| Welcome to Urban Bushido. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The Economist's obituary for Osama bin Laden. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 10 2012, 01:30 PM (233 Views) | |
| uB|Quacklesnap | Dec 10 2012, 01:30 PM Post #1 |
![]() ![]()
|
http://www.economist.com/node/18648254 It's really good.
I'm not saying he wasn't a bad guy, but this is a pretty objective article written three days after the death of a man who objectively changed the world. The point of the obituary was to portray him as a man with motivations aside from simply being an evil doer terrorist. I'm always amazed at how much more nuance and depth geopolitics has compared to the most distilled message and narrative that reaches the masses. Here is his letter to America if you care to see his justification for his actions: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6537.htm It's easy to like the bin Laden that criticizes the crony capitalism and utilitarianism that drives the U.S's Middle Eastern policy. It's hard to like the bin Laden that orders death sentences for women who had sex outside of marriage and non-monotheists. Interestingly, the organizations that have depicted him as an evildoer the most, such as Fox News, simultaneously advocated viewpoints that were similar to his own. On another note, if you take an anti-war, socially liberal, secular, social democratic stance, you are diametrically opposed to Osama bin Laden. Many experts, like the CIA analyst Michael Scheuer, have stated that al-Qaeda's ideology was driven by US actions rather than US beliefs. In his words, "they hate us for what we do, not for who we are". Unfortunately, their worldview also perceived many acts that would be seen in the West as non-aggressive in an aggressive fashion. One particularly prominent example of this is the drawings of the Prophet Mohammed that were published in Danish and French newspapers. Our own religious extremists here in the United States have a similar tendency to do so, claiming that bills giving same-sex couples the right to marry are encroaching upon their allegedly moral lifestyle. Coexistence with bin Laden and al-Qaeda is impossible--they'll tolerate us until we inadvertently do something to offend them, and then the 767s will start blowing up again. In summary, bring on the drone strikes, but do it for tolerance, not for the Carlyle Group's mutual fund. |
| |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Political Emporium · Next Topic » |









3:47 AM Jul 11