Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Guardian Deletes Osama Bin Laden's 'Letter to America'

404media.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 171 posts

Re: The Guardian Deletes Osama Bin Laden's 'Letter to America'

#51

Post by neilv »

1. Artifacts of major historical events shouldn't be put down the Memory Hole, especially not by a journalism organization. You publish it, you preserve it.

2. I object to rewarding terrorists (including mass shooters, etc.) with a platform/publicity. If they do evil, IMHO, the first priority is to stop and remedy the harm, and second priority is to make the evildoing be counterproductive to their motives. (Not to do a surge of listening/engagement/publicity, even if there was a failure to do that appropriately before.)

Re: The Guardian Deletes Osama Bin Laden's 'Letter to America'

#52

Post by tehnub »

jameslk wrote: post #21

> The Guardian has removed a letter written by Osama Bin Laden, explaining his war against the United States is partly because of its support of Israel, after it had gone viral on TikTok. If I recall correctly, the terrorists attacked the US because they "don't like freedom". That was the narrative on TV nonstop and any wavering from full support of the wars or "supporting the troops" was tantamount to supporting ter…

From wikipedia [0]:

>Raymond Ibrahim, as a researcher at the Library of Congress, found a significant difference between Al Qaeda's messages in English directed to a Western audience and al Qaeda's Arab messages and documents directed to an Islamic audience. The Western-directed messages listed grievances as grounds for retaliation employing the "language of 'reciprocity.'" Literature for Islamic audiences contained theological motivations bereft of references to the acts of Western nations.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_a...

Re: The Guardian Deletes Osama Bin Laden's 'Letter to America'

#53

Post by ghayes »

panarky wrote: post #49
danso wrote: post #6

Google's cached version as cached by archive.today: https://archive.is/6xSxg

We need a better way to store important historical documents than a website that only works half the time archiving a Google cache version of a page from a midsized newspaper.

Library of Congress might be a reasonable place, albeit still with selection bias.

Re: The Guardian Deletes Osama Bin Laden's 'Letter to America'

#54

Post by kiba »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #42
kiba wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Terrorism fully compatible and justifiable with utilitarian ethics. As utilitarian ethics become increasingly popular, you should expect terrorism to become less repugnant. Anybody with ounce of brain cells would realize that such actions are contradictory and counterproductive to any sort of ethical system seriously espoused by anyone. It's absolutely self defeating and likely won't convince anyone to change their m…

History is literally full of cultures and populations that have bought into the utilitarian ideal that the ends justify the means. Basically every culture believes this to a certain extent, the perpetrators just dont call it terrorism.

History is literally full of cultures and populations that have bought into the utilitarian ideal that the ends justify the means.

Basically every culture believes this to a certain extent, the perpetrators just dont call it terrorism.

I was referring to the honest discussion of ethic, not bankrupt self-justification for any cause and for any reason.

Re: The Guardian Deletes Osama Bin Laden's 'Letter to America'

#55

Post by kyruzic »

beebmam wrote: post #47
kyruzic wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dropping bombs on innocent civilians in a third world country doesn't make you a hero either, but that doesn't stop our media from calling all members of the military involved in the wars in the middle East heroes. Also read more carefully they never said the "terrorists" were heroes they explained the point of view of the "terrorists"

> Dropping bombs on innocent civilians in a third world country Is this really what political analysis has stooped to on HN in 2023? A total abdication of any attempt at nuance, or framing, or examining underlying intentions. Such a shame.

[flagged]

Re: The Guardian Deletes Osama Bin Laden's 'Letter to America'

#57

Post by _l219 »

xwdv wrote: post #43
norir wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will never defend terrorism but this line of reasoning converges with that of terrorists very quickly.

No it doesn’t. Terrorists target civilians and incite terror to further their cause. Hunters of terrorists target the terrorists, and stop them from furthering their cause. Seems like a pretty clear difference to me.

> destroyed absolutely without question or hesitation

I think the concern is this line. Israel is trying to “destroy absolutely without question” Hamas but at the same time “accidentally” targeting civilians and “incite terror” amongst Palestinians.

At least that’s the view of some people that support Palestine.

In this case, it might not be clear who the terrorists are.

Re: The Guardian Deletes Osama Bin Laden's 'Letter to America'

#58

Post by arp242 »

naijaboiler wrote: post #45
user982 wrote: post #17

David Cross: "I don't think Osama bin Laden sent those planes to attack us because he hated our freedom, I think he did it because of our support for Israel and our ties with the Saudi family and all our military bases in Saudi Arabia. You know why I think that? Because that's what he fucking said. " ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggUXa2UVNYc )

I used to get so mad when I heard that simplistic rubbish “they hate us because of our freedoms” How could any person with even a high school education ever repeat that nonsense, much less accept it as true. People hate you because you’re doing or supporting something that hurts them

> People hate you because you’re doing or supporting something that hurts them

So all the people who hate gays do that because gays are doing or supporting something that hurts them?

I don't think you believe that, but I'm just following your argument here. "They hate us because of our freedoms" is simplistic rubbish yes, but so is "people hate you because you’re doing or supporting something that hurts them".

Recall that The Troubles started not with Republican terrorism (e.g. the IRA), but Protestant terrorism in response to Catholics demands for equal rights. Recall the many "lone wolf" unhinged nutjobs with delusional world-views. Etc. etc.

It's a shame when people criticize poor simplistic unnuanced viewpoints with ... other poor simplistic unnuanced viewpoints.

Re: The Guardian Deletes Osama Bin Laden's 'Letter to America'

#59

Post by BobaFloutist »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #42
kiba wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Terrorism fully compatible and justifiable with utilitarian ethics. As utilitarian ethics become increasingly popular, you should expect terrorism to become less repugnant. Anybody with ounce of brain cells would realize that such actions are contradictory and counterproductive to any sort of ethical system seriously espoused by anyone. It's absolutely self defeating and likely won't convince anyone to change their m…

History is literally full of cultures and populations that have bought into the utilitarian ideal that the ends justify the means. Basically every culture believes this to a certain extent, the perpetrators just dont call it terrorism.

Does that take into account that terrorist actions will cause a(n influential) subset of humans to determinedly oppose your goals, even if they would support them otherwise? The problem with terrorism with a utilitarian lens is that humans aren't strictly rational actors, and are smart enough to deliberately disincentivize things they hated such as terrorism.

The only world in which utilitarian terrorism makes sense is the one in which all actors are fundamentally rational, in which the assumed possibility of terrorism would motivate people to behave in a manner sufficient to render it unnecessary.

Post reply on HN