2.5%

I understand they also strenuously object to ethno/culturally alien immigrants in Palestine and other places.

This is probably ‘bad form’ but i like this quote from the comments section in the article linked to:

‘Considering the state of flux in the GOP Presidential field, it’s really not too late for OBL to get in and have a serious shot at winning the Republican nomination.

He’d be able to espouse a more conservative foreign policy than anyone but McCain, and with his “Fair Alms” tax proposal, he’d have a more conservative economic plan than any of them.

And, of course, given his views on social issues, I think GOP voters could rely on his judicial appointments.’

Without the beard, OBL would be any average, bored, lonely blogger.

#5 – Hmm, I’ve yet to read an article about how to raise one’s blog’s visibility that suggests becoming a terrorist mastermind. Seems like there’s a good satirical story in there, given anonymous blog services, and the Unibomber’s manifesto.

Does bin Laden have a blog? Would any of the blog-evangelists dare to suggest he should get one? (after all, he fits right into their rhetoric about routing around existing institutions …)

“And thus, what is called the civil war came into being and matters worsened at his hands before getting out of his control and him becoming like the one who plows and sows the sea: he harvests nothing but failure…

“And among the things which catch the eye of the one who considers the repercussions of your unjust war against Iraq is the failure of your democratic system, despite it raising of the slogans of justice, liberty, equality and humanitarianism. It has not only failed to achieve these things, it has actually destroyed these and other concepts with its weapons – especially in Iraq and Afghanistan- in a brazen fashion, to replace them with fear, destruction, killing, hunger, illness, displacement and more than a million orphans in Baghdad alone, not to mention hundreds of thousands of widows. Americans statistics speak of the killing of more than 650,000 of the people of Iraq as a result of the war and its repercussions…

“Why are the leaders of the White House keen to start wars and wage them around the world, and make use of every possible opportunity through which they can reach this purpose, occasionally even creating justifications based on deception and blatant lies, as you saw Iraq?…

“Those with real power and influence are those with the most capital. And since the democratic system permits major corporations to back candidates, be they presidential or congressional, there shouldn’t be any cause for astonishment – and there isn’t any- in the Democrats’ failure to stop the war…

“In fact, the life of all of mankind is in danger because of the global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factories of the major corporations, yet despite that, the representative of these corporations in the White House insists on not observing the Kyoto accord, with the knowledge that the statistic speaks of the death and displacement of the millions of human beings because of that, especially in Africa…

“And here I say: it would benefit you to listen to the poignant messages of your soldiers in Iraq, who are paying – with their blood, nerves and scattered limbs – the price for these sorts of irresponsible statements…”

—

I’m not even a conservative, let alone a dogmatic devotee of low taxes. But it takes a special brand of chutzpah, given the above, to attempt to use the bit about taxes in bin Laden’s rant to associate it with conservative views. (And I didn’t even get to use the really juicy stuff–about Chomsky, the capitalist system and globalization–that’s too left-wing even for Crooked Timber.)

Bin Laden and Steve Forbes, together at last.

Who’da thunk it.

Oh God OK I’ll bite. I know this is a mistake even as I write this but…..

There has always been a certain symmetry between the radical Right’s critique of Modernity and that of the radical Left. It’s a notorious but accurate fact that in many ways the Nazis were the most environmentally progressive government of their time . Likewise, the Nazis and fascists were vehement in their condemnation of capitalism. The reason why Hitler in particular was against capitalism, at least in its form at the time was rather different from that of the Communists (he saw it as Jewish plot) but the end results was similar. Likewise, the Nazis could rail against Imperialism with the best of them and often tried to ally themselves with ‘anti-imperial’ movements (e.g. the IRA), just as the Japanese did, whilst being quite a lot quieter about their own imperial agenda.

As long as you are merely speaking negatively there does seem to be quite a lot of similarity between the views of OBL and those of ‘the left’. But it’s when you get to hear about their positive programme that suddenly everything changes. The radical Left (and for that matter the not so radical left) want an extension of democracy, and more and more of public life (e.g. business) brought under democratic control: this is a view that OBL is not, I gather, in sympathy with. Likewise, the left is (and has been, since the ’60s) committed to feminism, gay rights, and anti-racism: again, one wonders if these are things that OBL would really put high up upon his policy agenda. Finally, the radical Left (and OBL, to give him credit) believe in global warming not because of its political advantages, but because it happens to be a scientific fact. It’s the radical Right who have been vehement about denying the reality of the weather changes we have all seen for ourselves lately.

So unless you are going to start playing one of the ‘I am a lunatic’ rhetorical cards (of the ‘Nazis were socialists’ or ‘Noam Chomsky is on the side of the Taliban’) there is much reason to think that if he ever got into power, OBL would be in favour of a situation rather closer to that dreamed of by the American radical religious Right than that of Hilary Clinton (or even Michael Moore).

After all OBL went on record as saying that his idea of an ideal state was Afghanistan under the Taliban. Are you really trying to tell us that you think Noam Chomsky or Edward Herman were looking at Afghanistan in the ’90s and going ‘my socialist dream! realised at last!’.

(Please note: if your reply is going to be something similar to the latest ramblings by Nick Cohen, along the lines that ‘the radical left is now indistinguishable from Islamism’ then I’m not going to bother replying).

The 2.5% zakat rate looks a good deal for GOP voters. And none of it goes to the workshy or (less welcome) other rich men:
“You should know that the wealthy or an able person who can work has no share in Zakat” (hadith).

But another hadith tells us that the penalties for nonpayment by the rich are somewhat tougher than those imposed by the IRS:
“For the owner or possessor of gold and silver who does not fulfil its obligation, on the Day of Resurrection it will be cast into sheets of fire and be branded on his forehead, side and back. Whenever it cools it is to be repeated for him in a day whose length is the length of fifty thousand years, until the judgement is rendered among the people.”

the radical left is now indistinguishable from Islamism

No, Islamists, unlike the radical left, have a strategy, a plan that could, conceivably (it only really requires divine intervention) lead to their goals.

It seems that bin Laden may soon replace Hitler as a polemic tool. Do we need to amend Godwin’s law?

Do we need to amend Godwin’s law?

I think we just call it Godwin’s Law 2.0.

Yes, I agree: because Chomsky and Herman complained about US media exaggerating Khmer Rouge’s atrocities while ignoring atrocities in East Timor, they will most definitely find a common cause with the Taliban. No doubt.

Yes, exactly, completely agree. It’s all the fault of the Satanic Official Enemies and their leftist apologists. The Lebanese, the Iraqis, Spanish and French socialists, Osama bin Laden, the Chinese – they are all the same.

But they all will be defeated eventually by The Knight In Shining Armor Riding On The White Horse. Resistance is futile! Not to mention “resistance”.

Yeah, because in the piece they write:

Ponchaud cites a Cambodian report that 200,000 people were killed in American bombings from March 7 to August 15, 1973. No source is offered, but suspicions are aroused by the fact that Phnom Penh radio announced on May 9, 1975 that there were 200,000 casualties of the American bombing in 1973, including “killed, wounded, and crippled for life” (Hildebrand and Porter). Ponchaud cites “Cambodian authorities” who give the figures 800,000 killed and 240,000 wounded before liberation. The figures are implausible. By the usual rule of thumb, wounded amount to about three times killed; quite possibly he has the figures reversed.

So perhaps you’re offended by their whitewashing the US mass-murderers, no?

I wasn’t going to respond, but since Bi has implied that there’s some substance to Abb1’s defense of Chomsky, I’ll simply refer everyone to the link I posted. If you find Abb1’s representation of it accurate even after reading it, then I congratulate you on sharing Chomsky’s (and Abb1’s) penchant for whitewashing moral obscenities.

Dan Simon,

Oh, so let me get this straight. I’m with the terrorists because I “implied” (which is a shorthand for “Dan Simon just wants to read extra stuff which isn’t there into bi’s words”) that abb1 might have “some substance” when he points out that Noam Chomsky isn’t for building a Caliphate.

But it’s an indisputable fact that Dan Simon’s logic is indisputable, because that’s what the indisputable Dan Simon keeps telling us… so who am I to argue with him, eh?