What does the phrase "hating our freedoms" mean?

[mrgrouch]

"they hate our freedom" is just like someone saying "they hate me because i'm beautiful".

we know they hate us, but we chose to ignore the real reasons and convince ourselves it's over something we can do nothing about. they don’t hate us because we invaded their land, bombed their homes and killed their people… they don’t have a problem with that, it was for their own good. what they really hate about us is our freedom! god bless ya’ll.

cheers

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

"they hate our freedom" is just like someone saying "they hate me because i'm beautiful".

we know they hate us, but we chose to ignore the real reasons and convince ourselves it's over something we can do nothing about. they don’t hate us because we invaded their land, bombed their homes and killed their people… they don’t have a problem with that, it was for their own good. what they really hate about us is our freedom!

And I don't think there's a need to go that far either. "Their" hatred isn't necessarily "our" fault either. My point is, that it's simply wrong and counterproductive to ascribe motivations to an opponent or enemy. It's just polemic and inflammatory.

There's really no need for or benefit to be had from Bush or anyone else saying (especially as a statement of fact rather than phrased as mere speculation or opinion) what "their" motivations are.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's a marketing slogan, probably carefully crafted by Bush's speechwriters. No more, no less.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's a marketing slogan, probably carefully crafted by Bush's speechwriters. No more, no less.

Can you find verified quotations of Bush using it? I feel certain I remember him saying it, but a little googling only turns up other people saying he said it, without a source reference...and my memory is probably as fallible as anyone's.

 

[mrgrouch]

And I don't think there's a need to go that far either. "Their" hatred isn't necessarily "our" fault either. My point is, that it's simply wrong and counterproductive to ascribe motivations to an opponent or enemy. It's just polemic and inflammatory.

There's really no need for or benefit to be had from Bush or anyone else saying (especially as a statement of fact rather than phrased as mere speculation or opinion) what "their" motivations are.

i thought i wasn't going far enough. please correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't bush the first one to use the phrase? and wasn't that the context it was used in?

cheers

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

i thought i wasn't going far enough. please correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't bush the first one to use the phrase? and wasn't that the context it was used in?

I think so, but criticizing his use of that phrase doesn't support the claim that our actions were the cause of 9-11 either. In fact, that's pretty obviously not true.

I have a personal example. About a month ago, around 5 am, someone drove by my house (in an urban, residential street) and shot my car 9 times with an automatic .22 of some kind. I posted it on FB, and about the first three comments were one variation or another of, "What did you do to piss someone off?" as if illegal violence is ever justified.

Criticizing the "they hate us for our freedom" rhetoric doesn't require supporting a blame-the-victim position either. And it certainly doesn't require believing or condoning anything Osama Bin Laden said or did.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here are a couple interesting links:

Sourcewatch sought out the answer to, "why do they hate us" from dozens of relevant parties.

1.1 President George W. Bush
1.2 White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer
1.3 Charley Reese
1.4 Zbignew Brzezinski
1.5 Osama bin Laden
1.6 An al Qaeda spokesman
1.7 United Nations Security Council
1.8 Pentagon's Defense Science Board
1.9 From Bill Maher(?)
1.10 Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
1.11 Report by the Christian Science Monitor
1.12 Council on Foreign Relations
1.13 What the U.S. papers say
1.14 What the Middle East papers say
1.15 Jerusalem Post
1.16 Allegedly from the Wall Street Journal
1.17 80 Reasons, and More
1.18 Adam Young
1.19 Harry Browne
1.20 Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld
1.21 Guardian/UK
1.22 Foreign Affairs

There are a few additional relevant comments as well.

And for a different point of view, The Christian Science Monitor weighs in with a 9 page editorial asking the same question with a religious focus to the answer. Of course, religious persecution is part of the Christian meme.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Here are a couple interesting links:

Thanks. I'll try to remember to use sourcewatch in the future.

 

[WildCat]

That OBL's rhetoric is irrational doesn't make it OK to ascribe inflammatory motivations to his actions. Two wrongs don't make a right. This thread isn't about OBL's wacky rhetoric.

ETA: And FWIW, even if OBL has really screwed up ideas, it doesn't follow that those screwed up ideas weren't indeed his motivation.

Are you saying that for a skeptic the default reason OBL declared war on the US shouldn't be the reasons he claimed in his own words?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Are you saying that for a skeptic the default reason OBL declared war on the US shouldn't be the reasons he claimed in his own words?

No. I'm saying exactly what I'm saying. It's an intellectually dishonest and inflammatory and counterproductive rhetorical device to ascribe motives to your opponent like this. And I'm also saying that making that criticism doesn't mean one has to accept or condone anything OBL has done or said.

However, reading some of the information SkepticGinger just posted, I can see that there have been polls of the "Muslim World" that seem to indicate that what OBL said is probably nearer the objective truth. Again, it doesn't follow that I blame the U.S. for the 9-11 attacks or absolve the criminals for the crimes they committed.

In my personal example, it could well be that someone's motive for shooting up my car was that they didn't like the public parking spot where I was parked. It could be, but my saying that wouldn't be based on any evidence, and it certainly doesn't mean I think it was my own fault my car got shot up, or that the perp isn't responsible for committing a crime. (I made the point that it could as well be their motive was the very strange color of my car. I could imagine it possible that some young hoodlum with a new gun anxious to try it out driving down the street would be drawn to my car as a target since the color makes it stand out. But of course, I don't know that either.)

Another personal example: my father was extremely racist (in the Archie Bunker mode) and frequently spouted racists remarks especially against blacks. I remember my mother one time asking him why he thought they hated us (white people) so, and his response was that we (white people) annoy them just the way a mosquito annoys us. Of course his remarks dismissed plenty of legitimate complaints about the treatment of blacks at the hands of whites in the U.S. for generations, but observing that doesn't mean that I condone racially-motivate black-on-white crime or believe any of it to be the fault of the victims.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Are you saying that for a skeptic the default reason OBL declared war on the US shouldn't be the reasons he claimed in his own words?

So what was the quote? He hated our freedom?

 

[sadhatter]

People say the terrorists hate our freedom. People say Republicans hate our freedom. People say Democrats hate our freedom. By 'our' I don't just mean Americans by the way.

It's used as an "end all be all" argument, and I'm wondering what people really mean when they say this. This was said so often after 9/11 I think people heard it but didn't really process it.

If a law is passed restricting freedom, does it mean the person passing the law 'hates' freedom?

And when used a a justification for war, what is really being said? That jealousy is the main factor behind terrorism? That terrorists can't stand others being free while they can't be?

It is the same kind of sentiment that is used when saying something like "homophobes all are closet cases." which is to say it takes a premise that may apply to a part of an organization, and applies it to all of them.

I have no doubt there are some terrorists who are just pissy with the advantages north americans get, but to say that all of them , and all of the organizations are grounded in that believe that way, is just silly.

 

[WildCat]

So what was the quote? He hated our freedom?

Primarily our freedom to not be Muslims.

 

[Allen773]

Primarily our freedom to not be Muslims.

Oh? That's not what I saw.

The people of Islam awakened and realised that they are the main target for the aggression of the Zionist-Crusaders alliance. All false claims and propaganda about "Human Rights" were hammered down and exposed by the massacres that took place against the Muslims in every part of the world.

Translation: OBL despises the US, Israel, and their allies for what he perceives as their hypocrisy regarding human rights. He accuses those countries and their allies of massacring Muslims and occupying Muslim countries.

The latest and the greatest of these aggressions, incurred by the Muslims since the death of the Prophet (ALLAH'S BLESSING AND SALUTATIONS ON HIM) is the occupation of the land of the two Holy Places -the foundation of the house of Islam, the place of the revelation, the source of the message and the place of the noble Ka'ba, the Qiblah of all Muslims- by the armies of the American Crusaders and their allies. (We bemoan this and can only say: "No power and power acquiring except through Allah").

Translation: OBL is outraged at what he sees as sacrilege and an insult to Muslims everywhere: the occupation of a non-Muslim army in Saudi Arabia.

Under the present circumstances, and under the banner of the blessed awakening which is sweeping the world in general and the Islamic world in particular, I meet with you today. And after a long absence, imposed on the scholars (Ulama) and callers (Da'ees) of Islam by the iniquitous crusaders movement under the leadership of the USA; who fears that they, the scholars and callers of Islam, will instigate the Ummah of Islam against its' enemies as their ancestor scholars-may Allah be pleased with them- like Ibn Taymiyyah and Al'iz Ibn Abdes-Salaam did. And therefore the Zionist-Crusader alliance resorted to killing and arresting the truthful Ulama and the working Da'ees (We are not praising or sanctifying them; Allah sanctify whom He pleased). They killed the Mujahid Sheikh Abdullah Azzaam, and they arrested the Mujahid Sheikh Ahmad Yaseen and the Mujahid Sheikh Omar Abdur Rahman (in America).

Translation: OBL is enraged that the US government and other "Crusaders" have arrested or killed "scholars of Islam" including his friend and mentor Abdullah Azzam.

By orders from the USA they also arrested a large number of scholars, Da'ees and young people - in the land of the two Holy Places- among them the prominent Sheikh Salman Al-Oud'a and Sheikh Safar Al-Hawali and their brothers; (We bemoan this and can only say: "No power and power acquiring except through Allah"). We, myself and my group, have suffered some of this injustice ourselves; we have been prevented from addressing the Muslims. We have been pursued in Pakistan, Sudan and Afghanistan, hence this long absence on my part. But by the Grace of Allah, a safe base is now available in the high Hindukush mountains in Khurasan ; where--by the Grace of Allah-the largest infidel military force of the world was destroyed. And the myth of the super power was withered in front of the Mujahideen cries of Allahu Akbar (God is greater). Today we work from the same mountains to lift the iniquity that had been imposed on the Ummah by the Zionist-Crusader alliance, particularly after they have occupied the blessed land around Jerusalem, route of the journey of the Prophet (ALLAH'S BLESSING AND SALUTATIONS ON HIM) and the land of the two Holy Places. We ask Allah to bestow us with victory, He is our Patron and He is the Most Capable.

Translation: Here, OBL accuses the US of ordering the arrests of many people in Saudi Arabia, most likely people who were considered dangerous extremists. He boasts of escaping the "Crusaders" and of having a save haven in Afghanistan. He also boasts of bringing down one superpower (the Soviet Union) in the past through guerrilla warfare, and believes he and his allies can do it again to the remaining superpower, the United States.

This part here needs no translation:

People are fully concerned about their every day livings; every body talks about the deterioration of the economy, inflation, ever increasing debts and jails full of prisoners. Government employees with limited income talk about debts of ten thousands and hundred thousands of Saudi Riyals . They complain that the value of the Riyal is greatly and continuously deteriorating among most of the main currencies. Great merchants and contractors speak about hundreds and thousands of million Riyals owed to them by the government. More than three hundred forty billions of Riyal owed by the government to the people in addition to the daily accumulated interest, let alone the foreign debt. People wonder whether we are the largest oil exporting country?! They even believe that this situation is a curse put on them by Allah for not objecting to the oppressive and illegitimate behaviour and measures of the ruling regime: Ignoring the divine Shari'ah law; depriving people of their legitimate rights; allowing the American to occupy the land of the two Holy Places; imprisonment, unjustly, of the sincere scholars. The honourable Ulamah and scholars as well as merchants, economists and eminent people of the country were all alerted by this disastrous situation.

The rest of it talks about issues like perceived American military aggression, the Israel-Palestine conflict and America's support of Israel, and America's support of oppressive dictatorships, including in Saudi Arabia, the holiest land in Islam but also one of the world's most crucial oil reserves.

In other words, you can't say that OBL was simply upset that America has the "right not to be Muslim." He listed many grievances there, pointing to what he saw as the hypocrisy, arrogance, aggression, and disrespect for Islamic religion and the cultures of Islamic nations.

To claim that he "hated us for our freedoms" is disingenuous at best. America is not even close to being the most free society in the world. Look at what American government and business does overseas and at home, not at some ideal of American "freedom."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Primarily our freedom to not be Muslims.

Sorry WC but that is not, "they hate our freedoms". Sounds like something a Bush apologist would say.

And if it was simply, 'kill the infidels', why single out the US?

 

[Mick Houlahan]

It's a marketing slogan, probably carefully crafted by Bush's speechwriters. No more, no less.

Yep.

 

[PhantomWolf]

"they hate our freedom" is just like someone saying "they hate me because i'm beautiful".

we know they hate us, but we chose to ignore the real reasons and convince ourselves it's over something we can do nothing about. they don’t hate us because we invaded their land, bombed their homes and killed their people… they don’t have a problem with that, it was for their own good. what they really hate about us is our freedom! god bless ya’ll.

cheers

Exactly, and it is used by people who have no interest and will to learn the real reasons why they got hated.

The best way to deal with terrorism is to find out why the people decided that they had to use it in the first place. Figure that out, solve that issue, and there is less reason for them to resort to it. Bombs don't stop terrorists, they create more of them.

 

[Alt+F4]

And if it was simply, 'kill the infidels', why single out the US?

Give them time. The earth is a big place.

 

[Taarkin]

Exactly, and it is used by people who have no interest and will to learn the real reasons why they got hated.

The best way to deal with terrorism is to find out why the people decided that they had to use it in the first place. Figure that out, solve that issue, and there is less reason for them to resort to it. Bombs don't stop terrorists, they create more of them.

In the military, trying to learn things about the enemy is called intelligence. In propaganda, it's called apologism or treason.


"General Eisenhower! Another batch of decrypted Enigma files came in and it looks the the Germans are planning a massive counterattack in-"
"Stop there there, son. You're telling me you're reading that Nazi claptrap? The Huns are irrational, genocidal freedom-haters and that's all I need to know."

 

[mrgrouch]

I think so, but criticizing his use of that phrase doesn't support the claim that our actions were the cause of 9-11 either. In fact, that's pretty obviously not true.

I have a personal example. About a month ago, around 5 am, someone drove by my house (in an urban, residential street) and shot my car 9 times with an automatic .22 of some kind. I posted it on FB, and about the first three comments were one variation or another of, "What did you do to piss someone off?" as if illegal violence is ever justified.

Criticizing the "they hate us for our freedom" rhetoric doesn't require supporting a blame-the-victim position either. And it certainly doesn't require believing or condoning anything Osama Bin Laden said or did.

i never intended to justify 9-11 or anything other event of that nature, nor i wanted to blame anybody. i'm sorry if it sounded like that. i was just trying to put the quote in question at its origin source.

here's some fragments of the "letter to america" from bin laden.

(Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?



(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

a) You attacked us in Palestine:
(b) You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.
(c) Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis;
(d) You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of you international influence and military threats. This theft is indeed the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world.
(e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.
(f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down.
(g) You have supported the Jews in their idea that Jerusalem is their eternal capital, and agreed to move your embassy there. With your help and under your protection, the Israelis are planning to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque. Under the protection of your weapons, Sharon entered the Al-Aqsa mosque, to pollute it as a preparation to capture and destroy it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver
[...]

no where do i see "because we hate your freedoms"

i'm sorry about your car. as a reasonable person i'm sure you tried to investigate who did this to your vehicle and why, instead of saying "they hate me because i'm _______" and then using that argument to go against whoever may think that way.

cheers