“Not universally accepted”
it was predictable i would get myself in trouble on Facebook after Osama’s assassination.
We should call it an “assassination”, right? ObL was the political leader of a group we have declared war on. We sent in specialists to murder him, this is called assassination. But i dont expect you will hear the mainstream media referring to it this way.
So it turns out that if you actually look at what ObL said before and after the 9/11 attacks, it has basically nothing to do with “hating our freedoms” is has nothing to do with “spreading Islam over the world” and it is a much more pragmatic agenda which includes:
1) The US support of Israel over Palestine
2) The installation of US military bases in Saudi Arabia (which was relatively contemporary in 2001)
3) Retaliation for the US led sanctions on Iraq from Bush I and continued under Clinton. Which lead to hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths, mostly children.
This is not the reasons for a madman to attack the US. If you see yourself as a middle eastern Muslim trying to protect your culture and your people, then this is self defense. Self defense is generally perceived as a noble motivation and it is politically much more convenient for patriotic Americans to believe that these attacks were a unprovoked and unwarned of surprise. But it is clear Bush knew it was possible that ObL wanted to strike in the US because Bush was briefed on this possibility of attacks in the US on August 6 2001.
When i advanced some of this world view i got the reply from a friends FB friend ” You do realize that your version of why we were attacked on 9/11 is not universally accepted, right?”
But i will check my facts and correct my story if need be.