TED Conversations

Bill Harrison

TEDCRED 10+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

What is the strongest possible case for Osama bin Laden?

After the initial celebrations in New York (I and other Americans really needed the testosterone boost) I began to notice a lot of people in my facebook and twitter feed saying that it's wrong to celebrate a death. I disagree, because, again, testosterone.

But then I started thinking that even a decade after 9/11, I still don't understand OBL's motivations beyond the cartoon-y "hatred of freedom" meme. Governments have labelled Julian Assange a terrorist, but that doesn't mean he's "bad." If I hadn't taken the time to understand Julian's motivations, I might have believed the official narrative instead of seeing Assange as an intelligent, sympathetic human being. So in true Art of War fashion, I want to hear the strongest, most sympathetic possible case for Osama bin Laden, beyond the cartoon-y "they hate our freedom" meme.

The strongest case I've found thus far is from CNN's Osama timeline:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/02/bin.laden.timeline/index.html

In his own words: "The U.S. today, as a result of the arrogant atmosphere, has set a double standard, calling whoever goes against its injustice a terrorist," he said in the same interview. "It wants to occupy our countries, steal our resources, impose on us agents to rule us, and then wants us to agree to all this. If we refuse to do so, it says we are terrorists."

He also tried to assassinate Hosni Mubarak in 1995, a man who we all now agree is "bad," though we supported him for years.

That's what I've gathered thus far, but in the spirit of "seek first to understand, then to be understood," what is the strongest possible case you can make for Osama bin Laden? Were any of his motivations legitimate?

Related Talks:
+5
Share:
progress indicator
  • thumb

    anthony bruni 30+

    • 0
    May 10 2011: One of the problems with celebrating BL death is it validates his life. So much energy is going into celebrating his death that we should take a moment to realize we are providing him with some postmortem validation that is undeserved. I do find many people condescending though when people make this point. Yes he was human, but he did do as much as anyone could to alienate himself from any sympathy. In this war on terror there has been too many causalities on all sides to leave any emotion for someone who was willing to kill so many for so little (ideas should justify life not death). Maybe the problem is not us celebrating his death, but it leaves less time to morn those who should be, and think rationally about how to remedy this disaster.

    As for his motivation sure many of them were legit, many not, but one has to look at his methods, which were not acceptable at all. If I were to empathize with him all I can see him as is a spoiled child who blows things, and people up when he does not get his way. Even this line of thought though is erroneous though, since a child rarely means to inflict harm, but only to express anger. Plus a temper tantrum is never methodically planed.
  • thumb

    TED 10+

    • 0
    TED Staff
    May 9 2011: We have removed several comments from this Conversation for being off-topic. While we welcome differing opinions, we ask you to engage in respectful discussions and refrain from posting off-topic comments.

    Please feel free to start new Conversations as new ideas start to formulate via the discussions.

    Thank You,

    TED Conversations Admin
    conversations@ted.com
    • thumb

      Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+

      • +1
      May 9 2011: With all due respect admin you have holllowed out this very discerning exchange..lost a very critical part of what we have all been endeavoring in good faith to build here. Please re examine all that you removed in the context of the entire conversation and you will see how essential what you removed was.We have been s, truggling here, pretty much on our own, though Sam has stopped by, to actually apply Sam's idea of Radical empatthy and see how it plays out.what questions it raises. One of us who has railed against the whole premise of this conversation challenged any of us to apply radical empathy to Pol Pot...which Bill our host did with a clarity and wisdom that was an excellent application of "radical empathy" as we have thrashed it out amongst ourselves here. My comment saying that to Bill was also removed .Yes, Bill framed this question using Bin Laden as a reference but the point was..to visit and apply radical empathy. Our entire conversation , an excellent one and I think a superb example of what was intended in TED Conversations, has been about exploring what radical empathy means and how it works in application to real life events. Bill's reply to his challenger really brought us to a clear new level in exploring radical empathy. Bill is the consummate gentlemen. His tone and manner were the very standard of civil.I respectfully request that this entire segment be reinstated with an explanation as to its removal in the first place.I hope you still have it in tact and can reinsert it exactly as Bill wrote it..for if you have destroyed it you have interfered with a conversation again, that in every way is a model of what was intended in TED conversations. An apology would just not do if this is not still available to put back as awhole as Bill wrote it.

  • Comment deleted

    • Comment deleted

  • Comment deleted

    • thumb

      Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+

      • 0
      May 8 2011: Very well argued..I have to give that some thought....you are pointing perhaps to the limits of radical empathy..or suggesting that if radical empathy is a useful practice in our lives that there is a line in the sand beyond which....no more rdaical empathy...?

      What comes to mind is a statement a young German woman made at my conversation on the meaning of Bin Ladens slaying to us personally..she said the Germans didn't understand what they had done until the war was over.. I encouraged more from her..on that...t I thought she might be pointing to the great international popularity of eugenics at the tim e of Hitler's rise to power. And here I am in thin ice and would need Sam to speak"officially " for "radical empathy" in this..but I would say, based on my understanding of radical empathy and with respect for your point about limits..that being able to recognize that Adolf Hitler was supported by a widespread popularity of eugenic s is radical empathy..the line you point to is drawn at the action he took on those beliefs. Does that out us anywhere near on the same page as respects Radical Empathy and the limits you are suggesting?

      • Comment deleted

        • thumb

          Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+

          • 0
          May 9 2011: I will leave it to you and Sam and I agree that the answers to your questions might help us all to push our exploration of radical empathy a little further.I wonder though if for the rest of us you could just state in simple english what is behind your questions to Sam. I agree the particulars of Sam's quote which I brought forward here (To the british the founding father's were terrorists) don't hold up. Our founding fathers had very different strategies and very different aims. Your list of particulars takes me again to the questions of limits of Radical Empathy or at least to limits I draw in myself. ( Radical Empathy is only of interest to me if its practice builds my life towards more worthy insights and actions--I have no interest in pure academics). I think our founding fathers were on to a very wise thing in trying to guanatee religious freedom by separting church and state. I consider freedom of religion and freedom of speech to be universal rights of all people. Throughout all these discussions spinning off Sam's TED talk most have agreed that radical empathy does not include any acceptance or approval of acts by person s or governments which violate the freedom and basic dignity of anyone.

      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

        • thumb

          Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+

          • 0
          May 9 2011: I agree that being controversial claims no ground at all by itself.. but I don't see anything in any of these conversations that I would consider falsehoods? What are youtalking about?

      • Comment deleted

        • thumb

          Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+

          • 0
          May 10 2011: Hi Richard...just adding a footnote as I hadn't seen your reply above to my mistaken interpretation of "your conversation", when I discovered my mistake and erased my comment. My apologies..
    • thumb

      Bill Harrison 10+

      • 0
      May 9 2011: So, I'm not Sam Richards, but I see what he was saying.

      The American Revolutionaries were fighting against British Imperialism and they used guerrilla warfare tactics considered extremely dishonorable by the British, but which we accept today as a given. They used camouflage, ambushes, hit-and-run tactics etc. But they fought conventionally when they had the manpower to win conventionally.

      OBL's strategy was similar in some respects - he knew he could not beat the American military head on, so his goal was to bankrupt the US by sending us into expensive, intractable conflicts like Afghanistan. We consider it dishonorable to kill women, children, and civilians, but in OBL's words:

      "The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want.

      The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq."

      I disagree that the American people have as much say in what their government does as OBL believes. And I think OBL was using the US as a scapegoat outgroup to support his insane idealistic vision. And reading OBL's statements confirms for me that, yeah, he was a nut. But even crazy people are people, and they deserve our empathy. Empathy (and humanizing your enemies) is one of the main difference between "the good guys" and "the bad."

  • Comment deleted

    • thumb

      Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+

      • 0
      May 8 2011: Hi Nichola.. above ( or below) just replied to Richard and am wonderimg if you are also pointing to the the limit sof empathy..a place byeond which tere can be no empathy, no tolerance acts which so universally offend humanity there can only be universal unequivocal condemnation. If so..I agree completely.

      • Comment deleted

        • thumb

          Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+

          • 0
          May 9 2011: Nichola, thanks for your clarification..I am connecting now more to your point.I am not sure I woud agree though that "no one supporting this experiment experienced empathy they did not already have" I can only speak for myself, of course, but I would say the TED Conversations spinning off from Sam's idea of radical empathy against a background of my own research on Libya, Egypt and oit did take me to new territory, to new insights, and from there to new and important questions about what my country is really doing in the world. In my case the act of considering that Bin Laden as a revolutionary hereo to many, that Qadhaffi ( my spelling I have chosen out of thousands) considers himself a revolutionary leader has helped me to understand the very different headlines in middle eastern newspapers. I have acually experienced a kind of revelation about my country's place in the world..it's motives..I definitely didn't come to these conversations with the views I now hold and am still exploring.
  • thumb

    Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+

    • 0
    May 8 2011: Wanted to bring this quote from Sam Richards here from his conversation (Does the Preseenter Make a Difference..not corrcet title.forgive me Sam). It thinkthis quite provides exactly the right set up to this courageous talk you ae hosting Bill and maybe gives us an avenue into the idea of "radical empathy


    ""Remember, the Founding Fathers were considered to be "terrorists" by the British." (Sam Richards)
  • thumb

    Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+

    • 0
    May 7 2011: Noam Chompsky's case for Bin laden

    "We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic"

  • Comment deleted

    • thumb

      Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+

      • 0
      May 7 2011: Hi Richard..must have missed this whole chapter sorry..

      • Comment deleted

        • thumb

          Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+

          • 0
          May 7 2011: Richard I didn't see what you wrote..or see hamids comments. Do you feel that they were on topic ( the topic being radical empathy as applied to Bin Laden) and otherwise in alinement with the TED Conversation stanadrads we all agree to abide by here? If so, I am sure tgey will be restred by TED admin. ( Ted Admin had to have removed them)
        • thumb

          Debra Smith 200+

          • 0
          May 8 2011: "Nurture your mind with great thoughts: To believe in heroes makes heroes."
          - Benjamin Disraeli

          Richard this quote reminds me of you.

          I was not paying attention to this thread at that time either- what's happening?
    • thumb

      TED 10+

      • 0
      TED Staff
      May 8 2011: Dear Richard,

      We do not remove comments based on opinions. We welcome differing points of view as long as you respectfully follow TED.com Terms of Use http://www.ted.com/pages/conversations_terms
      To avoid generating off-topic threads, let's discuss the reasons of your comment removal via email.

      Thank You,
      TED Conversations Admin
      conversations@ted.com
      • thumb

        Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+

        • 0
        May 8 2011: oh good..glad you are going to go over this with Richard..even if the decision is to not reinstate the comment I wonder if you could post here, with Richards permission of course, the guidance on that.. I think it would help all of us in TED Conversations....
  • thumb

    Debra Smith 200+

    • 0
    May 7 2011: I submit this TEDx Vancouver tallk to add a bit of balance and perspective to the debate;

    http://youtu.be/soqtTCeczbM
    • thumb

      Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+

      • 0
      May 8 2011: excellent share debra..I am posting it at another conversation "What Do you think of the Aab Revolutions..(not exact title)

  • Franklin Richardson

    • +3
    May 6 2011: @ Bill - Kudos for having the courage to even ask such a question. Though some might castigate you as a terrorist sympathizer, there is merit to the question.

    First, to be clear, the world is a better place without bin Laden and his evil ways. I don't defend him at all and like many I was somwhat gratified when I heard the news.

    Having said that, I remember to the days immediately following 9/11 and how my patriotic dander was up. I was angry, American, and wanted to kick somebody's ass. It took several weeks for me to settle down and actually contemplate, "What could America be doing so wrong so as to engender this kind of desparate hatred?"

    The truth is this: The American way of life has an impact - usually quite negative - on the Middle East and other devloping nations. Our foreign policy is aimed at protecting our all consuming way of life, and it would be political suicide for our leaders to fail in this area. Make no mistake, the primary role of the President is to makes sure that we American's can continue to consume to our heart's content regardless of the impact it has on others around the world. You hear it all the time in the media when you hear the phrase, "American interests."

    As an American, I need to drive my 2 children to school in my 8 passenger SUV, and it's ridiculous that I have to pay $4.35/gallon of gas to make that happen... Mr. President, I don't care what little brown person from some foreign country you have to step on to fix the problem, git 'er done.

    So yes, there is merit to the argument that America's policies exploit people all over the world. Yes, there is merit to the fact that we ally ourselves with, and prop up oppressive governments in the name of "American Interests." Yes there is merit to the fact that in the pursuit of the Americn way of life, we crush the economic aspirations of others.

    In addition to being evil, bin Laden undermined his own cause by taking the focus off the problem and made it about terrorism.
    • thumb

      Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+

      • 0
      May 7 2011: + kudos to you Franklin.well said..(your point about Bin Laden undermining himself is an excellent one...whole good topic all by itself..book actually) You are right that it takes courage to have this conversation..especially in a public forum at a time when many in the world for many difering eresaons are looking to Bin Laden's death..and its circumstances..Ittakes courage to even consider why so many nations hate and resent us..to look at the world as global citizens . Thank you Franklin

    • Comment deleted

      • thumb

        Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+

        • 0
        May 8 2011: I'm not undertsanding what you are saying..can you dumb it down for me?
      • thumb

        Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+

        • 0
        May 9 2011: Nichola, as per above (or below--Ted threads are a mystery) beginning to come through. First, if you look closely, while you & Richard both have very strong critcisms of Radical Empathy..it is from very different places. You are walking under very different banners..so your point will just drop out if you drop out. You seem to be making a blanket judgment that all of us who have been willing to consider and work through the value of radical empathy were alerady there and have gone no where..that all of us who are willing to explore radical empathy are apologists and cheerleaders for it that our engagement with the idea of radical empathy hasn't brought any of us to any place different than we already were. Is that pretty much your point? Well if it is, may I say that I tend not to put much store by folk who make blanket statements about any other group of people..its just not the most fructifying way to see and understand world events or even conversations. Radical empathy if any thing is a call to jump outside of that kind of thinking..to make a very personal connection..a connection from personal truth to an event, a person, to a comment or remark here at TED Conversations. I think we need the heart of what you are pointing to here in TED conversations and I hope you will be present to make sure that is here..that what we reach for here is more than just glad handing and thumbs upping each other from inside our own closed little systems. Keep us on our toes. But maybe consider that such balnket statements and broad acusations rarely bring thoughtful responses.

  • Comment deleted

    • thumb

      Bill Harrison 10+

      • 0
      May 6 2011: Hi Richard,

      It doesn't take a genius to figure out the many, many flaws in OBL's reasoning. Even if the US is imperialistic, that doesn't necessarily entail that violence is the best resistance. Atheists like myself (and probably most Muslims) will likely find his use of phrases from the Qur'an to justify jihad (in his 1998 fatwa) unconvincing:
      http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1998.html

      But the point of the exercise is to do the difficult thing, which is to empathize with and not dehumanize your enemy. Ezra Klein recently wrote a piece on OBL worth reading:
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/osama-bin-laden-didnt-win-but-he-was-enormously-successful/2011/05/02/AFexZjbF_story.html

      "Bin Laden, according to Gartenstein-Ross, had a strategy that we never bothered to understand, and thus that we never bothered to defend against. What he really wanted to do — and, more to the point, what he thought he could do — was bankrupt the United States of America."

      So you can continue insinuate that trying to understand OBL is somehow un-American. Or you can acknowledge that not even trying to understand your enemies' interests and motivations makes for extremely stupid foreign policy -- particularly when trying to combat a decentralized threat like terrorism in the digital age.

      • Comment deleted

        • thumb

          Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+

          • 0
          May 6 2011: @ Birdia "I have Questions about Israel & Palestine"Exactly and is that different from what Sam means by radical empathy. Stepping outside of our own opinions, belief, ego, national identity, just long enough not to give a canned reply..just to be present with and maybe even explore a bit what "the other" is saying. Radical empathy doesn't require, I don't think, (Sam would have to clarufy..its his term).forgiveness, endorsement or approval. Isn't it just a practice of notocing when our reaction is "canned" and automatic, cathing our selves in that monet before we speak, before act, even if its is just long enough to notice that's what we are doing. And if we can teachourselves not to speak from that automatic respone place..wouldn't we all see more, know more, get more at the whole truth?,,
        • thumb

          Bill Harrison 10+

          • +2
          May 6 2011: @Richard: Okay, we can spell out the same arguments I state above more explicitly: 1.) Gandhi overthew British imperialism nonviolently. The Egyptians overthrew the Mubarak government in 18 days using social media. Justification for violence requires that peaceful, nonviolent methods be exhausted AND that violence if used is limited with a reasonable possibility that it will achieve legitimate ends. 9/11 did not end US imperialism and led to further Iraqi deaths. Therefore, violent resistance by OBL was not justified.

          2.) There are an infinite number of plausible interpretations of holy books, which can be used to justify basically anything you want to do. OBL's use of the Qur'an to justify violence therefore says more about him than about whatever Allah wants, so his quoting of the Qur'an to justify violent jihad demonstrates flaws in reasoning.

          The spirit of your statement that "You will find a lot of like minded people. Then nod your heads and give each other high fives" means that you take this question to mean that you have to fully agree with what OBL and terrorists do in order to understand what they do. But empathy doesn't require agreement, just understanding. You can empathize with autistic kids and still see how they can be mistaken with respect to other people's theory of mind.

          I can see how you think the best "possible" case for OBL means that we have to agree with his assumptions. But you don't have to agree with him in order to try to look through his eyes.

          Birdia's response falls well within the scope of the question.

          The word "possible" is there so that we would be cognizant of the ways in which he was obviously wrong - one example: his condemnation of the US for not following Shariah law clearly contradicts the US's legitimate value in the legal separation of church and state. To a reasonable person, that's not a possible case for him.

          Empathy is too nuanced for black-and-white thinkers, which is part of the point.

    • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

        • thumb

          Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+

          • +1
          May 6 2011: actually I disagree that it is not what is being asked here. I think Bin Ladens statement in hi s own words to America, which is what Birdia has brought us, is excatly and centrally to th e point" what i sthe best case you can make for bin Laden" what am I missing, Riichard?

          do you disagree with his own words, below ( I know you don't). And isn't that what sam was speaking of in Radical Empathy?

          Where is Bill anyway?
        • thumb

          Bill Harrison 10+

          • 0
          May 6 2011: Yeah, that's well within the scope of the question. I may have to ask another question, "Does empathizing with someone necessarily mean you fully agree with the conclusions they draw from their perspective?"

          Richard seems not to see where we're coming from, though he thinks he does. Richard, I see where you're coming from, but you're projecting :P
        • thumb

          Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+

          • 0
          May 7 2011: Hi Bill..I was wonderimg where you were...Richard,did you see Sam's Ted Talk about Radical Empathy?
      • thumb

        Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+

        • 0
        May 6 2011: very powerful..just one quote from it that we are hard pressed to deny as a nation I think

        From Osama Ben Laden

        "Let us not forget one of your major characteristics: your duality in both manners and values; your hypocrisy in manners and principles. All*manners, principles and values have two scales: one for you and one for the others. (a)The freedom and democracy that you call to is for yourselves and for white race only; as for the rest of the world, you impose upon them your monstrous, destructive policies and Governments, which you call the 'American friends'.how would you reply Birdia..too long to make a complete reply but what among the "indictments" listed there would you most want to reply to..or think the US should reply to? (by the way..nice to see you here).

      • Comment deleted

        • thumb

          Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+

          • 0
          May 6 2011: isn't it all more nuanced and complicated than that?Can't someone have a valid point and valid conclusions even if what they choose to do about it is offensive or not what we would condone? I don't take anything as gosepl truth..I am trying to practice "radical empathy here" and with what I quoted I cannot diagree,Are you saying that if you didn't know the author and just saw these two statements in a list of statements with a choice to agree/disagree..you'd disagree? do you think we are promoting and building democracy elsewhere in the wolrd, for example?. That would be an interesting excercise in radical empathy..the case for bin laden..to have a list of 100 statements..30 of the US administration, 30 of Obama 40 selected from various TED conversations this week triggered by Osamas slaying...take apoll agree/disagree.Someone did that for the JohnStewrt show I think..5 comments by Charile Sheen..5 by a tea party congressman ( or some other figure in the news) and asked people to identify which was which ..no one got a good score.

      • Comment deleted

        • thumb

          Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+

          • 0
          May 7 2011: the challenge, I thought, was to explore what Sam Richards meant in his Ted Talk on Radical Empathy..to explore what he meant by radical empathy..to try out whether we can make that a practice in our daily lives using bin Laden as the reference. Is that right Bill? Is that what we are doing? I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that part of the practice of radical empathy was to first see if there was anything at all on the other side, Bin Laden's side tthat we coud point to with respect agreement or understanding..or even if we coud allow ou rrselves to take a closer look at what he and his followers said and believed. And to do as we are doing...question whether radical empathy neessarily includes agreement, endorsement, forgiveness etc. or just the act of realizing there is not ever just one story.
        • thumb

          Sam Richards 10+

          • 0
          May 8 2011: For the record, this is what I'm asking people to do. But note that I never put OBL's imagine on the screen during the talk because I assumed that it would cause a diversion the likes of which the talk would be doomed. A "simply terrorist" is risky enough.
        • thumb

          Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+

          • 0
          May 8 2011: Hello Sam..thanks for stopping by to help us out here. Yes, Bill chose the most extreme reference possible to explore what your teaching is on radical empathy and that perhaps has knocked us off center here. What you are asking us to do is critically important and i ttakes these follow up TED Conversations to try and get at it. Your presence and partciipation inmanay of these conversations is essential to that process.

      • Comment deleted

        • thumb

          Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+

          • 0
          May 7 2011: I have to give you Richard that the term "radical empathy" does not invite embracing without a considerable amount of thought and discussion. In his talk, from which this conversation emanated, Sam Richards , in a few minutes trying to encapsulate years of work, tries to explain what he means by radical empathy, a term he coined, by inviting us to put ourselves in the shoes of the Iraqi people viewing us and our actions. Using a term to which we all attach colloquial meaning requires a bit more hand holding and guidance than Sam gave us in his presentation. I think what we are doing here is exploring on our own, using his talk as a departure, whether a practice of teaching ouselves not to react automatically to things is worthwhile in our daily lives. Do we elevate ourseleves and our discussions with one another if we can teach ourselves not to have automatic reactions to others and to world events. Empathy doens't mean "I dentify", "I agree", "I condone". I think in the context of Sam's talk, his concept of "radical empathy" he is just asking us to consider that we have a tendency to talk to one another from within cultural, religious, and ideological paradigms which impede meaningful communication. Beyond these paradigms, or even within them if we look carfeully, there is common ground and there is also room to see that people respresenting us, speaking and acting for us have violated many things we value ..
        • thumb

          Sam Richards 10+

          • 0
          May 8 2011: For the record, "radical empathy" would require a person to step into the shoes of someone who they detest and imagine, just imagine that this person might have a reasonable perspective on how the world operates. From reading your comments I'm getting the sense that this isn't a challenge that you're up to. Oh well...some of us find it interesting.

      • Comment deleted

        • thumb

          Sam Richards 10+

          • +2
          May 8 2011: Richard, you'd have to think like a sociologist on this one. I suspect that you probably don't want to do that, but I'll walk you through how I would do it.

          To say something is "religious" or "secular" cannot be determined by mere laws any more than I could say that Americans don't drive over 65 mph because signs are posted all over the highways that make doing such a thing illegal. The secular/religious state of a culture is based on a wide range of actions, beliefs, relationships, institutions, AND laws (of course). So do we live in a society in which religious institutions direct people's behavior because religiously based codes of morality and ethics structure those institutions (and therefore people's behavior and thinking)? Absolutely. But the power of religion is clearly tempered by secularizing forces -- and the Supreme Court has weighed in to ensure that secularism remains relatively strong (for the moment, anyway). So we live in a state of balance -- the the fulcrum moves back and forth. So there are plenty of public schools in my area where religion is widely supported and very much a part of the unofficial curriculum...and there are plenty of schools where that is absolutely not the case. All depends on many factors and forces.

          Even in your contrarian ways, I'd have to imagine that you'd agree with this assessment of things.

        • Franklin Richardson

          • 0
          May 8 2011: Teaching creationism as science is illegal. Teaching "intelligent design" as an alternative theory is codified in the Texas educational curricum, and printed in text books not only in Texas, but several other states. Because of texas' size, publishers use there standards and many smaller states just have to live with it.
      • thumb

        Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+

        • 0
        May 7 2011: @ Birdia..do we know the whole truth about Israel and Palestine.. We we do not get the same picture that people in the middle east or near east have.but it is discoverable if we take the time to actually see for ourselves what the history is, what our role in it has been, and what is going on now. ( and bythe way we should. the new Egyptian government..the real one..notthe imagined one everyone thinks has happened/will happen is detremined to undo the Camp David accotd. The new egyptian govenment will be a strongly anto us.anto istrael government...that will bite all of us..that will send shock waves around the world.
  • thumb

    Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+

    • 0
    May 6 2011: Hello Bill and others already here. I am so glad to have this place to come after seeing Sam's TED Talk and doing my wn processing this week. I didn't really understand the conversation you were inviting us to until I saw Sam's talk last night. Everything I have been researching for the past 3 or 4 months has converged this week, in fact come to a point in Bin Laden's death. I am in the "cold grey dawn of the morning after" part of actually understanding as reality that to many in African and Arab oil rich nations he is a martyr, a hero to many, not a terrorist who received justice for his evil deeds.. I don't consider him a hero, of course, but I do now see that his real work, his real purpose, was a reasoned war on American imperialism. And I can't even believe these words are passing my lips, insisting on presence in my mind. Bin Laden's real strategy was economic "terrorism"..I can't even call it that anymore..his defefense stratgey was economic, to bring the western world to its knees economically..What's the "best case" we can make for Bin Laden? That he was a leader, a hero who turned away from a comfortable place as a member of the plutonomy, the ruling economc class, used his own oil fortune and his influence with other wealthy arab familes ffrom the ruling eleite, to wage war against American Imperialism. Understood in that frame of reference ( and now, honestly I can't see it any other way) I actually feel very uncertain and uneasy about what our country is doing and has done and I now believe Bin Ladens vision is far from spoiled..it is rekindled and the people he influenced actually do have the tools to bring the wetersn world to its knees ( mor e at my Conversation on the threat of tghe Gold Dinar). It's not a question though of liking it, empathizing in that sense, which is my sticky part with Sam's Social Theory, it's a questiono f being able to see it. But then what? I actually feel very uncertain uneasy about the U.S. economy.

    • Comment deleted

      • thumb

        Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+

        • 0
        May 6 2011: poby, well said. I am right there with you on the same page..at the same camp fire.

    • Comment deleted

      • thumb

        Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+

        • 0
        May 6 2011: your language is a bit strong..but then the circumstances are extreme and urgent for all of and I agree with you.. you make a fascinating point here about missing the wind..not sure exploring is on topci..we could ask Bill?
      • thumb

        Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+

        • 0
        May 6 2011: ok
  • thumb

    Scott Armstrong 50+

    • +1
    May 5 2011: Believe your own thoughts and opinions. Straight away, you realise that where you get your information from is vitally important and the truth is notoriously difficult to pin down.

    We are at a divergence point in terms of the internet and all the wondrous benefits it bestows on us primates. We will either go down the path of true freedom of information (and yes, your kids might view sex, death and different ideas if you don't monitor and guide their use of infotainment tools) or we go further down the path of control by some in the name of others.

    Within the concept of wikileaks lies hope for the future.

    We are seeing knee-jerk reactions from the folks in power, grasping to hang on to the reins of a horse that should have been put out to pasture in the '60's. Their time is over. Unless we keep buying in to their agendas of greed, control and conflict.
    • thumb

      Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+

      • 0
      May 6 2011: Yes, I agree. We have no excuse any more for staying locked into culturally or politically processed information. At a conversation I am hosting on the implausibility of the U.S. Givernments official story, Poby posted several links to a major Indian newspaper. It's headline stories on the significance of Bin Laden and the event sof his death are very different from what we see here.

      But when we get there..what next? What do we do with that? Do we start massive rallies wearing t-shirts and plastering our facebooks, our emails with "End Imperialism" symbols and slogans?

  • Hoslo Jiwa

    • +2
    May 4 2011: Osama like it or not won what he wanted to achieve he made the Americans and West fear. The main objective was to give a taste to America of its own medicine and show that they were not invicible. That even a small group of people can make a country fall to its knees. This he achieved Americans did and still fear, the economy did collapse and the USA did react uglier then before. If history teaches us anything countries which react with extreme violence react like that because they are very vunerable through the show of exert efforts and cruelty to control dissent. His death really means nothing as the point that the big guys (USA) can be brought down a peg or two is still possible even with a handful of people making his motive of balancing intimidation in the world order very legitimate.

  • Comment deleted

    • thumb

      Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+

      • 0
      May 6 2011: Poby, wasn't U.S. HIS ally? Wasn't it the US who had a seceret war in support of the resistence to Russian occupation? Were we exacyly "allies"..wasn't it more..united against Russian expansion?

      • Comment deleted

        • thumb

          Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+

          • 0
          May 6 2011: .yes, no disagreement there Poby..I thought it importanat to distinguish that it was us who aided him not as "allies excatly"..just as a combined force against Russia. The US speaks of "allies" but really most of that is a patchwork of alliances of convenience where we try to get others to serve our U,S. interests. To the topoc here, I meant only underscore that "the best case for Bin Laden" includes a long history of fighting off imperialist invasions.. a long history as a revolutionary hero to his people. In fact your point also ackowdwledges implicity that the US recognized his leadership, his influence in the region.
  • thumb

    Tim blackburn 30+

    • 0
    May 4 2011: Random Osama fact- he was a HUGE Noam Chomsky fan.

    • Comment deleted

      • thumb

        Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+

        • 0
        May 7 2011: right you are Birdia..but we have to go pretty far afield from our usual journalistic haunts to verify tha thttp://www.showbizspy.com/article/191366/whitney-houstons-biggest-fan-osama-bin-laden.htmland very strange..how do we saure the apparently contradictory truth that Chompsky considered Bin Laden a serious revolutionary.his letter to the US invoking the koran and this odd bit of truth? ( a rhetorical question)
    • thumb

      Debra Smith 200+

      • 0
      May 7 2011: How on earth would anyone know that Osama Bin Ladin was a Noam Chomsky fan?. With respect- that sounds like American propaganda to me and I am hardly a person who shouts 'propaganda' very often. By linking their names Noam gets trashed.
    • thumb

      Jáfia Câmara 50+

      • 0
      TED Translator
      May 7 2011: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/world/middleeast/30binladen.html
    • thumb

      Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+

      • 0
      May 7 2011: @ Tim Blackburn looks like..did you see Noam Chomsky's take on Bin Ladens Slaying? http://www.countercurrents.org/chomsky070511.htmdefinietly fits here and some excellent points..what is your take on what Chomsky has to say? He seems to be doing exactly as Bill has asked us to do ..making avery strong case for Bin Laden and interesetingly, exactly in the terms of Sam's udea of radical empathy.

  • Ed Schulte 50+

    • +1
    May 2 2011: Bill

    I am not on Twitter of another alternative feed so ty for your sharing the observation.

    And now I will share with you one of my observation ...a direct observation .....while sharing time/conversation with the people of Northern Pakistan and Afghanistan. (1979) The question I was ask, more often the any other ...from rich and poor ...is "why are there so many sick people in America?" They asked this out of genuine concern and based on the enormous volume to drugs ( hash and opium) they saw being grown and sold there, making their local thugs ridiculously rich and powerful.

    This thugs are a prime contributor to the system that protected Osama and the people asking "why"(above) are all to often on the receiving end of the "smart" weapons. The quote " "The U.S. today, as a result of the arrogant atmosphere, has set a double standard, calling whoever goes against its injustice a terrorist," only points to one half of the Total effect of the imbalance.
  • thumb

    Bill Harrison 10+

    • +1
    May 2 2011: And from the book Imperial Hubris, by a 22-year CIA operative in charge of the CIA's bin Laden station for 3 years:

    "The fundamental flaw in our thinking about Bin Laden is that 'Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than what we do.' Muslims are bothered by our modernity, democracy, and sexuality, but they are rarely spurred to action unless American forces encroach on their lands. It's American foreign policy that enrages Osama and al-Qaeda, not American culture and society."

    bin Laden said that "if you would like to get to know some of the reasons for your losing of your war against us, then read the book of Michael Scheuer in this regard." (referring to Imperial Hubris, which I have not yet read.)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Hubris

    I guess I'll read that book, but in the meantime I don't think it's beneficial for the vast majority of American people to see Osama bin Laden as a cartoon.
    • thumb

      Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+

      • 0
      May 6 2011: Ed/Bill..agree completely..and hoping that your conversation here will grow to include others who don't agree..so important to visit this not just among a camp fire of folk who agree. I am wondering if the Title to this Talk is confusing to others as it was to me and maybe keeping folk away..especially those who don't agree with us..
Showing all 62 comments