5 ms·

>George Washington isn't running for president anymore and slavery has been abolished for more than a century. The past is the past and this is the present: the

>George Washington isn't running for president anymore and slavery has been abolished for more than a century. The past is the past and this is the present: there are some commonalities but also a lot of important differences. I think the policies from the 60s and 70s have way more impact today than people realize and without understanding that context, "deep knowledge of current events" gets you nowhere. The seeds for an event like 9/11 were planted almost 50 years earlier and without understanding that it's easy for people to get swept up in takes like "they hate us for our freedom".

javajosh 5y ago
A good point with a bad example. 9/11 really was plotted by Islamists who do actually hate us for our freedoms, since to them our freedom amounts to a rejection of God's law, the soul of heresy, for which the punishment is death. There are no "civilians" in a holy war, since every man, woman and child of the heretical nation are living in defiance of God's law. Of course, this view is shared by every fanatic everywhere, of every faith, such that the jingo "They hate us for our freedom" applies to them, too.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  Japan is even farther from Islamic culture than the United States but they didn't have a 9/11. Why? Because jingoism is subordinate to things that actually matter, like justifying or resenting 50 years of sometimes violent American involvement in the middle east. We shouldn't allow ourselves to be fooled by internally-targeted propaganda from other countries, in a way that's even more embarrassing than being fooled by our own propaganda.
- nemothekid 5y ago
  >9/11 really was plotted by Islamists who do actually hate us for our freedoms, since to them our freedom amounts to a rejection of God's law, the soul of heresy, for which the punishment is death. Osama Bin Laden's own motivations for 9/11 had more to do with American imperialism in the Middle East and less to do with "rejection of God's Law". This isn't speculation, but from the horse's mouth. The "hate us for our freedom" was propaganda by Bush, and anyone who only looks at that, without studying the history of American imperialism in the middle east, starting from the coup of Iran, ends up in the backwards conclusion that Islam is a violent religion (or at least any more violent than any other Abrahamic religion). Please bear in mind that "rejection of God's law, the soul of heresy, for which the punishment is death" is also a major tenet in all Abrahamic religions. Secondly, there are plenty of Americans who are pining for nuclear war with Russia over Ukrainians; but somehow the blowback of nearly 50 years of foreign intervention by the CIA wouldn't be a motivation for anti-American sentiment in the middle east and instead "they just hate us for our freedom".
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - javajosh 5y ago
    They hate us for other reasons too. But I don't think you suicide yourself and kill civilians for geopolitical goals. You do it for God.
    - nemothekid 5y ago
      Not sure how to respond here. Are you implying that people don't kill civilians for geopolitical goals? Like how Putin is doing now? Or that suicide bombers are a religious thing? Kamikaze Fighters? The assassination of Alexander II? I'm not saying religion isn't a tool for executing these goals, but the orchestrators have always been acting under geopolitical goals.
      - javajosh 5y ago
        Your comment is a combination of strawmanning and shifting the goal posts, and doesn't deserve a serious response. It does merit a question. What motivates you to resist the simple truth that Islamists hate and wish to kill Westerners for breaking their holy law (the same behaviors we call "freedom"), admire martyrs who suicide themselves into civilians for this purpose? Do you think an Islamist would disagree with any of that? If so, why?
        setr 5y ago
        I believe GP and you are talking about two different actors; the individual committing the final act, and the individual rallying others to the cause. The soldier does not have a larger strategy in mind; he kills for simple and extreme reasons. The government however is rarely so naive, and initiates their wars with much larger goals in mind. Even with a dictator, they represent the filtered understanding of many advisors, and balance the many goals of the group (so almost by definition, they cannot sustain a singular goal with singular purpose for long). The individual just needs one reason to do what he does, which might be as simple as “his boss told him to”.
- meowkit 5y ago
  You're only proving the original posters point. The reality is that post world war 2 soviet containment is the most relevant starting point for explaining Islamic terrorism in the west. Yes, religious rhetoric was used by bin Laden and al-Qaeda to justify their actions, but they only took these actions because western powers (US, Soviets) were playing proxy war in the region for decades.
tablespoon 5y ago
>> George Washington isn't running for president anymore and slavery has been abolished for more than a century. The past is the past and this is the present: there are some commonalities but also a lot of important differences. > I think the policies from the 60s and 70s have way more impact today than people realize and without understanding that context, "deep knowledge of current events" gets you nowhere. I'm not arguing for an extreme opposite position (e.g. all current events, no history). If you thought I was, you misunderstood me. I'm just saying it's not being a "good citizen" to bury yourself in the past and neglect the present day. However, I will say understanding current events probably takes more effort, because history can be digested and presented more efficiently (e.g. for the Civil War: 4+ years of 19th century newspapers vs. a 500 page history).

javajosh 5y ago

A good point with a bad example. 9/11 really was plotted by Islamists who do actually hate us for our freedoms, since to them our freedom amounts to a rejection of God's law, the soul of heresy, for which the punishment is death. There are no "civilians" in a holy war, since every man, woman and child of the heretical nation are living in defiance of God's law. Of course, this view is shared by every fanatic everywhere, of every faith, such that the jingo "They hate us for our freedom" applies to them, too.

whatshisface 5y ago
Japan is even farther from Islamic culture than the United States but they didn't have a 9/11. Why? Because jingoism is subordinate to things that actually matter, like justifying or resenting 50 years of sometimes violent American involvement in the middle east. We shouldn't allow ourselves to be fooled by internally-targeted propaganda from other countries, in a way that's even more embarrassing than being fooled by our own propaganda.
nemothekid 5y ago
>9/11 really was plotted by Islamists who do actually hate us for our freedoms, since to them our freedom amounts to a rejection of God's law, the soul of heresy, for which the punishment is death. Osama Bin Laden's own motivations for 9/11 had more to do with American imperialism in the Middle East and less to do with "rejection of God's Law". This isn't speculation, but from the horse's mouth. The "hate us for our freedom" was propaganda by Bush, and anyone who only looks at that, without studying the history of American imperialism in the middle east, starting from the coup of Iran, ends up in the backwards conclusion that Islam is a violent religion (or at least any more violent than any other Abrahamic religion). Please bear in mind that "rejection of God's law, the soul of heresy, for which the punishment is death" is also a major tenet in all Abrahamic religions. Secondly, there are plenty of Americans who are pining for nuclear war with Russia over Ukrainians; but somehow the blowback of nearly 50 years of foreign intervention by the CIA wouldn't be a motivation for anti-American sentiment in the middle east and instead "they just hate us for our freedom".
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- javajosh 5y ago
  They hate us for other reasons too. But I don't think you suicide yourself and kill civilians for geopolitical goals. You do it for God.
  - nemothekid 5y ago
    Not sure how to respond here. Are you implying that people don't kill civilians for geopolitical goals? Like how Putin is doing now? Or that suicide bombers are a religious thing? Kamikaze Fighters? The assassination of Alexander II? I'm not saying religion isn't a tool for executing these goals, but the orchestrators have always been acting under geopolitical goals.
    - javajosh 5y ago
      Your comment is a combination of strawmanning and shifting the goal posts, and doesn't deserve a serious response. It does merit a question. What motivates you to resist the simple truth that Islamists hate and wish to kill Westerners for breaking their holy law (the same behaviors we call "freedom"), admire martyrs who suicide themselves into civilians for this purpose? Do you think an Islamist would disagree with any of that? If so, why?
      - setr 5y ago
        I believe GP and you are talking about two different actors; the individual committing the final act, and the individual rallying others to the cause. The soldier does not have a larger strategy in mind; he kills for simple and extreme reasons. The government however is rarely so naive, and initiates their wars with much larger goals in mind. Even with a dictator, they represent the filtered understanding of many advisors, and balance the many goals of the group (so almost by definition, they cannot sustain a singular goal with singular purpose for long). The individual just needs one reason to do what he does, which might be as simple as “his boss told him to”.
meowkit 5y ago
You're only proving the original posters point. The reality is that post world war 2 soviet containment is the most relevant starting point for explaining Islamic terrorism in the west. Yes, religious rhetoric was used by bin Laden and al-Qaeda to justify their actions, but they only took these actions because western powers (US, Soviets) were playing proxy war in the region for decades.

tablespoon 5y ago

>> George Washington isn't running for president anymore and slavery has been abolished for more than a century. The past is the past and this is the present: there are some commonalities but also a lot of important differences. > I think the policies from the 60s and 70s have way more impact today than people realize and without understanding that context, "deep knowledge of current events" gets you nowhere. I'm not arguing for an extreme opposite position (e.g. all current events, no history). If you thought I was, you misunderstood me. I'm just saying it's not being a "good citizen" to bury yourself in the past and neglect the present day. However, I will say understanding current events probably takes more effort, because history can be digested and presented more efficiently (e.g. for the Civil War: 4+ years of 19th century newspapers vs. a 500 page history).