But if Al-Qaeda “overthrow regimes [they] deem non-Islamic,” and then “establish a pan-Islamic Caliphate throughout the world,” then all of the Islamic coutries (that’s all the ones that are Islamic now, plus all the non-Islamic ones they are able to overthrow) will be part of the Caliphate, ruled by the Caliph (Mullah Sheikh bin Laden, to be sure!).
While I am all for inclusiveness, I think that being a subordinate state in the Caliphate would probably put a damper on our autonomy as a democratic representative republic.
Point well taken. For some reason, my eyes, bleary from travel, kept on reading that as “caliphate throughout the Muslim world.” I should drink more coffee.
Actually, Jurph, I believe that Ravenman’s original interpretation was closer to the truth, whether he was on a caffiene deficit or not.
Usama bin Ladin and his ilk talk about concepts in terms of the past glory of Islam. That is, when he talks about a Caliphate, he would be talking about something similar to the early Caliphate of the Rashidun, the “rightly-guided” temporal leaders of the Islamic community just after the time of the Prophet Muhammad.
That is, he would want something that encompasses all Muslim lands (perhaps defined as every land controlled by Muslims at their historic high point, including all of the Middle East and North Africa), is guided by a righteous temporal leader (probably himself) who implements the principles of Allah. This land would have to be free of heresy (eg, in his view, Shi’ism) and pagans / polytheists (eg, in his view, Hindus).
Christians and Jews would be allowed to live and worship in this Caliphate, subject to more rules and tax than Muslims, but wouldn’t be allowed any real role in government, as in the early Caliphate.
Some people claim that that the US had the right to remove Saddam Hussien based on his human right record.
Heres some food for thought.
1: If he was as bad as claimed, why didnt the Iraqis overthrow him themselves. before you claim propaganda like they couldnt i ask you who supplied SH muscle and kept him in power? Iraqis did.
2: Is the USA free of human rights abuses? Why do you reject state sanctioned oppression of opposition yet swallow state sanctioned healthcare that leaves uninsured on the streets and slack gun control that leaves thousands dead each year?
3: Lets say that SH was true evil and that the majority of Iraqis wanted him gone (did they do a poll and asked the iraqis what they wanted?) what gave the US the right to kill so many Iraqis? Would you accept your own govt cluster bombing you if held hostage by a madman?
4: Ultimately i know this is beyond many, having been feed western propaganda your whole life but what gives you the right to tell others how they should be living as if yours is so much better to the point of perfection?
Finally lets be honest. USA invaded Iraq to burn pre-war oil contracts Iraq had with france, russia and germany.
If it had been about Sh liked they backtracked and later claimed then why didnt they demand SH to go into excile like they did james taylor? Or even kidnap him like they did with haitis president?
Also note USA is a master of coups…
I agree - the spirit of their goals is definitely a pan-Islamic state, an Islamic supernation, kind of a United States of Allah stretching along the sunny south edge of Eurasia. And that’s a groovy, peaceful image there in my head, with John and Yoko and Osama all holding hands singing “Allahu Akbar, Kum Bah Yah.”
At the same time, they are deluding themselves if they think that they can just “peacefully” annex some of the most politically and religiously troublesome real estate in the world and have their neighbors just sit idly by. For starters, they want to annex the territory of several NATO members (Italy, Turkey, probably Spain), Israel (let’s just say “wow what a bad idea” and leave it at that, hm?), the Uygur territories of China, and probably Kashmir and a few points east. That puts them up against four different nuclear powers!
But I’ve digressed into how likely they are to succeed (not very bloody). My original point was that I can’t recall ever hearing about a plan for conquest that didn’t eventually digress into the key planner or one of his PR guys frothing at the mouth as they holler, “…tomorrow, the WORLD!”
If, Allah forbid, they actually meet with some success, I can’t see them resting on their laurels.
I agree - the spirit of their goals is definitely a pan-Islamic state, an Islamic supernation, kind of a United States of Allah stretching along the sunny south edge of Eurasia. And that’s a groovy, peaceful image there in my head, with John and Yoko and Osama all holding hands singing “Allahu Akbar, Kum Bah Yah.”
At the same time, they are deluding themselves if they think that they can just “peacefully” annex some of the most politically and religiously troublesome real estate in the world and have their neighbors just sit idly by. For starters, they want to annex the territory of several NATO members (Italy, Turkey, probably Spain), Israel (let’s just say “wow what a bad idea” and leave it at that, hm?), the Uygur territories of China, and probably Kashmir and a few points east. That puts them up against four different nuclear powers!
But I’ve digressed into how likely they are to succeed (not very bloody). My original point was that I can’t recall ever hearing about a plan for conquest that didn’t eventually digress into the key planner or one of his PR guys frothing at the mouth as they holler, “…tomorrow, the WORLD!”
If, Allah forbid, they actually meet with some success, I can’t see them resting on their laurels.
p.s. lambchops - way to nip that unfortunate digression in the bud.