Author Topic: Editorial about walker  (Read 1045 times)

Offline Maverick

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13919
Editorial about walker
« on: December 28, 2001, 02:48:00 PM »
ROAD TO TREASON
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
December 13, 2001

It isn't the case that the parents of John Walker -- the Marin County child of privilege turned Taliban
terrorist -- never drew the line with their son.
True, they didn't do so when he was 14 and his consuming passion was collecting hip-hop CDs with
especially nasty lyrics.
And true, they didn't put their foot down when he announced at 16 that he was going to drop out of
Tamiscal High School -- the elite "alternative" school where students determined their own course of
study and only saw a teacher once a week.
And granted, they didn't interfere when he abruptly decided to become a Muslim after reading *The
Autobiography of Malcolm X,* grew a beard, and took to wearing long white robes and an oversized
skullcap. On the contrary: His father was "proud of John for pursuing an alternative course" and his
mother told friends that it was "good for a child to find a passion."
Nor did they object when he began spending more and more time at a local mosque and set about
trying to memorize the Koran.
Nor when he asked his parents to pay his way to Yemen so he could learn to speak "pure" Arabic.
Nor when they learned that his new circle of friends included gunmen who had been to Chechnya to
fight the Russians.
Nor when he headed to Pakistan to join a madrassah in a region known to be a stronghold of Islamist
extremists.
His parents also didn't balk when he went to fight in Afghanistan -- but that, at least, they didn't know
about: Walker hadn't told them. Perhaps by that point he had learned to take their consent for granted.
Only once, it seems, did Frank Lindh and Marilyn Walker actually deny their son something he
wanted. When he first adopted Islam and took the name Suleyman, they refused to use it and insisted on
calling him John. After all, he had been named for one of the giants of our time: John Lennon.
Their refusal must have amazed him. For as long as he could remember, his oh-so-progressive parents
had answered "Yes" to his every whim, indulged his every fancy, permitted -- even praised -- his every
passion. The only thing they insisted on was that nothing be insisted on. Nothing in his life was
important enough for his them to make an issue of: not his schooling, not his religion, not his appearance,
not even whether he stayed in America or moved -- while still a minor -- to a benighted Third World
oligarchy halfway around the world. Nothing. Except, of course, their right to call him by the name of
their favorite Beatle.
Devout practitioners of the self-obsessed nonjudgmentalism for which the Bay Area is renowned,
Lindh and Walker appear never to have rebuked their son or criticized his choices. In their world, there
were no absolutes, no fixed truths, no mandatory behavior, no thou-shalt-nots. If they had one
conviction, it was that all convictions are worthy -- that nothing is intolerable except intolerance.
But even in Marin County, there are times when children need to hear "No" and "Don't." They need
to know that there are limits they must respect and expectations they must try to live up to. If they
cannot find those limits and expectations at home, they are apt to look for them elsewhere. Newsweek
calls it "truly perplexing" that Walker, who "grew up in possibly the most liberal, tolerant place in America
. . . was drawn to the most illiberal, intolerant sect in Islam." There is nothing perplexing about it. He
craved standards and discipline. Mom and Dad didn't offer any. The Taliban did.
Even when it was clear that their son was sinking into Islamist fanaticism, they wouldn't pull back on
the reins. When Osama bin Laden's terrorists bombed the USS Cole and killed 17 American servicemen,
Walker e-mailed his father that the attack had been justified, since by docking the ship in Yemen, the
United States had committed "an act of war." Lindh now says that the message "raised my concerns" --
but that didn't stop him from wiring Walker another $1,200. After all, says Dad, "my days of molding
him were over." It isn't clear that they ever began.
It undoubtedly came as a jolt to his parents when Walker turned up at the fortress near Mazar-i-Sharif,
sporting an AK-47 and calling himself Abdul Hamid. But the revelation that their son had enlisted in Al
Qaeda and supported the Sept. 11 attacks brought no words of reproach -- or self-reproach -- to their
lips.
Walker deserved "a little kick in the butt" for keeping them in the dark about his plans, his father said,
but otherwise they just wanted to "give him a big hug." His mother, meanwhile, was quite sure that "if he
got involved with the Taliban he must have been brainwashed. . . . When you're young and
impressionable, it's easy to be led by charismatic people."
Yes, it is, and it's a pity that that didn't occur to her sooner. If she and Lindh had been less concerned
with flaunting their open-mindedness and more concerned with developing their son's moral judgment, he
wouldn't be where he is today. Walker is responsible for his own behavior and he will pay the price the
law requires. But his road to treason and jihad didn't begin in Afghanistan. It began in Marin County,
with parents who never said "No."


Was in an e-mail sent to me. I found it interesting and have to agree with the conclusion. He is certainly old enough to make his own decisions, now he should live with the consequences of them.


 

[ 12-28-2001: Message edited by: Maverick ]
DEFINITION OF A VETERAN
A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to and including my life."
Author Unknown

Offline miko2d

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3177
Editorial about walker
« Reply #1 on: December 28, 2001, 03:17:00 PM »
According to that logic if Lenin's parents "drew the line with their son" he would not have become a rebel, called for defeat of his own country in WWI and conspired with Kaiser government to that extent.
 Then the great proletarian revolution in Russia would not have taken place and the great and fair socialist society of Soviet Union would not have been built.
 Oh, right - Lenin's bolshevics were victorious, that makes all the difference.

 What? Bad example for you american folk? How about this one: if George Washington's parents "drew the line with their son" he would not have become a rebel against lawfull government treasonously conspiring with french...

 How about this: miraculously all the bad kids that were not properly brought up ended up treacherously fighting for Confederacy while the good kids were fighting (and won) for Union? Sounds plausible?

 Forget about the morals. Just deal with your enemies as you see fit. Whoever ends up victorious determines what the morals are.
 Then you can buy plenty of "journalists" like mr. Jeff Jakoby to explain those morals to the masses.

 miko

 P.S. To make things clear - while I hate both OBL and JWL, I respect them more then most of our own journalists that can explain everything after the fact and place the blame where it earns them biggest paycheck.

[ 12-28-2001: Message edited by: miko2d ]

Offline Udie

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3395
Editorial about walker
« Reply #2 on: December 28, 2001, 03:56:00 PM »
Maverick,

 That article is spot on IMO.


miko,

All of your examples are not good or true. How about because George Washington's parents raised him well and gave him good values he could see tirany and had the honor to stand up and fight it?

 You actually have respect for that mass murdereing son of a squeak?   I'll have respect for him when he has a large chunk of his forehead missing, oh wait, no i won't.

Offline miko2d

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3177
Editorial about walker
« Reply #3 on: December 28, 2001, 04:31:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Udie:
miko,
All of your examples are not good or true..
That as well may be - in this particular case. But they would have worked nevertheless in Russia or England. All depends who pays those editors.

You actually have respect for that mass murdereing son of a squeak?
 I said I have more respect to them then to the journalists.
 If in 20 years OBL succeeds in establishing the muslim state here in US and JWL is released from jail and elected our president (or khalif) like Nelson Mandela elsewhere, you, me and Mav will likely be dead, - but those jeffs jacobys will probably have changed their names to Abdul Khabib and will be writing articles in Boston Muslim Globe on how bad our parents raised us.

 You know whose opinion on JWL I respect? The honest one from G. W. Bush. He admitted not knowing what the heck was going on and making no conclusions about the "poor fellow". I guess we elected a dummy for a president. Should have elected Jeff Jacoby - he knows everything and has no doubts!

 When I joined Soviet Army (and there was my decision involved despite the draft system), I still though that USA was bad and USSR was good and was willing to take arms and spill my blood in order to hurt USA.
 Later I acqured knowlege based on which I diametrically changed my opinion. I am ready to spill my blood for USA interests.
 That does not mean that I did not deserve respect when I was the enemy or that all people opposing us are not deserving respect.
 Their morals may be very different and a person never exposed to more then one set of morals cannot comprehend that there is more then one. Killing innocents is not immoral to some people or concept of innocence or even of killing may be different or foreign to them. And the morals change all the time. Burning the population of Dresden for no discernible reason was apparently moral at one time.

 Nevertheless, a life-loving person placing his body in the way of danger for something he/she believes in rates some respect in my book. Competence rates some respect in my book and OBL is obviously competent.

 Respect, competence, bravery, honesty are not morally-loaded concepts  but objective ones. They have nothing to do with "goodness" or "badness" of the people/objects they are attached to. I respect power of a weapon while loathing it's purpose - especially if that weapon is in enemy hand.
 I love our CIA and NSA but I do not respect them because they obviously missed a war that was conducted against our country for quite a few years. Same goes for the know-all editor who wrote that article.
 The editor is on our side but he does not respect us as his audience by insulting our intelligence and feeding us righteous roadkill.

 So I admit that I respect some people I consider our enemies. Does not mean that given an opportunity I would not try to kill them in the most expedient way. But I would not torture them or deface their bodies as I would do with journalists that got in my way...

 miko

[ 12-28-2001: Message edited by: miko2d ]

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
Editorial about walker
« Reply #4 on: December 28, 2001, 04:58:00 PM »
Well put, Miko.

Lest we all forget... Adolf Galland (and his ilk) flew and fought for a murdering regime.

It doesn't diminish our respect for them.
sand

Offline Udie

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3395
Editorial about walker
« Reply #5 on: December 28, 2001, 05:01:00 PM »
I'm too tired and it's friday. I do understand what you mean though.  I'm glad you saw the truth about the good ole US of A too  :)

Offline Raubvogel

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3882
Editorial about walker
« Reply #6 on: December 28, 2001, 05:15:00 PM »
I think you're missing the point miko.

The article isn't about John Walker Habib Abu Whatever. The article is about how our society has changed regarding the raising of children and how the editor thinks we have gone too far down the gentle road. Personally, I agree with him. I'd love to see a movement back to the days when bellybutton whoopins' were a part of growing up and kids could expect to get paddled in school for doing something stupid. I raised my kids the same way I was raised. If they needed an bellybutton whoopin, you can be damn sure they got it. If they do something I disapprove of, they know they are going to hear about it. How a child turns out can't be blamed on anyone but the parents. IMO anyone who lets their teenage son move to a third world country without supervision shouldn't be allowed to have children. And they certainly shouldn't be surprised at how he turns out.

Offline Thrawn

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6972
Editorial about walker
« Reply #7 on: December 28, 2001, 05:30:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Raubvogel:
I think you're missing the point miko.

The article isn't about John Walker Habib Abu Whatever. The article is about how our society has changed regarding the raising of children and how the editor thinks we have gone too far down the gentle road. Personally, I agree with him. I'd love to see a movement back to the days when bellybutton whoopins' were a part of growing up and kids could expect to get paddled in school for doing something stupid. I raised my kids the same way I was raised. If they needed an bellybutton whoopin, you can be damn sure they got it. If they do something I disapprove of, they know they are going to hear about it. How a child turns out can't be blamed on anyone but the parents. IMO anyone who lets their teenage son move to a third world country without supervision shouldn't be allowed to have children. And they certainly shouldn't be surprised at how he turns out.

I agree that that this guy was probably missing discipline from his parents when he was younger.  But discipline does not have to entail beating your kids.

Offline Raubvogel

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3882
Editorial about walker
« Reply #8 on: December 28, 2001, 05:53:00 PM »
There's a difference between beating your kids and smacking them on their bellybutton when they do something wrong.

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
Editorial about walker
« Reply #9 on: December 28, 2001, 06:07:00 PM »
<SALUTE> MIKO, very well stated.

Raub, I think there is something very important missing here. This journalist is drawing a conclusion after the fact based on his political views. No doubt Walker's parents are most likely well meaning idiots. But saying he turned out the way he did because of his "open" upbringing is impossible to prove from a distance. How many kids in Marin were brought up in an open environment? How many turned out like Walker? The article is more propaganda than reporting.

Offline Raubvogel

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3882
Editorial about walker
« Reply #10 on: December 28, 2001, 06:11:00 PM »
Well, it is an editorial, and is entirely an opinion and open to interpretation...

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Editorial about walker
« Reply #11 on: December 28, 2001, 06:49:00 PM »
Which freeway????  :)

Offline easymo

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1640
Editorial about walker
« Reply #12 on: December 28, 2001, 10:23:00 PM »
"It doesn't diminish our respect for them."

  Speak for yourself pal.  Some kraut, that made his bones killing allied pilots, while fighting for fascism, will have no respect to diminish.  May he rot in hell.

Offline StSanta

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
Editorial about walker
« Reply #13 on: December 29, 2001, 09:35:00 AM »
Miko is actually spot on. Select the aspects that support your side, portrary them in as negative a manner as you can, and then go about it.

It's a commonly used (and effective) tactic amongst critical journalists. It's an entertaining style, but not very objective.

The dude did it. Not his parents. Regardless of your baggage, *you* are responsible for your actions.

Playing what if games won't help here. It'll turn into a mudslining contest: those who are libveral in ther upbringing of their kids will be called "too lenient spineless idiots", and those more strict "totalitarian mind controlling child abusers".

Walker did it. No one else.

Offline Udie

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3395
Editorial about walker
« Reply #14 on: December 29, 2001, 09:51:00 AM »
If I were his father I'd be thinking...

 Only IF I'd made him stay in the USA...

or

 I wonder IF my sending money to him can be considered giving financial support to known terrorist?