Osama's Book Club

[kcchief19]

Move over, Oprah, you've got some competition.

vWASHINGTON (Reuters) - An unexpected endorsement from al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden has resulted in a huge jump in sales for a book by a critic of U.S. foreign policy.

William Blum's "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower" was ranked 209,000 on Amazon.com's sales list before bin Laden mentioned it in an audiotape released on Thursday. By Friday, the book was No. 30 on the Amazon.com list.

Bin Laden said al Qaeda group was preparing more attacks in the United States but also told Americans, "It is useful for you to read the book 'The Rogue State.'"

"I was quite surprised and even shocked and amused when I found out what he'd said," Blum said on Friday in an interview with Reuters Television in his Washington apartment.
"I was glad. I knew it would help the book's sales and I was not bothered by who it was coming from.

"If he shares with me a deep dislike for the certain aspects of U.S. foreign policy, then I'm not going to spurn any endorsement of the book by him. I think it's good that he shares those views and I'm not turned off by that."

Blum said some friends and family members were afraid the bin Laden endorsement might endanger him but he said there had been no threats and he was not concerned.
Blum's 320-page book, which was published in 2000, begins with a chapter titled "Why Do Terrorists Keep Picking on the United States." The first sentence says, "Washington's war on terrorism is as doomed to failure as its war on drugs has been."

Other chapters in "The Rogue State" are titled "America's Gift to the World -- the Afghan Terrorist Alumni," "The U.S. Versus the World at the United Nations" and "How the CIA Sent Nelson Mandela to Prison for 28 Years."

Blum's other books include "Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II," "Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire" and "West Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Political Memoir."

[st.cronin]

Well, now there's pretty much no possible scenario under which I would read that book or anything else written by him. Not so much because of the endorsement, but because of his reaction.

[sterlingice]

You know, I think he's still less offensive than Oprah ;)

SI

[rexallllsc]

Well, now there's pretty much no possible scenario under which I would read that book or anything else written by him. Not so much because of the endorsement, but because of his reaction.

Which reaction?

[biological warrior]

Any word on which Romance novel Osama recommends?

[Tekneek]

Well, now there's pretty much no possible scenario under which I would read that book or anything else written by him. Not so much because of the endorsement, but because of his reaction.

Wow. He had a business response and now you won't touch it?

I'm curious how many other people and/or businesses you won't have anything to do with because of similar sorts of responses (and who they might be). Any number of people routinely say that "bad press is better than no press" and "business is business."

[Raiders Army]

What if one of the authors of his recommended books lied in his book?

[Tekneek]

What if one of the authors of his recommended books lied in his book?

Someone should uncover it and make an issue of it. Is this any different than if you recommend a book that doesn't always tell the truth, or cannot be verified?

[st.cronin]

"If he shares with me a deep dislike for the certain aspects of U.S. foreign policy, then I'm not going to spurn any endorsement of the book by him. I think it's good that he shares those views and I'm not turned off by that."

[Raiders Army]

Someone should uncover it and make an issue of it. Is this any different than if you recommend a book that doesn't always tell the truth, or cannot be verified?
Meant to be "A Million Little Lies" Oprah allusion. Chill.

[sterlingice]

Meant to be "A Million Little Lies" Oprah allusion. Chill.I caught it and I thought it was funny :D

SI

[Tekneek]

Meant to be "A Million Little Lies" Oprah allusion. Chill.

Ooops. I know absolutely nothing about Oprah stuff.

[rexallllsc]

"If he shares with me a deep dislike for the certain aspects of U.S. foreign policy, then I'm not going to spurn any endorsement of the book by him. I think it's good that he shares those views and I'm not turned off by that."

I would agree with that.

[st.cronin]

I would agree with that.


Are you agreeing with what he said, or my revulsion at what he said?

[Tekneek]

"If he shares with me a deep dislike for the certain aspects of U.S. foreign policy, then I'm not going to spurn any endorsement of the book by him. I think it's good that he shares those views and I'm not turned off by that."

I thought it was the first part that you had a problem with. This one doesn't bother me either. He probably thinks the problems with Osama bin Laden are a result of the flawed US foreign policies that he writes about. The fact that Osama draws attention to this reinforces his position.

[sterlingice]

Ooops. I know absolutely nothing about Oprah stuff.The saddest thing is that I knew about the Oprah thing because CNN Headline News was reporting it *sigh*

Is there a more useless station on tv these days? All they have are stories like that and "round the clock" coverage of missing white women.

SI

[rexallllsc]

Are you agreeing with what he said, or my revulsion at what he said?

With what he said. Our foreign policy has brought many of these problems on us.

I'm not happy about what has happened - but I can see why.

[st.cronin]

I thought it was the first part that you had a problem with. This one doesn't bother me either. He probably thinks the problems with Osama bin Laden are a result of the flawed US foreign policies that he writes about. The fact that Osama draws attention to this reinforces his position.

Well, I look at it like this: If somebody wrote a book about how to get along with your spouse, and that book was praised by OJ Simpson, wouldn't that author do his best to distance himself from that?

Maybe I just have had too many friends and brothers murdered by Osama.

[Abe Sargent]

The saddest thing is that I knew about the Oprah thing because CNN Headline News was reporting it *sigh*

Is there a more useless station on tv these days? All they have are stories like that and "round the clock" coverage of missing white women.

SI


I find BBC news to be pretty good.


-Anxiety

[rexallllsc]

Well, I look at it like this: If somebody wrote a book about how to get along with your spouse, and that book was praised by OJ Simpson, wouldn't that author do his best to distance himself from that?

Maybe I just have had too many friends and brothers murdered by Osama.

What if it was praised by OJ, and scorned by Scott Peterson?

Osama has blood on his hands, but so does this country.

[MrBigglesworth]

I agree with a lot of what bothers Osama about our foreign policy, not all of it though and definitely not the acts he justifies with his philosophy. If I were to write a book describing what I think is wrong with American foreign policy, I wouldn't be upset if Osama agreed with me.

[st.cronin]

You both make me sick. Osama is not a statesman or a philosopher. He is a criminal and a murderer. Nobody should be letting him promote their book or business - to do so is utterly repulsive.

[Tekneek]

Well, I look at it like this: If somebody wrote a book about how to get along with your spouse, and that book was praised by OJ Simpson, wouldn't that author do his best to distance himself from that?

I don't get the analogy. I don't think a relationship book being endorsed by a man presumed to have killed his ex-wife is anywhere near the same as a man enraged by US foreign policy endorsing a book that is critical of US foreign policy.

Maybe I just have had too many friends and brothers murdered by Osama.

Do you really think Osama bin Laden cares about the United States if we weren't going around getting in everybody's kitchen? I don't.

I'm not approving of the tactics employed by him or his followers, but I don't really approve of a lot of things my own government does either.

[st.cronin]

I don't get the analogy. I don't think a relationship book being endorsed by a man presumed to have killed his ex-wife is anywhere near the same as a man enraged by US foreign policy endorsing a book that is critical of US foreign policy.



Do you really think Osama bin Laden cares about the United States if we weren't going around getting in everybody's kitchen? I don't.

I'm not approving of the tactics employed by him or his followers, but I don't really approve of a lot of things my own government does either.

Osama is not a man 'enraged by US foreign policy.' Are you not aware of what he's done?

[Tekneek]

Osama is not a man 'enraged by US foreign policy.' Are you not aware of what he's done?

He isn't? Please tell me what got him all upset then, because apparently most of the world is wrong and you have some special insight.

[st.cronin]

He isn't? Please tell me what got him all upset then, because apparently most of the world is wrong and you have some special insight.

What I mean is, you describe him that way, and leave out everything important, as though you want to pretend he's not a murderer.

[rexallllsc]

You both make me sick. Osama is not a statesman or a philosopher. He is a criminal and a murderer. Nobody should be letting him promote their book or business - to do so is utterly repulsive.

No more than George Bush. He's simply operating with a different set of tools than the US is.

I consistently find myself seeing OBL's position when he speaks. I don't feel the same when our President speaks.

[rexallllsc]

Do you really think Osama bin Laden cares about the United States if we weren't going around getting in everybody's kitchen? I don't.

I'm not approving of the tactics employed by him or his followers, but I don't really approve of a lot of things my own government does either.

Agreed. Here's a bin Laden quote: "Contrary to what [President George W.] Bush says and claims -- that we hate freedom --let him tell us then, "Why did we not attack Sweden?" It is known that those who hate freedom don't have souls with integrity, like the souls of those 19. May the mercy of God be upon them.

We fought with you because we are free, and we don't put up with transgressions. We want to reclaim our nation. As you spoil our security, we will do so to you."

[st.cronin]

Ok, now you're just trying to get a rise out of me, because there is NO WAY THAT ANYBODY WITH A SOUL COULD POSSIBLY FIND THEMSELVES AGREEING WITH BIN LADEN MORE THAN GEORGE BUSH. So, I don't believe you.

[rexallllsc]

Ok, now you're just trying to get a rise out of me, because there is NO WAY THAT ANYBODY WITH A SOUL COULD POSSIBLY FIND THEMSELVES AGREEING WITH BIN LADEN MORE THAN GEORGE BUSH. So, I don't believe you.

I didn't say I believe in OBL's actions. I do not condone the killing of innocent people. On either side.

He is right when he says it's not that he hates our freedom. He hates our imperialistic, greedy government (which has stopped serving it's citizens above all else).

And I believe just about anyone on earth over George Bush. He's a gutter-dweller in my opinion. So don't find it that hard to believe.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Ok, now you're just trying to get a rise out of me, because there is NO WAY THAT ANYBODY WITH A SOUL COULD POSSIBLY FIND THEMSELVES AGREEING WITH BIN LADEN MORE THAN GEORGE BUSH. So, I don't believe you.

Be careful st.c ... if you consistently give people too much credit you are bound to be consistently disappointed.

After the fall of Communism, it seems that our "useful idiots" will grab at whatever group attacks the United States next. That some would find themselves sympathizing with OBL isn't the least bit surprising. Ignore that fact at your own risk.

[Tekneek]

After the fall of Communism, it seems that our "useful idiots" will grab at whatever group attacks the United States next. That some would find themselves sympathizing with OBL isn't the least bit surprising. Ignore that fact at your own risk.

I don't know what any of this has to do with communism. Please enlighten me.

:confused:

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't know what any of this has to do with communism. Please enlighten me.

:confused:

The phrase "useful idiots" is attributed (although questionably) to Lenin, as Thomas Sowell puts it ...a description of those mindless people in the Western democracies who would always find ways to excuse whatever the Soviet Union did. "

In the absence of Soviet Communism, it's rather obvious that some of these folks have adopted new recipients of their "understanding".

[MrBigglesworth]

The phrase "useful idiots" is attributed (although questionably) to Lenin, as Thomas Sowell puts it ...a description of those mindless people in the Western democracies who would always find ways to excuse whatever the Soviet Union did. "

In the absence of Soviet Communism, it's rather obvious that some of these folks have adopted new recipients of their "understanding".
See: Bush idol worship

[rexallllsc]

The phrase "useful idiots" is attributed (although questionably) to Lenin, as Thomas Sowell puts it ...a description of those mindless people in the Western democracies who would always find ways to excuse whatever the Soviet Union did. "

In the absence of Soviet Communism, it's rather obvious that some of these folks have adopted new recipients of their "understanding".


There's a big difference between "excusing" and "understanding"

[st.cronin]

The phrase "useful idiots" is attributed (although questionably) to Lenin, as Thomas Sowell puts it ...a description of those mindless people in the Western democracies who would always find ways to excuse whatever the Soviet Union did. "

In the absence of Soviet Communism, it's rather obvious that some of these folks have adopted new recipients of their "understanding".

I always thought that phrase described the academics who, right up to the collapse of the Soviet Union, insisted that the US was on the verge of collapse, and that the Soviet Union would (and should) prevail.

I think what we have here are people so eager to discredit a President they dislike, that they are willing to throw their lot in with a murderer, to the extent that they are willing to misrepresent what that murderer actually believes.

I seriously doubt that they would be making this case if, like me, they had attended roughly 20 funerals in the 4th quarter of 2001. Even were bin Laden the most brilliant philosopher of the last century (which he isn't), his actions should have discredited him to the point that anybody using his quotes to support an argument should be laughed out of the room.

[JonInMiddleGA]

There's a big difference between "excusing" and "understanding"

Not enough of one in this instance AFAIC.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I seriously doubt that they would be making this case if, like me, they had attended roughly 20 funerals in the 4th quarter of 2001.

Again, I caution against giving people too much credit. Whether you choose to heed that advice is entirely up to you of course.

As for the use of the phrase, it was often used in connection with those "academics" you mention, but is not (AFAIK) limited to them. (See Fonda, Jane as an easy example).

[MrBigglesworth]

Ok, now you're just trying to get a rise out of me, because there is NO WAY THAT ANYBODY WITH A SOUL COULD POSSIBLY FIND THEMSELVES AGREEING WITH BIN LADEN MORE THAN GEORGE BUSH. So, I don't believe you.
St.cronin, recently the United States bombed a small village in our ally, Pakistan, without permission. We killed 18 innocent people, including several children. The difference between that and a suicide bombing killing 18 people is intent: we intended to kill an enemy combatent while a suicide bomber intended to kill enemy civilians. However, the consequences are the same: 18 dead innocent civilians. If those dead civilians are your relatives, your friends, your countrymen, you will be less inclined to see the difference in intent as significant. Multiply that by hundreds of incidents over the past 5 years, and thousands of similar events of the West interfering in the Middle East for centuries, and you can begin to see Osama's point.

[ThunderingHERD]

Ok, the guy writes a book saying that US foreign policy has created terrorists. The most notorious terrorist in the world recommends the book. Doesn't that prove the guy right? Why wouldn't he be happy about that? It's not like Osama read his book and <i>then</i> started telling guys to fly planes in to buildings.

[MrBigglesworth]

Even were bin Laden the most brilliant philosopher of the last century (which he isn't), his actions should have discredited him to the point that anybody using his quotes to support an argument should be laughed out of the room.
Strawman. Who has used OBL as a philosopher here to back up a philosophic point? The only quotes of OBL that I saw here are ones that are helping to explain HIS point of view and HIS intentions.

[MrBigglesworth]

Ok, the guy writes a book saying that US foreign policy has created terrorists. The most notorious terrorist in the world recommends the book. Doesn't that prove the guy right? Why wouldn't he be happy about that? It's not like Osama read his book and <i>then</i> started telling guys to fly planes in to buildings.
I think that sums it up better than I did, thank you.

[st.cronin]

Saying you 'understand' bin Laden's point of view is no different from saying you 'understand' Hitler's point of view. Actually, it's worse, since Hitler actually had some claim to being a statesman - bin Laden doesn't even have that in his favor.

There is no moral equivalency between acts committed by a state and acts committed by an individual.

[MrBigglesworth]

Saying you 'understand' bin Laden's point of view is no different from saying you 'understand' Hitler's point of view. Actually, it's worse, since Hitler actually had some claim to being a statesman - bin Laden doesn't even have that in his favor.

There is no moral equivalency between acts committed by a state and acts committed by an individual.
Correct me if I am wrong, but nobody has said that they 'understand' Hitler's point of view. You aren't making an argument on the merits. Furthermore, you are insinuating that a POV is somehow de facto more correct if someone is a stateman, which isn't even remotely true.

If OBL says that 2+2=4, and Bush says that 2+2=5, that doesn't make Bush correct because he didn't finance 9-11 and is an elected statesman.

[kcchief19]

I'll give the author the benefit of the doubt that the saying he thought it was "good" Bin Laden agrees with him was just a poor word choice. Otherwise, he quote seems to suggest that he's not going to turn down the book sales and the attention this is bringing him, which certainly makes him a good capitalist. Don't know enough about the book or the author to make any value judgements.

The problem with st. cronin's line of argument is that he basically is saying that if you agree with bin Laden on anything you're essentially against the U.S. I'm sure that even JIMGA and bin Laden would agree on something. The world is rarely that black and white.

[kcchief19]

Saying you 'understand' bin Laden's point of view is no different from saying you 'understand' Hitler's point of view. Actually, it's worse, since Hitler actually had some claim to being a statesman - bin Laden doesn't even have that in his favor.Someone who was trying to twist your words would suggest that you just said that a man who ordered the extermination of millions of Jews is better than a terrorist who has ordered the extermination of a few thousand Americans.

Saying your "understand" someone's point of view doesn't necessarily mean you agree with it.

[st.cronin]

The problem with st. cronin's line of argument is that he basically is saying that if you agree with bin Laden on anything you're essentially against the U.S. I'm sure that even JIMGA and bin Laden would agree on something. The world is rarely that black and white.

I haven't said anything about anti-US. My argument is that using bin Laden to sell books (as this author is doing) is immoral. The counter-argument is that bin Laden hasn't done anything that the US hasn't done, which is pointless - Timothy McVeigh didn't do anything that the US hasn't done, but if somebody were to let him sell his book, I would condemn that as well.

[ThunderingHERD]

I'm sure that even JIMGA and bin Laden would agree on something. The world is rarely that black and white.

I hear Osama was not impressed with Brokeback Mountain.

[MrBigglesworth]

I haven't said anything about anti-US. My argument is that using bin Laden to sell books (as this author is doing) is immoral. The counter-argument is that bin Laden hasn't done anything that the US hasn't done, which is pointless - Timothy McVeigh didn't do anything that the US hasn't done, but if somebody were to let him sell his book, I would condemn that as well.
What if you thought that your book was correct and that the more people that read your book, the better off the country would be? Wouldn't that change the morality equation?

[st.cronin]

What if you thought that your book was correct and that the more people that read your book, the better off the country would be? Wouldn't that change the morality equation?

That's not the case the author is making in the quotes at the top of the thread - he says he's "amused" by bin Laden's endoresment. That's a horrifying choice of words.

Hypothetically, the situation you're describing could take us into a moral grey zone - but that's not the situation here, as I see it.

[sterlingice]

Saying you 'understand' bin Laden's point of view is no different from saying you 'understand' Hitler's point of view. Actually, it's worse, since Hitler actually had some claim to being a statesman - bin Laden doesn't even have that in his favor.

There is no moral equivalency between acts committed by a state and acts committed by an individual.How is "understanding" someone's point of view an evil? Condoning it is another matter altogether. I can try to understand Hitler's and Bin Laden's point of views and still think they are wrong and evil men. But if you don't even bother to take the time to understand the why before blanket condemning it- you're not some saint, you're just lazy.

That said, I'm not saying everyone in this thread is saying that- far from it. But you keep acting like trying to understand this is wrong. Perhaps, you can say that sane people trying to understand it is impossible because it's the derranged rantings of a madman. But that at least implies some sort of look at motive.

On a tangent, waiving the "I went to funerals of dead friends" card just cheapens their memories. The way you sound, it just means you're even farther into the trees so you can't see the forest. That doesn't make you any more objective or a better judge. Go play that emotional blackmail game somewhere else.

SI

[ThunderingHERD]

That's not the case the author is making in the quotes at the top of the thread - he says he's "amused" by bin Laden's endoresment. That's a horrifying choice of words.

He's not the only one who is amused by the concept of Osama recommending a western book. I've seen many jokes about it on late night tv and the setup itself gets laughs. In fact, isn't the whole oprah/osama parallel drawn by the initial post of this thread a joke?

[st.cronin]

How is "understanding" someone's point of view an evil? Condoning it is another matter altogether. I can try to understand Hitler's and Bin Laden's point of views and still think they are wrong and evil men. But if you don't even bother to take the time to understand the why before blanket condemning it- you're not some saint, you're just lazy.

That said, I'm not saying everyone in this thread is saying that- far from it. But you keep acting like trying to understand this is wrong. Perhaps, you can say that sane people trying to understand it is impossible because it's the derranged rantings of a madman. But that at least implies some sort of look at motive.

On a tangent, waiving the "I went to funerals of dead friends" card just cheapens their memories. The way you sound, it just means you're even farther into the trees so you can't see the forest. That doesn't make you any more objective or a better judge. Go play that emotional blackmail game somewhere else.

SI

Fair enough. I perhaps am a little carried away by my own emotions.

My core argument, however, is that it is immoral to allow or encourage somebody like bin Laden to sell your product. I don't know how anybody can convince me otherwise.

And, on another tangent, 'trying to understand Hitler' is indeed not per se immoral or evil, but is perhaps necessary. Actually understanding Hitler, however, and arguing that the man had some good points, is generally frowned upon, and for good reason. I just don't see how it's any different when it's bin Laden we're talking about.

[st.cronin]

He's not the only one who is amused by the concept of Osama recommending a western book. I've seen many jokes about it on late night tv and the setup itself gets laughs. In fact, isn't the whole oprah/osama parallel drawn by the initial post of this thread a joke?

It's a joke I won't be laughing at during my time on Earth. :(

[MrBigglesworth]

And, on another tangent, 'trying to understand Hitler' is indeed not per se immoral or evil, but is perhaps necessary. Actually understanding Hitler, however, and arguing that the man had some good points, is generally frowned upon, and for good reason. I just don't see how it's any different when it's bin Laden we're talking about.
I will say that I agree with bin Laden that we have been assholes in general to the Arab people, and I would welcome you to try and convince me otherwise, but I don't think that you can.

[st.cronin]

I will say that I agree with bin Laden that we have been assholes in general to the Arab people, and I would welcome you to try and convince me otherwise, but I don't think that you can.

I don't know if you're trying to take me on a tangent, but staying on topic, why would you need to enlist bin Laden in making that argument? Does he make that case more coherently than some people who have not revealed themselves to be sociopathic madmen?

[Tekneek]

I seriously doubt that they would be making this case if, like me, they had attended roughly 20 funerals in the 4th quarter of 2001. Even were bin Laden the most brilliant philosopher of the last century (which he isn't), his actions should have discredited him to the point that anybody using his quotes to support an argument should be laughed out of the room.

I don't think my dim view of US foreign policy over the past 40 years would be changed by the number of funerals I attend.

[MrBigglesworth]

I don't know if you're trying to take me on a tangent, but staying on topic, why would you need to enlist bin Laden in making that argument? Does he make that case more coherently than some people who have not revealed themselves to be sociopathic madmen?
I don't think he actively enlisted bin Laden's help. I don't think he is the best at making the argument, but that doesn't make his conclusions wrong. I wouldn't begrudge the guy if he totally disavowed Osama's recommendation, I think it's an individual's decision.