The Solid Surfer.com

Western Writers and Muslim Demographic Exaggeration

Before reading this post:

If you haven't done so already, please visit the previous post to see how you can help save the life of Bangladeshi journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, who has been arrested for speaking out against fundamentalist Islam and supporting Israel, America, and other religious faiths. It's a real must, and takes only a moment.

And now, onto the main content:

In the recent past, many Muslim communities in non-Muslim countries have exaggerated their demographic numbers, often wildly, for political gain. Among other places, they have done so in America, in France, and in Israel. Certain Western writers, meanwhile, particularly Mark Steyn, have taken these numbers at face value, and have scared the daylights out of Westerners by projecting a population-based Islamic takeover of the world. In reality, however, statistics that Steyn excludes from his analysis largely debunk his thesis (as I have demonstrated here and here), and the Muslim threat to the West, while clearly real, is far from the certainty he claims.

Lest such journalistic predictions remain a Western phenomenon, however, a researcher in Estonia named Paul Goble now claims a similar situation for Russia. According to Goble, current Russian population trends indicate that by mid-century, over half of that country's citizenry will be Muslim. Worrisome? Of course. But true? Almost certainly not.

Goble bases his projection on three apparent indicators - low Russian fertility, high Muslim fertility, and Muslim immigration from other Soviet republics. Taken at face value, the combination of these indeed points to a Muslim population takeover.

Thing is, however, only one of these indicators is actually correct. Russians indeed have few children (about 1.3 per woman), but the Muslim numbers are enormously exaggerated.

Goble claims that the primary Muslim groups in Russia, the Chechens and Ingush, average ten children per woman, while the Tatars (at least those living in Moscow) average six. He also states, meanwhile, that several hundred thousand Muslim immigrants arrive each year from Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan.

Now I don't know where Goble found this ten-children number, but rest assured, it is most certainly false. It is difficult to find exact fertility numbers for ethnic/religious populations within Russia, but the state of Chechnya itself claims a crude birthrate of 24.9 per 1000 women, which translates to a fertility rate of about three children per woman. This number may or may not be accurate for all Muslims in Russia, but for comparison, we must note that not a single nation on Earth averages close to the ten-children mark. (The highest-fertility groups worldwide -- certain African tribes, desert Bedouins, and Hasidic Jews -- max out at about seven.) The world fertility average is 2.5, and the Muslim nations bordering the parts of Russia where the Chechens, Ingush, and Tatars reside range from 1.8 (Iran) to 1.92 (Turkey) to 2.46 (Azerbaijan). Most likely, the overall Russian Muslim rate lies somewhere within this span, and whatever it is, it's not remotely close to ten (or even six).

Of course, a fertility rate between 2 and 3 is much higher than the ethnic Russians' 1.3, but there are also about 130 million ethnic Russians and perhaps only 15 million ethnic Muslims. At current rates, it will take Muslims almost two centuries to catch up. Furthermore, if rates (and/or the political situation) change, something that's virtually guaranteed to occur to some degree, they will likely favor the Russians, as their birthrates probably can't sink much lower and have actually slightly risen over the past few years.

At the same time, meanwhile, Goble's other Muslim source, immigration numbers, is also likely misrepresented. Many migrants have indeed moved to Russia from surrounding nations, but their religion has not formally been tracked, and chances are, a large portion are actually returning ethnic Russians.

For all his assumptions, Goble does attempt to support his claim with some genuine hard evidence, such as increased mosque construction and Islamic religious practice over the last twenty years. But these too can be explained. In Soviet times (i.e. before 1989), religion was almost entirely suppressed. Today it is not. The mosque construction and religious practice, hence, reflects not necessarily an absolute population rise, but a return to observance by a portion of the already existing population. Very similarly, many more churches and Christian worshippers (and synagogues and Jewish worshippers) exist compared to 1989, even though the absolute numbers of ethnic Russian Christians and Jews have not increased.

Whatever his motivations, Paul Goble follows Mark Steyn in using exaggerated Muslim numbers to predict the downfall of other nations. This threat, however, does not stand to genuine statistical scrutiny. The fundamentalist Muslim threat to the free world, once again, is very real. But non-Muslim nations should be much more optimistic about their relative demographic situations than much of the media has led us to believe.

Jihadist Violence Validates Pope Benedict's Words

As most of us probably have already seen in the news, Pope Benedict recently inflamed Muslims worldwide when, in a speech in Germany, he quoted a 14th century Byzantine emperor who declared Muhammad's teachings "evil and inhuman", particularly the command to spread the faith by the sword.

Of course, many Muslims immediately called this a heinous insult, and demanded an apology. The pope, however, has stuck to his guns, expressing regret that the statement caused offense and differentiating it from his personal beliefs, but still stopping short of genuinely repudiating it.

So who is correct? Was the Pope's use of quotation appropriate, or are Muslims justified in their opposition? I'd venture to say that fundamentalist Muslim actions in the event's aftermath largely answer the question.

In response to the comments, jihadist groups have plotted to kill the Pope himself, murdered a nun, bombed multiple churches, threatened entire Christian populations, and begun preparations to wage war on the Western world (something which, to a large extent, has already been happening for years). And that's only what was reported in the news. Just as the Pope strongly condemned Islam's propensity for violence, Muslims themselves have all but confirmed the necessity to do so.

Now do Muslims have a right to be offended? Of course. The Pope's quote did indeed insult their religion; the words were very harsh, and even quite exaggerated, as certainly not all of Islam is evil or inhuman.

But feeling hurt by no means whatsoever gives them the right to act violently and commit murder. This is not remotely debatable; such barbaric reactions to a mere verbal insult can indeed be described only as evil and immoral. And yet fitting the Pope's quote to the letter, many Muslims clearly felt religiously justified in acting as such. Furthermore, most Islamic leaders have refused to condemn the violence, which certainly hints that they silently condone it.

As much as Muslims want to deny Pope Benedict's statement, too many of them have succeeded in validating it. If they truly wish to prove the pontiff wrong, they can begin only by renouncing such violence and responding in a civilized manner. If this were to genuinely occur, I can imagine the Pope would be happy to retract his statement. Otherwise, forget about it.

Defeating Jihadism by Encouraging non-Arab Muslims

Defeating global jihadism is certainly a matter of utmost importance. Some say that this can be accomplished by empowering moderate Muslims, but given the difficulties in identifying many moderates, certain evangelical Christians have stepped up efforts to convert Muslims to Christianity. Towards this aim, Mark Krikorian of National Review has suggested that an effective strategy for doing so would be to concentrate on Muslim ethnic groups oppressed by other Muslims. These groups, Krikorian believes, will have a natural attraction to religions other than the one dominating them (even if it's their own faith), and will be welcome to other possibilities.

Successfully accomplished, this plan certainly would reduce jihadism, as virtually all jihadists-turned-Christians have utterly renounced terrorism and violence. Thing is, the chances of such an implementation look exceedingly low. Even supposing many Muslims wish to become Christians, Islamic-ruled governments aren't exactly known for permitting religious freedom, as we can see with the Abdul Rahman case in Afghanistan and an Algerian example given by Krikorian.

In an ethnocultural sense, however, Krikorian's basic idea may yet work. Just substitute Arab culture for Muslim religion, and politically encourage non-Arab Muslims to reject jihadist Islam in the name of their own heritages. The words Arab and Muslim are often regarded synonymously, but while Islam is indeed an entirely Arab-centered religion, most of today's Muslims are non-Arabs whose ancestors were forcibly conquered and converted. These Muslims' histories and cultures largely have been trampled over, and similar to what Krikorian suggests religiously, they may be highly amenable to moderating Sharia and jihadism merely as a rejection of the beliefs of their Arab dominators.

Some may feel this is unrealistic, but it has actually occurred all throughout the past and into today. Historically, Islam greatly moderated itself the further it moved beyond its Arab roots, and today, the least radical followers of Islam are those who have been most oppressed by their fellow Muslims: Kurds, Turks, Berbers, Bangladeshis, Central Asians, and the vast majority of Persians. The less Arab influence, the more moderate they get. At the same time, exposure to Arab-backed Wahhabism has inspired many formerly moderate/secular Muslims to turn jihadist. Clearly, weakening the Arab influence can drastically reduce radicalism.

Implemented successfully, this plan would isolate fundamentalist Islam to its Arab heartland, where it could be more easily contained and changed. The majority of Muslims worldwide would shed jihadism in favor of moderation, which would dramatically reduce the number of global terrorists. Unlike with Christian evangelism, the Islamic governments in question will have no reason to reject such a movement, and indeed, they may even join it in solidarity with their own non-Arab ethnic backgrounds.

Is this a tall order? Absolutely. But the Islamic world's current totalitarianism is unacceptable, and democracy-building, while an excellent strategy that should certainly be continued, has hit many snags and could use some help. So an alternative solution for moderating the Muslim world away from jihad is this - support the native cultures of the non-Arabs so to restore their ethnic pride and shake off the dusts of Arabization.

Moderate Muslims Beginning to Emerge, and more

In light of all the terrorist attacks, Danish cartoon riots, intifadas and other Muslim violence, many people have begun to question whether moderate Muslims truly exist. If they're out there, the doubters say, then where are they? Why haven't they risen their voices in unison and condemned the barbaric behavior being committed in the name of their religion?

My view is that moderate Muslims do exist (and in large numbers), but that by and large, they are cowed into submission by the radicals. If the fundamentalists can through threats prevent major newspapers in a free nation (America) from publishing the Danish cartoons, just imagine the fear they must drive into moderates in their own autocratic countries.

It's very heartening, therefore, to see this open manifesto from some true moderates unafraid to express themselves. These Muslims reject violent jihad, condemn terrorism on moral grounds, support democracy and secular law, value womens' rights and freedom of religion, and affirm Israel's existence. We must strongly support moderates such as these, and getting their voices heard is the first step. Visit their website, Muslim Manifesto, for more information.

In other news:

To solve the nation's dependence on Middle Eastern oil, many forms of alternative energy have been proposed, from ethanol to coal to nuclear power. So which one should we use? Former Clinton advisor Dick Morris has the answer: try them all.

Time to stop worrying about the trade deficit. The department chair of econ at George Mason University explains in layman's terms why America's trade inbalance is good, not bad.

WorldNetDaily's Joseph Farah knows how America and Israel can conquer the terrorist regimes of Hamas, Al Qaeda, and Iran and finally achive peace - though total victory. I agree entirely; as discussed in the previous post, appeasement never works, and the Western world must learn this lesson immediately.

Here's another article on why the Dubai ports proposal is a very bad idea.

Blog of the Day: The Autonomist

Mark Steyn and Western vs. Muslim Demographics

I'm beginning to wonder why Mark Steyn thinks Islam is so powerful compared to the West. This is not, by any means, to excuse the very real danger posed by radical Islamism, but Steyn, whose war-on terror commentary has otherwise been quite astute, continues to predict an Islamic takeover of the world based on demographic analyses that just don't gel with reality.

In his latest fearmongering piece, for example (coming on the heels of a Wall Street Journal essay, the merits of which I debated on this site), Steyn asserts that because Britain conquered the world in the 1800s due to a rapidly rising youth population, Muslim countries like Yemen, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia will do the same. Steyn also calls Muslims the fastest-breeding demographic group on the planet and predicts that Europe will be doomed within a few short generations.

This all sounds extremely alarming, but the problem (or should I say the welcome news) is - it's just not true. When properly viewed within a broader context, Steyn's worries prove almost entirely unfounded.

Britain did indeed carve out a mighty empire in the 1800s, but claiming its youth bulge as the primary cause is, at best, highly debatable. The empire began long before the 1820s population explosion, and other European nations with smaller populations and higher infant mortalities also conquered many other lands.

But even if population was the key factor (and to be fair, it did contribute somewhat of a share), there is no guarantee Yemen or any other Muslim country could replicate the U.K.'s success. In addition to manpower, dominant empire-spreading requires highly developed internal structures such as a stable government, well-functioning economy, and strong military. In the 1800s, only European states had developed these, and as such, transoceanic colonialism remained a European phenomenon.

On the other hand, the Muslim nations Steyn mentions have shown little inclinations of creating such structures, and indeed even the most populous Muslim states (Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Egypt, half of Nigeria) have been far more preoccupied with solving internal problems than on spreading their populations around the world. Yemen most certainly won't conquer the world like England did.

At the same time, not only are Muslims not the world's fastest-growing population (that distinction belongs to mostly non-Muslim sub-Saharan Africa), but as I have argued in the past, their propensity towards radicalism provides them little opportunity to throw off their current malaise, much less dominate the planet.

I don't know if Steyn truly believes what he writes; perhaps he deliberately exaggerates Muslim demographic prowess in order to scare Westerners into action. But while unassimilated Muslim populations certainly do pose many serious threats to the West (and it doesn't take large numbers either, as the Danish cartoon riots have shown), a population-based takeover isn't one of them.

Despite Cartoon Riots, Moderate Islam Still the Answer

A common view on the problem of radical Islam holds that the solution is simply moderate Islam. According to those who espouse this theory, most notably Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes, only a bit of Western pressure is needed, and then the militants will be defeated ideologically by the silent majority of moderates in their midst.

In light of the violent reactions to the recent Danish cartoons, however, many have begun to reconsider this belief. As Jim Geraghty of National Review today discussed, many of the Muslim protestors appear to be not just fundamentalists, but ordinary run-of-the-mill folk as well. Furthermore, very few self-professing moderate Muslims have condemned the violence. Unsurprisingly, many Westerners are now starting to consider whether the idea of Islamic moderates is just a myth, and that Islam itself, rather than just "radical" Islam, is the true problem.

Could this all possibly be? I agree that Islam itself is indeed the problem, but nevertheless, moderate Muslims remain the solution.

Radical Islam (or Islamism or Islamofascism or whatever you want to call it), as we all know, is the religion's fundamentalist strain. And as religious fundamentalism by definition equals a return to a faith's core observances, fundamentalist Islam is a throwback to the initial Islam that was practiced back in the 7th century.

This essentially means, then, that fundamentalist Islam is not "radical" per se - it is the true Islam as practiced by the first Muslims. If fundamentalism has caused the religion's problems, then the real culprit is indeed authentic Islam itself.

While that conclusion may seem sobering, nevertheless I don't believe that it disqualifies moderate Muslims (and by this I mean only true moderates, not pseudo-moderates who call for peace in English and jihad in Arabic) from being the solution. Literalist Islam clearly contains many violent elements, but still, certainly not all Muslims believe in or practice them. Indeed, many born Muslims have become apostates, while others live only by the religion's peaceful aspects while conveniently ignoring the violent ones. Exclude the apostates from the discussion if you want (they too are part of the solution but technically are no longer Muslims), but the latter group still can truly be defined as "moderate Muslims." The cartoon reactions have demonstrated that perhaps this group's numbers are slightly smaller than we thought, but nevertheless the group firmly exists.

In addition, we must recall the difference, as brilliantly eloquated by Natan Sharansky in his book The Case For Democracy, between free societies and fear societies. In open, free, democratic societies, people can voice their minds without worry of censure. In fear societies, however, where most Muslims live (including many Muslim neighborhoods in Western countries), this is not the case. Legions of moderate Muslims may want to speak out, but the radicals pressure them into staying silent. Look how apprehensive certain newspapers have become in the aftermath of the Danish cartoon affair. Moderate Muslims live under a similar fear (likely to an even greater degree) every single day.

So while the violence problem may stem from Islam itself, the solution indeed remains the same. We must empower moderate Muslims to the point where they can speak their minds without fear of reprisal by fundamentalists. Many moderates may seem to passively endorse the radicals, but remember that in the 1950s, virtually no Russians spoke out against the horrors of the Soviet regime. Only when the West began to encourage them did the moderates' genuine voices finally emerge.

I believe the same holds true with Islam today. While we must certainly still take further steps to stop the jihadists (such as continuing counterterrorism efforts, limiting Muslim immigration to the West, and deporting those who encourage violence), supporting the moderates also remains key to our success.

Daniel Pipes and the Pope: Can Islam Change?

In reponse to recent comments by Pope Benedict that Islamic tradition does not allow itself to change and modernize, Daniel Pipes has written an interesting article arguing the contrary. As Pipes sees it, Islam can indeed change via reinterpreting the Koran, and small efforts to do so are already in place, the implication being that Islamic radicalism can eventually be tamed through this method.

Needless to say, Pipes has taken a lot of heat for this view, as expressed in many comments on his website and elsewhere. But is he correct, or is Islam truly doomed to long-term stagnation?

Regarding Islam itself, I happen to agree with Pope Benedict and Pipes's detractors; as the religion's history has shown, its core tenets certainly have not proved very adaptable to change. But I think the question we must ask is actually a different one: Not whether Islam can change, but whether Muslims can change.

And the answer, in my opinion, is a resounding yes. It has happened, in fact, all throughout history.

Radical Islam in itself is merely a religious-based ideology; without its practitioners, it threatens no one. Only when large numbers of Muslims live their lives according to its fundamentalist sway does it become dangerous. But history has shown that, by and large, most Muslims do not enjoy living in this manner. Most of today's Muslim nations were originally conquered and settled by Arabs who practiced fundamentalist Islam, but over time the people living in these regions moved away from the orginal religion. Of course they still practiced Islam in general, but by no means did they live fundamentalist-style. Outside Arabia (and even within it to a degree), this occurred all around the Muslim world, from West Africa to Central Asia to Indonesia. Fundamentalist Islam itself may not have changed, but most of its practitioners certainly did.

Today we are seeing a resurgence of the old Islam, but that's only because certain nations (primarily Saudi Arabia and to a lesser degree Iran and Pakistan) are deliberately spreading it for their own gain. Most Muslims still don't like being governed by it (some in the West may notably advocate it, but ask those who have truly lived under it -- such as in Iran -- how they feel), and if groups like the Saudis would let up, I believe the number of practicing fundamentalists will rapidly shrink just as it did in the past.

On that note, then, the best way to curb radical Islam is not to change the religion itself (which probably won't work), but to stop the Saudi fundamentalist propaganda and to grant Muslims freedom so that they, rather than be controlled by oil-rich sheiks and autocratic dictators, can live the way they choose.

America has certainly made much headway on the freedom front, but on Saudi Arabia, much remains to be done. Daniel Pipes is certainly right about one thing - we need to get moving.

Europe, Islam, and Demographics

Last week, columnist Mark Steyn wrote a dire-sounding piece in the Wall Street Journal expressing a fear that declining Western fertility, combined with rapid Muslim growth, will eventually lead to a radical Islamic takeover of the West (especially Europe) and the decline of our modern liberal society. Steyn backs his claims with numerous alarming statistics, such as Western fertility rates below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman; Muslim rates far higher (over 6 children per woman) in countries like Afghanistan, Yemen, and Niger; continued Muslim immigration into Western nations; and those Muslims' propensity towards extremism. Islamic dominance, according the piece, is practically inevitable; as Steyn writes, "It's the demography, stupid."

But I wouldn't be so sure. Steyn is usually on the mark geopolitically, but here I believe his conclusions are premature.

Why? Factually, the numbers he cites are correct. But upon closer examination, he actually leaves out a number of key points that reveal a far weaker Islam than he describes.

First, Western nations aren't the only ones with falling birthrates. The Muslim world is seriously declining as well. Iran, Turkey, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Albania, Lebanon, and Malaysia are all below the 2.1 replacement line, while Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, and the Muslim parts of India are close behind and falling rapidly. A few Muslim nations do indeed have high fertility, but the common denominator is not Islam itself, as Steyn implies, but a lack of modernization. Many non-Muslim countries that also haven't fully modernized have high rates as well, such as Laos, Uganda, and Paraguay.

Steyn mentions that developed nations have declined from 30% to 15% of the world's population in the last 35 years, while Muslims have increased from 15% to 20%. True enough, but that also means the non-developed, non-Muslim world has increased its share at a greater rate: from 55% to 65%. And this growth has come largely at Muslim, and not Western, expense.

You see, Islam's recent growth has come almost fully from natural increase (which is now falling), and not from conversions. On the other hand, Christianity is growing just as fast by gaining far more converts. These aren't coming from the developed world, which is already predominantly Christian, but from places like China, India, and especially Africa, where over 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity each year.

Muslims will not overwhelm the world demographically; if anything, the world will grow less Muslim in the forseeable future.

Europe, on the other hand, is admittedly a trickier case. Native fertility is indeed low, while Muslim growth rates and levels of extremism have remained high. Over the next 50 years, Europe projects to lose about 100 million people, while European Muslims will double their numbers to about 20% of the total European population. If Turkey joins the EU, Muslim numbers will rise even further.

But will this bring Sharia law, as Steyn fears? I don't think so. Even under the most high-growth projection (which is by no means certain), Muslims will remain a minority on the Continent. Their radicals may want Sharia law, but they won't get it at the ballot box.

Much more worrisome, though, is the prospect of increased terror and violence as the Muslim population expands. Best case, they'll assimilate smoothly, but based on recent history, I'm concerned that Europe could end up in a horrible civil war. A war, I might add, that radical Muslims will most certainly lose, but a war nevertheless, with possibly devastating loss of life and destruction.

Europeans can, of course, easily avoid this scenario by taking a few basic steps: limit Muslim immigration, export radicals who preach violence, and cut off the Saudi petrodollars financing extremism. These actions alone won't solve the Continent's fertility-based worker shortage problem (although this might), but should at least prevent Islamists from taking advantage.

Steyn's conclusions may be flawed, but his urgent advice that the West must awaken to this problem is nevertheless entirely on the mark.

The Good, The Bad & The Ugly

Hope Clint Eastwood likes this post. (And given that he's a Republican in leftwing-dominated Hollywood, I'll bet he probably would :-)

The Good:

Roberts confirmed as Chief Justice. Glad it finally occurred.

A victory for academic freedom on college campuses.

Residents starting to return to New Orleans.

Blog of the Day: Good News From Iraq (and Afghanistan). An absolute must read, on what the liberal media will never tell you.

The Bad:

Saudi prince Al-Waleed buys stake in Fox News. This could be very troubling indeed if Al-Waleed, the same prince whose $10 million check was rejected by Rudy Giuliani after 9/11, gains influence over the company's direction. His ownership share is relatively small, so chances are he won't, but this certainly should be monitored.

Liberal media pandering to radical Muslims. Now at first glance, you might wonder - what's wrong with this article? After all, it's only about a few Latina women who converted to Islam. But let's examine things more closely. First of all, this is not a noteworthy event that should ordinarily grace the front page of a national news site. Far more Hispanics, for example, have converted to Mormonism (and such converts outnumber Islamic converts by about 100 to 1), but you never hear their story. Secondly, the article portrays fundamentalist Islam in a sugar coated light at great odds with reality. The article, of course, does not identify the brand of Islam that these women practice, but given that they all wear full-body hijabs and attend a mosque that denies Israel's existence (click and scroll down for a telltale map on its website), they clearly are not moderates. This article exists only so the liberal media can try and convince themselves that radical Islam is normal and not the dangerous threat that it actually is.

And, unfortunately, the Ugly:

So a particular country has built a razor barb-wire fence to keep certain people out. Those on the "wrong" side of the fence, so to speak, have complained insistently that it infringes their rights. The nation that built the fence has deployed its army to assist with protection. Surely the U.N. must be furious, demanding that the fence be torn down!

But nope, not a peep from Kofi and company. What could possibly be wrong?

Oops, the country is not Israel. The U.N. is absolutely silent.

And hence yet another reason why the organization is not a trustworthy partner for America (as I discussed in the previous post). The U.N. in no place to oversee the Internet, and needs serious immediate reforms.

Asimov and al-Qaeda?

A few minutes ago, I decided to check if my recent post comparing Isaac Asimov's Foundation novels with current events was listed on search engines, and in the process came across a fascinating article from 2002 that, believe it or not, claims that Osama Bin Laden was inspired by Foundation.

According to the piece, the terrorist kingpin believes that America and Western Civilization represent the fading empire of the novels, while he and al-Qaeda are the scientists of the Foundation, aiming to build a new, enlightened Second Empire on the ashes of the old. Bin Laden views himself as a Hari Seldon-like figure who has predicted the future, and indeed, just like Seldon, he transmits messages to his followers via pre-recorded video clips. On top of this, the term "The Foundation" is translated into Arabic as - you guessed it - "al Qaeda."

Could all this actually be true? The article also presents ample evidence against it, so perhaps the best we can say is that the jury is still out.

But whether the books influenced Bin Laden or not, I still fully stand by the prediction (as espoused in my piece) that radical Islam will not win. And in fact, my piece specifically analyzes the America-as-empire possibility and demonstrates its inaccuracy. The fictional scientists of the Foundation are all about technology, freedom, and peace. Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden, on the other hand, are all about terrorism, lack of freedom, and war.

No matter what Bin Laden thinks, the fact remains that he is a terrorist who has committed horrible acts of evil. And in the end, he will lose.