Guess what term the infamous BBC uses to describe Osama bin Laden? "It is one of the main reasons given by the Saudi-born dissident - blamed by Washington for the 11 September attacks - to justify violence against the United States and its allies." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2984547.stm Now we know the truth: Sakharov, Walesa, bin Laden--all just dissidents. That's the mind of the BBC.
You base this on one word? And not that it's inaccurate, but insufficient? And that it is quoted in a different medium? Yeah, right.
But isn't bin Laden a dissident? I mean, he's a number of other things, too, but when you get down to the nitty-gritty of it, he's a violent dissident. Glasnost gave us a positive impression of the word "dissident," but in reality all it refers to is a rebel. Dissidents can be good, evil, or anywhere in between. Andrei Sakharov was a good, nonviolent dissident; Osama bin Laden is a wicked, violent one. But either could be accurately described as a dissident. Here in the States, our news channels would say terrorist instead of dissident to emphasize that they really, really don't like bin Laden. In the UK, the word "dissident" is in more common usage. bin Laden is certainly both a terrorist and a dissident, but "dissident" emphasizes the radical political ideology behind his terrorism. I see nothing objectionable about using the word to describe him. Cheers,
The BBC does appear to be biased. http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_768569.html?menu=news.wariniraq http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003160811,00.html http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=24&art_id=vn20030328050916573C993479&set_id=1 Imagine the outrage if the BBC were to re-broadcast some old C. S. Lewis discussions on Christianity. In my mind "dissident" is just way too neutral of a word for obl. Glasnost (openness) and Perestroika (restructuring) were part of a last ditch effort to save the communisim of the old Soviet Union. It failed.
Actually, the BBC has broadcast some positive specials on Lewis and Christianity in recent years. Think of the Beeb as being the British equivalent to PBS; it represents a diverse array of opinions, but the community that supports it tends more often than not to be liberal. The BBC occasionally does things that I disagree with, as does PBS, but I'm grateful that both exist. My point about glasnost was that it gave us a positive impression of the word "dissident," because the word (as it is used stateside) is nearly always used to describe former Soviet and Eastern European prisoners of conscience. This is, I think, why Orson found the term offensive when applied to OBL. I can relate to his reaction, but the term is simply applied more broadly in the UK, so it does not carry the essentially positive connotations there that it carries here. Do a search for "dissident" in any British newspaper archive and you will see what I mean. Cheers,
Bin Ladin IS a dissident. He dissents from Saudi Arabia's cooperation with the Western powers. He dissents from Islam's accommodation with the kafirs. He dissents from the increasingly ubiquitous secular world culture that's being spread everywhere by technology, by international media and by economic globalization. I see nothing wrong with using the word 'dissident' on him, because that's precisely what he is. A 'dissident' is one who dissents. Bin Ladin dissents.
Herein lies my problem with the use of the word "dissident" to describe a terrorist. To call obl a dissident lacks precision. To me, this use of neutral language suggests a certain relativism. It is NOT precise to suggest that obl is the moral equal of a Sakharov or Solzhenitsyn.
It does not suggest that Osama is the moral equal of eveyone that has been called a dissident just because you use that word to describe him, at least not to me. Osama is a member of the human species. That does not suggest that he's the moral equal to you and I.
If the intention is to highlight OBL's alienation from the West, from contemporary Islamic establishments or even from conventional moral standards, then the word 'dissident' has a certain economy. Who suggested that? If our intention is to express distaste for OBL, then by all means call him a 'mother fucker' or 'piece of shit'. If our intention is to say something more thoughtful about him, then it might serve our purpose to use less emotionally laden words. That's why physicians dispassionately address disease processes in scientific terms, and not by swearing at them or by performing demon exorcisms over them. That seems to be the issue here. The issue isn't whether the word 'dissident' is precise, it's that the word isn't sufficiently loaded with passionate hostility.
