April 22, 2004

memo from Osama bin Laden , from common dreams the potential for a new and daring democracy.

posted by dxlifer 20 years ago
  • is this osama person someone i'd have to have a president with more than a one-track mind to have heard of lately?
  • Osama? Osama? Doesn't ring a bell. Did he have anything to do with ultimate evil-doer Saddam?
  • Not only did luck allow us to inflict maximum
  • Levi- I'm not sure why you would believe that CD thinks Al Qaida dislikes the current admin for the same reasons. Or rather, I'm not sure what, in the phony memo, would give you that impression. Agree or disagree, I think the point they were trying to basically make was that the US is playing right into Al Qaida's hands; helping them complete many otheir own objectives for them. (Diverting troops and resources from Hindu Kush, enraging Muslims, limiting US citizens' freedom, and terror-ifying the US populace.) I'm not so sure about your analogy, though. Maybe this would be more accurate, yet, it probably makes a different point (if any): US/British/Ally (I'll call 'em "Oceania";) forces launching a missile to destroy something of strategic value; for example, an Iraqi intelligence agency... if there ever was such a thing. Or better yet, how about some sort of "supply depot" in the middle of Baghdad. Similarly, Al Qaida achieved its goal of cripping one of Oceania's financial "supply depots," though, with considerable loss of life; aka "collateral damage". The military leaders of both Al Qaida and Oceania had plenty of time (a few years and a few months, respectively. not exactly a split second.) to plan for the bombings, and both groups considered and accepted the fact that innocent people would be killed as a result. War is hell, right? Maybe you could clarify some of your points... Seriously and objectively answer these questions: What does Al Qaida want? What does Oceania want? What does Common Dreams want? What does the_levianthan want? When is "collateral damage" acceptable to achieve one's goals? How much "collateral damage" is acceptable? I'm not trying to bait you or sound like a prick. Just want to hear your point of view and/or see if we're on the same page. On a lighter note, why is Mohammed Atta the only hijacker we remember? At least, I don't think I could name any of the other guys. Is it just an easy name to remember or did he do something different? The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend. ...ironically demonstrated by our dysfunctional relationships with unsavory notables such as Ahmed Chalabi, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, etc.
  • Agree or disagree, I think the point they were trying to basically make was that the US is playing right into Al Qaida's hands, that was my interpretation, as well. the couching of the theme in a parody of a bureaucratic memo only served to heighten this effect, imo.
  • Seriously and objectively answer these questions: What does Al Qaida want? The murder of every Westerner, particularly Americans. "We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets, and this is what the fatwah says ... . The fatwah is general (comprehensive) and it includes all those who participate in, or help the Jewish occupiers in killing Muslims." Keep in mind he said this in the late 90's, long before the current mess, so blaming "Muslim rage" on what's going on now is just a load of crap. You're effectively blaming the U.S. for acting in self defense. What does Oceania want? No more attacks on our civilian populations, a steady flow of oil. (And I think that Orwellian language passing as cleverness has about played itself out. 1984 was about an all-encompassing communist entity, not the U.S.) What does Common Dreams want? The ouster of Bush, the collapse of Israel, a socialized economy. What does the_levianthan want? No more idiotic links from the far right or far left. We may as well be posting crap from Free Republic. Let's really objectively examine the claims here. By attacking AQ, the U.S. has supposedly played right into their hands. Bush has become the focal point in this war, giving OBL the PR win he needed, right? But let's see what OBL had to say about our previous president: "I say to them that they have put themselves at the mercy of a disloyal government, and this is most evident in Clinton's administration ... We believe that this administration represents Israel inside America." We can't win against radical Islamists with reason. They're don't give a damn whether we have a Democrat or Republican in office. We win by killing them, drying up their funding, and transforming the region's ideology. As to you comparisons to Chalibi, Saddam et al, I agree entirely.
  • ...blaming "Muslim rage" on what's going on now is just a load of crap. You're effectively blaming the U.S. for acting in self defense. I think you misunderstood. Obviously Muslims have been enraged at the US for a number of years now. Whether or not the US, by invading Iraq, was "acting in self defense" is debatable... nonetheless, it's beyond the scope of the point I was trying to make: We (still) aren't winning (m)any Muslim hearts & minds and we weren't greeted in Iraq as liberators. But worst of all, we are pissing off more and more (already skeptical) Muslims each day, contributing significantly to the likelihood of further atrocities. Every time an errant bomb drops in somebody's living room, every time someone catches an errant bullet in the ass, and every time somebody's little girl gets shrapnel blown through their head... people get angry. "Just" war or not, accident or apathy; it's tough to win support when it happens. The collapse of Israel? I've never heard anything like that. It sounds extreme, and perhaps a bit paranoid. The only people who honestly want Israel to collapse are the Neo Nazis (all 13 of them?) and a very small but vocal minority of militant Arabs. Yet, I'd be willing to bet that more people are opposed to a Palestinian statehood than Israel's. Grossly mischaracterizing Common Dreams -- a progressive non-profit, grassroots organization -- in such an hyperbolic way is very misleading. Hence, I also question your usage of the expression, "socialized economy". If you are dubiously implying the FUD-meme that progressives support a tyrannical Soviet-style authoritarian structure, then I must applaud your ironic use of such doctrinal doublespeak. One can debate the meaning of the term "socialism," but if it means anything, it means control of production by the workers themselves, not owners and managers who rule them and control all decisions, whether in capitalist enterprises or an absolutist state. Anyway, most progressives support free enterprise, provided the workers are reasonably safe and paid a livable wage. Why fault progressives for such ideals? There's nothing fringe about the popular belief that there really might be progress towards a more just society with democratic control over its basic institutions and concern for human needs and rights. We win by killing them, drying up their funding, and transforming the region's ideology. What do we win? Freedom? Safety? Victory gin? If US foreign policy (Bush, Clinton, Reagan, whoever. Take your pick) wasn't starting shit in the first place, we wouldn't have to worry about winning such a fucked up game. And good luck with that whole 'transforming the region's ideology' thing...
  • hmm...the_leviathan establish weighty source of his name and the wedge intervenes. /my dog has very tender toes, but that's due to his skin allergies. at least all is understood if his tootsies are accidently stepped on.
  • ah, what the heck, i just have to do this and it's not from common dreams.
  • Being Osama Gradually, as the questions keep coming, I found myself thinking like bin Laden.