That's a different language. In English and other languages we take the name as an actual surname. In Arabic there is no surname, but people use patronymics by convention.
Think of it like this. My birth certificate says
Name: Scott Rubin Father: Harvey Rubin
Osama's says
Name: Osama Father: Laden
Laden isn't actually part of his name like Rubin is part of my name. They just add the bin Laden as part of a linguistic convention.
Here's the way it works: A person has two names, their clan name and their personal name. The way that these are arranged and where it comes from can vary from culture, but we translate it to our order when we discuss someone, so while a Japanese person would call Miyazaki Miyazaki Hayao, we call him Hayao Miyazaki, because we order the personal name before the clan name. Even though Bin Laden comes from his father's personal name, we call him Osama Bin Laden the same way we refer to the viking that went to America Lief Ericson.
To follow your own example, only his brothers. His sister would be more accurately called(also, more amusingly) Bint Laden.
I'm just saying what my morality is and why and also complaining that other people are too cowardly or unsure of their own morality to do the same.
I'm not unsure. I'm absolutely sure, I simply don't feel the need to discuss it - It's entirely fucking irrelevant to the situation what my morality is, and considering we were not discussing morality, it's not really relevant to the discussion that was at hand, either.
Scott's Morality is a lot like Rym's Ageism. They trot those out when they are defeated because they mistakenly believe they are invincible trump cards.
Losing an argument? Just change the subject and start talking about morality and how your morality must be followed by everyone. Still losing? Just claim that things will change soon because all the young kids agree with you.
However, I don't feel that's fair - I was having a laugh more than anything, if I wanted to seriously criticize Scott's morality on the issue, I would have - I think we know by now that I'm not in any way adverse to critizing or outright giving Scott a bollocking when I feel it justified. Scott's morality might not be relevant to the discussion, but I don't think even he arrogant or deluded enough to think that his own morality is a trump card in this debate.
Also, Harveyson, what would his US passport say for "surname" were he to apply for one? It wouldn't be blank.
I think I can provide some answer for that - Most would provide a constructed given name/surname that comes from their full Arabic name, that they've constructed for day to day use in a western country - were most things use the first name/family name structure. For example, Razak bin dad bin grandad al-familyname could be legitimately shortened to Razak familyname or Razak al-familyname. Apparently, there's no one agreed upon system for transliteration, but if it makes you feel any better, if you were to fill out some arabic paperwork, you'd likely be asked to supply first name, second name, father's name, and family name.
Losing an argument? Just change the subject and start talking about morality and how your morality must be followed by everyone. Still losing? Just claim that thing will change soon because all the young kids agree with you.
I'm not saying anyone else must follow my morality. I'm just saying what my morality is and why and also complaining that other people are too cowardly or unsure of their own morality to do the same. Thus, presenting myself as above the fray. I shant squabble with you lowlifes about some meaningless particulars of language and law. I care not for such arbitrary constructions. Countries, laws, and labels have no meaning for me. All I see are people, and I shall judge them by their actions and by evidence thereof.
Based on this, it's fair to say that he feels his morality trumps anything. He wrote in his response that he is above the fray (meaning, I take it, above all of us "cowards" and "lowlifes"), that nothing else has meaning for him aside from his morality, and that he feels that he is in a position to judge others.
I still wonder why he's so worked up about what to call bin Laden if he is above arbitrary, meaningless constructions of language.
and that he feels that he is in a position to judge others.
I don't feel I am in a position to judge. I just make judgements, and enjoy sharing them. I have no expectation of my judgements being enforced in any way. I just like to share what I deem.
You do have a point, I'll agree. But I'm also trying to be the bigger man, by going easy on him despite that in the same breath has called us - or at least strongly implied - that we're lowlifes and Cowards. Despite that I take very extreme exception to being called a coward. In fact, despite the time where it would likely elicit a violent response being long past, I certainly consider restraining myself from any hostile verbal or written response to be worth a small measure of pride.
You do have a point, I'll agree. But I'm also trying to be the bigger man, by going easy on him despite that in the same breath has called us - or at least strongly implied - that we're lowlifes and Cowards. Despite that I take very extreme exception to being called a coward. In fact, despite the time where it would likely elicit a violent response being long past, I certainly consider restraining myself from any hostile verbal or written response to be worth a small measure of pride.
. . . better man than me, Gunga Din, and all that sort of thing.
From a friend's FB: New Drink, The Bin Laden: Two shots followed by a splash of water.
I do not endorse this kind of gallows humor, but if you're going to market something, do it right. It should be called the Osama bin Latte. C'mon, folks. Also, it is necessary to assume for the sake of this exercise that the shots are of espresso.
I do not endorse this kind of gallows humor, but if you're going to market something, do it right. It should be called the Osama bin Latte. C'mon, folks. Also, it is necessary to assume, for the sake of this exercise that the shots are of espresso.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Though hunted and in hiding, Osama bin Laden remained the driving force behind every recent al-Qaida terror plot, U.S. officials say, citing his private journal and other documents recovered in last week's raid.
Until Navy SEALs killed him a week ago, bin Laden dispensed chilling advice to the leaders of al-Qaida groups from Yemen to London: Hit Los Angeles, not just New York, he wrote. Target trains as well as planes. If possible, strike on significant dates, such as the Fourth of July and the upcoming 10th anniversary of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Above all, he urged, kill more Americans in a single attack, to drive them from the Arab world.
Bin Laden's written words show that counterterrorist officials worldwide underestimated how key he remained to running the organization, shattering the conventional thinking that he had been reduced through isolation to being an inspirational figurehead, U.S. officials said Wednesday.
Target trains as well as planes. If possible, strike on significant dates, such as the Fourth of July and the upcoming 10th anniversary of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
So, he had obvious, trivial, self-evident leadership? If that was his plan, he sounds like the Ric Romero of terrorists.
In fact, that such an attack has never happened leads me to believe that there aren't enough competent terrorists in the world to achieve anything noteworthy on US soil. Such a thing would be trivial to accomplish, yet somehow it hasn't happened.
Even if he further had specific logistics planned and intelligence gathered, coupled with an exact set of marching orders, any reasonably intelligent person with even basic engineering skills could provide the exact same thing.
Even if he further had specific logistics planned and intelligence gathered, coupled with an exact set of marching orders, any reasonably intelligent person with even basic engineering skills could provide the exact same thing.
I think the one major thing that makes it extremely easy for someone like us to execute this sort of terrorism that makes it difficult for someone like them is the borders. We're already in the US. It's very hard for them to get in with the customs and such.
I think the one major thing that makes it extremely easy for someone like us to execute this sort of terrorism that makes it difficult for someone like them is the borders. We're already in the US. It's very hard for them to get in with the customs and such.
Whaaaa? Canada and Mexico and the tons of unprotected coast line say hello.
It's very hard for them to get in with the customs and such.
Which is why illegal immigration and the import of drugs was stopped to easily.
I am slightly dubious of this article though. The only source is "US officials". There are no dates accosiated with any of the meetings or anything. Smacks of FUD to remind people "why they need us". Somebody needs Wikileak the bin Laden files.
I think the one major thing that makes it extremely easy for someone like us to execute this sort of terrorism that makes it difficult for someone like them is the borders. We're already in the US. It's very hard for them to get in with the customs and such.
Whaaaa? Canada and Mexico and the tons of unprotected coast line say hello.
It's not as easy as you think. You're in Pakistan and you want to get to the US.
Step one is to get out of Pakistan without being caught when the US military is present and looking for you. Every time you change countries you have to pass a border, a coastal port, or an airport. In order to minimize crossing your best bet would be to take a boat all the way from Pakistan to Mexico. That's balls hard.
Are you going to go across the Pacific or Atlantic? If you go to the Pacific, it's balls hard either way. You'll have to either pass by Australia and the entire Pacific ocean without stopping at midway or Hawaii and without getting caught and landing on the West coast of Mexico. Going the other way will probably have less nature-related dangers, but more human dangers. Pirates near Somalia. The East coast of Mexico is much more difficult, mostly because you will almost definitely get caught by the Coast Guard in the Gulf of Mexico. Can't use the Panama canal. Have to go around Tierra del Fuego. Good luck with that! Where is the food and fuel for this voyage coming from?
Seeing as boats are really hard are you going to try planes? Nearly impossible. You need enough planes and fuel and friends in small airports around the world. It would probably be easier to get complete reconstructive plastic surgery to disguise yourself and get all fake identification papers and take commercial flights. Even that is a risky move as you'll probably get caught at any customs you get to.
Blowing stuff up is easy. Getting into the other country is not so easy. US passports are extremely powerful documents. Passports in general are very powerful. If you have one from a "bad" country, or none at all, you are seriously hindered.
Such a thing would be trivial to accomplish, yet somehow it hasn't happened.
Except, you know, that 9/11 thing.
So, one major attack that took few resources beyond a small number of individuals willing to die for the cause, some box cutters, some money to fund it, and a very basic plan. Despite great desire and ease or execution, no further attacks... Hmmph.
It's not as easy as you think. You're in Pakistan and you want to get to the US.
Step one is to get out of Pakistan without being caught when the US military is present and looking for you. Every time you change countries you have to pass a border, a coastal port, or an airport. In order to minimize crossing your best bet would be to take a boat all the way from Pakistan to Mexico. That's balls hard.
Are you going to go across the Pacific or Atlantic? If you go to the Pacific, it's balls hard either way. You'll have to either pass by Australia and the entire Pacific ocean without stopping at midway or Hawaii and without getting caught and landing on the West coast of Mexico. Going the other way will probably have less nature-related dangers, but more human dangers. Pirates near Somalia. The East coast of Mexico is much more difficult, mostly because you will almost definitely get caught by the Coast Guard in the Gulf of Mexico. Can't use the Panama canal. Have to go around Tierra del Fuego. Good luck with that! Where is the food and fuel for this voyage coming from?
Seeing as boats are really hard are you going to try planes? Nearly impossible. You need enough planes and fuel and friends in small airports around the world. It would probably be easier to get complete reconstructive plastic surgery to disguise yourself and get all fake identification papers and take commercial flights. Even that is a risky move as you'll probably get caught at any customs you get to.
Blowing stuff up is easy. Getting into the other country is not so easy. US passports are extremely powerful documents. Passports in general are very powerful. If you have one from a "bad" country, or none at all, you are seriously hindered.
You make the false assumption that you are coming from Pakistan. With 9/11 they came from Saudia Arabia. Also you would want to use someone who doesn't raise a whole lot of flags or you would have to use back channels like working with the drug trade to get your man in.
So, one major attack that took few resources beyond a small number of individuals willing to die for the cause, some box cutters, some money to fund it, and a very basic plan. Despite great desire and ease or execution, no further attacks... Hmmph.
There have however been some lame attempts from posers, plus we never know how many plans we foil since they usually are not publicized. (plus failed attempts taking out in early stages are not sexy for the news.)
Such a thing would be trivial to accomplish, yet somehow it hasn't happened.
Except, you know, that 9/11 thing.
So, one major attack that took few resources beyond a small number of individuals willing to die for the cause, some box cutters, some money to fund it, and a very basic plan. Despite great desire and ease or execution, no further attacks... Hmmph.
Some people, who are wrong, might say the increased security is working. I say, how come attacks didn't come earlier or in greater numbers? They wanted to do it for a long time. They failed at bombing the towers in 1993 and weren't able to try again until 2001? 8 years where security was largely unchanged and they weren't able to put anything significant together. People are scared of these big bad terrorists. They're not big and they're not bad. They're weak sauce. You should be more afraid of drowning at the beach than of terrorists.
The 2004 Tsunami killed over 230,000 people. About 3000 died from 9/11. The tsunami was greater in damage than 75 9/11s. Four planes went down and two buildings on 9/11. The tsunami was equal to 300 plane crashes and 150 skyscraper destructions combined simultaneously. Yet, we've probably put more money and effort and attention at stopping another 9/11 than helping fix or prevent damage from natural disasters. It's completely fucked up. Terrorists are so weak sauce they're not even worth defending against unless they suddenly get smart.
Comments
Think of it like this. My birth certificate says
Name: Scott Rubin
Father: Harvey Rubin
Osama's says
Name: Osama
Father: Laden
Laden isn't actually part of his name like Rubin is part of my name. They just add the bin Laden as part of a linguistic convention.
In other words Scott
Scott's morality might not be relevant to the discussion, but I don't think even he arrogant or deluded enough to think that his own morality is a trump card in this debate. I think I can provide some answer for that - Most would provide a constructed given name/surname that comes from their full Arabic name, that they've constructed for day to day use in a western country - were most things use the first name/family name structure. For example, Razak bin dad bin grandad al-familyname could be legitimately shortened to Razak familyname or Razak al-familyname. Apparently, there's no one agreed upon system for transliteration, but if it makes you feel any better, if you were to fill out some arabic paperwork, you'd likely be asked to supply first name, second name, father's name, and family name.
I still wonder why he's so worked up about what to call bin Laden if he is above arbitrary, meaningless constructions of language.
In fact, that such an attack has never happened leads me to believe that there aren't enough competent terrorists in the world to achieve anything noteworthy on US soil. Such a thing would be trivial to accomplish, yet somehow it hasn't happened.
Even if he further had specific logistics planned and intelligence gathered, coupled with an exact set of marching orders, any reasonably intelligent person with even basic engineering skills could provide the exact same thing.
I am slightly dubious of this article though. The only source is "US officials". There are no dates accosiated with any of the meetings or anything. Smacks of FUD to remind people "why they need us". Somebody needs Wikileak the bin Laden files.
Step one is to get out of Pakistan without being caught when the US military is present and looking for you. Every time you change countries you have to pass a border, a coastal port, or an airport. In order to minimize crossing your best bet would be to take a boat all the way from Pakistan to Mexico. That's balls hard.
Are you going to go across the Pacific or Atlantic? If you go to the Pacific, it's balls hard either way. You'll have to either pass by Australia and the entire Pacific ocean without stopping at midway or Hawaii and without getting caught and landing on the West coast of Mexico. Going the other way will probably have less nature-related dangers, but more human dangers. Pirates near Somalia. The East coast of Mexico is much more difficult, mostly because you will almost definitely get caught by the Coast Guard in the Gulf of Mexico. Can't use the Panama canal. Have to go around Tierra del Fuego. Good luck with that! Where is the food and fuel for this voyage coming from?
Seeing as boats are really hard are you going to try planes? Nearly impossible. You need enough planes and fuel and friends in small airports around the world. It would probably be easier to get complete reconstructive plastic surgery to disguise yourself and get all fake identification papers and take commercial flights. Even that is a risky move as you'll probably get caught at any customs you get to.
Blowing stuff up is easy. Getting into the other country is not so easy. US passports are extremely powerful documents. Passports in general are very powerful. If you have one from a "bad" country, or none at all, you are seriously hindered.
Ultralights becoming problem at border There have however been some lame attempts from posers, plus we never know how many plans we foil since they usually are not publicized. (plus failed attempts taking out in early stages are not sexy for the news.)
The 2004 Tsunami killed over 230,000 people. About 3000 died from 9/11. The tsunami was greater in damage than 75 9/11s. Four planes went down and two buildings on 9/11. The tsunami was equal to 300 plane crashes and 150 skyscraper destructions combined simultaneously. Yet, we've probably put more money and effort and attention at stopping another 9/11 than helping fix or prevent damage from natural disasters. It's completely fucked up. Terrorists are so weak sauce they're not even worth defending against unless they suddenly get smart.