The controversy over TikTok and Osama bin Laden’s “Letter to America,” explained

[Chew Toy McCoy]

The controversy over TikTok and Osama bin Laden’s "Letter to America," explained

Why bin Laden’s 2002 letter became the latest TikTok moral panic.

www.vox.com

Lots to discuss here, but for now I'll just drop this link here since I think it covers it fairly well.

 

[Yoused]

This quote from the linked article troubles me,

“It’s not the letter that is going viral. It’s a selective reading of parts of the letter that’s going viral,” Charlie Winter, a specialist in Islamist militant affairs … (said). “And I don’t know whether it’s because people aren’t actually reading it or, when they’re reading it, they’re reading the bits that they want to see.”​

What does he want people to do? "The letter advocates for violence and theocracy, so every part of it is bad" is what I seem to hear him saying. We should not look at why people are angry at us, only see that they are angry at us.

Selective reading is a valuable way to get information. We do not really need to read the parts about how it is good to kill Americans or that the world should embrace Islam, because those ideas are not meaningful to us, and we will never support those things. But the parts where he explains al Qaeda's origins, the underlying causes for their terrorism, is worth looking at. It is much easier to contend with an enemy if you take some time to understand them and not just blithely brand them as evil.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

This quote from the linked article troubles me,

“It’s not the letter that is going viral. It’s a selective reading of parts of the letter that’s going viral,” Charlie Winter, a specialist in Islamist militant affairs … (said). “And I don’t know whether it’s because people aren’t actually reading it or, when they’re reading it, they’re reading the bits that they want to see.”​

What does he want people to do? "The letter advocates for violence and theocracy, so every part of it is bad" is what I seem to hear him saying. We should not look at why people are angry at us, only see that they are angry at us.

Selective reading is a valuable way to get information. We do not really need to read the parts about how it is good to kill Americans or that the world should embrace Islam, because those ideas are not meaningful to us, and we will never support those things. But the parts where he explains al Qaeda's origins, the underlying causes for their terrorism, is worth looking at. It is much easier to contend with an enemy if you take some time to understand them and not just blithely brand them as evil.

in summary here’s how most extremist letters or monologues go "Valid point. Another valid point. Another valid point. Third rail. Completely unrelated forth rail. Whackadoodle rail." Then there will be an overbearing response that says the valid points are completely nullified and shouldn’t even be heard or discussed because of the increasingly unhinged rails. But in some defense of that view, the extremist probably should just stick to the valid points.

 

[leman]

Selective reading is a valuable way to get information. We do not really need to read the parts about how it is good to kill Americans or that the world should embrace Islam, because those ideas are not meaningful to us, and we will never support those things. But the parts where he explains al Qaeda's origins, the underlying causes for their terrorism, is worth looking at. It is much easier to contend with an enemy if you take some time to understand them and not just blithely brand them as evil.

That's not the problem though, is it? The problem is that a lot of people (especially young people!) selectively choose some bits and pieces and then go around proclaiming that jews are the worst.

 

[mac_in_tosh]

So the gist of the letter is "you attacked us so what we do in response is justified, including killing thousands of innocent civilians?" By that logic he should justify Israel's occupation of the West Bank because it was a result of Israel being attacked in the Six Day War. Oh, he doesn't?

The real question is what is he advocating to address his complaints about the west? What would a world look like with people like him in charge, with his theocracy in place? Would non-Moslem minorities be tolerated? Would women be treated as equal citizens, allowed to pursue education and not be beaten for the slightest perceived offense? Would he actively interfere in other places by supporting terror and insurgency in order to spread his worldview i.e. do what he criticizes the west as having done but justifying it on a religious basis?

One can always go back far enough to justify any vile action. Whatever his objections are to the west, the world according to him would be no better, in fact probably much worse. That makes his "valid points" ring hollow.

“You could easily spot any Religion of Peace. Its extremist members would be extremely peaceful.” - Rickey Gervais

 

[GermanSuplex]

Many horrible people have said true, correct or though-provoking things. I tend to still not look to them for inspiration.

Whatever message you're trying to send is going to be lost. This isn't some school setting or other forum where its interesting to dive deep into character studies of the past and all that jazz.

I understand why its important to discuss what's happening in Israel and how we got here, but this is not that. This probably just spans the spectrum of people from dummies who feel smart because they think they're being edgy or clever by sympathizing with the writings of Bin Laden, or maybe they're legit ant-semetic folks. Or perhaps just misguided.

Pretty stupid and hateful to me though.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

I’m open to the possibility that some are learning about the valid points for the first time but don’t agree with the violent or other extremist solutions and might be part of a more peaceful and long lasting solution. There are a lot of valid points that don’t get taught in our education system, especially as the right attempts to whitewash our history even more than it already is.

 

[mac_in_tosh]

Who better than Christopher Hitchens to set the record straight about the source of Islamic Fundamentalism (only ~1 minute long):
Christopher Hitchens on Islamic Fundamentalism and America