I’ve been really busy but I thought I’d throw up a couple of quick thoughts on the newest bin Laden message about “Palestine”. So, the MSM is reporting on the content of the message, but I don’t see much commentary……

I just envision this scenario:

OK, Iraqis, we have a deal for you. Since 9/11, we’re kind of walking around on egg shells over here in America. It’s scary having a bunch of nut jobs bent on causing death and destruction in your country. So, I tell you what we’re going to do. You have Saddam. You don’t like him, we don’t like him. So, we’re going to bomb the sh*t out of your country and take him out. Put one in the plus column for you. Now, since al Qaeda hates — and I mean HATES — having the West in the Middle East, they’re probably going to want to fight us over this. So after the invasion, the lowest form of scum the world has to offer is going to flock to Iraq and start blowing the country to bits, distracting them from attacking the US mainland. Put one in the plus column for us! And I know what you’re thinking, “didn’t it only take 20 some odd people to pull of the 9/11 attacks, and won’t many of the fighters be new recruits inspired by the Iraq invasion to join the ranks?”

All true, but it’ll make us feel better. Plus “we’re fighting them over there, so we don’t have to fight them here” has a nice ring to it, don’t you think?

You’re probably also thinking it might not be all that good for hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to be blown up by these guys. I understand your concern, but you’re about to be free people, and one thing free people understand is “freedom isn’t free.” Plus, you’ll come to hate these people so much, that you’ll help us run them out of the country! Isn’t that awesome?

One last thing, we’ll probably have to be in your country for a while. We’re hoping to get insurgent attacks — what’s that? oh, yeah, i forgot to mention the insurgency. That’s Iraqis fighting the new US-backed government. Even after we push al Qaeda out of Iraq, the main cause of the violence will still exists. But, back to my point. We hope to get insurgent attacks down to about 60 a day five years into the war. Now, I know what you’re thinking “only 60 a day?” Yes, I know it’s great progress, but we have to make sure that your Sunni and Shi’ite populations settle their thousands of year old feud before we go because, heck, once we’re gone, who the hell knows what’s going to happen? So, get used to us here.

Now, do we have a deal?

Are you saying we let Iraq go to hell after the invasions (so that’s why we didn’t protect the museum!) so that AQ forces would flock in and find safe haven to be able to set up insurgent-type attacks against our troops?

Tom_Shipley on March 21, 2008 at 7:46 AM

*shrug* Don’t ask me. I won’t deny that there’s been a huge number of mistakes in the war’s execution. One thing I will say, though: the ideal scenario for the strategy I described above would be for AQ to come into Iraq and find the local population unwelcoming and ready to cap their a**es. Since that’s only now happening to the point where AQ is starting to leave, one would think that the intervening five years weren’t the expected result. That’s one reason I think there’s been a lot of mistakes.

…but at the same time, no war is mistake-free, and how many other guerrilla wars got as far as Iraq has in six years?

Are you saying we let Iraq go to hell after the invasions (so that’s why we didn’t protect the museum!) so that AQ forces would flock in and find safe haven to be able to set up insurgent-type attacks against our troops?

“Iraq is the perfect base”

thanks neocons!

crr6 on March 20, 2008 at 6:02 PM

Osama WANTS it to be the perfect base, but it isn’t. Why would he call for people to fight in Iraq if it was already the perfect base? At the same time, him calling to terrorists to fight us in Iraq plays into our “lure them to Iraq and kill them” strategy, so it’s a catch-22 for Osama – either he withdraws from Iraq and lets it become more peaceful and gives up the fight in that area, or he does what he’s doing and gets his men killed for the sake of slowing progress in Iraq. At this point he can’t even stop progress, not without some kind of massive coordinated Iraq-wide bombing taking out thousands of civilians at once, but that would trigger a 9/11-like retaliation from Iraq with help from America.

All this is predicated on the assumption that we properly manage the home front – that is, that we get politicians who will fight the war and fight it intelligently. We’re still working on that one.

Good military strategy suggest that you get as many of the enemy as possible, into the smallest area. Since this is a world wide conflict, is extremely beneficial to lure the terrorist to Iraq so that we do not have to search for them all over the world.
Lesson two
nevermind.
Exit question
What is a neocon?

Osama Bin Laden Threatens EU and Pope Over Prophet Cartoons – Says Revenge Will Be Severe

This is striking, isn’t it? Is Islam gonna go for the Pope now?

Tom_Shipley on March 20, 2008 at 8:05 PM

Ha..

“Basketball is the devil!!!”

Is he sending coded messages ?

William Amos on March 20, 2008 at 5:35 PM

More likely smoke signals, hence the delay. Seriously, though, it must take time for the mail to arrive from the Netherworld…especially during tax season.

That’s -in a nutshell- the message of Bin Laden.

And you know what?

He’s right.

I look at it from his perspective.

In fact, it has been more than two years since a little-known news item broke on the Islamic websites:

The establishment of (word-by-word translation):

“The Nation of Islam in Iraq.”

Al-Qaeda affiliates in Iraq hope -one day- to take over and to openly declare it an Islamic nation.

And trust me, that “hope” is not going to die.

Al-Qaeda will succeed only when the U.S. withdraw.

The Gaza siege is a direct result of Annapolis,” he adds, apparently referring to the site of November’s summit in Annapolis, Maryland, where Israeli and Palestinian leadership agreed to work toward a two-state solution.

Man was I misinformed, all this time I thought the “Gaza siege” was a result of the murdering Hamas scum coming to power and because they refused to denounce violence once in power the rest of the world stop the flow of aid?

So let me see if I have this right, because the rest of the sane world refuses to fund (provide aid) to a bunch of murdering thugs like Hamas we now stand accused of the “Gaza siege?”

Typical scary logic from the insane cult ideology of hate, violence, and death! Yeah Obama, lets “talk” with the insane, I’m certain they will be reasonable!

Maybe this has something to do with it………

“There were almost 600 fighters in our sector before the tribes changed course 360 degrees . . . Many of our fighters quit and some of them joined the deserters . . . As a result of that the number of fighters dropped down to 20 or less.”

Awaiting comments from Mr. Reid, Mrs. Pelosi, Mrs. Clinton, and of course Mr. Obama…………

…. still waiting.

crr6 on March 20, 2008 at 6:02 PM

Actually, it’s the Pakistani tribal areas that are the perfect base, aren’t they? At least until we elect Barack Obama. Or Ron Paul. Either way.

Well perhaps if the U.S. can elect a certain presidential candidate with the appropriate skin tone which makes him uniquely qualified to relate with the middle east and who’s pastor sympathizes with the Palestinian cause, then Palestine CAN be retaken by negotiation and dialog.

“Iraq is the perfect base”

thanks neocons!

Yawn. The U.S. surge in Iraq has pretty much crushed al-Qaeda’s operations there, and bin Laden’s crew hasn’t hit a major target in the West in years. So now bin Laden tries to stir up the Palestinians — as if they needed more stirring up….

Could it be that taking the fight to them has done more harm than we could possibly know?

Exit question: What happened?

He assumed room temperature, a goodish while back.

Exit question: What happened?

Maybe it has something to do with an al-Qaida safe house in Waziristan that turned out to be not all that safe.

New Osama tape even more boring and predictable than the last

What would you expect from a dead man?