In comments to the 10/8 post on this weblog, issue was taken to the use of words "reasonable" and "bin Laden" in the same paragraph. The post speaks for itself, but just to belabor the point: Presidents Bush, the one legitimately elected and the other one, have a habit of demonizing former allies in a rather sick, Orwellian way. Noriega was our guy, then, overnight, he was declared "evil"; same with Saddam. 10 years ago, bin Laden was called a freedom fighter, but now he's...insane? Whether or not we agree that the mass killing of civilians by burning, crushing, and defenestration is good way to accomplish political objectives, the 10/7 videotape was our first opportunity to hear the "madman's" demands. Up until that point it was just speculation. Turns out what he's asking for--get the US out of Saudi Arabia; get Sharon to the negotiating table--are desires felt by perfectly sane people all over the world. American journalists (and editorialists) have a responsibility to report this kind of information clearly, rather than construing it any way they want to because the speaker is "crazy."
Hell, what am I talking about? This just appeared in the New York Times: "The five major television news organizations have agreed to follow the suggestion of the White House and abridge future videotaped statements from Osama bin Laden." That's pretty good proof that someone's taking his demands to heart. If our government thought the man was an unpersuasive loon, would they be preventing us from seeing him? Obviously, they're afraid his message will sink in and undermine their ill-advised bombing campaign. And the networks caved right in. What a country.
10/16/01 Postscript: Several of my friends continue to say that the views expressed in this and the previous post are "extreme." They feel that because bin Laden has attacked America in a spectacularly brutal way, and because his pronouncements prior to October 7 proposed wiping out the state of Israel and killing all infidels (or whatever), that my assessment of the October 7 demands as "reasonable" is naive at best and treasonous at worst. As one person put it, "Would you pay serious attention to Hitler's arguments for invading other countries?" The only thing I can say in response is, we ignore or misconstrue our enemies at our peril. Bin Laden's October 7 tape was an adroit bit of propaganda, all the more effective because it contained seeds of truth. The logic of Hitler's argument that Germany needed lebensraum (elbow room) in order to thrive as a nation stopped at the borders of his country. Bin Laden's arguments have much broader appeal. We should rethink our relations with the Saudis and press for a fair settlement of the Palestinian question not because he bombed us, but because it's the right thing to do.
No, no, that's not it at all. He's sending coded messages with his Timex watch. Next target: Sesame Street.
Sometimes you have to destroy freedom in order to save it.
i was just about to link to the times report. i dont see what the fuss is at the networks. they edit bush to try and make him look good.
that sesame street story is incredible. i had no idea bert was muslim to say nothing of militant. its always those shy retiring guys that are harboring the most wrath. whose the pigeon now, huh?
And notice how they spell the name USAma bin Laden...hmmm...
I suspected from the beginning that "Bert" was lurking behind these heinous crimes. USAMA reminds me of the Iran hostage crisis. The poster-makers were very creative in spelling the President's name. It was always DEATH TO JIMMY KHARTAR and the like. Instead of feeling mindless, media-induced hatred, I was charmed. (Slate's Pakistan correspondent reported that the papier-mache Bush burned in effigy before the bombings had a NY Yankees insignia on his chest.) Thanks, Alex, that Post article is note-perfect.
|
In comments to the 10/8 post on this weblog, issue was taken to the use of words "reasonable" and "bin Laden" in the same paragraph. The post speaks for itself, but just to belabor the point: Presidents Bush, the one legitimately elected and the other one, have a habit of demonizing former allies in a rather sick, Orwellian way. Noriega was our guy, then, overnight, he was declared "evil"; same with Saddam. 10 years ago, bin Laden was called a freedom fighter, but now he's...insane? Whether or not we agree that the mass killing of civilians by burning, crushing, and defenestration is good way to accomplish political objectives, the 10/7 videotape was our first opportunity to hear the "madman's" demands. Up until that point it was just speculation. Turns out what he's asking for--get the US out of Saudi Arabia; get Sharon to the negotiating table--are desires felt by perfectly sane people all over the world. American journalists (and editorialists) have a responsibility to report this kind of information clearly, rather than construing it any way they want to because the speaker is "crazy."
Hell, what am I talking about? This just appeared in the New York Times: "The five major television news organizations have agreed to follow the suggestion of the White House and abridge future videotaped statements from Osama bin Laden." That's pretty good proof that someone's taking his demands to heart. If our government thought the man was an unpersuasive loon, would they be preventing us from seeing him? Obviously, they're afraid his message will sink in and undermine their ill-advised bombing campaign. And the networks caved right in. What a country.
10/16/01 Postscript: Several of my friends continue to say that the views expressed in this and the previous post are "extreme." They feel that because bin Laden has attacked America in a spectacularly brutal way, and because his pronouncements prior to October 7 proposed wiping out the state of Israel and killing all infidels (or whatever), that my assessment of the October 7 demands as "reasonable" is naive at best and treasonous at worst. As one person put it, "Would you pay serious attention to Hitler's arguments for invading other countries?" The only thing I can say in response is, we ignore or misconstrue our enemies at our peril. Bin Laden's October 7 tape was an adroit bit of propaganda, all the more effective because it contained seeds of truth. The logic of Hitler's argument that Germany needed lebensraum (elbow room) in order to thrive as a nation stopped at the borders of his country. Bin Laden's arguments have much broader appeal. We should rethink our relations with the Saudis and press for a fair settlement of the Palestinian question not because he bombed us, but because it's the right thing to do.
- tom moody 10-11-2001 12:34 am
No, no, that's not it at all. He's sending coded messages with his Timex watch. Next target: Sesame Street.
Sometimes you have to destroy freedom in order to save it.
- alex 10-11-2001 10:25 am
i was just about to link to the times report. i dont see what the fuss is at the networks. they edit bush to try and make him look good.
- dave 10-11-2001 1:29 pm
that sesame street story is incredible. i had no idea bert was muslim to say nothing of militant. its always those shy retiring guys that are harboring the most wrath. whose the pigeon now, huh?
- dave 10-12-2001 12:32 am
And notice how they spell the name USAma bin Laden...hmmm...
- alex 10-12-2001 2:36 am
I suspected from the beginning that "Bert" was lurking behind these heinous crimes. USAMA reminds me of the Iran hostage crisis. The poster-makers were very creative in spelling the President's name. It was always DEATH TO JIMMY KHARTAR and the like. Instead of feeling mindless, media-induced hatred, I was charmed. (Slate's Pakistan correspondent reported that the papier-mache Bush burned in effigy before the bombings had a NY Yankees insignia on his chest.) Thanks, Alex, that Post article is note-perfect.
- tom moody 10-12-2001 2:50 am