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

81–90 of 171 posts

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

#81

Post by rootusrootus »

concinds wrote: post #75

From Wikipedia: > 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 the…

We have a similar problem today with Christianity. Who is a evangelical/Christian nationalist that wants a theocratic government, and who is a normal American who believes in our fundamental principles and respects individual freedom but happens to have Christian faith themselves?

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

#82

Post by tehnub »

Aurornis wrote: post #80
tehnub wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why would you include only that section but omit the one above it that contains a theory that the motivations were indeed religious and intended as acts against those who don’t share their religious and cultural beliefs (aka the West and other locations with freedom of religion) > Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, in their book, The Age of Sacred Terror, argue that the 9/11 terrorist attacks are purely religious. The…

I wonder if you misunderstood me or what I quoted. I was trying to argue against the person I replied to by showing evidence that those "grievances" aren't necessarily the true motive. If I understand your other post correctly, you agree with this.

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

#83

Post by jameslk »

tehnub wrote: post #52
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…

Well, if we're going to selectively include text from that article, I'll include this one, since what really matters is what motivates terrorism, not what's in that letter:

> Robert Pape identified 315 incidents, all but 14 of which they classified as part of 18 different campaigns. These 18 shared two elements and all but one shared a third:[61] 1) A foreign occupation; 2) by a democracy; 3) of a different religion. Mia Bloom interviewed relatives and acquaintances of suicide terrorists. Her conclusions largely support Pape's, suggesting that it is much more difficult to get people to volunteer for a suicide mission without foreign occupation.[62]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_a...

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

#84

Post by Mimmy »

rootusrootus wrote: post #76
naijaboiler wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Have you read the letter? "Because you are attacking us" is on the list, yes. But then it goes on to specifically call out our freedoms. Pretty much using those words, even. > How could any person with even a high school education ever repeat that nonsense, much less accept it as true. I'd guess that most high schoolers can read the letter.

Thanks for mentioning this. He states explicitly he hates America for giving individuals personal freedom and not abiding by Sharia Law.

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

#85

Post by throw310822 »

concinds wrote: post #75

From Wikipedia: > 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 the…

> But people will trip over themselves to swallow literal propaganda.

And which do you think is propaganda, the religious discourse to the Muslim public, or the grievances discourse to the Western public?

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

#86

Post by xwdv »

_l219 wrote: post #57
xwdv wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Intent matters. If you are trying to destroy terrorists, it can be a messy job that results in innocent bystanders also dying, but that alone doesn’t make you a terrorist.

When you specifically target innocent civilians just to make some kind of point, you are a terrorist.

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

#87

Post by s1artibartfast »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #59
s1artibartfast wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't think it is a great strategy, and I think there is a reason it is used by desperate groups. It has a low chance of direct success, but that doesn't mean it is hopeless. Futhermore, there other lots of other utilitarian uses, besides actually "winning a conflict", eg attention, sympathy, reactionism.

Not to dive too deep into current events, but support for Palestinians, Gaza, and Hamas is probably at historic all time high right now. opposition is also at an all time time, but sometimes you might care more about one factor than the net balance.

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

#88

Post by s1artibartfast »

kiba wrote: post #54
s1artibartfast wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I dont know what you mean. These are things that people actually believe, often the majority of them.

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

#89

Post by ALittleLight »

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 )

The letter goes on to describe America as an evil place that permits homosexuality, usury, and gambling. "Hate us for our freedom" is putting a spin on it, but it's not without basis in the text.

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

#90

Post by yowzadave »

Aurornis wrote: post #74
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…

This is extraordinarily reductive and unnecessarily cynical. > If I recall correctly, the terrorists attacked the US because they "don't like freedom". That was the narrative on TV nonstop A significant part of that particular brand of terrorism is indeed hostile to cultures that don’t share their religious and cultural beliefs. We can’t reduce all of their motivations to singular slogans that fit neatly into TV comm…

> it is actually true that they are aligned against a secular international order with associated freedom of religion, among many other freedoms

Yes—there was at that time, and there remains to this day, a strong criticism of the US in that part of the world that it is a “decadent” society—which is really another way of saying that there are many freedoms that people avail themselves of that they disagree with.

Post reply on HN