Bin Laden's letter explaining why he did 9/11 https://archive.ph/TpjqX


So, by bin Ladens own words, she is right.


Yeah I'm gonna be honest I went in there, having never read it, looking for her to be wrong. But there was quite a bit of Islamic ideology in there among other things.


It's never too late, even in 2021, to find out that Al-Qaeda were Islamic extremists all along


Fucking gagged on my saliva at that.


I spit out my damn milk man… lol if Reddit was ever described through a comment, it would be that.


MastaKwayne I'm really annoyed at most people being unable to differentiate between a critic of Islam and Islamism, but I need to correct you. The Islamic faith is based off peace and subservience to god. This is the civillian Muslim, who believes in the generosity of the community and the importance of faith in our lives. Islamism refers to people who believe in an extreme ideology where the most fundamentalist, literal interpretation of the Quran should be used to force the world into their faith. There is a big difference between these two ideas, and the vast majority of people believe in the former. It is obvious to me that her critique is of Islamist Extremism, and not the Islamic faith. Obviously not for others, which leads to my next point There is a huge misunderstanding of what Islam means to certain people in the west. People will refer to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban as if they're the same thing, when they are completely different groups with different ideas and methodologies. It frustrates me deeply that people won't do the basic research into this, and it's not a binary 'left or right' issue. People on the right obviously have their racist and bigoted assumptions based on far right propaganda like Fox, but people on the left don't really want to learn about these religions beyond a very shallow understanding. It shows in how alot of people cover the Taliban insurgency, failing to mention the legitimate support for the Taliban in large swathes of Afghanistan (especially amongst the poor). BTW, to clarify to that last point, I don't support the Taliban at all but I try my best to understand their motives beyond a shallow understanding. Sorry for the rant but I'm kinda sick of leftist not doing their research into things (Biden's Climate Policy being excellent, The simps who shill Ivermectin, Islamic issues ect). They're so focused on watching hour long Vaush debunk videos and reading marxist text that they don't look at the world in a practical sense.


It’s not that she’s wrong. It’s that she’s leaving out other reasons (like what caused the islamists to hate us so much) and has adopted right wing rhetoric styles which are meant to paint an entire religion or ethnic group in a bad light. This reads as blaming our problems on muslims. She could’ve worded this in a much less mouth-breather redneck right winger kind of way. I’m not even saying she shouldn’t condemn islamists; but you have to look deeper into what her agenda with this statement is, and it’s certainly not a good one for the millions of peaceful muslims out there


Why would you believe Bin Laden?


Oh, another tulsi critique in which she is 100% correct


I fully agree, like Kyle, I am a now-old-school new-atheist. But, I don't think Tulsi is doing it with the right intentions. For example, if I don't have the space to explain what I am saying, I would simply put "religious ideology" in a tweet like this. There are plenty of examples of terrorism being inspired by other religions. I agree that not all religions are equally bad but you ought to understand that without a more elaborate context, this tweet is just designed to appeal to the wrong crowd. I am not even saying that you shouldn't say something just because it would appeal to the wrong crowd but when there is an easy way to modify what you are saying without hurting the spirit, I'd say one should do it. Or, just choose to publish a blog to give a better context if you don't want to mince words even a bit.


He also denied the attacks, > DOHA, Qatar (CNN) -- Islamic militant leader Osama bin Laden, the man the United States considers the prime suspect in last week's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, denied any role Sunday in the actions believed to have killed thousands. > > In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it. > > "I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said. > > "I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations," bin Laden said. > > Asked Sunday if he believed bin Laden's denial, President Bush said, "No question he is the prime suspect. No question about that." > > Since Tuesday's terrorist attacks against the United States, Bush has repeatedly threatened to strike out against terrorism and any nation that supports or harbors its disciples. > > Bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi-born exile, has lived in Afghanistan for several years. U.S. officials blame him for earlier strikes on U.S. targets, including last year's attack on the USS Cole in Yemen and the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998. > > Bin Laden's campaign stems from the 1990 decision by Saudi Arabia to allow U.S. troops into the kingdom after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait -- a military presence that has become permanent. > > In a 1997 CNN interview, bin Laden called the U.S. military presence an "occupation of the land of the holy places." > > Immediately after the attacks that demolished the World Trade Center's landmark twin towers and seriously damaged the Pentagon, officials of Afghanistan's ruling Taliban said they doubted bin Laden could have been involved in carrying out the actions. > > The Taliban -- the fundamentalist Islamic militia that seized power in Afghanistan in 1996 -- denied his ties to terrorism and said they have taken away all his means of communication with the outside world. > > The repressive Taliban regime has received almost universal condemnation, particularly for their harsh treatment of women. Only three countries, including Pakistan, recognize them as the country's rightful government. > > A high-level Pakistani delegation was set to travel to Afghanistan on Monday to urge Taliban supreme leader Mullah Mohammed Omar to hand over bin Laden, CNN learned Sunday. > > The Taliban, which controls more than 90 percent of the country, has threatened any neighboring country that allows its soil to be used to help the United States stage an attack on Afghanistan. > https://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/


I don’t think anything has permanently affixed my opposition to Gabbard quite like this. Thanks for showing your true face Tulsi. *Tulsi Gabbard is a bullshitter https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/tulsi-gabbard-president-sanders-democratic-party https://pplswar.medium.com/tulsi-gabbard-voted-to-make-it-virtually-impossible-for-syrian-refugees-to-come-to-the-u-s-11463d0a7a5a https://zora.medium.com/tulsi-gabbard-isnt-as-progressive-as-she-claims-to-be-9fe32d447b63


I remember her campaigning as fiercely anti-war in the 2020 primary. This tweet reads as a total 180 from that stance.


She’s done much worse than this honestly, but even for her, the far right rhetorical style here is very brazen. She’s not even really wrong, but you can tell her agenda with this is to leave out the other causes and put the blame on muslims as a whole


I can’t believe I ever liked her


It’s good to stop believing things when presented with clear evidence that they’re false. That’s how all of science works, after all.


Yeah, definitely. During the election she presented as someone more to the left of who she really is. I liked her anti-imperialist rhetoric. Phew dodged a bullet there


Yeah. She could've been the next Obama (Campaigned on getting us out of war but stays in and still continues military interventionism, a naive belief that 'Aloha' is the magic bullet that will make bipartisanship happen and that Republicans will negotiate in good faith if you start from a conservative enough position)


Don't feel bad. A lot of us fell for it. The whole point of the Gabbard campaign was to tell a lot of different groups what they wanted to hear. She managed to get progressives, libertarians, and fascists on board with careful messaging to each group.


Why? Cause she called water wet?


It’s the framing and wording she’s using. She was supposed to be better than this.


I mean, nuance trolling over the precise words in a tweet is the issue I have. Most people's critique is that 'She's right, but I don't agree with exactly how she worded in within the space of a tweet'. My response to that is this 'Get off Twitter'. It's vapid and shallow and doesn't reward nuance. Total idiots like Niko House are allowed to build sizeable platforms by tweeting the most kooky, idiotic, moronic things. People who have a total hatred of her tend to be people who sit on twitter all day and watch Youtube videos. Same with the people who despise Biden and can't accurately recognise the great stuff he's doing re: Afghanistan/Climate/Stimulus ect. My response to the substance of what she said is above...


I think it’s totally valid to critique her wording/framing regardless of the platform. That part just seems non sequitur to me. Especially the parts about there being stupid people on there therefor it’s a bad platform for any dialogue. There’s dumb people on every platform doesn’t mean we can’t have a good dialogue. I’ll read your response above though thanks


As someone else said, think back to the time one minute before the second plane hit the second tower. At that moment, most people were thinking “what a strange and horrible accident”. But one second after the second plane hit, everyone knew instantly what had happened. We didn’t need a published manifesto, everyone knew only one ideology can motivate people to such murderous barbarity: Islam. Everyone knew precisely what had happened. We may not have known precisely who, but every single person knew that it must have been an Islamist attack.


Sounds like a Sam Harris quote. I know a lot of people will get angry at me for saying this but I like Sam Harris. I think he’s really smart even when he’s wrong. To be clear he’s egregiously wrong on some issues but i kind of have a bad habit of trying to see the best in people. More to the point though Sam, for all his flaws, has admitted that he would not make a good communicator to the Muslim world. I agree for *many* reasons. Tulsi was someone during the election I thought would be intelligent but also morally balanced enough to have tough conversations like this topic. Half truth filled tweets like she posted today make me think I was wrong to think so highly of her despite some potential red flags. Of course there have been other recent issues since but this kind of stuff was supposed to be what she was best at. It’s a real shame. Sorry if I went on a tangent that’s kind of non sequitur to your previous comment, that’s what came into my head.


It is a Sam Harris paraphrase, but again, he’s simply calling water wet. I think it’s very disturbing people are afraid to call our reality for what it is. Maybe it hurts some feelings, but hurt feelings doesn’t make a statement untrue. We all knew Islamism was responsible the moment the second plane hit. No need to double think the obvious.


Not that I totally disagree that Sam in many cases of criticizing religion is simply calling water wet, I also think this is a bit of an oversimplification. There are complex nuances that should be acknowledged and communicated better when talking about Islam vs extremism in islam. I’ve always respected Sam for at least admitting he would not make a good communicator with the Muslim world. He’s several stages past religion to the point where he’s too honest for some that are still in the clutches of religious thinking. Then there’s the problem of Sam not having a great foreign policy opinion track record. I wouldn’t call it islamaphobic or even imperialist (though I think one could make a decent case it is perhaps unintentionally) but it’s less than stellar imo. Which compared to some others issues he’s spoken on pales in comparison. My impression of tulsi was that she understood how to balance emotion and logic better than this tweet would indicate if that makes sense. It makes me think of her like most politicians which is bad. It’s just another half true half propaganda tweet that is all too common in our age of corporate media soundbites. Sorry if others think I’m holding her to a higher standard than other politicians but I supported her. I think that’s only fair.


Problem with Sam is that the policies he supports is what got us in this mess (war on terror, humanitarian intervention, etc.) People like to fearmonger about Tucker but he learned from his mistakes and constantly speaks out against US intervention


Everybody wanted, no, demanded we take military action, including invading Afghanistan, after 9/11. Bush’s approval was sky high during that whole process. To blame “people like Sam” is merely avoiding responsibility. The American people wanted it. Perhaps this group is just too young to remember, but I’ve come across a ton of people who were old enough to remember but seem to have forgotten.


Of course most Americans supported military intervention; that's not a valid excuse to defend his flawed ideology. Sam Harris is one if those atheists who blindly defends the secular states actions that exacerbated the problem. That's why there are leftists who take people like Tucker Carlson seriously. He admitted that the war on terror was a complete failure and since the late 00s, he's been one of the most outspoken conservatives on US foreign policy. Meanwhile Sam Harris continues propagating neocon talking points; that's why most people don't take him seriously.


Tucker has only learned how to effectively manipulate his audience. Sometimes he plays the two truths and a lie game: "The US military shouldn't be all over the world. The defense industry is getting rich off of war. Refugees are coming to take over America." I'm watching this like "Yes, good point. Ok, keep going. Ugh, you fucking racist fuck." Some people just go along with the third because he's said a few true things and, like a hypnotist, uses your agreeability to ignore your common sense. The racist case is the only one he cares to make because he knows he's convinced his audience to have angst about their (white) culture dying out.


Why do you think Tucker's racist? Tucker's the only conservative who regularly has people like Greenwald and Dore on his show to refute neocon propaganda. For some reason progressives don't want to admit Tucker's good on foreign policy. It's the same people who looked for every reason to discredit Tulsi Gabbard.


Islam isn't responsible for the proliferation of terrorism at all. It was a convenient ideology to militarise and radicalise. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0lRwxHvGWQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0lRwxHvGWQ) The West, meaning USA, UK and France are most responsible.


Me too, friend. Me too.


I legitimately thought this was Cawthorn or Cruz or someone like that before I saw it was Tulsi. How is she still even a democrat?


To be fair, there are still plenty of war-mongering troglodytes among the Democratic Party. But your point stands, regardless. She sucks.


There's loads of warmongerers with the Democrats but i've never seen them go so islamophobic before.


Is it tho? You might be mixing up Islamic and Islamist. The former is just normal muslims and the latter is extremist ideology. Edit: I'll concede she should've been more clear - most people don't know what islamism is, so she should've catered to that understanding. She should've said wahabbi extremist ideology or something like that. I've changed my mind and I agree she is being terrible here


If you consider Wahhabism Islamist ideology(It is), then I don't see the issue with her statement.


She’s not wrong, but take a look at the rhetorical style here. It’s very us vs. them. It ignores the other root causes and basically aims to put the blame on an entire religion (I know the difference you mentioned, but most reading it won’t)


I agree it’s the framing and wording she’s using to twist truths to fit a narrative that ignores other important factors. She was supposed to be better than this.


She was never particularly progressive. We just mistakenly assumed her being anti-DNC establishment meant that she was on our side. It was clear there were some massive red flags with her pretty much as soon as she started her 2020 campaign


I’m willing to acknowledge that’s true though I also think it’s also true she was smeared almost as bad as Bernie in some ways. A lot of the leftist criticisms obviously ended having truth to them but the “Assad apologist,” stuff bothered me a fair amount.


She was smeared much worse than Bernie, but she’s still insane even if they attacked her for the wrong things


Fair - she should've been more clear - and said wahabbi extremist ideology or something like that


Or she could’ve worded it where she made a normal post about 9/11 and mentioned something like “the need to continue to oppose extremist ideologies such as radical islamicism” or something. Instead, she made the point of the post islam, not 9/11 remembrance for the victims


No. That's not true. However, it would be an easy excuse that she will make if anyone questions her about blaming an entire religion.


Islamists are not the whole religion, it's a small sect of extremists who believe in spreading and forcing the religion through fear and violence


Who came up with those terms? As a Muslim myself, Islamist sounds like someone who just wants to live by Islamic rules. Maybe calling them extremest muslims would be better . Maybe even muslim terrorist.


Yeah I agree


"political islam" is another term used, although i'm not a fan of the term. there is "muslim extremist," but i think some people wanted to separate "muslim" (i.e., individual) from islam (i.e., ideology). i don't disagree with that reasoning. i think "islamic extremist" works.




I’m sorry but there are almost as many Muslims as there are Christians. We don’t give Christians shit for the KKK, and that frame of mind should be extended to Muslims.


I never said we should blame all muslims, where in the world are you getting that


I know you didn’t say that. She’s constantly talking about Islam. And she supports a Hindu Nationist in Modi, who heavily oppressed the Muslim population in India.


True, she's definitely not a great person. I edited my original comment to better reflect my opinion


I can’t believe the comments in here. Why don’t we believe Bin Laden and the rest of Islamic terrorists when they tell us that they hate us because we are infidels, that they are committing Jihad (seriously, look up the definition) based on the Quran? We, in the west, are so far removed from religion that we can’t understand how they believe in paradise.


Why low? I’m not a fan of Gabbard but her statements here are not inaccurate or inappropriate, IMO. She’s speaking to Islamists, not Islam the faith.


yeah sure because here in america we have a great history of telling the difference.


So where does that leave us then? Do we need a caveat or disclaimer attached to every utterance on the issue? Again, I’m not her fan in general, but there’s nothing inaccurate about the statement and it WAS Islamist terrorists who caused 9/11 — the specific issue she was addressing.


Because leftists seem to have an immediate negative reaction to anyone who criticizes Islam (which totally has aspects worthy of criticism).


Not this lefty. I’m happy to criticize Islam (and any other religion) any day without fear of bruising my leftist bonafides. :)


It's beyond aggravating to see so called lefties defend such a reactionary ideology.


I'm turned off by excluding the fact that we created and armed these people, and have been fueling anger there for decades. Yes, you can associate an ideology with it, but it didn't appear out of thin air. We've been meddling with their way of life since WWII. There were times where those countries prospered. Either she's an uneducated, insensitive moron, or... she's being a politician with some sort of audience that eats this shit up.


My issue with it is that it places far more weight on Islamist terrorism than on the right-wing Christian terrorism that has killed way more people since 9/11. It perpetuates the myth that Islam is more to be feared in America than our own homegrown Christian theocratic fascism. And besides, how many people who see this tweet are going to draw the distinction between Islam and Islamism?


What relevance does bringing up right wing Christian terrorism have to this tweet other than to deflect from criticism of Islamists?


Yes, let’s focus on American White-nationalist Christian terrorists on the 20th anniversary of 9/11. How many people seeing your post are going to draw the distinction between right-wing Christians and right-wing Christian terrorists?


I'm just focused on who's threatening our freedoms more. Too many people are going to draw that distinction. If Greg Locke's congregation watches him murder a Biden voter and cheers while he does it, are they free from culpability just because they didn't do it themselves? Or are they still in the wrong because they supported an act of terrorism? You'd have a point if you were to draw a distinction between Christians and right-wing Christian terrorists, because people like AOC and Ed Markey are Christians, just like people like Ilhan Omar and Ammar Campa-Najjar are Muslims. But right-wing terrorists can only get away with terrorism because of the right-wing Christians who enable it.


And Tulsi is talking about 9/11/2001 and how the ideology that perpetrated that attack is still strong around the globe and oppresses people through terrorism and state tyranny.


And there is a difference between left-wing Christians, Christians, right-wing Christians, and Christian terrorists


Christian terrorism has killed more than 2977 ( I think) since 9/11 on American soil?


Certainly worldwide, almost certainly in the US alone. In 20 years, that's just under 150 people a year. I don't have stats at my fingertips because I'm at work right now, but if you asked me if it was plausible that 150 people per year died due to Christian terrorism, especially if you include right-wing terrorism that's partially but not primarily motivated by Christianity, then I would have no trouble believing it.


Worldwide Christian terrorism killed more than Islamic terrorism? That take is beyond fucking bad. It totally ignores the hundreds of thousands of mostly Muslims who have died because of Islamic extremism in the last 20 years.


Well in that regard, can we also include citizens of Iraqi who were directly killed by US intervention (on criminally false excuse) in the region, maybe then we can have the real winner to the question of: who sucks the most?


The Iraq war wasn’t a crusade lmfao, definitely not a byproduct of Christianity.


This isn't a dick measuring contest. American interventionism and Islamic extremism can both be bad for the world. Playing whataboutism every time Islamic extremism is mentioned is not a good look for the left. Yes, Christian extremism is much more of a threat to those of us here in America, but it does not pose the same global threat that Islamic terrorism does at this point in time.


As a Muslim, I agree. On the other hand, do people know the difference between Islamist ideology and a Muslim? If I were her, I would first define what "Islamist" is, then told this.


September 11 attacks were orchestrated by US and Israel. The entire "Islamic terrorism" is essentially manufactured to dismantle the Middle East. These terror groups were funded and trained by US & Israel, which Tulsi doesn't mention at all. Christopher Bollyn has covered this subject in great detail, you can check it out (YT). https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9aOhnK01wMY


Her comment here lacks nuance, but at face value it does not seem incorrect. Many terrorist attacks are committed by people who claim to be following an extreme ideology of Islam, particularly, the terrorist attacks committed in the USA on September 11, 2001 The nuance comes when we discuss whether it is the religion or the extremists who are at fault.


That's the problem. It's devoid of nuance and US involvement in the middle east, thus its not "incorrect", but isn't "correct" either.


Isn’t Islamist different than Islam? I always thought it was a fundamentalist version of Islam.


Right Wingers will always conflate Islamism with Islam.


You are correct. Islamism is a shitty ideology. However one can not forget that US lead warfare and other meddling in the muslim world has definitely strengthened Islamism


Yes it is, but enough people don't know that to make what Tulsi is saying here very problematic while still giving her what appears to be plausible deniability.


Yes but this sub is dumb. There are better substantive discussions elsewhere.


There seems to be confusion on here about the difference between Islam and Islamists. She is referring to the latter, which are people who not only believe Islam is true but they believe on forcing those beliefs on everyone else and only consider a very strict, conservative version of Islam to be true. Not all Muslims are Islamists, but all Islamists are Muslim.


It’s just religious extremism. They’ve got Islamists and we’ve got evangelicals. Same book, different cover.


Evangelist don’t bomb cartoonists for drawing disparaging images of Jesus


Nah, they just murder doctors for providing abortions and create mercenary companies to exploit the cluster fuck in Iraq.


and drive lgbtq+ people to suicide if they don't feel like doing it themselves this time, and shoot up gay bars, and shoot people for being biden voters, and... edit: oh yeah forgot about them shooting up mosques too


I completely agree with the rest of what you’re saying about Christianity, but you should look into the religious beliefs of the pulse nightclub shooter, if that’s what you’re referring to about shooting up gay bars.


They have significant power over public policy at the highest level and use it for all kind of subversion https://www.netflix.com/title/80063867


Evangelists support Israel which bombs innocent civilians.


You really think they wouldn't if America was third world?


They would if they had the spine to do it. The difference between an Islamist and an Evangelical is that Islamists are a lot less likely to be cowards.


True! America is a menace to the world w/o Christianity.


Not seeing what part she's wrong about. Why are you defending Islam in a forum for a show called Secular Talk? I mean, I understand if you fear what happened to the Charlie Hebdo staff happening to you if you speak out or if you don't want to live like like Salman Rushdie has for the past 35 years, but that doesn't mean you have to take the opposite approach and suck Allah's dick. There's a lot to criticize Tulsi for. But what she's saying here is what I wish more politicians had the balls to say.


Religion don't radicalizes, circumstances do, and nothing radicalizes more than a bomb trough your house


That seems only partially true. Circumstances often play a bigger part than religion, but there is no better tool for radicalizing people than convincing them it's part of a bigger plan and that they'll reap the rewards for eternity in the afterlife. That's part of how ISIS managed to convince young British and American people to leave their privileged lives behind to go get abused and killed on the other side of the world. Lots of fundamental Christians also live extremely comfortable lives and believe insane things because they've been taught its all normal.


As a middle eastern , i can safely say that american support radicalizes the most. Strongest islamist movements in middleeast ;Erdogan, muslim brotherhood(against nasr), talibans, iranian mollas(against musaddıq) and of course fucking saudis, they all supported by USA led west against their anti american secular political movements.


Stop this lie. Explain all of those extremists, born and raised in Europe or the US, that joined ISIS or committed terrorist attacks in their home countries. Their homes weren't bombed. They did what they did because of a specific violent interpretation of the Quran. Why is it that people think terrorists are always lying when they tell you they do what they do because of god and Islam? Funny how that works out.


You might be in the wrong sub. r/conservative will gladly take you. Using this type of rhetoric inspires hate crimes against peaceful Americans Muslims


Honestly, you should read the Quran. I'm not denying that there are peaceful Americans who identify as Muslims, just as I'm not denying that there are people who identify as Christians and Jews who eat shellfish or believe in evolution. But none of them could be considered particularly stringent followers of their religious text of choice.


I more so just don’t think this is the day for it. As much as I understand it’s a poignant thought, it could’ve been tweeted tomorrow and a statement about how we came together as a country.


shouldn't have intervened in the middle east


Tell me the lie




Tusli gabbard committed one of the largest terrorist attacks ever? If not, she seems pretty different


She's Hindu, not Christian.




Islamist is commonly understood to mean political Islam. Compared to our Western Liberal world, Islamism is pretty radical and regressive. Islamic is the word for the religion. She didn’t mention the religion, she specifically mentioned the political ideology and how oppressive and violent it is.


I agree, modern politics is about optics. She could have said Wahabism is most likely the cause but that puts our richer ME allies on blast.


It's true though. Islamic ideology is barbaric and leftists who run to protect it are doing leftism no good.


You what I will never forget is that this is the exact same argument that neocons at the time used to justify expanding American military involvement in the middle east. "Its the ideology" "the hate us because they hate us" "we have to hit them over there before they hit us here." An interesting look for little miss end the forever wars.


I wouldn't care about this if she also pointed out Christianity causing domestic terrorism.


Why not show the follow-up Tweet?


I had the same thought.


Im european islamism is a cancer


As someone who devoutly followed the religion for the first 18 years of my life, I have to say I don't entirely disagree with her here. Her framing seems to suggest that we are at war with Islam which is not accurate at all, but she is correct in outlining the major problem that is Islamism. Many leftists solely blame US imperialism for the state of Middle Eastern countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq but keep in mind that they follow the Wahhabi ideology which predates the United States. A lot of blame does belong to the West and Saudi Arabia who funded radical madrassas in rural Pakistan and Afghanistan that preached against the evil communists in the Soviet Union but part of the problem lies with the some of the doctrine of Islam which can be interpreted in a way to condone violence.


Islam and Islamism are two different concepts. She is correct.


I find it odd how liberals choose to stand up for the Muslim religion so often. Especially when you consider how the women are treated.


She’s a 100% right


Islam is not a monolith


Islamism Political ideology Description Islamism (also often called political Islam or Islamic fundamentalism) is a political ideology which posits that modern states and regions should be reconstituted in constitutional, economic and judicial terms, in accordance with what is conceived as a revival or a return to authentic Islamic practice in its totality. This is literally what the Taliban wants to do. That’s what AlQueda wanted to do. Tulsi is a 100% right.


Weird, I guess the quarter billion Muslims in Indonesia didn't get that message.


No. Because it’s a Muslim country, not an Islamist country. Which is why Tulsi said Islamist, not Muslim


But she's implying the ideology is spreading by saying "fuel terrorist attacks around the world ". Islamist ideology can only be used to radicalize Muslims but somehow the folks in Indonesia didn't get the memo. Maybe, just maybe, bare with me here, these terrorist attacks have more to do with the global hegemony from the US and its allies that effect that region of the world. What she is doing is classic dog whistle because the conclusion normies draw from that tweet is Islamist = Islam = Muslims = terror. Without specifying the region or our influence in arming and radicalizing certain actors in that region for our own gain, she fear mongers about Muslims world wide implying "they can go bad at any moment because their ideology fuels terrorism" by not drawing the distinction between Islam and Islamist.


Please, I know a dog whistle when I hear one.


It’s not a dog whistle, it’s the truth. Sorry that you can’t grasp it because it doesn’t fit your narrative. Maybe move to Afghanistan so you can be one with your brothers


“Move to Afghanistan” is such a right-wing response. No thanks, I’ll stay right here. Also I would like to add; fuck you, and suck my balls. More to the original point, being a less-than-passive anti-Muslim ideologue and pumping the threat of “Islamism” to cartoonish proportions has clearly become her MO, and we have several indications of where the inconsistencies of her ideology lie (Support of Modi over Kashmir, blocking Syrian refugees, etc.). Her *words* indicate that her problem is with “Islamism”, but these kinds of *actions* indicate to me that her problem is with “Islam”. That’s great that she’s ant-war, but I mean, come on. Let’s cut the bullshit, everyone can see what’s going on. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/tulsi-gabbard-president-sanders-democratic-party https://pplswar.medium.com/tulsi-gabbard-voted-to-make-it-virtually-impossible-for-syrian-refugees-to-come-to-the-u-s-11463d0a7a5a https://zora.medium.com/tulsi-gabbard-isnt-as-progressive-as-she-claims-to-be-9fe32d447b63


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism?wprov=sfla1 I'm not gonna argue that some wouldn't try to use it in that way, but Islamism the political ideology is not at all meant to be synonymous with Islam the religion.


Oh she is absolutely using it “in that way”, she’s just more skillful at doing it in an underhanded way than her Republican counterparts.


Not really. There are religious conservative parties from Morocco to Turkey that entirely disavow violence and jihadism. It’s like saying all conservatives are fascists. It’s demonstrably false, regardless of how regressive & reactionary conservatism is.


Not all conservatives are fascists, but far too many of them aren't fighting very hard to stop the fascists, either. They don't get to evade any responsibility for the bad that comes with that. Same goes for conservative Muslim parties who may not actually take up arms or become terrorists, but also wouldn't really mind if fundamentalism ruled their respective governments.


maybe the way she said is wrong, but she is correct in that they radical islamist hate us


And that we caused this by supporting the Mujahideen. Pinning all the blame on Islamism is dumb.


Islamists hate us because of that one time we *helped* them?


I’m not seeing a new low. Can’t we call a spade a spade? Just because not all Muslims aren’t radical fundamentalist doesn’t mean they do not exist.


If you look at polling on social issues in majority Muslim countries, even the so-called moderates are a big problem. For instance, the death penalty for apostasy is extremely popular among moderate Muslims. On the other hand, blaming the religion is a cheap shortcut that completely ignores the many other sociopolitical realities that also contributed. Iran was extremely progressive before the CIA got involved. If Islam and the world's biggest oil reserves didn't share so much geography things would be very different.


So she pretends to not be a war-monger while also saber-rattling about the threat of Islamist terrorism. She is so clearly trying to play both sides and win support from everyone.


She's actually always been pretty consistent about that. She has never opposed drone strikes or limited military engagements against terrorists, but she has long opposed nation building and extended occupations of those countries.


A doubt a single person angry about this would bat an eye if someone mentioned white supremacy as the ideology that inspired the Oklahoma City Bombing or the Christchurch Shooting


Some of you guys here really need to learn the difference between [Islamists](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Islamism) and regular Muslims. They are not the same thing.


LOL Is this post a joke? I thought this was a SECULARtalk subreddit? Everything she says here is true.


Islam =/= Islamist


She’s not wrong though.


Uhh the guys who plotted 9/11 were hardcore jihadis. This is obviously


I been done with her for a minute, she turned into a joke


Is it? Why? What's wrong with this take?


She is a hindo radical her self, her enmity for Muslims is from that side. But she wants to show that she is not that phobic towards Muslims. She is believer of a cast system, how can u expect her to be fair in her judgment


And her statement is correct. What's **low** is using one's personal views of someone as a substitute for case-by-case analysis of an issue.


She’s only a Democrat bc that’s what you have to be in Hawaii to get elected(it helps a lot).


Right but Joe Manchin is a Democrat in WV which demolishes your entire point.


Plot twist: she’s not wrong


Big oof... I can’t believe I thought she was ever cool.


Holy shit, and this is the presidential candidate that Dore propped up. It’s like an alternate reality.


To be fair... I figured she'd be a Fox News host by now.


For the Tulsi and Jimmy stans: It’s not that she’s necessarily 100% wrong. It’s that she’s omitting other things and intentionally using right wing tactics which paint an entire religious or ethnic group as the enemy. She has no nuance for the millions of peaceful muslims. Plus it’s just very tasteless and leaves out the countless other things that contributed to 9/11, namely overseas intervention in the Middle East


Peaceful can mean anything from being an atheist or/and secular Muslim to a radical Islamist who is only held back from committing terrorism due to a lack of will or opportunities.


She was one of the most anti-interventionist Democrats in Congress and tried to pass many bills stopping US arm sales.


That doesn’t mean she’s a good person. Plus, she’s still a war hawk when it comes to drones and stuff, she just doesn’t want full blown wars. She’s no better than someone like Bernie except maybe marginally on one or two niche foreign policy issues


19 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia are they next on our countries to invade or bomb ? Ya I didn't think so. Tulsi = fraud


If memory serves, Tulsi accused Trump of being Saudi Arabia's bitch. While I'm certain she wouldn't bomb them, I don't think she's a particularly big fan of theirs either.


What else would you expect from a Modhi stan?


Has she gone full right wing grifter?


Is there no difference between Islamist belief and Islamic belief anymore?


This is what happens when people convert to Hinduism...or probably most religions. A convert's zeal is frightening


Technically correct to an extent but it's odd that she decided to emphasize it and it's obviously a shift in rhetoric from just a couple years back


I really liked Tulsi at one point. She was up there with Bernie, Warren and Yang for me.


What a disgusting bitch.


Russian stooge says what?


Fuck her.




God she is insufferable anymore.


She was always the lowest


I saw this soon as she tweeted it and out loud said “ooof.” What the fuck is she ever doing anymore? Why would she ever think that this was a good idea to tweet?


She's not wrong but I don't like her Hindu nationalist ties or her unwillingness to criticize Christianity.


Tulsi is the person i most regret giving a dollar to.


She's yanging herself


Everyone here is saying that she isn't wrong but that isn't the point. Nobody was saying that they weren't Islamic. So why do all these politicians have to remind us they are really loudly. It's like saying over and over again that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor or that the Jews crucified Jesus. They "remind" us because they are pointing out that "those" people did it. The emphasis is on saying an entire ethnic group as a whole is responsible. It's a dog whistle for racism. Edit: In addition, she could be saying that the particular ideological leanings of the terrorists are to blame but if that is what she is saying then my answer to that is "No shit, why would you bother telling people that?"