How many DUers have read Osama bin Laden's "Letter to America"?

[Sandpiper]

While this certainly isn't news, it never got much play in the U.S. media.

Does he "hate us because we're free?" Well, not exactly. It's more like: fundamentalist extremism + legitimate political gripes

It's equal parts informative and chilling.

For those who've never seen it, here's the link:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[puggles]

4. Are you an expert on Muslims?

To make a statement like Muslim = being Anti-Freedom needs some proof. Don't hand me the terrorist attacks as proof as we all know they don't represent all Muslims.

[bearfartinthewoods]

31. well if you are a woman, it certainly does = anti-freedom

unless you see the retrictions differently than i do?

[deportivoI]

44. The Only War

We Need to fight is the War On Ignorance. A Noble War that if won would eliminate the majority of the ills of the world.


:wtf:

[Indiana Democrat]

102. I know my original message has been deleted but i'm responding anyway...

And to answer you inane charge against me...

Are YOU and expert on Muslims??

ANYONE knows Muslim countries in the middle east regard women as less than human. They DO NOT have the same rights as men...So OF COURSE they are "Anti-Freedom".

If you weren't so eager to pick a fight with me on this subject, you would have given me the benefit of the doubt and admitted that obvious simple truth.


Now...You can make the case that moderate muslims in America shouldn't be grouped with the muslim countires and I will agree with you. But still, many muslims practice strict Islam (Even those who are do not support bin Laden's terrorism) and they still oppress women.

So again...Yes...Muslim = Anti-Freedom. Not in all cases, but most, for SURE.

[DrWeird]

107. Bigotted comments are not allowed on this board.

You say muslim = antifreedom. This is a bigotted comment.

It is like saying blacks = lazy.

gays = perverts

jews = greedy

Just because some jews may be greedy, and some blacks might be lazy, doesn't give you the right to categorize the entire race or religion that way.

How would you feel if somebody labelled christianity that way because of their treatment of homosexuals (or women for that matter)?

[Indiana Democrat]

111. Name calling is not allowed on this forum.

You say my comments are "Bigoted"???

Then tell me...Do muslim societies NOT oppress women?


WELL? I'M FUCKING WAITING ON YOUR ANSWER!!! BACK UP YOUR CHARGE OF BIGOTRY AGAINST ME OR APPOLOGIZE!!

[DrWeird]

118. I never called you a bigot.

I only said the phrase "muslim = antifreedom" is a bigotted comment that bigots would say. Most non-bigots will agree with me.

Until very recently, homosexuality was illegal. But I don't go around saying christianity = antifreedom.

[Indiana Democrat]

120. ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!

I can tell you're not going to appologize, and instead, just dance around the issue, so you're obviously not straigh-up about that...So...How about this...

Do Muslim countries oppress women or NOT???

[DrWeird]

124. I don't know.

I've never been to Turkey, or Indonesia, or any other predominately muslim country. If that's what you mean by "muslim country."

Regardless, that's irrelevant to the defense of the comment "muslim = antifreedom."

Now answer my question. The United States, a predominately christian nation, oppresses homosexuals. So is "christian = antifreedom" an equally valid comment to yours?

[Indiana Democrat]

132. You DO know...You just won't answer.

And no...The US does not oppress homosexuals. Individuals might (As is their right), but the government does not. As a matter of fact, our government goes out of its way to insure homosexuals are not oppressed via anti-discrimination laws for job applicants, renters, ect...

And besides, we are not a "Christain Government"...We are a secular government.

[DrWeird]

134. The government doesn't oppress homosexuals??!!

Tell that to Col. Cammermeyer.

[thebigidea]

10. bwhahahahah!

"And being Muslim = being Anti-Freedom."

that has to be the funniest thing I've seen on DU in ages. Is this one of your lines or are you quoting someone?

And could I borrow the line?

[bearfartinthewoods]

33. excuse me but what is your definition of freedom?

does it involve women being able to leave the house without the permission of her husband? or driving a car? or wearing clothes of her own choice?

[thebigidea]

47. my new definition of freedom = anything that isn't Muslim

Islam hates freedom! BUNCH OF FREEDOMHATERS! Those that hate freedom hate America - because America IS freedom.

Either with us, or against us.

We are now against the entire Muslim world.

THEY HATE FREEDOM!

[Indiana Democrat]

103. Anser the question.

How do muslim treat their women?

[DrWeird]

106. "How do muslim (sic) treat they're women?"

The same way christians do. Really, there is very little difference between the to religions.

Fundamentalist muslims treat women the same way fundamentalist christians do, i.e. they are subordinate to the man of the house, be it father, husband, or eldest son, and must do whatever he wants.

[Indiana Democrat]

112. How do muslims threat (sic) they're women?

See...Two can play the cute litle (sic) game...But at least in my case, it was an accident...I just left the "s" off of "Muslim(s). You abreviated "They are" (They're) when you really meant "Their"...

Anyway...

You're trying to compare FREE Christians, in FREE countries who may or may not treat their women they way we all wish they should be treated to Muslim COUNTRIES that oppress women as a fucking RULE???

Are you KIDDING me???

[Sandpiper]

126. If anyone's kidding, the joke's on you

You're trying to compare FREE Christians, in FREE countries who may or may not treat their women they way we all wish they should be treated to Muslim COUNTRIES that oppress women as a fucking RULE???

In this free country, women have been oppressed in their right to vote, their right to receive equal treatment in the workplace, and their right to have autonomy over their own bodies.

Do women in the US have more rights today than women in the Muslim world? Sure. But let's not kid ourselves. Women have been regarded as chattel and second class citizens for most of this nation's history. And we're supposed to be an enlightened secular society.

[Indiana Democrat]

114. Muslim countries = being anti-freedom.

Or can you argue that simple fact?

And unfortunately, strict muslims here in the States follow those same rules when it comes to women.

[leftistagitator]

11. Half true

He does hate us for not being Muslim. And his version of Islam does equal anti-freedom. But Islam itself is no less encouraging of liberty than Christianity. Islam today is just what happens when the fundamentalists take control of the religion.

[Indiana Democrat]

119. Good points. Thanks!

But I do worry about about the Koran. I'll admit, I'm not up to date on it so I don't commonly comment on it, but there are many who state the Koran is inherently evil (Kill the ifidels, etc...)

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vladimir]

34. Does anyone think

you could get away with saying being Jewish/Catholic/Black/Gay = anti-freedom?

No, neither do I. Why is this kind of comment only OK if directed at Muslims?

V

[bearfartinthewoods]

36. the day any of those groups declare woman must obey men.

i'll agree with you.

[Vladimir]

37. Too easy

first of all, I know plenty of Muslims that would disagree violently with a fundametalist interpretation of the Koran. So to say that being Muslim = anti freedom is an unjustified generalization anyway. This would be like saying being Christian = anti-freedom based on the action of the US fundamentalist evangelical lobby.

V

[bearfartinthewoods]

42. the title of this thread references bin ladin's letter

so i'm assuming it's his brand of islam we are discussing in specifics, not islam in general.

[Vladimir]

45. I don't think that context is implied by

the statement "being Muslim = being Anti-Freedom"

My point is, there are strands of many, almost all, religions which could be construed as anti-freedom. But only with Islam are statements like that able to be made in respectable circles. Islamophobia is a growing problem throughout the world.

V

[bearfartinthewoods]

55. ok...being muslim can-anti freedom.

that has little to do with the intent of the muslim radicals as represented by bin ladins missive.

if you are looking for an islamophobic you're looking at the wrong person. but i do acknowledge that if benie's dreams come true it means a loss of freedom. do you?

[Vladimir]

62. Absolutely

I just resent sweeping generalizations... a statement like: "The government of Saudi Arabia are anti-freedom" I would lend unqualified support to.

V

[Indiana Democrat]

122. Show me one coutnry...

That oppresses women as a RULE OF LAW that is NOT Muslim.

And then show me one Muslim country that DOES NOT oppress women as a RULE OF LAW.

[Vladimir]

127. See the post below

Pakistan, Indonesia (most populous Muslim country btw.), Bangladesh. As for non-muslim countries opressing women, try having an abortion in a lot of the Southern USA and see the shit you have to go through before exercising your 'constitutional' right.

The rule-of-law is a ridiculous argument. As I have said many times in the past, laws mean nothing out of context, in the same way that absolute morality based on any religious document is a sham. Equivalence in law means nothing without an equivalence in practice. Now admittedly no Western country treats women as the Taliban do, but then neither do most Muslim countries.

Actually the most interesting example of a non Muslim country treating women and in fact the majority of the population appalingly is probably Tibet under Buddhist rule in the late 40s. Edit: Despite which I still wouldn't say Buddhist = anti freedom, as that would be plainly ridiculous.

V

edit: changed Dalai Lama to Buddhist rule

[ret5hd]

39. hmmmm...wasn't it just a year or so ago that the southern baptists voted..

on this very thing?

and it passed, didn't it?

in fact, IIRC, wasn't that about the time jimmy carter left them?

if i'm remembering correctly, i'll wait for your "agreeing" with him.

if not, just tell me to shut up. i can take it.

[bearfartinthewoods]

41. baptists weren't one of the groups referenced

i read carefully :grin:

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia

have all had women as heads of state or government. This shows that characterisations of Islam as "woman must obey men" are incorrect.

[bearfartinthewoods]

63. no it means that some muslims do not adhere to the teachings.

it does not mean that the characterization is incorrect.

to look at it differently, the fact that many catholics practice birth control does not mean that the pope endorses it. people can choose to adhere to the teachings and tenets of their religious leaders but there choice does not alter the nature of the religion. they can also choose to follow any particular religious leader they prefer and still not alter the basic nature of the religion only the degree to which they adhere to the particulars.

[Vladimir]

65. But that is your interpretation of the 'teachings'

The Bible, taken literally, could also be called anti-freedom. There are double standards being applied here.

V

[bearfartinthewoods]

76. not by me

i'm more than ready to describe any sect of any bible believing religion who adhere to any teachings of the bible which limit freedom as anti-freedom. but taken on the whole, the groups specified do not adhere in that manner.

please note, i already add "can=" a couple hours ago.

i'm usually up to a degree of nit-picking but this is useless unless someone actually wants to discuss the loss of freedoms which would occur if benie got his way, i'm done...unless or until some stricly adhering catholic sect's leader writes a similar letter, of course.

[thebigidea]

48. say, ever read the Bible?

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so the wives to their own husbands in every thing.

Ephesians 5:22-24

THEY HATE FREEDOM!

[bearfartinthewoods]

87. nope...sorry

it is on my 'to-do' list though.

[thebigidea]

88. apparently, they hate freedom!

So you better read a copy or two and then WARN THE WORLD!

[bloom]

105. The day I got married...

my (Catholic) brother-in-law quoted the New Testament Bible verse for me about a women obeying her husband....

so - there you go...


(reference post #48)

P.S. He was serious, BTW.

[LeahMira]

46. Conflating intrinsic qualities with choices.

Does anyone think you could get away with saying being Jewish/Catholic/Black/Gay = anti-freedom?

Choosing a religion is a choice. You might feel that at some level it is not, but people are born black or gay and,while they may be born with spirituality, they are not born automatically adherents of any particular religion. Religion is learned.

Religions are essentially conservative and, in a way, anti-freedom. Religions expect their membership to see the world in a particular way and no other way. They require their adherents to believe in a particular way and to behave in a particular way. There is a certain amount of adaptation to changing circumstances, otherwise the religion would become stagnant and irrelevant, but any change comes very slowly.

Being Jewish, Catholic, or Muslim does mean being anti-freedom in the sense that some choices are denied the religious person if s/he wishes to continue as an adherent of the religion.

[Vladimir]

50. Yes, ok fair point

I accept the argument about choices vs. intrinsic qualities. But the original post:

"being Muslim = being anti-freedom"

was not in the spirit which you suggest in your last paragraph.

V

[bearfartinthewoods]

90. would you agree that a religion can be viewed as anti freedom to the

extent that it wishes to preclude a choice of religions in any population?

[wtmusic]

2. It's very interesting

that American press won't even publish this letter.

Why? Because it contains coded messages to terrorists?

Because some Americans might find it persuasive?

?

[Indiana Democrat]

3. Answer to your ???'s.

Because this woman and child slaughtering piece of shit does not deserve the "Free" press...He and his kind don't allow it in their world...Why should we GIVE it to him in ours???

Seems pretty simple to me.

[puggles]

6. Free press

Well, if we are not allowing Bin to publish his stuff here are do we have the right to complain about him being Ant-Freedom and against free press. It works both ways. Are we not adult enough to read it for what it is and not suddenly become Muslims? Are or we scare because we think we might be stupid enough to believe him?

[wtmusic]

8. X-actly

and welcome to DU puggles!!

:bounce: :toast: :bounce:

[jarab]

131. Welcome to DU !!

jarab - DU moderator

[wtmusic]

7. Then you have a simple worldview

Are you saying we should adopt bin Laden's technique of muzzling the press? That's even more interesting.

[Indiana Democrat]

104. Why don't we allow Freepers to post here?

It's a "Free Country", isn't it??

Maybe we here on DU are adopting bin Laden's technigue??

[Sandpiper]

9. In the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq

The U.S. military has killed over four times as many civilians as Osama bin Laden did on 9/11/01.

What does that make them in your estimation?

[rpannier]

17. Still Not As Bad

Whether you like it or not...getting rid of the Taliban was a GOOD thing. It is terrible when someone dies, but my question is...What would you have done? Adopt a live and let live policy in hopes he'd go away. Get real.
Iraq is a travesty. Bush screwed up badly. Afghanistan was a necessity, which, unfortunately for the world Bush screwed up the psot war just as badly as in Iraq.

[Sandpiper]

20. Getting rid of the Taliban was a good thing

Indiscriminately carpet bombing a country and killing 4000 non combatants is not a good thing, and puts on the same moral plane as the people we're denouncing.

[Indiana Democrat]

117. If the people of Afghanistan won't police themselves...

...and possibly die doing so (Just as we do here in America)...

And WE have to go over THERE and police them FOR them...

Then I have no problem with the deaths of some of their innocents. (And that statement of mine in no way is proof of acceptance of your "4 times as many" claim. I just ignored that claim of your in order to keep the discussion on track).

[Sandpiper]

123. You can bury your head in the sand if you like

And that statement of mine in no way is proof of acceptance of your "4 times as many" claim.

But it doesn't change the facts:

Civilian Casualties in Afghanistan: 3767 minimum

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1740538.stm

Civilian Casualties in Iraq: 8769 minimum 10618 maximum

http://iraqbodycount.net/

Minimum total of civilians killed by U.S. forces: 12536

U.S. Casualties on 9/11/01: 2998

12536/2998 = 4.18 times as many civilians killed by U.S. forces


And WE have to go over THERE and police them FOR them

The belief that the U.S. has the right to invade and "police" whoever it chooses is one of the biggest reasons why the September 11 attacks happened in the first place.

[Indiana Democrat]

133. Oh bullshit!

"The belief that the U.S. has the right to invade and "police" whoever it chooses is one of the biggest reasons why the September 11 attacks happened in the first place."

Again...OH BULLSHIT!

The people of Afghanistan allowed the Taliban to work with Al Qaeda and that same Al Qaeda attacked us on our home soil.

We have EVERY right to prevent that from happening again...And if some of those same citizens die in the process, they only have themselves (Or their government) to blame.

You can blame America for 9-11 all you want, but I will not. This is a better world because of us, PERIOD!!

[DrWeird]

135. So if Iraqi terrorists attacked the US, you'd be fine with that?

The US attacked them on their home soil, for no good reason I might add. And the American people allowed Bush to do that. So by using your logic, if some angry Iraqi, who's family we blew up, attacked the US and killed a bunch of civilians, you wouldn't have a problem with that.

Or are American civilians better than Afghani civilians?

[Indiana Democrat]

136. Nice try...

...but I won't fall for your attempts to inflame me by bashing our country and our military. You can stew in your own hatred of our contry...Me, I'll appreciate what has been given me by those who have sacrificed many things before my time.



I will answer your last question though...

Yes, as a whole, American civilians are better than Afghani civilians...

Those before you and me (And to a certain extent, you and me too) built the greatest country in the history of man...And they did so via fighting for their freedoms and then creating the constitution...The document that has allowed us to build said greatest country in the history of man.

I'll go a step further...

If a bunch of freaks were operating a terrorist camp that trained blood-thirsty killers of women and children somewhere in America...And those killers went to another country to kill innocents in the name of their god, I would EXPECT the rest of us to rise up against them a put a stop to it...And many of us would die doing so.

The Afghans did NOT do that...So, we had too. And like I said before, some of their innocent citizens paid the price of previous inaction...

Too bad for them.

[Sandpiper]

138. At least you've finally told the truth

Yes, as a whole, American civilians are better than Afghani civilians...

About yourself and your intellectual inconsistency.

Yep, only a tragedy when 'Muricans are killed. Those lousy little towelheads just need to realize that our lives are worth more than theirs.

And they have our oil too!

:eyes:

[Sandpiper]

137. Why don't you just say it and be done with it

Love it or leave it!

right?

[Union Thug]

12. I don't think...

...anything is "that simple". They are happy to play semi-identifiable, mostly questionable audio, and broadcast crude vids of him making this statement or that statement, translated by god knows who... Why not this too?

[maggrwaggr]

13. so .... "knowing your enemy" means nothing to you?

your point of view seems a bit ignorant and emotional.

It would be wise to get to know your enemy, know his motivations and the like.

Otherwise how the fuck else are you supposed to thwart him?

Silly .......

[Indiana Democrat]

110. Why give him OUR "FREE PRESS" in order to spout his hatred???

Your point of view seems ignorant and emotional.

Why make it easy on him?

Why don't we here at DU allow Freepers??

Silly .......

[rpannier]

14. I Have To Agree

The Taliban were one of the most oppressive and intollerant governments out there -- second to Kim in North Korea. Bin Laden's rants must be remembered in context. He was not complaining when the Reagan government funnelled billions of US dollars and training to him and the Mujazadeen. He was not mourning the assassination of the first Israeli PM to recognize an independent Palestine. He orchestrated the murder of over two thousand people -- some of whom were Muslim and some who agreed with many things he believes. But I'm sure for him, like Bush, they were just collateral damage.

[ConsAreLiars]

15. Are you talking about

Fundie George or Fundie Osama when you refer to "this woman and child slaughtering piece of shit"?

Hard to tell the difference in ideology other than a few buzzwords.

Although Fundie George has achieved a higher body count than Fundie Osama, I have no doubt that Fundie Osama hopes to even the score soon and that Fundie George will respond in kind.

Edit to add:
Those who measure victory by the amount blood they spill are enemies of all humanity. Both of them. All of them. Holy warriors; true believers, delusional zealots; fanatics; scum.

[LeahMira]

Well, golly...

Because this woman and child slaughtering piece of shit does not deserve the "Free" press...He and his kind don't allow it in their world...Why should we GIVE it to him in ours???

I thought we were supposed to be better!

Don't you think that Americans are capable of reading this letter and coming to reasonable conclusions? Forming their own opinions?

This letter has a lot more to it than: "we hate you because you are free."

One element I see is that history is important to these people. They aren't simply focused on what happened in the past year or the past two years. They remember thousands of years of history... even history that happened before the U.S.A. came into existence.

We in the U.S. have this attitude of "you lost; we won; get over it; it's history." Yes, it is history, but it's history written by the "winners." The "losers" have their own recollections, and their recollections are more real to them than anything the "winners" have written.

Somehow, I think we in the West are going to have to learn how to deal with how others remember their history. We may choose to ignore it, but it doesn't go away.

I certainly do not intend to make a case for bin Laden here. But he has been able to recruit his followers because of the remembered history that he is able to draw up. I think that we need to take the history and pride of a people into account somehow, and negotiate from those understandings as well as from our own. A diplomat and statesman who was sincerely interested in those issues could probably do that. A cowboy cannot.

[Indiana Democrat]

113. You miss my pont...

...why should we help him spread his propaganda?

Again...Using your logic...

Why don't we allow Freepers to post here? It's a free country.

[leftistagitator]

16. I certainly hope few do.

I'm not going to deny the long history of the West oppressing the Middle East and other places. But when you kill thousands of civilians who had nothing to do with that you lose any sympathy that I may have had for you. Bin Laden doesn't deserve enough respect to thoughtfully consider his points. I'd rather negotiate with Muslims who haven't yet turned to killing random people to find peace.

[wtmusic]

18. Agree

I'm not going to deny the long history of terrorists oppressing the American people. But when you kill thousands of Muslims who had nothing to do with that you lose any sympathy that I may have had for you. Bush doesn't deserve enough respect to thoughtfully consider his points. I'd rather negotiate with Americans who haven't yet turned to killing random people to find peace.

[leftistagitator]

29. Damn straight

That's why we need to get Kerry in there :)

[Sandpiper]

19. I agree that bin Laden has no place at a negotiating table

But

who haven't yet turned to killing random people to find peace.

We'll have to hope that the Muslims who are willing to negotiate peacefully, don't apply this criteria to the U.S.

[maggrwaggr]

22. "when you kill thousands of civilians who had nothing to do with that"

are you talking about Bin Laden in the US, or the US in Iraq?

We are now as bad as they, since the first bomb of "shock and awe" fell.

That is why I have been so angry now for, well, a year!

[leftistagitator]

27. I've been angry since Iraq, too

I don't so much hold the US accountable for Iraq, as much as I hold * accountable though. I don't think American's are much more responsible for * then Muslims are for Bin Laden, after all even in a Republic most people still basically do what they are told. I have a hard time believing that more than a quarter of Americans fully understand *'s mentality and support his policies. Iraq was a strategic and tactical mistake, and the wholly immoral application of force upon innocent people. And all the while our real enemies grow stronger. If there was any justice the * administration would face a war crimes trial for their acts of aggression, but seeing how that is unlikely, I'll settle for just kicking them out of office come November.

[cliss]

5. Especially chilling were the words

towards the end of his letter. "Leave us alone, or we will see you in Washington and New York."

I'd say that sounds pretty ominous. It's safe to say that we will not leave them alone, or leave Iraq, so it looks like the gauntlet has been thrown down.

Interesting letter.

[LDS Jock]

24. bin Laden or the religious right? check some of the statements

"You...choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator."

"a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom."

"Who can forget President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment"

"we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you"


Anyone else think this sounds like a rightwinger?

[Sandpiper]

26. You can call their religious philosophies by different names

But when you get right down to it, a leopard can't change its spots.

A fundie is a fundie, regardless of their deity of choice.

The "evangelicals" are busy trying to become the Taliban of this country.

[corporatewhore]

83. aha !! clintons penis did cause 9/11!!!

[Muddleoftheroad]

86. Even funnier

OBL believes it.

[rpannier]

21. Go There Sometime

Go to Afghanistan sometime and ask the people. I have a brother who's been there since the Taliban have been goene and the majority of the people say "Good!" What is disturbing, and very Bush-like, is how badly 'w' has screwed up another situation. People in Afghanistan expected more from us and we delivered next-to-nothing.

[maggrwaggr]

23. yeah, another lie, another promise broken

all those dead Sunnis in southern Iraq feel pretty good about us now, too, seeing as how the word of the U.S. means "fuck you"

[ConsAreLiars]

25. Been there

Before the US began arming and organizing Fundie fanatics the country was a medieval backwater where "outsiders" like myself were regarded as strange but rules of civility prevailed and unveiled women were rare but (in the major cities) accepted and even regarded as privileged. The Taliban are gone (sort of). Good (sort of). But you are right. Instead of a strategy to undo the damage caused by the US in giving the Taliban fundies power, those in power in the US have adopted an approach that will intensify the conflict and increase the suffering.

[bearfartinthewoods]

97. delivered next-to-nothing

excuse me, i am more than willing to acknowledge that the world expects a great deal from us but freeing them from the taliban is hardly next to nothing imho.

[HydroAddict]

30. Thanks for link

This doc, assuming correct translation and actually bin Laden's words, has taught me a lot. Worthy of one of my infrequent posts.

Some points/thoughts:

- This is the first I've seen of bin Laden taking any credit for 9/11. Even though not directly, he seems pretty happy about it. I still think the "Fat Usama" video is quite fishy.

- When speaking of religion, he sounds EXACTLY like our own far-right fundies, just juxtapose the "Allah's" with "Jesus's" and bingo.

- (Flame suit here) When speaking of things non-religious (US role as terrorist, energy/oil, environment), I agree 90% with his claims.

As an example of my agreeing I quote:
The American Government and press still refuses to answer the question:
Why did they attack us in New York and Washington?

If Sharon is a man of peace in the eyes of Bush, then we are also men of peace!!! America does not understand the language of manners and principles, so we are addressing it using the language it understands.

In essence he states attacks will continue until we are a Muslim theocracy. As an atheist and a (previously) proud U.S. citizen, all I can say to that is: STFU and Die UBL!

You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator.
...(snip)...
If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight with the Islamic Nation. The Nation of Monotheism, that puts complete trust on Allah and fears none other than Him.

Again, STFU Farwell...oops I meant, Usama!

[Disturbed]

32. I have read the letter

"But I'm sure for him, like Bush, they were just collateral damage."

You have not read his letter or missed his statement.

He considers all those that are attacked are legitimate targets because they are enemies. Also, he stated that the US has killed many Muslims that were not combatents.

This is not excusing Al Q. tactics.

Seems that there is no room for any negotiating with Al Q.

Americans will have to get used to many years of attacks because I don't feel that the cells can be completely destroyed.

[Muddleoftheroad]

35. It's worth reading

Because there is no way in hell they will ever stop attacking us. That letter is one big rationalization to kill every American and every Westerner who doesn't convert to Islam.

Things that will get us killed:

* Free press -- This includes movies and TV to which they object.
* Gambling -- I think pretty much every U.S. state has it in some unapproved form.
* Religion -- Most of us aren't Muslims. That's it for us.
* Alcohol -- 'Tis a pity, but true.
* Supporting Israel -- I guess it's a given.
* Not supporting any and every Muslim insurgency in the world -- According to this, we support India in Kashmir, which must be news to the State Dept. or even *.
* Usury -- Can't go making interest. Wow.

That's just a sample.

Even more scary is that it calls for what amounts to one radical Islamic state. And though the document looks like it refers to just existing Muslim nations, I don't think it does.

They wacknuts mean the world. One Islamic nation under the rule of Sharia.

[thebigidea]

49. "They wacknuts mean the world. " oh, no they don't.

Give me a break, Muddle. Point out where Osama says he wants to conquer the world, or even achieve "global hegemony" like our fine government wants to.

[Muddleoftheroad]

53. Did you read the article?

He gave a list a mile long of things we must do to keep from being attacked.

One of those was convert to Islam. The same will go for all of their enemies -- including Russia, the rest of the West and India -- who are all mentioned.

[thebigidea]

56. of course, I read it when it came out

And nowhere does he mention conquering the world.
There's a sickening pious plea to "turn to Islam," but in language not much different than what the Christians and Scientologists use.

Do you accuse them of wanting to take over the world?

[Muddleoftheroad]

58. They don't threaten to attack us if we don't convert

He does. And since he talks about the other enemies of Islam and attacking them and talks about one ummah, all the converted nations will all be part of the same group.

[thebigidea]

59. uh huh. He means to rule the world! Like the Red Skull.

Arguing with you is like arguing with a chunk of styrofoam. I'll leave it to someone else.

[Muddleoftheroad]

61. Clearly you read, clearly you don't understand

That he means to convert all nations to Islam. (Even that much must be apparent to you from reading it.) And then have all nations follow the law of Sharia and all be part of the ummah.

One Islamic nation.

[FlaGranny]

38. While I agree with

a good part of the first half of this letter, the second part makes me believe we need to continue to search them out and remove them (Al Queda) from the ability to operate. Religious extremism is the worst danger we face in the world today (aside from global warming), both from Islam and Christianity. Do any other religions have this kind of extremism? I wish that humankind were not so concerned about the thoughts and beliefs of others to the point that they want to kill each other.

[Muddleoftheroad]

51. Care to elaborate what you agree with?

[thebigidea]

52. why don't you just cut to the chase and cry "Terrorist! Terror supporter!"

[Muddleoftheroad]

54. Because I want to know what the poster agreed with

Perhaps there is something I missed.

You know, in between us converting to Islam, getting rid of our free press, getting rid of any gays or gay rights, getting rid of abortion, etc.

[thebigidea]

57. where does OBL ask to abolish our free press?

you can criticize a douchebag like OBL without making shit up, muddle.

[Muddleoftheroad]

60. He's a nut and I don't have to make this crap up

(vi) You are a nation that exploits women like consumer products or advertising tools calling upon customers to purchase them. You use women to serve passengers, visitors, and strangers to increase your profit margins. You then rant that you support the liberation of women.

(vii) You are a nation that practices the trade of sex in all its forms, directly and indirectly. Giant corporations and establishments are established on this, under the name of art, entertainment, tourism and freedom, and other deceptive names you attribute to it.

[thebigidea]

66. where does OBL ask to abolish our free press?

you don't have to make shit up, muddle. Try again.

And his rantings on sex sound oddly like Joe Lieberman and lots of people you support on DU habitually... birds of a fucked up feather!

[Muddleoftheroad]

70. Reading 101

He says these are the things we must give up or stop. They are part of our free press kiddo.

[thebigidea]

72. where does OBL ask to abolish our free press?

stop making shit up. I can be just as droning and repetetive as you.

[Muddleoftheroad]

75. Clearly you can drone

Be repetitive and abusive. Now if you could just go ahead and read and understand we might get somewhere.

[thebigidea]

77. or if you would stop making things up out of whole cloth

then maybe we can discuss what he actually said instead of your comic book supervillain view of it.

And if you want to talk abuse, I'd like to discuss financial compensation for the mental anguish and psychological trauma involved with reading your tortured text.

[Muddleoftheroad]

79. He is a supervillain

And he doesn't even have a comic book -- yet.

Clearly, you refuse to see what is in front of you face. He wants us to abandon every belief we have and convert or we will be attacked.

[thebigidea]

80. I'm not the OBL Appreciation Society, Muddle. But I don't make stuff up.

you don't need to attribute all sorts of fantastic ambitions to that cretin. Abolishing the "free press" in the United States is NOT Job #1.

[Muddleoftheroad]

82. You are missing the text here

And you just appear to be in the OBL rationalization society.

[thebigidea]

85. that's right, muddle. I hate freedom, America, and your apple pie.

I'm part of the local Benny's Boosters OBL Outreach Association - we help inner city kids with poor prospects by showing them how to win big by rationalizing terror - or accusing others of it, all for fun and profit!

[Muddleoftheroad]

91. Thanks for being honest

Though I never accused you of any of that.

Rationalizing terror is something I would just usually reserve for people who automatically assume anyone who attacks America is OK by them.

[thebigidea]

92. no, its just something you accuse people of when you run out of logic

... or can't back up asanine statements with oh, maybe a fact or two. Or an actual quote.

[Muddleoftheroad]

93. Well, I never accused you of it

I said you were rationalizing. You were.

Now you are building a straw man.

[thebigidea]

94. oh, you mean a like the "he wants to abolish our free press" straw man?

you haven't finished that one yet, why should I start a new one? To keep up with the Joneses?

Tell me more about this thing you call... rationalization. If possible, in rhyme.

[Muddleoftheroad]

95. Nothing straw about Shariah law, though it does rhyme

Or the things that we must abandon if we wish not to be attacked.

[thebigidea]

98. you should do this sort of thing on talk shows, you'd be great

I'd love to tape a debate with you, it'd be hilarious.

[Muddleoftheroad]

99. It would be fun

I'll have my people contact your people.

[thebigidea]

108. I think I'm serious now! Wanna do it?

on a radio show call-in or something? I can set it up. A debate on "why they hate freedom."

[LeahMira]

71. Good grief, Muddle...

You are a nation that exploits women like consumer products or advertising tools calling upon customers to purchase them.

Can you deny it?

OK, it's not the whole picture, but it is part of the picture.

Again, the quotes you cited could as easily have come from Falwell or Robertson. To a point, they are true. To Falwell or Robertson or bin Laden, they are the only parts of the truth that matters. Still, despite the tunnel vision, you can't say it's all crap.

[Muddleoftheroad]

74. Nowhere do those fundy Christian wackos

Call for all of us to convert or we will be attacked.

So, quick question. Is Britney Spears exploited or exploiting in your opinion?

[Sandpiper]

115. Not in those exact terms

But fundamentalist Christians have resorted to acts of violence against those who offend their religious sensibilities. Abortion clinic bombers anyone?

And their solution to their problem with gays is to codify discrimination against them into the constitution.


Their methods may not always be the same, but there's about a thimble full of difference between fundamentalists of different religions. They're all cut from the same ideological cloth, because in the end their goal is the same: to impose their views on those who don't share them.

Religious fundamentalism is a disease of the mind and a barrier to human progress.

[LeahMira]

64. Bully! We just want their oil.

You know, in between us converting to Islam, getting rid of our free press, getting rid of any gays or gay rights, getting rid of abortion, etc.

Other than the specific religion, all that you mentioned happens to be on the Fundamentalist Christian agenda.

I think Osama would be satisfied if the U.S. would simply stop promoting these ideas in Middle Eastern nations. He would lose a lot of his thunder among his followers if we did... if we simply left some of the Middle East to live with Fundamentalist Islam as their guiding principle.

There are a vast number of nations from southeast Asia clear over to northern Africa that practice some form of Islam. I'd prefer to let these people sort it all out among themselves as to which version of Islam prevails among their people. If they weren't united against "the great Satan" who knows but that they would argue among themselves until they settled it for themselves.

But no... the United States HAS to provide them with the blessings of democracy, including a free press, whether they want it or not. Because we love them? Heck, no. Because we can control them if we have some common understandings with them and then, once controlled, we can take their oil.

[Muddleoftheroad]

68. Then you didn't read what he wrote

I don't know a single fundie Christian who would kill you if you don't convert. So no, to characterize them as the same is ludicrous.

And where is his insane rant does he say he, "would be satisfied if the U.S. would simply stop promoting these ideas in Middle Eastern nations." No he does not. He says WE must convert. WE must stop doing the things he doesn't approve of.

Fuck him and any nutcases that follow him.

If you let all those nations figure out what sort of Islam they want, you will end up with his sort of Islam.

Yeah, I think it's horrible that we would dare try to give people evil stuff like freedom of the press. Can't have that. Gotta have Sharia and female genital mutilation instead.

[thebigidea]

69. where does OBL ask to abolish our free press?

stop making shit up, muddle. you can do better than Bush's "they hate our freedom!" nonsense, can't you?

[Muddleoftheroad]

73. Go ahead, read it again and try publishing under Sharia

See what happens when you show scantilly clad women in ads. See what happens when you discuss other religions or gambling or alcohol.

To quote Dylan: "Everybody must get stoned."

[thebigidea]

78. yet you can't find a quote where he wants to abolish our "free press"

To quote Dylan: "Idiot wind, blowing like a circle around my skull,
From the Grand Coulee Dam to the Capitol. Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your teeth."

[Muddleoftheroad]

81. Actually he wants to abolish ALL our laws

Among the things they plan to do:

"(v) The removal of these governments is an obligation upon us, and a necessary step to free the Ummah, to make the Shariah the supreme law and to regain Palestine. And our fight against these governments is not separate from out fight against you."

Note he doesn't say Shariah the law only in their nation.

And he says one of our failings is:

"You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?"

[thebigidea]

84. which is nice and all, but he doesn't talk about abolishing the free press

maybe you should google Daniel Pipes articles for backup on this one.

[silverpatronus]

96. not entirely accurate...

I don't know a single fundie Christian who would kill you if you don't convert.

no, but they as much as say that their god will. something about unbelievers and smiting i believe they preach about? the difference is that these particular extremists believe that they are mandated to do the smiting on their god's behalf.

[Muddleoftheroad]

100. So that's entirely accurate

If God decides to kill you, that's up to the divinity. Not up to me.

It's only an issue when folks down on earth start doing "his work" on their own.

[FlaGranny]

101. Sorry, I left for lunch and to walk the dog.

I agree with a lot of what he had to say in the first part of the letter. I don't remember it all now and I don't have time to re-read it now. It had a lot about the US sticking it's nose in where it doesn't belong and interfering in other countries' affairs - that's what I agree with.

The entire second part of the letter, where he talks about religious issues scared me - that's the more dangerous part of the letter, by far. Hard, unforgiving, raw, unadulterated fundyism. Much like what we have right here, although to a lesser degree, but change a word here, change a word there, and it could have come out of the mouths of some pretty well known and "respected" Americans. For the religious second half of the letter alone, we must neutralize him, and every single person, Islamic OR Christian who makes identical sounds. There are many. They are all dangerous to different degrees.

You see, Osama is as hypocritical as it is possible to be. He condems the US for interfering in Islamic nations, but the second part of his letter reveals his plans for interfering in all other nations not Islamic.

[Muddleoftheroad]

116. The first part basically blames America for everything

Here goes:

a) You attacked us in Palestine -- No we didn't. Israel was a creation of the UN, not America. Hell, blame Britain more than America for this one.

(i) Yes we support Israel. So a tiny part of this is correct.

(ii) This is the section where Osama claims ownership not only of Palestine but also the inheritance of all that is in the Bible and that Jews get none of it.

(iii) This is more of a promise of revenge than a claim.

(b) You attacked us in Somalia -- Yeah, can't go stopping those petty thugs.
you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya -- not really true.
the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir -- really not true considering how much support Pakistan gets.
and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon -- wow a partial truth. It wasn't Jewish aggression, heck it wasn't even Israeli, but don't you love how they consider Israel Jewish even though it is more pluralistic than most Arab nations?

That's just for starters and not really fact-filled.

[FlaGranny]

129. Yes, but how about the

the following?

"(d) You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of you international influence and military threats. This theft is indeed the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world.

(e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.

(f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down. "

These seem to be quite true and possibly if our government refrained from any one of these three items, we wouldn't be dealing with terrorism. As far as (e) goes, I believe it has less to do with "security of the Jews" and more to do with keeping a strong base in that area.

AND - - - speaking of civilian casualties

"3) You may then dispute that all the above does not justify aggression against civilians, for crimes they did not commit and offenses in which they did not partake:

(a) This argument contradicts your continuous repetition that America is the land of freedom, and its leaders in this world. Therefore, the American people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies. Thus the American people have chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, the occupation and usurpation of their land, and its continuous killing, torture, punishment and expulsion of the Palestinians. The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want.

(b) The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack us and penetrate our lands. So the American people are the ones who fund the attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates.

(c) Also the American army is part of the American people. It is this very same people who are shamelessly helping the Jews fight against us. "

Unfortunately, in the second excerpt he assumes that we have a lot more freedom than we really do. If we had the freedom he thinks we do, those statements would make more sense. It literally may be true that he "hates our freedoms," because evidently he gives us credit for a lot more freedom than we really own.

My only "real" freedom consists of freedom of speech (most of the time). He seems to think we have a freedom to not pay taxes and to overthrow the government at will.

No doubt he is a dangerous person. He has some legitimate grievances and some not so legitimate grievances. But, I have little doubt that had our government handled things in a more intelligent manner in the past, we might be living in a more peaceful world, where no one would ever have heard of Osama bin Laden.

[Az]

43. Freedom is a word

It is a word that politicians wave like a flag before our eyes to enthrall us and blind us to what is really going on. As a word it is overrated. True freedom is anarchy. History has shown us that this is not a positive goal. The chaos of total freedom is a frightening thing.

So then what is this freedom that we seem to be drawn to. It is the result of learning some very harsh lessons in our history about the tyranny that is dogmatic absolute authority. The freedom we champion is a very specific learned lesson. That we must lead ourselves and set our own laws. That when we leave these rules to those that claim moral authority over us based on a dogma, many will suffer at their hands. We have learned that belief must be free or turmoil follows.

Thus the thing we bring in the name of freedom is the destruction of beliefs. Belief that a holy man can tell people what is right and wrong. Belief that there is one truth and that those who reject it are evil. Belief that evil is a real thing and must be fought with their vary lives.

There are those within our own society that believe things very similar to them. They rail against our moral relativism as being corrupt and evil. They do not accept our freedom as superior to their moral authority. They hate our freedom as much as we hate their absolute dogmatism. It is a clash of cutlures and the world is in the midst of a great war on this matter right now.

[rucky]

67. It's amazing how similar fundies are

between Islam, Christianity & Judiasm. Obsessed with purity & violence, revenge & control, "unity". Bush, Sharon & Osama are a lethal combination of world leaders to have around at the same time.

[thebigidea]

89. yeah, in parts its pure Falwell with a pinch of poor translation

if OBL would hire a better front man, he could probably get a spot on TBN or something.

[bloom]

109. thanks for the link

I think everybody should read it - if they want to know what is going on.

It reminds me some of our Declaration of Independance - with religious non-freedom as part of the basis for it.

It also occurred to me how our country, and other countries in the world, in the past, are used to going in and taking over a country. Expecting repercussions for awhile - but that everyone will just "get over it" in a couple dozen years or so. Not likely in this case. Anyone who thinks so is living in a dream world. IMHO.

[bloom]

121. It's probably obvious

But it's interesting to think about how the American "fundamental" right would think the "answer" (or part of the answer) would be for the USA to all become more religious - like Bin Laden would like...

While the more liberal left would tend to think part of the "answer" would be for us to be less imperialistic - like Bin Laden would like...

It's probably no surprise that homosexuality has become a huge topic/issue for the right. There will probably be more Jerry Falwell type of anti-liberal accusations as a threat to US morality (and stability) in this election cycle.

[Sandpiper]

125. Jerry Falwell already said

That gays and lesbians were to blame for 9/11.

[bloom]

128. yes, I know

And what I'm saying is the current, increasing hysteria is probably more people jumping on his bandwagon so our country can be "good" and "holy" in their eyes.

I think many people of various persuasions have some kind of idea in their heads along the lines of "if this were changed in this way, the world would work". I think people have a need to believe such things.

It is interesting how opposite the solutions can be.

[deek]

130. excellent read

He shows that he knows America more than most Americans do....