Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Bin Laden is also bitterly opposed to the corrupt and repressive

  1. Dec 17, 2009 #1
    http://www.counterpunch.org/chomskyintv.html [Broken]

    Chomsky says, "Bin Laden is also bitterly opposed to the corrupt and repressive regimes of the region, which he regards as "un-Islamic," including the Saudi Arabian regime, the most extreme Islamic fundamentalist regime in the world, apart from the Taliban, and a close US ally since its origins. Bin Laden despises the US for its support of these regimes. Like others in the region, he is also outraged by long-standing US support for Israel's brutal military occupation, now in its 35th year: Washington's decisive diplomatic, military, and economic intervention in support of the killings, the harsh and destructive siege over many years, the daily humiliation to which Palestinians are subjected, the expanding settlements designed to break the occupied territories into Bantustan-like cantons and take control of the resources, the gross violation of the Geneva Conventions, and other actions that are recognized as crimes throughout most of the world, apart from the US, which has prime responsibility for them. And like others, he contrasts Washington's dedicated support for these crimes with the decade-long US-British assault against the civilian population of Iraq, which has devastated the society and caused hundreds of thousands of deaths while strengthening Saddam Hussein -- who was a favored friend and ally of the US and Britain right through his worst atrocities, including the gassing of the Kurds, as people of the region also remember well, even if Westerners prefer to forget the facts. These sentiments are very widely shared. The _Wall Street Journal_ (Sept. 14) published a survey of opinions of wealthy and privileged Muslims in the Gulf region (bankers, professionals, businessmen with close links to the U.S.). They expressed much the same views: resentment of the U.S. policies of supporting Israeli crimes and blocking the international consensus on a diplomatic settlement for many years while devastating Iraqi civilian society, supporting harsh and repressive anti-democratic regimes throughout the region, and imposing barriers against economic development by "propping up oppressive regimes." Among the great majority of people suffering deep poverty and oppression, similar sentiments are far more bitter, and are the source of the fury and despair that has led to suicide bombings, as commonly understood by those who are interested in the facts."

    would you say that the motivation behind 9/11 is based on religious or economics means?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 17, 2009 #2
    Re: 9/11

    The motivation behind 9/11 is terrorism.
     
  4. Dec 17, 2009 #3
    Re: 9/11

    Terrorism is form of action, not a motivation. As for the motivation behind al-Qaeda, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/books/review/20Bamford.html?_r=1":
    Unfortunately, the 9/11 Commission glossed over this in their report, and our nation in general seems to have a rather head in the sand attitude towards the whole matter. That said, I find the theory that bin Laden was behind the attacks as nearly dubious as the notion that Saddam was behind them, as I've yet to see either reasonably substituted. Granted, I'm not in any position to propose an alternative theory, but I'm not one to take claims on faith either, and do hope that at some point we will get around to having a more thorough investigation at some point.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
  5. Dec 17, 2009 #4

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: 9/11

    All: Please note, while discussion of Bin Laden's motivation is fine here, discussion of alternate theories of who carried out the attacks is considered conspiracy theory and is not allowed.
     
  6. Dec 17, 2009 #5
    Re: 9/11

    Yes but to carry out these acts require religion, no?

    There are those willing to blow themselves up thinking there's an afterlife with 72 virgins waiting for them.

    A friend of mine thinks that the terrorist attacks on 9/11 was motivated purely on economic grounds.
     
  7. Dec 17, 2009 #6

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: 9/11

    What economic grounds, specifically? The religious beliefs do have significant economic implications that are relevant to what went on at the WTC...
     
  8. Dec 17, 2009 #7
    Re: 9/11

    Hardly. For example sake, the Tamil Tigers are the ones who came up with the idea of the suicide belt, and they are a secular orignsation. Furthermore, as noted in the article I linked above:
    So the religion argument is rather weak.
    While I do believe the concentration of wealth/power in the hands of the few at the expense of many in regard to the Israel/Palestine conflict and the propping up of oppressive regimes in the Middle East is the primary motivation behind Al-Qaeda, again I'm not rightly in a position to determine the motivation behind the 9/11 attacks specifically. Also, note that while I do my best to adhere to the forum rules, they have no relation to my ambiguity here. Rather, I'm simply lacking the evidence to reasonably speculate on the motivation behind the attacks, which is why I'd like to see a more thorough investigation than what we got out of the 9/11 Commission.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 17, 2009
  9. Dec 17, 2009 #8

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Re: 9/11

    The motivation behind bin Laden's terrorist movement or the motivation of individual terrorists?

    I think the root motivation is a potential loss of cultural identity. Oil money creates the ability to buy Western goods and Western companies move towards money in full force.

    While there's a few exceptions where a company looked at the culture in their new market and came up with a product designed to serve it, most use the same methods that have worked in the West. Massive marketing efforts to change the behavior of potential buyers. Commercial advertising creates a culture where every woman needs make-up and an annual wardrobe makeover, etc. The new market just gets assimilated into Western culture.

    You can't compete against that by telling people Revlon, Gucci, Calvin Klein, Coca-Cola, et al are evil and expect people to only buy products that conform to traditional Islamic customs. It would work as well as boycotts, rants against Walmart, etc work in the US.

    You can compete against that by focusing on "evil" things that Western governments have done to Arabs and support for Israel is a big seller on that list. People won't take up arms against the company that just provided them with a new cell phone. They will take up arms against countries seen as anti-Arab - something probably more important to the average Arab than being anti-Islamic. In that sense, an Islamic group is gaining respect by standing up for Arabs - not for their Islamic values.

    If the war against Western countries expands to everything Western (similar to French Fries being called Freedom Fries in the US), then the offending products eroding Islamic culture gets eliminated as a by-product.

    Sounds good in theory, but fighting change has been a common hobby for eons and the fight never really succeeds. It takes a certain obsessiveness bordering on mental instability to put up the "good fight". Either the culture the zealot is "protecting" rejects him and changes anyway, or the zealot does succeed and the culture declines and disappears because of its inability to adapt to changing times.

    It also takes putting up with the idea that many of the "warriors" fighting for you are motivated by things completely different than you and being willing to offer those "minor" things as a means to achieve a worthy goal. So, I think the motivation of individual terrorists can vary from the goals of al-Qaeda leadership by quite a bit. Many are buying into the perceived anti-Arab aspect of Western culture and reducing that anti-Arab perception would significantly reduce the number of recruits al-Qaeda could obtain, even if it would do nothing to appease al-Qaeda, itself.
     
  10. Dec 17, 2009 #9
    Re: 9/11

    I disagree. The motivation was to terrorize the US.
     
  11. Dec 17, 2009 #10

    drizzle

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Re: 9/11

    I can’t really see it as the motive. Terrorize! Then what?!! I think that’s pointless.
     
  12. Dec 17, 2009 #11

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: 9/11

    According to U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)

    Lots of references about that, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism" [Broken] in this case, IMO.

    Terrorism is a tactic, which is why I cringe a bit when I hear the phrase "War on Terrorism." How do we fight a tactic :confused:?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  13. Dec 17, 2009 #12
    Re: 9/11

    Religion is definately a factor. It was how the terrorists were able to both justify and carry out the act of suicide. They had to be convinced that their sacrifice was for a higher purpose and going to be rewarded in the afterlife. Pretty much requires a religious indoctrination.
     
  14. Dec 17, 2009 #13

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Re: 9/11

    I think that was true for many. I don't think it's required.

    What's the motivation when one member of a platoon jumps on a grenade in a room full of his buddies? Have any atheist members ever done something like that?

    What was the motivation of female rape victims to become suicide bombers? Religious reward or escape from the humiliation heaped on rape victims in some Middle East countries?

    Not that religious indoctrination isn't a strong motivator. Just not a requirement.
     
  15. Dec 17, 2009 #14
    Re: 9/11

    So when the US decides to invade Iraq, is it just for economic means (oil) couched in fringe issues such as WMD, removing Saddam from power and religion? About the later, watch the video:


    Or in short: the last paragraph in http://www.celebatheists.com/index.php?title=Noam_Chomsky [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  16. Dec 17, 2009 #15

    drizzle

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Re: 9/11


    :biggrin:
     
  17. Dec 17, 2009 #16

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Re: 9/11

    Declare a war on wars against non-people.

    You fight wars against other humans. You can't fight a war against poverty, drugs, or terrorism.

    You could declare a war against terrorists, or a war against drug dealers, or a war against poor people, but a well-defined enemy is always better if you hope to define what would constitute a victory, a loss, or a draw. It's better to fight a war against al-Qaeda, or a war against the Medellin drug cartel, or a war against the homeless folks camping out by Fountain Creek off of Nevada Ave.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  18. Dec 17, 2009 #17

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: 9/11

    This is from a PBS show "Frontline" and has interviews and edicts from Bin Laden.


    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/edicts.html
     
  19. Dec 17, 2009 #18
    Re: 9/11

    We are talking about 9/11 (title of the thread). It was a requirement for them to do what they did. Everyone of them was a religious suicidal nutcase that coordinated a devastatingly successful attack on thousands of innocent lives.
     
  20. Dec 17, 2009 #19

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Re: 9/11

    On the subject of why Bin Laden and Al Qaeda committed the 911 attacks, Chomsky's contention about any motivation in connection to perceived wrongs of the Palestinian people, as opposed to reclaiming holy sites in Palestine is almost certainly wrong. I've seen no primary evidence of this, in fact there is a great deal of contrary evidence presented, at least in the two references I'm most familiar with, The 9/11 Report and Wright's The Looming Towers*.

    Though Israel was created in 1947, Bin Laden voiced no violent intent against the US or Israel until US troops set foot in Saudi Arabia in 1990. One will find no mention of the Palestinian people in any of the Bin Laden communiques, but we do see references to liberating shrines created under the caliphates there centuries ago, and it is the caliphates Bin Laden wants recreate. Bin Laden hated secular characters like Yassar Arrafat, or secular anything for that matter. The only prominent Palestinian close to Bin Laden was the charismatic Palestinian scholar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Yusuf_Azzam" [Broken], and Azzam and his two young sons were killed by a car bomb in 1989 across the border in Pakistan.

    Bin Laden's general goals are as stated in the quote provided by Evo above. We also have testimony as to Bin Laden's specific, tactical motivations for the 911 attacks. They are, however, difficult to take seriously until one knows some more bin Laden history.

    Osama bin Laden is the son of the famous http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_bin_Laden" [Broken], a man who enjoyed near rock star status in Saudi Arabia. Muhammed literally walked out of Yemen with nothing and created a construction empire from the sand, along the way completing enormously difficult road projects and becoming a close confidant of the King. When OBL was still a child, MBL not only divorced OBL's mother, one of his many wives, but gave her to one his construction lieutenants. As a wealthy adult OBL dabbled in the construction empire for a bit before organizing Arabs to go and hold a jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan. After the Afghan war, Bin Laden enjoyed notoriety in Saudi Arabia, and though his Arabs were an insignificant, almost clownish military force in Afghanistan never exceeding a few thousand, Bin Laden literally came to believe he had been a major force in driving out the Soviets. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, Bin Laden approached the Saudi intelligence head Prince Turki and told him he didn't need Western forces, that Bin Laden and his rag tags could drive the Iraqis out. When Turki asked Bin Laden what he would use against Iraqi armor, he answered "faith". Witnesses say Turki literally laughed in Bin Laden's face.

    Knowing this background, Bin Laden's specific purpose in making the 911 attack makes a twisted sense: He actually believed he could get the United States to breakup by means of few 911 type attacks, thus eliminating barriers to the recreation of a world dominant Islamic state. Such a belief requires a cult like megalomania, but Bin Laden's prior history supports that view.

    *References on the details provided on request.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  21. Dec 18, 2009 #20
    Re: 9/11

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb#Political_philosophy

    Qutb basically set out the political philosophy that influenced the Islamic Jihad movement. The core is that servitude to other men (leaders) is un-Islamic and that liberal democracy is corrupting. He believed that democracy placed men above God and was blasphemous, and that rather we should all live under the rule of God.
    The Islamist movement which proceeded took place almost entirely in the Arab world, with those involved in politics initially targeted, later extending to anyone who supported the system (ie everyone). By the time Bin Laden planned 9/11, the Islamist movement had pretty much ended and failed in the Middle East.
    So the wiki link should go some way to explaining the motives behind Islamism in general, if not specifically the 9/11 attack.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Bin Laden is also bitterly opposed to the corrupt and repressive
  1. Bin Laden's victory (Replies: 11)

  2. Bin Laden 'surrounded' (Replies: 15)

  3. New Bin Laden tape (Replies: 5)

Loading...