Remember this post VTA?
My comments were to pick apart the idea that OBL is coming to shackle your women etc. You may say that the letter in conjunction with actions against America is proof that their aim is to create Mosques on every American corner, but its only an opinion. I think we would all appreciate something more to back that up.
What does that post have to do with me?
And you'll remember, I already stated that I don't believe they're coming to
"turn Mass into Mecca" (<-----Verbatim), based on that letter. Though it's worth noting many have since stated as much; that they'd like to see Shariah and the flag of Islam over the White House. Whether or not it's belicose rheotoric, as some like to call it or serious intent, we'll see. Considering bin Laden is the impetus of the movement, I don't know why you'd find it a stretch that anyone would think he has more in mind than to get off his property.
Ok VTA Im sure your reading it but your also definitely reading far too much into it. You think that means that even if America withdrew to its lands theyd still come to the US to carry out acts of revenge for previous actions, right? Why would OBL want to obtain anything more than victory? Surely any revenge offered would be only while the war he declared on you continues?
OBL started Al Queda to fight the growing U.S. presence in the Middle East, particularly in Saudi Arabia, home to Islam’s most sacred shrines.
Al Qaeda vociferously opposed the stationing of U.S. troops on what it considered the holiest of Islamic lands and waged an extended campaign of terrorism against the Saudi rulers, whom bin Laden deemed to be false Muslims. The ultimate goal of this campaign was to depose the Saudi royal family and install an Islamic regime on the Arabian peninsula.
So given its beginnings, what reason do you have to think that OBL would continue his war beyond victory?
Because someone so devoutly religious as he's claiming to be will certainly follow the law of Islam to the letter, without
picking and choosing
The Haditha, the Qu'ran, the Sunnah, all contain edicts that make it a good Muslims duty to fight in the name of Allah: those that don't submit, must be eradicated, subjugated or converted. You might think he simply has geographical concerns in mind, but that's the tip of the iceberg and
in conjuction with bin Ladens ideology, the acts carried out throughout the world, not limited to the Middle East, be they against improper Muslims, Apostates, American's, Christians, Jews show there is some reason for concern. Perhaps not all out aggression, but to assert that caution is paranoid or unwise, is... well, unwise.
No actually, I dont get it. In fact I think you're mis-interpreting it. He criticises your way of ife and will not have it his own lands. That doesnt mean he wont have it in your lands either does it?
Its a bit like trying to say that because catholics know that most of the world is unsaved and therefore damned to hell they are thus determined to forcibly convert the world. They dont want to forcibly convert the world and there's no evidence that OBL wants to forcibly convert America either is there?
bin Laden stated that his intent was to influence others to take up the cause, not in an orderly, traditional military fashion, but as unattached satellites that act in unison with the cause. Again
in conjucntion with bin Ladens own words, the actions carried out and the goals stated will give anyone of pragmatic reasoning cause for concern. I won't submit a million URL's in which these goals have been stated, they're easy enough for anyone interested to find, but if the goal is a Caliphate across Europe into Asia, why would it stop there? Especially when they've stated it wouldn't?
Hypocrisy can involve the open practice of a behaviour for which one condemns others. However, this only applies if the given status difference between the critic and critiqued is bogus. For example, a parent condemning their child for using a dangerous implement which the parent themselves uses is not a hypocrite, because they have different status.
We're talking adults of one ideology, condemning another adult ideology. They closely resemble each other in as many ways as they differ. Not a good analogy.
In the Muslim world view however, there is indeed a status difference. That being that its Muslim's lands as given by their god. Therefore they are not hypocrites.
Well the world is much bigger than the Muslim world view, and to impose it on others is more than hypopcrisy, it's arrogance and lunacy. (See Thailand for a great example of that, if you think their actions in Israel are justified).
You and the Jews may think that the difference in status is bogus or even the other way round. I.e. there is no difference in status between Jew and Muslim or even that its Jews with the higher status and therefore claim to the land as given by your God.
However, thats only an opinion. Until the question of who has the required status is settled. By God perhaps. Then neither side can be independently judged to be hypocrites.
I'm willing to bet God would rather not have us fight like savages over piles of dirt, so there's a fair amount of hypocrisy on both sides, but I'll say it again, if he believes his ancestors act of conquering is just, then the precedent of might-equals-right is one he's going to have to accept, even when he's on the losing side.
So. He thinks it right for him to conquer these lands and wrong for anyone else to conquer them. He sites the higher power of Allah as ultimate judge. However, the Jews have Jehovah, and none of can say what either of them really have to say. Until we can, then none in this instance can be called hypocrites.
If Allah/God is the ultimate judge, does he really think Allah will need any mans help to mete out justice? Bitter losses can make one seem quite pious when humiliation is controlled properly. By laying it out in religious terms, obviously where God stands with him and America is 'friends of Satan', his arrogance is quite lofty. This is struggle between men of free will, not God and Satan.
