AP: Bin Laden singled out Australia as "enemy of Islam"

LONDON (AP) -- Osama bin Laden singled out Australia as an enemy of Islam because it helped East Timor win independence from Indonesia, according to a videotape broadcast Saturday by the British Broadcasting Corp.

In the brief video clip, which showed only a close-up of bin Laden's face, he said the "crusading Australian forces were on the Indonesian shores and they actually went in to separate East Timor, (which) is part of the countries of the Islamic world."

Whoa, whoa, whoa. This article is waaaay off base. Somebody tell these guys that it's all about poverty and "global justice".

 

It's too bad the facts keep getting in the way of your theory.

 

Wake, what "fact" are you referring to here?
That Bin Laden is trying to use the anger and gullability of huge populations of poor and devoted Muslims, and turn it into a worldwide Jihad against the "true cause of their pain?"

Bung simply seems to be stressing that Osama's relative success in this endeavor so far seems to be a result of many factors, poverty and zealotry included.

Let's attempt a catalogue all all the things that may have gone into creating our current climate:

- growth of militant Islam as a response to Western global politics (Commies and Capitalists) of exploitation
- rampant poverty in most Muslim countries, for myriad reasons
- growth of Islam as a response against homegrown dictators (often propped up by the West)
- high illiteracy rates in much of the third world
- impact of mass media and propaganda
- globalization and the "clash of civilizations", ie: "tradition vs. modernity"


That's just a starter list off the top of my head. Why do you wish to try and narrow such a complex problem down to a single causation? How many much more simple phenomena in your world can even be explained this way?

 

The weak look to the strong to lead them, and while we may hate Bin Laden, he is in fact a strong person. The "poverty and global (in)justice" just further weakens the large population of Muslims that are suffering. Unfortunatly, no terrorist act will ever change this fact. Until a Muslim leader can get the attention of the masses and turn their thoughts away from Bin Laden and more towards something posative, things will continue to get worse (for us and them). When I say "masses," I do not mean to imply that every Muslim is a terrorist, but that right now the Muslims are looking to someone to lead them in some way and the only person stepping into the limelight is Bin Laden.

 

It's as though every time Bin Laden or one of his ilk say something that's fairly explicit, some of you on the left (and, to be fair, the isolationist right) want to say, "wait, wait, here's what he really means!".

I'm not suggesting terrorism is a simple thing. It's obviously not, from the IRA to the FARC to al Qaeda, there are varying factors at work.

But many, many people seem to want to ascribe their worldview to fit what's going on with Islamist extremism, regardless of what's actually being said by the terrorists.

 

So all the western world needs to do to end terrorism is:

- Force all western businesses out of the third world
- Build vibrant economies throughout the world
- Bring democracy to the entire world
- Educate the entire world
- Bring free press to the entire world
- Don't interact with countries that are not developed

That should just about do it, right?

I don't know about you, but when some nutjob is bent on killing me, I really couldn't care less about his motivation.

 

I'm not sure where you come up with that silly list of paternalistic nonsense...you seem to have entirely missed my point.

Anyway, your last comment gets to the heart of the matter, and illuminates how/why you are so swayed by the irrationalism of Bush's policy. Aside from the blatant anti-intellecutalism at the heart of your "philosophy," you also somehow conflate a varied and multifaceted worldwide phenomena into "some nutjob." The complex nature of the present world crisis was my rather banal point above. One wouldn't think such a claim would even have to be made, but when we have a president whose idea of political subtlety is to label certain cultures "evil doers," the obvious all of a sudden becomes quite opaque.

Now, if you'd like to simply add "nutjobism" to my above list, and "jealousy," and so on....please do. I'm sure they fit in there somewhere as factors in specific cases.

 

pakovits and I have plowed this ground before.

TWUB, I'm with you on this one. There's no evidence that al-Qaeda is motivated by anything other than religious zealotry. Well, unless you count the fevered imaginations of their western apologists.

 

"TWUB, I'm with you on this one. There's no evidence that al-Qaeda is motivated by anything other than religious zealotry" or "The will to Power!!!"

 

http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/story.html?id=72CE2091-50FD-4ABC-8DBB-4CFCD92FEE61

 

Thanks for the link!

 

He labels a few governments, not a few cultures. If you disagree with him, I would take the issue up with Webster's as you obviously don't care for the word "evil."

 

Gee, the world sure is complex. Thanks for that intellectual insight.

I'm sorry, but people who fly planes into buildings, blow up resorts and embassies, and incite others into fighting a holy war against Jews and Christians fully deserve the designation of "nutjobs". Or "evil doers" if you are so inclined.

Furthermore, if these people go on TV to say this is what they have done, and plan to do in the future, I'm willing to take them at their word. Attempting to take them out before they inflict more harm is only irrational in your world.

Finally, trying to pass these people off as the poor, unwitting victims of globalization is absurd.

 

You forgot to mention "Christian terrorists" as well. Like McVeigh. Or the Crusades. Or something. If you don't mention that then you're biased and ____wing (left or right, I forget). You can't blame someone without blaming everyone or it's not fair. I think that's how it works. You need irrefutable evidence (which can always be refuted) or no evidence at all, depending on what your argument is. Also, there is no "cause" for an event or action. There are only "root causes". These are varied and complex, but they usually point to the U.S. government, its military-industrial complex, or big oil. And capitalism. Oh yeah, and Jews too. Also you can't call someone evil. That's an imaginary concept, I think. A person or group is not 'evil', rather they are 'driven' to commit 'desperate' acts. Driven by root causes. I'm still taking BigSoccer 101, so I'm just learning this stuff.

 

Don't forget the "Interlocking Elites!"

 

I'm partially in agreement here. The terrorists are more than a bit eccentric in their actions and motivations, and that these people should be stopped before they pull of another cunning stunt. However, I think a bit of their motivation is down to their feeling of their culture/religion being swamped by 'American Imperialism', globalisation, progress or whatever you want to call it.

Subtlety and trying to understand why they are so hostile are key dealing with this problem, two things that Bush seems to be having difficulty with. It's all very well using military strength willy-nilly, but that could create even more problems in the future.

 

I think money does have something to do with it. Bin Laden clames that the U.S. owes the Middle East (and presumably his Islamist uber state) several trillion dollars in back charges for oil.

But it ultimately seems to come back to the Islamist empire.

 

Mike, have you anthropomorphised your God today?

 

I know you are tounge in check here, but I love hearing the Crusades comment from the Islamofactists and their sympathizers.

About 60 years ago, most of my family here in America was directly (in the military) or indirectly (in the shipyards and factories) doing everything they could to kill as many Germans as they could.

The result was that they were trying to kill most of my wife's family (my mother in law was even born in a bomb shelter as Allied planes were destroying her city).

So, why is it that Germans are not flying planes into American buildings today, only 60 years after the fact, while Islamofacists use the Crusades, which ended over 700 years ago as a reason for their terror?

(BTW, if you were serious, I'd then like to point out that McVeigh was at most an agnostic, who told interviewers he did not believe in an afterlife, though at the last minute he did request Catholic last rites)

 

> So, why is it that Germans are not flying planes
> into American buildings today, only 60 years after
> the fact

This is due to a great technological advance called the "Rules of War". Before these were invented, war was a very messy business, as it lead to demand for retribution and continued conflict far past the time the original objective was reached. Wars only ended when one side exterminated the other, a very difficult and expensive proposition when you only wanted a port or a swath of farmland. So the rules of war were invented to ease feelings, stop conflict when objectives were reached or one side got tired of it, and allow normal relations soon after fighting was stopped. It was a fantastic invention that made war much more profitable, and prevented these blood fueds that are too common in places that do not have this technology.

 

Sorry spejic, I just don't buy it.

War is, was, and always will be a very messy business. And wars in the past sometimes ended with a stalemate (the Roman and Byzantine wars against Persia were stalemated for 600 years) and war today sometimes end with complete ruin for the loser (Germany and Japan after WWII).

The whole "Crusades" argument is idiotic, but then again, what better can you expect from the Islamofascists and their apologists

Oh, one other thing. THE MOSLEMS WON THE CRUSADES.

 

Islam would not be the force it is today without the collapse of the Yemeni empire in the 6th century. A series of droughts and flash floods ruined the huge dam that the empire relied on. The pagan Yemenis wandered north and bumped into Mohammed and his family, who were grain merchants who helped to feed the poor. With an otherwise starving audience, desperate for explanations for the disasters, the message of Mohammed would be welcome news.

The adoption of Islam by many of the Turkic tribes, that originated from the Asain steppes also helped, as they conquered many central Asian empires, and much of India in the middle ages.

I'm not sure what point, if any I'm trying to make here, but I think I'm saying that Arabs were not the sole forces of the foundation of Islam, as Bin Laden and co. may have us believe. In fact, The spread of Islam can be linked to Indonesia, and the Krakatoa valcano in Indonesia.

 

gland soup

https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=19008

You people are welcome at some of mine! It is a lengthy thread but the righteousness limps to sideline. The first kind holds specialities. Mottoes and idiomatic expression bewilders bear of commercial by Snuggles.