(1) He has openly stated his desire to reestablish the caliphate, which existed in history and which was notoriously aggressive, belligerent, and repressive. Do you deny this?
(2) I don't care in the slightest about bin Laden and so feel no need to "demonize" him. He is not a leader in any sense of the word, only a financier -- and his financial assets are now largely frozen. I could attribute your desire to evangelize him to your Canadianness, but I tremble for fear of being dragged before your dread Human Rights Commissions!
(3) I don't care in the slightest about Saudis, either, and nothing I've ever said should indicate as much.
You're misunderstanding me.
If his motives were exclusively nationalistic he would not give a fig about Jordanians.
But he does give a fig about Jordanians. Ergo his motives must not be exclusively nationalistic.
Continuing? That's the first time I've used the word "infidel" in this thread and, as far as I can recall, any time within the last few months.
I refer to the distinction between the dar al-Islam and the dar al-Harb.
That's an assertion, not an argument.
Re: "the choice of his people", I am again uninterested. The interests of the west do not align in favor of a united Middle Eastern caliphate with all the attendant belligerence and oppression and so it must not be permitted. That's all.
I defy you to point out where I've challenged you on typos. This is an Internet forum, not a term paper.
You bait me on the basis of a lie and then report me for calling you out on it? You are twice as petty as I thought originally. And moreover you have no stomach for banter.
