[ Steve Meyer rather eloquently fleshes out my disagreement with your “ Bush lied “ obsession. ] -Mike
We obviously have different definitions for eloquent.
[ As I see it, you insist Bush lied because he doesn’t acknowledge bin Laden’s reason for jihad against the U.S., as specifically described in the 1998 fatwa. ] -Mike
No, I say Bush lied because he feeds the public a false reason for why we were attacked. You can pretend all you want what Bush's words mean but the interpretation that many Americans are getting is that the terrorists attack us because they don't like our freedoms here in America and that they want us to force us to convert to Islam. When Bush lied, many Americans were fooled. As I have pointed out, right here in this thread a person called Ran writes that the terrorists "got it into their minds that the West was evil and so would benefit from the opportunity to convert or die." We can see he is still tricked by Bush's lie since he writes, "Tom, sorry lad, but you fail to convince."
[ This is further established in your earliest post, which reads; “ The 1998 fatwa made specific demands and Hanson should know or perhaps doesn't care to admit that the demands have not been met. These are basic facts and this is about honesty. Why is Hanson and so many others playing these games?” ] -Mike
No Mike I am not only talking about the 1998 fatwa.
[ In keeping with your insistence on accuracy, I have pulled some quotes from the fatwa as well. Before I cite them, I’d like to remind you of another claim you’ve made in this thread. It reads as follows:
“In my article about Bush's lie I list the motives "Opposition to U.S. military forces in the Persian gulf area, most notably Saudi Arabia, U.S. support of corrupt Middle Eastern countries, U.S. support for Israel's brutal occupation and the ongoing assault on civilians in Iraq."
Now, I am confident you see no inconsistency between this statement and what is contained in the fatwa. After all, it is the content of the fatwa that you continually insist on returning to in making your case. ] -Mike
No, I have already quoted from SEVERAL sources and I have provided links to my articles.
Your premise that I am talking only about the 1998 fatwa is wrong.
[ That being the case, here’s a passage for you to chew on. Be sure to take little bites; “ Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula. “
Well, isn’t that interesting? In your list of “motives“ attributed to bin Laden, you state it is “ U.S support for Israel’s brutal occupation ” that drives bin Laden’s fatwa, as it relates to an Israeli/U.S. relationship. Yet bin Laden clearly states in the fatwa that his objection to American support of Israel is that it is “ GUARANTEEING ISRAEL’S SURVIVAL.” Big difference, don’t you agree? ] -Mike
Mike what are you doing? I did not say that "what drives bin Laden's fatwa
" was the specific motives I quoted. I was just listing motives in response to YOUR claim that I "conveniently choose to ignore the fact that bin Laden has cited the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia (and thereby desecrating Islamic holy places) as his primary reason for coming after the U.S." GET IT? You made a false claim that I "ignore" the motive of wanting troops pulled out. I responded with a quote from the article which I linked to.
In the very thing you quoted bin Laden says "to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there" Yes it is a motive and bin Laden resents the US supporting Israel.
[ Need I remind you again of your earlier remark, “ The 1998 fatwa made specific demands….. These are basic facts and this is about honesty.” You have twisted the intent of bin Laden’s fatwa, as it relates to Israel. Bin Laden clearly demands the United States step aside to facilitate the extermination of Israel. Your comments infer bin Laden demands an end to American support of Israel’s alleged oppression of the Palestinians.] -Mike
You really think your games make sense? Osama does want an end to US support for Israel's oppression. I haven't twisted anything. I have provided links to two of my articles and provided many quotes.
In my article I write, "But the truth was revealed in" and then I mention the things YOU misrepresent as "my list of motives which drive the fatwa". That is not what it was, what it was in the context of my response to you was proof that I am not omitting particular motives. You are the one that twists things.
As far as Israel, you are clearly as ignorant about this. What Israel is is a system of discrimination. Zionists have made it clear that Jews and non-Jews living in peace with equal rights IS the "destruction of Israel".
[ As Steve Meyer has mentioned in his post, American support of a democratic Israel, threatened for decades with race based genocide, definitely qualifies as a defense of somebody’s freedoms, if not “ our freedoms.”
In making such a demand on the U.S., is bin Laden not attempting to deny the U.S. the “freedom “ to formulate its own foreign policy, including such a core element of that policy as the right to support and defend allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia? ] -Mike
You just don't care about the truth do you? I pointed out explicitly what the lie Bush tells is. You want to pretend that what Bush said means something else or "could qualify as" something else. What you wrote is dishonest junk and you know it.
The meaning of Bush's words is clear and Ran's response shows exactly what the meaning of Bush's words is. Ran wrote that the terrorists attacked us because "the West was evil and so would benefit from the opportunity to convert or die." And you know damn well that this misconception permeates our society. So stop playing these games Mike.
Basically your game is: gee whiz, did the public get the wrong idea? Didn't they know that by "beacon of freedom and opportunity" Bush actually MEANS specific foreign polices?
At least in the Soviet Union they knew they were being fed propaganda, unfortunately here we have little shits gleefully make up excuses for the propaganda.
And propaganda is what it is. And I gave you two specific examples of others playing along with Bush's lie but you ignored it. Are you now going to tell me that CBS and the CIA are simply trying to inform the public when they omit the section that mentions MOTIVES?
That part is: "in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim."
You have a brainwashed response to the facts. You cannot get it into your head that listing motives is not endorsing the crime?
You don't seam able to grasp this basic point. You explain away Bush's lie by claiming Bush shouldn't list the specific motives. You ask "And why would he? The American public overwhelmingly believes the 9/11 attacks were unjustified mass murder."
Mike, do you HONESTLY think that listing the motives is justifying the crimes?
You write that you agree that the attacks were unjustified mass murder, "I happen to agree, you can choose not to, as many on the far left do."
Again another sick minded lie from you. No Mike, "many on the far left" do not say that the attacks were justified. In fact in the two and a half years since 9/11 I have not come across a single article that makes that claim. Have you ever give any thought to what you are writing?