ZeetheGree posted this comment to his article:
ZeetheGree
Recommend
17
Shortly after it happened, there were people in Brazil celebrating Al-Qaeda's attack on the twin towers.
Al-Qaeda of course being an organisation dedicated to conquering societies by violence.
It's pointless complaining that America is using military force in countries disingenuously referred to as Muslim: when the American force is being deployed against extremists whose ambition is to force millions of Muslims to live in a theocratic repression regime.
Here are my replies:
RepresentativePress
Recommend
10
ZeetheGree, you miss the whole point and the motives of Al-Qaeda. They get their support not for what they supposedly may want to establish in the future, they get their support for what they are against.
I totally understand your confusion because just yesterday CNN's Christiane Amanpour once again suppressed motives. In her recent report she reported on the underwear bomber, conspicuously absent was reporting motive: "attack the United States in retaliation for U.S. support of Israel and in retaliation of the killing of innocent and civilian Muslim populations in Palestine, especially in the blockade of Gaza, and in retaliation for the killing of innocent and civilian Muslim populations in Yemen, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan and beyond, most of them women, children, and noncombatants."
And the suppression of motive across mainstream media AND alternative media (for example Amy Goodman's Democracy Now also suppressed “underwear bomber” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's motive.) clearly has an impact on the opinions people hold about this life and death issue.
Recommend
7
I meant to reply directly to you, hope you see my comment (I don't want to be accused of spamming so I won't report it here. I'll just respond to another part of your comment which is "Anti-Americanism is real"
And defining that is important. Would you call Nat Turner's 1831 slave rebellion an expression of "anti-Americanism." The point is, what is dishonest is the lie that people are attacking the U.S. just for being (as opposed to the actions of killing innocent people, for example the aiding and abetting of Israel's crimes.)
Again, as I said in my other comment, I really can see how you could be confused because there has been a massive underreporting of the motives. Look at the mastermind of the 1993 attack on the WTC, sent a letter to the NYT declaring, "This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region.
OUR DEMANDS ARE:
1 - Stop all military, economical, and political aid to Israel.
2 - All diplomatic relations with Israel must stop.
3 - Not to interfere with any of the Middle East countries interior affairs."
Yet after that, NYT Foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman denied that there are specific demands in his NYT opinion piece: "The super-empowered angry men have no specific ideological program or demands. Rather, they are driven by a generalized hatred of the U.S., Israel and other supposed enemies of Islam. Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing, was a super-empowered angry man. Osama bin Laden is another."(written after '93 attack but before 9/11)
OUR DEMANDS ARE:
1 - Stop all military, economical, and political aid to Israel.
2 - All diplomatic relations with Israel must stop.
3 - Not to interfere with any of the Middle East countries interior affairs."
Yet after that, NYT Foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman denied that there are specific demands in his NYT opinion piece: "The super-empowered angry men have no specific ideological program or demands. Rather, they are driven by a generalized hatred of the U.S., Israel and other supposed enemies of Islam. Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing, was a super-empowered angry man. Osama bin Laden is another."(written after '93 attack but before 9/11)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment