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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nusc
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bin
Click For Summary
Bin Laden's opposition stems from his disdain for corrupt regimes in the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia, which he views as un-Islamic and a close ally of the U.S. He is also angered by U.S. support for Israel's military actions against Palestinians and the devastation caused by U.S. interventions in Iraq. These sentiments are echoed by many in the region, including wealthy Muslims, who share frustrations over U.S. policies that support oppressive regimes and hinder economic development. The motivations behind terrorism, including the 9/11 attacks, are complex, involving both political outrage and perceived cultural threats, rather than being solely rooted in religious beliefs. Overall, the discussion highlights the multifaceted nature of motivations for terrorism, emphasizing the interplay of political, economic, and cultural factors.
  • #31


Nusc said:
... would you say that the motivation behind 9/11 is based on religious or economics means?
It's based on the fact that lots of people are angry at, or even hate, the US.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32


In my opinion, the motivation of 9/11 is simple. The US is the protector of the Saudi King. Bin Laden has been trying to overthrow the King for a long time. He attacks the King's protector. Makes perfect sense to me.

I agree that religion is just an excuse. On the other hand, to say that the motivation of 9/11 is terrorism is beyond silly.
 
  • #33


wildman said:
In my opinion, the motivation of 9/11 is simple. The US is the protector of the Saudi King. Bin Laden has been trying to overthrow the King for a long time. He attacks the King's protector. Makes perfect sense to me.

I agree that religion is just an excuse. On the other hand, to say that the motivation of 9/11 is terrorism is beyond silly.

Those damn terrorists are just silly.
 
  • #34


drankin said:
Those damn terrorists are just silly.

They wouldn't be dangerous if they were silly. They know what they are doing. Hey! 9/11 got rid of Saddam Hussein who Bin Laden hated. I would say 9/11 was quite effective.
 
  • #35


wildman said:
They wouldn't be dangerous if they were silly. They know what they are doing. Hey! 9/11 got rid of Saddam Hussein who Bin Laden hated. I would say 9/11 was quite effective.

Your theory is that the motivation behind the attacks was because US protects the Saudi king.

Why not just run planes into the Saudi king? Or would that be silly?

Regardless of why Binboy wanted to strike at the US, he had to convince a bunch of chumps to sacrifice themselves in order to accomplish it. This is an important point because that is the tool that's being used. He didn't tell them to obliterate themselves because the US protects the Saudi king. These guys weren't complete idiots. They flew airliners.

The objective was to cause destruction against a society. Regardless of the role that the individuals targeted played. The West refers to this as "terrorism". If we didn't call it that, we could just call it "warfare". It would be more appropriate IMO. Hence, the war on "terror". Pretty vague thing to declare war on but if they didn't call it that they would have to call it a war on Islamic Extremeism (which is still pretty vague)... and very unpolitically correct.
 
  • #36


wildman said:
I agree that religion is just an excuse. ...
That's misinformation wildman. Bin Laden and his followers are fanatically religious.
 
  • #37


mheslep said:
That's misinformation wildman. Bin Laden and his followers are fanatically religious.

I agree. I believe that most jihadists believe they are doing God's work although I'm sure there are some opportunists or those with personal scores to settle in the mix. But al Qaeda is not apocalyptic afaik. They have 'earthly' objectives.They want to restore the Caliphate. What worries me more is if enough of the ruling oligarchy of Iran has an apocalyptic view such that they would launch a nuclear attack against Israel and accept the retaliation.

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm

This report dates from 14 Dec, 2001. On 30 Dec IPS reported that this was not Iran's policy although I don't know how much value we should place on that.

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/israel_iran_nule_threat_301201.htm
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
7K