4 ms·

I hear this a lot but is there any basis for this? Were any of the 9/11 attackers widowed/orphaned by the US? Or were they just whipped up in religious fervor a

I hear this a lot but is there any basis for this? Were any of the 9/11 attackers widowed/orphaned by the US? Or were they just whipped up in religious fervor and an abstract idea of a cultural war with the US? And does it go the other way? Do you create violent anti-Islamists when Muslims commit terror attacks? Were the orphans of 9/11 more likely to sign up for the US military, or commit hate crimes against Muslims than their non-directly-affected peers?

kristopolous 7y ago
Well we have been bombing a Muslim majority country for 18 years. That probably counts.
- oh_sigh 7y ago
  Counts for what? My question was about the basis for terrorism, not about the facts of bombing campaigns.
  - kristopolous 7y ago
    Terrorism is a label slapped on violence that breaks some arbitrary rules someone thinks ought to be followed. Were the founding fathers terrorists? The British sure thought so... You can be the gatekeeper of that word all you want, just know that you're playing that role.
    - oh_sigh 7y ago
      The British thought the founding fathers were rebels, which is not the same thing as terrorists(not that they had that word to use anyway)
      - kristopolous 7y ago
        Nope, rebel is the positive (or at least neutral) version of terrorist, the terrorist for your side. This exact oratory slight of hand is used constantly in media, virtue signaling through word choice.
        oh_sigh 7y ago
        No, there is a vast difference in tactics between rebels and terrorists. Rebels may use terrorism, terrorists may be rebels, but the two are not synonyms.
  - close04 7y ago
    > not about the facts of bombing campaigns Calling indiscriminately killing civilians something as generic as "a bombing campaign" is like calling 9/11 "a training flight gone wrong".
pjc50 7y ago
There was a wave of anti- Muslim hate crime in the US after 9/11, although not by any of the specific families of the victims. > Do you create violent anti-Islamists when Muslims commit terror attacks? Yes? E.g. after the murder of Lee Rigby in the UK there was a small wave of attempted arson on mosques.
emptyfile 7y ago
>Were any of the 9/11 attackers widowed/orphaned by the US? Or were they just whipped up in religious fervor and an abstract idea of a cultural war with the US? It's so sad that you don't know this. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver >Full text: bin Laden's 'letter to America' >As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple: >(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.
- oh_sigh 7y ago
  Funny how a CEOs public letter is looked at with more skepticism than OBL on here.
- fit2rule 7y ago
  Cannot upvote this enough. Folks just don't want to know the truth: Asymmetric war just guarantees more war.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
> And does it go the other way? Do you create violent anti-Islamists when Muslims commit terror attacks? Were the orphans of 9/11 more likely to sign up for the US military, or commit hate crimes against Muslims than their non-directly-affected peers? Yes, of course it does. Hell, even on the recent 9/11 HN thread there were people who said they joined the military after the towers collapsed. It's only natural reaction when your nation gets attacked, and it works the same everywhere. It's best to think of this as a single self-perpetuating process, with a strong feedback loop of hate and suffering inside. So the US bombs some Muslim countries, and eventually some group manages to pull off a 9/11 in retaliation. US reacts to this by utterly destroying several countries, and in reaction, ISIS is born. Which then US and others attempt to bomb out of existence. Rinse, lather, repeat. A kills B's people, B retaliates by killing A's people, A retaliates to retaliation by killing B's people, ...
- whiddershins 7y ago
  It’s just not a loop. Jihadists aren’t in a loop. That’s a myth. Jihad is real to them, and they are attacking non believers. The stated motivation for the 9/11 attacks were the presence of U.S. airbases in Saudi Arabia. Not revenge for some past hurt or attack. Why does everyone presume that what they say isn’t what they mean?
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Oh they are in the loop, even if they don't see it. This is how religion is used to get people to do things. You can read anything you like from a religious book; you'll find justification for anything if you comb for quotes enough. This makes religion a glue, or an amplifier, not a prescriber of behavior. Consider Christianity - the religion that gave us half of what's nice about the Western culture. That same religion using that same, unchanging book, set half of Europe aflame multiple times, for ostensibly religious reasons. When you look at it from outside it looks ridiculous, and when you study history you discover obvious political goals behind the crusades and other European wars - but then, a lot of people fighting and directing forces believed they do it because "God commands it". It's no different with Islam. Jihad is just an excuse to get people to fight and die for political causes. If the political reasons disappear, they'll soon find an excuse to not fight, and Jihad will again become "the internal struggle".

kristopolous 7y ago

Well we have been bombing a Muslim majority country for 18 years. That probably counts.

oh_sigh 7y ago
Counts for what? My question was about the basis for terrorism, not about the facts of bombing campaigns.
- kristopolous 7y ago
  Terrorism is a label slapped on violence that breaks some arbitrary rules someone thinks ought to be followed. Were the founding fathers terrorists? The British sure thought so... You can be the gatekeeper of that word all you want, just know that you're playing that role.
  - oh_sigh 7y ago
    The British thought the founding fathers were rebels, which is not the same thing as terrorists(not that they had that word to use anyway)
    - kristopolous 7y ago
      Nope, rebel is the positive (or at least neutral) version of terrorist, the terrorist for your side. This exact oratory slight of hand is used constantly in media, virtue signaling through word choice.
      - oh_sigh 7y ago
        No, there is a vast difference in tactics between rebels and terrorists. Rebels may use terrorism, terrorists may be rebels, but the two are not synonyms.
- close04 7y ago
  > not about the facts of bombing campaigns Calling indiscriminately killing civilians something as generic as "a bombing campaign" is like calling 9/11 "a training flight gone wrong".

pjc50 7y ago

There was a wave of anti- Muslim hate crime in the US after 9/11, although not by any of the specific families of the victims. > Do you create violent anti-Islamists when Muslims commit terror attacks? Yes? E.g. after the murder of Lee Rigby in the UK there was a small wave of attempted arson on mosques.

emptyfile 7y ago

>Were any of the 9/11 attackers widowed/orphaned by the US? Or were they just whipped up in religious fervor and an abstract idea of a cultural war with the US? It's so sad that you don't know this. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver >Full text: bin Laden's 'letter to America' >As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple: >(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

oh_sigh 7y ago
Funny how a CEOs public letter is looked at with more skepticism than OBL on here.
fit2rule 7y ago
Cannot upvote this enough. Folks just don't want to know the truth: Asymmetric war just guarantees more war.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

> And does it go the other way? Do you create violent anti-Islamists when Muslims commit terror attacks? Were the orphans of 9/11 more likely to sign up for the US military, or commit hate crimes against Muslims than their non-directly-affected peers? Yes, of course it does. Hell, even on the recent 9/11 HN thread there were people who said they joined the military after the towers collapsed. It's only natural reaction when your nation gets attacked, and it works the same everywhere. It's best to think of this as a single self-perpetuating process, with a strong feedback loop of hate and suffering inside. So the US bombs some Muslim countries, and eventually some group manages to pull off a 9/11 in retaliation. US reacts to this by utterly destroying several countries, and in reaction, ISIS is born. Which then US and others attempt to bomb out of existence. Rinse, lather, repeat. A kills B's people, B retaliates by killing A's people, A retaliates to retaliation by killing B's people, ...

whiddershins 7y ago
It’s just not a loop. Jihadists aren’t in a loop. That’s a myth. Jihad is real to them, and they are attacking non believers. The stated motivation for the 9/11 attacks were the presence of U.S. airbases in Saudi Arabia. Not revenge for some past hurt or attack. Why does everyone presume that what they say isn’t what they mean?
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Oh they are in the loop, even if they don't see it. This is how religion is used to get people to do things. You can read anything you like from a religious book; you'll find justification for anything if you comb for quotes enough. This makes religion a glue, or an amplifier, not a prescriber of behavior. Consider Christianity - the religion that gave us half of what's nice about the Western culture. That same religion using that same, unchanging book, set half of Europe aflame multiple times, for ostensibly religious reasons. When you look at it from outside it looks ridiculous, and when you study history you discover obvious political goals behind the crusades and other European wars - but then, a lot of people fighting and directing forces believed they do it because "God commands it". It's no different with Islam. Jihad is just an excuse to get people to fight and die for political causes. If the political reasons disappear, they'll soon find an excuse to not fight, and Jihad will again become "the internal struggle".