Osama's Message to America!

[ovyyus]

That's some beautiful sarcasm Scott - with extra casm :D

I remember when Libyan leader Moammer Khadafi was sparring with the West back in the 80's and drawing his 'lines of death' in the sand... "you cross this line - I kill you!"... "OK, you crossed that line... now you cross this line - I kill you!".

It seems ironic that the West never quite gets the Middle East style 'talk it up big' approach - Sabre rattling. There's such a huge cultural difference between the shoot-em-first and the make-scary-sounds folk. Unfortunately, it seems that both are too stupid to understand the other.

[rmd3]

Maybe Iran should have an "Iranian American Public Affairs Committee" then they'd be good guys, right? They just have to have the biggest lobby on Capitol Hill and then they'd be our ally, right?

They could even bribe (I really mean lobby) our congresspersons to give them aid to bribe our congresspresons to give them.... Then they'd be the good guys right?

No! Perish the thought! The American people would never support anything like that... right?!

As a side note: To me... beautiful sarcasm is like two words of an oxymoron having the same meaning. Anyone's head spinning? Now put that in a wheel and we've cracked Bessler's mystery!

-Randall

[ken_behrendt]

NEWS FLASH!

It's just coming through on CNN now. The Iraqi Prime Minister has announced that they killed al-Zarqawi! He was considered the #1 terrorist in Iraq and Osama's main guy there. Well, whoever turned him in just made $25 million USD, tax free for the information...

Will this stop the insurgency in Iraq? Probably not. I would not be surprised if al-Zarqawi's next in line was not already in charge and preparing a really bloody counter strike in revenge.



As far a viewing the middle east in "good (us) vs bad (them)", the distinctions can get blurry real fast in the "fog" of war. The recent incidents at Abu-Grahib prison and Haditha certainly do not make the US look very "good". But, hopefully, those incidents were carried out by a tiny majority of our military forces.

Yes, the Israeli's do have nuclear weapons. The last estimate I read was that they have between 150 and 200 nukes. With all the intense anti-semitism in the Middle East, I can see why they would want to have those nukes. But, I do not think they intend to use them to threaten their neighbors, just to deter an attack on themselves.

However, if Iran had 200 nukes, I wonder if they would keep them strictly for defensive purposes. As I've said before, I have no problem with nuclear technology being used for power generation, but when it comes to nuclear weapons, since we apparently can not get rid of the cursed things, it would seem that they should be under the tightest of control and only by the most stable of governments. Right now, the idea of the "government" of Iran obtaining nukes is very scary to me. Religious fanaticism and nuclear weapons should never be mixed!


ken

[scott]

NEWS FLASH! ... Right now, the idea of the "government" of Iran obtaining nukes is very scary to me. Religious fanaticism and nuclear weapons should never be mixed!

Ken,

According to the BBC:

excerpt:

"President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq Â…" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressr ... bush.shtml

[digitaljez]

But, Scott, we know Bush only said that because the American people find that palatable. In our hearts we know he is a politician and will say anything to sway the masses. It is okay because we know the power behind Washington are the Neo-conservatives, (people like the unelected George Bush Snr) who's highest goal is to protect their own fortunes. That we can understand.
What we can not handle is when the power behind the elected president (he was elected) is an unelected holyman. Is this because we think anyone who believes in God is unstable ?
Do we feel safer with the corrupt materialists because they are more likely to try and maintain things as they are, with them pocketing the big ones ? Nobody likes change. Afterall a more spiritual government might approve a scheme to allow millions of poor Iranian families to buy shares in state-owned companies. Trying to improve the poor man's lot is just not the way forward in any civilised society.

I am really impressed with the viewpoint that if members of the worlds most highly trained military carry out atrocities it must surely be down to a few rotten apples but a few terrorists acting alone can expose one of the worlds major religions as being intent on destroying the world.

As for Israel, surely the Native Amercan has more right to Manhattan, than they do to that piece of land.

[james kelly]

ROFLMAO---- Right on Scott. that is the other side of the coin. We recieve more propaganda than any one cvan imagine. Now seeing that the u.s. monitors what we put on puters. oh......oh!

[Michael]

About ten or eleven years ago there was a news conference and Colin Powell dressed in military uniform said something very close to I am the one with two heads, whose deadly wound on his one head has been healed. Years later I saw a tank when George W. went to war against Saddam and painted on the tank it said Armageddon. Powells statement is a direct reference to revelations. Has anyone else here seen this?
The question is, why? Was the comment just incidental, was he just using the words to illustrate an effect for something else and all of it is coincidental, or was it done intentionally for another reason. The Nazis used propaganda linked to Nostradamus to try and convince the french that certain prophecies were coming to pass. Could this be a reason, to try and make the iraquis, or the religious think that something was coming to pass? I really don't know. I wish I had a copy of that tape so I could review what the whole conference was about.

[ken_behrendt]

Well, al-Zarqawi is 100% dead and there's no doubt about it. The results? Immediately afterward, several car bombs detonated in Baghdad and dozens were killed / injured. However, I noticed yesterday that the price of oil on the NY Mercantile Exchange momentarily dropped below $70 USD per barrel. Apparently, killing "high value targets" like he helps lower the price of oil and our gasoline at the pumps!

The struggle in the Middle East is, of course, far, far from over and will, no doubt, drag on for many more years.

The death of al-Zarqawi, however, produced a strange reaction in Iran. Suddenly their President Amadinejad popped up and gave a speech for consumption by Western journalists in which he said that Iran is now willing to begin "discussing" their uranium enrichment so that there will not be any "misunderstandings".

Wow! Looks like this whole Iranian business is almost over. Right? Actually, I think that the way that al-Zarqawi was killed via the use of precision bombing may have spooked the ayatollahs in Iran when they realized how truly awesome the US air force is and what it is capable of doing. Will these "talks" lead to anything? Most likely not. I see them as a delaying tactic so that Iran can stall the air campaign for a few more critical months while they get that all important first nuke ready.



Michael...

Yes, you will probably hear many apochalyptic Bible references in speeches given by the current administration. Republicans are critically dependent upon the continuing support of the evangelical Christians in the USA in order to maintain their tenuous grip on power. And, of course, they will, to gain that support, tend to describe our involvement in the Middle East in prophetic language at times for their consumption.

I suspect that a lot of right wing, fundamentalist Christians in the USA actually see what is going on in the Middle East now as part of the fulfillment of Revelation prophecy. For example, the West represents the armies of God, our aircraft the attacking angels of God, and the terrorists as the minion of Satan (who, of course, would be Osama bin Ladin).

Once we have defeated this enemy, peace will reign in Israel and, perhaps, just perhaps Jesus might return to rule over a peaceful Earth for another 1000 years. Even if Jesus does not return in the flesh to rule, then perhaps his invisible presence will still be with us as Christianity experiences a revival and spreads throughout the Middle East.

It all sounds very nice, but, I think in the long run this particular Battle of Armageddon may get bloodier and more expensive than the West ever anticipated and we will, finally, have to "declare" victory, pack up, and come home. In our wake we will leave behind a variety of fragile democracies that will be in a continuous state of warfare with the terrorists within their countries and heavily dependent on a constant flow of, mostly, American equipment, advisors, and money to stay afloat.

We saw much of this scenario played out in the Vietnam "Conflict". Well, it's now 30 years later and we're seeing it again. The only difference that I can see at the moment is that there is still no draft or compulsory military service in the USA. However, do not think that can not change virtually overnight. All it will take is another successful 9/11 style attack on American soil which is certainly, despite our "beefed up" security, not an impossibility.

Where will it all lead? In any "clash of civilizations" there probably are no real winners in the long run. The conflict can rage for decades / centuries with the more technically advanced one dominating for a while at great cost to its people. Eventually, they tire, question their political leaders and internal fragmentation and decadence can set it.



ken

[digitaljez]

For example, the West represents the armies of God, our aircraft the attacking angels of God, and the terrorists as the minion of Satan (who, of course, would be Osama bin Ladin).

If Osama is Satan does that make Dubbya God ?

[Michael]

The thing of it is though Ken, Powells statement came before Bush was president and by the reference he is actually calling himslef the beast.

[ken_behrendt]

Michael...

Well, I do admire Colin Powell and I'm sure that he does not believe that he is the "Beast" of Revelation or the AntiChrist.

It must have taken some determination on his part to serve in the Bush White House despite his apprehensions about the invasion of Iraq. I can just imagine how he must have felt after delivering the "intelligence" about Saddam Hussein's alleged arsenal of WMD's to the UN's Security Council only for it to be discovered, later, that this "evidence" was all "flawed". Was his credibility used by unseen war planners to "sell" the war to the American people and the UN's Security Council? I guess we'll never know for sure.


ken

[ken_behrendt]

I listened to a brief speech given to reporters by our President Bush yesterday at Camp David. He and his cabinet were there to discuss the ongoing problems in Iraq and Afghanistan. Well, it's obvious from listening to him that he is firmly convinced that bringing democracy to those two countries will put the terrorists out of business and lead to a safer world and USA. He kept saying that "it" would be worth it in the long run. The "it" he referred to was the cost in Western lives, equipment, and money. So, I have no doubt that, despite the growing disfavor with this war in the US and Europe, we are in there for years to come.


Meanwhile, over in Afghanistan, Mullah Omar is reconstituting his Taliban and they already control three southern districts in that country. Without oil income, they have settled on getting their funding from the sale of opium and Afghanistan is the world's leading supplier of this substance.

What is not commonly known in the US yet is that, since the beginning of this year, the number of coalition troops in Afghanistan has been quietly increased by 15%. I suspect that we will also see a similar increase in the number of US troops being committed to Iraq. So, forget all the rumors of our troops being slowly withdrawn from these countries. The actually numbers we are sending there will be slowly increasing over the next few years. We saw much the same activity in our past failed efforts in Vietnam. However, as long as there is no draft, the American people will probably just grumble and might not even take action at the ballot box to put an end to our unpopular involvement in the Middle East.

I think Osama is faced with a dilemma at the moment. On the one hand, he would like to deliver another 9/11 style terror attack on US soil to punish us for our ongoing presence in the Middle East. Yet, on the other hand, he is concerned that, instead of withdrawing as Spain did, such an attack would anger the American people so that we would be even more involved with the resulting increase in casualties to the peoples of that region.

Ultimately, however, I think that Osama will decide to go ahead with his next attack on the US. We have to remember that, like all such types suffering from delusions of grandeur or a Messianic "complex", he is convinced that God (Allah) is on his side and that he can not be defeated. These types of beliefs are what make him and his followers particularly dangerous.



On a different note. I noticed this morning that the Asian stock markets experienced a BIG tumble. Apparently, with higher gas prices and looming interest rate increases, Americans are starting to cut back on their spending on Asian imports. That's very bad for their economies which are still struggling to overcome the near collapse of the world's finanacial system only a few years ago.

I expect today to be a really bad day on the American stock exchanges...



ken

[ken_behrendt]

The US Senate's Foreign Relations Committee had a big meeting yesterday to discuss what we are going to be doing in Iraq. Apparently, they may soon decide to make the expenditures in Iraq a permanent part of the US government's budget.

Right now, it is costing American taxpayers between 5 and 8 billion USD a month to keep Iraq afloat. That averages out to about $260 USD per year for every man, women, and child in our country. When put in these terms, this does not seem like too much. But, the problem is that the majority of this money comes from a population that perceives our involvement in Iraq to be a "mistake" in the first place.

However, I guess if this investment finally did bring peace to the Middle East that, in the future, it would be perceived as being worth it. Is that possible? Many of the people in that region of the world have been fighting each other for thousands of years with the only "progress" being a constant increase in the violence and bloodshed as they gained access to improved weaponry.

Intergenerational and institutionalized hatred is a very difficult thing to overcome, even for a "super" power like the US. I do not think peace will ever come there, despite the world's efforts, until the people there have had enough of the senseless violence and decide to put an end to it. Extremism in the name of religion or nationalism must be seen as the real enemy of the people...not the nations of the West.


ken

[ovyyus]

I'm sorry Ken, but I think the "poor us, we're just trying to help" approach might suck for a half way intelligent Iraqi living a life in hell under a foreign occupying force who won't ever leave.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq will probably go down in history as one of the biggest mistakes that any US administration has ever made. Progress with a capital THUG.

[ken_behrendt]

Bill...

I do agree that the West got involved in Iraq by mistake. I'm not convinced yet that the "real" reason we are there is for oil or for it to serve, along with Afghanistan, as a base for a pincher attack against Iran in the future. I think that 9/11 really shook up Western political leaders and that they actually believed that Saddam Hussein was developing WMD's which he would then give to Osama's gang to begin using on Western cities. In other words, the invasion and occupation were seen as something that could prevent a lot of casualties in the future. Now, it seems that much the same scenario is developing with regard to Iran.

Well, of course, it did not work out at all as expected. There were no WMD's...only an aging dictator who kept the peace by keeping 25 million people terrorized. Maybe the best justification that can ever be made for the West's presence in Iraq is that, if we had not invaded and, quite regretably, killed tens of thousands of Iraqi's, then Hussein's "government" left unchecked would have killed hundreds of thousands in the future. Of course, this is all conjecture...much as was the justifications given by the US government for using atomic bombs on civilians in two Japanese cities. Can one ever "justify" taking a life if it might save more than one life in the future?

The best that we can hope for is to leave behind us a stable democracy in Iraq that will, truly, represent all of the people there and that will be able to take care of its own problem with insurgents as it slowly rebuilds its infrastructure. Will it happen? I certainly hope so, but I am not optimistic about it at all.



ken