Osama Bin Laden's Son Wants Peace

Haven't heard anything about this in the MSM. As we fight about our candidates the world carries on.

Bin Laden son wants to be peace activist

Osama Bin Laden's Son Says He Wants to Be Peace Ambassador Between West, Muslims
Omar Osama bin Laden bears a striking resemblance to his notorious father — except for the dreadlocks that dangle halfway down his back. Then there's the black leather biker jacket.

The 26-year-old does not renounce his father, al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, but in an interview with The Associated Press, he said there is better way to defend Islam than militancy: Omar wants to be an "ambassador for peace" between Muslims and the West.

The sins of one's father must be one heck of a burden to try and thwart. But I give Omar some kudos for trying.

"It's about changing the ideas of the Western mind. A lot of people think Arabs — especially the bin Ladens, especially the sons of Osama — are all terrorists. This is not the truth," Omar told the AP last week at a cafe in a Cairo shopping mall.
Of course, many may have a hard time getting their mind around the idea of "bin Laden: peacenik."

"Omar thinks he can be a negotiator," said Alsabah, who is trying to bring her husband to Britain. "He's one of the only people who can do this in the world."

Omar lived with the al-Qaida leader in Sudan, then moved with him to Afghanistan in 1996.

There, Omar says he trained at an al-Qaida camp but in 2000 he decided there must be another way and he left his father, returning to his homeland of Saudi Arabia.

"I don't want to be in that situation to just fight. I like to find another way and this other way may be like we do now, talking," he said in English.

Omar said he hasn't seen or been in contact with his father since leaving Afghanistan. "He doesn't have e-mail," Omar said. "He doesn't take a telephone ... if he had something like this, they will find him through satellites."

Omar doesn't criticize his father and says Osama bin Laden is just trying to defend the Islamic world.

"My father thinks he will be good for defending the Arab people and stop anyone from hurting the Arab or Muslim people any place in the world," he said, noting that the West didn't have a problem with his father when he was fighting the Russians in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

I don't recal hearing about Bin Laden asking for a truce? Perhaps one of Bushcos doctored Bin Laden 'fear' tapes hid the real request? If Bushco had accepted a truce might they not have captured him by now?

Oh, wait, that would mean the occupation in Iraq would have had to end...

Omar is convinced a truce between the West and al-Qaida is possible.

"My father is asking for a truce but I don't think there is any government (that) respects him. At the same time they do not respect him, why everywhere in the world, they want to fight him? There is a contradiction," he said.

I wonder how much support for peace Omar will get?

•  tip jar

  "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

  by roseeriter on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 02:55:51 AM PDT

•  Seems like I remember

  one of Osamas speeches calling for a truce but it was an early speech. I did hear this early AM today on CNN. Bush doesn't want Peace. He wants oil.

  by Owllwoman on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:06:42 AM PDT

  •  I'm weaning off CNN etc and listening to

    local news stations. Big difference and quite refreshing.

    "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

    by roseeriter on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:11:44 AM PDT

  •  Okay, look

    Bush is bad. But Bin Laden is a whole different level of evil.

    I can't take seriously anyone who refuses to criticize Bin Laden.

    The notion that "Osama bin Laden is just trying to defend the Islamic world"...that's beyond absurd. Should I begin ticking off the terrorist attacks al Queda has carried out against Arabs and Muslims?

    This diary, and this story, is trash. Whatever problems America and the West have, there is no moral equivalence between them and al Queda. Asserting such is reprehensible.

    Lastly, and this should be obvious, there is no reason to take any offers of a "truce" at anything approaching face value.

    by Jaiwithani on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:14:24 AM PDT

    •  Take a powder, buddy-news is news

      this is hardly a 'love' bin laden diary- Frankly, I'm surprised that bin laden relatives are not under more scrutiny.

      "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

      by roseeriter on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:22:01 AM PDT

      •  and let us not forget

        that it was GWB who flew the Bin Laden family out of the US immediately after 9-11. Talk about a love fest. That action should have had Bush impeached on 9-13.

        by MantisOahu on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:27:25 AM PDT

        •  Or chipped and kept tracked of

          Our government seems to think its ok to monitor its citizens, I can't imagine why Bin Ladens relatives have been allowed to 'go about their business' as usual.

          "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

          by roseeriter on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:31:49 AM PDT

          •  One word

            The Bin Laden family is rich. In Bush's book, that makes them bosom buddies.

            by Spoc42 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:35:55 AM PDT

            •  Yup or in cahoots

              "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

              by roseeriter on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:37:45 AM PDT

            •  "Some people call you 'the elite'. I call you

              ... my base."

              "The haves—and the have-mores."

              — GWB, as seen addressing a fund-raising dinner in Fahrenheit 9-11

              by lotlizard on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 05:14:17 AM PDT

    •  I can understand his not doing so; could get dead

      really easily.  And not at the orders of his father but some nutjob taking it upon him/herself.  

      I am generally with you on your other observations except in one regard:  i would accept a truce with AQ... contingent upon the head of OBL being delivered on a pike.

      And yes if it is NOT on a pike game is still on.

      Come to my country and kill my neighbors and I am going to come to your country and kill everyone that fucking knows your goddamn name...and their dog to.

      Sorry I had to put it that way but it is unambiguous as to meaning...

      by skippythebox on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:25:38 AM PDT

      •  Law vs. Mass Murder/Genocide?

        That comment is truly reprehensible- you should know what governments are capable of.

        by borkitekt on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:32:03 AM PDT

        •  Get over it. you don't "talk" nice to this type

          of terrorist  you hunt them down and kill them like rabid dogs.

          Sorry if that upsets your tender sensibilities but that is the only effective way to deal with them as they are beyond reason; for if they were not they would not have undertaken their actions.

          by skippythebox on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:25:37 AM PDT

          •  what do you know?

            is it anything more than what they feed you in the MSM?

            Who in the hell would want to give up their lives for some cause? Religion? Bull shit! The West, Russia and other nations over time have been ruling this area of the world for the past hundred years and now supporting dictators keep the peace, violently.

            When you look at OBL's speech and what other jihadis say, it is primarily political- get out of our country's politics.

            Furthermore, you should think about this, I'l be it is more an illusion in your own mind based on movies and 24 that there is this bogeyman out there that wants world annihilation.

            Tell me, have you ever met or spoke to a nazi? An Iraqi who fled our bombs? Even a skinhead? Can you even imagine being out of your own shoes? Or would you be more at home killing indians? (And believe you me, one of my great relatives had a reputation for killing indians such that they named a county after him. But they eventually got him, thank god.)

            by borkitekt on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:13:13 PM PDT

            •  you have made so many assumptions in your

              reply that I should set it straight before you dig yourself in.

              Part of my family lives on the Rosebud.. that's an Indian reservation.

              Yes I have met a nazi, a for real former member of the party.

              And I would generally agree with you on the point that the "threat" of the jihadi's as you put it is mostly smoke and mirrors.

              And none of it changes how I feel about them killing my countrymen; at that point I frankly don't give two shits about their feelings, the legitimate grievances that they may have and I may have sympathy for... no once they have made the choice to engage in mass murder they get hunted down like animals.

              Now if you have a problem with killing the people that murdered 3000 people in front of you that is your cross to bear.  But that is not something that I have.

              You make the decision to stop talking and to start killing to solve your problems then I fall back on the only bit of the Bible that matters at all:  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

              by skippythebox on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:57:53 PM PDT

              •  maybe we are closer to being on the same page,

                BUT, look who is saying who we have to kill and why- and its not the people who attacked us but people who are in the way of other other objectives like oil and markets. Period.

                The Taliban offered to arrest OBL if we provided them evidence after 911, we declined, instead of targeting a small group in a country, we targeted the government, that group and other unrelated elements of its population, many of whom we had armed to fight the Russians- surely you know all of this.

                Then as our actions were increasing terrorism, we made a BS story to attack Iraq, and as we can see, it has nothing to do with truth, justice, installing a government responsive to the population, etc. Instead WE give them terror.

                Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

                by borkitekt on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:10:27 AM PDT

                •  we are generally on the same page and have been

                  since the beginning.  One common mistake made on the net in general and this site in particular is reading far to much into statements; easy to do text does not convey vocal tone or body language.

                  And we all far to frequently do not grant the other person the legitimacy of their emotional response when the other person is being honest and open enough to admit to it.  And that is what I was doing giving my honest unshaded emotional response to how I felt on the matter.

                  It should go without saying on THIS SITE that a more reasoned approach would be the actual response undertaken by the individual, but we all to frequently don't invest that amount of effort in the communications here; and I am just as much to blame because I do it as well.

                  Now, speaking strictly from the rational side of the mind, the coolly logical and dispassionate one, the overall strategy pursued by the administration has been flawed from the beginning.

                  If the Taliban were serious about the offer of arresting OBL (and the easiest way to ascertain that is to take them up on it since you always have the option of going to guns later), that should have been the route pursued in conjunction with a general mobilization of our armed forces.

                  Why the mobilization?  It is simply to add an exclamation point and double bold underline to everything:  This nation is serious, and seriously willing to shed blood if necessary to achieve justice.  Not using the military from the very beginning in that situation makes for a great amount of political hay as it shows near super human levels of restraint.

                  That same kind of restraint if shown in Iraq would have had Saddam out of power and the UN in charge of helping to establish a new regime there.

                  All in all we would have accomplished our strategic goals of getting rid of Saddam.. getting OBL and all the while increasing US prestige in the world by showing a modicum of restraint when every other nation and people on Earth would feel the US was justified in bombing the crap out of somebody.

                  And if the Taliban were just playing a game?

                  We are out nothing in that scenario, and have actually gained from them doing so.

                  by skippythebox on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 12:15:15 PM PDT

          •  Cool,,,degenerated into bloodlust n/t

            by dss on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:30:03 PM PDT

      •  Advocating mass murder now are we?

        People have been living under Bush way too long. You comment is one of the more disgusting ones I've read in a long time and it is an attitude that has certainly gotten us absolutely nowhere. Your logic is what has given us many of the atrocities such as torture and Gitmo. I'm sure you'll be likely ready to cheer on a war with Iran with that attitude.

        Come to my country and kill my neighbors and I am going to come to your country and kill everyone that fucking knows your goddamn name...and their dog to.

        Simply disgusting,,,make sure not to be ambiguous at all.

        by dss on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 05:33:48 AM PDT

        •  perhaps you should read some of my other

          posts before judging... It should also be a bit obvious that the over the top construction of it and the location of the post (dkos) would indicate more an expression of anger directed at those that committed the terrorism.

          But sure go ahead and assume that a person that has posted passionately AGAINST a war with Iran is in favor of one, just because he is still pissed off at the people (the specific group OF people and not an ethnic group etc) and those that backed them that killed a little over 3000 people in front of my eyes.

          by skippythebox on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:21:27 AM PDT

          •  Really now?

            So you are angry huh? How in the world do you reconcile your following quotes:

            kill everyone that fucking knows your goddamn name...and their dog to.

            an expression of anger directed at those that committed the terrorism.

            still pissed off at the people (the specific group OF people and not an ethnic group etc)

            Kind of a bit of stretch to request that someone research all your previous comments to discern the  intent of an over the top comment.

            Guess I'm still pissed at the fine set of 'passionate' NY'ers who after 9/11 found themselves to impart their own personal inquisition of my wife regarding if she 'knew' anyone involved in carrying out 9/11. So the "kill everyone that fucking knows your goddamn name" is a bit raw still.

            by dss on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:06:48 PM PDT

            •  that is quite easy

              and it is understandable how you have raw feelings given your experience.

              I was referring to the specific people and their organization; so in the above quote it is referring to taking out the whole of the organization.

              Is that clearer?

              by skippythebox on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:01:55 PM PDT

    •  have you ever listened to OBL's speeches?

      Remember the one where he asked something to the effect 'why is it that if hate peace that we don't attack Sweden?'

      Especially with regard to peace, it should be almost clear to people here that we want war, that with us as a global police, democratic institutions, governments, are on the decline.

      There's already enough info out on the tubes to conclude that most of the world views the US as the real threat to peace- a poll/study a while back in Europe said that WE were a threat before Iran.

      You should think about what you read in the media- it might just be the source that instills racism or whatever our gov needs to carry out a starter genocide/ME reorginazation.

      by borkitekt on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:28:24 AM PDT

      •  I have read some of OBL speeches.

        He wants the West to stay out of the ME. Stop occupations and stop interfering in ME Gov. We only know half of what our Gov. has done to these Countries under the radar.

        by Owllwoman on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:37:56 AM PDT

        •  Or: "all he wants is to institute sharia

          in ME countries and oppress women w/o western interference."  That's fine, because it's not like muslim women are people with human rights.  The guy's desires are pure evil.  Skippythebox was right: any truce w/ OBL has to be conditioned on his head on a pike.

          by burrow owl on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:42:14 AM PDT

•  oh HELL no

  Omar doesn't criticize his father and says Osama bin Laden is just trying to defend the Islamic world.

  I'd really like to see is the 9/11 families to get a hold of him.

  Negotiate that, bizzatch.

  by willkk on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:28:32 AM PDT

  •  yeah, that guy is a piece of shit n/t

    by Chuckie on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:36:56 AM PDT

•  a reminder ...

  blessed are the peacemakers.

  by bamabarrron on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:30:57 AM PDT

•  I have a problem with the idea

  that bin Laden is some kind of spokesman for the Arab world, or the Muslim world. One might as well claim Eric Rudolph speaks for American evangelical Christianity.

  He speaks for a very small, fringe group of Muslims who seek to establish a modern caliphate through random acts of violence.

  I think the Arab world can get along quite well without bin Laden to "defend" them against America.

  bin Laden's son has balls, I'll give him that. But he has a very inflated sense of his father's importance if he thinks that bin Laden is some kind of hero of the Arab world.

  by limpidglass on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:34:07 AM PDT

  •  agree

    "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

    by roseeriter on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:35:37 AM PDT

•  Yeah - I'm pretty much in agreement

  with the bulk of the posts above....I don't trust the kid. How many people have actually voluntarily left al-qaeda, like Omar claims to? I think security organizations have plenty of legitimate concern to disallow him access to the West. And he was part of Al-Qaeda back when they were already doing some pretty evil shit to the West.

  Let Hidalgo stay in Egypt.

  by Everest42 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:45:28 AM PDT

  •  I question him also and am curious about it

    showing up in the news now.

    "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

    by roseeriter on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:47:52 AM PDT

  •  Actually, since he was once at

    an al Qaeda training camp, I'm wondering why he's not in Guantanomo.  I don't believe I've ever even heard of this guy, and he is apparently not hard to find.

    Are you saying he should be?  In Guantonamo?

    by LithiumCola on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 05:38:07 AM PDT

    •  I don't think Gitmo should be the answer

      for anyone in regards to torture, but I am surprised that bin ladens family was never detained.

      "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

      by roseeriter on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 06:00:55 AM PDT

    •  Not necessarily. We don't

      know if he's done anything wrong. But I think we have legitimate cause to deny him entry.

      by Everest42 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:09:15 AM PDT