Reading the transcript and some commentary about osama bin laden’s recent video clip, I can’t help but note (as many others do): how come his talking points are so close to those of many leftie folks in the USA? I assume even the lefties think of him at least as an enemy – does it not make them take pause and consider … “Can I really be right, if my enemy agrees with me?”.
Trackback link:
Please enable javascript to generate a trackback url
Your premise depends on taking everything OSL says as his honest opinion.
Patrick Woodworth - 2007-09-09 00:37
Patrick: perhaps – and also the words of the locals.
Which substantial parts do you believe are insincere (on either side)?
Frank - 2007-09-09 07:08
New Osama video seems yet another forgery. Everyone needs Osama alive:
terrorists as symbolic leader and the US Administration – to avoid
scaling down the war on terror.
Obadiah Shoher rightly notes (
http://www.samsonblinded.org/news/osama-.. ) that
new Osama talks like a leftist university professor. I like Shoher’s
analysis. No way a terrorist leader like Osama would use a speechwriter. Osama is famous
for his rhetoric.
Also, in the tape Osama both threatens America with attack (by
“proving” Americans polytheists) and offers (yet another time)
long-term coaching in Islam.
But his dyed beard makes me cautious. Islam’s mujahedeen dye their
beards before battle.
Eugene (Email) (URL) - 2007-09-11 07:36
“Can I really be right, if my enemy agrees with me?” If my enemy agrees with me on everything, he is not my enemy. If my enemy agrees with me on many things, that proves nothing. It would be absurd to start saying “if he is for it, then I am against it.” That is the reaction of an unthinking person, one who is driven by hatred rather than logic.
Ian Lance Taylor (Email) (URL) - 2007-09-12 12:08
> It would be absurd to start saying “if he is for it, then I am against it.”
Even if we are just talking about substantial political/cultural matters rather than
tautological abstractions?
> That is the reaction of an unthinking person, one who is driven by
> hatred rather than logic.
I don’t know about that. It seems more common sense than knee-jerk to
expect that I should generally disagree (on politics) with someone who
wants to kill me (for political reasons).
And, in such a circumstance, being driven by hate would also be
to some extent common sense. Dispassionately contemplating
one’s attacker is a luxury.
Frank - 2007-09-12 13:05
> Even if we are just talking about substantial political/cultural matters rather than
> tautological abstractions?
I can agree with people about a lot of things while disagreeing about whether it is acceptable to kill innocent people. I would say that Timothy McVeigh or the Unabomber (I’ve forgotten his name) are just as much our enemy as Osama bin Laden—the main difference being that bin Laden is both more dangerous and still active. All three make very different points about our politics and culture, and to some extent I agree with all of them. But of course their actions are still evil.
> And, in such a circumstance, being driven by hate would also be
> to some extent common sense. Dispassionately contemplating
> one’s attacker is a luxury.
Hmmm, I have the exact opposite opinion. When you aren’t under immediate time pressure, dispasstionately contemplating one’s attacker is a necessity, not a luxury. Understanding somebody is a key to defeating them.
Ian Lance Taylor (Email) (URL) - 2007-09-13 14:44