Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Phoenixmgs]

The 'data' is unusable for the purpose the writer intends. He's just bunging together a comparison of all deaths-- whether related to covid, lockdowns, or neither-- and then making the leap from there to attributing cause. He controls for no variables whatsoever. It's the worst, most statistically-illiterate approach someone can take.

Hypothetically: if Sweden passed a road safety law in 2020, and saw a corresponding decrease in fatalities, your source would attribute equal weight to that as it would to deaths from covid.... in an analysis supposedly looking at the impact of covid policies.

That's literally the point. Excess deaths is the best starting point for seeing how well a country did during a pandemic, how well they mitigated deaths. Every other illness didn't go on vacation during covid. Covid wasn't the only public health issue during the pandemic.

Of course, lockdowns SHOULD lower deaths in the immediacy, that was never the argument of those against lockdowns. It was the longer-term effects that aren't immediate. The effects of lockdowns are things like people losing financial security (due to lost jobs/businesses as money equates to health especially in America), people not getting screening for other medical illnesses, people not doing actual activities and eating more unhealthy (leading to lower life expectancy and lower quality of life), mental health taking a nosedive, massively accelerating the wealth gap, kids dying in poor countries because the rich countries locked down, etc. IT'S ALL THAT STUFF THAT IS THE ARGUMENT, not just say 2020 or 2021 covid deaths that could be averted by lockdowns.

 

[Ag3ma]

What does that post have anything to do with your 0.36 number? Because your gross estimation (without any work) that everyone would have needed to get covid 8 times (which has nothing to do with this 0.36 number)?

Okay, you are proposing that the IFR of covid on a naive population was under 0.2%. That means if everyone in a population were infected with covid, under 0.2% of the population would die. However, infection then provides immunity. If immunity is 90% effective at preventing infection, then were the entire population infected a second time, under 0.02% would die.

So with this IFR you propose, if 0.36% of the population has died of covid, this equates to everyone in the population being infected with covid multiple times. 0.2% die in the first wave, and 0.02% in each wave thereafter. Of course, I will admit an error in a previous post - this is actually 9 infections per person, not 8. Cumulative deaths by wave with an initial IFR of 0.2 are: 1) 0.2, 2) 0.22, 3) 0.24, 4) 0.26, 5) 0.28, 6) 0.30, 7) 0.32, 8) 0.34, 9) 0.36%.

So, is it plausible the entire population has been infected with covid 9 times? Quick answer, no. Therefore, it is deeply implausible the initial IFR of covid on the naive population was under 0.2%.

And, again, you will see from the very source you cited to make that "lower than 0.2%" claim, that in fact that paper does not really bear out that claim out all, at least in terms of Western countries with age-heavy populations.

Nope, because the trials for that number are from a much wider ranging group of people.

Once again, you reveal your lack of familiarity with the literature, because the data broadly bears out 90% protection from the vaccine irrespective of age range. Vaccines appear to have been less effective for some of the later variants such as omicron, but that appears to have been an inherently less lethal variant anyway.

The same reason you b!tch about my IFR number being wrong (when I do indeed want the world average for that) saying it should be location-based.

You could want the global information, but it would make you a complete idiot, so I'll give you a chance to rethink that.

We're sort of talking about lockdowns here, and their value. Now, for a proposed global average IFR of 0.2%, this means some places are lower IFR, and some places are higher IFR. So for instance Niger might be 0.05%, and California 0.5% (because the circumstances, particularly age distributions, of these places are very different). So what sense does it make for California or Niger to base their policy decisions on the circumstances of the other?

Potentially very little, given that tenfold difference in mortality.

And we then get into this idea of evidence-based policy decisions, because what you're effectively suggesting by using a global IFR is that policy decisions should be made on inaccurate data, which is pretty much the polar opposite of what you are otherwise demanding. As that would be exceptionally stupid of you, I think you probably do not want that.

 

[Silvanus]

That's literally the point. Excess deaths is the best starting point for seeing how well a country did during a pandemic, how well they mitigated deaths. Every other illness didn't go on vacation during covid. Covid wasn't the only public health issue during the pandemic.

"Every other illness didn't go on vacation"... and yet your source expects every other cause of death to continue on the exact trajectory it already had, unless affected by covid policies.

Completely batshit.

I know it's "literally the point" of your source. I'm saying that "the point" of your source renders it fucking unusable. Because "the point" of your source would end up treating a reduction of traffic collision deaths exactly the same as an increase in covid deaths.

 

[Eacaraxe]

"Every other illness didn't go on vacation"... and yet your source expects every other cause of death to continue on the exact trajectory it already had, unless affected by covid policies...Because "the point" of your source would end up treating a reduction of traffic collision deaths exactly the same as an increase in covid deaths.

The irony of this is traffic fatalities are the one cause of death that definitively, no-room-for-argument, no intervening variables, no other possibly explanatory factor, did increase correlative to Covid lockdowns.

Not because of Covid, or lockdowns themselves, but because every absolute fucking idiot on the road decided to treat Covid lockdowns as license to drive like the absolute fucking idiots they are. And when when lockdowns ended and they once again had to share the road with other absolute fucking idiots, they continued driving like absolute fucking idiots and now we're stuck with an interstate highway system on which the Darwin 500 is held every rush hour.

Note this is the exact same absolute fucking idiocy that brought us massive protests against the laughably weak, milquetoast, lockdowns-in-name-only that weren't even enforced or followed by the majority of the populace. The thing about whining over Covid lockdowns in this year of our Lord 2023, is we actually had to have locked down -- and those lockdowns be enforced -- in the first place.

MuhfartMSG over here wants to bring up excess mortality rates now, just never mind those higher mortality rates are because hospitals were completely overwhelmed. You know, thanks to the absolute fucking idiots that pissed and moaned about "lockdowns" and proceeded to ignore them, spreading Covid like wildfire, in the first place.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The irony of this is traffic fatalities are the one cause of death that definitively, no-room-for-argument, no intervening variables, no other possibly explanatory factor, did increase correlative to Covid lockdowns.

Not because of Covid, or lockdowns themselves, but because every absolute fucking idiot on the road decided to treat Covid lockdowns as license to drive like the absolute fucking idiots they are. And when when lockdowns ended and they once again had to share the road with other absolute fucking idiots, they continued driving like absolute fucking idiots and now we're stuck with an interstate highway system on which the Darwin 500 is held every rush hour.

I don't recall that being such a thing over where I live. OTOH, we did get people trying to run police covid checkpoints put up to stop unnecessary long distance travel. This ended exactly how you'd expect.

 

[Gergar12]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/16/tech/tiktok-osama-bin-laden-letter-to-america/index.html

TLDR: Biden will litrally let the CCP do a psych-op on Gen Z about 9/11 before taking an ax to TikTok or Section 230.

 

[Thaluikhain]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/16/tech/tiktok-osama-bin-laden-letter-to-america/index.html

TLDR: Biden will litrally let the CCP do a psych-op on Gen Z about 9/11 before taking an ax to TikTok or Section 230.

That is, people are sharing a letter supposedly written by bin Laden on tikton without Biden deciding to destroy tiktok. Not quite the same thing.

 

[tstorm823]

Therefore, it is deeply implausible the initial IFR of covid on the naive population was under 0.2%.

The death toll from covid you are using is deeply implausible, and it's messing up all of your math.

 

[Eacaraxe]

That is, people are sharing a letter supposedly written by bin Laden on tikton without Biden deciding to destroy tiktok. Not quite the same thing.

The letter's real. The US government and independent organizations verified the letter's authenticity, from source to style of authorship. That it's only being mass censored now (and it is), after receiving widespread popular attention, pretty much says everything about it you need to know. It basically just boils down to three things, problematic language set aside:

1. The US is a global, borderline fascist, empire.

2. The financial and fossil fuel sectors basically run the government, and the government kowtows to their will against the wishes of the US public.

3. The pro-Israel lobby has massive, dispositive, influence in US foreign policy, and thanks to that influence, Israel has carte blanche to pursue genocidal policies.

The issue being taken with this letter now, is every one of those allegations is fundamentally true. It was before 9/11, and it's indisputably true now. Like every other instance of "anti-American" or "anti-Western" propaganda, it's just truth to which US and western elites don't want the general public exposed.

 

[Ag3ma]

The death toll from covid you are using is deeply implausible, and it's messing up all of your math.

And what's your rationale for that? Because unless you have a good one, that's the sorriest of wet farts of a claim.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Okay, you are proposing that the IFR of covid on a naive population was under 0.2%. That means if everyone in a population were infected with covid, under 0.2% of the population would die. However, infection then provides immunity. If immunity is 90% effective at preventing infection, then were the entire population infected a second time, under 0.02% would die.

So with this IFR you propose, if 0.36% of the population has died of covid, this equates to everyone in the population being infected with covid multiple times. 0.2% die in the first wave, and 0.02% in each wave thereafter. Of course, I will admit an error in a previous post - this is actually 9 infections per person, not 8. Cumulative deaths by wave with an initial IFR of 0.2 are: 1) 0.2, 2) 0.22, 3) 0.24, 4) 0.26, 5) 0.28, 6) 0.30, 7) 0.32, 8) 0.34, 9) 0.36%.

So, is it plausible the entire population has been infected with covid 9 times? Quick answer, no. Therefore, it is deeply implausible the initial IFR of covid on the naive population was under 0.2%.

And, again, you will see from the very source you cited to make that "lower than 0.2%" claim, that in fact that paper does not really bear out that claim out all, at least in terms of Western countries with age-heavy populations.



Once again, you reveal your lack of familiarity with the literature, because the data broadly bears out 90% protection from the vaccine irrespective of age range. Vaccines appear to have been less effective for some of the later variants such as omicron, but that appears to have been an inherently less lethal variant anyway.



You could want the global information, but it would make you a complete idiot, so I'll give you a chance to rethink that.

We're sort of talking about lockdowns here, and their value. Now, for a proposed global average IFR of 0.2%, this means some places are lower IFR, and some places are higher IFR. So for instance Niger might be 0.05%, and California 0.5% (because the circumstances, particularly age distributions, of these places are very different). So what sense does it make for California or Niger to base their policy decisions on the circumstances of the other?

Potentially very little, given that tenfold difference in mortality.

And we then get into this idea of evidence-based policy decisions, because what you're effectively suggesting by using a global IFR is that policy decisions should be made on inaccurate data, which is pretty much the polar opposite of what you are otherwise demanding. As that would be exceptionally stupid of you, I think you probably do not want that.

Previous infection/vaccination in not at all effective at preventing another infection, I'm guessing you meant mortality vs infection though.

Media hub - BMJ Group

Explore the latest published research, corporate updates, and insights from BMJ Group. Stay informed about cutting-edge scientific studies, medical innovations, and our impact on global healthcare.

www.bmj.com

If I'm a kid or say 40-year old or whoever, why do I care about where I'm at, my relative risk is going to be the same no matter where you put me in the world (obviously ignoring access to medical care). That's why you protect the vulnerable and not literally everyone whether you're in the US or Niger. It was ridiculous that kids had the most restrictions and by far the least risk. I believe one school still has kids on silent lunches because of covid. Just about all covid restrictions were backwards policies or policies that did nothing. Most of society was fine carrying on like normal (outside of some common sense measures like limiting large indoor gatherings) yet nothing but restrictions that did nothing or even caused more covid spread. Conventions finally did away with pointless mask and vaccine mandates THIS YEAR, waiting in line for hours to get your vaccine card checked spread more covid and didn't reduce any spread (it made things worse not better). Once everyone had ample opportunity in 2021 to get vaccinated, all restrictions should have went completely away but they didn't.

"Every other illness didn't go on vacation"... and yet your source expects every other cause of death to continue on the exact trajectory it already had, unless affected by covid policies.

Completely batshit.

I know it's "literally the point" of your source. I'm saying that "the point" of your source renders it fucking unusable. Because "the point" of your source would end up treating a reduction of traffic collision deaths exactly the same as an increase in covid deaths.

Funny thing is that covid restrictions caused more deaths in the realm of car accidents. You have to weigh the benefits and harms.

The irony of this is traffic fatalities are the one cause of death that definitively, no-room-for-argument, no intervening variables, no other possibly explanatory factor, did increase correlative to Covid lockdowns.

Not because of Covid, or lockdowns themselves, but because every absolute fucking idiot on the road decided to treat Covid lockdowns as license to drive like the absolute fucking idiots they are. And when when lockdowns ended and they once again had to share the road with other absolute fucking idiots, they continued driving like absolute fucking idiots and now we're stuck with an interstate highway system on which the Darwin 500 is held every rush hour.

Note this is the exact same absolute fucking idiocy that brought us massive protests against the laughably weak, milquetoast, lockdowns-in-name-only that weren't even enforced or followed by the majority of the populace. The thing about whining over Covid lockdowns in this year of our Lord 2023, is we actually had to have locked down -- and those lockdowns be enforced -- in the first place.

MuhfartMSG over here wants to bring up excess mortality rates now, just never mind those higher mortality rates are because hospitals were completely overwhelmed. You know, thanks to the absolute fucking idiots that pissed and moaned about "lockdowns" and proceeded to ignore them, spreading Covid like wildfire, in the first place.

It's not because people changed how they drove, it's because there was less traffic so people were, on average, driving faster when hitting other cars, which increases the chance of death. If you're stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic and hit someone, you ain't killing anyone.

Any evidence that higher mortality rates were caused by overwhelmed hospitals (post initial covid surges)? Did Sweden or Japan have overwhelmed hospitals? Because neither locked down for covid. The reason say Italy or NYC or China had a massive flow of people going to the hospital for covid is because covid was spreading for awhile without anyone knowing it was there and people caring on just like normal (Fauci told NYC on Feb 29, 2020 to carry on like normal in fact). People knowing there's a virus around and simply taking common sense precautions was all that was required, not forced lockdowns, to avert overwhelmed hospitals.

 

[Silvanus]

Funny thing is that covid restrictions caused more deaths in the realm of car accidents. You have to weigh the benefits and harms.

Uh-huh, but this doesn't really address the nature of the criticism.

If a country were to experience a completely unrelated rise or fall in deaths from completely unrelated causes, your source would weight those identically to deaths from covid. Wouldn't it?

 

[Ag3ma]

Funny thing is that covid restrictions caused more deaths in the realm of car accidents. You have to weigh the benefits and harms.

No - remember that whole correlation / causation thing? More people died in 2020 in traffic accidents than in 2019. There is no clear evidence this was due to covid restrictions.

In the USA, it's also quite interesting. Traffic deaths over the last 10 years:

2013: 32,719
2014: 32,675
2015: 35,092
2016: 37,461
2017: 37,133
2018: 36,560
2019: 36,096
2020: 38,824
2021: 42,939
2022: 42,795

Given the general increasing trend, I would suggest that there's something else going on here rather than covid.

 

[Trunkage]

No - remember that whole correlation / causation thing? More people died in 2020 in traffic accidents than in 2019. There is no clear evidence this was due to covid restrictions.

In the USA, it's also quite interesting. Traffic deaths over the last 10 years:

2013: 32,719
2014: 32,675
2015: 35,092
2016: 37,461
2017: 37,133
2018: 36,560
2019: 36,096
2020: 38,824
2021: 42,939
2022: 42,795

Given the general increasing trend, I would suggest that there's something else going on here rather than covid.

Getting rid of lockdowns caused more car accidents death!

You can see it right there in the data

Time to lock it down again everyone

 

[Eacaraxe]

It's not because people changed how they drove, it's because there was less traffic so people were, on average, driving faster when hitting other cars, which increases the chance of death.

So in other words, it's because people changed how they drove. What you described is literally how people changed how they drove.

Any evidence that higher mortality rates were caused by overwhelmed hospitals (post initial covid surges)? Did Sweden or Japan have overwhelmed hospitals? Because neither locked down for covid. The reason say Italy or NYC or China had a massive flow of people going to the hospital for covid is because covid was spreading for awhile without anyone knowing it was there and people caring on just like normal (Fauci told NYC on Feb 29, 2020 to carry on like normal in fact). People knowing there's a virus around and simply taking common sense precautions was all that was required, not forced lockdowns, to avert overwhelmed hospitals.

 

[Terminal Blue]

The letter's real. The US government and independent organizations verified the letter's authenticity, from source to style of authorship.

If Osama Bin Laden didn't write that letter, who do you think did?

Bin Laden, when actually interviewed and in his public statements, never gave the slightest impression that he gave a shit about the US financial system or the internal politics of the US or generational conflict culture war bullshit. His statements were never aimed at the US population because he didn't care. His anti-semitism wasn't conspiratorial and veiled behind obvious dog whistles, it was religiously motivated and open.

I'm not normally prone to conspiracy theories, but who would benefit from equating the far left, pro-Palestinian activism, al-Qaeda and conspiratorial anti-semitism? I don't think we need Admiral Ackbar to explain this one.

 

[Eacaraxe]

If Osama Bin Laden didn't write that letter, who do you think did?

Bin Laden, when actually interviewed and in his public statements, never gave the slightest impression that he gave a shit about the US financial system or the internal politics of the US or generational conflict culture war bullshit. His statements were never aimed at the US population because he didn't care. His anti-semitism wasn't conspiratorial and veiled behind obvious dog whistles, it was religiously motivated and open.

I'm not normally prone to conspiracy theories, but who would benefit from equating the far left, pro-Palestinian activism, al-Qaeda and conspiratorial anti-semitism? I don't think we need Admiral Ackbar to explain this one.

Thirty seconds later on Google...

Who Is Bin Laden? - Greetings, America. My Name Is Osama Bin Laden - Hunting for bin Laden

www.pbs.org

...Of course, by the time of our meeting, the enemy had shifted. The Soviet Union no longer existed. The enemy was us. And when I asked bin Laden if he was worried about being captured in an American raid, he quickly dismissed the possibility, turning instead to the reasons he hates the United States.

"The American imposes himself on everyone. Americans accuse our children in Palestine of being terrorists--those children, who have no weapons and have not even reached maturity. At the same time, Americans defend a country, the state of the Jews, that has a policy to destroy the future of these children.

"We are sure of our victory against the Americans and the Jews as promised by the Prophet: Judgment day shall not come until the Muslim fights the Jew, where the Jew will hide behind trees and stones, and the tree and the stone will speak and say, 'Muslim, behind me is a Jew. Come and kill him.'"

Bin Laden never raises his voice, and to listen to his untranslated answers, one could imagine that he was talking about something that did not much concern him. Nonchalant. He does not smile. He continued, looking down at his hands as if he were reading invisible notes. "Your situation with Muslims in Palestine is shameful--if there is any shame left in America. Houses were demolished over the heads of children. Also, by the testimony of relief workers in Iraq, the American-led sanctions resulted in the death of more than one million Iraqi children. All of this is done in the name of American interests. We believe that the biggest thieves in the world and the terrorists are the Americans. The only way for us to fend off these assaults is to use similar means. We do not worry about American opinion or the fact that they place prices on our heads. We as Muslims believe our fate is set."

[...]


Bin Laden believes that what we consider to be terrorism is just the amount of violence required to get the attention of the American people. His aim is to get Americans to consider whether continued support of Israel is worth the bloodshed he promises.

"So we tell the Americans as people," bin Laden said softly, "and we tell the mothers of soldiers and American mothers in general that if they value their lives and the lives of their children, to find a nationalistic government that will look after their interests and not the interests of the Jews. The continuation of tyranny will bring the fight to America, as Ramzi Yousef and others did. This is my message to the American people: to look for a serious government that looks out for their interests and does not attack others, their lands, or their honor. And my word to American journalists is not to ask why we did that but ask what their government has done that forced us to defend ourselves."

Literally the first article I found, which would be the one atop the Google search. And, the complete text of his 1998 fatwa against the United States,

World Islamic Front Statement Urging Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders

irp.fas.org

No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone:

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.

If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 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 here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.

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.

All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on Allah, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in "Al- Mughni," Imam al-Kisa'i in "Al-Bada'i," al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his books, where he said: "As for the fighting to repulse [an enemy], it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed [by the ulema]. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life."

And of course, his 2004 videotaped public statement,

Full transcript of bin Ladin’s speech

Following is the full English transcript of Usama bin Ladin’s speech in a videotape sent to Aljazeera. In the interests of authenticity, the content of the transcript, which appeared as subtitles at the foot of the screen, has been left unedited.

www.aljazeera.com

...I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.

The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced.

[...]

This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children – also in Iraq – as Bush Jr did, in order to remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to assist in the pilfering of Iraq’s oil and other outrages.

[...]


So he took dictatorship and suppression of freedoms to his son and they named it the Patriot Act, under the pretence of fighting terrorism. In addition, Bush sanctioned the installing of sons as state governors, and didn’t forget to import expertise in election fraud from the region’s presidents to Florida to be made use of in moments of difficulty.

All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies.

[...]


So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah.

That being said, those who say that al-Qaida has won against the administration in the White House or that the administration has lost in this war have not been precise, because when one scrutinises the results, one cannot say that al-Qaida is the sole factor in achieving those spectacular gains.

Rather, the policy of the White House that demands the opening of war fronts to keep busy their various corporations – whether they be working in the field of arms or oil or reconstruction – has helped al-Qaida to achieve these enormous results.

[...]


And even more dangerous and bitter for America is that the mujahidin recently forced Bush to resort to emergency funds to continue the fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is evidence of the success of the bleed-until-bankruptcy plan – with Allah’s permission.

It is true that this shows that al-Qaida has gained, but on the other hand, it shows that the Bush administration has also gained, something of which anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Halliburton and its kind, will be convinced. And it all shows that the real loser is … you...

So are we done here, or shall I continue? I can continue, I have "literally everything else the man ever wrote or said about the United States" to cite.

 

[Terminal Blue]

So are we done here, or shall I continue? I can continue, I have "literally everything else the man ever wrote or said about the United States" to cite.

Can you not see the very, very obvious differences in substance between those statements and those of the aforementioned letter?

I'm sorry, maybe you really like the idea of "woke" Osama as some kind of culture war hero fighting to liberate you from (Jewish) capitalism, but he wasn't. He didn't fucking care about capitalism. 9/11 wasn't some attempt to wake up the sheeple and critique the corporate consumerism of America. It wasn't some attempt to get the youth to rise up and read Thomas Paine and buy more Green Day Records.

The reason I doubt that letter was written by Osama Bin Laden is because it reads like it was written by someone who understood the anti-war movement and its conceit about itself. Who understood pretty intimately the connections between the trite anti-capitalism of 2000s youth culture and opposition to the war. There were certainly people from the West fighting for AQ who had that understanding and could have ghost-written such a letter, but Osama wasn't one of them, and frankly I don't see how the letter in any way advances the cause AQ was actually fighting for, if anything it seems like a very convenient way to discredit the anti-war movement.

Read those statements you just posted and ask yourself, is this someone who gives a shit about whether the average American can make rent or who wins the presidential elections?

 

[Eacaraxe]

Can you not see the very, very obvious differences in substance between those statements and those of the aforementioned letter?

Can you? Let's find out.

I'm sorry, maybe you really like the idea of "woke" Osama...

He was a Salafist, right-wing extremist, Arab and Muslim nationalist. That ain't "woke", but for distinct similarities in the ability to identify the relationship between capitalism, corporatism, and empire. Guess what, it doesn't mean he was wrong.

So far, you're one for one in being unable to actually identify the very differences in substance you're calling out.

...culture war hero fighting to liberate you from (Jewish) capitalism...

He was a culture war hero fighting to liberate Westerners from "Jewish" capitalism. That's part and parcel of, you know, being a Salafist, right-wing extremist, Arab and Muslim nationalist. That doesn't make his worldview fundamentally compatible with Western liberal democracy, or for that matter, socialism. But it doesn't make him wrong about capitalism, either.

If you're actually curious as to what were Osama bin Laden's views on Ba'athism -- that is to say, pan-Arab secularist socialism -- I'm more than happy to direct you towards some choice words he had to say about Saddam Hussein. But I doubt you're capable of making that distinction either, given you're now two for two.

...He didn't fucking care about capitalism.

Yeah, he did. Quite a bit, actually, as you can tell had you actually read anything he ever authored. He (correctly) identified it as the economic engine of Western imperialism, and the instrument of government capture by private interests. See, the key commentary he made about the Bush administration, Halliburton, and PMC's in his 2004 public statement.

You're now three for three in incapacity to actually tell the difference.

9/11 wasn't some attempt to wake up the sheeple and critique the corporate consumerism of America.

It was a ploy to bait the US into the Afghan trap. He admitted as much, and it was quite successful. Now you should probably ask yourself why the primary targets on 9/11 were the World Trade Center and Pentagon, as opposed to any number of other key targets of vastly more social, historical, cultural, or political significance across the Eastern seaboard, at which the hijackers had carte blanche to attack. You know, if you really want to press home this laughable notion Osama bin Laden's had no knowledge, or care, for power dynamics, influence, and society within the US.

Right here, we have prima facie evidence for how correct Osama bin Laden actually was about US empire, neoconservatives' fundamental ignorance of geopolitics, and eagerness to wage war to pad defense industry profit statements.

Four for four.

It wasn't some attempt to get the youth to rise up and read Thomas Paine and buy more Green Day Records.

No, he wanted them to read the Quran and convert to radical Islamism. As he was, you know, a Salafist, right-wing extremist, Arab and Muslim nationalist. He still ain't wrong, and you still haven't addressed that in favor of red herrings and reductio ad absurdum such as featured here.

Five for five.

The reason I doubt that letter was written by Osama Bin Laden is because it reads like it was written by someone who understood the anti-war movement and its conceit about itself.

He fucking did. Far better than most others in the 2000's, in fact.

Who understood pretty intimately the connections between the trite anti-capitalism of 2000s youth culture and opposition to the war. There were certainly people from the West fighting for AQ who had that understanding and could have ghost-written such a letter, but Osama wasn't one of them, and frankly I don't see how the letter in any way advances the cause AQ was actually fighting for, if anything it seems like a very convenient way to discredit the anti-war movement.

Again, yes he did. Quite well. You may not want to admit it, or understand how, but Bin Laden was exceptionally smart and had a phenomenal grasp of Western culture and its underlying values. He was trained by the CIA, for God's sake -- do you think a Western practical education in how to lead an asymmetric war against a regional hegemon, on behalf of one still reeling from Vietnam, wouldn't lead to it? Because he had to know his enemy, to fight his enemy.

Six for six.

Read those statements you just posted and ask yourself, is this someone who gives a shit about whether the average American can make rent or who wins the presidential elections?

Far more than the average American who can barely make rent, but keeps voting against their social and economic best interest for warmongers who sign their paychecks away to the military-industrial complex, that's for goddamn sure.

That's seven for seven, on top of having been completely incorrect on whether or not Bin Laden actually said any of this shit, and proven incorrect with primary sources. You attempt to now move the goalposts aside, all I'm seeing here is a whole lot of "bad guy bad, so bad guy can't have correct views" Orwellian dichotomism from you. You don't like the idea people in opposition to capitalism and Western imperialism can have cogent criticisms of capitalism or Western imperialism? tough.

 

[umatbro]

Sorry for mentioning the Y word but why didn't Yahtzee mention the pronouns controversy on the Starfield episode of ZP?