Equally sorry if I've somehow done SOME Islamic TERRORISTS a disservice. 
- Edit 1
- Edit 1Before modification by Joel at 17/11/2010 12:55:53 AM
Because Jefferson was speaking in terms of social contracts, and bin Laden speaks in terms of religious fanaticism.
If you offer up a quote then require people to read countless letters to explain the context, then I figure you need a better quote - as a stand alone quote, I'm pretty sure bin Laden fully supports it.
I thought it was common knowledge. Apparently TX isn't the only place where Jefferson's been removed from school discussions of Enlightenment thinkers.
Yeah, I'm sure bin Laden supports it. On the other hand, since he was living in a country that stoned people for being non-Muslim when he attacked the US, a country that had just months earlier made clear that the government of the nation where he lived was their own business, his case for American tyranny is pathetically weak. That's even if we decide it's OK to read Jefferson as a theocrat, though I certainly HOPE you know better than that.
Which explains the other problem with the analogy, that Jefferson and his fellows went after soldiers and terrorists go after civilians. The whole reason for terrorism is that heavily outgunned and outnumbered militants CAN'T win a pitched battle with soldiers, so they try to force the opposition to the bargaining table by eroding their will to fight, via terrorism. It's the problem with pretty much all Islamic terror groups: Even if I considered terrorism legitimate, it's goal is to force an otherwise unobtainable negotiated settlement, yet when Islamic terrorists are offered such a settlement (e.g. the Oslo Agreement) they'll reject for the sake of more murder. Because, at the end of the day, that's all they are: Mass murderers who try to legitimize and rationalize their hatred and murder on specious political grounds. They're WORSE than terrorists.
that's an ugly mess of a paragraph, even if one skips your crude lumping together of all Islamic terrorists which frankly smacks of islamaphobia - I'd think you were against bias against religions, not for it when it is other than Christians. You seem to have very strong views yet appear to have more than a very surface understanding of the conflict.
I believe you'll find that I'm just as quick to condemn Christians murdering innocent women and children. I tend to take the view of the rational mullahs who are in the majority: Their actions deny their professed faith. I have some fudamental and strong disagreements with Islamic doctrine, but that doesn't make me automatically suspicious of all Muslims. However, I don't think it's particularly bigoted to be suspicious of Islamic terrorists, and if Fred Phelps disturbs me less, it's only because he hasn't (to my knowledge) murdered anyone.