a little bit long, but a good read. -------------------- Sen. Murray asks students to ponder bin Laden’s popularity The Associated Press VANCOUVER, Wash. — Why is terrorist leader Osama bin Laden so popular in some parts of the world? Perhaps, said Sen. Patty Murray, it’s because he and his supporters have spent years building goodwill in poor nations by helping pay for schools, roads and day-care facilities. At an appearance before a high school honors class, Murray, D-Wash., offered what her spokesman called an intentionally provocative challenge for students to ponder. "We’ve got to ask, why is this man (bin Laden) so popular around the world?" Murray asked during an appearance Wednesday at Columbia River High School. "Why are people so supportive of him in many countries that are riddled with poverty?" The answers may be uncomfortable, but are important for Americans to ponder — particularly students, Murray said. "He’s been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day-care facilities, building health-care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. We haven’t done that," Murray said. "How would they look at us today if we had been there helping them with some of that rather than just being the people who are going to bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan?" Chris Vance, chairman of the Washington state Republican Party, called Murray’s comments offensive. "It is absolutely outrageous and despicable to imply that the American government should learn a lesson from the madman who murdered thousands of American citizens," Vance said. "I know Senator Murray has a habit of sticking her foot in her mouth, but this goes way beyond a simple gaffe." Murray’s comments "sent the message to these students that the United States somehow deserved or brought on the September 11 terrorist attacks," Vance said. "I think all decent people can agree that we most certainly did not, that this was an unprovoked attack of terrorism." Vance called on Murray to retract her comments and apologize. An expert on terrorism, who co-wrote a book profiling bin Laden and al-Qaida, said Murray’s comments, published yesterday in The Columbian newspaper, were mostly on the mark. "That’s kind of a generalization, but mostly accurate," Michael Swetnam, chairman of the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies in Arlington, Va., said yesterday. Since about 1988, bin Laden, believed to be the mastermind behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, has been on a mission to build schools, roads and even homes for widows of those killed in the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan, Swetnam said. There is even a rumor that bin Laden helped build an Afghani orphanage, although Swetnam said he has been unable to confirm that. "Mostly he did underwrite — and so did many Arab charities — several fundamentalist Muslim schools throughout Afghanistan and Pakistan that teach a very, very, fundamentalist, right-wing version of Islam that preaches hatred for the West," Swetnam said. Bin Laden’s version of Islam tells Muslims that "people in the West are trying to attack your religion (and) oppress you, and the only way to fight that is to rise up against the United States and its crusader buddies, Israel and Europe," Swetnam said. Murray, in her remarks to students, said she doesn’t know where she comes down on the question of whether to try to counter bin Laden. Building infrastructure in Third World countries would "cost a lot of money, and we have schools here and health care facilities here that are really hurting," Murray said. "War is expensive, too," she told the students. "Your generation ought to be thinking about whether we should be better neighbors out in other countries so that they have a different vision of us. It is a debate I think we ought to have." Murray, the state’s senior senator, supported sending U.S. troops to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban and al-Qaida. But she was among 23 senators who voted against a resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force in confronting Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The state’s junior senator, Democrat Maria Cantwell, voted for the resolution.
She's lucky she's not up for reelection. She sounds like she's just bashing the US. As far as the facts on the issue of aid, the US does give billions in foreign aid to Arab countries.
This is little more than the Senator attempting to indoctrinate many new or soon to be voters. It is NOT a coincidence that the group she was speaking to were 17 or 18 years old. A high school class should be about enhancing education...particularly regarding the political process given the Senator's position. It shouldn't be used as a political pulpit. Oh...and her views are really warped.
Bin Laden is paying for schools that brainwash children into becoming terrorists? Well then, lets just give him the Nobel f'in Peace Prize. Of course he is popular there, because he is brainwashing children to love him and his cause. It is the same reason that Hamas is so popular in Palestine.
Hang on. Asking why he's popular is not *at all* the same as agreeing with his views! Reading comprehension time: nowhere in that article does Murray support Bin Laden at all! In fact, finding out the reasons for his popularity is really key to changing people's minds about him, isn't it? I mean, *obviously* dude is a f*cking nutbar. Duh. Repeating 'he's a madman' over and over again does us no favours. How about some more searching questions? I, personally, think he's so popular in part because he has a lot of 'feminine' qualities. The soft voice, the intense gaze... for a religious culture as crazy in the coconut about gender as radical Islam, he provides a nice sexual transference object. But maybe I'm a tad out on a limb here.
I find it disgusting, that she would imply, we could learn a lesson from some terrorist ******* You know, I'd guess a lot of people thought Hitler was a swell guy too
I can't believe you guys are bashing this article and its content. No one is saying bin Laden is a good guy that the US and its citizens should try to emulate. The Senator is basically we can gain allies by doing things like helping build infrastructure in some of these underdeveloped or impoverished areas. I'm not sure I completely agree with that or if it would work, but I definitely understand where she's coming from.
Hang on. Asking why he's popular is not *at all* the same as agreeing with his views! But it's much more fun to distort what she says and just bash her, rather than realize she actually may have a point. Acting like we shouldn't try to know why he's as successful as he is, is both r****ded and ignorant. The only way we have ANY chance of beating terrorism is understand it at its roots and beat him at his own game - you can't just militarily win that war.
Sen. Murray asked why people are so supportive of Bin Laden in countries that are riddled with poverty. Chris Vance accused her of implying that the U.S. brought on, or deserved the attacks, and that the U.S. should learn a lesson from Bin Laden. Michael Swetnam, an expert on terrorism who profiled Bin Laden and al-Qaida, then confirmed the basic reasons as being.... #1. They are riddled with poverty. #2. They are taught to hate the West and that people in the West are trying to attack their religion and oppress them. #3. Bin Laden and other extremist groups fund schools and charities and help the poor. Senator Murray asked a question that most of us have already asked ourselves. It's really a basic question with basic answers. Unfortunately, the hatred felt by these extremist Muslims has 2000 year old roots that date back even before the Romans conquered Jerusalem and kicked out all the Jews. Did not Senator Murray merely ask, "what can we do to ensure that people in Muslim countries, who are riddled in poverty, don't support leaders like Bin-Laden and Saddam Hussein?" What can we do to ensure that people around the world don't hate Americans? These questions are necessary and have already been asked a million times. Just not by Chris Vance, I guess.
I don't think what Murray is asking is offensive at all, just stupid. She is not praising Bin Ladin. She is only saying that if we go to poor countries and bribe them with our taxdollars, they will like us better. Unfortunately for the impoverished of the world, they are usually under the thumb of dictators, and our tax dollers would just end up in Swiss bank accounts.
Out tax dollars don't pay for schools, hospitals, road, etc.? I am certain that our money does, but much of it may go through other orgs (UN) before it gets there. Or maybe we dont get credit within those countries that get billions from us? She should have mentioned that before just slamming us. That aside, if she's accurate, that we're 'viewed' as the destroyers and he's seen as the 'builder', then her point needs to be made. Whether their 'view' is reality or not is a seperate issue. Doesn't seem to be an issue of bribery; just who appears more helpful than hurtful.
Right1, I think what you are saying is right. Those 3 points you bring up sound right on target. However Senator Murray is saying *more* than that. She says the "answers may be uncomfortable" for Americans. Huh? Why should the US be uncomfortable about the fact that bin Laden is manipulating Arab people with money and extremist Islamic teachings? Shouldn't the Islamic countries be uncomfortable with letting this murderer become one of their leaders? The US is ready to do what it takes, no matter how much it costs. Where is the discomfort? Well, she goes on to say: "How would they look at us today if we had been there helping them with some of that rather than just being the people who are going to bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan?" Okay, so what she is really saying is that the reason the Arabs hate Americans is becaue of the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. To Senator Murray, the US is "just the people who are going to bomb" other people. And she says "Your generation ought to be thinking about whether we should be better neighbors out in other countries..." So, all these years, the US has done nothing but been a bad neighbor and bombed the hell out of poor countries with poor people, while bin Laden has been out building schools, maybe even an orphanage! The US needs to really face the uncomfortable facts about what a poor neighbor it has really been. To me, she still can't get out of the 1960's, where the US was seen (by people of her political leanings) as the principal evil in the world, being imperialistic in places like Vietnam and South America and causing nothing but oppression and poverty. Sorry, but Senator Murray, this is not the 1960's, the US was attacked by murderous thugs on 9/11/2001 and 3000 people died on American soil! Maybe you should be lecturing *them* (the extremists) on how to be good neighbors? It's almost like she's talking in "code" to the left wing of her party. If she wants to have a conversation on foreign policy, I am all for it. If she wants to say that we should be nation- building in Iraq and Aghanistan, then great, I support her. However, do not tell us that we should be "uncomfortable" because all we do is bomb people. It is *they* who murdered thousands of Americans on American soil, and it is *they* who will murder millions of Americans if they had the chance!
This is where the problem comes. Senator Murray herself views the US as the destroyers. She clearly states that US needs to be a better neighbor instead of just bombing people. "How would they look at us today if we had been there helping them with some of that rather than just being the people who are going to bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan?"
That's not exactly a new thought, people. Everyone knows the US isn't always a benevolent big brother when its interests are at stake. *standard disclaimer note* It doesn't mean the terrorists were justified! *standard disclaimer note* (And nowhere does Murray say that either!)
Of course, there is a big chance that if we started directly building schools, infrastructure, etc. (and taking credit for it) in many of these countries, we wouldn't be any more popular. We very well could be accused of interfering where we shouldn't be and helping to spread the Zionist lies or trying to indoctrinate defenseless and pure children of the world in the ways of the wicked west. Certainly our humanitarian missions to places like Somalia have not ended with those people becomming allies of the United States. Yes, we didn't stick around to "finish the job", but how long will Americans support humantarian missions to places where our soldiers (or our non-soldier citizens) are being killed and their bodies paraded through the streets? I don't think it's a matter of being better neighbors since we could spend a whole mess of money in the Middle East and beyond and not change anybody's opinion of the U.S. It's a battle for hearts and minds. That's a lot harder to accomplish than writing a very large check. Since these people are being fed propaganda, it will really take competing propaganda to combat that (and a lot more than it takes from the "other side" given the history). How easily will that really be to accomplish?
I agree; she's not only incorrect about what we have done, but the deifference between perception and reality. Essentially, her inpterpretation is not better than the masses who have a ultra-biased, Anti-American press. But her point still deserves attention; the perceived injustices can be just more important to our interests than reality.
