|
If you've studied the Al Queda and the Talibon, they have no shortage of "charisamtic" leaders. Look on "The Learning Channel" for some very in-depth tele-journalism on Afganistan.
Bin Ladin's death has meaning to Americans and thier allies as a victory against terrorism, and justice served for past atrocities. Little doubt in my mind that regardless of his death, terrorism will still have followers in 20 or 30 years time unless we address the causes of terrorism proactively, instead of of responding reactively to events. His life has been dark enough testimony and example to all future terrorists.
Osama Bin Ladin has been branded by the west as the man who brought down the towers, figurativly speaking. This same brand gives him hero status among his own people of terror and/or extremism and their allies, making his life or death meaningless to any current or future follower of his or any other similar cause. One of the reasons the Talibon wouldnt just hand him over is because he is considered a "hero" of Afganistan for his CIA supported actions vs the Soviets. The Talibon was unpopular harsh, cruel, extremely religious and they follow a strict code of law. Now the residense of one of their leaders has been bombed, they are probably hiding in caves, and have opened thier doors to diplomacy to no open arms.
Did anyone watch the interview on Larry King of the English journalist who was held in prison for ten days by the Talibon, including the first days of the airstrikes. She was treated with proper dignity, though she describes the surroundings as harsh. The talibon even granted an audience with her publisher as part of a deal to negotiate her release. In light of evidence that she was not an American spy, she was driven to the border and let out, "You are free to go".
The Talibon have seen Osama Bin Ladin as a welcome guest in thier country, a hero of Afganistan left to his own devises. Why shouldnt they question another Nations extradition request, ask for evidense and examine the charges themselves. Especially if that request is in the form of an unconditioanl demand by threat and conception of violence. Why should they break deeply held tradition (how ever foriegn to me it is) in treating guests, and high ranking citizens without any evidense, just being told there is some. Even in the threat of the greatest military ever, that they knew was capable of doing exactly what it's doing, have they not given in. They still dont, they ask for negotiations instead. Imagine opening negotiations now?
[This message has been edited by G'kar (edited 10-17-2001).]
[This message has been edited by G'kar (edited 10-17-2001).]
|