Why Does Mohamed Osman Mohamud Hate America?

Muslims - Venn diagram
Venn diagram found on the Web: Less than 0.00001% of Muslims are terrorists, so far

Let’s leave aside for now the question of whether the plot to blow up a Christmas tree celebration in Portland, Oregon was concocted by an actual terrorist or perhaps by the FBI. Let’s think about the motivation of alleged terrorist (or jihadist wannabe) Mohamed Osman Mohamud, a naturalized Somali-American citizen.

This is from an FBI transcript of a video made by the accused (emphasis added):

This is a message [if God wills] to those who have wronged themselves and the rights of others. From the Americans and others. A dark day is coming your way [with the permission of Allah the glorified the exalted]. For as long as you threaten our security, your people will not remain safe. As your soldiers target our civilians, we will not help to do so. Did you think that you could invade a Muslim land, and we would not invade you, but Allah will have soldiers scattered everywhere across the globe. To those doubting the victory of Allah’s [the glorified the exalted] then we say there’s a lesson in the USSR for you, and also in the events going on in Afghanistan…

Glenn Greenwald:

We hear the same exact thing over and over and over from accused Terrorists — that they are attempting to carry about plots in retaliation for past and ongoing American violence against Muslim civilians and to deter such future acts. Here we find one of the great mysteries in American political culture: that the U.S. Government dispatches its military all over the world — invading, occupying, and bombing multiple Muslim countries — torturing them, imprisoning them without charges, shooting them up at checkpoints, sending remote-controlled drones to explode their homes, imposing sanctions that starve hundreds of thousands of children to death — and Americans are then baffled when some Muslims — an amazingly small percentage — harbor anger and vengeance at them and want to return the violence. And here we also find the greatest myth in American political discourse: that engaging in all of that military aggression somehow constitutes Staying Safe and combating Terrorism — rather than doing more than any single other cause to provoke, sustain and fuel Terrorism.

The question of motive usually isn’t discussed much in the media, especially not on the TV news — despite the constant parade of alleged “terrorism experts.” As Greenwald points out, it’s lucky for us that so far the large numbers of pissed-off Muslims have not translated into large active contingents of fighters and terrorists except in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. However, the concept of defensive jihad (as al-Qaeda propaganda constantly asserts) extends to all Muslims everywhere. I don’t know if the White House and the Pentagon have given this enough consideration.

More info:

FBI Thwarts “Bomb Plot” at Xmas Tree Ceremony in Portland, Oregon
FBI Blocked Mohamud’s Employment Prospects
The FBI successfully thwarts its own Terrorist plot

Related One Utah posts:
Why Do ‘They’ Hate Us? (October 6, 2010)
Why Do ‘They’ Hate Us? (October 20, 2009)

  1. #1 by brewski on November 28, 2010 - 9:44 pm

    Your argument breaks down when one remebers it wasn’t so long ago that the US wasn’t

    invading, occupying, and bombing multiple Muslim countries — torturing them, imprisoning them without charges, shooting them up at checkpoints, sending remote-controlled drones to explode their homes, imposing sanctions that starve hundreds of thousands of children to death

    and they still wanted to kill us.

    This is a bit like blaming black people for getting lynched by a mob of white racists. After-all, the lynching was just in “retaliation”. The lynchers had a motive, so it must be the lynchees fault, under your logic.

  2. #2 by Richard Warnick on November 28, 2010 - 11:13 pm


    I can remember as far back as Operation Desert Storm in 1990. Presumably, others have equally good memories. Are you saying there is no reason to be upset because the USA has only been picking on Muslims for 20 years? Our ally Israel, that we give money and weapons to, has been engaging in war crimes since their invasion of Lebanon in 1982.

    Anyway, who’s “they”? The point is that despite our aggressive actions, the vast majority of Muslims remain neutral, and with few exceptions the millions who are pissed off are not coming to get us, yet. Maybe they remember the good things about America before we lost our minds.

  3. #3 by cav on November 28, 2010 - 11:48 pm

    Anyway, who’s “they”?

    “They” does get thrown around pretty loosely. I think people ought to come right out and say who they mean by “they”. For me, it’s so often: republicans, for many others it’s: Muslims.

    I can only presume ‘they’ are republican Muslims, and while it does seem a stretch, there’s got to be a precedent (or is that president) over there in Afghanistan.

  4. #4 by brewski on November 29, 2010 - 4:58 pm


    Your feelings on this topic again defy the data. Back in 2001, support across the Muslim world for OBL and his murdering of innocent civilians was quite high. Put the number roughly in the high hundred millions. And that was BEFORE the US was in Iraq and Afghanistan and before we were flying Predators over Pakistan. But now AFTER those events the support for OBL and his murdering of innocent civilians is lower. Put the number in the low hundred millions. So as a matter of correlation, your theory would suggest the opposite direction. If our wars are supposed to have CAUSED the hatred of the US, then you would expect the numbers before the wars to be lower and the numbers after the wars to be higher.

    Your use of the number <10,000 is dishonest.

    Eight years after the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Pew Global Attitudes Project finds that support for Osama bin Laden has declined considerably among Muslim publics in recent years. Moreover, majorities or pluralities among eight of the nine Muslim publics surveyed this year say that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilians can never be justified to defend Islam; only in the Palestinian territories does a majority endorse such attacks.

    The drop in support for bin Laden has been most dramatic in Indonesia, Pakistan and Jordan. Currently, about one-quarter of Muslims in Jordan (28%) and Indonesia (25%) express confidence in the al Qaeda leader to do the right thing regarding world affairs; in 2003, majorities in each country agreed (56% and 59%, respectively).

    In Pakistan, where bin Laden is believed to be hiding, 18% of Muslims now say they have confidence in him. Just last year, 34% of Pakistani Muslims expressed support for bin Laden and, in 2003, nearly half (46%) agreed.

    Pew Center

    Do you see an analogy in any other culture (Buddhist, Hindu, Christian,…..) where there is any current support for the idea that it is ok to intentionally target innocent civilians? I know you can make the point that civilians have in fact been killed in these wars. But that is not the same question as whether a majority (hundreds of millions of people) actually support TARGETING civilians.

    You are looking for the wrong cause. Couldn’t it possibly be that the cause is the fucked up culture where they mutilate female genitalia, decapitate aid workers, decapitate gays, stone women and gang-rape young girls? All I am sure justified as “retaliation” for some offense.

    Or are you supporting your theory which in fact the direction of the data refutes?

  5. #5 by Afterburn on November 29, 2010 - 5:46 pm

    Let’s not forget brewski that in America and in certain westernized religions male genital mutilation of infants is a widely accepted practice.

    Miley Cyrus’s little sister has a line of what is considered risque clothing at age 9.


    We have bombed areas in the name of democracy and the result has been thousands of children dead directly and then the uncounted dead due to sanctions. I don’t know how we are comparing these horrible affairs we have done, and involved ourselves in, with somebody else’s horrible fantastic crap and attitudes towards them. Bombs and drones away? On direct presidential orders for those who think the Savior does no wrong. Summary execution, checkpoint killings on and on and on. Enough to cause a general insanity in the population who pays for it all.

    As if a poll of subjugated middle easterners would somehow mollify the fantastic pile of crap our endeavor in the middle east has become. Sure they say, after being relentlessly pounded because America was playing “Where’s Osama” and they didn’t cooperate, those people would probably say just about anything. Or we will make just about anything up.

    This manner of obtuse conversation could very well be the reason why a whole host of people can only stand agape with horror at the platitudes Americans can delude themselves with to justify what they do in the name of God knows what.

  6. #6 by Richard Warnick on November 30, 2010 - 10:48 am


    I put up a Venn diagram, and you want to talk about “feelings.” Look, if hundreds of millions of Muslims wanted to kill Americans over the last decade, we’d all be dead by now.

    What is your estimate of the al-Qaeda membership? And whatever their numbers, why are they still in business so many years after declaring war on the USA?

    The opinion polls you cite are nothing if not mercurial– if the equivalent of another 9/11 attack took place (which I sure hope never happens) then Osama bin Laden would have his fan base back overnight.

    As the occupation of Iraq winds down, and U.S. diplomacy improves, opinion polls indicate the international reputation of the USA is on the rebound. That could change overnight too, if we ramp up the war crimes again.

    As for intentionally targeting civilians, who do you think got tortured to death at Abu Ghraib, after being dragged from their homes in the middle of the night by American soldiers? When General McChrystal said, “We’ve shot an amazing number of people [at checkpoints in Afghanistan] …none has proven to have been a real threat,” he was talking about innocent civilians. When a Predator fires a missile at a compound in Pakistan, the CIA is intentionally targeting civilians. According to the U.N. Human Rights Council (PDF), CIA drone strikes are legally equivalent to terrorism.

  7. #7 by Afterburn on November 30, 2010 - 2:55 pm

    If a drone struck America from an Islamic source it would be described as a terrorist incident, I mean after all, the jets that flew into the towers were nothing more really than “manned” drones once taken over and are described as terrorist acts by the Official Conspiracy Theory.

    If that is what actually happened.

    We can’t deny our own terrorism because we cop to fact we fire the drones into Pakistan every time we do it. Keeping in mind that we attribute 911 to Osama, in avoidance of the simple fact the man claimed to have nothing to do with it. Gave whoever did credit, but denied any involvement.

  8. #8 by Richard Warnick on November 30, 2010 - 3:51 pm


    Initially, Osama bin Laden denied involvement in the 9/11 attacks (even after al-Qaeda spokesman Sulaiman Abu Ghaith appeared to acknowledge they planned the attacks). In later statements he claimed responsibility.

  9. #9 by Afterburn on November 30, 2010 - 3:56 pm

    None of that reversal after the pathological lying of our own government makes you suspicious? I’ll stick with what they guy said first.

  10. #10 by Afterburn on November 30, 2010 - 3:57 pm

    …and using wikipedia on such a subject to boot. Laughable. Wiki, good for describing tomatoes, but not much else.

  11. #11 by Richard Warnick on November 30, 2010 - 4:22 pm


    Ambiguously denying and taking responsibility for terrorist acts is how al-Qaeda usually operates. It fits the pattern. Can you cite a better source to support your 9/11 theory? What is your theory?

  12. #12 by Afterburn on November 30, 2010 - 5:20 pm

    I would go along with what Von Bulow stated, that he does not exactly know who is responsible, but the Official Conspiracy Theory is a plain old fairy tale to use his wording.

    You mean Al CIA DUH perhaos? I mean Osama was of course trained by them, guess they did a bang up job. You mean the maybe 1500 guys now that has NATO’s 150k troops all tied up with the help of 30k Taliban in Afghanistan? Wasn’t Saddam Al Queda TOO??!!

    It defies all logic to attribute so much to them anyway and the “no I didn’t” then “yes I did” makes no sense, in fact it makes anyone who says it look like a complete moron. What would be the point of that Richard? Please enlighten us is the logic of the 3 yr old tactic of no I didn’t and then yes I did.

    Usually operates? They are described as totally committed to Jihad, and destruction of the US openly, and then they engage in the no I didn’t, yes I did…whatever.

    You a primary tale teller of secrecy, corruption, evilness of the Bush administration that lies constantly, turns here and give us the no I didn’t yes I did theory of OBL. Its good humor!

  13. #13 by Richard Warnick on November 30, 2010 - 9:33 pm


    Sources? Evidence? Links?

  14. #14 by Afterburn on November 30, 2010 - 10:32 pm

    I have been through this with before Richard, man who believes Pelosi didn’t know about torture.

    Here is Von Beulow’s interview from Tagesspiegel. The whole world smells a rat. We didn’t fool anyone but ourselves.


    He wrote a book recently that implicates US intelligence in 911. If you wonder why nobody trusts our government, it’s cuz they know. Hell you even don’t trust it most of the posts you write.

    Search it, with the links you provide spoon feeding you is to no avail, you believe, yet know and claim the entirety of the affair post 911 is unjustified, which is it Richard? Why do you believe the initial story yet none of the subsequent lies that support it?

    More interview with von Buelow


    We are 10 years down this disaster road by now, trillions of dollars and plenty of dead. If you want to believe the Official Conspiracy Theory I am happy to let you, because the truth will out in the end. As it always does.

  15. #15 by Richard Warnick on December 1, 2010 - 12:00 am


    Nobody with knowledge of the facts believes that Nancy Pelosi was ever briefed about torture.

    Von Buelow is selling books, just like all the other 9/11 conspiracy buffs. I hope you didn’t buy any.

  16. #16 by Afterburn on December 1, 2010 - 9:39 am

    The WA post story is just another conspiracy theory right? The article I linked says there she was being briefed about enhanced interrogation techniques and water boarding. What facts are you talking about, the imaginary ones in your head? When a paper that regularly skews facts to favor Democrat motives places you in the room being briefed on “torture” buddy you were there.

    The government version of 911 is the least believable and shot full of holes conspiracy theory of all.

    Liking what wiki has to say about Hillary? She should resign. The whole house of cards and crimes which implicates the Bush admin and this POS one is all now there for anyone to see. Pelosi is in that dock. You support her lies at your own credibilities expense.

  17. #17 by Richard Warnick on December 1, 2010 - 9:59 am

    Unknown memo-writer(s) in the CIA made the claim that Rep. Pelosi was briefed on “enhanced interrogation techniques” (a torture euphemism coined by the Gestapo in WW II).

    Later, Leon Panetta admitted that the memo was written years after the fact and might not be accurate. So it’s the word of the Speaker of the House against anonymous CIA personnel trying to cover their own asses.

    What is the government version of the 9/11 attacks? The only “official story” I know of consists of little more than the ridiculous “no one could have anticipated” meme that began with Condi Rice’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission. It doesn’t withstand scrutiny.

    We have proof that suicide hijackings could have been anticipated. Indeed, terrorists had previously tried to do it with Air France Flight 8969.

    I’m going to keep an open mind regarding the WikiLeaks U.N. spying revelation until we know more.

  18. #18 by cav on December 1, 2010 - 11:45 am

    I don’t think the briefings were conducted by the “Yes Men”, but they no doubt had fotivation to their own end – which was either to CYA or to render the assembled; accomplices.

    In any case there were plent of us who knew what was going on, but unfortunately were far from the levers.

  19. #19 by Richard Warnick on December 1, 2010 - 12:05 pm

    I never thought of that. The Yes Men could go up to Capitol Hill pretending to be from the CIA. They could brief members of Congress on worse and worse crimes until somebody says, “Hey that’s illegal.”

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: