The Guardian Deletes Osama Bin Laden's 'Letter to America'
The Guardian’s removal of Osama bin Laden’s 2002 “Letter to America” after it gained renewed attention on TikTok has reignited arguments over censorship, historical archiving, and how societies should handle extremist propaganda. Commenters weigh the value of preserving such primary sources for context and education against concerns that they’re being repurposed to legitimize or romanticize terrorism, especially among younger audiences. The thread also revisits long-running debates about the true motives behind 9/11, Western foreign policy, and the ethical framing of “terrorists” versus “freedom fighters.”
Guardian deletion & access to the letter
- Many see deletion by a news org as wrong for historical record; “you publish it, you preserve it.”
- Others note it’s a private outlet free to choose what it hosts, even if the timing (TikTok virality) makes it look like censorship.
- Several links to archived versions and PDFs are shared; people complain that key documents shouldn’t depend on fragile third‑party archives.
- Some speculate about UK legal context or the Online Safety Act but agree the exact reason is unclear.
What the letter says & motives for 9/11
- Debate over whether 9/11 was “because they hate our freedoms” vs US foreign policy (support for Israel, bases in Saudi Arabia, etc.).
- Multiple commenters stress the letter explicitly condemns US “freedoms”: permissive sex, homosexuality, gambling, interest-based banking, and separation of religion and state.
- Others highlight research showing Al-Qaeda’s English messages stress political grievances, while Arabic texts are more purely theological.
- Disagreement over which side of this dual messaging is “propaganda,” or whether both are genuine but audience-tailored.
Terrorism, freedom fighters, and moral judgment
- Some argue terrorists see themselves as martyrs/freedom fighters and that bombing civilians creates more radicals, perpetuating a cycle.
- Others reject moral equivalence: acts like targeting civilians, killing children, or mass shootings are labeled simply evil regardless of grievances.
- The “one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter” framing is criticized as too simplistic; so is the Bush-era slogan about “hating freedom.”
US wars, casualties, and parallels to Israel–Gaza
- Extended discussion on whether 9/11 justified the invasions of Afghanistan and especially Iraq, erosion of civil liberties, and mass surveillance; several say it did not.
- Commenters note civilian deaths from US wars far exceeded 9/11’s toll and contributed to regional instability and groups like ISIS.
- Many see strong parallels between post‑9/11 US behavior and current Israeli actions in Gaza: cycles of retaliation, huge civilian casualties, racism, and war‑time propaganda.
- Others insist that sometimes war is imposed and unavoidable, even though it inevitably kills civilians.
Military, heroism, and social roles
- Tangent debate over whether volunteering for the military is inherently heroic compared to being “civilians” like teachers or doctors.
- Some glorify soldiers as providing irreplaceable “safety”; others argue teaching and medicine contribute more to society, and that Iraq volunteers were misled rather than heroic.
- The exchange becomes a proxy argument about how societies allocate honor, blame, and resources in wartime.