Osama bin Laden as Che Guevara or Pancho Villa

[Milossarian]

That OBL is becoming something of a romanticized rogue in the eyes of some Middle Eastern Muslims is not surprising to me. They endure never-ending hardships, and they have effectively been indoctrinated with the mindset that their problems are the U.S.'s fault (rather cleverly by their leaders, who then deflect criticism away from themselves for the local problems). They are looking for something to feel good about.

Bin Laden sticking it to the most powerful nation on the planet, the nation that (they perceive) is the source of all of their misery, an evil nation, and living to tell about it, gives them something to feel good about, however misguidedly.

What has been extremely disheartening for me, however, is the pervasiveness of this attitude of bin Laden as a kind of Guevara or Pancho Villa outside the Middle Eastern Muslim world, all over the planet.

I occasionally spend time in a few different foreign chat rooms. You are more likely to see pro-bin Laden sentiments expressed there and criticism of the USA and Bush than vice-versa. I'd like to think it's just kids being shocking, but the level of condemnation of these kinds of sentiments by others there is sparse.

I'm beginning to think that if attacks mount and bin Laden continues to survive and speak out, this attitude of him as a rogue-hero will mount throughout at least the non-Western world.

Am I crazy? Is this happening? How can it be? And how much does it matter?

[Jackmannii]

I had thought of the Pancho Villa comparison, mainly because Pancho staged what might be considered a terrorist raid into New Mexico, then dodged a punitive American military expedition into Mexico for a lengthy period.

If your hate is strong and irrational enough, people like bin Laden and the Ruby Ridge/Waco crowd start to look like heroes to rally around. Which is why the informational effort to inform people of his and the Taliban's crimes may be almost as important as the military plan.

[tsunamisurfer]

The comparisons with Che Guevara only go so far. Yes OBL is spreading a corrupted ideology, is an outsider, is well educated, and is clinically delusional--much like Che--but ultimately Che was essentially repudiated (or at least ignored) by the peasants he purported to want to help.

The happy ending is that the CIA shot Che and the US military will stomp the life our of bin Laden.

[Nacho4Sara]

I occasionally spend time in a few different foreign chat rooms. You are more likely to see pro-bin Laden sentiments expressed there and criticism of the USA and Bush than vice-versa. I'd like to think it's just kids being shocking, but the level of condemnation of these kinds of sentiments by others there is sparse.

And I think it's safe to assume that many of the people advocating this are blind to the historical facts of the situation. I've been aware of the Taliban's treatment of women since 1998 because I had to write a research paper on it, but many, many people had no clue what I was talking about when I brought it up. People who do not see the truth in the Taliban's injustices toward the Afghan people are either in possession of an inherently different concept of freedom or steeped in ignorance.

The people who think freedom involves publicly stoning women for riding in a car with a man outside of their families or imprisoning a man because his beard is trimmed are the people we are fighting and trying to remove from power.

The ones simply ignorant to the reality of what is happening in Afghanistan are inconsequential. I am not interested in making decisions of war and peace based on ignorance. As a freedom-loving person in any part of the world, you can either educate yourself to the evils of the Taliban's totalitarian, terroristic regime and then argue, or you can shut up.

[Guinastasia]

It's also probably among people who are poor and very uneducated-Osama seems like the type who would try to manipulate that kind of person.

Actually, I was under the impression that it wasn't the CIA who shot Che-but Castro's people.

[Crusoe]

Never underestimate the visibility of the vocal minority. Even those of us who feel uneasy at inflicting more violence -- myself included -- pretty much know deep down that there isn't much of an alternative and that bin Laden is no hero or freedom fighter.

I am of the opinion that the pro-bin Laden peopl in chatrooms and the like are either trying to stir up debate or are expressing their dissatisfaction with elements of US/Western foreign policy in a clumsy and tactless way.

[lenin]

You're both wrong. Che was arrested by Bolivian authorities for trying to help the peasants have a revolution.

He was shot to death by a Bolivian soldier while in captivity.

[lenin]

The people who think freedom involves publicly stoning women for riding in a car with a man outside of their families or imprisoning a man because his beard is trimmed are the people we are fighting and trying to remove from power.

Cite, please, for either claim?

[even sven]

Originally posted by Nacho4Sara
The people who think freedom involves publicly stoning women for riding in a car with a man outside of their families or imprisoning a man because his beard is trimmed are the people we are fighting and trying to remove from power.[/B]

Well then, if humans rights are our concerns then maybe we should topple Saudi Arabia while we are at it. Funny how we talk with one end of our mouth about how repressive Afghanistan is and then turn arround and covert with Saudi Arabia, where women face many of the same horrors that they face in Afghanistan.

[saudade]

Keep in mind that outside of North America and a few other countries, the internet is pretty much the domain of Middle and Upper class people. Even in much of continental Europe I believe hourly phone rates often apply. These people, if they are from foreign countries, are mostly Middle Class. I think to them Osama represents the same sort of adolescent urges that drive other kids to "neonazism", "satanism", and other such expressions that are meant to draw the dissaproval of society.
But speaking as a bit of an outsider, if I were to judge American society from what I see in general chat rooms, I would think the USA is an extremely racist and ignorant country. I don't believe that for a second - but that's what I would think after a couple of hours in a chatroom. Most of the rest of us have a life...or if we do chat...we go somewhere more supervised or with some standards of civility.

[mswas]

Why is it so hard for you people to recognize that the US isn't this warm and fuzzy entity that should be loved and admired worldwide? I have seen almost as much Jingoism on this board as I have in real life. If this board is dedicated to fighting ignorance, why can't it be accepted that while bin Laden is a Megalomaniac, he is NOT without a point. The US has done some really fucked up things in the middle east throughout recent history, accept it, or get fucked up by the bin Laden's throughout history.

We are so desperate to villify bin Laden to make ourselves feel all warm and fuzzy about being rough tough Americans, but fuck it, that's not the case. People need to accept that in order for us to truly win this thing.

Erek

[minty green]

So what you're saying is that it was justifiable homicide, Erek? And that the terrorists are really just misunderstood?

Start backpedaling quick, son, or I'll start the Pit thread myself.

[Nacho4Sara]

Cite, please, for either claim?

I could give you a hundred easily. I had to write a research paper on the Taleban in 1998 and I found a ton of sources then, but here are just a few from reputable sources:

http://www.web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/index/ASA110031999
Tens of thousands of women remain restricted to their homes under Taleban edicts banning them from seeking employment, education or leaving home unaccompanied by a male relative. Other measures restricting women include the closure of women's hammams (public baths). Women are also barred from the streets for certain periods during the fasting month of Ramadan.

These restrictions have been enforced through the use of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishments and ill-treatment including the beating of women by Taleban guards in detention centres or in public places.

This (http://www.web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/index/ASA110051997) covers both points I raised:

Before losing control of the city one of their first acts was to announce the imposition of restrictions on women that would in principle deny them some of their most basic and fundamental human rights, including the right to freedom of association, freedom of expression and employment. Women in Mazar-e Sharif were ordered through loudspeakers to stay indoors, only to be allowed out in the company of a close male relative and wearing the all-enveloping burqa robe. They were told not to report for work and that education for women and girls was discontinued. Men were also ordered to grow beards.

http://rawasongs.fancymarketing.net/rules.htm
2- Complete ban on women's activity outside the home unless accompanied by a mahram (close male relative such as a father, brother or husband).

And some more websites with related details:
http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=5868
http://www.gwu.edu/~win/html/afghanistan.html

Also, on Oprah yesterday there was a report from an undercover journalist - she had, on film, a jail worker saying that men were imprisoned if they trimmed their beards.

Well then, if humans rights are our concerns then maybe we should topple Saudi Arabia while we are at it. Funny how we talk with one end of our mouth about how repressive Afghanistan is and then turn arround and covert with Saudi Arabia, where women face many of the same horrors that they face in Afghanistan.

In TIME magazine - I can't find it on the TIME website, but there's a related article on page 60 of this week's time called "The Uneasy Ally: Inside Saudi Arabia."

...Saudi Arabia remains a land where rigid religious and traditional values are strictly enforced. Cinemas and discos are outlawed; men and women are seperated in banks, schools and fast-food restaurants; women must wear veils and are forbidden to drive. Public-decency police known as muttawa comb shopping malls, searching for women whose loose scarves reveal a curl of hair and forcing store owners to shut during prayer times. Unforgiving Saudi justice is on view after the main prayer every Friday, when a swordsman beheads blindfolded murderers, sorcerers, drug smugglers and other criminals in Riyadh's "Chop-chop Square." (62)

I consider myself a humanitarian first and foremost (I'm joining the Peace Corps after college). I don't have the answers - I don't know how to stop this sort of inhumane treatment, or even if we have the right to do so. But when the Taleban regime is toppled (and I'm sure it will be), hopefully it will serve as a gateway to ending injustices elsewhere such as these.

Why is it so hard for you people to recognize that the US isn't this warm and fuzzy entity that should be loved and admired worldwide? I have seen almost as much Jingoism on this board as I have in real life. If this board is dedicated to fighting ignorance, why can't it be accepted that while bin Laden is a Megalomaniac, he is NOT without a point. The US has done some really fucked up things in the middle east throughout recent history, accept it, or get fucked up by the bin Laden's throughout history.

...And how does that make it okay to kill 6000 innocent people?

Bin Laden may have an agenda he is pushing, but he most definitely does not have a "point." He has an opinion.

We are so desperate to villify bin Laden to make ourselves feel all warm and fuzzy about being rough tough Americans, but fuck it, that's not the case. People need to accept that in order for us to truly win this thing.

What exactly does anyone have to vilify? His actions speak for themselves. He vilified himself when he organized the deaths of 6000 Americans.

[Milossarian]

I didn't want to be so bold as to say, "There's even some edges of this lunacy expressed right here, on one of the most intelligent message boards on the Internet."

Glad somebody took the effort to make that self-evident.

[even sven]

So you believe that the United States has a right (and obligation) to use military power to remove the governments of countries with human rights abuses, even those of our allies?

Wow. No wonder they don't like us round those parts.

[middleman]

I'm pretty soft on toppling govt. performing ethnic cleansing or wholesale slaughter of people, but I don't think we need to go in just because a SOVEREIGN nation is drastically different than my home.

[mswas]

Minty Green

My point is that the people in this thread are talking about bin Laden in the same way that the Romans would have spoken of the Vandals, or the British talk about the IRA, or Prince John would have spoken of Robin Hood (duh it's a fictional character) Anyway, the point is Che Guevera and Pancho Villa were probably villified quite nicely in their time by their enemies and the people in this thread are willing to give them a grudging heroes respect, but they want to damn bin Laden. bin Laden is terrifying, but he is not an unthinking brute, he is not without support, he is not without a point in certain cases. We want to paint this as a black and white issue so that we don't have to "gasp" think about it. This board is SUPPOSED to be fighting ignorance, but it propogates ignorance about as much as it fights it even though that is still a better ratio than other places it's still pretty fucking depressing. I've found that many of the people here who put on a very good veneer of higher intelligence are jumping down anyone's throat that offers an opinion that doesn't jive with the jingoism of the day.

The truth is we aren't popular in the middle east and there is a damn good fucking reason for that. Even leave Israel/Palestine completely out of the argument, they have a lot of reasons to hate us, just as they have many reasons not to hate us, but apparently the reasons to hate us are even greater over there and we need to address that.

Erek

[Nacho4Sara]

So you believe that the United States has a right (and obligation) to use military power to remove the governments of countries with human rights abuses, even those of our allies?

Wow. No wonder they don't like us round those parts.

Nope, I didn't say that. I don't know that we have the right to do that at all. I wish we did, but I don't believe we can just walk into Saudi Arabia and implant a new, less restrictive regime. But if the Taleban goes (and I think it will), I will be extremely grateful that so fewer atrocities toward women will occur.

And I hope the US will be able to help the Afghan people set up a government that they can believe in, as opposed to the rogue rule of the Taleban. I would hate for the Afghan people to be devastated by an interfering country (again) and then replaced with a government that the people do not approve or support (again).

I also hope that humanitarian relief in some form will continue to flow to the Middle East regardless of the results of this. Those women deserve, at the very least, health care.

I'm pretty soft on toppling govt. performing ethnic cleansing or wholesale slaughter of people

Again, I'm not sure the Taleban is innocent of "wholesale slaughter." Their treatment of Afghan people has not been far removed from that accusation.

bin Laden is terrifying, but he is not an unthinking brute, he is not without support, he is not without a point in certain cases. We want to paint this as a black and white issue so that we don't have to "gasp" think about it

Hitler was terrifying, but he was not an unthinking brute, he was not without support. He was most definitely "without a point" however, as is bin Laden. I think it is a black and white issue. If bin Laden was angry with the US, there are a lot of ways he could have handled this that did not include the mass murder of 6000 innocent civilians. He did not have a right to kill those people, no matter how much of a "point" you think he has.

Admittedly, Hitler's purpose was slightly different. He was trying to wipe out an ethnic group of people. Osama has grandly attacked America as a whole. But the end result - way too many innocent, unsuspecting people killed for religious reasons - is not so different.

[minty green]

And what system of morality do you ascribe to where the intentional murder of 5,000+ innocent people is anything other than a black and white issue?

[JRDelirious]

Originally posted by lenin
You're both wrong. Che was arrested by Bolivian authorities for trying to help the peasants have a revolution.

He was shot to death by a Bolivian soldier while in captivity.


Righto. "Go ahead and fire. You will be only killing a man."

Which is another difference: Ernesto didn't just sit in Cuba (where he was initially in charge of keeping the firing squads busy with "counterrevolutionaries" and then of ruining industrial production) or in a safe haven, preaching and plotting for others, but went and put his own butt on the (front)line. (Which did wonders for his posthumous career as revolutionary-chic glamour-icon. )

[middleman]

Originally posted by Nacho4Sara
Again, I'm not sure the Taleban is innocent of "wholesale slaughter." Their treatment of Afghan people has not been far removed from that accusation.

It wasn't my intent to imply that they had. I was simply noting a time that we should topple a government for non strategic purposes or purposes that have no direct impact on the US. Here, we aren't attacking them because they are harming their people, we are attacking them because they are attacking us. According to Bob Woodward's article in today's Washington Post, BL has funneled over 100MIL to the Taliban. Basically, there is no difference between BL and the Taliban. That is why all this talk last night of offering the Taliban a cease fire if they comply is all diplomatic smoke and mirrors. It was said more for the sake of moderate Muslim nations than for the Taliban.

[Caiata]

Er, this is probably a "hijack", it's possibly off-topic, and I'm very sorry in advance, if you all would like to ignore it please do, or I can make a new thread later ... anyway.

I've noticed it here and other places as well, just looking for an answer:

Why is it that when a poster makes the statement that to some people, bin Laden may have a "point", other posters try to vilify him/her by assuming that means he/she thinks it's "okay" that bin Laden's terrorist-agents killed upwards of 5000 people?

I don't think anyone has tried to say - at least, not that I've seen - "Yes, bin Laden has a point, and furthermore, the only way to resolve it was to kill all those people, and those people deserved it anyway for having the audacity to be in the World Trade Centres." That sort of statement would be clearly wrong. They stop after the first comma.

Yes, yes, yes, by all means, Usama bin Laden has chosen the wrong method by which to make his point known. What he has done is vile, is horrible, is unthinkably wrong. To kill any innocent person in order to "make a point" is wrong. Wrong. Definitely wrong. And it deserves punishment.

But does that really mean that his entire reasoning is crap? Is the difference between a "point" and a "waste of breath" really just the implementation of one's stance?

While I agree that the desire to systematically wipe out an entire race/culture/country is not a valid "point" ... perhaps there really is a credible reason that some people that share his religion dislike us so strongly?

(Apologies again for the off-topic. I'm just curious to the answer here.)

[Caiata]

Er, this is probably a "hijack", it's possibly off-topic, and I'm very sorry in advance, if you all would like to ignore it please do, or I can make a new thread later ... anyway.

(More apologies in advance if this posted twice - having a bit of connection trouble. Stupid dial-ups ...)

I've noticed it here and other places as well, just looking for an answer:

Why is it that when a poster makes the statement that to some people, bin Laden may have a "point", other posters try to vilify him/her by assuming that means he/she thinks it's "okay" that bin Laden's terrorist-agents killed upwards of 5000 people?

I don't think anyone has tried to say - at least, not that I've seen - "Yes, bin Laden has a point, and furthermore, the only way to resolve it was to kill all those people, and those people deserved it anyway for having the audacity to be in the World Trade Centres." That sort of statement would be clearly wrong. They stop after the second comma.

Yes, yes, yes, by all means, Usama bin Laden has chosen the wrong method by which to make his point known. What he has done is vile, is horrible, is unthinkably wrong. To kill any innocent person in order to "make a point" is wrong. Wrong. Definitely wrong. And it deserves punishment.

But does that really mean that his entire reasoning is crap? Is the difference between a "point" and a "waste of breath" really just the implementation of one's stance?

While I agree that the desire to systematically wipe out an entire race/culture/country is not a valid "point" ... perhaps there really is a credible reason that some people that share his religion dislike us so strongly?

(Apologies again for the off-topic. I'm just curious to the answer here.)

[mswas]

Minty Green

Morality is bullshit used by megalomaniacs to justify their own actions, so that they can kill people and sleep at night. There is no such thing as morality.



Hitler was terrifying, but he was not an unthinking brute, he was not without support. He was most definitely "without a point" however, as is bin Laden. I think it is a black and white issue. If bin Laden was angry with the US, there are a lot of ways he could have handled this that did not include the mass murder of 6000 innocent civilians. He did not have a right to kill those people, no matter how much of a "point" you think he has.

Admittedly, Hitler's purpose was slightly different. He was trying to wipe out an ethnic group of people. Osama has grandly attacked America as a whole. But the end result - way too many innocent, unsuspecting people killed for religious reasons - is not so different.


Again, we deny a purpose so to make our position stronger in our minds. I'm sorry, I just don't agree with doing that. People seem to want to paint me in an "immoral" (not saying that you did that) light just because I'm not going to paint this as a black and white issue. It's not black and white, and it will continue to exist long after we finish World War III trying to make it black and white.

Erek

[mswas]

Oh yeah, I almost forgot what i was going to ask: HOW IN HELL does reacting in an inappropriate manner equated to having an invalid point?

Erek

[mswas]

Minty Green,

thousands of dead in Iraq due to sanctions imposed by the US and Britain. There's a shade of grey for you. I may be to you, an immoral son of a bitch for actually considering bin Laden as having a point, but in my mind someone who WON'T consider him having a point is the same breed as he is. So where do we stand now? You may not have killed thousands of people but your jingoism and intolerance shines through in the very statement that this is black and white.

Erek

[Milossarian]

thousands of dead in Iraq due to sanctions imposed by the US and Britain.
Or, thousands of dead in Iraq because we can't funnel money and support into a leader who will use it for his power base and armies, in ways that our government does not support. Or, thousands of dead in Iraq because the leadership there won't do what is necessary to make it not so.

You say to-may-to; I say to-mah-to.

And thank you for pointing out you don't believe in morality, mswas. It all makes sense now.

[minty green]

I actually started to compose that Pit thread. But I found it to be kinda distasteful. The target was just sitting there, begging to be destroyed, and a Pit thread solution was sorta like dropping a bowling ball on a paralyzed cockroach. It might be entertaining, but it's kinda messy and not terribly challenging.

On the other hand, however, I do so dislike cockraoches. And I do so dislike being accused of "jingoism and intolerance." So I think I'll give you a chance to apologize for that remark while I go down to the garage and find my bowling ball.

[mswas]

If a universal morality existed then the idea of a universal morality would be amoral.

Erek

[mswas]

If we can stand by the excuse that Hussein is fucking over the Iraqi people, then we should have taken him out rather than starving his people.

And I should have made myself clearer, UNIVERSAL morality does not exist. It cannot be applied from culture to culture. Morality is only within the confines of the society it is trying to support.

So I know for Jingo's like you "It explains a lot" when someone does not share your narrow world view. So I'm sorry for calling you a Jingo, Jingo go ahead and start that thread if you like, I started one that's not a direct flame against you but you inspired it. So I think rather than using a bowling ball to smash the roach, you should use the shoe that fits oh so well.


The Jingo thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=92915

Erek

[Neurotik]

OK, folks, let's calm down and not resort to Pit threads right away.

mswas has a valid point. He is NOT (I repeat NOT) saying that the destruction of the WTC was justified or right. He is simply saying that there is a reason that people are doing this.

Do we know that reason? And be serious about this. The US has not been very supportive of most of the Islamic governments in power. We tried to support a repressive Iranian shah and the Iranians didn't like that too much. Several other things as well.

mwswas has some valid points. The sanctions are clearly not working. If we were truly concerned about Hussein, why not just step in and rid ourselves of him? We have the power to do so, why keep sanctions going?

Sadly, a lot of people don't like the Americanization that is occurring throughout the world. Even on this board, a lot of people feel that it is our duty to enforce "human rights" and Western values and instill them throughout the world. A lot of people react violently to this. It's not right, but what else are they going to do? There is not much they can do diplomatically, economically or militarily against us. Terrorism is pretty much their only option to fight what they see as a corruption of their culture.

I'm NOT saying that I support their actions. I'm NOT saying that Osama bin Ladin shouldn't be brought to justice. I'm NOT saying that terrorism shouldn't be eradicated. Hell, I'm NOT even necessarily saying that we shouldn't be going to war with the Taliban to do what is necessary to secure our security (eww, that was bad).

I'm just saying that we might want to look at what these people are willing to die for. mswas is correct in saying that anytime there is an assymmetry of power and one side is dominating the other, then asymmetrical attacks (terrorism) will be resorted to. It's happened throughout history.

[mswas]

Thank you Neurotik

Erek

[Neurotik]

De nada

[Guinastasia]

Neurotik-that was EXACTLY what I would say.

Remember-one person's terrorist is another's hero. We have to be AWFULLY careful how we handle things-it's one hell of a mess.

[Milossarian]

So I know for Jingo's like you "It explains a lot" when someone does not share your narrow world view.
That would be the narrow world view that Osama bin Laden is a mass murderer who should not be looked up to by anybody with a brain? Yeah; guess I am narrow-minded.

And there's an enormous difference between bin Laden having a reason (who thinks it was a random act without purpose?) and him having a point.

By the way, as I've invited you to do in the Pit, outline what bin Laden's "points" are, and what capitulations the USA could realistically make so that he calls off his effort to kill our men, women, and children, cripple our economy, and topple our government.

The effort is to hurt us, over and over, and hopefully start a West and Israel-vs.-Islam jihad.

Sorry if you fail to grasp that. It could save you a lot of trouble in your desperate search to see reason behind al Qaeda.

[mswas]

Milossarian, as my rebuttal to your post, I would like you to read my last posts in this thread.



no...no...no...that's scrolling past them...stop and READ them.

Thanks,
Erek

[Nacho4Sara]

I'm just saying that we might want to look at what these people are willing to die for. mswas is correct in saying that anytime there is an assymmetry of power and one side is dominating the other, then asymmetrical attacks (terrorism) will be resorted to. It's happened throughout history.

I'm certainly not arguing that Arab nations have no reasons for being angry at us. They do - they have a long list of things America has done to piss them off. I said that the people, Muslim or not, who would make this man a hero are ignorant. And I believe they are - I, as an American, am perfectly willing to acknowledge that we have made mistakes in the Middle East. Historically, we have done some seriously depraved things to the governments (like the CIA installing the Shah) as well as to the people (the sanctions against Iraq are hurting the people, not those that we are aiming for). I will acknowledge that 100%.

But for Arab nations to not take responsibility for their part in this is ridiculous and ignorant. There's a great article, "It's Not All America's Fault," in TIME this week. The writer is a Muslim, Hazem Saghiyah, who argues that the Muslim world is guilty, too. He argues this for many reasons:

1. "...We in the Muslim world have not been able to overcome the trauma caused by colonialism. We could not open up to the tools that modernity suggested, for the simple reason that they were introduced by way of colonialism."

2. Muslim nations could not overcome their suspicions of "outside political and ideological goods: democracy, secularlism, the state of law, the principle of rights and, above all, the concept of the nation-state..."

3. Religious reforms, spearheaded by Muhammad Abdu, failed, which led to chaos and and opened the way to extreme versions of Islam.

4. Efforts to modernize the Arab language failed.

5. Public spheres for debate were never established.

6. Local regimes are largely inadequate, which "leaves the most essential themes of social and political destiny hanging, creating a vacuum to be filled only by populist politicians and extremist groups, by wars and civil wars."

7. Arab intellectuals have focused on creating a huge disparity between "us" and "them" - the enemy - instead of addressing the "incredible shortcomings" of their countries.

(I can't find a link for the article online, but it's on page 69).

Those are certainly some adequate arguments made against the Muslim world. And until these arguments are addressed, there is going to remain a mass hatred toward the US as "Great Satan" for our hateful arrogance and intrusion. Thus there is also a mass igorance toward the reality of the situation. It's certainly much easier to blame someone else than take responsibility for your mistakes. This sort of blame allows men like Osama Bin Laden to push his doctrine of hatred and contempt toward Americans, and largely succeed in the Muslim world.

This (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,179261,00.html) article discusses Osama as a "rock star" in the Middle East. There's a bit at the end about an 8-year-old:

Then her uncle asked her: "Who is Osama bin Laden? And the girl replied: "He's a kind man. Osama's helping the Muslim people."

Syed raised his eyebrows at me. "But who bombed the World Trade Center?" he asked her. The girl's answer chilled me: "American Jews."

Honestly, if that isn't blatant ignorance about Americans and Osama bin Laden being reflected onto this little girl, I don't know what it.

As an American, it's difficult for me to grasp what these people are willing to die for. But I'm willing to learn, listen, and try to understand. I'm certainly in support of not repeating our past mistakes, which involves a serious acknowledgement of what America has done, specifically, to anger Muslim nations so greatly. But to make bin Laden into a hero - to glorify him for what he stands for (mass murder) and for the actions he takes - that's pure ignorance to the reality of the situation in the Middle East.

Yes, we have done some terrible things in the Middle East. But we are not the only guilty party here, nor are we the only victim. When the Muslim world addresses exactly what part they have played in perpetuating the attitude that led to the WTC attack, instead of simply blaming America, then progress will be made. But to deny any duplicity is pure ignorance.

[minty green]

Anyone else getting tired of the "you're not reading what I'm writing" schtick? The problem is, Erek, you're not writing anything that answers what we're asking. Seriously, man, use that miraculous "quote" function you've discovered to quote one of our questions, then attempt to respond to that question. You'll find it does wonders for your ability to speak to others.

[mswas]

nacho4sara: You've had some pretty interesting posts in this thread. I am sorry I focused on one thing you said in the past bit about bin Laden most definitely NOT having a point. I have enjoyed most of your posts. I particularly liked the last one and agree with it completely. I don't want anyone to think that I believe America is completely at fault, but I would like to see America showing a little more foresight in it's foreign policy and I don't want to see a "war on terrorism", a war on bin Laden is fine, I just hate how open ended this is turning out to be with our continued bombing of Afghanistan for over half a week now and the talk of other targets in other countries which are going to make moderates there turn less moderate. Those moderates are willing to turn the other cheek to our past transgressions for hte most part, so we need to turn the other cheek in the name of avoiding an all out regional war. I think this could turn into the largest conflict since World War II if we are not careful.

Minty Green: Please refer to Caiata's, Nacho4Sara's, Neurotik's, and MEBuckner's and Jodi's posts in the other thread. They all seemed to be able to understand me pretty well. Why is it that you, Milossarian and a handful of other people seem to be continuously misquoting me. I know I am not the best writer in this and sometimes I do come across badly, but then I correct myself if I catch it in time, and while others go with the correction and continue on with the discussion, you choose to attack the correction and attack me for saying "you're not reading my posts", which for the most part, you are not, as you have consistently misquoted me. That is why I stopped responding to you for the most part. I hope this helps you to understand why I don't wish to have a conversation with you. Whether you care or not is immaterial.

Erek

[minty green]

1) Quote question.

2) Answer question.


Go ahead, give it a try. It's ever so much more enlightening than watching you try to deny the import of your own words.

[minty green]

And don't forget step (3). That's the one where you demonstrate that I misquoted you. I eagerly await your non-response.

[Neurotik]

Originally posted by minty green
And what system of morality do you ascribe to where the intentional murder of 5,000+ innocent people is anything other than a black and white issue?

Here's one example of misquotation. He didn't say that the WTC attack wasn't good. He's saying that the US has a tendency to rain down destruction on innocent civilians (see Bosnia, Iraq, etc.) but never says that this is terrorism.

I think mswas is pointing out a seeming double standard that says that its ok for us to kill folks, but if someone should try it again, well, that's evil. I'm not saying this double standard applies to your thinking minty but it exists in some people's.

Originally posted by Nacho4Sara
As an American, it's difficult for me to grasp what these people are willing to die for. But I'm willing to learn, listen, and try to understand. I'm certainly in support of not repeating our past mistakes, which involves a serious acknowledgement of what America has done, specifically, to anger Muslim nations so greatly.[/b]

That's what mswas is saying. A lot of people have a difficult time grasping what these folks are willing to die for in this country. You are willing to learn, and that's good. However, not everyone wants to do that. mswas is saying that we had better take the time to figure out what the hell we are doing to piss folks off, otherwise we can bomb all we want, and it's just going to make more terrorists.

The only thing that gives me pause about this is that if we change policy quickly, then it makes it look like the terrorists were able to be effective with their attacks. That, I think, will just encourage more terrorists, since they see that it will help them get what they want. How do you reconcile this with the need to change certain aspects of our policy to help cut off the resentment that many people feel towards the US?

[minty green]

Good gravy, Neurotik, do you know what a "quote" is? My rhetorical question that you just raised--which responds directly to mswas's facially absurd assertion that "this" is not "a black and white issue--is by no stretch of the imagination a quote.

[minty green]

<insert close quotation marks after "issue">

[Lemur866]

OK, here's the thing. We Americans tend to believe that the rest of the world is kind of like America, only poorer and dirtier. But it is not. Most countries in the world are dictatorships of one form or another. Some are open dictatorships, some are closed dictatorships. But we CANNOT treat these countries that same way we treat Canada, Britain, France, etc.

And about the Taliban human rights abuses. Everyone around the world has complained for years about the gross human righst abuses of the Taliban. Why didn't anyone do anything about it until now? Because the only way to do anything about it was to declare war on the Taliban, and no one wanted to do that, until the terrorist murder of thousands of people. America cannot police the entire globe.

And can people make up their minds? Are we bad because we don't support Middle Eastern governments or because we do? We support some, we are enemies of others. But every single Middle Eastern government is a dictatorship of some sort, so any sort of relations we have with any Middle Eastern government will be a relation with a dictator. If we should cut all ties to dictatorial countries then we must abandon the Middle East completely.

"If only we were nice to them they'd stop hating us!" Bullshit. Not true. They hate us because we are rich and they are poor, and they believe that we are rich BECAUSE they are poor. They have a medieval view of economics...that there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world, that economics is a zero-sum game, and therefore the only way to become wealthy is to cheat or steal from other people. And this is actually true in countries without the rule of law.

But it suits the dictators to blame the United States for the problems of dictatorial government. Pulling out of Saudi, abandoning Israel, stopping support for Middle Eastern governments...that will not stop the hatred, it will intensify the hatred. Just like the WTC bombing intensified their hatred of the US. Any action whatsoever would generate hatred of the US...trials and arrests, economic sanctions, commando raids, bombings.

Do you really think that the average America-hater would be satisfied if we somehow captured bin Ladin and put him on trial? Of course not, they would scream and shout that the trial was unfair, it was a kangaroo court, the evidence was manufactured. Even if he was tried in the Hague, since that is obviously a colonial puppet court. Even if he were tried by a Sharia court in, say, Saudi Arabia. Since Saudi Arabia is an American puppet the Saudis would manufacture whatever evidence was needed to false convict this hero of Islam.

Anything we do to bin Ladin will be vilified and hated, the Judicial model included. He is a hero to these people because he attacked the United States. They are GLAD that thousands of Americans died. "Thank God for that. Thank God for that." Nothing short of surrender will satisfy them.

[Neurotik]

Lemur are you aware that a lot of nations that AREN'T poor little dictatorships resent our power and seeping Americanization in the world. Hell, look at this same board you are posting on and you will notice rants from Canadians, Brits, Australians, etc condemning US arrogance even before 9/11. The French don't like our culture. The Germans don't. Of course, they don't resort to violence, but that resentment is still there.

And you are going to tell me that the US doesn't dick over poor nations? Come on. We helped topple Allende in Chile and supported a brutal regime that disappeared thousands. Same in Argentina. Same in Vietnam. Same in Iran. Same in Brazil. The list goes on.

Look, I'm not saying that the 9/11 attacks were justified. Or that we're not justified in doing whatever it takes to secure ourselves from attacks. I support effective military action. I support performing covert ops to secure our interests. I'm just aware that these often have negative consequences when it comes to how people perceive us. Your little tirade there shows that you really don't understand other people's points of views on this or what is happening in the world. This is why we need to open up an HONEST debate on the topic with no villifying people or straw-man tactics.

And yes, pulling completely out of the Middle East and leaving it to the lunatics to rule as they wish and not getting involved again in the affairs of the area (including Israel) would likely stop the attacks. But you know what? That's unrealistic because of our economic interests and resources there. We shouldn't pull out, but we need to examine our tactics and see if there's a better way then what we have been doing.

[Milossarian]

mswas:
I went back and re-read you last post, as requested. I'd read it the first time. It doesn't answer any of my questions. So, we'll try again, and see if you can respond without calling me names or lamenting people not listening to you or understanding you.

YOU SAID, AND I QUOTE:
If this board is dedicated to fighting ignorance, why can't it be accepted that while bin Laden is a Megalomaniac, he is NOT without a point.(Emphasis mine.)
That point being what? Be specific, please.

The US has done some really fucked up things in the middle east throughout recent history,
Such as what? Be specific, please.

And, before you answer that, I'd like to point out to you that if you bring up anything involving Israel or Palestine, neither Osama nor anyone in al-Quaeda was bringing them up at all prior to September 11.

I'd also like to point out that our investigators indicate the Sept. 11 attack was 3 to 5 years in the making. At the time it was in the works, the Camp David accords between Israel and the Palestinian Authority were in full swing.

You went on to say:
bin Laden is terrifying,
Agreed.
but he is not an unthinking brute,
Agreed.
he is not without support,
Agreed.
he is not without a point in certain cases.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
And what point or points would that be? Please be specific.
The truth is we aren't popular in the middle east and there is a damn good fucking reason for that. Even leave Israel/Palestine completely out of the argument, they have a lot of reasons to hate us, just as they have many reasons not to hate us, but apparently the reasons to hate us are even greater over there and we need to address that.
And I'm patiently waiting for you to outline what they are. Come on. Search Slate and The Nation, and other publications that think we should be self-loathing because we are rich and powerful. I'm sure you'll find plenty we can talk about.

And, in the quote from you already made famous by minty green:
We want to paint this as a black and white issue so that we don't have to "gasp" think about it.
Actually, you've been asked repeatedly by several of us for you to think about it.

Sept. 11 isn't something that's black and white? Explain.

People seem to want to paint me in an "immoral" (not saying that you did that) light just because I'm not going to paint this as a black and white issue. It's not black and white, and it will continue to exist long after we finish World War III trying to make it black and white.
Yet again, explain to poor ol' unenlightened me all of the shades of gray about what happened in the USA on September 11. And how America not considering it unequivocably evil and responding accordingly is inappropriate. And, SPECIFICALLY, why not?

If we can stand by the excuse that Hussein is fucking over the Iraqi people, then we should have taken him out rather than starving his people.

In your opinion, is Hussein fucking over the Iraqi people? What should the USA do about that, in your opinion?

So I think rather than using a bowling ball to smash the roach, you should use the shoe that fits oh so well.
This is what I was supposed to go back and re-read, to have all my questions to you answered?

Nice try.

Your own words have been laid out for you here. My responses, and requests for additional information from you are listed. Don't be a weasel.

Neurotik said:
Do we know that reason? And be serious about this. The US has not been very supportive of most of the Islamic governments in power. We tried to support a repressive Iranian shah and the Iranians didn't like that too much. Several other things as well.
What does this have to do with Sept. 11 being unequivocably evil, and the USA responding to it in such a manner being completely appropriate?

People who think like you are exactly the kind I had in mind when I made the pit thread with the O.J. analogy. By your logic, as you're standing over Nicole Simpson's mutilated carcass, you say, "Well, you know ... she was kind of a slut. And she did piss O.J. off a lot."

It's positively vulgar.
Even on this board, a lot of people feel that it is our duty to enforce "human rights" and Western values and instill them throughout the world.
Actually, I'll be content if we protect our national security. Acting however we need to to do so. With the full support of virtually every government on the planet Earth, that we are acting correctly in our self-defense.
I'm just saying that we might want to look at what these people are willing to die for.
Nah. All we really need to do to terrorist networks that want us dead is kill them. It's kill or be killed, and if that wasn't pointed out to you on September 11, I can't help you.

Now, as to the hostilities many people in that region of the world feel toward the West, that we need to work on as much as we can. As we shake hands on that dialogue however, let's make a few points up front:
1. We're not abandoning Israel.
2. Our troops aren't leaving the Middle East until it can be demonstrated that a military presence exists there to hold back countries from invading one another.
3. While we will help you with both humanitarian aid and economically as we pursue our interests, we're not handing over our wealth to you out of some bizarre sense of guilt.
4. We, particularly our women, will live our lives here in our country with all the freedoms and choices that we have always had.

[tsunamisurfer]

Originally posted by lenin
You're both wrong. Che was arrested by Bolivian authorities for trying to help the peasants have a revolution.

He was shot to death by a Bolivian soldier while in captivity.

Uh, no, you've got the sanitized version. The Agency was most definitely involved in pursuing, finding, and liquidating him. The agent in charge, however, did let a Bolivian soldier kill him.

The thought of the-now-lionized Che bumbling and fumbling his way across the Bolivian mountains trying to stir up revolution among peasants who merely looked at him like he was a world-class nut job still gives me a good laugh to this day. Guevara was a bloodthirsty maniac in revolutionary Cuba and knew nothing about the common man of Bolivia. His ramblings about the "New Communist Man" was a smokescreen for an agenda driven by pure ego. Let us not forget communism's blood-soaked record in the 20th century.

[Guinastasia]

I could have SWORN Castro had him offed.

Who knows?


I think we need to look at why these people, young kids-look up to Bin Laden-manipulation. Think about it-they're told he's fighting FOR THEM. It's scary as hell-but we don't combat it by screwing with THEM. We do it by PROVING HIM WRONG. By NOT being the Great Satan, by NOT treating the people like shit, and screwing them over. Honestly, it's scary.

Brilliant, Sara. I think we need to look at the BIG picture-not US=GOOD/BAD MidEast=GOOD/BAD.

[minty green]

Care to explain how the U.S. treated Afghanistan like shit? And just to warn you, "We abandoned them after helping them kick the Soviets out!" carries no water with me, since leaving them alone is precisely what the Taliban claim they want us to do.

[Neurotik]

Originally posted by Milossarian
Neurotik said:
Do we know that reason? And be serious about this. The US has not been very supportive of most of the Islamic governments in power. We tried to support a repressive Iranian shah and the Iranians didn't like that too much. Several other things as well.
What does this have to do with Sept. 11 being unequivocably evil, and the USA responding to it in such a manner being completely appropriate?

People who think like you are exactly the kind I had in mind when I made the pit thread with the O.J. analogy. By your logic, as you're standing over Nicole Simpson's mutilated carcass, you say, "Well, you know ... she was kind of a slut. And she did piss O.J. off a lot."

It's positively vulgar.

Wow Milo. What was I thinking? You're right. I'm an unpatriotic prick who doesn't know what he's talking about. The loathing I have for my country is infinite. I think we should bow down to the terrorists and give them what they want since this is all our fault. Those people deserved to die on 9/11 because they were taking part in capitalism.

Oh wait. I'm sorry. I forgo that I had said

I'm NOT saying that I support their actions. I'm NOT saying that Osama bin Ladin shouldn't be brought to justice. I'm NOT saying that terrorism shouldn't be eradicated. Hell, I'm NOT even necessarily saying that we shouldn't be going to war with the Taliban to do what is necessary to secure our security.

Repeat after me Milo..."I'm not even necesarily saying that we shouldn't be going to war with the Taliban to do what is necessary to secure our security"

"to do what is necessary to secure our security"

Say it one more time to yourself. I fully support our actions agains the Taliban. But that doesn't mean I'm so narrow-minded that I don't understand what the world is really like. The terrorist actions were bad. They were evil. Innocents shouldn't be killed. But you know what? It really is a matter of POV. Certain people feel that certain other people aren't innocents. If you don't realize that the world is one giant shade of grey and very few things occur without a cause, then I wish you luck on your life in magic, happy, rainbow, fairy land.

Nah. All we really need to do to terrorist networks that want us dead is kill them. It's kill or be killed, and if that wasn't pointed out to you on September 11, I can't help you.

Wow yeah, I can't believe I didn't think about that. I'm surprised that the Israelis and the English haven't thought about doing that to help some of their terrorists activities. Oh wait. No, that's right. That is (or was in the case of Britain) their policy. AND IT'S NOT WORKING!

As wonderful as your overly simplistic "solution" is, it's pretty much impossible to achieve. Why? Because it doesn't take into account what people are truly mad about. People are mad that the US constantly rides roughshod over what they perceive to be their rights. I refer you to Iran, again.

I have no problem with us doing what is necesary to secure our safety and freedom. If it involves doing some unsavory things, fine and so be it. I'll feel a little bad, but not much, because I recognize that that's how the world works. But I also recognize that people don't really like it too much, and the only way for them to get our attention is through terrorism. So what's the real solution? How about in the future respecting people and their rights. Understand how they are likely going to react to things and take steps to blunt any negative reactions. The food and humanitarian aid along with the missile strikes is the right idea IMHO.

So before you start telling me how unpatriotic I am, or how vulgar I am, trying understanding what I'm trying to say before bearing your head where the sun don't shine and start shouting out knee-jerk statements to things I'm not sure you really understand.

Now, as to the hostilities many people in that region of the world feel toward the West, that we need to work on as much as we can. As we shake hands on that dialogue however, let's make a few points up front:
1. We're not abandoning Israel.
2. Our troops aren't leaving the Middle East until it can be demonstrated that a military presence exists there to hold back countries from invading one another.
3. While we will help you with both humanitarian aid and economically as we pursue our interests, we're not handing over our wealth to you out of some bizarre sense of guilt.
4. We, particularly our women, will live our lives here in our country with all the freedoms and choices that we have always had.

Sounds good to me. I haven't advocated doing the opposite of any of those things.

[Nacho4Sara]

I think we need to look at why these people, young kids-look up to Bin Laden-manipulation. Think about it-they're told he's fighting FOR THEM. It's scary as hell-but we don't combat it by screwing with THEM. We do it by PROVING HIM WRONG. By NOT being the Great Satan, by NOT treating the people like shit, and screwing them over. Honestly, it's scary.

This is what disturbs me most, I think - how can we possibly change this mindset?

An analogy would be the Civil Rights movement. Three hundred years of prejudiced thinking made any sort of positive change in the treatment of African Americans extremely difficult. The laws changed, some amendments were made, but has America's attitude toward Blacks changed significantly? My parents, both in their mid-40's, would be characterized as racist by most everyone here. My grandparents were extremely racist until the day they died, and no logical argument could ever change their mind.

Granted, many young people today are decidedly less racist, but the attitude still exists. And I think it's going to be a long time until it's annihilated completely. Because you can change the laws; you can lawfully ensure people, for the most part, behave in a certain manner. You can teach a different doctrine in school. But there are still going to be people who are prejudiced against Blacks.

The same prejudice exists in the Middle East toward Americans. It's an US v. THEM attitude that pervades their governments, their religions, and their actions, both small and large scale. Whatever humanitarian actions we take will have ramifications, certainly, but not for a very long time, and we can't be sure that they will be positive.

Also, when you have a country wherein it's illegal to own a television, it's pretty easy for the government to control the thinking of the people. The US bombs them? Because we're evil. The US sends food? Because we pity them. There are plenty of ways for a totalitarian government to completely dominate the thoughts of its people, and determine what its citizens are thinking.

It's really a catch-22 - what can we possibly do to please the Middle East, short of totally withdrawing all activity in the area or giving all of our wealth to them? (I believe that any form of "bombing them into the stone age" is unthinkable as a solution).

Clearly, I don't have the answers. I'm as clueless as the next American. I just hope that Bush et.al. are considering these questions before deciding on their actions. Otherwise, I don't see how any good can come of this situation.

[Milossarian]

But you know what? It really is a matter of POV. Certain people feel that certain other people aren't innocents.
And this, neurotik, is where we profoundly disagree.

Because whether the actions taken against America on September 11 were evil (or 'totally wrong,' if evil too much connotes religion to the non-religious out there) is decidedly not a matter of point of view. There is universal right and universal wrong. And that doesn't change whether "certain people feel that certain other people aren't innocents."

[Neurotik]

Originally posted by Milossarian
[quote]There is universal right and universal wrong. And that doesn't change whether "certain people feel that certain other people aren't innocents."

No, sorry. That's incorrect. There is subjective right and subjective wrong. People decide what is right and what is wrong. Not the universe. That's why there all sorts of different cultural standards for right and wrong. If there were a universal right and a universal wrong we would see universal/homogenous morality.

[pennylane]

You know, I think part of the problem here is in the phrasing of things. I am opposed to the sanctions in Iraq and I generally take the side of Palestine in the Israel-Palestine affair. In fact I have even helped to organise protests in the U.S. against policies which I don't like. But when I hear someone say "Usama has a point", it does seem vulgar to me. Can't we just say, "Arabs have a point"? Or choose someone else, like Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, who visited the World Trade Centre a few days ago, and say that he has a point? I think that whatever Usama's points were, he has lost the right to have them considered. Anyway, he hasn't even taken the blame for the World Trade Centre attack. What point is he making by blaming it on disgruntled American Jews?

If he had just bombed the Pentagon and then announced that he had done this in protest of the sanctions in Iraq, I would at least see what his point is. But he anonymously killed tons of people from lots of different countries, including Muslims and Arabs, who probably had nothing to do with American politics or American military, and I would hate for him to think that anything good came out of it.