Reading With Fakename: The Bin Ladens, Part 2

Since I last posted about this book by Steve Coll–October 16th, only 15 days and it seems like a lifetime ago–I finished it, read a novel by an Irish writer, read a sort-of biography of Florenz Ziegfeld, and am now halfway through Jeffrey Deaver’s latest novel. 

The question I posed last time is, How do you become the world’s most evil man?  Hitler still trumps Osama Bin Laden, but Osama is at least a close second.  I also stated that I don’t believe you get there by ideology alone, that there are serious psychological issues at play, and I stand by that contention. 

Apparently the Koran says that a man cannot have more than four wives at once.  But a man can divorce a woman for any reason at all (such as, I’ve got four wives, and one of you has to go because I want to have sex with someone else, which means I have to marry them.)  The man is still expected to take care of the woman if she has a child by him;  not sure what his obligations are if there are no children, or if the woman is free to remarry if there are no children.  The man is required by the Koran to give a woman thirty days’ notice before he divorces her, which is the Koran’s version of “fairness”.

So Osama’s father, Mohamed, married Osama’s mother when she was 14 years old (approximately, since as I mentioned earlier, births are not celebrated in Islam, or at least in its extreme form).  Osama was born a year later when she was 15, and Mohamed divorced her before she was 18.  She and Osama lived in a huge compound with all Mohamed’s other wives and children, but held a lowly status. 

Osama seems to have worshipped his mother.  I can picture a scenario where it was the two of them against the world, so to speak.  Isolated and out of favor.  There is a particularly spooky quote, where someone says that Osama used to sit at his mother’s feet and “caress” her. 

Many of Osama’s older half-brothers, and even some of his half-sisters, were sent away to boarding schools all over the world–the U.S., Britain, Lebanon (considered the most “liberal” of the Mideast countries).  Osama went to boarding school too, but it had to be in Saudi Arabia.  It’s there, at approximately 15, that he came under the influence of a teacher who was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.  In my opinion, it’s then that his rage and resentment and feelings of neglect came together under the cover of an idea.  The ideology never comes first–the aptitude for it does.  He was ripe for the picking. 

He later said himself that from 15 to 21 is the best age from which to choose people to wage jihad. 

His ideology is not at all uncommon in the Middle East.  Blaming Jews and the U.S. for all ills is rampant.  The difference is the lengths to which Osama was willing to go.  The Koran specifically prohibits killing women and children, for example.  When he was questioned about 9/11, which did just that, he was forced to weasel.  On one hand, as the upholder of “pure” Islam as he fancies himself, he couldn’t say the Koran was wrong.  And he couldn’t say the killing of women and children was accidental.  He had to say, Well, they are killing our women and children, aren’t they?  He is not a great, nor logical, thinker. 

In the end here, what you have is a curious combination of insecurity and megalomania.

So I have revised my opinion as to what we should do about him.  Like many if not most Americans, I’ve held that we should hunt him down like a dog and kill him on the spot.  Now I think that with any luck, it will be the Pakistanis who catch him.  Or the Egyptians, or the Saudis.  Preferably the Saudis.  If we do it, he will only become a martyr, which is what he hopes for and expects. 

It’s the Arab nations who should repudiate and humiliate him.  So he needs to be captured. 

You know, I have a little dog, a Basenji.  Basenjis are African hunting dogs, and classically, they are used in packs to drive small game (e.g., rabbits) into a net, previously strung by the hunters.  That’s what the U.S. needs to be now:  the Basenji.

Advertisements

11 responses to “Reading With Fakename: The Bin Ladens, Part 2

  1. Please cite your source on the quote that bin Laden used to caress his mother.

    This is a highly opinionated piece from you Fakename. I thought I was reading Hannity or Limbaugh here.

  2. And what about all the women and children the Allies, including the U.S., killed with the firebombing of cities in Germany and Japan? Then there was Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    If killing women and children is evil, the U.S. is a contender for #1.

    Fact is, when you believe your side is “right”, nothing is off limits. The U.S. has proved that.

    And let us not forget than when Osama was killing Soviets, we hailed him as a “freedom fighter.”

    The U.S. is a hypocrite. But then, so are all nations that seek to be world “leaders.”

  3. Well, would you look at this. Attacked by my friends. ee, I already cited my source: Steve Coll’s book. It’s a rare day that I get compared to Rush Limbaugh.
    spencercourt: it appears that the U.S. did not ever support Bin Laden or others directly. They funneled money to the Pakistani intelligence services (the ISI) and let them dole it out as they saw fit. But true enough that the U.S. thought their major enemy was the U.S.S.R.
    In the debate world there is a name for what you just did, though I can’t call it to mind, so I will call it “obfuscation”. Use of the atom bomb and 9/11 are not equivalent, but just supposing they were, it would fall into the category of “two wrongs don’t make a right”.

  4. masteroftheuniverse

    The US is not the evil one The atomic bomb and firebombings were responses to evil. The Japanese were the evil in WWII, think back to the Bataan Death March.

    For true evil, Mao and Stalin trump Hitler with numbers of dead alone.

    I love how so many on the left side of the aisle truly believe that the US is the evil one

  5. Jeff…thanks for coming to my defense. Had I not been so shocked, I would have said something similar.
    But don’t lump people into the “left” or “right” side of the aisle. There are nuances on both sides.
    One of the things that always slays me is the idea that “leftists” (i.e., Democrats) are a bunch of pacifist wimps. Not so.

  6. That is classic Sarah Palin (and the rest of the wingnuts) America can do no wrong thinking. The use of a nuclear weapon by anyone is wrong.

    @ Fakename, I know that the claim is in the book but is there a footnote?

  7. You talking to me? Or Jeff? Because if you are talking to me and comparing me to Sarah Palin, then you have completely lost your mind.
    And if you are talking to Jeff, then say so. And try to understand his perspective. If you are so all about what is wrong with America,then consider this: the worst thing is that at the present time we don’t listen to each other. At least we have the freedom to not listen.
    And in answer to your specific question, yes. The book was not an op-ed column. It was based on both combing the records and thousands of interviews with friends of and family members of the Bin Laden family, and it is meticulously recorded.
    Read the book before you start accusing me of bias. I was just trying to learn.
    You and I both read Jane Mayer’s book and agreed about it’s conclusions. How dare you question me in this way? You have made me angry.

  8. I was speaking to both of you. You said that had it not been for him, you would have posted something similar.

    Please email me the entire footnote as I would like to do a little research on it. Thanks in advance.

    “How dare you question me in this way?” Since when did you become the Queen of Sheba? LOL Get over it already. We can’t agree on everything your Fakeness!

  9. Read the book, Nick. I am not your research assistant.

  10. I was attacking no one. I simply presented “facts.”

    Either you believe killing women and children is wrong or you do not. Do not equivocate that is it OK when the perpetrators are on the “right” side but not when they are on the “wrong” side.

    It is hypocritical to say the same action is OK in WW2 for the Allies but not OK for the “other side. “American lives are not any more “worthy” than any other lives. A life is a life.

    So I have no problem with what happened in WW2. I have a problem with all the sentimentality. Once you go to war, nothing is off the table. For both sides.

    My position: it is perfectly OK to kill women and children if they are the enemy.

    U.S. history is replete with evil, from slavery to the attempted genocide of the Native Americans, etc.

    The U.S.is no example to the world. Actually, it is: how NOT to behave in the world.

  11. I kind of knew what your position would be. But you cannot claim to present facts. “Facts” are always colored by our intepretation of them.
    As for killing women and children, granted. Shit happens in war. Unless you specifically target women and children, as in last week’s bombing in Pesahawar. I hate the loss of life, but I hope Al Queda keeps doing this kind of thing. So that everybody gets the point that they are thugs and murderers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s