Some readers have been asking about Peter Bergen’s interview with Osama Bin Laden, after the post ‘BinLadism’ by debugs1. As I’ve said, Peter Bergen is one of the very few journalists who’s ever had a face to face interview with Oama. Here’s a picture of it:
Peter Bergen, CNN National Security Adviser said that Osama Bin Ladin “still matters” because his name is a rallying point for Al Qaeda and its rather medieval ideology of wanting to bring the world back to the 7th century.
Thus Bergen cites a rather vague ideological movement called “Bin Ladism.” We agree except that a person cannot be an ideology. Marxism is an ideology because Karl Marx wrote something reasonably rational called “The Communist Manifesto” along with Friedrich Engels. It was a manifesto that was radical and published at the right historical period when most of the oppressed people of the world then were either hungry or desperate. It is however doubtful if Obama Bin Ladin can match that. Neither does he make make great T-shirt material like Che Guevara who had the guts – at least – to fight and die like a man instead of issuing threatening videos in some obscure cave probably in Pakistan.
No, “Binladism” will not be a lasting legacy, unless one means the same legacy that Charles Manson is probably going to leave. Osama Bin Ladin is NOTHING but a man who suffers from a psychological disorder because he has declared his Al Qaeda crusade as THE Islamic crusade which is definitely something that most Muslims in the world living in the 21st century do not agree with. Osama Bin Ladin only matters to those who suffer from the same insanity he is suffering from. Most Muslims do not wish to live in another century and are rather in touch with reality. Legacy? Duh? The murders committed in September 11, 2001 can hardly be called a “legacy”. To call anything a “legacy” implies “leaving behind something good”. Bin Ladin can die today and history will remember him for what he was (and still is) – a crazy murderer. Al Queda has no ideology to speak of, except some vague concept of a world LITERALLY based on a book allegedly written in the 7th century. Marxism, at least has some good points, “Bin Ladism” has nothing good. Watching a film like “Back to the Future” would be more comprehensible than listening to Osama Bin Ladin’s latest blabber.
Peter Bergen says that it’s important that Osama Bin Ladin be caught and brought to justice and we agree. It would however seem more dramatic for him to use his own pistol and put an end to his earthly existence and enjoy the maidens in the paradise of his imagination. Should he be killed however, that certainly would be better because it would show the world that even legends die. More so, it would certainly trigger a leadership crisis within Al Qaeda which would mean that fanatical mad group would be further divided into several sub-groups which will certainly differ in positions from the legality of naming a Teddy Bear Mohammed to whether children should be child brides. Osama Bin Ladin matters only because he does affect the national security of the America and other countries – including Muslim ones. His being hidden somewhere, probably in Pakistan, perhaps should encourage the US State Department to get tougher towards this country – but not to invade it because that would be another idiotic decision. The latest CNN reports on Afghanistan does show that though there is “the world jihadist movement”,it certainly does not have any definite ideology. The leaders are bound to kill each other over non-fundamental points. The people of Afghanistan, for instance, have obviously chosen individual sovereignty over the rule of the Taliban. On the other hand , even the pro-jihadist Taliban do have fundamental disagreements with Al Qaeda and Bin Ladin’s fruitcake cohorts.
Written by Cynthia Syncip