the history of the world.

Yes we DID have one of the largest middle classes. Bush's policies are doing away with that also.


I do give America credit for helping defeat the Axis. Me too, especially in the Pacific.

I do give America credit for passing landmark civil rights bills that are consonant with our original Constitution and Decl. of Ind. which have served as models of human freedom around the world.

Now that came right out of your ass, especially the last line.

[Kalish]

82. Yah Bush has fucked up some of it

I already know that. But the essential facts remain, and the damage can be repaired, and a lot of American culture is still vibrant and healthy.

[Kraklen]

85. The damage can be repaired?

How do you repair hundreds of thousands of dead people?

[Kalish]

87. She was talking about laws

and policies.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kraklen]

78. Civil rights?

There were a lot of countries that had civil rights before the U.S. ever got around to it. We were hardly a model in that regard.

[Kalish]

86. We enshrined it in our founding documents

and have continually built upon them. Our revolution was an inspiration to the French revolution, among others.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

91. I hate to tell you, but so did your friends the French,

[Kalish]

94. Our revolution inspired theirs

[Kraklen]

97. Talk about cherry picking.

Will you at least agree that we wouldn't have one without French help?

[Kalish]

99. I've never agreed not to agree to that

you're just arguing ever little tiny point, ones that haven't even been brought up, tyring to throw what ever mud you can into the face of America.

[Kraklen]

101. So you agree that the French saved our asses?

I want to see you write it.

Go ahead.

Write: "France saved America's ass."

[Kalish]

102. saved our asses is going to far

they helped...just like we helped them in WWII.

and then we inspired their revolution and Thomas Jefferson was actually over there when it happened watching it (although he was a little concerned with some of violence in the streets)

[Kraklen]

103. We never would have had a chance without the French.

You know it, say it.

"France saved America's ass."

Go ahead and say it. What are you afraid of?

Say "France was right about Iraq," too.

[Kalish]

104. WTF is this?

does it even matter? we initiated our own revolution, with our own ideas, and our own dreams. does the French somehow helping us lessen this in some way?

[Kraklen]

106. Why can't you say it?

You say you want to talk about facts. Let's talk about facts.

[Kalish]

107. this is fucking lame

France's help was probably decisive in many ways. You're playing it like I'm some kind of French hating right winger. I'm not. So this little exercise is a total waste of time. It proves nothing, does nothing. It has no relevance as to America's achievements or standings in the world. It has nothing to do with the original conversation. We accepted help, big deal? Does this prove anything, does it matter? America was tiny then.

But one thing is sure, the ideas that fostered the revolution were fostered by Americans. They took the enlightenment ideals of Europoean writers and ran with them. What was accomplished later served as an inspiration to the French revolution. Those are facts. Can you admit them? Or would that be casting to good a light on your country and its founding ideals?

[Kraklen]

110. You brought up the revolution...

and how it makes America great since it helped France, but you can't seem to come to terms with the fact that if it hadn't been for France the American Revolution would have been just another Insurgency.

As for the beliefs of the founding fathers, they were inspired by the Ancient Greeks (which you allude to and fail somehow to recognize) and by the Iroquis. So I fail to see how it's really an American invention. Furthermore, most of these "founding fathers" were complete hypocrites. They fought for freedom and lower taxes but never cared about freedom to the slaves that they owned. Can you admit to that? Washington and Jefferson were hypocrites?

[Kalish]

112. France helped

the help was welcomed with open arms, it was essential.

And the enlightenment ideals of Europe were quite popular in America and served an important foundation for our revolution and its philosophies. And there were much more recent European thinkers than the Greeks whose thoughts contributed.

As for the founding fathers, that you so gallantly call hypocrites, yes it's true. It's a shameful thing. But at the same time, and in their defense it should be noted that TJ opposed slavery, even wanted to put in the Dec. of Ind. but hesistated cuz he didn't want to split the country at that point in time. Later he offered a bill to ban slavery in the new territories and then withdrew it when it became apparant a fatal schism could occur in the new country. They were way ahead of their thinking on this issue, and knew that slavery must and would eventually end. They set up the governmental framework and the rights that allowed it to eventually happen. So yes, they were hypocrites, but they were aware of their own hypocrisy and it bugged them, you can see it in their pronouncements on the subject, but they, like all of us were trapped in larger historical forces. In the end, the founders set up a system of government that allowed for ending of slavery and the passage of civil rights bills. All in all they were good men, great men even. Can you admit to that?

[Kraklen]

115. But Thomas Jefferson didn't oppose slavery.

Obviously. That's like saying John Wayne Gacy opposed child molestation.

Were they good men? Of course not.

You see, this is the reason why people all over the world hate America. There are so many Americans out there defending rapists and slave owners and murder just for the sake of propaganda.

[Kalish]

118. In his writing he was personally opposed to it

He owned slaves but treated them exceptionally well, and in fact, to just compete in his chosen profession he had to have slaves. But he knew it would end and must end and even said it.

And the fact that you don't think they were good men just shows how horribly and pathetically uneducated you are.

[Kraklen]

119. Jefferson raped his slaves.

There's no such thing as "treating slaves exceptionally well."

The fact that you pretend otherwise shows how racist and uneducate (along with all your other posts) you are.

[Kalish]

120. His relationship to Sally Hemmings

was hardly rape, not in the modern sense of the term. She was his deceased wife's half sister. the evidence is of mutual feeling and concern. sally could have stayed in france if she'd wanted to, but chose to go back to Virginia.

[Kraklen]

121. Ah, a rape apologist.

No surprises.

[Kalish]

128. 'a rape apologist'

now the witch hunter lights up his fires...

so fuckin' completely and utterly lame...

[The Magistrate]

126. Certainly There Is Such A Thing As That, Sir

In any generally practiced thing, there is always a normal usage, and exceptions to that broad middle that fall below or rise above it. Slave memoirs of the time, and later, and from other venues where slavery was practiced (for it was the normal usage of human-kind throught all but the last few hundred years of its history) often distinguish between brutal and decent owners by the memoirist's personal experience.

The statement Jefferson raped Ms. Hemmings is true in the sense that it is rape if a seventeen year old sleeps with a sixteen year old in many jurisdictions: the thing exists by definition. A slave has no right either to consent or refuse, but must obey, as a matter of law at the time. But it is also a loaded term, for it always conjures up in the mind of one encountering it a vision of immediate force coercing at that moment the act. That certainly did not occur in the relation of Jeffersonm with Ms. Hemmings. It could of course be well argued that the whole system, formed as it was of violence, acted to coerce a forced assent from her to a proposition from the man who owned her. Whether that is how she felt about it must remain a subject for speculation, and it would be a bold person who would claim to know what Ms. Hemmings would say if asked....

[Kraklen]

129. Yuck.

In all honesty I had thought better of you.

I find a comparison of a white slaveowner raping his black slave to teenage sex to be particularly distasteful.

And you're asking what if she really wanted it?

I hope you just haven't thought this through very carefully.

[The Magistrate]

144. You Are Certainly Entitled To Your View, Sir

Whether of this matter we are just now discussing, or of me. It is my custom to think things through, sometimes to a fault, and to endeavor to judge situations, particularly those foreign to my personal experience and proclivities, on their own terms. The point is not a similarity in actions, but that it is a legal definition which directs and legitimizes the use of a particular term to describe them, and that that term has a generally accepted meaning somewhat different from the legally directed usage. To turn the matter to a reversed polarity as an illustration of the point, up until recently it was not possible, as a matter of law, for a man to rape a woman he was married to, for the law did not recognize any right of a wife to refuse conjugal relations, and accordingly, for a husband to force them upon her could not possibly be an act of rape, no matter with what violence and brutality he did so. We would probably agree that a man who did that fifty years ago committed a rape, but no lawyer, judge, or police officer would have at the time. A person so disposed, and there were some, could have used that lack of any right to refuse conjugal relations by a wife, to argue the proposition any act of marital relations was "really" rape, as there could not be any meaningful consent where consent could not be refused. Of course, a great many wives with a husband banished to the couch might have been moved to disagree, as a great many persons behaved much better than the legalities allowed them to do in those days. The matter is not too disimilar to the question we are discussing: there are certainly sound reasons to characterize any sexual relation between an owner and hman property as rape, but whether, if Ms. Hemmings had said no, Jefferson would have retired to his stdy, is beyond establishing yea or nay, and for many a feeling that had she done so, he would have, will incline them to feel use of the term a mere slur without any real meaning.

[Kraklen]

148. It's rape whether it's prosecuted or not, agreed?

If a man forces a woman to have sex against her wishes now, or a thousand years ago, it's still rape, agreed?

Can a fourteen year old girl give consent to a fifty something year old man who has the power of life or death over her and her loved ones?

Are there going to be people a hundred years from now arguing, "well sure, the Rape of Nanking looks bad from our perspective, but you've got to look at it in the historical context...?"

[The Magistrate]

149. We Seem To Be Talking Past One Another, Sir

That is unfortunate, and no good will come of continuing it.

Be well, Sir!

[Kalish]

130. thanks profusely

for not jumping on the 'rapist' bandwagon when discussing TJ.\

that's an ugly brutal word it pains me greatly to see it used so casually and in such a vile manner.

[The Magistrate]

124. That Is A Debateable Point, Sir

And depends on what one chooses to consider most important.

Jefferson certainly took particular political actions against slavery. The most noteable was the exclusion of slavery from the Northwest Territory. The law he wrote for this was much cited by Mr. Lincoln in pre Civil War debates on the matter, and its existence did much to ensure slavery would not continue as a feature of the growing nation indefinitely.

Jefferson also spoke and wrote often in ways that strongly suggest he believed the practice a great wrong: the most famous of all his statements, perhaps, "I tremble for my country when I rreflect that God is just" was made with slavery in mind.

Nonetheless, he certainly was a slave owner, and dependent for his economic and social status on the practice, which was prevelant before and after his lifetime. A saint might well have thrown all that over and done without a plantation and status as a liesured gentleman, and Jefferson certainly was no saint on the evidence of his doing what one would expect any ordinary fellow to do in his position. He can certainly be viewed as a hypocrite for the disjunction between his words and his life in this regard. During the Revolutionary period, this was a favorite theme of English propagandists, who observed frequently how odd it was that these ferocious champions of liberty in the Americas were themselves absolute tyrants over Negroes....

[Kalish]

132. everything you say is true

it is true he had slaves. it's also true he personally opposed slavery.
I would say that he was caught up within larger historical forces that precluded him from taking more direct action on this issue. If human beings had longer life spans and if he was still alive in the mid 19th century I would bet he would have worked to end the intitution of slavery.

[The Magistrate]

117. French Assistance In The Revolution, Sir, Was Decisive

From the point of view of the Bourbon kings, the thing was merely one episode in a sort of second Hundred Years War that was fought in clashes mostly considered seperate nowadays between the French and English crowns throughout the eighteenth century. French money, munitions and material, and training were the only reason the Continental army achieved the capability of winning engagements with English regulars. Blockade by the French navy of the coast was absolutely decisive in the final stages, and Cornwallis' surrender at Yorktown owed wholly to that factor. The French navy at the time was superior to the English, though this has been largely forgotten, and were it not for the destruction of its main fleet in a Caribean storm not long after the American Revolution, the history of the Napoleonic period might have been very different.

[Kalish]

122. I know that

but thanks for the particulars. Yes, it was essential. I can tell you know your histrory exceptionally well.

Unfortunetaly for some I guess it's more proof that America sucks and was founded by bad men and is a force for evil in the world? I realize you don't think this...

[Kraklen]

63. I'm not at all sure what you mean.

But Kathy's got a point. The U.S. certainly wasn't interested in the freedom of Iraq or Afghanistan. We wouldn't have built rape rooms or torture chambers if we were. I don't see how you expect people to believe that the United States is interested in exporting freedom.

The only recent case I can think of is Bosnia, like Kathy said. Of course, there were a very large number of Americans who were completely against that. How did you feel about it?

[rockymountaindem]

138. Ok, but when did anyone else work to prevent genocide before that?

I mean, 100 years ago, one country wouldn't step in to stop another country from comitting genocide. World War One sort of changed that, once we saw all the horrors that 20th century technology could inflict. WWII reinforced it.

For example, as late as the 1960s, who stepped in to stop French brutality in Algeria? The US didn't but neither did any of our NATO allies, nor the Soviet Union or its allies.

So yes, the US's record on stopping genocide is pretty short, but nobody else's is any longer.

[Kraklen]

142. When before Kosovo?

I can't think of any. Can't think of any else since Kosovo either.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

52. Yup, you're right

:thumbsup:

The French resistance also wore down the German Army, but it was the Russian winters and the Soviet army bogging the Germans down on the eastern front that made D-Day successful. By June of 1944, the Nazis were drafting Hitler youth and men over 40 into the army.

[Kalish]

53. Ok - America had nothing to do with defeating the AXIS (yes)

sorry I guess I was wrong.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

54. You mean the Axis powers. WE were the Allies.

you can't even get that straight.

[Kraklen]

55. You mean Axis?

The U.S. was with the Allies.

[Kalish]

59. whatever, I made a slight mistake

ok..I know the difference.

the point remains.

[Kraklen]

65. a?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

50. America came late to the party in the European Theater in WWII

If it weren't for the Soviets, the US wouldn't have faced a weakened German Army. You need to do some reading.

How did we defeat the Soviet Union? The Soviet Union basically dissolved from within through bad economic decisions. Again, you need to brush up on your Cold War history.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

92. I'm constantly amazed at the number of people who know so little...

...of the history of WWII and the Cold War.

Thanks for tweaking that guy.

[rockymountaindem]

134. How about the Mongols?

Conquistadors? The British Empire?

[Kraklen]

141. The Mongols?

Well, they did invade Baghdad, destroyed countless artifacts, slaughtered and raped thousands of people... uh... um... hmm.

[rockymountaindem]

146. What about their invasion of China?

Or that they (brutally) ruled Russia for 200 years? Did you know that the Russian Orthodox Church still commerates the fall of Kiev to the Golden Horde in 1240 as a day of mourning? What about the Mongol attacks on Poland, Hungary, Egypt, Persia...

[Igel]

45. Yes.

It's right.

First, expel the infidels and restore Muslim lands to Muslims. That includes Iraq, Sa'udi Arabia, and any other Muslim land; there is no provision for history to turn back, once Muslim, always Muslim.

Second, institute a righteous rule over those lands. Engage in a truce, if necessary; but truce's are temporary.

Third, convert: all the earth is Allah's, and Islam shall be triumphant. Unlike Xianity, in which the basic texts say 'preach', and if they don't accept it, leave--and if they persecute you, rejoice--the Islamic basic texts say 'preach', and if they don't accept it, it's bad for them. But if they persecute you or prevent preaching, it's oppression, and that is grounds for battle.

Before 1991 or so, the ordering instead of 1, 2, 3 (as I listed them) was 2, 1, 3. The US/West got a raised profile, and we "forced" him to change his priorities.

[Yupster]

150. And after the whole world converts, then

Sha-ria will rule the earth, Osama wil be happy, and we will have a Dar Es Saalam.

Then we won't have to worry about flame wars or abortion rights, or stolen elections, or any kinds of elections any more. The world will be a much less complicated place to live.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kalish]

24. still here

here some tofu for you...

:rant:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

140. What, there's a precedent?

Search by author, here I go.

[CJCRANE]

28. I don't think it's likely to

happen considering that Al-Qaeda are small group of criminals who are hunted and killed in every country they exist in.

[Kalish]

34. I do think you're right

I don't think they stand a snowball's chance.

[mtnester]

35. Does anyone know where the popcorn smiley got to?

I thought we had one at one time.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

41. I think this one may be more appropriate

[Media_Lies_Daily]

84. That depends on what their sponsors, the NeoCons, tell them to do.

[Kalish]

109. so Bush just calls them up

and tells them what to do?

[Kraklen]

111. .

[Kalish]

114. so?

I already know about that. I'm not a supportor of Bush so if you're trying to get under my skin with such a picture it does nothing.

But that picture does not mean that Bush directs AQ. And if you proffer it as such proof then you are way off base, maybe beyond help.

[rockymountaindem]

145. I thought we were all trying to dispell the notion that Saddam and OBL

had ties. So to justify your point that the US helps Al Queida, you put up a picture of Saddam. Haven't we all learned that Saddam does not equal Osama? That's the kind of reasoning I would expect from Rumsfeld himself.

[Spider Jerusalem]

116. False premise; there IS no "Al Qaeda", as such.

There are a loose group of independent terror cells, but there's no centralised command or single motivating factor.

And Osama bin Laden is not an evil James Bond villain who runs Global Terrorism, Inc. from the comfort of a mountain hideaway like some latter-day Hassan ibn al-Sabbah, either. At this point, in fact, it doesn't matter if he's alive or dead; he has become a symbol. The bogeyman. Our very own Emmanuel Goldstein.

And by "restore the Caliphate", what do you mean? An Islamic version of Mussolini's mad dream of restoring the ancient Roman Empire? Reclaim all the territories that were part of the dar al'Islam at the height of Muslim power in about the eleventh or twelfth century?

[Kalish]

135. would you agree there is a broader

philosophical and religious rubric that all these groups operate under? They may not match up in all particulars but in many essentials?

And as to the exact dimensions of the caliphate I don't know.

I do remember watching a Frontline episode about AQ and their goals. where they showed a map and the Caliphate extended into Spain.

[Spider Jerusalem]

143. If you don't even know the particulars of what you're talking about...

what point is there in continuing this discussion? A few fuzzily-remembered television programmes are a very poor basis for framing an argument, you know.

These groups are all Muslim, so quite obviously there's a shared religious viewpoint. The essential thing is that they're anti-modernity, opposed to reform and innovation. In this respect they're no different than their fundamentalist Christian counterparts in the United States. The essential difference is that the fundamentalist Christians live in a wealthy country, have economic power, and have been able to exploit the American political system to their own ends.

[Kalish]

147. never claimed

to be an expert.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

125. Do you fear this? How would you propose they would accomplish this?

There's a reason why people commit terrorist acts. It's because they don't have military and economic power enough to achieve their goals.

[Kalish]

136. No I don't fear it

a lot would have to change for me to truly fear such a thing. I'm just curious about end goals here.

[Bouncy Ball]

137. Hey! Check your PM!

:hi:

[ck4829]

131. They want their MTV

Seriously, first they were angry because US soldiers were in Saudi Arabia and now they supposedly want a Caliphate.

They went from 'persecuted' to being Dominionists, kinda like the 'christian' Right.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

139. They want world conquest? Fine.

I worry more about OTHER cabal who wants the same thing, has more guns, more money, and is WAY closer to actually do it. You guess what it is.

[unblock]

151. Locking

This thread has ceased to be productive.