« a fake jamaican took every last dime with that scam | Main | It's a small world after all »
So what's it gonna be boy, yes or no?
by anna at 07:37 PM on April 15, 2004
Every so often some shit like this pops up and pisses me off to no end. Who the hell does this guy think he is? A freaking truce? I'll get back to that.
Everyone despises Osama and his ilk for their involvement with the attack on the USS Cole, our embassies, 9/11, Bali and Madrid among sundry other atrocities against mankind. I won't belabor the obvious by rehashing all that.
But what really gets me about him is his smugness. Here's the spoiled rich white boy who never had to work a day in his life, talkng about how the masses are oppressed. Yeah they are oppressed alright, by people like the bin Laden clan.
There he is in his immaculate flowing robes, pointing his elongated, Arsenio Hall-like fingers at the camera. You half expect his lackeys to start that whooping and hollering Hall's audience used to do. Sitting there cross-legged on the dirt floor like some all-knowing swami, dispensing his pearls of wisdom in that calm, articulate voice of hatred.
I just hate that quality in anyone let alone a bloodthirsty mass murderer. But what's the worst of all is his cloaking what is a transparent political power grab in religion. Look, this shaman doesn't have a religion. The one he claims to be so devoted to, namely Islam, specifically prohibits the blatant killing of women, children, fellow Muslims and non-combatants in general. Osama's henchman do all that every chance they get. Hell, for all I know, they chop down fruit trees for firewood to heat his caves too. (Also prohibited by the Koran.)
Fact is Islam is as practiced by a billion or so peaceable, mainstream Sunnis and Shi-ites. It is not the virulent strain known as Wahibbi, which Osama and the Saudi royal family espouse. Strife is undesirable. These Wahibbis love strife. They foment strife. They thrive on strife. Unrest is their lifeblood. Thus, by extension, they are unwelcome in the general gene pool. Certainly the world would be better off if Osama and all his associates were forced to bathe in smallpox.
But I am not a violent man. Violence only begets more violence. Hence my modest proposal: Osama et al want us to vacate all Muslim lands including Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine (which last I checked isn't home to a big American presence and has no usable resources anyhow.) They want us to stop propping up corrupt Arab regimes that prevent them from establishing hegemony over the oil-laden Middle East, their goal. They want us to stop supporting Israel via $4 billion of your money every year.
Fine. Agree to all of it and leave immediately. Never to return. Cut off foreign aid to everyone, including the $3 billion you fork over to Egypt's tyrant Hosni Mubarek. Return all that money to American taxpayers. All we ask is that people from the area refrain from visiting ours. If they have a pressing business need we'll review it on a case by case basis and summarily deny all requests for visas. Ever heard of teleconferences?
There's your truce you bearded freak.
Oh, there is one more minor detail. Y'all better start policing yourselves under this new arrangement. Root out your extremists (you know where they are!!) and snuff them or cage them. Because if they ever cause another calamity for the now separate West, man, there will be indiscriminate Hiroshima-style hell to pay. But so long as there's no 9/11 redux, Western civilization and Osama's medieval vision can co-exist how ever uneasily. Y'all stay over there and we'll stay over here and never the two shall meet. We'll see who prospers and who withers on the vine.
Well actually two: Hey Osama, don't suppose you've heard from Sabiha lately, huh? What, you've already forgotten about your 1st wife and mother to almost all your kids? Why was it she left your pious ass? Oh that's right, you bringing that nubile teen young enough to be your daughter into the marital fold.
Just drop the religious pretense, you horn-dog, and then maybe somebody might take you seriously. Be who you are without shame. Like Tony Soprano.
comments (25)
My only question is why isn't Osama bin Laden dead yet? We can put an ill moving robot on Mars, yet we can't kill one millionaire, beareded, religious zealot? He should be dead now. Why isn't he dead?
by mg at April 15, 2004 11:29 PM
What I've been thinking all day. In a situation where you will be criticized for doing something AND criticized for doing nothing, you are better off doing nothing if only to save yourself the effort.
Close the embassies, cut the oil pipelines, revoke the aid, and watch them continue on the long slide to barbarism that started in the 15th Century with the closing of the libraries. Twats.
by Adam at April 16, 2004 5:50 AM
Well said. You're basically damned if you do and damned if you don't so don't.
And there's more than one reason to wonder why this asshole is still alive. We know where he is within a 40 mile radius. Why are we relying on bungling, sympathetic Pakistani "troops"? Lastly, all this guy ever talks about is "martyrdom operations." Why hasn't he martyred himself for the so-called cause? Huh?
by anna at April 16, 2004 7:48 AM
Of course your modest proposal misses the main two reasons the U.S. meddles in the that reason in the first place, keeping a reliable supply of oil coming, and ensuring that Isreal survives (thanks to its strong lobby in the states)
The U.S. government has meddled in areas all over the world ever since its had the ability to do so. It won't stop at this point, and some of the people from the "meddled" areas will continue to hate the U.S., and try and reduce or eliminate the meddling.
Adam - do you really think the U.S. and its economy could stand the shock of the immediate loss of 1/3 (or so not sure of the exact figures) of its oil supply? Recover? Yes, but slowly (of course), but it would still be a massive kick to the U.S. economy's groin.
by chuckwoolery at April 16, 2004 3:47 PM
Chuck, you act as if the U.S. leaving the Middle East completly would have no effect on Canada, not to mention every other country in the world. It is the goal of racist, religous extermist groups like Al Qaeda to not only remove the U.S. from the region, but all non-muslims. The strong U.S. presence in the region is the only thing keeping those types from rounding up and killing every single white, christian, or otherwise non-muslim.
So, just leaving the region comeplty now would not only criple the entire oil-reliant western economy, but sentence all non-muslims in the region to quick massacres or slow, painful, and constant brutality.
If I were president of the U.S. now, I'd match every dollar spent on the "war on terror" with another dollar toward developing alternative fuel sources. The sooner we get over our reliance on oil, the sooner we can leave the region, and finally let the extremists get what they want so they have no even remotely valid reason to complain or hate the west. If, after that, they are still blowing up embassies and the like (which they will, since they are religious and racist zealots, and can likely be appeased about as well as Hitler was), there wont need to be the kind of justification for retaliation we need now (as if blowing up buildings weren't reason enough for retaliation).
by mg at April 16, 2004 4:24 PM
My comment wasn't meant to suggest anything of what you say there. Of course it would have a tremendous effect on Canada as well.
My comment was meant to suggest that the situation isn't as simplistic as the modest proposal here would seem to suggest.
And you're right, if the U.S. spent as much on alternative fuel research as on the war on terror, it would mean much less U.S. reliance on that area in the future. Which can only be a good thing for the U.S. and all western countries.
by chuck woolery at April 16, 2004 5:24 PM
I've only got, like, seven more years before I'm elligible to be elected president. As I doubt Bush, Kerry, Clinton II, or anyone else on the path to the White House is likely to push for an alternative for oil, I think I've got a real shot in 2012.
by mg at April 16, 2004 5:32 PM
Sometimes typos rock, like describing al Qaeda as extermist. And let me add that Israel seems pretty capable of defending itself and more all on its own. As for the oil, there's lots of it in Russia, Nigeria, Mexico and Alaska. I think we should start by tapping those sources to the max and boycotting Saudi and Iranian oil. Trust me, Saudis are not our friends. There, heads literally roll.
by anna at April 16, 2004 6:28 PM
Oh wait, I almost forgot that we now control the second largest oil reserve in the world. Problem solved.
by anna at April 16, 2004 6:30 PM
Every time you post about this topic Anna your posts just ever so slightly reek of closet racism. You have so missed the point of why Bin-laden hates America. I mean do you really understand why? Do you really hold the belief that it's some sort of pure religious extremism? I'm not saying I agree with Bin-Laden but you can't generalise the way in which you do! Your statement of "Violence only begets more violence" is so true but then so surely ignorance only begets more ignorance.
People don't just fly planes into buildings for no reason. This whole thing has come about because of the last, I don't how many, years of US foreign policy, the shitting on people, the dodgy deals made in the cold war, the using of other countries to fight the cold war (which Bin-Laden did for America funnily enough), puppet regimes, weapons, the constant unbalance kept in the Middle-East to make sure a conquer and divide strategy is always available. The list is never ending.
Oh BTW has anybody actually proved yet that any one "terrorist group" is responsible for 9/11? I think not. So easy to point the finger in order to answer the populations questions in deflection of the rather apparent failings of your secret services to detect the threat, even though it was staring you in the face.
So go ahead hate something all you want if you feel "media education" is enough of a basis to do that on.
MG I so fail to see how you can even begin to compare Hitler with anything. It’s almost offensive and belittling.
I tentatively await your usual (over)reaction.
by ;o) at April 17, 2004 8:06 AM
Well, I can't speak for MG. But what you perceive as closet racism is actually hyperbole, or exaggeration for effect. No, I don't think this problem is simple. No, I don't really think an indiscriminate attack would solve anything. No, I don't believe the US/Britain is blameless in the string of tragedies perpetrated by bin Laden's gang of thugs. As for the "pure religious extremism," I said the opposite, that religion plays no role in his thinking and motivation. And we don't need to prove it was them because they openly admit it, gloat over it even. In the link, bin Laden himself does just that over his Madrid massacre. Lastly, bin Laden and most al Qaeda members are Arabs. Arabs, for the most part, are Caucasian. So am I. So how can it be racist of me to criticize them? Maybe culturalist is the right word.
by anna at April 17, 2004 8:28 AM
It doesn't answer my question:
Do you really understand why Bid-Laden hates America so much?
I already have my answer so don't bother responding to that. May I suggest that you read the Koran, perhaps then you'll have a deeper understanding as to the language used in Bin-Ladens recent "truce statement" instead of reading/seeing through Western eyes? As I've already said ignorance only begets more ignorance.
It's pretty thin to try and say it's "culuralist". Perhaps if you were less sensationalist I wouldn't draw the conclusion that you're indeed a closet racist.
by ;o) at April 17, 2004 9:36 AM
The comparison was this: in order to appease Hitler, in the hopes of preventing further German invasion of other European nations, England, France, the U.S. and Russia all agreed to "ignore" the invasion of Poland. In the end the treaty between Germany and those countries was just a German ruse to allow them more time to prepare for a full-scale war. If today, Germany, Spain, England, etc, agree to a truce bin Laden, I am willing to go out on a limb and predict al Qaeda will be the ones to break the truce, and to do so in a manner very similar to the 9/11 attacks, the African embassy bombings, the Madrid metro bombings, or the Malaysian club bombings. If you fail to see why a comparison could be made between these two very similar situations, don't blame me.
I don't care what reason people use to validate, as a first means of political discourse, to blow up innocent civilians on trains, buildings, and airplanes. It could be the most logical reason ever; the fact is the acts are illogical, and simply put, evil. Whether bin Laden's motives are political, religious, or pure greed and power hunger, his motives will never, and can never, justify the means.
But, lets say this really was about cold war politics, why then have all these terrorist groups ignored Russia? They are just as guilty (moreso in regards to the middle east) of abusing the third world populace for political gain. Why have they been ignored when perpetrating the various attacks over the last half decade? Because the political motivations people like you look for in the actions of madmen DO NO EXIST. This whole thing is only a xenophobic, religious, and cultural issue, something no one chooses to address because it makes the problem so much more difficult to ever solve.
As a westerner myself, you'll probably say I'm biased, but I say a western culture of democracy, capitalism, and secularism are the future. The middle eastern theocracies, and the cultural restrictions associated with such, are of the past. These hateful terrorist attacks are the last death gasps of a people who's way of life will soon be changing, no matter what they do. It is only a matter of time before secularism and democracy take hold in the middle east, which will leave power-mongers like bin Laden on the outside, not just of the global economy/culture, but with their own people.
Call this my "usual (over)reaction", but I now await your usual nonsensical response.
by mg at April 17, 2004 10:29 AM
A couple more points.
I understand that bin Laden and Iraq are not (or at least were not) connected. But, if you posit that the reason the average citizen of the middle east hates America is for post-cold war politics, how do you explain the joy in the faces of the Iraqi citizens last week as they chopped up the bodies of American citizens, drug the bodies through the streets of Fallujah, and hung the body parts from a bridge? I find it difficult to believe anyone would get that worked up over purely political reasons, mainly because I can recall no other case in history in which such vitriol as to dismember a body was brought about over a political debate. What we saw there wasn’t people upset about politics - that was pure, irrational, hatred.
Any why shouldn’t they hate us? You talked about ignorance. In the balance of things, would you say someone with access to dozens of international television channels (via cable), the entirety of the worlds knowledge through public education and libraries, not to mention near universal access to the internet (80% of the population), and day-to-day contact with people different than them on the streets of every city is more ignorant than someone who has heard only the opinions of their political and religious leaders, is most likely illiterate, and has no or very limited access to the internet, international television, radio, or newspapers? Completely separated from this particular issue, I would pick the first group every single time as most likely to truly understand the big picture. In terms of ignorance, it would be the average citizen of the Middle East who is missing the information to be making valid decisions about who and who not to hate.
And finally, you say “May I suggest that you read the Koran, perhaps then you'll have a deeper understanding as to the language used in Bin-Laden's recent "truce statement" instead of reading/seeing through Western eyes”. Do you realize how silly this sounds? Firstly, you said this isn’t about religion or racism, but politics. If it was truly about politics, what role does the Koran (or the Bible, or the Torah) have in the discussion? Secondly, such a statement presupposes that the Koran is the correct book to be basing your life on. I’m not saying it is or it isn’t, but if someone’s argument is based on the supposition that the Koran is THE book, simply because they say it is THE book, there will never be a peace achieved.
The only thing to satisfy someone of such religious principles is that everyone else share those religious principles. And, in the case of bin Laden’s extremist sect, all those who do not share his beliefs are the enemy. If the choice is between the overwhelming majority of the world, made up of western secular/Christians, mainstream Muslims, and secular/non-Judeo-Christian easterners, whose beliefs make enemies of no other religion, and the tiny, miniscule population of bin Laden’s extremist Wahabism, who make enemies of all other peoples (even other non Wahabi Muslims), which do you think I am choosing? Which do you think people should choose?
by mg at April 17, 2004 11:27 AM
Damn eloquent MG. Funny thing is, for some time now I have been reading snippets of the Koran. I want to know what makes these folks tick and it seemed a natural place to start.
But here's the real kicker on this topic: I saw Don Rumsfeld on TV, prattling on about democracy in Iraq being such a shining beacon for the rest of the troubled area. Someone asked him what he'd think if Iraqi democracy yielded the Taliban in a fair and square election. He looked aghast and basically said there's no way we'd all allow that result to stand. Some democracy, huh.
by anna at April 17, 2004 4:02 PM
Anna, that's horrifying. Could Rumsfeld even try to hide his repulsive agenda? I guess he doesn't feel the need to.
"These hateful terrorist attacks are the last death gasps of a people who's way of life will soon be changing, no matter what they do...." You totally hit the nail on the head, MG. I agree.
I don't like the idea that Adolf Hitler can't be compared to anything (anyone). Josef Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung were also responsible for killing tens of millions of people, so, actually, he has a lot of company. If we refuse to consider the idea that any other person can ever be as "bad" as Hitler, then, besides being ignorant of facts, we're letting down our guard. Other people can, have, and will again. Bin Laden may not ever reach the tens of millions, but we know he wants to. And you know... dreams do come true.
by jean at April 17, 2004 6:08 PM
Er, not to say I advocate leveling Afghanistan with WMDs, but I do believe Bin Laden needs to be handled. We can't just let him be.
by jean at April 17, 2004 6:11 PM
What difference does it make what the Koran says?! There's no excuse for being hell-bent on killing all Americans, or all anybody else for that matter.
by AlterEgo at April 17, 2004 11:38 PM
To kill is a terrible thing. Any book that makes allowances for the slaughter of innocents is wrong. The Koran is wrong, the Torah is wrong. There are elements of truth in most any major religious text, but to slovenly follow any dogma is to ignore all of the human developement that has taken place since the text in question was authored. The Koran was fine for its time (and in many ways was pretty progressive), but progressive attitudes become conservative attitudes and then turn downright backward if you never allow them to change and grow - this is the effect of dogma on any society.
TW: the argument that we are ignorant for not considering the cultural background a man is no stronger than its equivalent, that he is ignorant for ignoring our cultural background. In an atmosphere of tolerance we can come to a common understanding, but in a case where one culture acts like another is invalid, evil, or irrelevant and all accomodation must be done by one side, who is to blame for the misunderstandings that result? The death of many cultures arose from their own inability to cope with foreigners, even when the foreigners were in a position of power.
by Adam at April 18, 2004 5:20 AM
Oh, and something my mom said today, "Oil is the only thing the Saudis have to offer the world. We need to cut them out of the picture, preferably by lessening our need for oil." She then quoted my grandfather, of all people, "If their oil is so valuable, let the Saudis drink it."
by Adam at April 18, 2004 5:25 AM
Brilliant, Adam--liked your comment "TW" comment in your first post. (And your mom's and grandfather's statements too. ) Bumper sticker I saw yesterday: When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
by AlterEgo at April 18, 2004 3:02 PM
MG, your knowledge of the Hitler appeasement thing is a little off.
The western countries (Britian and France) agreed to put up with the Anschluss (annexation) of the Sudetenland (area of Czech republic). Britian and France didn't put up with the invasion of Poland, and declared war after that invasion.
Russia also went along with the Anschluss, and with the invasion of Poland (infamous secret Nazi-Soviet non-agression pact) and only joined the war after Nazi germany invaded them.
The U.S. was still very isolationist, and wasn't willing to go to war over any of that, only joining after it (you all) was attacked at Pearl harbor. All of that political maneouvering has been oversimplified to be used as a historical example of "appeasement".
Granted, it is a good example of trying to reason with a person / group that cannot be reasoned with. Al queda does seem to one of those groups.
As for the comment of reading the Koran, all I took from that comment was that Bin Laden is using language from it that has social/ political / religious meaning to the Arabs that the messages are aimed at. The same comments through western eyes (us non-koran readers) often miss the significance / point of many of the Al-queda missives.
Adam, I'm not sure if you're referring to what I think you are in your TW comment. Many commentators have said that American foreign policy is premised in ignorance and making countries fit the mold that America sets down, regardless of whether it fits that countries culture.
Of course there are many historical examples of cultures made to fit a particular mold backfiring. The best one I see if the gunboat diplomacy that opened Japan to the west. That largely brought down the regime in power, and radically changed the culture of the country. Of course, the unforeseen effect was a militarist society with a western style economy that ultimately attacked the U.S. Somewhat of a parallel perhaps? Perhaps we'll see what ultimately comes out of Iraq 20 to 30 years down the road.
by chuckwoolery at April 19, 2004 6:19 PM
Great points all. All I have to add is this minor concession: Osama thinks he believes deeply in something. Otherwise how could he remain so smug and free of guilt pangs? I've been wracked with guilt for days now just for yelling at my wife.
by anna at April 20, 2004 7:47 AM
A: not to mention the fact that that man is a KIDNEY DIALYSIS patient and has to be hooked up to a machine a couple times a week. If he was stapled to a wall could he be any easier to find.
B: Speaking of spoiled rich tyrants, Bush and company had more to do with 9-11 than bin Laden. He's just the smokescreen and scapegoat, and thus MUSTn't be caught. There always has to be a 'bad guy' to blame so the real people making money off of violence and greed on a global scale can continue to exploit their citizens. (The nation with the most laws in history is the u.s. That sound very free to you?) During his yearly 'president-lampooning-himself-in-front-of-the-press' slideshow (Clinton used to do stand up for his, but bush isn't even that clever) gwb portayed himself as looking around the oval office for WMDs, "not in the ashtray, not under the carpet... where are they?" much to the amusement of the press in attendance. During all of this did anyone consider the young americans who were dead and wounded because of this 'joke' they all enjoyed so much? What unmittigated GALL! "Looky what I got away with! Ho-ho-ho it's good to be the king."
by Dr. Nothing at May 20, 2004 2:10 AM
PS> The u.s. CAN'T leave that oil alone. The world's oil supply is going to run out in a decade or two, the peak has already passed and anyone with an interest in world domination (u.s.) HAS to control as much of the last of it as possible to thus jockey itself into the most comfortable (ie:profitable) position it can.
by Dr. Nohting at May 20, 2004 2:17 AM