30fuVkingdollars posted:pandora114 posted:It's not that guy's fault he's Osama's son. Not like he had a say over what sperm fertilized his mom's ovum now did he?
i totally agree! it's hard being related to a notorious terrorist and my heart goes out to all his innocent relatives.
how many children did Osama have?
ask how many 'wives' and then try to guess.
[no insult intended to the poor women, they're raised to consider it marriage, but the applicable term is slavery. even king hussien of jordan, who seems to've been regarded as moderate in the west, and who definetly seems to've been an admirable person compared to some, had a quantity of kids by a quantity of different women.]
it's not reasonable to blame anyone for their ancestry. but it isn't at all unreasonable to consider what effect their upbringing has had on who they are.
i heard an interview several mos. ago with the author of a book about the binladen family. [can't recall the title, if you're really interested you could email npr (www.npr.org) and they could probably tell you.] binladen seems to've had a(n older?) brother who was quite westernized, and who he's said to've looked up to, who died before binladen began such extreme activities.
but being, or looking, 'westernized' is not necessarilly going to make that much differance; what matters is a person's core values. i would be very surprised if this man who spain has just denied asylum to does not have several 'wives' and a quantity of children already himself. the british woman who's taken a new name is probably unaware. it's a fact not nearly publicized enough in the west, that that is customary and considered completely acceptable in much of the moslem world. and we are taught not to be predjudiced and are consequently often far too niave.
the crux of it, obviously, is what is meant by 'islamic world' and what is to 'defend' it, and from what. and in an inexpressably unfortunate turn of events, the far right of the west has just convinced an entire generation of the middle east that we are monsters. the binladen family is not from iraq, or even afganistan or pakistan, rather from saudi arabia. the bush family has a history with the saudi royal family, and got people from saudi arabia out of the country quickly after 9/11. but (the older) binladen was considered too radical in his moslem fundamentalism even in saudi arabia. if you read some about that country, you'll realize how alarming something
further right than daily life there is. probably the govt.'s concern about him was the potential for a revolution to overthrow the monarchy, with a theocracy like iran resulting.
the son may mean well, by his lights. but the west is not being unreasonable to think twice about it. he could also be of the exact same views as his father, and simply presenting himself in a fashion more likely to be well-recieved here.
it's sad to see the words 'by any means necessary' above. some means simply don't work, and wouldn't be ethical even if they did. occupying people's home and committing attrocities there is certainly not going to give them a good opinon of the west and help them modernize. turkey's recent modernization of divorce laws and all, required to join the e.u., seems to be the most encouraging news on that front recently (disturbing though their actions against the kurds are). and even in turkey and among moslem communities in western europe 'honor killings', and all sorts of other human rights violations, are customary still. for anyone not familiar with the mideval custom of 'honor killing', it's that if someone female is judged to've been immoral, whether or not she even has, she is often sentenced to death for it, one modern form being that her family forces her to commit suicide.
and the right wing of the west, which has been in charge there, has not even tried to insist on modern first-world laws that respect and (at least legally, whatever happens in practice) guarantee human rights, women's rights, the rights of those whose beliefs are in the minority. any person who is neither sunni nor shiite nor kurd cannot legally be elected to office in iraq, under the arrangements which were designed for powersharing, but which inarguably constitute a thourough violation of the rights of minorities.
there are only two means possible to counter religious extremism, force and reason. at times neither seems to work very well. force as genuine self-defense is not unreasonable, but by now all sides are convinced they're defending themselves. and when it is not self defense and attrocities are committed, it makes it much more difficult to change people's minds. 'any means necessary'? the death of the last person who holds those beliefs? much as i find the beliefs appalling, the 'solution' is equally so, being all too final.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 11/05/2008 08:49PM by labrat.
