Posted on 12/22/2001 8:04:02 AM PST by tpaine
Shortly after the hijacked planes slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Abu-Ghazala said, he was appalled to hear that only 70 percent of Americans polled said the United States should make sure it knows who is responsible for the attack before striking back. It made him wonder about the other 30 percent of Americans.
``We just needed to bomb somebody,´´ he said. ``There was some level of that all over.´´
I really hate Arab bigots who cry out "defamation" to silence critics of Muslim terrorists, and I hate Libertopians who would have had us leave Afghanistan alone, and allow Osama to finish building his radioactive bombs in peace. And I really hate it when those Libertopians accuse the rest of us of being dimwitted and bloodthirsty for not agreeing with them.
Maybe I won't vote at all, I don't think Lantos needs my help...
And I really hate it when those Libertopians accuse the rest of us of being dimwitted and bloodthirsty for not agreeing with them.
------------------------------------------
How weird. - You seem to have a large hate on for something I've never seen anyone here ever advocate. - Who are these 'libertopians'?
Two bits you don't have the guts to make any real accusations against real people, do you?
Vote for any damn socialist you want.
This is from their press release on September 12th:
The Libertarian Party condemns the vicious and barbaric attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. There is no excuse for such savage acts. No legitimate political or religious ideology can justify the murder of thousands of innocent people. These actions, and the revulsion they cause to all decent people around the world, demonstrate in the starkest way possible that the initiation of force is never an appropriate way to settle political or social differences. The result of such violence is more hatred, more grieving relatives and friends, more tombstones -- and, ultimately, more violence. Libertarians unequivocally reject the initiation of force as a solution to the disagreements between people and between governments.How were we supposed to attack Afghanistan without accidentally killing any innocent people? We couldn't have reasonably done it.The Libertarian Party calls for justice to be meted out to the terrorists responsible for the attacks. However, we encourage the United States government to be sure that any response is appropriate and measured. Action should not be taken that will cause innocent people in other countries to be killed because of the actions of terrorists. Such a response would only continue the cycle of violence and revenge.
Two bits you don't have the guts to make any real accusations against real people, do you?
Vote for any damn socialist you want. - Then, - get lost.
I can't even think of any FReeper who espoused that view, it's so extreme. Like I said, it's not even held by most big-L Libertarians.
It's not even close. One candidate stands for non-intervention and protection of (remaining) civil liberties. Essentially, returning America back to what it was before statists (both Democratic and Republican) chewed it away throughout the 20th century.
There is no question, if you care at all about returning America to its original ideals. Of course if you're a Republican/conservative statist...then it might be a tough call.
Libertarians...accept no substitute! (Except Ron Paul. He's fine. ;-))
Right after 9/11, it wasn't clear who had done the attack. The highjackers certainly didn't leave a manifesto saying who they were, what group they belonged to, and why they did the attack! Many of them used false identities, for crying out loud.
Further, there were indications by the Taliban that they might be willing to turn Osama bin Laden over for trial. They wanted to put on a lot of unacceptable conditions, which of course the U.S. was right to reject. But they also wanted evidence...which is quite reasonable, given that turning bin Laden over was a certain death sentence.
The U.S. never really provided any solid evidence...until the slam-dunk tape, of course. President Bush said, "We know he's guilty" but never provided evidence to show why "we" knew he was guilty. (The President certainly wasn't speaking for ME when he said that...I don't know people are guilty until I see convincing evidence. Preferably a "guilty" verdict in a court of law.)
This shows how pathetic and mindless our press is in America today.
What position of Abu-Ghazali is "controversial"? That he's appalled that 30% of Americans want to bomb someone without finding out first who is responsible?
Or...even worse...that Abu-Ghazali actually TELLS THE TRUTH about Osama bin Laden's motives? Osama bin Laden has made it 100% CRYSTAL CLEAR to anyone but a mindless twit why he sponsored the attacks on 9/11. Those reasons are:
1) American presence in Saudi Arabia (first and foremost), 2) sanctions/bombing of Iraq, and 3) U.S. military aid to Israel.
Tom Lantos tells an absolutely BLATANT LIE...that Osama bin Laden attacked us because of our "open, democratic, inclusive" blah blah blah blah...and the reporter doesn't even QUESTION it! Despite the fact that Osama bin Laden ALWAYS says exactly why he attacks America (see 3 reasons above)! Pathetic.
I don't know much about the Koran (or Islamic law, for that matter). But my understanding of Islam is that everything is supposed to be voluntary. In other words, my understanding of the Koran is that one can believe in the Koran, and still think that everything that it teaches should be followed--or not followed--voluntarily.
What in the world gave you the idea that Mr. Abu-Ghazali wants to institute Islamic law, by the way?
"If he's really a Libertarian, then he doesn't believe in the Koran or Islam."
Based on what *I* know of the Koran and Islam--which I admit is limited--I don't think this statement is true.
Based on what I know of Islamic law, I agree completely agree that Islamic law is completely incompatible with liberarianism. Just as the laws of the United States, instituted by Republicans and Democrats, are completely incompatible with libertarianism! But, as I wrote before, what gives you the idea that Mr. Abu-Ghazali wants to institute Islamic law?
Mark (Libertarian)
How can a Christian or a Jew really be a Libertarian?
I just don't see how someone can believe in the Koran and it's exact opposite at the same time. I think Christians, Jews, and atheists can be libertarians because there is a concept of separation of Church and State in those religions. The US Constitution was designed by people from Christian countries and that wasn't accidental because only Judeo-Christian beliefs would led to the belief in rights given to man by their Creator.
--- I've seen that to a certain extent all of us hold contradicting views on politics/religion. That's what 'faith' vs reason is all about, right?
I think Christians, Jews, and atheists can be libertarians because there is a concept of separation of Church and State in those religions.
--- As Mark mentioned above, there does appear to be some 'voluntary' tradition in accepting islam. Maybe this guy believes that way? Are you claiming he can not?
The US Constitution was designed by people from Christian countries and that wasn't accidental because only Judeo-Christian beliefs would led to the belief in rights given to man by their Creator.
I think you're wrong on that .
Rights are self evident in our free will, which everyone has, regardless of their religious beliefs, or the lack of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.