Searching for GOD...

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Oh, let me think about this one for a minute, because it is really, really hard.

Maybe that Harris writes books and articles, while Bin Laden was the leader and mastermind of a terrorist organisation that deliberately murdered thousands of innocent people.

Yup, clearly entirely the same VG. As I said previously beyond contempt.

As I did not say the two were the same in terms of any crimes they had committed, you're contempt is meaningless.

But welcome nonetheless  since Harris's thoughts on how to deal with a terrorist threat makes him and you as an apologist for him beyond contempt.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Of course he is. Have you even read the link you posted?

No he isn't. Yes I have read it. Have you?

[ProfessorDavey]

As I did not say the two were the same in terms of any crimes they had committed, ...

And do tell us please exactly what crimes Sam Harris has committed VG.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Goalpost moving or what.

Yes you are right - Dave Rubin did move the goalposts. In Harris's book he wrote about a pre-emptive nuclear strike on an Islamist regime, not the Muslim World. Dave Rubin did not ask Harris about that the words Harris wrote in his book during that interview. I fully accept Harris never said he wanted a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the Muslim world and I have never suggested that he did.

But even so, Sam Harris's position is that, if a Jihadist regime with the same mentality as those that flew planes into the World Trade Centre gets long range nuclear weapons, it is inevitable that we will have to annihilate them to save the rest off the World.

Firstly, Sam Harris said an Islamist regime "which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise". He did not write that the Islamist regime has the same mentality as those that flew planes into the WTC.

Secondly, what evidence supports Sam Harris's claim that an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, will lauch nuclear weapons against civilians? Where is the evidence that people who bomb civilian buildings (e.g. in Beirut, Occupied Territories, Vietnam etc etc) will launch nuclear weapons if they ever got their hands on it? Other than the USA dropping a couple of atomic bombs and killing a few hundred thousand Japanese civilians in a couple of days I mean. But apart from that, where is the evidence?

This is such  a horrific thing that we need to do everything we can to stop it. That includes moderate Muslims not enabling the extremists and starting actively opposing them

Interesting prejudices you have there, given the number of terrorist activities that have been disrupted by moderate Muslims. Not to mention the failings of the intelligence services in following up on potential terrorist sympathisers they have been alerted to. The argument that moderate US citizens are enabling mass murder-suicide shootings of school children by their own citizens doesn't seem to gain much traction in the US. It's almost as if it's really, really hard to spot potential suicidal mass murderers - I mean surely suicidal mass-murderers g around talking about their plans to commit mass-murder all the time, but dunno maybe everyone is too busy watching Oprah to pick up the phone and tell the police before the mass-murderer heads off to the closest infant school. Go figure. So you thought that must be the same deal with the moderate Muslims right? 

The idea that Harris wants a pre-emptive strike on the Muslim world or any part of it is a slur.

Now address the actual words he wrote - he contemplated killing millions of innocent people by a pre-emptive strike on an Islamist regime, based on his guesses. The word "may" doesn't change the fact that he contemplated it and wrote "it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe."

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

And do tell us please exactly what crimes Sam Harris has committed VG.

No idea.

Why? Do you know of any? Care to share?

[ProfessorDavey]

No idea.

So given that you have admitted that you don't have any idea whether Harris has committed any crimes why on earth would you make the following statement:

As I did not say the two were the same in terms of any crimes they had committed ...

Which clearly implies that they have both committed crimes and therefore a comparison of their respective crimes is a reasonable thing. So come on then VG - either tell what crimes Harris has committed or retract the comment.

Bottom line - stop trying to suggest any equivalence between a writer and blogger, on the one hand, and a mass murderer of innocent people on the other. It is contemptible and, frankly, pathetic.

There are plenty of writers who I don't agree with, sometimes passionately disagree with. I'd never place them in a box of equivalence with the mass murderer Bin Laden regardless of how much I disagreed with their writing.

[ProfessorDavey]

Firstly, Sam Harris said an Islamist regime "which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise". He did not write that the Islamist regime has the same mentality as those that flew planes into the WTC.

Wrong - have you actually bothered to read the section - this is part of it.

"We must come to terms with the possibility that men who are every bit as zealous to die as the nineteen hijackers may one day get their hands on long-range nuclear weaponry.

He is very clear that when he is talking about islamists that he means people with the same mentality as those that flew planes into the twin towers.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Only if you consider that survival is the primary objective and if there is no alternative course of action (see below).
Obviously not as the use of both if and may be clearly indicates that there may be other courses of action available to us and that the situation is a matter of conjecture (a thought experiment as others have indicated, which is what you'd expect from a philosopher). If this was the only alternative then Harris would have said:

"but it would be the only course of action available to us" or

"but it is the only course of action available to us"

But he didn't, did he - he said.

"but it may be the only course of action available to us"

So to answer your question Harris never specifically says that a first strike is necessary and to suggest as such would be a lie. Nor does he imply it to be and to suggest as such is to misrepresent him. What he does say is that this course of action would be an unconscionable act and an unthinkable crime. And when specifically asked whether he 'want to do a nuclear first strike on the muslim world? Is that true Sam?'

His answer is - 'No'.

And none of this changes my view that saying an action may be the only course of action available after saying "the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own" sounds like someone who thinks a pre-emptive strike would be necessary.

As I said before the use of the word "may" is probably Sam Harris allowing himself some wriggle room.

And actually if you read this section in its entirety he makes it clear that the first strike wouldn't actually achieve survival anyhow as there would be an expected nuclear response from any muslim state that holds nuclear weapons and we know at least one does. Hence:

"How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own."

So he actually doesn't think a nuclear first strike would work so why would he support one, let alone think it necessary. So his view is that if an islamist regime were to get hold of long range nuclear weapons, we are screwed, regardless of whether the west launch a nuclear first strike or not.

Actually his view is that any nuclear war would be the fault of the crazy religious beliefs of Muslims, rather than because crazy people like Sam Harris and his apologists think a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Islamists who go dewy eyed at the mere mention of paradise is even an option.

So his conclusion - is effectively that we must find a way to prevent this series of genocidal falling dominos occurring, and that the key is to prevent an islamist regime acquiring such weapons, and he sees the moderate muslim world as key here, hence:

"The Muslim world in particular must anticipate this possibility and find some way to prevent it. Given the steady proliferation of technology, it is safe to say that time is not on our side."

You do know who the biggest arms sellers are right? United States, UK. Russia, France, Germany, and China. You do know that top of the list is Sam's own country, the USA, right? And they sell arms to dictators in the Muslim world right? Could your prejudices be any more obvious?

ETA - Whoops forgot the UK in that list.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

So given that you have admitted that you don't have any idea whether Harris has committed any crimes why on earth would you make the following statement:

As I did not say the two were the same in terms of any crimes they had committed ...

Which clearly implies that they have both committed crimes and therefore a comparison of their respective crimes is a reasonable thing. So come on then VG - either tell what crimes Harris has committed or retract the comment.

I assumed Sam had not committed any crimes. So if one person has committed crimes and the other person has not I would say the two were not the same in terms of any crimes they had committed because one person had not committed any crimes.

Must just be the way I worded it while writing at speed. I did not think about whether someone would infer that I thought Sam had committed crimes.

Bottom line - stop trying to suggest any equivalence between a writer and blogger, on the one hand, and a mass murderer of innocent people on the other. It is contemptible and, frankly, pathetic.

Not suggesting equivalence in terms of crimes between the 2. I am suggesting equivalence in terms of lunatic ideas about pre-emptive nuclear strikes on civilians. Well, actually I haven't come across evidence of Bin Laden contemplating a pre-emptive nuclear strike (have you got any?) so it might just be Sam who contemplates it. 

There are plenty of writers who I don't agree with, sometimes passionately disagree with. I'd never place them in a box of equivalence with the mass murderer Bin Laden regardless of how much I disagreed with their writing.

I didn't suggest there was an equivalence in terms of crimes.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Wrong - have you actually bothered to read the section - this is part of it.

"We must come to terms with the possibility that men who are every bit as zealous to die as the nineteen hijackers may one day get their hands on long-range nuclear weaponry.

He is very clear that when he is talking about islamists that he means people with the same mentality as those that flew planes into the twin towers.

Yes that line is at the end. And his words are "We must come to terms with the possibility that men who are every bit as zealous to die as the nineteen hijackers may one day get their hands on long-range nuclear weaponry. The Muslim world in particular must anticipate this possibility and find some way to prevent it. Given the steady proliferation of technology, it is safe to say that time is not on our side."

I agree with his idea about preventing fanatics getting their hands on long-range nuclear weapons if they are contemplating the possibility of launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike. I believe I already mentioned the film Dr Strangelove in one of my previous posts as an indication of how these fanatics may be all around us.

Sam knows the biggest arms dealers are the US and they sell to dictators in the Muslim World. He may have more success having a word with Lockheed or Congress or the President about his fears that time is not on his side.

Or maybe if he wrote about a thought experiment involving United States, UK, Russia, France, Germany, and China not going dewy eyed at all the money they collectively make in private wealth from arms sales, he might have more success averting a nuclear holocaust than he would by contemplating a pre-emptive nuclear strike killing millions of nameless faceless civilians....in another country....not the USA.

[ProfessorDavey]

I assumed Sam had not committed any crimes.

So if you assume that Harris has committed no crime then it makes no sense to infer that it is reasonable to compare their crimes, which is what you clearly did.

[ProfessorDavey]

Well, actually I haven't come across evidence of Bin Laden contemplating a pre-emptive nuclear strike (have you got any?) ...

Then you haven't looked very hard have you.

In 1998 Bin Laden produced a statement entitled The Nuclear Bomb of Islam in which he stated that it was his religious duty to acquire and use nuclear weapons.

Fortunately for us he had no access to them, so instead masterminded a plan to use planes as weapons of mass destruction to murder thousands of innocent people. Do you really think that had he had nuclear weapons that he would have used then - it was, after all his religious duty to do so.

[ProfessorDavey]

I agree with his idea about preventing fanatics getting their hands on long-range nuclear weapons if they are contemplating the possibility of launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

Which is exactly what Harris was talking about - and given that just 7 years before he wrote this piece Bin Laden was stating that it was his religious duty to acquire and use nuclear weapons and just a few years later Bin Laden was murdering thousands of innocent people with what was probably his best available WMD - planes and suicide bombers, he kind of has a point.

And the conclusion of his piece isn't that we should nuclear first strike, as he is clear that that wouldn't prevent nuclear Armageddon as other nuclear states who oppose the US would retaliate. No, his conclusion is that we mustn't allow these weapons to get into the hand of people with the motivations of Bin Laden and the '19'.

So it seems that rather than thinking that Harris is a crazed lunatic, you actually agree with the conclusion of the piece, being that the absolute priority is to prevent these weapons getting into those hands. And he also indicates, quite rightly, that a particular responsibility in preventing this happening lies with moderate muslims who are uniquely placed to have influence in a manner that a christian or atheist from the US will never have. He is, actually, agreeing with your point above and reaching our for your help, as I think you are a moderate muslim.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As far as I can see all he is doing is that if you know that someone is going to kill you and you cannot stop them by a threat to kill them (due to their ideology) then the only way to save your own life may be to kill them first.

Yes but it is where these words appear. i.e. in the ravings of someone who thinks religious moderates are pushing the world to the abyss, are dangerous and culpable and the abyss is an islamist state with nuclear weapons where on a conviction that such a state cannot possibly have them for deterrence, justifies a first strike from you which if it spirals out of control still leaves you on the moral high ground because they made you do it....Deranged nonsense. What Harris has contributed to the scriptures of the four horsemen and their proto religion is the atheist book of the apocalypse. If nothing else it turns out that we have more immediate dangers, that the flash points are between the old nuclear powers. The apocalypse , the revelation to St Sam wasn't even true to the times since the danger was nuclear terrorism, from stateless people not from Harris imagined tooled up Islamist state. Had they got nuclear material it would be more probable they would be armed by criminals or lent them to use by traditional nuclear powers as a proxy. But of course Sam was so lost in atheistic paranoia he overlooked all of this.

It would be interesting to see what Harris makes of North Korea

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

So if you assume that Harris has committed no crime then it makes no sense to infer that it is reasonable to compare their crimes, which is what you clearly did.

What you wrote makes no sense. What are you on about?

On the other hand what I wrote makes sense, given I was not comparing crimes since I was not aware of Harris committing any. Hence I said there is no equivalence between Bin Laden and Harris on the issue of committing crimes.

The equivalence is the issue of contemplating murdering millions of innocent civilians in a pre-emptive strike - given your post indicating Bin Laden, like Harris, contemplated the scenario. That Bin Laden thinks it is his religious duty doesn't make his contemplation any worse than Harris saying it may be the only course of action available. That's just your artificial distinction based on your prejudice.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So it seems that rather than thinking that Harris is a crazed lunatic

He doesn't need to be a crazed lunatic. Just someone who wants to be contraversial, and doesn't wan't to disappoint his fan base.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Then you haven't looked very hard have you.

Why would I? If you want me to know about it you can find it rather than me wasting my time.

In 1998 Bin Laden produced a statement entitled The Nuclear Bomb of Islam in which he stated that it was his religious duty to acquire and use nuclear weapons.

Thanks - so Osama bin Laden stated that the acquisition of nuclear weapons "in defense of Muslims is a religious duty."

And the US decided that the acquisition of nuclear weapons in defence of the USA was a patriotic duty.
 

Fortunately for us he had no access to them,

Unfortunately for Japanese civilians the US acquired them.

so instead masterminded a plan to use planes as weapons of mass destruction to murder thousands of innocent people.

Yes he got the idea from the Israelis bombing civilian apartments in Beirut. And Israel is funded by the USA. You can see how the USA's foreign policies seem to get them into trouble. I don't think there were too many moderate Muslims in the US government when it formulated the foreign policy that resulted in the Al Qaeda attacks on the WTC.

And then the US masterminded a plan to use their firepower and sanctions to kill thousands of innocent people in Iraq. 

Do you really think that had he had nuclear weapons that he would have used then - it was, after all his religious duty to do so.

Not sure - he might have used the same logic as the USA when they used them against civilians.

He might well have thought like Sam Harris that a pre-emptive nuclear strike against civilians may be the only available option. Who knew Sam and Bin Laden had so much in common. Funny old world. 

Then again Bin Laden might have said in November 2001, in a taped statement that Al Qaeda was able and willing to respond in kind to any attack with unconventional weapons.

So not a pre-emptive strike then...like the one contemplated by the crazed lunatic Sam Harris.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Which is exactly what Harris was talking about - and given that just 7 years before he wrote this piece Bin Laden was stating that it was his religious duty to acquire and use nuclear weapons and just a few years later Bin Laden was murdering thousands of innocent people with what was probably his best available WMD - planes and suicide bombers, he kind of has a point.

It wasn't Sam's point that fanatics should be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons that I had a problem with.

To be fair to Bin Laden in the statement that you just referred me to, he seems to have said that Al Qaeda was able and willing to respond in kind to any attack with unconventional weapons. But no doubt you will helpfully find me a link where Bin Laden spoke about using nuclear weapons first.

It was Harris's earlier point that "the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own" that got me thinking he was a crazed lunatic and then after contemplating the murder of millions of innocent civilians it was his follow up offering that it may be the only course of action available that confirmed Harris was a crazed lunatic.

The Chinese Communist government via the media seems to have said the country’s “urgent” goal is to expand its arsenal of long-range nuclear missiles in anticipation of an “intense showdown” with the US. They are probably still a bit miffed about US President Eisenhower in 1953 threatening to use nuclear weapons to end the Korean War if the Chinese refused to negotiate. Eisenhower's threat seems to have spurred China on to get its own nuclear weapons by 1964 so that if the USA threatened to nuke them again they could respond in kind. Which seemed to be the kind of the sentiments expressed by Bin Laden in that statement you so helpfully pointed me towards. China went a bit further than Bin Laden's statement though - China recently threatened to nuke Japan “off the face of the earth” if Tokyo intervenes to protect Taiwan.

Meanwhile last week Russia's deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov, said Moscow would deploy intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) in Europe if NATO failed to rule out using them itself.

President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko said that Minsk would offer Moscow to place nuclear weapons on its territory if NATO places nuclear weapons in Poland.

All these people - China, Russia, Al Qaeda posturing about using nuclear weapons against a country (USA) that actually has used nuclear weapons in the past against civilians and has threatened to use them again. Maybe if the US wasn't so trigger happy or did not keep issuing these threats, they would not have quite so many people threatening them with retaliatory nuclear strikes?

And the conclusion of his piece isn't that we should nuclear first strike, as he is clear that that wouldn't prevent nuclear Armageddon as other nuclear states who oppose the US would retaliate. No, his conclusion is that we mustn't allow these weapons to get into the hand of people with the motivations of Bin Laden and the '19'.

Yes it would be worrying if Bin Laden or people with the motivations of the USA, which actually dropped the bombs and murdered civilians, have nuclear weapons. As Dr Strangelove illustrated, you never know when some fanatic in the US government, who gets all dewy eyed about making America great again, might decide to murder hundreds of thousands of civilians again.

So it seems that rather than thinking that Harris is a crazed lunatic, you actually agree with the conclusion of the piece,

No I think Harris is a crazed lunatic for writing that "the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own" and then after contemplating the murder of millions of innocent civilians, writing that it may be the only course of action available.

But I agree with the idea that the world, especially the arms sellers like the USA who arm and support dictators in the Muslim world,   must anticipate this possibility and find some way to prevent it. I especially agree that "given the steady proliferation of technology, it is safe to say that time is not on our side."

And he also indicates, quite rightly, that a particular responsibility in preventing this happening lies with moderate muslims who are uniquely placed to have influence in a manner that a christian or atheist from the US will never have. He is, actually, agreeing with your point above and reaching our for your help, as I think you are a moderate muslim.

Glad you seem to think Sam is agreeing with my point that fanatics in the USA should be prevented from arming dictators in the Muslim world, if we are to avoid a nuclear war.

As a moderate Muslim I would like help from Sam - if he could just be a bit less of a crazed lunatic fantasising about pre-emptive nuclear strikes that would be fab. If he could also convince the US government to not drop any more nuclear bombs on civilians or to not threaten to drop nuclear bombs on civilians that would also be helpful. It might mean we won't get more Bin Ladens threatening nuclear retaliation on the US in response to a US nuclear strike. Though happy to be corrected when you post the link to Bin Laden saying Al Qaeda would use nuclear weapons first and not just in retaliation to a nuclear attack on them.

[Alan Burns]

To the extent that "the ability to consciously manipulate and drive the thought processes" means anything at all (a very limited extent), the argument does not deny it.

Of course your flawed logic denies our ability to consciously control and manipulate our thoughts, word and actions.
As has been implied by other posters (Bluehillside and Torridon) - and has been verified by monitoring brain activity - conscious awareness occurs after the physical brain activity involved in thought processing and making choices.  So in the time dependent cause and effect scenario, there can be no possibility of our conscious awareness being anything but a spectator of what has already been determined by subconscious brain activity.

My argument is that the automated nature of sub conscious brain activity is incapable of generating what we consciously perceive to be logical deductions and conclusions. 
So either:
i) our ability to consciously direct our thoughts to reach logical conclusions is an illusion,
or
ii) our conscious directives are enacted by a means beyond human understanding.

Any attempt to consciously verify that option i) is true would effectively render said verification process itself to be an illusion - hence totally nonsensical.

Option ii) is the only option which would allow us to consciously verify the accuracy of our own logical abilities.

[Stranger]

Of course your flawed logic...

The logic you've never once found a flaw in.

...denies our ability to consciously control and manipulate our thoughts, word and actions.
As has been implied by other posters (Bluehillside and Torridon) - and has been verified by monitoring brain activity - conscious awareness occurs after the physical brain activity involved in thought processing and making choices.

Except that the logic I presented makes no reference at all to that evidence. What's more, the evidence only applies in relatively simple experimental settings. To the best of my knowledge, it is as yet unknown what role consciousness plays in complex chains of reasoning, for example.

But the answer is, as I keep pointing out, irrelevant to the logic. Your version of freedom is a logical impossibility regardless.

So in the time dependent cause and effect scenario, there can be no possibility of our conscious awareness being anything but a spectator of what has already been determined by subconscious brain activity.

No hypothesis that I'm aware of would make the word 'spectator' at all appropriate. It may be a sort of useful narrative, produced after the events, for memory and communication purposes, but as I said, that is far from certain anyway and a complex chain of thought would necessarily involve references to memories of previous steps anyway.

And all of it is still irrelevant to the reasoning about determinism.

My argument is that the automated nature of sub conscious brain activity is incapable of generating what we consciously perceive to be logical deductions and conclusions.

So where's the actual reasoning?

So either:
i) our ability to consciously direct our thoughts to reach logical conclusions is an illusion,
or
ii) our conscious directives are enacted by a means beyond human understanding.

And you're still just chanting this silly mantra of "consciously direct our thoughts". It's nonsensical. We can't consciously decide what our next conscious thought will be, that's an absurd infinite regress.

Our ability to reach logical conclusions (well, some of us, anyway) is not something anybody doubts.

Any attempt to consciously verify that option i) is true would effectively render said verification process to itself be an illusion - hence totally nonsensical.

Option ii) is the only option which would allow us to consciously verify the accuracy of our own logical abilities.

Now you've just collapsed into total circularity.

You are, as ever, desperately trying to link your nonsensical view of freedom to the role consciousness and all your assumptions seem to be based entirely on that idea, when it simply has nothing at all to do with why your version of freedom (the ability to have done differently without randomness) is logically impossible.

[ProfessorDavey]

To be fair to Bin Laden in the statement that you just referred me to, he seems to have said that Al Qaeda was able and willing to respond in kind to any attack with unconventional weapons. But no doubt you will helpfully find me a link where Bin Laden spoke about using nuclear weapons first.

You really are quite the little Bin Laden apologist, aren't you VG - quite why you seem so willing to justify and excuse a mass murdering criminal is beyond me. And to suggest any kind of comparison between a journalist and write and a mass murderer who is on the record as stating that it is the duty of all muslims to kill americans and their allies (military and civilian) however and where even they can is beyond contempt.

Some some direct quotes from Bin Laden:

"we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies, civilians and military, is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it ... - from Feb 1998 Fatwa

"It is the duty of Muslims to prepare as much force as possible to terrorize the enemies of God."
- from the Nuclear Bomb of Islam May 1998

Dec 1998
When asked whether he was seeking to obtain chemical or nuclear weapons, Bin Laden replied, “Acquiring weapons for the defense of Muslims is a religious duty. If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then I thank God for enabling me to do so.” and "How we use them is up to us.”

So Bin Laden wants to kill as many americans and their allies as possible, regardless of whether they are completely innocent citizens, wants to terrorise those people using as much force as possible, believes acquiring nuclear weapons is a religious duty and how he uses them it up to him - note how not whether.

And sure he didn't acquire nuclear weapons but he used planes and suicide bombers to kill thousands of innocent people as a clear unprovoked act of aggression. There is absolutely no justification that flying planes into the WTC was an act of defence rather than a clear and murderous act of aggression. And this is the most important point - all sorts of people can sabre rattle, in most cases they are hollow threats. Bin Laden's weren't - he claimed he wanted to murder as many americans as he could and he carried out that threat, he masterminded terrorist acts that attempted to murders as many people as he could, regardless of the complete innocence of those people. Given that history I have little doubt that if he'd acquired a nuclear weapon that he'd have attempted to use it, and not just in retaliation.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You really are quite the little Bin Laden apologist, aren't you VG - quite why you seem so willing to justify and excuse a mass murdering criminal is beyond me. And to suggest any kind of comparison between a journalist and write and a mass murderer who is on the record as stating that it is the duty of all muslims to kill americans and their allies (military and civilian) however and where even they can is beyond contempt.

You helpfully pointed me to Bin Laden's words so I quoted them here. Wasn't that why you referred me to Bin Laden's words? I assumed you wanted people to know what Bin Laden actually said - you know, to have all the information.

Since you are not disputing the Bin Laden quote, thanks for confirming that you also think Bin Laden said that Al Qaeda was able and willing to respond in kind to any attack with unconventional weapons.

I should change my name from Violent Gabriella to Beyond Contempt Gabriella - that way you get to say it more often. You're obviously having fun with that little phrase and we do like to have fun on this forum 

Some some direct quotes from Bin Laden:

"we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies, civilians and military, is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it ... - from Feb 1998 Fatwa

"It is the duty of Muslims to prepare as much force as possible to terrorize the enemies of God."
- from the Nuclear Bomb of Islam May 1998

Dec 1998
When asked whether he was seeking to obtain chemical or nuclear weapons, Bin Laden replied, “Acquiring weapons for the defense of Muslims is a religious duty. If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then I thank God for enabling me to do so.” and "How we use them is up to us.”

Yes...you won't be surprised if I ask you for links to those quotes - it would not be very rational to reach a conclusion based on the partial information and selective quoting you have provided previously.

Take the first quote for example - silly you - you accidentally left out the end bit:  "The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque [in Jerusalem] and the holy mosque [in Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim."

So Bin Laden wants to kill as many americans and their allies as possible, regardless of whether they are completely innocent citizens, wants to terrorise using force those people, believes acquiring nuclear weapons is a religious duty and how he uses them it up to him - note how not whether.

PD - if that's how you want to interpret "in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque [in Jerusalem] and the holy mosque [in Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim."  - sure, that's up to you.

I know how important evidence and knowledge is to you in forming conclusions, so having gaps in the information is a bit sloppy of you. We did Sam Harris the courtesy of linking to his own website so anyone could read his words for themselves, including the whole section of his book that he wanted to quote.

I know how you feel reading Bin Laden's words - even after you add in the rest of what Bin Laden said rather than your selective quote. Crazy idea right -  to want to kill or subjugate innocent people over land, power, wealth or to ensure your own freedom or survival?

Sam Harris's comment that "the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own" got me thinking he was a crazed lunatic and then after contemplating the murder of millions of innocent foreign civilians, his follow up offering that it may be the only course of action available confirmed Harris was a crazed lunatic.

And sure he didn't acquire nuclear weapons

Unlike the USA, which used them to kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians and threatened to use them against China during the Korean War

but he used planes and suicide bombers to kill thousands of innocent people as a clear unprovoked act of aggression. There is absolutely no justification that flying planes into the WTC was an act of defence rather than a clear and murderous act of aggression. And this is the most important point - all sorts of people can sabre rattle, in most cases they are hollow threats. Bin Laden's weren't - he claimed he wanted to murder as many americans as he could and he carry out that threat, he masterminded terrorist acts that attempted to murders as many people as he could, regardless of the complete innocence of those people.

I'm fairly certain that when people point out instances of unethical US foreign policy, e.g. its habit of funding militants, and its habit of arming dictators in the Muslim World, they are not justifying passenger jets being flown into the WTC.

I think they are just pointing out that an unethical foreign policy propping up dictators (eg. the Shah in Iran resulting in the Iranian Revolution) or funding militants or selling arms to dictators could be a pretty dangerous way to run a country as it generates anti-American feelings, which are likely to come back to bite the USA.

Take for example your helpful quote regarding Bin Laden (and thank you so much for pointing this forum to Bin Laden's actual words as information is a good thing and beliefs based on evidence is better than guessing) - his quote said he wanted to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque [in Jerusalem] and the holy mosque [in Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam.

The US probably calculated that unquestioning support for Israel and propping up the House of Saud, with its appalling human rights abuses, political repression, murder and torture of its own civilians etc was in the best interests of the USA, and the torture and murder of foreigners was a price worth paying for the prosperity and security of American civilians and American allies.

Bin Laden's quote seems to indicate that he disagreed with the US assessment of the relative worth of different people's lives. His actions seem to indicate that he thought the opposite was true and that American lives were pretty expendable  in the pursuit of liberating a couple of mosques and getting the US army to leave Muslim lands. You can see how these opposing views of what other people's lives are worth can cause problems, right?

That outlook could lead to some people suggesting that "the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own" and then after contemplating the murder of millions of innocent foreign civilians, it could lead to them suggesting that "it may be the only course of action available".

[Enki]

Of course your flawed logic denies our ability to consciously control and manipulate our thoughts, word and actions.
As has been implied by other posters (Bluehillside and Torridon) - and has been verified by monitoring brain activity - conscious awareness occurs after the physical brain activity involved in thought processing and making choices.  So in the time dependent cause and effect scenario, there can be no possibility of our conscious awareness being anything but a spectator of what has already been determined by subconscious brain activity.

My argument is that the automated nature of sub conscious brain activity is incapable of generating what we consciously perceive to be logical deductions and conclusions. 
So either:
i) our ability to consciously direct our thoughts to reach logical conclusions is an illusion,
or
ii) our conscious directives are enacted by a means beyond human understanding.

Any attempt to consciously verify that option i) is true would effectively render said verification process itself to be an illusion - hence totally nonsensical.

Option ii) is the only option which would allow us to consciously verify the accuracy of our own logical abilities.

And yet again, you fail to recognise that logic is not the property of any individual. And yet again you emphasise that the logic NTTS uses is flawed without giving any reasoning to substantiate your claim. It continually looks like this is something which you can't personally accept simply because your faith won't allow you to do so.

Even when you make an attempt at 'reasoning' from the material viewpoint you simply put forward the idea that the sub-conscious brain is incapable of using logic to come to its conclusions without giving any reasons as to why you hold this view. You seem to be in the precarious world of assertion, yet again. And this, of course, makes your following steps to be of limited value.

I really don't find this at all convincing.

[ProfessorDavey]

Take the first quote for example - silly you - you accidentally left out the end bit:  "The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque [in Jerusalem] and the holy mosque [in Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim."

Yup, I left that bit out because it is completely irrelevant. If I make some nebulous and unjustified demands and then say I somehow have the right to murder innocent people unless those nebulous and unjustified demands are met it makes absolutely zero difference to the appalling and unjustifiable call to murder as many people as possible. And even less when that murderous call was actually carried out.

And by the way the demands are bonkers - the holy mosque [in Mecca] was not controlled by the americans let alone all the american's allies (who are the target of Bin Laden's murderous demand of muslims). It is, and was, under the control of the Saudi government so if Bin Laden has beef, then it is with them. Likewise the al-Aqsa Mosque which was and is under the control of a palestinian islamic trust independent from the Israeli government (note that from 2000, prior to the WTC attacks no non-muslims are even allowed to visit the mosque). And, of course, at the point Bin Laden was making these statements there was very little presence of US troops in Muslim countries and the most recent major incursion (if you can call it that) was to support Bosnian muslims. And finally an individual muslim, such as Bin Laden has no right whatsoever to dictate to countries across the globe, regardless of whether they might have muslim majorities, who they should and who they should not have as allies and who they might invite to have military bases on their soil.

Bin Laden's demands were simply a pathetic attempt to justify the unjustifiable - the unprovoked and completely unjustified murder of innocent people.

Do you really think that adding in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque somehow justifies a call to murder innocent people, let alone putting that call into practice by flying planes into the WTC? Do you VG?

I feel sorry that you feel you have to act as such an apologist for a mass murderer. It really is pathetic.

[ProfessorDavey]

Take the first quote for example - silly you - you accidentally left out the end bit:  "The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque [in Jerusalem] and the holy mosque [in Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim."

And of course you have conveniently left out the next sentence:

"This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah." - so this is nothing to do with some recent claim of grievance, but more about the need to be seen to fulfil and ancient religious claim. I believe these words are from the Koran, written some 1500 years before any of the claimed grievances. I trust you don't interpret these words in the manner that Bin Laden did, but he clear interpreted them as justifying murder of innocent people

And you have also conveniently left out the later passage:

We, with Allah's help, call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it.

That's the sentence in its entirety - no longer any claimed 'just cause', simply a clear call for all muslims to murder americans - and now this seems no longer about any kind of perceived grievance but simply a call to murder people and be rewarded for it.