WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
\
It's the very wrong and very American way of thinking about it. That is why we continue to have conflict and ignorant people will continue to pontificate about things they have little knowledge about. (Irony)
I say this not as justification either. Bin Laden was wrong and there is no excuse for 911. However if we don't examine our policies we will continue to have issues in the Middle East.
If you think that he woke up one morning and decided that he wanted to kill Americans then you are ignorant. Any competent high school could decipher the rationale that he presented.
As far as academic discussions go I have argued the very same points and I'm confident about what I speak. His letter laid out his case. It was exactly the rationale I cited. Very little reference was made regarding religion. His first 5-6 points related to foreign policy. You glossed over it because it didn't fit your narrative and it would force you to face hard truths.
His first point in the letter you cited was a passage from the Koran. So was the second. Even the "foreign policy" part is because the United States was in the Holy Land. That was the title of his first Fatwa in fact. It was an affront to Islam. Why else would he be mad at the United States? If he was a Saudi nationalist his government welcomed American forces, but Bin Laden did not because:
Quote:
From his point of view, "for the Muslim Saudi monarchy to invite non-Muslim American troops to fight against Muslim Iraqi soldiers was a serious violation of Islamic law".
Islam was his core belief system, and trying to live out its teachings shaped his entire life and worldview.
You fail to draw any logical conclusions from your own sources. You've determined that American foreign policy is wrong, so you cling to that story no matter what. The bolded part is
. It's so dishonest that this debate is over. You've lost in spectacular fashion. Bye then.
This is really comical. For all the talk of "logical conclusions" and "academic discussions" (serving only as a means of demonstrating non existent academic scholarship) you really don't have a clue.
If you were to deduce this from his letter you'd receive an "F" on your assessment in any "academic" setting known to man. At no point does he reference Saudi Arabia or holy land.
He states that his reason for wanting to fight is "simple". He believed that they'd been attacked. By they you can easily infer that he meant
Arabs. His references concentrated on attacks against Arab nations. There were Islamic references but he used historical context as his baseline. It's clear that his opposition to America was based on foreign policy and not religion.
Again there was no reference made about Saudi Arabian holy land yet it "shaped" everything about the guy according to you. If you were to use this argument and form a conclusion from it based on this particular letter you'd be laughed out of every academic arena in this country. There is no way that you could deduce that from this particular letter.
Bin Laden attempted to provide moral justification for his acts by providing political and historical context. Religion by its nature is subjective that's why I try and refrain from placing too much emphasis on it.
Bin Laden's religion didn't teach him to hate Americans. American actions (rightly or wrongly) in his native lands caused him to. Ignoring this while continuing to debate terms and theology does little to provide context to realities which currently exist.
_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
