Let's just assume, for a moment, the Bin Laden video is authentic:

I doubt it is, but let's look at the central message: If you want to stop the war in Iraq, covert to Islam.

The message obviously addresses the American left. The people who want peace. And the message is, "Become one of us" to a certain extent. He couldn't possibly think we'd actually convert to Islam and fight on his side, could he? I think he just may think of that, because - just like the Bushies - he may be looking at this "war on terror/war on the West" (depending on your perspective) as a "with us or against us" situation. So if we're against the bogus war and all the destruction, we're obviously on "their side." We've heard this before from the American right, but is it ridiculous to think that those other radicals would think the same way?

When our Government makes an appeal to the people of peace in other countries and other cultures, the official message tends to be "Become one of us". We "spread Democracy" like it's magic fairy dust. We measure progress by the number of McDonalds exist in a community. Imagine what the regular folks in Iran or Iraq think of that message? Equally ridiculous as Bin Laden telling the American Left to join up with them. We don't want to be like them. They certainly don't want to be like us. But that doesn't mean we can't be different and live peacefully. It's such a simple message, but how many of the so-called "leaders" really get this?

It shows how the leaders on any "side" will create sides of some bogus conflict, and use it to grow their minions (and their $$ support) and spread their dangerous philosophies into other cultures. It shows a lack of understanding of these cultures, what they value and what their needs are. It doesn't matter much how you practice your religion, where you eat and shop, and - for most regular folks around the world - what your politics are. Your family is fed and sheltered. Your health and safety are protected. If we just focused on that worldwide and ignored the ideological bullshit, peace seems more attainable.

Maybe Bush and other radical conservative leaders DO understand this. They just don't care. There's no power or money in it. They think OUR identities and beliefs exist for them to use. The promise of a "better world" in a narrow vision "be like us" - that will never translate globally.

I'm not "with" any of you, Jack. I'm on the side of peace.

There's a lot of phony patriotism and jingoism surrounding the fighting.

Here in the US, a lot of folks are tired of paying for troops fighting where they shouldn't have ever been, while our lives are crumbling.

the opportunity to convert before striking. See:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4294

I wonder if anyone in the media will put that together.

the Bushes and the Bin Ladens. They're partners in business and partners in crime, and they're benefiting the most from all of this. There's one HUGE assumption that the entire conflict is based upon: Osama is shunned from his wealthy family. That's the only narrative that makes us not see the real conflict: The global elite are protecting their wealth by controling rescources that should be close to obsolete by now. And to do so, they're creating elaborate theater - just to distract people from the simple message of peace. The one thing that is most threatening to their personal prosperity.

The message is not "convert to Islam" for Islam's sake.
Rather, the message is; "As people living in a supposedly democratic system, you possess the tools to change policy. Those policies are killing people and destroying the world."

Islam is simply a tool here. The real issue is the US leadership is killing entire populations of ME countries in pursuit of profit for private corporations.

I think that we need to have a very good understanding of these things in order to deal with them at their root level.

YMMV.

He spoke many truths, and I'm okay with that. But if he expects us to grab a gun because of it, then he's missing the point.

Ive now read the rest of your replies in this thread and agree with you.

Cheers,
Jason

as offensive.

Yes. We need to have a very good understanding of these things.

In '86 or '87 the church I was in had its choir director compose a rather large work for orchestra and choir. It paid musicians to augment the church instrumentalists. And it performed it in a public venue, free admission. The portative organ we used showed up at church services for a week or two so the organist could practice on it; that, at least, was cool.

The concert was free and moderately entertaining, and all the music written by a locally trained neo-Baroque composer who lived in town.

It got reasonable reviews. The reviewers, who believed themselves to have a very good understanding of 'these things', said it was an attempt by a small church to be more open, to show that it belonged to the community and recognized the debt it, like any church, owes to the public. We were "giving back".

The attitude inside the ministerial meetings was that it was evangelism, and the choir director and pastor sincerely believed that there would be converts. If there were no converts, that was ok: It was also intended as a warning for those who did not repent, showing that those who reject God and God's Law are doomed. It was part of the church's fulfillment of Jesus' "Great Commission".

Interestingly, I got to speak to one of the reviewers, months later. I asked how he knew he acquired his 'very good understanding', and he said it was obvious. He wasn't amused when I told him what the church's self-perceived intention was.

I think that UBL would find making a religious, honor-based message into a secular, Western message humorously benighted, showing exactly why submission--Islam, by another name--is so important.

In my opinion, anyone- and I mean anyone who would be offended by what is likely the truth of the matter, is not someone I would care to speak with. And yes, that does include a large segment of the population.

My point is this: if you believe that religion is the central theme behind radical Islam than you are either delusional or very naive.

Think it through.

The European Left often seem far to eager to defend, promote or ignore the the spread Islam.

Violence IS. If people would simply take a position against violence, the world will find that all the other ideological shit is meaningless.

Islam is the most conservative religion/ideology/meme/movement around.

fundies are fundies no matter what flavor they happen to prefer

the Spanish Inquisition I'd agree with the idea that all fundies are equally dangerous, but not in the here and now. They're all dangerous yes, but to the same degree, I doubt it.

it's just a matter of what you're told to believe.

Who has more blood on their hands?
Bush <--- christian
Osama <--- muslim

The company line is there is a "holy war" by the Islamic world against the Christian world.
I'm sure Osama (and much of the Islamic world) feels there is a "holy war" by the Christian world against the Islamic world.

Claiming either religion is the one to blame only perpetuates the lunacy.

The reality is that fundies, of whatever flavor, are dangerous.
It's just that different flavors operate within different constraints.
Pat Robertson is just as just as bad as any radical imam; instead of convincing sheep to strap bombs on themselves he convinces them to elect and support people like Bush who kills on their behalf.

It may all seem much "cleaner" that way, but to the dead people there's not much difference.

How convenient.

I'm referring to the spread of Islam in the West.