The widows and children of Osama Bin Laden

Post by **spot** » Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:25 am

I wonder whether the entire family will be forcibly kept away from documentary and news interviewers for the rest of their lives.

Pakistan is preparing to deport the widows and children of Osama Bin Laden. A court sentenced the three women and Bin Laden's two eldest daughters to 45 days in prison for living there illegally, and to be deported.

BBC News - Bin Laden widows face deportation from Pakistan

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:45 pm

Maybe they just want to be left alone.

Post by **spot** » Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:43 pm

flopstock;1391515 wrote: Maybe they just want to be left alone.

Have you reason to think that's the case, flopster? They've been held incommunicado since they were detained, they've had no voice. Why would you expect them to want to be left alone instead of speaking, once governmental constraint is lifted?

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:43 pm

They could move to France, write a book or two and live comfortably.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:48 pm

spot;1391524 wrote: Have you reason to think that's the case, flopster? They've been held incommunicado since they were detained, they've had no voice. Why would you expect them to want to be left alone instead of speaking, once governmental constraint is lifted?
Do they have any roles to fulfill as his widows? Is it immodest as Muslim widows to go public?

Post by **spot** » Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:50 pm

I'd be surprised if they were short of money. Speaking without knowledge it's my impression that the untainted Saudi family controls untainted wealth in the hundreds of millions. And why on earth would those who come from Osama bin Laden's household want to live in France? I'm not aware that either he or any of them ever set foot there in the past.

Post by **spot** » Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:53 pm

AnneBoleyn;1391526 wrote: Do they have any roles to fulfill as his widows? Is it immodest as Muslim widows to go public?

It would be immodest of them to appear in public wearing shorts. Why on earth do you think that the occasion of a Muslim woman speaking to news reporters at a press conference would be frowned on as unIslamic?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 6:17 am

I don't know if it is Un Islamic, but it might be considered immodest to display their thoughts publicly.

Post by **spot** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 6:56 am

AnneBoleyn;1391566 wrote: I don't know if it is Un Islamic, but it might be considered immodest to display their thoughts publicly.

Though, presumably, were they American women it would be perfectly acceptable? if so, what is the source of the difference.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:20 am

The source of the difference is merely my asking. And we all know what big mouths Americans are. In Europe, as I remember, you hear them before you see them.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:16 am

AnneBoleyn;1391570 wrote: The source of the difference is merely my asking. And we all know what big mouths Americans are. In Europe, as I remember, you hear them before you see them.

Thats mainly the Texans

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:20 am

YZGI;1391572 wrote: Thats mainly the Texans
Funny you should say that, I was thinking of a Texas couple I met, or rather heard, in London.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:25 am

AnneBoleyn;1391573 wrote: Funny you should say that, I was thinking of a Texas couple I met, or rather heard, in London.

Yeah they do a lot of yee hawing...LOL

Post by **spot** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:26 am

AnneBoleyn;1391570 wrote: The source of the difference is merely my asking. And we all know what big mouths Americans are. In Europe, as I remember, you hear them before you see them.

Then, to answer your question as plainly as possible, no, it isn't immodest for Muslim widows to "go public". You're confusing Islam with Pauline Christianity, the sort which forbids women from "going public" in the Orthodox and Roman branches:"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church".

(that's the tail end of First Corinthians 14)Now by all means describe why you think Muslim women would be frowned on for speaking out at a press conference. It seems to me that it happens often and I can see no Islamic critics saying it's immodest. I seem to recall Pakistan had a woman prime minister for example, a rather better record for feminist empowerment than the US can so far produce.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:29 am

spot;1391575 wrote: Then, to answer your question as plainly as possible, no, it isn't immodest for Muslim widows to "go public". You're confusing Islam with Pauline Christianity, the sort which forbids women from "going public" in the Orthodox and Roman branches:"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church".

(that's the tail end of First Corinthians 14)Now by all means describe why you think Muslim women would be frowned on for speaking out at a press conference. It seems to me that it happens often and I can see no Islamic critics saying it's immodest. I seem to recall Pakistan had a woman prime minister for example, a rather better record for feminist empowerment than the US can so far produce.

Are you forgetting about Hellary?

Post by **spot** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:31 am

YZGI;1391577 wrote: Are you forgetting about Hellary?

You tell me again, when Ms Rodham - whom I've long admired - heads a government, and I'll withdraw the remark.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:33 am

Now by all means describe why you think Muslim women would be frowned on for speaking out at a press conference. It seems to me that it happens often and I can see no Islamic critics saying it's immodest. I seem to recall Pakistan had a woman prime minister for example, a rather better record for feminist empowerment than the US can so far produce.
I wouldn't be frowning on them! I merely suggested others might. A mere suggestion my good man. Time will tell what they will do. I wanted Hillary Clinton to be my president, but alas.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:34 am

Hellary? Never heard that one.

Post by **spot** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:35 am

AnneBoleyn;1391579 wrote: I wouldn't be frowning on them! I merely suggested others might. A mere suggestion my good man. Time will tell what they will do. I wanted Hillary Clinton to be my president, but alas.

I think by the time she ran for President she was dreadfully compromised. On the other hand her college commencement address should be taught and studied in high school.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:37 am

spot;1391581 wrote: I think by the time she ran for President she was dreadfully compromised. On the other hand her college commencement address should be taught and studied in high school.
Which school was that? I heard her speak at UofP for graduation, 1993.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:40 am

I lived in Nashua, NH in the early '90's. I met Hellary & Bill several times, as well as other candidates like Jerry Brown & Bob Kerrey in particular stand out. Bill Clinton took my breath away, what a gorgeous specimen of man.:-4

I might have run away with him, but he didn't ask.

Post by **spot** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:43 am

AnneBoleyn;1391582 wrote: Which school was that? I heard her speak at UofP for graduation, 1993.

Wikipedia: "Hillary Rodham first attracted national attention in 1969 for her remarks as the first student commencement speaker at Wellesley College".

Hillary D. Rodham's Student Commencement Speech 1969 is a transcript.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:51 am

Thanks, good read. What did you think when Senator Hillary backed Bush, re: Iraq? That didn't take the bloom off the rose for you?

Post by **spot** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:00 am

AnneBoleyn;1391586 wrote: Thanks, good read. What did you think when Senator Hillary backed Bush, re: Iraq? That didn't take the bloom off the rose for you?

Do you recall much protest in the US prior to the "liberation"? I don't. Perhaps I missed it. Perhaps there was a rejectionist bunch of politicians whom the Senator could have joined in with - that's a question, not a statement.

You-all have a problem in the US, it's called blind patriotism. It's illustrated by the toast "My country, right or wrong".

In the UK we do things differently. We re-elect politicians who stand up to be counted when the government ignores the people. Protest against foreign adventurism in the US House appears to be the quickest form of political suicide whenever "our boys" are about to be deployed.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:29 am

You-all have a problem in the US, it's called blind patriotism. It's illustrated by the toast "My country, right or wrong".

When I was a young girl, I had my face spit on by a beer-swilling, big-bellied construction worker screaming "America, Love It or Leave It". It was during a Vietnam protest. I took his advice & moved to Europe. Although I didn't stay. The boy that concerns me is my own American boy. He's okay, & worth moving back for. I guess I would have been satisfied with a little Nigel or Colin, but that didn't happen. I'm the wrong person to keep bellowing at spot. Being a patriotit (sic) has never been my problem. Living amongst a herd of morons is.

Post by **spot** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:50 am

I very carefully distanced my comment from any personal reference by using you-all. It's an American problem, as your observation confirms, despite your personal opposition to it.

Here, more reading: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/comm ... 26_HOC_158

That's the pre-invasion debate and I'd consider it a balanced reflection of British opinion in February 2003. The contributions of George Galloway and John Gummer in particular are worth noting.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:52 am

spot;1391507 wrote: I wonder whether the entire family will be forcibly kept away from documentary and news interviewers for the rest of their lives.

By whom ?

Their own, or are you saying the opposition may have a vested interest in their silence ?

It might even be that they don't have anything they want to share with anyone.

Post by **spot** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 10:18 am

Bruv;1391592 wrote: By whom ?

Their own, or are you saying the opposition may have a vested interest in their silence ?

It might even be that they don't have anything they want to share with anyone.

By agreement with whatever government grants them asylum, as a condition of their acceptance.

If you're asking who might want the family to remain silent, I'd put the Pentagon and its associated security services high on the list.

As for whether or not they'd want to put their side of the story into the public domain, I'd have thought it was extremely likely. They've been debarred from doing so from the day of the raid on Abbottabad until now. I'd not take that period of silence as at all indicative of their own wishes.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 11:56 am

Returning to topic.....

Why France?

I remember reading somewhere that the Bin Laden family had relatives In France and also French was the language most of the Laden family spoke.... I'll try to find a link...

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 1:13 pm

spot;1391527 wrote: I'd be surprised if they were short of money. Speaking without knowledge it's my impression that the untainted Saudi family controls untainted wealth in the hundreds of millions. And why on earth would those who come from Osama bin Laden's household want to live in France? I'm not aware that either he or any of them ever set foot there in the past.

Why on earth wouldn't they?

Post by **spot** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:56 pm

oscar;1391597 wrote: and also French was the language most of the Laden family spoke.... I'll try to find a link...

They're Arabs. They speak Arabic like all the other Saudis and Yemenis. When on earth was either Saudi Arabia or Yemen a part of the French Empire?

Link away, I'll be entranced to find I'm mistaken.

Post by **spot** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 4:00 pm

SnoozeAgain;1391604 wrote: Why on earth wouldn't they?

Perhaps for the same reason I'd not want to - my French isn't colloquial, I have no cultural attachment to the country and the natives can't cook my sort of food.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 4:03 pm

What is your sort of food, mashed peas and cigarette butts?

Post by **spot** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 4:20 pm

SnoozeAgain;1391632 wrote: What is your sort of food, mashed peas and cigarette butts?

You're in an odd mood this evening. Why would that be anyone's sort of food? A fino sherry with baked stuffed mushrooms, then roast topside and potatoes and parsnips, a couple of glasses of house claret, Yorkshire pudding, a bit of mash, a touch of cauliflower perhaps in a cheese sauce, gravy, maybe broad beans, followed by apple pie and custard and a sauterne, some sort of light-whipped chocolate confection, cheese and biscuits with a glass of port, and a heavy-duty coffee to round it off. Three evening hours in pleasant company, no more than a dozen at table, I'm quite happy either to cook it or to be cooked for. There's damn-all of any of that to be had in France.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 6:47 pm

SnoozeAgain;1391632 wrote: What is your sort of food, mashed peas and cigarette butts?

nope that's mine lol

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 6:48 pm

spot;1391633 wrote: You're in an odd mood this evening. Why would that be anyone's sort of food? A fino sherry with baked stuffed mushrooms, then roast topside and potatoes and parsnips, a couple of glasses of house claret, Yorkshire pudding, a bit of mash, a touch of cauliflower perhaps in a cheese sauce, gravy, maybe broad beans, followed by apple pie and custard and a sauterne, some sort of light-whipped chocolate confection, cheese and biscuits with a glass of port, and a heavy-duty coffee to round it off. Three evening hours in pleasant company, no more than a dozen at table, I'm quite happy either to cook it or to be cooked for. There's damn-all of any of that to be had in France.

I'm coming to your house for dinner.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:10 am

spot;1391633 wrote: You're in an odd mood this evening. Why would that be anyone's sort of food? A fino sherry with baked stuffed mushrooms, then roast topside and potatoes and parsnips, a couple of glasses of house claret, Yorkshire pudding, a bit of mash, a touch of cauliflower perhaps in a cheese sauce, gravy, maybe broad beans, followed by apple pie and custard and a sauterne, some sort of light-whipped chocolate confection, cheese and biscuits with a glass of port, and a heavy-duty coffee to round it off. Three evening hours in pleasant company, no more than a dozen at table, I'm quite happy either to cook it or to be cooked for. There's damn-all of any of that to be had in France.
Pourquoi dites-vous cela ?

Un xérès de fino avec les champignons bourrés cuits au four, rôtissent alors le dessus et les pommes de terre et les panais, deux ou trois verres de claret de maison, pudding de Yorkshire, un peu de la mâche, un contact de chou-fleur peut-être à une sauce à fromage, sauce au jus, peut-être fèves, suivies du pâté en croûte de pomme et la crème et des sauternes, une certaine sorte de confection lumière-fouettée de chocolat, fromage et biscuits avec un verre de port, et un café résistant à rond il au loin.

Post by **spot** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:54 am

Bruv;1391662 wrote: Pourquoi dites-vous cela ?

What's odd is that it sounds more enticing in the French, I'd never have thought it.

Google Translate is getting better all the time, it's only glitches like "un café résistant" which give it away. If you'd said thirty years back a product like Google Translate would be available free in a couple of decades you'd have been laughed at. Not the existence of it, just the free bit.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:54 am

spot;1391524 wrote: Have you reason to think that's the case, flopster? They've been held incommunicado since they were detained, they've had no voice. Why would you expect them to want to be left alone instead of speaking, once governmental constraint is lifted?

I must have read it wrong.. I wasn't aware that his entire family was being held. I googled one name i knew of and it appears he did comment. Perhaps you just mean the entire family that you are interested in hearing from?

Osama Bin Laden Son Omar: U.S. Broke Law in Killing Their Father - ABC News

Omar Bin Laden, Osama Bin Laden Son: Sea Burial Demeaning, Killing 'Criminal': Report

Post by **spot** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:59 am

Do you see how the French convert "a couple" into "deux ou trois verres de claret de maison"? Typical continental exaggeration, that, I bet Google's right.

Post by **spot** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 5:01 am

flopstock;1391665 wrote: Perhaps you just mean the entire family that you are interested in hearing from?In the context of this thread it's the people resident in the Abbottabad compound, none of whom have been allowed to speak to any news reporters since the raid last year.

Why, in your opinion, were this troop of armed men incapable of arresting and detaining Osama bin Laden during the raid?

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:48 am

spot;1391667 wrote: In the context of this thread it's the people resident in the Abbottabad compound, none of whom have been allowed to speak to any news reporters since the raid last year.

Why, in your opinion, were this troop of armed men incapable of arresting and detaining Osama bin Laden during the raid?

These folks are being deported. I would imagine that once that happens the only constraints upon them would be those applied by their new hosts. Was it a specified term of their release that they not talk to anyone?

Post by **spot** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:54 am

flopstock;1391682 wrote: These folks are being deported. I would imagine that once that happens the only constraints upon them would be those applied by their new hosts. Was it a specified term of their release that they not talk to anyone?

And which government spokesman do you expect is likely to confirm or deny that? And a spokesman of which government? Or do you think there might be a confidentiality clause in any such conditional release.

Why, in your opinion, were this troop of armed men incapable of arresting and detaining Osama bin Laden during the raid?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:58 am

flopstock;1391682 wrote: These folks are being deported. I would imagine that once that happens the only constraints upon them would be those applied by their new hosts. Was it a specified term of their release that they not talk to anyone?

The most likely explanation Is something akin to Sub Judice law.

Immediately following the shooting of Bin Laden there would have to have been an enquiry Into what, how, when and why, probably military and governmental enquiries.

It would be normal practice In those circumstances for all concerned to be subject to some kind of Sub Judice restrictions until all enquiries are finished.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:00 am

You know how spot keeps repeating a question if it's not answered precisely the way he wants? Ever wonder what would happen if no one answered at all? Spot's head ---> KABOOM!

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:05 am

spot;1391684 wrote: And which government spokesman do you expect is likely to confirm or deny that? And a spokesman of which government? Or do you think there might be a confidentiality clause in any such conditional release.

Why, in your opinion, were this troop of armed men incapable of arresting and detaining Osama bin Laden during the raid?

I don't expect any government spokesman to confirm or deny anything. If there were constraints, I would think they only apply in the country they are in at that time. I would think that once they leave that country those constraints would no longer apply. But I am just supposing..

I think that if they landed on our shores they would find themselves on the cover of every tabloid and featured next week on 20/20, dateline and meet the press.

And within the year we would find ourselves with a new movie of week.

Post by **spot** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:12 am

SnoozeAgain;1391687 wrote: You know how spot keeps repeating a question if it's not answered precisely the way he wants?

No, only if it's walked past without any acknowledgement that it was even asked.

Post by **spot** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:13 am

The point of "Why, in your opinion, were this troop of armed men incapable of arresting and detaining Osama bin Laden during the raid" is that these people are the only independent witnesses and it's their witness that's been held back from the public all these months.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:16 am

Post by **spot** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:18 am

SnoozeAgain;1391696 wrote:

American public opinion in a nutshell, well done.