At the end of the day it’s envy and hate. He considers Westerners lesser and it fills him with rage that the West is so prominent and his culture is not. It’s a tale as old of Islam itself. Any prominent culture must be attacked and conquered
I would normally also roll my eyes at "They hate us for our freedoms", but a couple passages of this letter reasonably could be paraphrased as "We hate you for your freedoms".
The paragraph beginning with "the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind" is a good example.
Apart from the references to Allah, that paragraph and the ones that follow are practically indistinguishable from the beliefs of many evangelical and conservative Christians, that America is an evil and secular empire corrupted by sin and vice that has turned away from God and His holy book. It just disagrees about which holy book.
Similarities between extremely conservative Christianism and extremely conservative Islamism? I am shocked!
Seriously, has anyone ever argued that evangelicals and islamists would disagree about conservative ideas such as the role of sexuality or feminism in society? That sounds like a straw man among straw men.
> It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge.
27 “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.
One may note that the idea of violent resistance to oppression is deeply present in USA too : Right of Revolution and Second Amendment.
It seems you are trying to show the peacefulness of the Christian Bible vs the Quran, but cherry-picking creates a selection bias. If one wants to find verses justifying violence, the New Testament has them too (let alone the old one)
> Matthew 10:34: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
> Revelation 19:15: "And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron..."
> If one wants to find verses justifying violence, the New Testament has them too
You are saying verses that do justifying violence but the ones you provided are just having the word 'sword' in them. Are you really saying that they tell me as a Christian to do violence?
I'm basically saying cherry-picking creates a selection bias, which invalidated the point trying to be made. However that's a powerful technique to strengthen the idea of those already convinced.
Regarding the verse I'm not sure if they imply you should do the same at home, however it's a possible interpretation.
Separation of church and state, jews, homosexuals, gender equality, and America are bad. Every failure and every war in the arab world is because of the West. Therefore my terrorism is all your fault.
I don't agree with bin Laden or his methods, but that's not in this letter.
In the first section of the letter, "Why are we fighting and opposing you?", he describes atrocities committed by the United States and its allies. I think that part is what people reference as "astute points."
You don't have to love a person to understand or consider their ideas. Ted Kaczynski is a good example of an American intellectual with many philosophically worthy ideas, even if you find his methods horrific.
> [It argues] that the Industrial Revolution began a harmful process of natural destruction brought about by technology. Furthermore it states that forcing humans to adapt to machinery creates a sociopolitical order that suppresses human potential and freedom. [...] The manifesto states that the public largely accepts individual technological advancements as purely positive without accounting for their overall effect, including the erosion of local and individual freedom and autonomy.
Would you mind spelling them out? Because all I find hovers between old fashioned reactionism and bat shit craziness. What is the philosophical value in that?
Parent poster probably should have mentioned Ellul, who the unabomber was heavily influenced by. Makes it easier for people who simply pattern match based on culturally enforced taboos instead of reading the source material and drawing their own conclusions.
Technology can become autonomous to the point that human beings can no longer control it and will become reliant on it, undermining human agency. AI will accelerate these problems and will be used by elites to subjugate lower classes.
From the Wikipedia page for Industrial Society and Its Future: he "[argued] that the Industrial Revolution began a harmful process of natural destruction brought about by technology. Furthermore it states that forcing humans to adapt to machinery creates a sociopolitical order that suppresses human potential and freedom."
24 comments
[ 0.21 ms ] story [ 6.8 ms ] threadThe paragraph beginning with "the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind" is a good example.
Seriously, has anyone ever argued that evangelicals and islamists would disagree about conservative ideas such as the role of sexuality or feminism in society? That sounds like a straw man among straw men.
27 “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.
It seems you are trying to show the peacefulness of the Christian Bible vs the Quran, but cherry-picking creates a selection bias. If one wants to find verses justifying violence, the New Testament has them too (let alone the old one)
> Matthew 10:34: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
> Revelation 19:15: "And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron..."
You are saying verses that do justifying violence but the ones you provided are just having the word 'sword' in them. Are you really saying that they tell me as a Christian to do violence?
Regarding the verse I'm not sure if they imply you should do the same at home, however it's a possible interpretation.
Yeah there's a strong theme in this letter.
In the first section of the letter, "Why are we fighting and opposing you?", he describes atrocities committed by the United States and its allies. I think that part is what people reference as "astute points."
You don't have to love a person to understand or consider their ideas. Ted Kaczynski is a good example of an American intellectual with many philosophically worthy ideas, even if you find his methods horrific.
I read a bit of his manifesto once. You have to be very generously looking for the worthy ideas.
It's relevant today more than ever:
> [It argues] that the Industrial Revolution began a harmful process of natural destruction brought about by technology. Furthermore it states that forcing humans to adapt to machinery creates a sociopolitical order that suppresses human potential and freedom. [...] The manifesto states that the public largely accepts individual technological advancements as purely positive without accounting for their overall effect, including the erosion of local and individual freedom and autonomy.
Would you mind spelling them out? Because all I find hovers between old fashioned reactionism and bat shit craziness. What is the philosophical value in that?
Technology can become autonomous to the point that human beings can no longer control it and will become reliant on it, undermining human agency. AI will accelerate these problems and will be used by elites to subjugate lower classes.
From the Wikipedia page for Industrial Society and Its Future: he "[argued] that the Industrial Revolution began a harmful process of natural destruction brought about by technology. Furthermore it states that forcing humans to adapt to machinery creates a sociopolitical order that suppresses human potential and freedom."
Do you think these concerns have relevance today?