About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 11:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In the 1930s, Mohammed bin Laden was not a wealthy man. He lived in poverty in Yemen, amid ancient skyscrapers built from mud and grass. However, across the Red Sea, in Saudi Arabia, there was opportunity for construction from the in-coming oil money. Here, Mohammed bin Laden made his fortune. He moved his family there, formed a construction company, and received contracts to build Saudi Royal Palaces. Then, King Abdul Aziz awarded Mohammed bin Laden the contract to renovate the Mosque at Mecca. This was a great honor for a devout Sunni Muslim, and it also made him rich.

Mohammed bin Laden had a large family of about fifty children with twenty sons from four different wives. In 1957, the family resided in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, and Osama bin Laden was born.

In Saudi Arabia, the bin Ladens were technically outsiders but accepted into the inner
circle of the royal family. They traveled to Europe and became worldly, and Mohammed never gave up working on Mosques. He felt blessed. However, in 1968, he died in a plane crash in a dessert in Saudi Arabia. His family inherited his empire.

Osama went on to study management and economics at King Abdul Aziz University. And, like other wealthy Saudis, Osama made trips to Beirut, Lebanon, in the 70s, to have a good time with the vices forbidden in the more conservative Saudi society. He went to nightclubs and chased women and so on, but he was also influenced by the Islamic professors at his university who preached that the salvation of Saudi youth could only be achieved by a return to strict Islamic teaching. And, as he was put in charge of renovating holy mosques in Saudi Arabia, he became very religious, like his father.

At this time, in the late 70s, Saudi Arabia was going through political turmoil and blaming it on influence from the west, and Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini had overthrown the Shah and taken American hostages. Then, on December 26th, 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. There was a call for Jihad, for Muslims everywhere to come to the aid of this Muslim country and fight off the evil atheists. The United States entered the conflict on the side of the Afghanis, and President Carter called for a boycott of the 1980 summer Olympics held in the Soviet Union.

Osama bin Laden was on the side of the Americans in that battle. He answered the call of Jihad, and met others who shared his passion to defend the faith. He provided aid with his family’s fortune, and he used bulldozers from his construction company to build defense lines. Sometimes, he drove these bulldozers himself, during bombings. This made him a hero in the eyes of many Muslims. He didn’t have to put himself in harm’s way. Yet, he used his money, his influence, and also got down and dirty with the fighters of the ground.

In 1986, the United States sent stinger missiles and helped turn the tables on the Soviets. The Soviets pulled out in 1989, and this was the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union and the cold war.

Osama compared himself to Saladin, who fought against the Crusades. When he returned home to Saudi Arabia, he was regarded as a hero.

On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait, and the Saudis feared they might be next. When they asked for help from the Americans, Osama objected. In his eyes, they were making a deal with the infidels. He didn’t like the idea of non-Muslims, mostly interested in Arabian oil and supporting Jews, enemies of Islam, on Muslim soil attacking a Muslim country. He warned that once the U.S., once in Saudi Arabia, would never leave. Osama fell out of favor with his former friends, the royal family of Saudi Arabia, who were also criticized by Islamic fundamentalists for being too moderate, and, in April of 1991, Osama left Saudi Arabia for Afghanistan and then the Sudan, where a militant Islamic government had taken power. He was more than welcomed there.

Osama flourished in the Sudan. He started construction companies and met with hundreds of extremist Muslims, like himself, who shared his views about the Americans. He lived quietly and had several wives and children. However, he was quietly forming his organization of Al Qaeda.

In 1992, U.S. troops were sent to Somali for a humanitarian relief effort. On October 3, 1993, a Blackhawk helicopter went down and the bodies of Americans were dragged through the streets. Years later, Osama took credit for sending his Al Qaeda members there to cause that incident, but there was never conclusive evidence of his involvement.

In 1993, there was the first attack on the Trade Center in New York. It killed six and wounded a thousand. The bomber, Ramsey Yousef, was caught and, when searched, a card with Osama’s name on it was found.

In 1994, the Saudi government revoked his citizenship and moved to freeze his assets. His family, then, disavowed him.

Several terrorist attacks against Americans have been blamed on Osama, and, when asked, he doesn’t affirm or deny. He says, “This is Jihad, the holy war.” He is not the centerpiece, but he supports any actions which will get Americans off Muslim soil.

In 1996, under pressure from the United States and Saudi Arabia, Sudan expelled Osama to Pakistan. In this country, also a radical Muslim country, he is harder to find than even in Sudan. From there, though, he could also return to Afghanistan to help the Taliban. He was helped by his old friends and allies.

When interviewed, Osama defended himself. When accused of calling for violence against innocent people, something forbidden in the Quran, he said that Americans don’t distinguish between civilians and military. They dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. His call for religious war applies to all who support the killing of Muslims.

In many of the terrorist attacks on Embassies in Africa, which were credited to Al Qaeda, Muslims were killed. Osama said that this was Allah’s will.

To many people, Osama is still a hero because he makes Americans crazy. President Clinton fired millions of dollars worth of missiles at training camps where Osama’s people had already left, and this is seen as a victory for Osama. The U.S. was also embarrassed about not being able to cut off Osama’s economic support, and they keep spending millions of dollars in security against attacks by Al Qaeda. Many people respect Osama bin Laden for having this power over Americans, and even terrorist attacks which are not directly ordered by him are said to be inspired by him.

bis bald,

Nick


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 5:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nick -

Not that I mind, but is this dissent?

Andy

Post 2

Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 7:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You don't think Osama bin Laden would be considered a dissenter?

It is not Objectivism. It is related to philosophy and should be of interest to Objectivists.

If Objectivists think others should try to understand Objectivism before criticizing it, shouldn't Objectivists also try to understand other phlosophies which are not Objectivism, which Objectivists criticize?

Anyhow, I'm not allowed to post anywhere on this site other than on this forum.

bis bald,

Nick


Post 3

Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 10:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Osama Bin Laden is more admirable to me then Ronald Reagen, who's administration funded and basically created Osama's power and influence.

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Sunday, August 27, 2006 - 11:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Osama Bin Laden is more admirable to me then Ronald Reagen, who's administration funded and basically created Osama's power and influence."

Explain.

Post 5

Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 12:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It takes some guts for an American to say Osama is admirable in any way. It is like saying Hitler did some good things. And, it is dangerous to criticize America without sounding unpatriotic. However, it is important to remember that America has done some bad things. American and Britain did support Osama when they thought they were protecting Afganistan from the Soviet Union. They didn't expect that radical Islam would be the next big threat after the USSR fell. We always have to have our villian. And, perhaps Islamists like it this way. They are finally getting attention which they didn't have when the Soviet Union was the big bad.  

We blame Osama for killing innocent people on 9/11. We should put in perspective that the United States killed many more innocent people at one time when it dropped bombs on Japan. They are killing innocent people now. They can be criticized. Yes, what happened on 9/11 is personal, but it is not like humans in other parts of the world are less human than Americans and less deserving of respect for their natural rights than Americans.

bis bald,

Nick   


Sanction: 25, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 25, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 25, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 12:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nick,

Your post number 5 is a disgusting piece of context dropping trash.

Ethan


Post 7

Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 3:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You have a right to your opinion. Your support for it seems a bit weak. Perhaps you should work on presenting an argument. You might come across less ignorant and have greater credibility.

Nick

(Edited by Mr. Nicholas Neal Otani on 8/31, 3:59pm)


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 5:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Being called "ignorant" by you is a compliment :-) I don't waste my time arguing with those who are immune to reason.

Ethan


Post 9

Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 6:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I won't be provoked into a flame war with someone who can't tell the difference between being called ignorant and being told that certain actions may help one not to come across as ignorant.  Saying that I'm immune to reason is a good excuse not to offer any reason in support of your accusations. There may, however, be other reasons.

Nick


Post 10

Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 6:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nick, your response was right on target for what I was thinking.

I'll follow up on my idea but am busy for now.
(Edited by Dustin
on 8/31, 7:30pm)

(Edited by Dustin
on 8/31, 7:30pm)


Post 11

Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 8:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Dustin.

I wouldn't mind knowing why this guy thinks my post is so disgusting and trashy, but he hasn't really presented any reasons to which I can be immune.

bis bald,

Nick


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Friday, September 1, 2006 - 5:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nick -

"American and Britain did support Osama when they thought they were protecting Afganistan from the Soviet Union"

Wrong; They supported the *resistance* against the soviets, of which Osama was a part; Saying that America supported Osama is false.

"We should put in perspective that the United States killed many more innocent people at one time when it dropped bombs on Japan."

To win a war against faschism; Surely you accept that civilian casualties are going to be a part of a war, whether conducted for moral ends or otherwise?

Andy.

Post 13

Friday, September 1, 2006 - 9:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
(Nick)America and Britain did support Osama when they thought they were protecting Afganistan from the Soviet Union.

(Andy)Wrong; They supported the *resistance* against the soviets, of which Osama was a part; Saying that America supported Osama is false.

(Nick)Logically, if Osama was part of the resistance and the US and Britain supported the resistance, then they supported Osama. And, Osama was more directly involved then just beng a minor part of the resistance. He received contracts and became more wealthy and powerful than he already was.

(Nick)We should put in perspective that the United States killed many more innocent people at one time when it dropped bombs on Japan.

(Andy)To win a war against faschism; Surely you accept that civilian casualties are going to be a part of a war, whether conducted for moral ends or otherwise?

(Nick)If you think the civilian casualities can be justified in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, whether moral or otherwise, then you would be a hypocrite to condemn the civillian casualities at Pearl Harbor or at 9/11. Nobody will ever convince me that that bombing was moral or that any of these killings of innocent civilians, especially on the scale at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, can be justified.

As you know, I am of Japanese heritage. My father, who died on 14 July, was a Niesi, a second-generation Japanese American, and he served in the 442nd Division during WWII while his mother and sister were in relocation centers at Tule Lake in Northern California. After receiving a Bronze Star and Purple Heart, my father was still not allowed to eat in certain resturants when he returned to America after the war. 

I condemn the killing of innocent civilians at Pearl Harbor and at 9/11, but I also condemn the killing of innocent civillians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Dropping the bombs there was not something for which America should be proud.

bis bald,

Nick



Post 14

Friday, September 1, 2006 - 10:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I dont think you can give the thumbs up to mass killing of civilians because it was against "fascists". After all, most of the Middle East views The United States as a fascist enemy guilty of imperialism. This imperialism helped to create Osama Bin Laden, though. The United States was eager to snub out Communism world wide after it's tiring campaigns in southeast Asia in which plenty of civialians died. The CIA under Ronald Reagen funded the Mujah Hadin and Osama Bin Laden and his crew willngly to help with their chances of defeated the Soviet Union. Nowadays, it's terrorists such as the media king Osama that have to be hunted, not communists.

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 4:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nick -

"Logically, if Osama was part of the resistance and the US and Britain supported the resistance, then they supported Osama. And, Osama was more directly involved then just beng a minor part of the resistance. He received contracts and became more wealthy and powerful than he already was."

Semantics aside, the CIA (When funding the resistance) weren't sure where the money was going within the resistance; They never tried to give money to Osama Bin Laden, they only gave money to the resistance who gave out the money as they saw fit. Whilst we're not technically disagreeing, you seem to be implying that America at one point or other wrote a big fat cheque out to a Mr Bin Laden, which isn't true. He received some American money that was put into Afghanistan, that does not mean he was given the money.


"If you think the civilian casualities can be justified in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, whether moral or otherwise, then you would be a hypocrite to condemn the civillian casualities at Pearl Harbor or at 9/11."

Oh dear...

Pearl Harbor - Pre-emptive attack on a sovereign nation that in no way conformed to the rules of engagement.

9/11 was a terrorist attack that took place on a sovereign nation with NO provocation.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were against nations that we were already at war against which complied with the rules of engagement. A lengthy discussion was had on whether the citizens of a faschist country were truly innocent on either RoR or SoloHQ, I suggest you look it up. Many people more eloquent than I have written a lot more than I have time to do on this subject.

"Dropping the bombs there was not something for which America should be proud."

Nor ashamed, Nick.

"I dont think you can give the thumbs up to mass killing of civilians because it was against "fascists". After all, most of the Middle East views The United States as a fascist enemy guilty of imperialism."

...

www.google.com

Search for "Ayn Rand Moral Relativism" and see what comes up.

Andy.

Post 16

Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 8:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andy, first you say, "for moral ends or otherwise,...", then you make a case for Pearl harbor and 9/11 being immoral and while Hiroshima and Nagasaki were moral. This is a matter of perspective. While I agree that we were at war with Japan and defending ourselves was justified, I think the atomic bomb was overkill. 

"Dropping the bombs there was not something for which America should be proud."

Nor ashamed, Nick.
Yes, I think we should be ashamed.

bis bald,

Nick



Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 10:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nick -

I said civilian casualties are part of a moral conflict, and the fact that there are civilian casualties does not mean that the conflict was immoral. I've maintained a cogent position on this through my entire debate with you.

"This is a matter of perspective."

Yes; One is right, the other is wrong. I am right, you are wrong.

"Yes, I think we should be ashamed."

Did the American's not have the right to defend their homeland and soil against a hostile enemy? If they did, Why should there have been an upper limit of casualties the American's were allowed to cause in one attack? Why?

It was good versus evil, and good won. The Manhatten project wasn't the signal of an evil power gaining weapons in order to cause civilian casualties, it was the sign of a nation who was prepared to defend it's principles against an enemy who attacked it without any kind of warning, without any kind of respect for the rules of engagement. If Japan was not going to have any respect for American civilians, why should it be applied vice versa?

I think you're suffering from bias here, due to your heritage; You need to look at this objectively from the view of right versus wrong; Once you've truly thought about it and picked a side, I'll be very, VERY suprised if you still consider the American actions against the evil Japanese regime "shameful", or however you would describe it.

I await your response.

Andy.

Post 18

Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 2:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I said I agreed that America was justified in defending itself but that dropping the atomc bomb was overkill. It was not eye for an eye. It was like taking a head for an eye.

I don't think I want to discuss this here. You are not taking me seriously enough. Perhaps if atomic bombs were dropped on your relatives, you would have a different perspective.

Nick


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 6:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nick -

Well, I can't argue with much of that.

"It was like taking a head for an eye."

If a burglar enters my house, I will kill him. Disproportionate? Perhaps, bu also justified.

"Perhaps if atomic bombs were dropped on your relatives, you would have a different perspective."

Perhaps, but not if I were an objectivist.

Andy


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.