| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Tag Heuer" |
| Date: |
09 Jan 2006 01:36:49 PM |
| Object: |
Is Osama bin Laden Dead? |
Is Osama bin Laden Dead?
Many articles have been written about this, but, according to Michael
Ledeen, a contributing National Review writer/editor believes so, or
perhaps wishes it, and naturally as most Americans do.
In today's NRO oped, Leeden wrote:
" . . .This historical moment is not easy to understand, since we are
in transition from a relatively stable world, dominated by a handful
of major powers, to something we cannot yet define, since it is up to
us to shape it. It seems clear, however, that there is a greater
rapidity of change, accompanied — inevitably — by the passing of the
leaders of the old order. This is particularly clear in the Middle
East, where seven key figures have been struck down in the past six
years: King Hussein of Jordan in February, 1999. King Hassan of
Morocco in July of the same year. Syrian dictator Hafez al Assad in
June of 2000. Yasser Arafat of the PLO in April, 2004. King Fahd of
Saudi Arabia in May of last year. Ariel Sharon of Israel was
incapacitated by a stroke in early January. And, according to Iranians
I trust, Osama bin Laden finally departed this world in mid-December.
The al Qaeda leader died of kidney failure and was buried in Iran,
where he had spent most of his time since the destruction of al Qaeda
in Afghanistan. The Iranians who reported this note that this year's
message in conjunction with the Muslim Haj came from his number two,
Ayman al-Zawahiri, for the first time . . ."
Again. While most would like nothing more than bin Laden dead, this
opinion is filled with subjective conjecture and speculation, if not
an over the line conspiracy-theorist take on the most wanted man on
earth - Dead or Alive.
But let's contemplate "what if," bin Laden is dead. So what? How many
bin Ladens are now running around out there since this invasion of a
country who had nothing to do with bin Laden, nor the Iraqi people or
even Saddam Hussein? How many more bin Laden's are there now that Iraq
is now the training ground for just about every 'terr-ist' in the
world who has an axe to grind against the U.S.?
Albeit, the death of bin Laden whether true or not still brings images
of the terror attack of 9/11. The hatred for this man goes un-parallel
in the history of America, and the Free World. Not since Hitler, or
even Stalin has a person been so reviled. However, news of his death
would be cause to cheer. A parade should be held with floats and
ticker tape and confetti cascading upon the celebrants happy that the
man is dead. George W. Bush, and all his Iraq war architects should be
there too on top of limousines, and waving to the masses from the
sun-roofs. The pundits who believed that Hussein had everything to do
with the attack of 9/11 should be flooding the media airwaves with
accolades of victory, and a "Mission Accomplished" for those who
doubted their opinions, and praising Bush for his "stay the course"
strategy in this "War on Terror."
But how can one declare a war on a "tactic?" Why wasn't it declared a
"War on Osama Bin Laden?" Or even a "War on Al Qaeda?" Why was the
brush so broad? Okay. So. Bin Laden is dead. And again. So what?
Another one bites the dust, and move on. But how can we when we still
have troops dying in a country on the verge of collapse (if it hasn't
already), and a secular religious civil war? Bin Laden's long awaited
demise should have been the unifying factor, if not catalyst in all
this, right?
I defer to the cited and fable-like conspiracist-theorist take in all
this.
Presumably the death of bin Laden should have an affect on the psyche
of Americans. It could re-invigorate a "noble cause" that is not only
flawed, but was built on false pretenses and "fixed intelligence," as
per the Downing Street Memos. It could give creedence to George W.
Bush in a time when his popularity is lower that whale turd, though it
takes eliminates his very own and ultimate boogey-man. Michael
Moore's Farenheit 9/11 comes to mind and in a segment where he flashed
images of bin Laden to illustrate the fear that is presumably within
all Americans.
Nevertheless, that's what this article is all about - A rah-rah and
powder puff op-ed of and for a Presidential administration now mired
in controversy, scandal and alleged 'high crimes and misdemeanors,'
and nothing that comes out of the Neo-conservative echo chamber of
deceit can change that, since it's all nothing but smoke and mirrors,
if not some whacked out "pipe dream" oozing onto the Internet like oil
from a burning refinery in Basra.
http://tagheuerblog.blogspot.com/
http://tagheuerblog.blogspot.com/atom.xml
.
|
|
| User: "Neolibertarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Osama bin Laden Dead? |
09 Jan 2006 08:40:44 PM |
|
|
In article <fce5s19odc8gtusp20q4kvkui0kndqdnln@4ax.com>,
Tag Heuer <tag@you.are.it.com> wrote:
Is Osama bin Laden Dead?
Many articles have been written about this, but, according to Michael
Ledeen, a contributing National Review writer/editor believes so, or
perhaps wishes it, and naturally as most Americans do.
In today's NRO oped, Leeden wrote:
" . . .This historical moment is not easy to understand, since we are
in transition from a relatively stable world, dominated by a handful
of major powers, to something we cannot yet define, since it is up to
us to shape it. It seems clear, however, that there is a greater
rapidity of change, accompanied — inevitably — by the passing of the
leaders of the old order. This is particularly clear in the Middle
East, where seven key figures have been struck down in the past six
years: King Hussein of Jordan in February, 1999. King Hassan of
Morocco in July of the same year. Syrian dictator Hafez al Assad in
June of 2000. Yasser Arafat of the PLO in April, 2004. King Fahd of
Saudi Arabia in May of last year. Ariel Sharon of Israel was
incapacitated by a stroke in early January. And, according to Iranians
I trust, Osama bin Laden finally departed this world in mid-December.
The al Qaeda leader died of kidney failure and was buried in Iran,
where he had spent most of his time since the destruction of al Qaeda
in Afghanistan. The Iranians who reported this note that this year's
message in conjunction with the Muslim Haj came from his number two,
Ayman al-Zawahiri, for the first time . . ."
Yes, his escape into Iran would answer quite a few unanswered questions.
Having been criticized by the uluma for years for being a shameless
camera hog, bin Laden's absence for this past year and a half indicates
he probably is incapacitated, or finally dead.
Since the murder of Azzam (1989), bin Laden and Zawahiri have had an
often changing and odd relationship, to say the least. That Zawahiri
these days is the primary spokesman for The World Islamic Front is
significant.
Again. While most would like nothing more than bin Laden dead, this
opinion is filled with subjective conjecture and speculation, if not
an over the line conspiracy-theorist take on the most wanted man on
earth - Dead or Alive.
$25 mill--I'd turn him in.
Dead.
But let's contemplate "what if," bin Laden is dead. So what? How many
bin Ladens are now running around out there since this invasion of a
country who had nothing to do with bin Laden, nor the Iraqi people or
even Saddam Hussein? How many more bin Laden's are there now that Iraq
is now the training ground for just about every 'terr-ist' in the
world who has an axe to grind against the U.S.?
How can you clearly see this, and not realize that this was always the
ultimate purpose of Operation: Iraqi Freedom?
"If you invade it, they will come."
Albeit, the death of bin Laden whether true or not still brings images
of the terror attack of 9/11. The hatred for this man goes un-parallel
in the history of America, and the Free World. Not since Hitler, or
even Stalin has a person been so reviled.
And like them, much admired, too.
However, news of his death
would be cause to cheer. A parade should be held with floats and
ticker tape and confetti cascading upon the celebrants happy that the
man is dead.
This is obtuse. You're trying to make a point, but it's not working very
well.
George W. Bush, and all his Iraq war architects should be
there too on top of limousines, and waving to the masses from the
sun-roofs.
Why? Bush marginalized bin Laden back in 2002.
The pundits who believed that Hussein had everything to do
with the attack of 9/11 should be flooding the media airwaves with
accolades of victory, and a "Mission Accomplished" for those who
doubted their opinions, and praising Bush for his "stay the course"
strategy in this "War on Terror."
The administration has never attempted to connect 9/11 and Saddam
Hussein, beyond investigating leads--such as the BIS claim that Mohammed
Atta had met with Ahmed al-Ani the April before the attacks in Prague.
Some of these fragmentary, indicative and inferential reports found
their way into the Feith Memo, but were completely avoided by State as
it became apparent that CIA was not confident of the information.
However, the direct connections between so-called al-Qaeda and Hussein
have been quietly and steadily coming to light since 2004. They are
pretty clear now.
As are the reasons for them not previously becoming part of the public
debate.
But how can one declare a war on a "tactic?"
By declaring war on a tactic.
Announcing that this tactic will no longer be tolerated, nor will
America allow this tactic be successful either here or abroad.
Why wasn't it declared a
"War on Osama Bin Laden?" Or even a "War on Al Qaeda?"
Because there ain't no such group called "al-Qaeda."
The jihadis call it "Abdullah Contracting Company." Bin Laden and
Zawahiri call it "The World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and
Crusaders."
"Al-Qaeda" is just a nickname given to bin Laden's group by the CIA.
And "al-Qaeda" isn't a terrorist group, per se. It is a network,
actually several networks, that support Islamic jihad groups and Islamic
jihadis. Training, supplies, money, logistics, explosives and
weapons--this is what the Abdullah Contracting Company was involved in:
it facilitated attacks, but didn't actually carry them out.
Not until Zarqawi began operating in Northern Iraq in 2003 did
"al-Qaeda" begin claiming responsibility for terrorist attacks.
It would be ridiculous to declare war on "al-Qaeda."
Which is why no one did.
Why was the
brush so broad?
Because the global jihad is a broad problem, that will resist narrow
solutions.
Okay. So. Bin Laden is dead. And again. So what?
Another one bites the dust, and move on. But how can we when we still
have troops dying in a country on the verge of collapse (if it hasn't
already), and a secular religious civil war?
Because only hysteria would lead one to claim that Iraq is on the verge
of collapse.
It's not.
A civil war in Iraq would require the opposition to be organized and
unified. This resistance has never exhibited either
characteristic--these groups are as opposed to each other as they are to
the new government, and have never indicated that they share any common
goals. The resistance is deeply fragmented, and largely financed and
supported by Iran and Hizbullah.
Bin Laden's long awaited
demise should have been the unifying factor, if not catalyst in all
this, right?
No; bin Laden was a key figure in the globalization of jihad, but the
global jihad is not, nor had it ever been his, alone. It begins with
Sayyid Qutb in the 60's. It became a continuous revolutionary tactic
after the humiliating defeat of the 1973 Yom Kippur War. It continues
with the rise of Hizbullah and the Mujahedeen in the 80's. Bin Laden's
group rose to notoriety when Mubarak crushed the jihadi groups in Egypt.
In the mid-90's Zawahiri formally merged Egyptian Islamic Jihad with
"The World Islamic Front."
Then Clarke convinced Clinton that bin Laden was the number one
terrorist threat to America. This, combined with Clinton's ill-advised
response to bin Laden after the African Embassy attacks, is what
catapulted bin Laden to center stage of the jihad.
I defer to the cited and fable-like conspiracist-theorist take in all
this.
Of course you do.
Presumably the death of bin Laden should have an affect on the psyche
of Americans. It could re-invigorate a "noble cause" that is not only
flawed, but was built on false pretenses and "fixed intelligence," as
per the Downing Street Memos. It could give creedence to George W.
Bush in a time when his popularity is lower that whale turd, though it
takes eliminates his very own and ultimate boogey-man.
The above paragraph makes no sense. Perhaps you should revise it.
Michael
Moore's Farenheit 9/11 comes to mind and in a segment where he flashed
images of bin Laden to illustrate the fear that is presumably within
all Americans.
Urrp. Hey, stop it--I just ate.
Moore didn't add anything to the debate but the fallacy of juxtaposition.
Nevertheless, that's what this article is all about - A rah-rah and
powder puff op-ed of and for a Presidential administration now mired
in controversy, scandal and alleged 'high crimes and misdemeanors,'
and nothing that comes out of the Neo-conservative echo chamber of
deceit can change that, since it's all nothing but smoke and mirrors,
if not some whacked out "pipe dream" oozing onto the Internet like oil
from a burning refinery in Basra.
No, President Bush is not ready to admit that Osama bin Laden was hiding
in Iran. Nor that we know that Sa'ad bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri are
also hiding there. Along with as many as 3,000 "al-Qaeda" jihadis who
took refuge in Iran after the fall of the Taliban.
Iran is not to be directly attacked. China will veto, Russia will veto.
UK will squawk. And they all will also actively oppose any action by the
US.
But now, time is on our side. And time is against the Supreme Leader.
Ali Khamenei cannot afford to lose Iraq to democracy. And he has,
perhaps, already lost it.
He is now literally surrounded by democracies.
Ali Khamenei has very direct ties to 9/11, btw.
--
NeoLibertarian
Global Warming: It ain't the heat, it's the stupidity.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
