The Options

You can kill a person, kill his individual ideas, But you cannot kill an ideology. Whether Osama is dead or alive, or whether he is enjoying a fresh water trout in north of is beside the point.

The fact of the matter is that Osama has floated an ideology, a thought, a concept, that is fortified and strengthened by religion and to neutralize that is Impossible.
So in my opinion the options are…

  • Eliminate all the Muslims on the globe, all 2 billion of them
  • Prove that they are following the wrong religion. (quite impossible)
  • Free Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan.
  • Wait for Martians to attack earth and humans to realize that some wars are beyond religion.

What options do you all have?

Re: The Options

ban you and report you to the feds

Re: The Options

Oh dear. Are you new to gs? (ps interesting post)

Re: The Options

Ban you for spreading sophomoric ideas.

Re: The Options

gamma and dope quit it. And admit the guy has a point.

You can kill a person, kill his individual ideas, But you cannot kill an ideology.

Re: The Options

agree.

Re: The Options

kill all humanity.:rolleyes:

Re: The Options

well I am trying to help the americans , as a think tank probably. :) I am not saying that I have the same ideology , I am just trying to see what options do they have in this "war on terror"

BTW : whats the first amendment , Freedom of speech , well I am just exercising freedom of thought , do I get persecuted for that also?

PS: I am not taking any sides.:)

Re: The Options

Uhmmm, there is a rather large presumption here that each and every Muslim is united in common purpose and belief, all 1.2 Billion of them.

What did work in wiping out Communism, an extremist ideology that was also a cheap excuse for totalitarian regimes, is to challenge that ideology at every opportunity. (Korea, Vietnam, Space, Cuba etc.)

Re: The Options

The right to freedom of expression is not considered unlimited; governments may still punish (but not prohibit) certain damaging types of expressions. Under international law, restrictions on free speech are required to comport with a strict three part test: they must be provided by law; pursue an aim recognized as legitimate; and they must be necessary (i.e., proportionate) for the accomplishment of that aim. Amongst the aims considered legitimate are protection of the rights and reputations of others (prevention of defamation), and the protection of national security and public order, health and morals.

You've been had.

Re: The Options

KiyooN? phaTT gaye?

Re: The Options

doped: what have I said that is against national security :p, if you cant call a spade a spade , then in my opinion thats a breach of "freedom of speech"

Re: The Options

:rolleyes: haann… meri kya tum sab ki phatty howee hai.:slight_smile:

Re: The Options

That speech of Monica almost cost Clinton his job.

Re: The Options

GS is a private forum with its own rules. If you say anything that doesnt fall within its guidelines, GS has the right to ban you. I agree you have said nothing against national security of the US and exercised your right to freedom of speech.
According your logic, I could use my right to freedom of speech at work and declare openly "for"national security that homosexuals are weakening the army by feminizng it. I am sure my ass will be fired…

I just wanted you banned, becaue your ideas are inane…:smiley:

Re: The Options

Ideologies die, all the time. Can anyone tell the ideology behind the religion of the Vikings, or that of the Germanic tribes? How about the idea that earth is the center of the universe?

Re: The Options

^ You mean earth is not the center of the universe?

Re: The Options

Also, this depends on assuming all 2 billion Muslims follow Osama's ideology, and ignored the fact that the openness of Islam to interpretation of the original sources means that there are many different ideologies within Islam.

So you get, say, the ideology of Osama, whereby Jews anywhere are liable to attack, or where civilians amongst your enemies bear responsibility for the actions of your enemy and thus deserve death. Witness the Danny Pearl murder or the synagogue bombing in North Africa, or the Al-Jazeera videos in which Osama praised the 9/11 attacks as a good thing (but did not claim responsibility).

On the other hand, sharing militant ideology but applying much stricter limitations, is the group Hamas. They state that violence against Jews is only permissible against those Jewish individuals who are actively occupying Palestine, and their ideology does not permit attacking jews outside Palestine. Hamas always condemned the 9/11 attacks.

Then you get the group HT, very extremist but refrains from applying violence (pending the reestablishment of the Khalifah in their image, when all hell will break loose since they believe initiating war is permitted to spread Islam)

Then you get the ideologies of Islam as interpreted by the Jamaat-i-Islam, or the Muslim Brotherhood, or the myriad other Islamic groups such as the non-political Tableeghi Jamaat.

The ideology of Osama is around, but it's unclear about whether it will grow or dissipate as people get drawn to the ideology of the many much more active Islamic groups.

Re: The Options

If you being sarcastic, then that wasn’t funny. If you are being serious, then you should be banned for being ignorant…:smiley:

Re: The Options

Dear! I was trying to be neither sarcastic nor funny.
(By the way, I googled it. Now I know it’s Mars. :slight_smile: )