Bin Laden To U.S. Borrowers: Better Get Ditech!

Osama Bin Laden is back with a new tape (apparently), with a black beard this time around. The most humiliating angle to all this? He's probably dead and he's still beat to market the release of Chinese Democracy by Axl Rose (sadly, even China will likely produce its own democracy before Rose gets his act together).

ABC News has a summary of sorts of the highlights from OBL's new tape.

Echoing the conventional wisdom among many Americans, bin Laden sees the war as a mess and smacks both the GOP and the Dems for letting it continue:

"You permitted Bush to complete his first term, and stranger still, chose him for a second term, which gave him a clear mandate from you -- with your full knowledge and consent -- to continue to murder our people in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Then you claim to be innocent!  The innocence of yours is like my innocence of the blood of your sons on the 11th -- were I to claim such a thing…."

"People of America:  the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq, for people have recently come to know that, after several years of tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped.  Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning.  On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there."

He pledges to continue the war against the West and says further:

"It has now become clear to you and the entire world the impotence of the democratic system and how it plays with the interests of the peoples and their blood by sacrificing soldiers and populations to achieve the interests of the major corporations."

And in a big finish, he name-checks French President Sarkozy and Noam Chomsky, and yaps about global warming and the Kyoto Accord; in other words, he's slightly less interesting that a YouTube presidential debate.

But he does deliver a tax plan designed for those of us crushed 

"under the burden of interest-related debts, insane taxes and real estate mortgages…"

"To conclude," bin Laden says, "I invite you to embrace Islam."  He goes on to say:  "There are no taxes in Islam, but rather there is a limited Zakaat [alms] totaling 2.5 percent."

More here.

Hmm, a promise of low taxes melded to arch social conservatism? Didn't this guy get the midterm elections?

Before any of you do a John Walker Lindh based on OBL's great teaser rate, check out Timur Kuran's super 2004 book, Islam and Mammon, which runs through in exacting and appalling detail just how screwed up attempts to apply Islamist concepts to commerce really are.

Former reason editor Virginia Postrel wrote up Kuran in The NY Times a while back. Check it out here.

Comments

[Cesar]

Not only is bin Laden a murderer of thousands of people, he manages to combine the absolute bottom of the garbage bin of leftism together with seventh-century religious fundamentalism. What a cock-sucking skunk.

[VM]

What Cesar said.

and he's a fucking clownshoes moron.

USA! USA! USA!

[NotThatDavid]

(sadly, even China will likely produce its own democracy before Rose gets his act together).

I honestly do believe that at the rate Axl and China, respectively, are progressing, if the album ever does come out the title will no longer be ironic.

[Cesar]

Axl could re-name it "Iraqi Democracy".

[SIV]

Not only is bin Laden a murderer of thousands of people, he manages to combine the absolute bottom of the garbage bin of leftism together with seventh-century religious fundamentalism.

Yeah but it is a Progressive seventh-century religious fundamentalism.

[Cesar]

I wasn't aware Burkahs are the epitome of feminism.

[Cesar]

Oh, and hes for the flat-tax! Guess Islamofascism has something for everyone!

[Brian Sorgatz]

When messages from terrorists are this boring, surely the terrorists have lost.

[J sub D]

Axl Rose has a long way to go to match the record currently held by Brian Wilson

[Episiarch]

Osama has no style. He's like today's modern rock stars who preach environmentalism or African aid instead of doing drugs, groupies, and hotel rooms.

He needs some more insane ranting, threats to kill all 300 million of us, something.

Get in the game, dude.

[S.A. Miller]

Gillespie, why did you leave out his Vietnam/Kennedy Assassination nonsense?

He seems to think Donald Rumsfeld started the Vietnam war, and then "major corporations" assassinated John Kennedy for trying to stop the Vietnam war.

You permitted Bush to complete his first term, and stranger still, chose him for a second term, which gave him a clear mandate from you -- with your full knowledge and consent -- to continue to murder our people in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So I guess that settles the question about if his 2004 tape was an endorsement of John Kerry or not.

[rho]

From a future Fox News debate:

Chris Wallace: Dr. Paul, Osama bin Laden recently released a tape where he called for the US to get out of Iraq. Doesn't that show that your position on the war comes straight out of a cave in Pakistan?

Ron Paul: Chris, he also advocated a flat-tax. I guess Neal Boortz gets his marching orders from old busy-whiskers too?

[J sub D]

And yet, he refuses to debate Richard Dawkins,or Sam Harris, or Christopher Hitchens. Friggin' coward.

[crimethink]

Yeah, but what will Osama do to solve the subprime crisis? He's just like a politician, totally disconnected from the issues REAL people care about. He's lost my vote, I'll tell you that much.

[Cesar]

Now having bin Laden debate Hitchens after we capture him would be the most awesome thing we could do, IMO.

Well, besides executing him live on Court TV.

[SxCx]

Is it bad that the world's most infamous terrorist is starting to sound like Dr. Evil?

[crimethink]

Seriously though, I'm really disappointed that Osama didn't submit any questions for the YouTube debates. That would've been awesome, especially if it were a question about health care or something else totally unrelated to the WoT.

[iih]

Nick Gillespie:

Agreed on all except:

Before any of you do a John Walker Lindh based on OBL's great teaser rate, check out Timur Kuran's super 2004 book, Islam and Mammon, which runs through in exacting and appalling detail just how screwed up attempts to apply Islamist concepts to commerce really are.

Luckily, you used "Islamist concepts" instead of "Islamic concepts", with which I agree if by "Islamist" you are referring to OBL and his ideology.

As an arduous online participant on reason.com and print edition subscriber, I find it odd that the editot-in-chief of reason omits citing Reason's Tim Cavanaugh interview with Imad A. Ahmed:

Revealed Libertarianism: Minaret of Freedom tries to square the Quran with the free market. A Reason interview

(http://www.reason.com/news/show/33315.html)

and this informal discussion on Islamic finances that I participated in at:

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/122067.html

Both of these reveal (at least in an informal, non-scientific manner that can be made rigorous) that "Islamic" finances, while not quite capitalist in philosophy, is not as painted by Kuran in his book.

Note: Kuran is a secular Turk, which implies (at least in the Turkish context) some over-bias against "Islam".

[jimmy smith]

We can't catch Hitchens? Damn !! He was just on a talk show. It looked easy. That wily old drunk got away again. Damn!!

[Cesar]

We can't catch Hitchens? Damn !! He was just on a talk show. It looked easy. That wily old drunk got away again. Damn!!

I should have been more careful in my use of pronouns, but I thought you would know from the context who was being referred to with "capture him".

[Ray G]

I wouldn't want to catch Hitchens anyway. Surly, smelly, you can have him.

[Mo]

Low taxes, religious conservatism and the US out of Iraq? Not to mention he's armed to the teeth, He's Ron Paul!

[Asmo]

It took him three years to come up with that mess. Lol, crawl back to your cave.

[thoreau]

Yeah, ranting about social causes like an aging rock star, and trying to improve his appearance. He's sold out, man. Remember the old school Bin Laden? Before he went commercial and got a taste of fame? He'd start every show with a homemade bomb (not the expensive jetliners from his big TV extravaganza) and halfway through he'd do a scimitar solo on a live prisoner. Dude was hardcore. Now he's more concerned with getting the lineup for Live Earth 2.

I'm telling you, terrorists these days are all about the TV appearances. What happened to the good old days, when it was all about the murder and mayhem?

He's just another aging star, just like Spinal Tap. And his assistants keep dying like Spinal Tap drummers.

[toxic]

I half suspect Osama is dead, and that the Republicans have a look a like release tapes like that when they need a political boost.

[iih]

Another reference worth of mentioning regarding finances in Islam:

http://www.minaret.org/austrian.htm

(The font is kind of crappy, but do not let that stop you from reading it.)

[G]

He reminds me of Al Gore with a better body and a better tax plan.

[James Anderson Merritt]

"...in other words, he's slightly less interesting that a YouTube presidential debate..."

But still WAY, WAY funnier than "Family Guy."

[Marcvs]

He also speaks to recent issues grabbing headlines in the United States, referring to "the reeling of many of you under the burden of interest-related debts, insane taxes and real estate mortgages; global warming and its woes..."

Sub-prime mortgages as a reason to convert to Islam? This is the inspirational leader of al-Qaeda? Is he a terrorist or running for office in 2008?

[dhex]

But still WAY, WAY funnier than "Family Guy."

lies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlNdpU1R4hs

[Jennifer]

It's our fabulous end-of-summer blowout sale! Convert to Islam now and you'll get a low low tax rate of only 2.5 percent! And if you call within the next 15 minutes, you can take advantage of our special "four wives for the price of one" deal. Go Islam! Our prices are INSANE!!!!

[John-David]

Axl Rose has a long way to go to match the record currently held by Brian Wilson

I have Smile, and while I'm sure it would have been much more impressive coming out in the 60s, it's still an incredible piece of work.

[ComparisonShopper]

...you can take advantage of our special "four wives for the price of one" deal.

That sounds good, but I still want to hear what offer the fundy Mormons will have...

[mk]

I wouldn't want to catch Hitchens anyway.

Nor should you try. He's a kicker.

[J sub D]

It's our fabulous end-of-summer blowout sale! Convert to Islam now and you'll get a low low tax rate of only 2.5 percent! And if you call within the next 15 minutes, you can take advantage of our special "four wives for the price of one" deal. Go Islam! Our prices are INSANE!!!!
He's just trying to undercut my %5 offer described in my declaration of The CHURCH OF WE DON'T KNOW SHIT AND WE'RE SURE OF IT!. I've still got him on the truth in advertising angle.

[iih]

That sounds good, but I still want to hear what offer the fundy Mormons will have...

You may also want to shop around for Hinduism, too. Several African religions as well. A (not-so-complete) list can be found at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Polygamy_and_religion

[Karen]

Low taxes, religious conservatism and the US out of Iraq? Not to mention he's armed to the teeth, He's Ron Paul!

Well, you've never seen them in the same room, have you?

[iih]

But on a serious note, regarding polygamy, polyandry, same-sex relations, etc, if the relationship is consensual, should libertarians have any problems with such arrangements? Just asking.

[iih]

Disclaimer: Before anyone starts to make any accusations, spew offensive words and name calling, I personally do not plan on marrying more than one person (woman in my case 😉 ). I think my question is meant as a thought provoking question to all honest libertarians.

OK, now that I am done with my defensive preemption...

[MRW]

What's Eric Dondero to do? If, after all, lower taxes are the most important consideration for libertarians...

[ACW]

IIH: If it's between CONSENTING ADULTS, I have no problem.

[Ruthless]

Thanks to the current issue of Reason, we know we are economically illiterate over here.
But Osama takes the cake.
My buddy, Waki Paki, would kick his ass. (Or kick behind his knee as Waki is shorter than I.)
Could Osama still afford a tutorial from Walter Williams?

[iih]

ACW:

"Consenting adults" was my implicit underlying assumption. Full disclosure of the individual's "other relationships" is probably necessary, too. But the specifics of the "contract" is a matter that should be left to the two individuals.

[Brian Courts]

if the relationship is consensual, should libertarians have any problems with such arrangements?

No. That was easy - next question?

But seriously, I don't think you'll get much of an argument from libertarians that consenting adults should be free to arrange their domestic, familial, sexual, or personal associations however they choose. There are contentious issues within libertarian circles but that is not one of them.

[iih]

Brian:

That's what I thought. Just a quick reality check.

[ACW]

iih, agreed.

Brian nails it.

[William Cosmo Monkhouse]

There was an old fellow of Lyme
Who lived with three wives at one time.
When asked, 'Why the third?'
He replied, 'One's absurd,
And bigamy, sir, is a crime.

[iih]

There was an old fellow of Lyme
Who lived with three wives at one time.
When asked, 'Why the third?'
He replied, 'One's absurd,
And bigamy, sir, is a crime.

LOL!

[wayaway]

But on a serious note, regarding polygamy, polyandry, same-sex relations, etc, if the relationship is consensual, should libertarians have any problems with such arrangements? Just asking.

Raises a question for me, are there any religions of note that DON'T have a problem with same-sex 'arrangements'?

[crimethink]

iih,

I don't think there would be any problem with private alternative marriage arrangements; the question is whether the state should grant privileges associated with marriage to such arrangements.

[Brian Courts]

the question is whether the state should grant privileges associated with marriage to such arrangements.

I think most libertarians are opposed to the state granting privileges to any form of marriage, or being involved in such a personal issue at all, so they would not see that as much of a question from a philosophical point of view.

[BakedPenguin]

"Consenting adults" was my implicit underlying assumption.

It's number 3 on the list of libertarian boilerplates. Fundamentalists who espouse polygamy often ignore this, meaning that they marry 12 years-olds. Think Mormon fundys, the Taliban, etc.

[BakedPenguin]

Arrgh. "Fundamentalists who espouse polygamy often ignore cultural mores as well as laws regarding this, meaning that..."

[iih]

wayaway:

None that I am aware of. Islam certainly not. But, in Islam, extra-marital relations (defined precisely as between a man and a woman, with the possibility of up to 4 consenting women, with a full disclosure regarding other marriages), are prohibited, which includes with others of the same sex or otherwise. if a man marries a woman without disclosing the fact that he is in another marriage is a reason for the wife requesting divorce based on deceit of the husband in not disclosing.

Now my belief, as a Muslim, that what happens inside a bedroom between any two consenting adults is non of anyone's business. And that matches my Islamic belief because the condition in Islam for applying the penalty of adultery requires having 4 witnesses. To me this means an act of indecency in a public place (if you have 4 people witnessing the two adults "in action" is pretty much to say "in public".) The testimony of spies, or the use of spy cameras to prove such a behavior in a private property is automatically disregarded because spying and surveillance of others without consent is prohibited by Islamic law.

But I am not sure you will find much discourse among modern-day Muslims of this question because it is taboo.

However, what they often discuss is "what constitutes" adulterous behavior. A widely agreed upon definition is the actual act of "penetration" (sorry for being so obtuse). And it still has to be witnessed by 4 people. Otherwise, there is very little room to "pin down" adulterers in Islam. However, puritans in Taliban-run Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan, Nigeria, and many rural areas use a much more relaxed definition of adultery, and hence the numerous occasions in which people are stoned for adultery that we here about here in the West. Needless to say, this is coupled with dogmatic traditions where mostly women are "punished" and very few men "are".

[iih]

Brian:

I think most libertarians are opposed to the state granting privileges to any form of marriage, or being involved in such a personal issue at all, so they would not see that as much of a question from a philosophical point of view.

Only in modern times have governments in Islamic countries have been involved in certifying the contracts. This probably came with the heavily bureaucratically conscious Ottomans. In Islamic jurisprudence, a man and a woman were considered married once an "announcement" is made to make society aware of it. This very local society of friends and neighbors was required to be made aware in case of any legal settlements that needed to be made.

[iih]

bakedPenguin:

Agreed.

[iih]

[iih]

Shoot... something went wrong and now I have to retype all again. I guess I can summarize.

crimethink:

the question is whether the state should grant privileges associated with marriage to such arrangements.

Certainly agree. One thing I do not quite understand, why do people have to go to the government for marriages? I think I have some ideas (e.g., legal consequences of the death of a spouse, infidelity, etc), after all if there is a contract, what other 3rd party will overlook the proper execution of the contract other than government? As I said, in traditional society, this "government" is a very small one composed of family and friends, or the "neighborhood" if you will.

[Brian Courts]

Fundamentalists who espouse polygamy often ignore this, meaning that they marry 12 years-olds.

Yes, I think that is true, but that shouldn't prevent us from arguing that where we really do indeed have consenting adults it ought not be anyone's business how they arrange their life.

I would agree, though, that the actual practices of those cultures which embrace polygamy tend to be quite illiberal, particularly in the practice of arranged marriages of women (and yes, often young girls). That is clearly wrong and nobody defending the more philosophical issue would want to be tainted with any implicit endorsement of what is essentially slavery. That is why the "boilerplate", as you put, it is necessary.

[iih]

Just realized that my punctuation, spelling, sentence structure was a bit messed up. Well, it is the weekend anyways, and it is almost 11 here and I am in no mood to write proper English essays anyways... so please forgive my carelessness.

[iih]

Brian:

I would agree, though, that the actual practices of those cultures which embrace polygamy tend to be quite illiberal, particularly in the practice of arranged marriages of women (and yes, often young girls).

Sure. And that is why many "moderate" Muslims like myself ask that non-Muslims distinguish between Islamic scriptural teachings and traditional cultures of Muslims. Best case in point is Ayan Hirsi Ali's tendency to blame her own experience with traditional pre-Islamic/un-Islamic practices on Islam itself.

[iih]

Brian:

... My implication is that "arranged marriages" (without the woman's consent) and "under-age" marriages are not acceptable in Islamic theology, still many Muslims do practice these traditions, not because of Islam, but despite it.

Of course, the definition of "under-age" is another culturally dependent quantity. In Islam, both male and female youngsters are considered adults after pubescence. That does not mean, however, that girls have to be married right at that time, because there are many other considerations. Moreover, if a modern society decides to have age of adulthood to be 18, then it is considered a by-law that does not violate the original definition of adulthood and is also acceptable.

[Brian Courts]

iih,

Just a couple quick comments before I must leave. Certainly the age at which someone is considered an adult is debatable, and we have debated that issue here in fact on many occasions. Clearly some people fall on one side of the adulthood line and some on the other, but exactly where it lies will forever be a source of contention I suppose.

However, unlike the age of adulthood which is at least somewhat subjective, in the case of arranged/forced marriages, I think it is absolutely wrong regardless of the culture. In other words, one is an issue of degree open to debate (age) the other (forced marriage) is always wrong as an egregious affront to the fundamental human dignity of the individual.

As to your previous remarks about the source of such practices (i.e. religious vs. cultural) I am not so concerned with whether we blame one or the other - and I'll accept that you can be a Muslim and believe that such practices are not part of Islam. For me, I am very much an individualist so I think trying to ascribe traits, thoughts, opinions, etc to people based on group membership whether religious, cultural or otherwise, is problematic to start with. All I am concerned with is the behavior of individuals towards other individuals, regardless of their professed, hidden, or even unconscious reasons.

Ok, so I am rambling a bit and out of time to clean it up - but I guess that is a long way of saying I have no issue with anyone who is a Muslim (or Christian, Jew, atheist, etc.) - only an issue with particular individuals who behave towards another individual in a manner that is inconsistent with a basic level of human dignity and respect.

[iih]

Brian:

Great "talking" to you. That was a good discussion.

But quickly regarding:

[iih]

this website....

... But quickly regarding:

However, unlike the age of adulthood which is at least somewhat subjective, in the case of arranged/forced marriages, I think it is absolutely wrong regardless of the culture.

I am in 100% agreement, and so does Islam.

[Hugh Akston]

I guess my friends were right, libertarians are never more than six degrees of separation away from a discussion of polygamy.

On another note:
"It has now become clear to you and the entire world the impotence of the democratic system and how it plays with the interests of the peoples and their blood by sacrificing soldiers and populations to achieve the interests of the major corporations."

Didn't Hillary say something similar at the last Democratic debate?

[iih]

Hugh:

Give me a single belief system, ideology or philosophy that is not six degrees of separation from anything that is taboo or controversial?

[Hugh Akston]

iih,

Anybody who holds no controversial opinion has no need of an ideology.

And I'm merely pointing out that this thread originated as a reaction to the new bin Laden video, and became a debate about polyamory in fewer than 70 posts. I doubt it goes this way on Democrat or Republican discussions. Or even those rare discussions between them.

[Marco]

So Bin Laden likes the US, huh?

[Mad Max]

"So Bin Laden likes the US, huh?"

He must *really* like the US, because that was post #69.

[edna]

"the law of the land is the law."

just thought i'd give jewish polygamists equal time.

[iih]

Hello edna:

"the law of the land is the law."

That too applies in Islam. I.e., if a Muslim is in non-Muslim lands, they should abide by the law of the land even if in violation of basic Islamic law. That does not say that there are those who go around this, especially when the topic is polygamy. See this article on polygamy:

http://www.slate.com/id/2170977/

[iih]

should read:

"That does not say that there are those who do not go around this, especially when the topic is polygamy."

[iih]

Mad Max:

Which one is post #69. I am not sure how to find it.

[Frank]

Hey, has anybody used their brain today? The tape's transcript was dictated by our US gov't, which has just a teensy-weensy motivation to make him sound like a monster. Nothing coming out of the media about this video is believable until the actual vide is released to the public. The gov't isn't releasing it because they're lying to us again.

[edna]

frank: common sense. do you think something that easily caught (the tape isn't just released to the u.s. government) would be done? our government might be stupid, but not [i]that[/i] stupid. in a world with memri (and other forms of distributed intelligence), it's hard to b.s. about translation/transcription.

[iih]

Frank:

Oh, I think it is certainly real. But probably recorded a long while ago. He's probably dead for all we know. but there is no hard evidence that we the public know of through this and other governments that indicate that he's dead. So, until then, he's still alive.

[Edward]

From the lips of a Libertarian saint:

"Why do you think 9-11 happened and nothing since then? Do you think our security is so great here . . . ? Nine-11 was done by people in our own government, in our own banking system to perpetuate the fear of the American people into subordinating themselves to anything the government wants them to do . . . that's what it's all about." --Aaron Russo

[Daze]

Is there a designated hitter in Islamic baseball? If not, that might sway me.

[Andy]

Cesar writes:

He manages to combine the absolute bottom of the garbage bin of leftism.

I'm not sure I would characterize his rantings 'leftism' - it's only leftism in the sense that he wants the US to withdraw, but he advocates low taxes, religious war, and religious fundamentalism, which sounds more like the bottom of the garbage bin of rightism to me.

[iih]

I'm not sure I would characterize his rantings 'leftism' - it's only leftism in the sense that he wants the US to withdraw, but he advocates low taxes, religious war, and religious fundamentalism, which sounds more like the bottom of the garbage bin of rightism to me.

It is neither right nor left. It is just "advocating religious war, and religious fundamentalism" and extremism. Period. Why blame it on the right or left?

[Cesar]

Andy-

What about all that stuff about "the corporations controlling your government"? And over-concern with money and materialism?

[J sub D]

But on a serious note, regarding polygamy, polyandry, same-sex relations, etc, if the relationship is consensual, should libertarians have any problems with such arrangements? Just asking.

No!.

[J sub D]

Raises a question for me, are there any religions of note that DON'T have a problem with same-sex 'arrangements'?
It appears that some of the protestant demoninations in "The West" are moving that way.

[Lost_In_Translation]

come on, polygamism is the bane of society. Look at Islam and the Mormon cults that still practice it. It encourages a basic tribalism and strict hierarchy that alienates the less successful of society and gives them little to no chance of procreation. This induces extremism as a response and encourages them to go against the basic rules of society because there is no incentive to follow them.

Monogamy is the only way to a stable society in today's world.

Now show me a world where women outnumber men 10:1 and I'll buy the libertarian philosophy that polygamy is OK, but right here, right now, polygamy is rightly banned in civilized society.

[iih]

LIT:

Now show me a world where women outnumber men 10:1 and I'll buy the libertarian philosophy that polygamy is OK, but right here, right now, polygamy is rightly banned in civilized society.

No one here said that polygamy or any other life style (including monogamy) is good or bad for society/individual.

The discussion was on whether individuals have the right to choose their own lifestyle without government intervention. That is all.

By the way, I agree with you that monogamy is "the only way to a stable society" especially in light of modern day economic constraints, etc. Just FYI, Islam does not mandate polygamy. It only permits it. I think that the percentage of Muslim men around the world who have more than one wife (which does not equate to having 4) is less than 1%. I heard that from a University of Nova Scotia professor. I can try to find the source if you are interested.

[Jennifer]

Now show me a world where women outnumber men 10:1 and I'll buy the libertarian philosophy that polygamy is OK, but right here, right now, polygamy is rightly banned in civilized society.

Nonsense. Just allow polyandry as well.

[iih]

Jennifer:

Someone finally nailed it! Now that is a legitimate criticism of Islamic marriage law. Why allow it for men but not women? But you will need to go through some Islamic theology to get an answer (that many in the West may still not like).

[Russ 2000]

OBL sends these things to ABC news? Sheesh, is this guy stuck in the middle ages or what? If he'd post them on YouTube he'd reach a larger audience.