Kill Yr Idols: Usamah bin Muhammad bin Laden

ORIGINS

1950's and 1960's.....USA overthrows elected government in Iran which threatened Western oil profits in favour of the Shah, a dictator who relied on torture....USA gives massive military and financial aid to the new state of Israel...USA ignores human rights and UN resolution violations by Israel....

The beginnings of the bin Laden phenomenon are difficult to track down. The bin Laden family first appears when Sheik Mohammed bin Laden, a native of the Sunni Hadramout, emigrated from Yemen to Saudi Arabia in the 1960's. The clan appears to have gradually congealed power around itself, and forged a close relationship with the Saudi royal family, being granted all rights to construction of a religious nature, whether in Mecca, Medina or the Holy Palaces of Jerusalem (until 1967). The bin Ladens renovated Mecca after the royal house was highly satisfied with their work on the palaces. In any event, the bin Ladens established a financial empire that now reaches far beyond mere construction work. The bin Laden clan and the Saudi royal house soon had a very close working relationship, one not just based on finances, but on friendship and shared secrets as well. When young Usamah was growing up, he was ensconsed in the Saudi establishment, going to the same schools and colleges as the luminaries of the Arabian peninsula. Indeed, bin Ladens went to Victoria College in Alexandria, the Eton of the Middle East, where they rubbed shoulders with such excellencies as King Hussein of Jordan and Omar Sharif.

Usamah was born in 1957 in Riyadh. His father took many wifes, and young Usamah was born to one of the last and least respected of them. He was the 17th son of a reported 50 sired by Mohammed. Mohammed's brother and partner sired 50 more, making the bin Laden clan and influence huge. The fact that Usamah came to outshine them all is a testament to his innate genius.

Usamah as a young boy, on holiday in Sweden aged 14. His 'pale good looks' shone through already. Click here to enlar ge.

Earliest direct evidences of Usamah himself this reporter could track down are recollections by an old teacher, Brian Fyfield-Shayler. In 1969, whilst his decadent western peers were guzzling drugs and descending into an orgy of self, the callow bin Laden, just 13, was studying hard at Al-Thaghr, a school in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia modelled on the English public school system. Mr Fyfield-Shayler said (in this respected news source) "I remember him as quiet, retiring and rather shy. He was very courteous - more so than any of the others in his class. Physically, he was outstanding because he was taller, more handsome and fairer than most of the other boys. He also stood out as he was singularly gracious and polite, and had a great deal of inner confidence. He was very neat, very precise and very conscientious."

There can be no doubt that Usamah, an ordinary and pious young man, was deeply affected by his family's involvement in rebuilding the two holy Mosques in Mekkah and Madinah. We have already heard that his early teacher thought him a confident but reflective individual, so we shouldn't be surprised if he felt great pride that his family was involved in raising the glory of Allah in such spiritually significant places.

Throughout the 1970's Usamah spent his time studying and working for the family business. Doubtless he kept an eye on current affairs — the disgraceful behaviour of Israel and America during this period is remarkable — but he was determined to get his degree and be a credit to his family. In 1979 he graduated from King Abdul Aziz University in Jeddah with a degree in Civil Engineering.

BEGINNING OF THE LEGEND

Usamah as a handsome young man in the Mujahideen

Shortly after young Usamah graduated, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan to prop up the failing Communist regime. The Mujahideen put out an international call for help, and Usamah was inspired to leave the dusty world of commerce for more noble pursuits. He packed himself and several family bulldozers off to Afghanistan, and later was quoted as saying "In our religion, there is a special place in the Hereafter for those who participate in Jihad. One day in Afghanistan was like 1000 days of praying in an ordinary mosque."

Usamah made a huge difference to the Mujahideen. At first he was an effective politician and strategist. He recruited thousands of Arab fighters in the Gulf, paid for their passage to Afghanistan, and set up camps to train them. He designed defences along the Pakistani border, driving a bulldozer himself and taking great risks from Soviet helicopter gunship strafings as a result. Such was the personal stake he felt that before long he had taken up a Kalashnikov and was fighting on the front personally. This personal touch emerged again in 1986 when he and a few dozen Arab helpers fought off a Soviet onslaught in a small town called Jaji, near the Pakistani border. This ignited the Afghani resolve, as it was the first example that the Russians could actually be beaten. Just twelve months later he turned the tide of the Afghanistan war with a brilliant offensive against Soviet troops in the battle of Shaban. The Mujahideen suffered heavy casualties in the vicious, heavy fighting, but thanks to bin Laden's superb generalship the Soviets were pushed out of the area for good and the end was in sight for the Communists.

Hamza Mohammed, a Palestinian volunteer in Afghanistan, recalls "He was a hero to us because he was always on the Front Line, always moving ahead of everyone else. He not only gave his money, but he also gave himself. He came down from his palace to live with the Afghan peasants and the Arab fighters. He cooked with them, ate with them, dug trenches with them. That was Bin Laden's way."

By the late 1980’s Usamah had established himself as a legend across all Afghanistan. It was at this time that his close personal friendship with the Taliban Mullah Mohammad Omar began. The Wahhabi brand of Islam they both share is somewhat similar to Protestantism, but in an Islamic context, and they are both very spiritual men. To this day they take reflective fishing trips in the backlands of their country, such is their binding friendship. Where the rest of the Islamic world has been corrupted by decadent Western ways, the Wahhabis stick to traditional Islam as taught in the Koran. They are amongst the very holiest and most pious of Muslims, their creed established in Saudi Arabia, to an extent, and also Afghanistan, which though not strictly a Wahhabi state is very closely modelled on one. A measure of his piety is that he selflessly rejected an offer from King Fahd of Saudi Arabia to expand the Prophet's mosque in Medinah. This cosy little deal would have pocketed Usamah a lovely $90 million, but he refused as he correctly recognised it as an attempt to lure him from Jihad against the communists.

RETURN TO THE HOMELAND

Usamah today, careworn and wise with experience.

Usamah returned to Saudi Arabia in the late eighties, a celebrity throughout the Muslim world. Convinced by the words of the holy Koran, Usamah soon set aside his own personal, selfish best interests and began to campaign for the Saudi government to introduce Shariah (Islamic Law) and reduce its terrible corruption, an offence to Allah in the land of Mekkah. Although this was to get him into trouble with the corrupt authorities on several occasions, the real shakedown occurred when King Fahd decided to allow Western troops in the Kingdom during the Gulf War. Usamah criticised the Saudi regime for this terrible decision, and was promptly hounded with a harassment campaign. Before long, in 1991, he fled to the Sudan, and shortly afterwards was declared an outlaw by the Saudi regime, which stripped him of his nationality and put a price on his head. His loyalty to the word of the Koran and his conscience had cost him his home, and reduced him to a common bandit as far as his old circles in Saudi Arabia were concerned.

In the Sudan Usamah managed to expand his business interests considerably, and he continued his Jihad bankrolling. Always keeping a careful eye on ethical considerations, he made sure to only bankroll just causes, putting money on the underdog and the concept of right V might:

Chechnya. Here the Russians have sought to destroy all hope of Chechnian independance, but as usual bin Laden is involved, helping fund the Chechen guerrila fighters against the superior enemy. A noble cause.

Muslim Bosnians against the Serb overseers. Despite the justness of this cause, the US interfered, arresting the fighters he sent to help the cause of freedom against oppression. Nonetheless, bin Laden had a big impact there, as he does everywhere.

Palestine. bin Laden has always been outraged by the plight of the Palestinians. At a young age he came under the tutilege of a Palestininian man, Sheikh Abdallah Azzam, who was once a confidant of Yasser Arafat but had become disenchanted with the PLO. Some Usamah became intertwined with Palestinian politics and the cause.

Yemen. Usamah has long had links to the Yemen Wahhabi cause. He has also been involved in the struggle there - the bombing of the USS Cole was possibly an example of this (unlike the WTC, this bombing fits bin Laden's MO - the target was military, not involving innocent civilians.

Everyone of these causes was Just and right, and it is no wonder that Usamah's reputation only grew and prospered during this period — and no wonder that an assassination attempt was made at this time, though he escaped with only some injuries.

AFGHANISTAN ONCE MORE

In 1996 Usamah moved permanently back to Afghanistan. In despair at the terrible situation in both Saudi Arabia and the Sudan, he sought a more traditional and devout setting. After Saudi Arabia decided to imprison Islamic scholars and hundreds of Mujahideen youths, after the rape of the Holy Land by the West and the occupation of the two Holy Places by American troops, Usamah decided to make a stand. He issued his first Bayan, or statement, 'A Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places'. This document was seminal, and simple — a lucid warning instructing the Americans to leave the land of the two Holy Places or face military attack from the Mujahideen, the same Mujahideen that defeated the largest superpower in the world under his tutelage some few years before in Afghanistan.

"Muslims burn with anger at America. For its own good, America should leave [Saudi Arabia]." Usamah bin Ladin

Usamah is still in Afghanistan to this day. Despite the total lack of any evidence (The US claims to have evidence, but with it's usual broohaha is prepared to go to war rather than publically release it. It is so convincing they will give it to allies but not to the Taleban, from whom they expect an extradition with no evidence at all) relating him to the recent WTC attacks, he is castigated worldwide for this devilish act. Usamah may be no friend of the United States, and with good reason, but he has no record of attacking innocent civilian targets. He is an honourable man and an honourable fighter, with a long, proud record of fighting for the oppressed (but right) underdog.

So why must he die?

Because he must be martyred. It is my belief that Usamah has reached his peak. Already approaching his 50's, he can’t continue his brave fight against Western imperialism forever. Already he is weakening, his judgement is failing and his body shrivels. Every Muslim who dies in Jihad is guaranteed a place in Heaven, and Usamah, in dying, can both guarantee his own elevation and strike a blow against the western imperial forces trying to paint him as some sort of extremist. If he martyrs himself, a thousand new and young Usamahs will be inspired by his legend and continue the good fight, and the truth about bin Laden will spread around the world, and so the simple peoples of this globe will hear of his valiant life and fight. When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, the USA boycotted the Moscow Olympics, western opinion was outraged, and President Jimmy Carter embargoed all exports to the Soviet Union. Contrary to popular belief, the USA did not funnel military or financial support to the Mujahideen, however. In this interview bin Laden recalls "Personally neither I nor my brothers saw evidence of American help", so we see that the Americans were all mouth but had no guts. Now that America has, with it's usual hypocricy, decided to attack Afghanistan, it is clear that Usama must take risks to ensure maximum damage is applied to the enemy.

WHAT USAMAH MUST DO

Symbolisation of the cause. Arabs must be free.

Firstly he must provide tantalising glimpses of himself, drawing the Americans into Afghanistan. He must make sure the common people of Afghanistan understand that the Americans are out to culturally reprogram the Afghanis, one of the last pure peoples of the Earth. He must extract maximum damage upon the enemy in exchange for his own life. No superpower, however strong, can, once entered, come out of Afghanistan with honour. Hopefully the plight of Afghanistan and the indiscriminate killing of civilians that will occur there will reignite the Wahhabi cause throughout the Arab world, but especially in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. There is a great, noble chance here for the Middle East to be reawakened in its old image.

Usamah made Afghanistan in his own image, it is thanks to his influence that it has steered a course away from the brutality and violence of communism, towards the status of a pure Muslim state. The Taliban, unlike the governments of Yemen, Iran and Saudi Arabia, is not corrupted by Western influence, and will not hand him over. The West knows it has a resolute enemy. Even in the unlikely even that they did decide to hand him over, they would be unnable to, and surely the Afghans would revolt and a new revolution would be needed.

The likelihood is that they shall be true to the tenets of Islam, and not hand over Usamah. Then, the US and other Western allies will be forced to invade Afghanistan, where they will meet a bloody end. Usamah must sacrifice himself in the process, for it is the best way of guaranteeing his place in heaven and exacting maximum pain upon the enemy.

It is my fervent hope that bin Laden realise his death is called for, that his own death is a weapon he can use far more powerful than any bomb. The legend will burn out brightly.

	Interesting (4.00 / 2) (#9)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Sep 25th, 2001 at 06:38:21 PM PST

	I never thought bin Laden had so much going for him. It is true that the media treat him badly because of the WTC attacks (and with, come to think of it, no evidence that I have seen). It is nice to hear opposing views popping up from behind the parapet. This took courage, but sometimes the truth does.

	Pure Islamic State (2.00 / 2) (#10)
	by jp93023 on Tue Sep 25th, 2001 at 06:38:29 PM PST

	"Usamah made Afghanistan in his own image, it is thanks to his influence that it has steered a course away from the brutality and violence of communism, towards the status of a pure Muslim state." Brutality, violence, oppression, starvation, and a particularly unique hatred of women are the characteristics of a pure Muslim state?

	If by pure you mean fundamentalist, then yes. (4.66 / 3) (#16)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Tue Sep 25th, 2001 at 08:51:51 PM PST

	After all, the Quran indicates that the correct punishment for theft is amputation, and the punishment for a woman who becomes pregnant out of wedlock is whipping. Is this so unusual? Not really. Similar violence and hatred exist in the Bible, in which we find that a woman who has been raped but did not cry out is to be stoned to death. Despite the image you attempt to paint, hatred of women is far from being a uniquely muslim pursuit. Indeed, hatred of women is alive and well in America's heartland, in case you had forgotten. The culture of America is decidedly anti-feminist, as can be seen in the fact that the culture of the United States has embraced pornography with more gusto than any other civilisation. 20% of american women experience some form of domestic violence in their life. Indeed, the US is one of the world's largest traffickers in women, receiving an estimated 50,000 women to be used as forced labourers, servants and prostitutes each year. It is all too easy, in these trying times, to judge harshly those who least resemble us. It is attractive to concentrate on the perceived flaws in our alleged opponents, as an excuse to ignore our own hypocrisy. The people of Afghanistan, Bin Laden in particular, have merely done what they believe their religion demands of them, and what their people need. It is unjust to judge them by the standards of the US. In order to adopt these standards, they would have to betray their people and their religion.

	You should stop and do some research! (2.66 / 3) (#21)
	by jwales on Tue Sep 25th, 2001 at 09:50:11 PM PST

	The people of Afghanistan, Bin Laden in particular, have merely done what they believe their religion demands of them, and what their people need. It is unjust to judge them by the standards of the US. In order to adopt these standards, they would have to betray their people and their religion. We aren't talking about a difference of opinion about what to eat or wear. We aren't talking about a legitimate difference of opinion on minor religious issues. The Taliban regime is an extremist group of murderous thugs. In Afghanistan, football (soccer) stadiums that were built with Western aid money are not used for football, but for mass public executions of adulterers, homosexuals, critics of the state. In Afghanistan it is a crime to educate girls beyond the age of 12. It's all well and good to find things to criticize about the United States. But you have to keep focussed on reality. You have to remember the full context. If you believe that the people of Afghanistan need vicious repression, I can't help you. But if you were simply mistaken, with a lack of knowledge of what has been going on there, then you need to think long and hard about whether you should be making loud public pronouncement in total ignorance of the facts.

	You are applying a culturally biased view (5.00 / 3) (#22)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Tue Sep 25th, 2001 at 10:10:15 PM PST

	Don't forget that islam is a relatively young culture. What was christianity doing in the fourteenth century of it's existence? It was declaring holy wars on other religions (namely islam), and torturing and publicly executing homosexuals, blasphemers and witches in some nations. Why do we expect their culture to mature more rapidly then ours did, when we do everything we can to inhibit their growth?

	No, not at all (none / 0) (#38)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Sep 26th, 2001 at 09:00:10 AM PST

	Perhaps because Islam does not exist in a vacuum and people can learn from the mistakes of others's history - perhaps because a good portion of the world's Muslims live in the modern world and are 'already' beyond the heinous practices that the Taleban think are the will of God. Besides, Islam is no younger than Christianity, Mohammed showed up a few hundreds years after the death of Christ, but a lot of what is Islam has been around since the time of Abraham and in many ways pre-dates Christianity.

	No, you're mistaken on every count. (none / 0) (#40)
	by jwales on Wed Sep 26th, 2001 at 10:24:56 AM PST

	You should recognize that I'm also sharply critical of what Christianity was doing in the fourteenth century. It is wrong to declare holy wars on other religions, and to torture and publicly execute people for homosexuality, blashphemy, the teaching of girls, adultery, and so on. Why do I expect their culture to mature more rapidly than our did? I don't have any expectations about that at all. Contrary to what you seem to think (and for no apparent reason), I think that we should not do anything to inhibit their growth, and that indeed we should take positive steps now to further their growth. Step one -- we need to help liberate them from this pack of murdering bastards. We can and should take immediate steps (including diplomatic, economic, and military actions) to remove the Taliban oppressors and replace them with a constitutional democratic republic administered initially by the U.N., with conversion to self-rule over the course of 5-10 years. Step two -- we need to insure the stability and prosperity of this new more benevolent government with liberal funding to rebuild the infrastructure, help encourage solid domestic industries with ownership in the hands of the Afghanis themselves. If you're against this, then what are you for? Are you going to join the pack of moral relativists who believe that no atrocity, no matter how large, can be criticized? I don't think so, because I've seen your writing here. You agree with me that some things are right and some things are wrong, although we more than likely do disagree on the details. The things that the Taliban stands for are wrong. If this regime isn't wrong, then I don't see how you can use the word at all! There's a really bad argument floating around these forums to the effect that unless the U.S. and her allies are morally perfect, they are unjustified in taking any action to help these people. I think that's obviously absurd.

	You seem unable to view the US critically (5.00 / 1) (#52)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Wed Sep 26th, 2001 at 03:04:29 PM PST

	Your key assumption is that imprisonment is a less barbaric punishment for crimes than violence or execution. This view is merely a product of westernist thinking, and does not reflect a universal truth about human rights. In the West, we seek to punish the criminal's mind, whereas the Afghanistanis seek to punish his body. The only reasons we see the loss of a hand as more barbaric than a lifetime imprisonment are squeamishness and cultural bias. Violent methods of correction are the only ones reasonably available to the taliban. They are a dirt-poor country; do you expect them to construct gaols to appease your sensibilities? As for the dubious criminality of the people they execute, this is, once again, a matter of cultural bias. They would probably find the lengthy gaol terms given to paedophiles in our culture alarming.

	Are you completely mad? (4.00 / 1) (#53)
	by jwales on Wed Sep 26th, 2001 at 03:59:38 PM PST

	Well, you win, I guess. I'm (almost) completely speechless. I had no idea that our educational system had fallen this far. Your staggering lack of knowledge is apparently only surpassed by your inability to think clearly about what little knowledge you do have. Believe me, I can view the U.S. critically. But that's very much an entirely different matter. The point here, that I'm quite sure you won't grasp today, or tomorrow, or until some point in the future when something somewhere happens to you to make you realize that cultural relativism is false... the point is that if you can't even bring yourself to call the Taliban evil, then you're going to be very hard pressed to mount a coherent critique of anything. Are you critical of the U.S.? I am, and based on my view of the world, I have reason to be. But your position here is that no atrocity, no matter how stunning, can be called evil because, after all, it's just a matter of cultural prejudice. Right? Isn't that what you are saying? If I'm critical -- as I am -- of religionists in America who proclaim that this happened because a lack of prayer in the schools has turned God against us, will you step forward to defend Jerry Falwell, claiming that I'm just being imperialist in my moral views? Get a grip on yourself and stop and think what you're defending. If the crazy mixed up jumble of the United States democratic process is no better than Afghanistan, if it's all just cultural bias, do you propose that perhaps we should, like the Taliban, dispense with the Bill of Rights and just start summarily executing people for various offenses? If not, then why not? Are you not just being culturally biased. I have a feeling I shouldn't have written this much -- I don't think you're interested in reasoning about it at all.

	Is this some sort of joke? (5.00 / 1) (#55)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Wed Sep 26th, 2001 at 05:21:44 PM PST

	So far, I have offered nothing but clear, unbiased argument. For this effort, I have received insults and derision, and the assertion that my lack of zeal against the culture of Afghanistan makes me ill-educated and lacking in reasoning skills! A lesser man would unleash a barrage of personal attacks in response, but the indomitable nobility of my character prevents me from demeaning myself in this fashion. What you have mistaken for relativism is nothing more than a pluralist attempt to assess the ethics of two cultures without reference to any pre-conceived ideas about right and wrong derived from any culture. To make this perfectly cleat, I will state that I do believe that there exists an absolutely correct system of ethics. I am, however, willing to examine the possibilty that the United States is not closer to this than the Taliban. This analysis is a difficult thing to perform, and requires a great deal of introspection. I am aggrieved that you dismiss my efforts at assuming a neutral point of view as that most despicable of heresies. Since an idle discussion such as this can have no greater effect than to challenge and enlighten it's participants, it seems that the most profitable course of action is to examine our own ideas about culture and morality, as well as those of our enemies. There is no great crime in confronting the notion that the value we place on human life in the West is particular to our culture, and somewhat unreasonable to expect of people for whom death is not a distant eventuality, but an everyday presence.

	Maybe I've missed something.. (none / 0) (#71)
	by elby on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 05:39:03 PM PST

	I admit that I haven't read the top of this thread, but could you please confirm or deny for me that you are denouncing the taliban solely on the fact that Afghani citizens under the taliban don't have the equivalent of second amendment rights? -lb

	O.k., perhaps we're getting closer. (none / 0) (#64)
	by jwales on Fri Sep 28th, 2001 at 09:59:38 AM PST

	You say that you believe that there exists an absolutely correct system of ethics. Let's not discuss the relative merits of the U.S. and the Taliban. Let's just focus tightly on the Taliban. Later, after we've finished with the Taliban, we can talk about the U.S. In your view of the absolutely correct system of ethics -- and I understand that you may not have fully formed opinions about all the details of the particulars of that system of ethics -- are you willing to say that the following are morally wrong? 1. Mass public executions for such crimes as adultery, homosexuality, and conversion from Islam to Christianity? 2. Jailtime for cutting your beard? (Unlike your ill-informed comments before, the Afghans don't just kill people because they can't jail them. They jail people, too! For astounding things like having the wrong haircut.) 3. Jailtime for education girls over the age of 12? (I'm not sure if this is a death penalty offense or not -- I can research if it matters to you.) 4. The total elimination of elections in favor of a theocratic dictatorship? Are these things wrong? Are they wrong when they are imposed by a very small fringe minority on a disarmed population? If so, if you're willing to say that those things are wrong, then I'll fully retract my charge of relativism.

	Reading for comprehension: A dying art? (none / 0) (#68)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Fri Sep 28th, 2001 at 06:22:33 PM PST

	In answer to your questions, No, No, No, and No. You have completely failed to grasp the point that the absolute, correct system of ethics may not be based on US mores. Every single point you have made assumes that the a priori basis for and purpose of US morality is valid. This is precisely what we must avoid doing if we are to have a useful discussion. If we were to switch to a discussion of US morality, we would soon see that, for all it's apparent high-mindedness, the USA fails on one point that the Taliban do not; the Taliban are not hypocrites. As for "fringe minority", and "imposed on a disarmed population", I'll just assume you were fast asleep and dreaming when you typed that paragraph. The very statement indicates a tacit support for moral relativism, since you seem to think that the Afghan people have the right to adopt whatever morality appeals to them. Is Afghanistan a disarmed population? Considering they are in a state of civil war, I find this a little difficult to swallow. If a portion of the population has taken up arms against the government, then they are hardly a disarmed population.

	O.k. (none / 0) (#70)
	by jwales on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 09:36:11 AM PST

	You have completely failed to grasp the point that the absolute, correct system of ethics may not be based on US mores. Every single point you have made assumes that the a priori basis for and purpose of US morality is valid. Well, you obviously just made that up, since not only did I not say it, I will vigorously disagree with anyone who does say it. Let me be clear on this point: the "absolute, correct system of ethics may not be based on US mores." Period. If you think I'm saying anything different, then you just aren't listening. As for "fringe minority", and "imposed on a disarmed population", I'll just assume you were fast asleep and dreaming when you typed that paragraph. The very statement indicates a tacit support for moral relativism, since you seem to think that the Afghan people have the right to adopt whatever morality appeals to them. Again, you're just making stuff up if you think anything I said is support -- tacit or otherwise -- for moral relativism. It is the policy of the Taliban -- and one that they are proud of -- to disarm the populace. They have been largely successful in this, although as you point out, there are still rebel groups who are not disarmed.

	I am a hypocrite and I vote. (none / 0) (#72)
	by Anonymous Coward on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 06:59:09 PM PST

	If we were to switch to a discussion of US morality, we would soon see that, for all it's apparent high-mindedness, the USA fails on one point that the Taliban do not; the Taliban are not hypocrites. What is wrong with hypocrasy? Sure Amercans are hypocrites but this is what makes our country great! Part of this hyporcasy is that we americans love to denounce hypocrites. But surely you can't be so culture-bound to invoke this value to support the Taliban! I merely point this out because you seem to strive for the value of consistancy, which is not one of my values either. But I am not totally value free. I believe, for example in educating women, allowing free choice in beard size, and in allowing the obese to wear spandex. And so does my God, who assures me that my ethics are part and parcel of of the one true ethics. And yours are not. Sorry. -- Support the home page homeless.

	Beards? (none / 0) (#75)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 6th, 2001 at 12:20:16 AM PST

	>>>2. Jailtime for cutting your beard? (Unlike your ill-informed comments before, the Afghans don't just kill people because they can't jail them. They jail people, too! For astounding things like having the wrong haircut.) <<< If the Taliban enforce jailtime for cutting off jailtime, how exactly are we to believe that the people whose photos have been released by the FBI as suspects are linked with the Taliban? None of those people on the photos have beards!!! By the way, please do not confuse the Taliban with the "Afghans". If you have a little clue about the region, you might know that the country has been torn apart by civil war, a sure indication that there are many Afghans who do not share, in any way whatsoever, the beliefs and practice of the Taliban.

	I think you will find you are the mistaken one (none / 0) (#56)
	by otak on Thu Sep 27th, 2001 at 04:52:25 AM PST

	There's a really bad argument floating around these forums to the effect that unless the U.S. and her allies are morally perfect, they are unjustified in taking any action to help these people. I think that's obviously absurd. Don't be ludicrous. The moral history of US foreign policy is relevant because the United State's previous disregard for morality (and human rights, and international law, and fairly elementary principles of fairness) throws doubt on whether it is actually taking military action in order to help these people. Every time the US takes military action it is accompanied by the same cry from it's apologists - "This time everything's totally different. No - really". cheers, mike.

	Culturally biased ? (none / 0) (#42)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Sep 26th, 2001 at 10:42:45 AM PST

	> Don't forget that islam is a relatively young culture. So that's the excuse ? We have to give them a few more hundred of years so they don't treat women like cattle, put scarlet letters among the infidels, and steal food from UN charitable organizations ? So if I make up my own religion, and start a Theocracy that is self distructive and opressive, it would be OK and I would have a couple of millenia to get updated ? Wow, what a wonderful apologist you are. Make sure you sign up and join "The Base", I'm sure Usuma would love to have you as the head apologist. That is, if he doesn't kill your infidel ass.

	bullshit (4.66 / 3) (#25)
	by jsm on Wed Sep 26th, 2001 at 12:05:35 AM PST

	We aren't talking about a legitimate difference of opinion on minor religious issues Who's to decide what's legitimate? ... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors ... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

	To each his own (none / 0) (#37)
	by theR on Wed Sep 26th, 2001 at 08:27:55 AM PST

	When we're speaking of religious issues, I would expect that God is the ultimate judge of what are legitimate beliefs and actions, and what is not. In this case, I can honestly say, if God believes actions of the Taliban such as executing homosexuals, adulterers, and critics of the state, treating women as less than men, etc, are legitimate or even required actions, then God can send me straight to Hell when I die, because a woman is a person, indeed adulterers, thieves, and political activists or critics are people, and female children should have the same school opportunities that male children have. If God wants the world to act as the Taliban, or even only Afghanistan to accept all the rules the Taliban imposes, then it is not a God I will bend to, and I will happily accept my punishment in the afterlife. Since God may or may not be actively participating, may or may not exist, I will stand up and say, "Yes, these specific things being done are wrong, yes, these specific things being done are not legitimate!" It's all right to cry, Crying takes the sad out of you. -- Rosey Grier

	Be serious, now. (1.00 / 1) (#39)
	by jwales on Wed Sep 26th, 2001 at 10:14:10 AM PST

	I wrote: We aren't talking about a legitimate difference of opinion on minor religious issues You responded: Who's to decide what's legitimate? Each person is responsible for his or her own thoughts and actions. I decide for myself, you decide for yourself. Take a deep breath, sit back, and think. Is it really just a simple matter of opinion, with no right and wrong, to say that executing homosexuals merely for being homosexual is wrong? When we see that you can be arrested in Afghanistan for educating 13 year old girls, are we to simply smile as such a quaint custom? When we see children of single mothers starving to death because their husbands were murdered by the regime and because the mothers are forbidden to work? I've read some of your posts on this site. You advocate things. You say, and quite rightly, that some things are right and other things are wrong. Is your anti-American bias so great that you are willing to overthrow even the most rudimentary concepts of morality, in order to support and condone the actions of the Taliban regime, simply because they are opposed to America? I don't think so. I think you're just posing.

	Personal Responsibility.... (none / 0) (#62)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 28th, 2001 at 07:34:12 AM PST

	...is a myth.

	Not you (1.00 / 1) (#43)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Sep 26th, 2001 at 10:44:58 AM PST

	> Who's to decide what's legitimate? Surely not you, you have zero perspective. I'm sure the women in Afghanistan , and others opressed there could more than you though.

	Women don't need education (none / 0) (#46)
	by Logical Analysis on Wed Sep 26th, 2001 at 10:56:40 AM PST

	In Afghanistan it is a crime to educate girls beyond the age of 12. You talk like this is a bad thing. In fact, I'm hoping this is implemented in the USA! We too can learn from the successes of the Taliban. For decades we've been hearing from feminists about how men are evil. However, the truth is that it is Men who have contributed the most to this society, not women! Where would we be without the invention of computer programming, by the first computer programmer, Dennis Ritchie. Yes, you heard me right, Dennis, a Man. And who can forget the discovery of Radium by Pierre Curie? Where would we be without the X-Ray? Heck, without the X-Ray armed terrorists could sneak right into our airports!! Last but not least, we have all played with Barbie dolls during our childhoods. It is a little known fact that Barbie was invented by.. you guessed it... a Man: Samuel Speers. Yes, it is true, almost everything good in the world was invented by Men. Ever since Eve first betrayed Adam, Men have been tormented and tortured by women. It is time Men take a stand: Women really have one good use in this world, and that is in producing offspring. So we should encourage this behaviour, by establishing breeding factories where men can go to have sex if they so choose. Furthermore, women who are too old to reproduce can have a positive effect on the world by washing our clothes and making us dinner. It's a win-win scenario! Education will only make women bitter and lazy... we need to help them do what they do best: breeding, cleaning, and cooking! Hey, you can call me a radical, or even an extremist. But they called Martin Luther King Jr. an extremist too, and today he is a hero! The best ideas are the most controversial!

	The people of Afghanistan, Bin Laden in particular (none / 0) (#44)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Sep 26th, 2001 at 10:48:37 AM PST

	> The people of Afghanistan, Bin Laden in particular Laden is not from Afghanistan. He's just a foreign meddler that most likely most people in their country want gone.

	Well.. (3.50 / 2) (#11)
	by Husaria on Tue Sep 25th, 2001 at 07:19:45 PM PST

	This was a very well written article, something you won't find in any Western media. I haven't seen such a well detailed article. It does present him in a fairier light than the West has. Indeed, with Bin Laden's death, you will only piss off more people and you'll have millions of bin Ladens rising up. But, this is how its going to end up, a wild, bloody war which inevitiably we'll have nuclear winter. Sig sigger

	so sad (2.50 / 4) (#12)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Sep 25th, 2001 at 07:44:57 PM PST

	This reminds me of the time when the Shah of Iran was deposed. The Iranians had so convinced themselves that the CIA and Mosad controlled everything that I had a great time telling some Iranians I knew that Kholemi was CIA also. So now I see the same paranoia amongst these "Islam fundementalist that I tell them that bin laden has always worked for the CIA and that his whole plan is a means for the CIA to control the wolrd. Way to go bin laden. Without you the CIA's plan would have never worked.

	Another viewpoint (3.00 / 4) (#13)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Sep 25th, 2001 at 08:14:05 PM PST

	In the first place, since when was the Mujahideen an entirely united force, whereby each and every Mujahideen was allied, friend and supporter of Bin Laden? Has it already been forgotten that Afghanistan is a land of civil war and that there are opposition to the Taliban and Bin Laden? Has it already been forgotten that such oppositions were also very much Mujahideed as well? In his overty-enthusiastic praise of Osama Bin Laden, the author has forgotten that there are many, many Muslims who oppose Bin Laden. He was far from a "celebrity" throughout the entire Muslim world. Indeed, one would not imagine that the Saudi Arabian royal family who, according to the same author, reduced Bin Laden to a common bandit thought of him as a "celebrity". Contradictions are apparent. Secondly, in what sense and criteria is the Wahhabi sect similar to Protestanism? The Wahhabi sect is of the most extreme right-wing variety of Islam, and as such, is far more akin to Catholicism than Protestantism, though the point is moot. The author is evidently trying to drum up support for Bin Laden by portraying him as far less of an extreme right-winger than he actually is. It is also quite evident that the author is a Wahhabi Muslim himself, making such dubious and subjective statements as suggesting that the Wahhabis are "amongst the very holiest and most pious of Muslims" while the rest of the Islamic world having been corrupted by "decadent Western ways" - conveniently leaving out a definition for such a term for which one can measure the validity of such a claim. Ironically enough, the author then proceeds to call Osama Bin Laden a "celebrity" - a term which certainly brings to mind "decadent Western ways". Of course, this is nothing new. As any educated Muslim and historian would know, the Wahhabis have long had a reputation of intensely despising other Muslims, tolerating only those other extreme right-wing varieties, such as the Taliban. Such characteristics are common in all right-wingers, regardless of religion. These right-wingers also tend to have absurd viewpoints such as the notion that "Every Muslim who dies in Jihad is guaranteed a place in Heaven" - even though only Allah and Allah only knows who shall go to Heaven and who shall not. Nothing is guaranteed. Allah is the Judge, Jury, and Executioner - not you, not I, and certainly not Bin Laden. Suggesting that the "USA did not funnel military or financial support to the Mujahideen" is a rather ridiculous claim. It is widely known that Pakistan has been the strongest military and financial supporter of the Taliban - but not all the Mujahideen in Afghanistan - and Pakistan receives their military and financial support from the USA itself. Bin Laden must have been blind if he did not saw any evidence of American help. This whole conflict is nothing more than right-wing elites in one country having problems with right-wing elites in other countries. What exactly is the difference between the corrupted and oppressive Saudi Royal family and the equally corrupted and oppressive Osama Bin Laden? They merely support different forms of corruption and oppression. If the Americans are "are out to culturally reprogram the Afghanis, one of the last pure peoples of the Earth", as this author suggested, then can it not be said that the Talibans too, in alliance with Bin Laden, are also out to culturally reprogram the Afghanis, introducing laws that the Afghanis themselves do not support? As before, the author has conveniently forgotten or ignored the existence of many opposition groups against the right-wing extremists Taliban and Bin Laden. Are not the Taliban culturally repogramming, or at least trying to, these oppositions movements themselves? The author says that the Taliban is not corrupted by Western influence - while yet again, choosing not to provide any definition of what is "western". Certainly, one can wonder whether the usage of military arsenal and financial support from the so-called "West" qualifies as being corrupted by Western influence. One wonders too whether legalising the game of cricket, which originates from Britain, while banning other sports, some of which originated outside the so-called "West", qualifies as such corruption. One questions the strength of the author's own statement when he first says with certainty that the Taliban will not hand Bin Laden over before allowing himself an escape "in the unlikely event that they did decide to hand him over". If the author himself can visualise the possibility that the Taliban can hand him over, then how can the author's statement that they will not do so be regarded seriously? Sweeping generalisation such as the statement that "bin Laden had a big impact there, as he does everywhere" points to the lack of credibility of this article. One can think of many places where bin Laden had little or no impact, including, of course, non-Muslim territories. Then again, this author likes to think that all Muslims are the same, and that there is only one interpretation of Islam, so who is to say that he doesn't believe that Bin Laden has had a big impact in New York, New York? Ironic, isn't it? S. Nasution - a Muslim himself.

	I have to take issue with this (4.50 / 2) (#14)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Sep 25th, 2001 at 08:33:28 PM PST

	Secondly, in what sense and criteria is the Wahhabi sect similar to Protestanism? The Wahhabi sect is of the most extreme right-wing variety of Islam, and as such, is far more akin to Catholicism than Protestantism .. *blink* Are you honestly suggesting that Catholics are more right-wing than Protestants? It's true that Catholics hold strong views about issues like abortion, birth control, etc. .. but the Protestants typically hold these same views and then some. The vast majority of "politically right-wing" Christians are Protestants (Southern Baptists being the worst offenders.) Can you name right-wing Catholics that measure up to people like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Bob Jones, Fred Phelps .. all of whom are Protestants and detest Catholicism? Christian fundamentalism is something that is to be fought tooth-and-nail in the United States, lest we end up like the nations that we are currently deploying armed forces to. And on that front, the Catholics are the least of our worries.

	To see Catholic prejudice, read adequacy (none / 0) (#32)
	by Adam Rightmann on Wed Sep 26th, 2001 at 07:11:45 AM PST

	certain posters seem to have a long standing axe to grind with Catholicism, even calling them by the hateful term Papist. A. Rightmann

	As well they should (none / 0) (#36)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Sep 26th, 2001 at 07:36:20 AM PST

	No need to bash the religion. The practioners provide all the ammo we need.