Michael Barone is not a stupid, uninformed man. I know. My brother used to work with him at the U.S. News & World Report. So there is no innocent explanation for why he would write something so patently false and so obtusely misleading as the following. It’s pure disinformation. Every single word of it is dishonest.
Why do they hate us? No, I’m not talking about Islamofascist terrorists. We know why they hate us: because we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion, because we refuse to treat women as second-class citizens, because we do not kill homosexuals, because we are a free society.
No, the “they” I’m referring to are the editors of The New York Times. And do they hate us? Well, that may be stretching it. But at the least they have gotten into the habit of acting in reckless disregard of our safety.
In order to determine why the so-called Islamofascists hate us, I am going to go straight to the main source. Usama bin-Laden laid out his reasoning in a 1996 fatwa and a 1998 fatwa. The 1996 fatwa complains mainly of the corruption of the Saudi regime, their disregard for a free press and human rights, their high military spending and their reliance, nonetheless, on America for security. The 1998 fatwa is more specific to America’s perceived faults. [emphasis mine].
The Arabian Peninsula has never–since God made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas–been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies now spreading in it like locusts, consuming its riches and destroying its plantations.
Again, bin-Laden is criticizing what he sees as economic exploitation by the West. He then lays out three main greivances, in order of importance.
First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.
By 9/11/01 it would be ten years that the United States had been based in Saudi Arabia, plundering their riches (as UBL saw it), dictating to their rulers, and (as we now know about the Bush administration pre-9/11) planning on fighting their neighboring Muslim peoples. Nowhere in this first complaint does bin-Laden mention anything about how we treat women and homosexuals, nor does he discuss freedom of speech or religion. His second complaint also focused on Iraq.
Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, in excess of 1 million… despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation. So now they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.
Remember that this fatwa dates from 1998, not 2002. Bin-Laden is angry that the United States has inflicted great devastation on the Iraq people, and then uses the ‘million’ number that people used to describe the effect of the sanctions. He is clearly angered by the sanctions on Iraq and he suspects that the United States is getting ready to attack Iraq again. In fact, Clinton did launch Operation Desert Fox in late 1998, a four-day sustained bombing campaign.
So, what about his third complaint? Anything in there about hating our freedoms? Let’s see.
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.
Damn!! Nothing in there about hating our freedoms. Rather, he just noted our eagerness to destroy Iraq, and to fragment the other regional powers into ‘paper statelets’, powerless to destroy Israel. And on that basis, and that basis alone, bin-Laden issued the following fatwa:
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies–civilians and military–is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque 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.
Now, let’s think about this for a moment. It’s true that bin-Laden subscribes to a kind of medieval version of Sunni Islam, and that he is not a proponent of religious freedom in Muslim lands. In his 1996 fatwa, he criticized the Saudi regime for:
(1) Suspension of the Islamic Shari’ah law and exchanging it with man made civil law. The regime entered into a bloody confrontation with the truthful Ulamah and the righteous youths
In that sense, he is hostile to modern innovations in Islam, including some of what we rightfully refer to as human rights. He is not calling for a Jeffersonian revolution. But that doesn’t mean that he is indifferent to the people of Saudi Arabia’s basic rights. He also criticizes the Saudi regime for:
(1) The intimidation and harassment suffered by the leaders of the society, the scholars, heads of tribes, merchants, academic teachers and other eminent individuals;…
(3) The state of the press and the media which became a tool of truth-hiding and misinformation; the media carried out the plan of the enemy of idolising cult of certain personalities and spreading scandals among the believers to repel the people away from their religion,…
…(4) Abuse and confiscation of human rights;
In short, his critique of the Saudis was that they were corrupt, that they misallocated funds (especially on defense), that they set the price of oil with more regard to American desires than the benefit of the Saudi people, that they did not respect religious freedom (within the context of Islam), that they cracked down on academics, and that they used the media to spread disinformation.
This doesn’t sound like the critique of a man that has a total disregard for the merits of liberty. It sounds like a man that sees the Saudis as corrupt and the American role in the Middle East as one that is inimical to the liberty of Muslims.
Usama bin-Laden is a propagandist. It’s true that he will use any available argument to make his case. We shouldn’t take his talk of human rights, freedom of the press, academic freedom, etc., to mean that he would grant these things if he somehow gained power. But, at the same time, there is nothing there, nothing even hinted at, to suggest that he hates America because of our freedoms, or the way we treat women and homosexuals. He shows no concern for how our culture might be undermining the faith of Muslims or corrupting their youth. His concerns are economic, political, and geo-political. Michael Barone knows this. He knows it just as well as Dick Cheney knows it. And yet, he chooses to describe the threat of Islamic terrorism as deriving from a hatred of our culture and our freedoms.
When we invaded Iraq we made bid-Laden’s 1998 fatwa look less like the ravings of a lunatic than a modern day Les Propheties. Perhaps nothing could have lent bin-Laden more credibility than to have been proven right about America’s intention to conquer and occupy and (in effect) destroy Iraq. And, it is the refusal of the neo-conservatives to be honest about why Islamists are targetting U.S. civilians that has led, more than anything else, to the total collapse of American credibility on the international stage.
The Islamists are not angry about the freedoms that Americans enjoy. They are perfectly content to let us go on enjoying them. But, they are not content to go on living under oppression in their own countries. Yes, if they gained power they would replace the current oppression with a new and different kind of oppression. But, at least it would not be bought and paid for by the American taxpayer.
Michael Barone knows these facts. He’s a very smart man. But he doesn’t get paid to tell the truth. He gets paid to brainwash right-wingers into thinking the fate of American liberty is on the line. It’s not. Islamists will leave us alone the moment we leave them alone. And if we have good reasons not to leave them alone (and we do), then this fight will go on. It’s a real fight, but it isn’t an existential threat. It ain’t armageddon, and it ain’t a war on the tactic of terrorism. Tell America the truth.
Excellent post.
My only disagreement, BooMan, is when you write:
In fact, from what little I know of Islamic history, the medieval period was a time of great intellectual achievement, including enormously important work in philosophy, medicine, and other areas of culture.
Bin Laden’s totalizing and reactionary form of religion is, like most contemporary forms of fundamentalism in Islam and other religions, an entirely modern phenomenon.
sure, that is true. It’s more of a nostalgia for the perceived greatness of medieval Islam than an actual reflection of that greatness. You’re right.
I never know what to make of comments such as this, because I rarely (if ever) see any serious discussion of Bin Laden’s religion . . . only the demonizing in the MSM (which I decline to believe . . .).
When the Sunnis ran Iraq it was the most secular and tolerant country in the area. There are plenty of “moderate” Muslims, of all flavors. And even the most “fundamentalist” of Muslims appear on close examination to be no worse than Christians of not too distant history (and Baptists today).
There are nut cases in every religion, and maybe Bin Laden is one of them. But I sure don’t trust George Bush or Fox News to tell me so. What’s your source regarding what he believes (assuming he’s even still alive)?
Really I was making a much more general point.
Modern fundamentalism — Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, what have you — is a modern phenomenon, not the return of some imagined beast from the far past. Religious medievalism — like the secular medievalism of a lot of fascist movements — is no more actually “medieval” than Medieval Times® dinner theater.
And, especially in the case of Islam, the medieval period was a time of enormous cultural and intellectual achievement.
Anyone else find it slightly hypocritical that a political movement with “return woman to status as second-class citizens” among their primary goals is using rhetoric like this?
available in orange.
Booman, I’m confused. I thought he was attacking the New York Times, not the islamofascists, per this quote:
The article is definitely disinfo crap, to be sure. But he is definitely talking about the media. Here’s the dumbness I take objection to. I don’t know what your brothers knows about him, but if this guy isn’t dumb, he assumed everyone else IS:
I mean, is there anyone on the planet that doesn’t know their communications, their banking transactions, anything that do that’s not one-on-one in a secluded location (and sometimes, even that) is subject to electronic monitoring?
I mean, Brazil has even managed to spy on people in the Amazon forest. Only an idiot would assume he could plan terrorist acts by landline or cell phone or through the banking system and not get caught. Or, should I say, any non-government asset idiot, because the other kind can, and do, get away with it.
Nicely deconstructed. It’s improtant to emphasize that bin Laden’s critique is widely shared throughout the Middle East and Muslim world, and even (as a minority opinion) outside those realms; what’s controversial & far from a majority opinion is his propsed solution. The oppressive living conditions — under allies & foes alike — makes for potent recruiting grounds. What freedom might look like in an Islamic society is a hotly contested notion throughout the Muslim world. The fundies are hardly the only ones with a stake in the debate.
The notion that the US/Israeli goal in Iraq is to reduce it to small powerless statelets has quite a bit of currency in the West these days.
The phrase “if he somehow gained power” echoes another right-wing talking point, however. Is there really any indication that bin Laden seeks to install himself in a position of power? I’ve always had the sense that he sees himself as revolutionary instigator, not a ruler, similar in fashion to Zapata in Mexico.
You seem to be confusing two different questions:
On the first you are right that it is primarily the result of US policy in the Middle East.
But you seem to suggest that the answer to the second is ‘no’, if that is indeed what you think, you are wrong.
Take a look at his ‘Letter to the American People’. It starts off with the sort of accusations you cite, but then it goes on to attack ‘our freedoms’ and rule of law, mixed in with a dash of crude anti-semitism. He also attack capitalist abuses, but so what? The closest thing this world has seen to bin Laden’s ideal polity is Afghanistan under the Taliban. That in itself should be enough to make it clear that bin Laden is not interested in human rights or democracy in any normal meaning of the words.
Usama bin Ladin’s ‘letter to the American people’
I don’t have a lot of confidence of the authenticity of post-9/11 communications from bin-Laden, especially of the non-video kind. But, in focusing on why were attacked it would be wrong to suggest that it had anything to do with our perceived immorality or freedom. This is clear in reading UBL’s pre-9/11 propaganda.
Let’s look at the more recent audiotape ostensibly from UBL:
Once again, no mention of our morals, and an offer to cease hostilities if we remove ourselves from Muslim lands. Now, I am not suggesting that we accede to these demands, merely that we understand them correctly.
In my opinion I think you are reading too much out of OBL’s recent statements. He is good at propaganda and has always been. Al-Qaeda is known for its use of the tech in its fight against its enemies and to propagate its statements. OBL is now, and has been for a while, in a rather pressed situation, this combined with the growing discontent with the Bush adm., both in the US and in the rest of the world makes reasoning and less rhetoric seems a better tactic in order to reach the “others”.
Actually, I thought this was a response to Marek.
It would have been more appropriate, IMO.
I don’t place much stock in any post 9/11 comments ostensibly from UBL. And least of all do I think they are reliable for explaining why we were attacked. They tend to parrot left-wing attacks on Bush’s polices, although they always did mimic the more far left criticism of American middle east policy.
But, my point is, if we believe these are arising from UBL, then we still see that he is not intent on carrying out jihad against the west because of our culture and freedoms, but only insofar as it will get us out of Muslim lands.
I’m not advocating that we cave into his demands. I am only asking that we addresss what they are, or were.
“Quaint” isn’t it. In fact I’ve seen some of those emails that show how “Liberals Love Bin Laden” because we “agree”… OMG.
The reason for my response to your comment was this sentence:
“(…..)But, in focusing on why were attacked it would be wrong to suggest that it had anything to do with our perceived immorality or freedom.”
I disagree with you. Those statements you refer to are indeed recent and the reason for him not mentioning freedom or morals is because that kind of rhetoric would never fly when you are addressing people in the West. OBL and Al-Qaeda are indeed in need of friends, especially in the Muslim world and he knows that even Muslims are appalled by the tactics used in the name of Al-Qaeda and this is his way of showing the world that he is a man of reason and a “statesman” if you like. The fact that he doesn’t mention freedom and morals in the statements you refer to doesn’t necessarily mean that he doesn’t hate them.
I don’t think that hatred and despise for the western way of life, were Al-Qaeda’s only motivations for attacking the World Trade Centres, but they were certainly important factors. If they wanted the US out of the Middle-East why not attack the troops on the ground. By attacking the symbol of free-trade and economic prosperity they could show the world in general and the Muslims in particular that their culture and religion was potent enough to even strike at the Heart of freedom and economical/technological development. In many ways it was an attack out of despair and frustration, but still it was devastating enough and the cause of much tragedy. The first Bali-bombs in 2002 believed to be the responsibility of an Indonesian Al-Qaeda cell, happened one year before the invasion of Iraq and most of the westerners killed in that blast were Australians, a country that became actively involved in the Middle-East in 2003.
OBL can not be detached from Al-Qaeda and its visions for the world. He is the founder and the “spiritual” leader of that network. Remember that many of those people that trained in Afghanistan before 2001 are now experienced leaders of local Al-Qaeda cells in different parts of the world.
Well then instead of looking at the situation from the rather narrow viewpoint of being a Westerner and someone ostensibly of a group not very enamored of George Bush, why don’t we take a look at the most important statement from bin Laden?
Even Booman said it:
Israel. Jews. What?
The question is simple: do you believe in the right of national self-determination or not? Do the Palestinians have a right to rule themselves? Do the Israelis? Yes or no? Irrespective of your opinion on suicide bombings and checkpoints.
Osama says no. The Palestinians have the right to live under Islamic law, and if not, they have no rights. The Israelis are just plain out of luck on all fronts.
We forget sometimes that in the end there is at least one conflict here where the position of both sides is nonnegotiable: Israel. Either it has a right to exist or it doesn’t. Each side is standing for a principle that they will not compromise. You decide if our principle of self-determination and goverment of the people, for the people, and by the people is right, or if government by the dictate of Allah according to Osama bin Laden is.
Freedom of speech? Osama doesn’t hate it, I’m sure, as long as that speech isn’t “un-Islamic.”
Right to assembly? As long as that assembly isn’t “un-Islamic.”
To petition the government for redress of grievances? As long as the government position on the issue is not the “Islamic” position.
Freedom of religion? What are you talking about, infidel? I guess, if you want to pay us some extra tax money, follow most of our customs whether you like it or not in public anyway, you get the idea.
Because remember, Osama doesn’t hate our freedoms. They’re just obstacles to the rebirth of the Caliphate and the greater glory of Allah. Funny, though, Osama hasn’t particularly shown much love for what he considers the human obstacles to achieving that…