6 ms·
It is a sarcastic reference to an often repeated line from a speech Bush gave shortly after 9/11/2001. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/att
by jlgreco 13y ago
It is a sarcastic reference to an often repeated line from a speech Bush gave shortly after 9/11/2001.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/bushaddress_092001.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacke...
My point here being that "our freedoms" plainly is not why they hate us. The real reason is because of our involvement and interaction with them. When such involvement and interaction is kept classified for decades, then the American public has no hope of correctly evaluating statements such as Bush's.
- Myrmornis 13y agoAgreed. Sadly, many Americans continue, as you describe, to believe that the country is hated because of its freedoms, when the reason is its actions overseas. The core reason that people believe glib lies such as Bush's is that many people in the USA have no idea that people in other countries are not that dissimilar from themselves, in their interests and in their ambitions and concerns. We can't get everyone to travel, but we should be able to do better with modern internet technology and ubiquitous cell phones. For example, perhaps a website facilitating the creation of email / text message friendships between people in America and people in Afghanistan (or Gaza or Yemen etc). That would have the advantage of potentially severely reducing the signal-to-noise ratio in the government's mass surveillance of its own citizens. Initially of course it would be the more enlightened westerners that would participate, but it would be a start. Incentives for both sides could include language skills / other educational objectives.
- twoodfin 13y agoAre you sure they don't hate the "decadence" of modern Western society?
- jlgreco 13y agoNo doubt it is our freedom to be decadent. /s
- twoodfin 13y agoIt is, actually. Do you really think it's a coincidence that these guys set up shop in some of the most religiously oppressive places in the world?
- jlgreco 13y ago"Set up shop"? Where were they previously? Do you really think it is a coincidence that the more people we bomb, the more there seem to be?
- mpyne 13y agoThey were in Sudan previously, as I recall. By the way, Clinton did attack Sudanese AQ training camps (watch "Wag the Dog"); still waiting for the Sudanese terrorists...
- ucee054 13y agoAsk Michael Scheuer: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xgj08e_michael-scheuer-on-bin-laden-s-true-motives_news#.UbPIvdvMdXI http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xgj08e_michael-scheuer-on-b...
- Alex3917 13y agoDidn't Bin Laden also supposedly say that he was against the US because of the lack of action taken on global warming?
- twoodfin 13y agoHis argument is that radical Islamists hate us for what we do, not who we are. But we do what we do because of who we are. That's nearly a tautology in a democracy. We support Israel because its people largely share our values. We threw Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait and maintained a presence in Saudi Arabia because we support and defend the sovereignty of our allies, particularly when those allies supply vital resources. We continued to prop up Mubarak because we thought he was better than the alternative, etc. All of these are policies reached through a free, democratic process, which has not been a hallmark of those societies which have welcomed Al Qaeda into their midst. Also, have you heard of Sayyid Qutb? Just curious.
- mpyne 13y agoAlso remember when all the fatwas were proclaimed for a Danish newspapers publication of a cartoon featuring the Prophet Muhammad? That's not even considering the issue of extremist religion and Sharia law, as led to the shooting and near-murder of Malala Yousafzai. Islamist culture is not entirely compatible with Western democracy, just as far-right fundamentalist Christian extremism is not entirely compatible with Western democracy (e.g. the 1996 Olympic Park bombing).
- jckt 13y agoWhy do you say Islamist and not radical Islamist, while you say Christian extremism and not just Christian?
- TeMPOraL 13y agoSomeone's "decadence" is much easier to ignore if they don't keep bombing your villages and cities.
- twoodfin 13y agoI'm sorry: Which of Mohamed Atta or Osama Bin Laden's villages did "we" bomb prior to 9/11?
- ucee054 13y agoAre you trying frame things to make Palestine out to be a non-issue?
- tinco 13y agoThe reason Mohamed Atta or Osama Bin Laden hated the U.S. need not be the same reason their followers hate the U.S. Let's just say that Al Qaida had an easy time recruiting men with a grudge against the U.S. The western worlds 'decadent' lifestyles are just a way for Al Qaida to dehumanize them. That said, I bet Mohammed Atta and Osama Bin Laden also have their reasons besides idealistic ones to despise the western world.
- joering2 13y agoOsama Ibn Laden has equally to do with 9/11 as you or me with Boston Bombing. Well, that's overstatement, but here are some facts for you to digest: - Osama never took responsibility for 911. His multiple speeches he gave recorded in caves after 911 were incorrectly translated and heavily redacted for political purposes. E was just perfect to be framed. Anyone speaking Laden's language can hear him speaking that his family were doing business with Bush family (proven fact) for decades and he would never be competent to carry such an attack. Unfortunately, most videos of him speaking without overlapping loud audio vanished and any translation you find you can barely hear his native language. But you can find interview with people that were asked to translate his words ad they were pretty angry that everything got twisted. - ibn Laden was on FBI top list but never for 911. As far as I remember he was most wanted for some huge oil fraud he performed while his family did work with Bushes.