ASA,

Well! Thanks for raising further points. My response is as under:

Yes we do not know what is actually going on behind the curtain. We only can assess what could be the most appropriate factual position. In this paragraph, I do not agree to your reasoning because first you say, “Being a Muslim, if one needs to fight against infidel power then in that case one shall keep his benefits and intrests at a side.” My understanding is that you want to say that if a Muslim would fight with any infidel power, then that Muslim cannot prefer ‘Nationalistic’ ambition.

I think my assessment is more appropriate because in my opinion, Osama, being a Muslim, at least is not acting as any ‘hidden ally’ of any infidel force. According to your stance, Osama is a Muslim and at the same time he is acting as ‘indirect ally’ of that infidel force.

In my opinion, Osama is a TRUE Muslim. But the deriving force which is compelling him to fight against USA is not Islam. He is not fighting with USA with the view to spread Islam in USA. His purpose is to get US forces out of middle east territory and politics. So the primary deriving force for Osama is his Nationalism. He is using the name of Islam for his relatively limited Nationalistic reasons. By using the name of Islam, he is able to find ‘ready to die’ people for his own purpose. He does not want to demonstrate himself as any indirect ally of USA. But his all actions are proving helpful for USA. USA happened to be more intelligent than Osama in this case. USA can effectively use this ‘ghost’ of Osama for its own purposes. USA is not capturing Osama not because Osama really is their hidden ally. USA is not capturing Osama because Osama, UNINTENTIALLY is doing all those things which actually go in favor of USA.


About USA’s ethics:

What I said in my previous reply was that ethical position of USA is more strong as compared to Osama, IN THE EYES OF OTHER MAJOR NATIONS OF THE WORLD.

Other major Nations are those who also possess some significant military power. Remember that not a single Muslim country (with a doubtful exception of Pakistan) would come under the purview of ‘major Nation’.

So I still insist that USA is ethically stronger as compared to Osama if we compare them using the spectacle of the VALUE SYSTEMS OF OTHER MAJOR NATIONS OF THE WORLD.

Simple is that Osama is a ‘terrorist’ whereas USA is leading the ‘war against terrorism’. Osama is considered as a leader of suicide bombers. Suicide bombers usually attack on civil places. They kill the innocent people and do not feel any ashamed of it.

Even if we do not use the spectacle of the value system of other major nations, and use the spectacle of our own value system, how can we justify killing of innocent people including women and children ……?????????

Can the killing of innocent civilians be justified how much cruel and unethical their leaders may be?????

I do not think that our own value system allows us that since USA’s army attacks kill our civilians so we also can kill their civilian people.

It is sure fact that despite all the cruelties of USA’s army, USA is really trying hard to prove (before other major nations) that its ethical position is stronger to terrorists. Just consider what USA did in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. Before reading these lines, first wear the spectacle of the value-system of ‘Major Nations’. So what USA did in Afghanistan? Did USA not free the innocent population of Afghanistan from suffering in the hands of a radical and fanatic government? That fanatic government was posing a threat to ‘International peace’ by hosting and helping terrorist organizations in their territory. Afghan (Taliban) government was discriminating every non-sunni and non-Muslim elements of society. Did USA not save those elements from suffering undue discrimination in the hands of a fanatic government?

And then what USA did in Iraq? Was Sadam not a cruel dictator? Did he not kill his own people? Were people of Iraq happy with their government? Was Sadam not posing threat to surrounding countries (including Muslim countries) by trying to produce WMDs?

And Yes many civilians also died due to USA’s attacks in both these countries. But remember this crucial point that USA is still in a position to justify those killings. I already have discussed this point in some detail in another thread. See My post on this thread http://www.cssforum.com.pk/thread2516.html

In short, USA still can justify its position by saying such things as those civilians were not intentionally targeted by army and they were killed just accidentally etc.

In addition to this, USA at least pretends to attack for the sake of ‘welfare’ of civilians. When USA’s fighter planes drop bombs, some others also drop ‘necessaries’ for general people. In this way USA successfully conveys this message to other ‘major nations’ that all what is happening around is just for the sake of ‘welfare’ of civilians. In this way USA successfully kept its ‘strong’ ethical position in the eyes of other major nations.

Contrary to this ‘wise’ strategy of USA, what Osama and the like do is just that they directly target the civilian spots. Purpose of these terrorists is to promote fear in the civil society. This purpose should be contrasted with the ‘wise’ purpose of USA, which is always the ‘welfare’ of civilians. I think even if you wear the spectacle of our own value-system at this point, you can still feel the ugliness of this ‘un-wise’ strategy of Osama and company.

In this way, USA still enjoys the ethical support of major nations whereas Osama and company is ethically isolated.

Those segments of our society, for whom Osama is still the hero of Islam, give over-all very bad image of over-all Muslim societies before other (major) nations. In this way USA can justify its attack on any radical Muslim state without losing the ethical support of those major nations.

What I am saying is that if USA deserves our hatred because of its cruelties then so Osama and company also deserve our hatred. On ground reality is that we hate (only ideologically but not practically) USA but a significant portion of our society loves Osama. This thing gives over-all very bad image of the moral of our society.

And the bad moral qualities of USA’s people which you pointed out are based on their another very good idea of ‘equality’ and ‘freedom of thought and action’. I would again refer to my other post whose link I have mentioned above. So in reference to what I mentioned in my other post, these things also fall under the idea of ‘value preference’. Due to this thing, westerns do not feel any thing bad in their various social evils. Bad things are only those, which can make us feel bad. If anything does not give bad feelings to westerns then those things cannot be considered to be bad by those westerns. So in their minds, westerns are ethically sounder than us.

The bad aspects of our own societies actually go against our own value system. Due to this reason, westerns rightfully call us un-ethical.

Bad aspects of westerns societies actually do not go against their own value system. So we are not right if we consider them un-ethical on the basis of those ‘bad’ aspects because those ‘bad’ aspects do not go against their own value system.

In short, we cannot LOGICALLY prove that westerns are un-ethical because they possess those bad qualities which you have pointed out in your post. To logically prove that westerns are un-ethical we need to state such reasons as would show that such and such acts of them clearly go against their own value system which emphasizes on such things as ‘equality’ and ‘freedom of thought and action’.

You are not fully right in saying that bad aspects of western societies should be considered bad because they go against their own teachings of Christianity. It is so because present day western societies are more infidel than Christians.


In addition to the reasons which you pointed out, I just want to add another point. Decline of Muslim societies started when they left the search for knowledge.


Agree! US and Osama both shall survive for long. And looking forward for what you were about to say about reasons relating to foreign policy.

Regards!

Khuram

__________________
Where is the SIGNATURE....????