You say "Muslims" and "Islamic," but note that my opposition is towards Islamism -- using the Koran as the basis for a theocratic and authoritarian system of government. I'm confident there are liberty-loving Muslims out there somewhere, but not among the Islamists.
You are using moral relativism, equating Islamism with libertarianism. That is fundamentally flawed logic. Libertarians are good; Islamists are bad. Got it? Your mother was supposed to teach you this stuff. There are some ideologies that are seriously flawed and dangerous. Among those are communism, socialism, fascism, feudalism, and Islamism. Would I be falling for the boogeyman stories if communism or fascism were growing worldwide, and I worried about it? Would a growing Christian theocracy concern you? As a libertarian, I DO believe my libertarian values are good, and I DO believe that anything that benefits liberty is good. I can distinguish good ideologies from bad. If Islamists kept to their own little authoritarian outpost in Waziristan, I would have no concern. But when those same Islamists spread their ways in numerous countries, and harbor those responsible for murdering thousands of Americans, then I can no longer ignore them. From: ma ni Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 7:03 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Libertarian] Stop the War FOR Terror Here's one of your Islamic boogey men doing you: "I don't see how preemption against well-established anti-Muslims is inherently non-Islamic. The more anti-Muslims I neuter, the better for the Islamic cause. As you can hopefully see, your inconsistent libertarianism is no better than criminal; and would justify any kind of crime, as long as it eventually benefited someone claiming to be a libertarian. It's similar to the "end justifies the means" value in a messiah complex: "I am good, so ANYTHING I do to benefit myself is good. It's becoming difficult to explain each and every one of your MANY instances of skewed libertarian logic, but the underlying cause would seem to be predicated on your rejection of the "consistent" part. ----------------------------------- I don't see how preemption against well-established anti-libertarians is inherently non-libertarian. The more anti-libertarians I neuter, the better for the libertarian cause. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
