More Homeless

[selenite0]

I'm still keeping an eye out for a political group I could call home. There's definitely others who agree with me, including other self-proclaimed libertarian hawks, the Anti-Idiotarians, and the Party of the West (I think this is the best summary of the principles we agree on). The last link also has some discussion on how to organize, but the consensus seemed to be that none of us had the time/energy to take that on.

There are some groups that have a presence in the primaries without taking social-conservative stances, such as CLOUT and the Club For Growth. Unfortunately they seem to be single-issue groups on cutting taxes. Club For Growth says they're for "limited government" but I couldn't find anything on their site taking a stand on the Supreme Court decision on eminent domain. I'm sure taxes could get really low if the government just paid people by handing them fully built houses confiscated from former owners. I think "expanding freedom" is a better focus than lowering taxes.

One place where I might find like-minded people is in the movement to draft Condi Rice as a presidential candidate. Those seem to be folks who want an aggressive war policy but less government interference in our personal lives. Now whether Secretary Rice agrees with that domestic agenda is an unknown. It's also not that likely that she'll run, no matter how hard people try to draft her. Secretary of State is a full-time job, she'd have to quit to run a campaign. She's never run for an elected office before and would probably make some rookie mistakes. There's also going to be an incredible amount of personal abuse, at least an order of magnitude more than she's already gotten.

On the other hand--if she's running with Bush's blessing as his successor she might get the Republican nomination with a minimum of nastiness in the primaries. There'd be a Christian fundamentalist running against her which would probably make her look even more like a centrist. Imagine a centrist running for President--might even be the first one in twenty years to get more than 52% of the vote. The results depend on who the Dems nominate, of course. But that could lead to another lovely scenario--if Senator Clinton gets the nomination the US gets its first female president whoever wins.

Comments

Bin Laden's Fatwa

[perich.livejournal.com]

(Note: I want to stress that, despite the tone I take in the following, my conclusion is not "appease the terrorists and capitulate to their demands." That's bad policy no matter how you slice it. But the other extreme - "ignore their demands and pretend they're not an issue" is equally infeasible)

Bin Laden's own fatwa is entitled, "Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Two Holy Places." That puts it more clearly than I even thought possible - Al-Qaeda's ire is raised by the fact that the West occupies places that they find holy. It's right there in print.

After the initial obeisances and invocations to Allah, he gets right to the heart of things:

It should not be hidden from you that the people of Islam had suffered from aggression, iniquity and injustice imposed on them by the Zionist-Crusaders alliance and their collaborators; to the extent that the Muslims blood became the cheapest and their wealth as loot in the hands of the enemies. Their blood was spilled in Palestine and Iraq. The horrifying pictures of the massacre of Qana, in Lebanon are still fresh in our memory. Massacres in Tajakestan, Burma, Cashmere, Assam, Philippine, Fatani, Ogadin, Somalia, Erithria, Chechnia and in Bosnia-Herzegovina took place, massacres that send shivers in the body and shake the conscience. All of this and the world watch and hear, and not only didn't respond to these atrocities, but also with a clear conspiracy between the USA and its' allies and under the cover of the iniquitous United Nations, the dispossessed people were even prevented from obtaining arms to defend themselves.

That's a pretty explicit laundry list of grievances. I don't see the words "Madrid" or "Manhattan" anywhere in there.

He makes very clear that the "two Holy Places" need to be remade by undoing man-made civil law ("no acquiring of power except through Allah") and re-instituting shari'ah. But to suggest that he's ordering Muslims to remake the West in the same way? I don't see it.

Re: Bin Laden's Fatwa

[deviantsaint.livejournal.com]

So when the president makes a speech do you take it as cannon as well? or do you watch what he does instead?

-DS

Re: Bin Laden's Fatwa

[perich.livejournal.com]

If we're using bin Laden's religious diatribes as evidence for his motives, then that evidence suggests he wants the U.S. out of the Middle East. (What's the point of citing the fatwa if I wasn't supposed to read it?)

If we're using Al-Qaeda's actions as evidence, than that evidence suggests they want the U.S. out of the Middle East.

Either way you slice it ...

Re: Bin Laden's Fatwa

[selenite.livejournal.com]

Ibid:
the sons of the land of the two Holy Places feel and strongly believe that fighting (Jihad) against the Kuffar in every part of the world, is absolutely essential

Translation: It is a religious obligation to impose Islam on the whole planet.

As for Madrid, he doesn't call it that. It's "Al-Andalus", a Muslim land stolen by Christians. And he's still pissed.

Some more background reading, if you're interested:
http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/09/Whoisourenemy.shtml
http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/09/Arabtraditionalism.shtml

and another take on that, from a more historical angle, concentrating more on Koranic background and the resulting psychology:
http://esr.ibiblio.org/index.php?m=200206#48
http://esr.ibiblio.org/index.php?m=200206#6
http://esr.ibiblio.org/index.php?m=200206#51
http://esr.ibiblio.org/index.php?m=200206#22
http://esr.ibiblio.org/index.php?m=200207#87

Re: Bin Laden's Fatwa

[noumignon.livejournal.com]

Ibid:
the sons of the land of the two Holy Places feel and strongly believe that fighting (Jihad) against the Kuffar in every part of the world, is absolutely essential

Translation: It is a religious obligation to impose Islam on the whole planet.

Wasn't U.S. policy in the Cold War to fight Communism in every part of the world? Did that mean we were trying to impose capitalism on others or was it just the only way to keep Communism from imposing itself on us?

Re: Bin Laden's Fatwa

[selenite.livejournal.com]

"Containment" meant defending any nation that the Communists were trying to take over. So once Cuba, Vietnam, etc. had been settled we didn't try to go back in. Nor did we send troops into the USSR after the Russian Civil War ended. That was strategy during the whole Cold War. So there was never a time we were trying to "impose" democracy/capitalism on another nation.

Our current troubles could probably have been averted if we had done some imposing of democracy on our allies. But given what Soviet nukes could do to our country, and what Communist governments have done to their people, I'm glad our leaders focused on winning the war they were in instead of worrying too much about the next one.