Reply
Thu 15 Apr, 2004 02:11 pm
I thought it might be interesting to see how the A2K debate masters see this. This is the full text of Bin Laden's tape. If you feel like it, can you point out the fallacious arguments and what they are called? I'm just trying to learn from the masters.
Full text: 'Bin Laden tape'
The following is the text of the tape as broadcast by al-Arabiya:
Praise be to Almighty God; Peace and prayers be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and companions.
This is a message to our neighbours north of the Mediterranean, containing a reconciliation initiative as a response to their positive reactions.
Praise be to God; praise be to God; praise be to God who created heaven and earth with justice and who allowed the oppressed to punish the oppressor in the same way.
Peace upon those who followed the right path:
'Oppression kills the oppressors'
In my hands there is a message to remind you that justice is a duty towards those whom you love and those whom you do not. And people's rights will not be harmed if the opponent speaks out about them.
The greatest rule of safety is justice, and stopping injustice and aggression. It was said: Oppression kills the oppressors and the hotbed of injustice is evil. The situation in occupied Palestine is an example. What happened on 11 September [2001] and 11 March [the Madrid train bombings] is your commodity that was returned to you.
It is known that security is a pressing necessity for all mankind. We do not agree that you should monopolise it only for yourselves. Also, vigilant people do not allow their politicians to tamper with their security.
Having said this, we would like to inform you that labelling us and our acts as terrorism is also a description of you and of your acts. Reaction comes at the same level as the original action. Our acts are reaction to your own acts, which are represented by the destruction and killing of our kinfolk in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine.
The act that horrified the world; that is, the killing of the old, handicapped [Hamas spiritual leader] Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, may God have mercy on him, is sufficient evidence.
We pledge to God that we will punish America for him, God willing.
Which religion considers your killed ones innocent and our killed ones worthless? And which principle considers your blood real blood and our blood water? Reciprocal treatment is fair and the one who starts injustice bears greater blame.
'Bloodsuckers'
As for your politicians and those who have followed their path, who insist on ignoring the real problem of occupying the entirety of Palestine and exaggerate lies and falsification regarding our right in defence and resistance, they do not respect themselves.
They also disdain the blood and minds of peoples. This is because their falsification increases the shedding of your blood instead of sparing it.
Moreover, the examining of the developments that have been taking place, in terms of killings in our countries and your countries, will make clear an important fact; namely, that injustice is inflicted on us and on you by your politicians, who send your sons - although you are opposed to this - to our countries to kill and be killed.
Therefore, it is in both sides' interest to curb the plans of those who shed the blood of peoples for their narrow personal interest and subservience to the White House gang.
The Zionist lobby is one of the most dangerous and most difficult figures of this group. God willing, we are determined to fight them.
We must take into consideration that this war brings billions of dollars in profit to the major companies, whether it be those that produce weapons or those that contribute to reconstruction, such as the Halliburton Company, its sisters and daughters.
Based on this, it is very clear who is the one benefiting from igniting this war and from the shedding of blood. It is the warlords, the bloodsuckers, who are steering the world policy from behind a curtain.
As for President Bush, the leaders who are revolving in his orbit, the leading media companies and the United Nations, which makes laws for relations between the masters of veto and the slaves of the General Assembly, these are only some of the tools used to deceive and exploit peoples.
All these pose a fatal threat to the whole world.
The Zionist lobby is one of the most dangerous and most difficult figures of this group. God willing, we are determined to fight them.
'Reconciliation initiative'
Based on the above, and in order to deny war merchants a chance and in response to the positive interaction shown by recent events and opinion polls, which indicate that most European peoples want peace, I ask honest people, especially ulema, preachers and merchants, to form a permanent committee to enlighten European peoples of the justice of our causes, above all Palestine. They can make use of the huge potential of the media.
The door of reconciliation is open for three months of the date of announcing this statement.
I also offer a reconciliation initiative to them, whose essence is our commitment to stopping operations against every country that commits itself to not attacking Muslims or interfering in their affairs - including the US conspiracy on the greater Muslim world.
This reconciliation can be renewed once the period signed by the first government expires and a second government is formed with the consent of both parties.
The reconciliation will start with the departure of its last soldier from our country.
The door of reconciliation is open for three months of the date of announcing this statement.
For those who reject reconciliation and want war, we are ready.
As for those who want reconciliation, we have given them a chance. Stop shedding our blood so as to preserve your blood. It is in your hands to apply this easy, yet difficult, formula. You know that the situation will expand and increase if you delay things.
If this happens, do not blame us - blame yourselves.
A rational person does not relinquish his security, money and children to please the liar of the White House.
Had he been truthful about his claim for peace, he would not describe the person who ripped open pregnant women in Sabra and Shatila [reference to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon] and the destroyer of the capitulation process [reference to the Palestinian-Israeli peace process] as a man of peace.
Reality proves our truthfulness and his [George Bush's] lie.
He also would not have lied to people and said that we hate freedom and kill for the sake of killing. Reality proves our truthfulness and his lie.
The killing of the Russians was after their invasion of Afghanistan and Chechnya; the killing of Europeans was after their invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan; and the killing of Americans on the day of New York [reference to 11 September] was after their support of the Jews in Palestine and their invasion of the Arabian Peninsula.
Also, killing them in Somalia was after their invasion of it in Operation Restore Hope. We made them leave without hope, praise be to God.
It is said that prevention is better than cure. A happy person is he who learns a lesson from the experience of others.
Heeding right is better than persisting in falsehood.
Peace be upon those who follow guidance.
not entirely sure of the veracity of how close that is to what Bin Laden said, however, I will not respond with denial - it is idiotic to do so.
Bin Laden as well as many 'terrorists' now a days are religious activists to the extrema. To see why they would want to destroy america IS NOT HARD.
Their ideals: they want to live life how they want to - praise God how they see fit and to survive on a day to day basis.
most applicable Modern 'american ideal' ( there are diverse opinions in america so this is the one that I see as why the muslims who want to kill americans actually WANT to kill us. ) : we see that our culture is superior to all others and since we are 'Right' everyone else is 'wrong' and so we must remedy that.
This was more prominently invoked say 20 ish years ago which has set up the stage for Bush V.1 and Bush V.2 to set into action what is happening.
If you look at most all religions and you find a man who studies it and actually understands its you will find someone that most reasonable people (spiritually and morally speaking) can agree with. A philosophy/sociology professor of mine called this the 'terrorisor' rather than 'terrorist' classification. You can see why a 'terrorisor' wants to invoke change and you can see that he or she has no other means than through supposed terrorism.
20 -ish years ago the common american, the common U.S. Soldier, the common government leader and the presidents most likely did not know where afghanistan was nor who bin laden was and let alone did they know what was happening over there. And since then the governments in power stacked one thing on top of another some intentions where good however looking at the perspective of those receive the 'Aid' and what not viewed it as 'bad.'
All of the events of the last 20 years and the Governments since have not made it any better. and every shipment of Aid came with a big Cross on it showing it was Christian - thats all the people who received it saw.... and so even that 'aid' was harming the situation until it exploded into terrorist acts and a 'Jihad' against america.
This link is about what A LOT of U.S. soldiers are thinking about.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1190714,00.html
Either that or suicide... it is very prevalent in todays Army. Decent is everywhere and being a member therein allows me a glimpse into scared 21 year olds who joined an army in peace time.. some with ideals that they were serving their country and trying to perpetuate the 'freedom' in america of which they enjoyed (my own situation) some where joining for the college money.. but when we graduated basic training on september 13th 2001.... we walked into a new army wrought of paranoia, confusion and deceit. donald rumsfield is incompetent, bush is incompetent and their administration is filled with people who are equally incompetent and or deceitful for their own gain.
The army is falling apart at the seams and rumsfield sees it. The soldiers in the army see that the taliban are URL=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=reactionary]Reactionaries[/URL] and that when a slaughtering and a personal vendetta is called a 'war' and we are forced to put our lives on the line for this vendetta - we get disgruntled and countdown the days till we can get out. I fear for the future of america.. and I wish I could tell bin laden and other reactionaries that not everyone in america shares the 'leaders' views I assuredly do NOT however I am doing my Job and i Pray every day that I am not forced to "Defend" this nation now that it is ran by someone who clouds his own judgement with ignorantly made personal and moral beliefs.
It all boils down to letting us live our lives and let them live theirs which bush does not grasp.. look at him trying to make it illegal for gays to marry.. it affects no one yet he wants to stop it bassed on 'the sanctity of marriage'
arg............................
Well, I appreciate the time you took to respond, but I was looking for more of an analysis of the specific arguments he brings up, and why (or why not) they are fallacious. Kind of an exercise in debate, and for me, a learning tool.
But if there isn't any analytical responses to specific points Bin Laden brings up, I'll be back to give you my take.
Thanks
Interesting topic and insightful anaylisis.
Centroles wrote:Interesting topic and insightful anaylisis.
Interesting post and excellent spelling.
I cannot see that the arguments in the text is fallicious. The text takes a philosofical angle on the matter, and it is not wrong. The only ones who benefit from this war are the warmongers and the people who have something to gain finacially and nothing to lose personally. Those who have war between their houses and around their children never gain from it. This is undeniable truth, and every loss, no matter which side it occurs on will only be used to ignite further hostilities. So oppression harms the oppressor is true. But who is the original oppressor? This is a crucial question in the debate, but not in the search for a solution to the problem. So when we hear the debate raging to find the wrongdoer, we can know, without this speech, that there is stronger will to war in our part of the world than will to reconcile. What I like about the text is that does not seek to put all blame on the US government. It is more down to earth in that it adresses the problem, appealing to reason more than emotion, instead of igniting hearts in anger against the evil of a certain people. Rethorically this text har a greater basis of truth than a lot of the speeches that come out of our western leaders.
"It is known that security is a pressing necessity for all mankind. We do not agree that you should monopolize it only for yourselves. Also, vigilant people do not allow politicians to tamper with their security."
This is to me common sense.
"Having said this, we would like to inform you that labelling us and our acts as terrorism is also a description of you and of your acts. Reaction comes at the same level as the original action. Our acts are reaction to your own acts, which are represented by the destruction and killing of our kinfolk in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine."
An egg comes out of a chicken. A chicken comes out of an egg...
There are as many angles to truth as there are mouths speaking it. Who can we believe? I, for one, follow my heart, because it is the only thing in me that knows truth without words.
I cannot say that the entire text is pure truth, but the essence of it is. The speaker wants freedom for his people to live the way they want, and freedom from the manipulations of the western world, wich is by any religious definition impure. This is understandable. It also states that for those who want war they will answer their call with the voice the call is spoken in. What else can be done. When one invokes causality and makes it the foundation of reason one quickly learns that this war is more a show that rich politicians can benefit from that a war against true evil. The acts that are defined as terrorism are the desperate countermeasures of an insect fighting an elephant. But the insect also offers peace to the elephant because it knows that the elephant has the power to crush it. Wise... But if the elephant is determined to sit in the insects space, what can it do other than but it's sting forth?
These are some of the thoughts I had after reading the text once. I will read it again to get more coherency in my understanding, but after the first reading it is clear to me that it does not come from a bloodthirsty creature that wishes to enslave all free peoples. The speaches of other powerful persons on the otherhand often give me that impression...
Cyracuz; very well said and interpreted, I agree. The intentional targeting of civilians on the other hand is indefensible, and the reason there can be no truce. The attack on the pentagon was a brilliantly conceived, strategic act of war. The attack on the Twin Towers was mass murder, pure and simple. It matters little how eloquent he speaks... A terrorist he is... And this will not be rewarded.
I hear you occom bill. But as is said in the text: "We do not agree that you should monopolize security..." I believe this is important. Can we really say that a people who are indifferent to the wrongdoings of its elected government are innocent? "Vigilant people will not allow politicians to tamper with their security."
Of course the people who lost their lives in the twin towers that day were no doubt decent people who did not deserve to die. But so are the many civillians who suffer the consequences of war on their land.
It is cowardice to send fighting men to a forreign land, and to respond with indignation when fire reaches our own shores. We are all equally responsible for the actions of our nations either through action or indifference.
I cannot say that the attack on the twin towes is justifiable. But I also cannot condemn the people responsible, because I understand their motives and their need. One man's terrorist is another man's freedomfighter...
I'd like to end with a famous quote though I do not recall who I am quoting: "The only thing that is worse than evil is the indifference of good men." The attack on the twin towers can be said to be an attack on this indifference....
Cyracuz: I have little doubt that that is the way Bin Laden sees it. I've never had any trouble understanding the rationale behind terrorist's behavior. I can only imagine how desperate a suicide bomber must feel in order to summon the courage to do the deed.
All that notwithstanding; there can be no justification for the targeting of civilians for the sole purpose of shock. If it isn't obvious; the result of that type of attack is quite the opposite of his stated purpose anyway. What he did is terrorism, not freedom fighting. I can easily see the label "freedom fighter" applied to those attacking our troops in Iraq. It is an insult to "freedom fighters" to bestow that title on Bin Laden. He is a mass-murdering terrorist, nothing more.
Cyracuz wrote:I cannot say that the attack on the twin towes is justifiable. But I also cannot condemn the people responsible, because I understand their motives and their need.
I hope you don't mean that. Think it through.
To me the whole thing just reads as "We'll stop flying planes into your buildings if you let us destroy Israel." I'm not fond of lengthy interepertations of garbage like this. Peace for free reign to terrorize someone else. It's laughable.
I do not say that I have all the answers. And since I don't have all the answers I am reluctant to make up my mind. I do believe that the picture presented to us by our own media is not the whole truth, nor is the picture presented by Osama Bin Laden. I also agree that there is a difference between a terrorist and a freedomfighter. But I do not know the true motives of attacking the twin towers, same as I don't know the true motives of invading Iraq. What I mean by the statement you quoted me on is that if we can condemn an act, any act, one must also condemn the acts that led the doer up to doing it. I try to see us as equal humans, not as opposing parties in a war. We all want the same thing ultimately.
Because I cannot see all ends I will refrain from making my judgement. It is not my place to decide who is the tyrant and who is the hero, and even if it was, I doubt that much could come of it aside from further violations of the peace we all love so dearly...
We must have him removed.
I would suggest to anyone who wishes to express some sort of opinion on the matter of the attitudes of the muslims in the Middle East that they first get some first-hand experience of what they are like before commenting from a Westerner's perspective.
He offers a truce - when did he declare war on Europe in the first place? We know he did so against the U.S., but all of Europe?
Well, hopefully Europe, including France and Germany, will now realized that war has been declared upon them and respond accordingly. Though I doubt it will happen, I can hope.
I say catch him,give him a fair trial,then kill him
gordy wrote:I say catch him,give him a fair trial,then kill him
Won't be much of a fair trial then if you're the one to catch him..
Who can see all ends? I dare to say nobody. So then who can do what is right by everone? Who has the knowledge to judge the wrongs of others? And finally: Will a person with a pure heart condemn? Will he not soil himself by being the judge? Will he not rather forgive?
P.S. I mean this as questions, not rethorical effect.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace