November 02, 2004

• Sorry I had to get all political on that ass for my first FPP (hell, I've been too scared to even comment before today), but since the election is tomorrow I thought it was appropriate. I think this article really illustrates the fact that this "War on Terror" has from the start been inadequate in truly being able to reduce the threat of terrorism. Going around the world with a doctrine of preemption, killing all known terrorists is simply breeding more. We are gravely mistaken in not addressing the true causes terrorism... which is, of course, the terrorists' hatred of freedom. But seriously, I am quite dubious as to the ability of our current administration (not to mention some of my fellow citizens) to see how we are actually causing some of our own problems.
• Bin Laden always claims things after the fact. He saw the financial problems the US economy faces, and decided to take credit for it as his idea. Same with 9-11, which he claimed credit for in a previous video (the one where he has some homies round for dinner*) yet he garbled details of the collapse of the WTC buildings, showing that he was just taking stuff out of the latest reports and using it to his own advantage. I don't even think he planned 9-11, it was someone else's idea. No way that Bin Hidin' thought that he could scam the US into bankruptcy - he's not that smart as evidenced by previous diatribes of his in which he shows an oversimplified understanding of world politics - in any case the Afghanistan conflict causing economic problems for the Soviet Union bringing about its demise is highly questionable idea if not downright wrong. He wants to think he's the fucking centre of the universe, this guy. He's been lucky so far, but evil people always fail. Soon he will be dead. *Some people claim that it was not the real OBM in that video
• Let's sell our nukes to rogue states so we can pay for our starving babies to get food. /tasteless
• Osama's Campaign Commercial
• Clockwork: Just because he didn't think of it beforehand, doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense now. Though I agree with you that there's no chance that Afghanistan alone caused the downfall of the USSR (and neither will OBL cause the downfall of the US), I still think the basic idea of draining the money of a country in such a way is a relatively effective tactic. And, uh, I've got a history book of well fed, comfortable, happy homicidal maniac dictators who would disagree with your second last sentence.
• Nice link. You can think what you want about the man, but the news agencies fall all over themselves not to report the substance of his statements. Most people believe that the Trade Center and Pentagon were attacked because they hate freedom and democracy. Their statements have consistently said that they oppose financial and military ventures into their land. Their actions (attacking the number one symbol of global capitalism and global military power) are consistent with that. But the media is content to let everyone believe that it was an attack on freedom and democracy.
• From Homunculus' link: If John Kerry wins, the Saudi will surely claim credit for regime change in the United States, much as jihadists have gloated about the fall of the Spanish government after the Madrid train bombings in March. If George W. Bush is re-elected, Bin Laden will crow to the Muslim world that the electoral results confirm what he has been saying all along: The American people are determined to inflict harm on Muslims, occupy their lands, and destroy Islam. So it's lose, lose - EXCEPT he didn't take into account Ralph Nader! So it's actually lose, lose, lose.
• He saw the financial problems the US economy faces, and decided to take credit for it as his idea. Well, Bush has been so gracious about giving him credit for Bush's own financial disasters. Like I've said before, they need each other.
• So in other words, Osama's plan is 'Give 'em enough rope..." The guy doesn't have to be that smart. It's the oldest trick in the book. And it's working.
• Hey COP, you sound like an idiot when you make statements like "soon he will be dead". How do you know that, are you his doctor? Or is this just an issue of faith? The rest of your comment is rubbish too.
• How do you know that, are you his doctor? And are you taking new patients? Bin Laden looks very healthy. How do you get dialysis in a cave, anyway?
• But the media is content to let everyone believe that it was an attack on freedom and democracy. yup, because anything more complex wouldn't keep anyone’s attention...including our president's.
• Thanks for the post, Aceyim. I was looking forward (in some sense) to hearing about the other 4 minutes of OBL's tape. This is actually consistent with what Anonymous, the senior CIA officer, says in "Imperial Hubris" about OBL's strategy. It is not to inflict terror, but actually to drive the U.S. into bankruptcy. I was reminded of that book when reading about the tape, in particular, One official said that the government is waiting for the intelligence community to further analyze the tape, and that among things analysts will be looking for are any hidden messages that might be contained in the tape.(link) As Anonymous said, there is no hidden message! Bin Laden is saying everything straight up. We're doing things he, and many Muslims, don't like. We need to stop. If we don't, we will be attacked again. Bernockle: Agreed.
• Bernockle is a commie. Oops, I mean a terrorist.
• A lot of what he says makes sense, and that's the biggest problem the US has with Bin Laden
• Thank you.
• ...the game the Brits lost at... Were you thinking of a specific case, js? The Brits in nineteenth century Afghanistan, or early twentieth century Iraq - or just the jolly old Empire as a whole? If there is a parallel to the 'war on terror' in British history it would be interesting, but I'm not sure what it would be. Must have been the time we tried to bust Gandhi's goddamned ass out of his mountain retreat with shedloads of high explosive - no, I'm sorry please forget I wrote that...
• If you think it is interesting now, wait until Saudi Arabia's fundamentalist revolution. It'll be the biggest thing since the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. Imagine the fall of the Shah of Iran only a magnitude greater.
• Plegmund- I can't seem to find it offhand, but there was an excellent editorial in the NY Times comparing the US's adventure in Iraq to the British "Special Mandate," and what it meant to each empire. By Ian somethingorother... It may be because I'm reading Orientalism now, but I was refering more to the British mindset that facillitated Near East colonialism, specifically in Afghanistan, Iraq and Egypt. The parallels are there not so much in the specific motivators of policy, but in the relationships of power. The same things that made for effective ideological groundswells in support of anti-Imperial insurgencies (be they against the French, British or Americans) have continued on through our relationship with Iraq, and we don't seem to have gained any operational ability to counter them. Nationalism, not to be confused with pro-statism, has lived through the World Wars in most of the developing world where it didn't in most of the West, and that's a great catalyst for unrest and anti-democratic, violent movements. Which is pretty much what we're seeing. It's odd how Saddam got compared to Hitler all the time in the right wing press, but Osama rarely does, even though as a rhetorician he's got more in common with Der Fuhrer than Hussein ever did. And, to try to pull this out of overt Godwin, I think that a lot of people who compare them do so simply on the level of "Hilter= Evil, Osama= Evil, Saddam= Evil" instead of actually taking the time to read any of their writings...
• js - I'll have a look for the article myself. The comparison in Iraq is an interesting one - we hear a lot over here at the moment about the supposedly greater sublety and lighter touch of the British Army, but historically the Brits were outstandingly clumsy and heavy handed in that region, ready to use anything up to and including poison gas. Hitler is indeed often used as just a handy shorthand for evil, of course. The OBL phenomenon is another kettle of fish, and I think possibly something genuinely new.
• This just reveals Bin Laden to be a tactician superior to any of the Bush regime. While he may not be absolutely able to bankrupt the U.S., he has certainly aided in crippling the economy and ensuring that other nations which trade with the U.S. are going to be far more cautious. If attacks in the U.S. resume and Iraq continues to be a losing (yet committed, stupidly) involvement, look for other nations not to invest or advance you loans, and for existing loans to be called in. Considering that Bin Laden's movement is based on religion and the U.S. values money over all else, I think the advantage is entirely Bin Laden's. Flagwavers and anthem weasels might not feel so wonderful backing the foolishness of foreign wars of aggression if they start having to go to food banks and soup kitchens and the prospect of employment seems as remote as the stars. You can take away their lives, and that's all you have to threaten them with. Meanwhile, they've, in a very cost-effective manner, managed to damage and further threaten your economy.