About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Friday, October 29, 2004 - 9:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
For those who have yet to read it in its entirety:

"You, the American people, I talk to you today about the best way to avoid another catastrophe and about war, its reasons and its consequences.
And in that regard, I say to you that security is an important pillar of human life, and that free people do not compromise their security.
Contrary to what [President George W.] Bush says and claims -- that we hate freedom --let him tell us then, "Why did we not attack Sweden?" It is known that those who hate freedom don't have souls with integrity, like the souls of those 19. May the mercy of God be upon them.
We fought with you because we are free, and we don't put up with transgressions. We want to reclaim our nation. As you spoil our security, we will do so to you.
I wonder about you. Although we are ushering the fourth year after 9/11, Bush is still exercising confusion and misleading you and not telling you the true reason. Therefore, the motivations are still there for what happened to be repeated.
And I will talk to you about the reason for those events, and I will be honest with you about the moments the decision was made so that you can ponder. And I tell you, God only knows, that we never had the intentions to destroy the towers.
But after the injustice was so much and we saw transgressions and the coalition between Americans and the Israelis against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it occurred to my mind that we deal with the towers. And these special events that directly and personally affected me go back to 1982 and what happened when America gave permission for Israel to invade Lebanon. And assistance was given by the American sixth fleet.
During those crucial moments, my mind was thinking about many things that are hard to describe. But they produced a feeling to refuse and reject injustice, and I had determination to punish the transgressors.
And as I was looking at those towers that were destroyed in Lebanon, it occurred to me that we have to punish the transgressor with the same -- and that we had to destroy the towers in America so that they taste what we tasted, and they stop killing our women and children.
We found no difficulties in dealing with the Bush administration, because of the similarities of that administration and the regimes in our countries, half of which are run by the military and half of which are run by monarchs. And our experience is vast with them.
And those two kinds are full of arrogance and taking money illegally.
The resemblance started when [former President George H.W.] Bush, the father, visited the area, when some of our own were impressed by America and were hoping that the visits would affect and influence our countries.
Then, what happened was that he was impressed by the monarchies and the military regimes, and he was jealous of them staying in power for tens of years, embezzling the public money without any accountability. And he moved the tyranny and suppression of freedom to his own country, and they called it the Patriot Act, under the disguise of fighting terrorism. And Bush, the father, found it good to install his children as governors and leaders.
We agreed with the leader of the group, Mohammed Atta, to perform all attacks within 20 minutes before [President George W.] Bush and his administration were aware of what was going on. And we never knew that the commander-in-chief of the American armed forces would leave 50,000 of his people in the two towers to face those events by themselves when they were in the most urgent need of their leader.
He was more interested in listening to the child's story about the goat rather than worry about what was happening to the towers. So, we had three times the time necessary to accomplish the events.
Your security is not in the hands of [Democratic presidential nominee John] Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked."




Post 1

Friday, October 29, 2004 - 10:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

He was more interested in listening to the child's story about the goat rather than worry about what was happening to the towers.


This sounds like almost a direct quote from the anti-Bush side of the 'Net. Bush's interest in that goat seems to be a pretty common joke among anti-Bushites.

Know what this says to me? Osama's been lurking online and listening what Bush's American opponents are saying. He's trying to make his words resonate with that sector of America. Also the comparison of Bush to monarchs and police states, and that stuff about the oppression of Palestine. He knows what Americans are saying.

Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 12:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bin Laden's speech could have been posted here under the name of any of our regular Saddamites and NO ONE WOULD KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.

Linz

Post 3

Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 8:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Exactly, Lindsay!!!!!!

Post 4

Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 9:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bin Laden's speech could have been posted here under the name of any of our regular Saddamites and NO ONE WOULD KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.
Three cheers for you, Linz. 

For that, I owe you a beer.

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 10/30, 9:58am)


Post 5

Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 9:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
One more thing:  If bin Laden is trying so hard to "reason" with Americans, then that tells me that he's weakening. 

Thugs and bullies only want to "talk reason" with you -- albeit in lies and nonsense -- when they know they're not in a very good position anymore to smash you in the face with a socket wrench for their despicable shits and giggles.


Post 6

Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 9:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Are we supposed to believe this is a message from bin Laden? Because I'm not buying it.

Post 7

Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 2:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
>>  Are we supposed to believe this is a message from bin Laden? Because I'm not buying it.

Why's that, Lance?

Thanks




Post 8

Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 3:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think I share Lance's skepticism. It would help if Pete would link us to the source he got the quote from. I'm skeptical largely for two reasons: (1) Bin Laden's speeches are usually laiden with "praise Allah" or "thank Allah" or "Allah is a swell fella," and this speech lacks that. Maybe it was edited out? (2) It almost seems like Bin Laden was apologizing for doing more damage than he'd intended, but this doesn't seem to jell with early recordings where Bin Laden boasted and was pleased with the damage. Maybe some guilt set in; maybe not. A citation would help.

Jordan


Post 9

Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 8:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The video was authenticated by the CIA.  See this link for more details, and a link to the full text:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Osama_bin_Laden_video


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 12:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This latest message from godboy-groveller Osama -- who rubs his head in the filth and muck five times daily, as well he should -- is typically lame, and, as expected, pathetically confused and contradictory. It's a fatuous, foolish, truly childish philosophical mish-mash which seemingly gives us nothing to work with. I doubt that a single other Objectivist will find anything worthwhile to observe or deal with here.

But the very fact that he's now speaking less the language of monotheism (faith, charity, mercy, forgiveness, confession, etc.) and more the language of Western liberalism (reason, freedom, justice, etc.) means that the good guys and the West is winning. The person who sets the terms of the discussion almost always wins any given argument.

It's also worth noting here that despite the silly, embarrassing, anfractuous wanderings of this strictly grade-school intellect, brother Osama and the other moslems and religiosos should be taken seriously. At some point, their concerns have to be addressed and their claims answered -- fully and rationally. None of this evil, cowardly, weakling, Nietzschean/Randian "it's not my function to be a fly-swatter" nonsense. God is a monster well worth killing -- a fearsome dragon which some mighty philosophic knights and warriors desperately need to permanently slay. 

Ultimately, Samuel Huffington's "clash of civilizations" and today's West-vs.-Islam fight is now, as it pretty much always has been, and always will be, a terrible struggle and battle royale between the pre-socratics and the mystery cultists, Aristotle and Plato, Locke and Rousseau, Hayek and Marx, Rand and Kant, etc. The US military and Al Queda simply aren't involved. 


Post 11

Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 12:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andre,

I very much liked this post, and I sanctioned it... with the exception of the Randian "fly-swatter" comment... I think that Rand did not communicate herself well with regards to what non-initiation of force really means, and I've laid out my entire argument with regards to this, in my article which has just been posted, called "The Non-Initiation of Force".


Post 12

Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 5:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks Philip. I'm still baffled by the points I mentioned earlier, but now I'm more convinced than not that the tape is legit.

Jordan


Post 13

Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 10:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I also think that a major reason bin Laden has started talking in this way, is that he's realizing that his usual schtick of mystical mumbo-jumbo just won't work on us...  and that we're doing a damn fine job of putting a hurting on him.

I think he has, however, realized that what moves Americans is a plausible argument... And that's why I think he's trying to present to us a rationale which appeals to many conspiracist notions that either G.W. Bush or his father is some kind of a Supreme Chancellor Palpatine/Darth Sidious/black-robed Emperor figure, in cahoots with Arab "tyrants" in the Mid-East, to secretly establish an oppressive New World Order or something.

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 10/31, 10:39am)


Post 14

Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 12:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Why's that, Lance?

Thanks

 
Hey Jonathan, it appears that I'm in the minority in doubting the legitimacy of the message. I have a "something is rotten in the state of Denmark" feeling about.

In the message, bin Laden is using logic when he mentions why they haven't attacked Sweden. He shouldn't be using Logic. I just can't imagine him saying something like that. I also cannot believe the part about leaving 50,000 people in the WTC towers. None of that computes for me.

I'm not claiming that it's not bin Laden. I just don't accept that it is.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 12:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
God is a monster well worth killing -- a fearsome dragon which some mighty philosophic knights and warriors desperately need to permanently slay. 

 
Andre, I agree. The reality is that the world is not ready for this idea. If we fight it today we'll get slaughtered.

How many Objectivists are there in the world? How many Jehovah's Witnesses? At best, humanity will transition away from the supernatural over the course of, say 500 years. Our part is to live our lives well. If we can model virtue without God then younger generations will take notice.


Post 16

Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 12:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
One thing I noticed about the footage- is it just me, or did Bin Laden put more of  a "gentler than usual" face on? I mean, he "rationalized" his point out, but seemed much more relaxed, and like a gentle grandfather. Am I saying I sympathize with him? Ha, that's funny! I think that means HE'S getting a little desperate too. I think we're closing in on him, and he's nervous that his days are numbered.

Post 17

Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 1:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sorry for not citing the source of the text - it was in fact from cnn.com


Post 18

Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 6:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Lance writes:
The reality is that the world is not ready for this idea [rational atheism]. If we fight it today we'll get slaughtered.

How many Objectivists are there in the world? How many Jehovah's Witnesses? At best, humanity will transition away from the supernatural over the course of, say 500 years. Our part is to live our lives well. If we can model virtue without God then younger generations will take notice.


The issue of religion seems to be difficult and subtle on several different levels. Niezsche and Rand were dishonest, cowardly, weak, foolish, and simply not up to the job. 

Very primitive religion/monotheism (not mythology/polytheism) began about 500 BC with Pythagoras and Xenophanes (and the consequent Eleusinian mystery cults), but by 435 BC or so Anaxagoras was already seriously threatened with death and then banished from Athens. There never lived a gentle, sweet believer in god who wasn't a cold-blooded murderer at heart.

But however terrifying the Osama Bin Laudins and Norman Vincent Peales of the world are, philosophy and rationality has weapons of its own. It needn't take 500 years to void us of this mental and psycho-spiritual cancer. I sometimes think of what Lindsay said at the SOLO conference in Philadelphia last year: the battle begins with A is A, A=A, a thing is was it is, a thing is itself, etc. This is the foundation of true intellectualizing and philosophy proper. And once even these simple axioms and truisms are established, god is in deep trouble. 

And if by some unlikely, bizarre chance there really IS a god hiding out in some remote corner of reality inaccessible to rational liberal philosophy...rest assured that god will ONLY love those who love and worship reality, life, the Sacred Self, and personal happiness -- not him. Only pure atheists (and maybe pure hedonists) have even a chance of getting to heaven.      



Post 19

Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 8:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andre,

Are you familiar with the philosophical ideas of Leo Strauss? 

As I understand it, Strauss felt philosophy was intended to be only for a select few among the ruling elites of society because philosophy calls into question the conventional moral assumptions that civil society is based on (mainly belief in God).  By doing so, an alternative morality based on reason is made available to people of mediocre intellect, and this is problematic to Strauss because he believes that it's difficult if not impossible to form absolute moral standards which can be widely agreed upon. Therefore, lesser minds will be more susceptible to the destructive notions of nihilism and relativism, and the foundations of civil order will erode.  Thus, the powered elites must pass on "noble lies" to the masses (such as religion) to save society (and philosophy) from itself.

What is your take on that concept?



Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.