The Leftosphere had a collective hissy fit over the suggestion that Osama bin Laden sounded like a member of the Leftist nutroots in his latest video. What the complainers want to ignore is that OBL has always sounded like them.
OBL has been complaining about global warming since his 2002 “letter to the American people,” perhaps earlier. Many elements in the ideology of al Qaeda — set forth most clearly in OBL’s 1996 “Declaration of War Against America” — derive from a mix of Isalmism and postmodern Leftist thought. Bin Laden’s primary inspiration was the writings of Sayyid Qutb, whose thought has many parallels with Marxism. Thomas P.M. Barnett has noted in his books that as Marxism looked for Utopia in the Industrial Age and Maoism sought it in an Agrarian form, bin Ladenism simply seeks to turn the Luddite clock back further.
For their part, Leftists have interpreted 9/11 as the Third World finally striking back at its American oppressor. The key forum at this year’s annual Cairo Anti-War Conference was titled “Bridge-building Between the Left and Islam,”and focused on practical ways to increase cooperation. British Trotskyite John Rees, a regular at the Cairo conference since it started in 2002, told Al-Ahram in April that at this year’s gathering he had discussed in particular the “ongoing dynamic between the anti-war movement and Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.”
As psychologizer noted in a prior thread:
(T)he Bin Man gets an A+ in “Propaganda And Group Psychodynamics.â€Â
He’s very astutely made the repudiation of his message a destruction of the leftist self, i.e., a psychological impossibility  and so the show of repudiation is always only an attack on his enemies.
This is the source of the Leftosphere whining about OBL’s Leftist tendencies being publicized. But for OBL, it is not only propaganda either, which is why the whining has been getting more shrill.
Try telliing it to this guy — who actually thinks we “revere” bin Laden.
The twisting and spinning, it is beginning to take on an air of desperation almost as palpable as bin Laden’s own.
Holy quotedness.
For the record, I am not arguing that conservatives revere bin Laden, simply that they tingle with anticipation when these communiques appear as they imagine the ways they will use it to bash liberals and sow fear. Why is it that their response to this video is more critical of fellow Americans (i.e. Democrats) than it is of bin Laden?
As for your allegation that, “Leftists have interpreted 9/11 as the Third World finally striking back at its American oppressor,” the truth is that we are seeking a realistic construct for the roots of terrorism so that it can be countered and defeated. That is a far more productive path than the inane Rightist claims that, “They hate us for our freedom,” or that, “We deserved it because of the gays and the ACLU.
deserved.
As seen on late-night tv:
It sells itself, really…
Note to MSM, Kossacks, Move On, et cetera: From this point forward, please refer to OBL as Osama Bin Laden (D-Waziristan).
They might as well have him give the keynote speech at the Democratic Convention – he knows all of their points and is articulate and charismatic to boot.
I must say I am sick and tired of the “we created the perfect recruiting field” for al qaeda. Those who spout this nonesense have forgotten that in one of the captured videos of bin Laden from Afganistan he gushed about the rush to the mosques and the suceess of recruiting after … wait for it … 9/11!!!
So let me make sure I’ve got this straight: A fanatical religious group bent on world wide theological domination from a ninth century point of view declares war on “The Crusaders and the Zionists,” demonstrating operational sophistication, long term planning skills and deadly resolve. We give them short attention from the early nineties until 2001 despite the increasingly bold, innovative and costly attacks on American and other western interests, despite the fact of several fatwas declaring their resolve to attack us!. Finally they acheive the worst terrorist attack by far on American soil, not only designed to insure maximum loss of life but also to delibrately attack our economic infrastructure and clearly demonstrate both the ability and the will to bring the war to our very homes.
Now we are engaged in a War on Terror, acknowledging the stateless declaration of war as a conflict. Instead of an ongoing widespread national resolve we are left with declarations of “it’s a criminal matter,” or “I’d hold a Mideast summit (Cary),” or “this is all a conspiracy to get oil/work for Halliburton/kill brown people.” All of that would be bad enough but now we are left with the cockamamie idea that because we actually fight back we’re wrong because all we do is generate recruits for AQ like, as Karl pointed out previously, Doritos!!
We recruit for AQ if we allow successful attacks and we recruit for AQ if we fight back. That is one major exploding merry-go-round catch-22 for the ages. We should just surrender now before the damage to the space-time continuum destroys the entire universe.
One more thing: To the usefull idiots of the recruiting field meme try to remember this one little truism: Nothing recruits more successfully to a cause than success! If we were to abandon Iraq to the machinations of Iran, Syria and AQ be sure to check their success at recruiting jihadists after the fact.
Reinforcing their image of America as a paper tiger would not be in our best interests.
From the link in JeffG’s comment:
Anthropogenic Global Warming or Silky Pony’s government mandated approach to “health” — take your pick, both are religious movements.
“One more thing: To the useful idiots of the recruiting field meme try to remember this one little truism: Nothing recruits more successfully to a cause than success!”
You are thinking rationally, BJ. Nothing draws lefties like failure, they are the party of victims and losers.
No, there’s a huge difference. Osama doesn’t believe what he spouts. He just deploys his ideological talking points in a cynical attempt to break down resistance to totalitarian rule. The leaders of the Left, on the other hand…
Ummm… what was I saying?
Ards: Heh! It gets tiring for the mind, doesn’t it?
Bin Laden has tied the left to his destiny, and the left can’t figure out how to untie themselves from him. For some reason they cannot state that he is scum and they would rather not be associated with him, no matter how loudly he proclaims his allegiance with their ideas. Must be because he is an authentic third world foreigner in funny clothes attacking America and that’s good – except he does lots of bad things, which is bad, and he’s now claiming to be the left’s friend, which is worse – oh, their little pointy heads must be spinning like propeller beanies!
Bin Laden has tied the left to his destiny, and the left can’t figure out how to untie themselves from him.
They aren’t used to having to “untie” themselves from thugs. They have never repudiated Stalin or Mao; they still embrace Castro and Che is part of the left chic. Jane Fonda quipped “I’m proud I went to North Vietnam because Nixon was lying to us”
Now, even as some anti-war Dems come back from Iraq and state, yes indeed progress is being made and we shouldn’t leave right now, other Dems have colluded with MoveOn to call General Patraeus a traitor outright.
ajacksonian:
Call in the next 15 minutes and we will throw in a total ban on smoking absolutely free!
More on the convergence of the left and islam. From the timesonline to “rescue the ummah [the global Muslim community] from the culture and civilisation of the Jews, the Christians and [other] enemies of Islamâ€Â. Its aim, he wrote, is to “create such hatred for their ways as human beings have for urine and excretaâ€Â.
Swap out ummah and islam for America and freedom and you would expect to find this exact quote over at Dkos.
So, Darleen,now you are mad at who gets called a traitor? For the record, General Patraeus IS cooking the books for the White House (Karl’s well-meaning crusade notwithstanding), but that doesn’t make him a traitor. It makes him a four star general. This is what they do: believing in the mission requires a belief in obtaining the resources to accomplish the mission.
BUT, the certain factions of both sides (including Dan Collins this past weekend) throw that traitor word around way too much. Why don’t we go so far as to say no one should be calling people on the other side traitors until we can convict the person of it (I’m thinking John Walker Lindh, Jose Padilla, etc).
Saying a person is a traitor just because he or she doesn’t say or believe what we think doesn’t really influence anyone. In fact, I would submit, it places us on a pretty precarious limb, since General Patraeus is no more a traitor than George Soros is.
Of course, as your link makes clear, Move On is engaging in a bit of rhetorical nonsense (although the author makes an assumption: that the title means they think he’s a traitor and then turns into an accusation that they DID call him a traitor). Move On will hopefully be called on that nonsense, because, when either side does this, it’s pretty low.
Just my thoughts
vandalay
I’m sure you have substansive, authoritative evidence that Petraeus, approved for his position 81-0 by Congress, is suddenly “cooking the books”
Hmmm… shall I ignore that string on your back (and Pandagon’s “betray-us” post”) with the “made by MoveOn, funded by Soros” label?
Yeah. Move On will be called on that just about the same time Hillary’s fund-raising is completely investigated.
vandalay:
I’m sorry, but you’re just going to have to prove to me that Patraeus is “cooking the books.”
Dude, you do realize that the MoveOn people titled their ad “General Petraeus or General Betray-us,” right?
I’ll third that request, vandalay. I needs me some proof for da cooking of da books comment.
Well, in all fairness to vandalay, he may not believe a General that betrays his country is guilty of treason. I’m just sayin’.
Or that the “us” MoveOn’s talking about isn’t the US.
Thanks for affirming my preconceptions of this web site’s commitment to free speech and open dialog. I left a comment last night before all but 2 of those published here, but my comment isn’t here? Even though I was specifically called out, you deny to post my rebuttal. Nice.
I guess you guys are just afraid to let your fragile readers be exposed to contrary viewpoints that might contain some…whadyacallit…truth!
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run – Web Reconnaissance for 09/10/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
Funny, for all of the posts I’ve done on casualty stats, afaik, vandalay has not challenged one of them.
What’s even cooler is how Gen. Petraeus got McClatchy to cook their numbers also.
No, the left is just pissed off about the line promoting a 2.5% flat tax. They want the Clinton tax rates back or it’s no deal.
Hmm… lots of crickets sounding from vandalay’s location.
I want to know who thinks up this crap.
Whoever it is needs to go in the history books right next to Dzerzezhinsky and Goebbels.
Regards,
Ric
Karl:
You’re not counting the “so the media is losing the war ya losers” criticism as actual, um, criticism.
Good call.
I think sometimes the consequences of taking positions like this are unanticipated. It’s almost a deliberate personal foul facemask, without a consideration that the result just might be a first down for the opponent.
Karl, Mark over at News Corpse Blog (see comment #1, this thread) just accused Jeff of censoring his comment in this thread. I told him that was uncharacteristic of pw…especially when there’s fisking do be done, but I left that part out.
Or as the orc said, looks like meat’s back on the menu, boys!
Sorry for the unclosed tag. I’ll show up for my beating at a time of your convenience.
Mark needs to figure out that there are some things besides Jeff that will keep your comment from posting. I personally have had problems posting comments that contain links, but as you can see from my comment above: not this time.
Looks like Mark’s comments — he used the whitehouse.gov/government/eop-foia.html as some kind of link — got plucked by the Spam filter.
I just unmarked them as spam, so they should appear wherever he left them.
The fact that you think one needs to express criticism of bin Laden at this point amazes me.
But be that as it may, I’ll play: Why is at the your response to this video is to concentrate on the right’s response?
“…the truth is that we are seeking a realistic construct for the roots of terrorism so that it can be countered and defeated.”
Google “battle of tours” “seige of vienna” and “barbary pirates”
That should get you off to a good start.
Well, fine! But is that the truth, B Moe?
Jeff, thanks for finally posting my comments. Should I bother to point out the irony that your spam filter eats links to Whitehouse.gov? ;-) I also use Akismet but haven’t had that problem. Also, only one of my posts had that link. But I’ll apologize anyway for my indignant conclusion jumping.
As for your question: “Why is at the [sic] your response to this video is to concentrate on the right’s response?”>/i>
I am not responding to the video. I am responding to the rash of Rightist attempts to tar progressives by associating them with bin Laden. Were I responding to the video, I would not have been so callous as to associate fellow Americans with a terrorist just because I disagree with them.
If you want to debate the substance of my article, than address its central point, which is that all over the rightosphere there is a rush to attach bin Laden’s screed to progressives. Do you really believe that we are aligned with bin Laden? Do you think it’s productive to smear us that way? Is it your position that those of us who are against the war are traitors? I certainly hope not. In fact, it is the Dems who want us out of Iraq so that those troops can be redeployed in the search for bin Laden, Zawahiri, Omar, and the rest of the al Qaeda murderers.
I think, instead, that all of this broad-brush tarring is just an opportunistic attempt to politicize the video and al Qaeda’s PR. And I think that’s shameful. That’s the point of my article.
)
Allow me to, again, correct you. As I said in your thread, this isn’t a debate (partly because screeds preempt refuse debate, partly because it’s therefore not worth it, and partly because Trutherism simply blows weasels) just so you know my intent.
1. I don’t tingle with anticipation at anything of the sort, my young Truther apprentice. I cringe with regret and dismay at what the Left has become in pursuit of its obvious worship of dysfunctional political postmodernism. Shameful doesn’t describe it.
2. I didn’t imagine Pelosi, Rockefeller, and that mewling Viagra punk Little Denny Kucinich adopting precise anti-liberation rhetoric from and/or from within terrorist states, Mark. I didn’t imagine Reid calling Petraeus a liar…after a 180-0 vote in his favor, IIRC. And I didn’t imagine the entire former Democrat Congress calling for Saddam’s head. Just to be truthful.
3. WRT “sowing fear”, that, like the Drumbeat For War, is sheer Leftist construct — as someone recently said here, all that hairy-chested leftist bravado about global terrorism and none about playing tag on schoolyards, both being Democrat-Socialist homages to nannyism, global or otherwise. I dare say it was a fearful thing defending against fascism; chances are it’s going to be a fearful thing defending against religious fanaticism and the decline of liberalism in the West.
Half of Britain’s mosques now inculcate radicalism. You sort it out, you whacky intentionalist Muslim-originalist funster, you. Remember, almost to a man the Democrats at least acted like they had, twelve years ago.
Brilliant.
Per B Moe, I did Google “battle of tours†“seige of vienna†and “barbary pirates†and it came up with one hit (from Free Republic). The first line on that page is, “I am trying to compile a list of Islamic defeats since the beginning of that disgraceful religion.” Thanks Moe.
Do these guys know that even President Bush has repeatedly called for respect and tolerance for the majority of Muslims that are peaceful and opposed to terrorism?
Um, it’s not about Osama saying what the left is saying, it’s about Osama asking the left to stay their course, and they’re doing it while claiming that they’re the ones who REALLY want to stop terrorism.
Time for a little self-reflection, dudes. Consider why Osama wants you to keep up the temper tantrum – what is he afraid of? Hint: it’s not you!
P.S. Vandalay is following the classic leftist meme that you can accuse anyone of anything if you follow it with “just my thoughts” or “just my opinion.”
It’s why they can’t understand how angry we are when they launch their baseless accusations.
Karl, Jeffersonian – My thanks! I was on the tv kick after this post and just couldn’t resist… really, you could do this in just so many motifs!
Mark? What the fuck are you talking about? “we are seeking a realistic construct for the roots of terrorism so that it can be countered and defeated”? Do you even know that this means? New to Islam? New to world events? New to world history? The thing is, Bush is right, that they do hate us for our freedoms. They are fascist barbarians. And others are correct that our foreign policy over the past 60 years hasn’t done us any favors to these same fascist barbarians. It’s not hard to figure out. There is NO moral equivalence/relativism between these jihadists and fundamental Christians, Bhuddists, Hindus, and I bet your personal favorite, the Joooooos. If all this is too hard for you, I suggest you study just a little harder.
Mark —
You need to correct your fields when you post comments.
Here’s what I have for each of your comments, cut and pasted:
3. Mark @ News Corpse | [redacted] | whitehouse.gov/government/eop-foia.html | IP: 216.175.84.8
27. Mark @ News Corpse | [redacted] | whitehouse.gov/government/eop-foia.html | IP: 216.175.84.8
43. Mark @ News Corpse | [redacted] | whitehouse.gov/government/eop-foia.html | IP: 216.175.84.8
46. Mark @ News Corpse | [redacted] | whitehouse.gov/government/eop-foia.html | IP: 216.175.84.8
I’m not sure what is causing the problem; but you may want to enter a different email address and/or site URL for any further postings. Even though I’ve marked them as “not spam,” the spam filter is still catching them.
And unless I’m missing something, I’m not seeing the comment you say used a different posting protocol.
I have no doubt you reject him personally. But do you deny he’s echoing progressive policy positions, and parroting back leftist critiques of Bush, the “neocons,” and conservative domestic and foreign policy in general?
Sorry, but the point many of us are making is that bin Laden has been following our domestic political conversation, and he seems to think he can gain sympathy by mouthing the leftism that he was, as a western student, trained in (as Karl points out).
It’s a miscalculation on his part, but it provides evidence of one of the central arguments I’ve been making on this site — namely, that the propaganda from al Qaeda and the arguments being made by progressives have clearly overlapped, this time to the point of hilarity.
The counter argument — that bin Laden wants to discredit the left by aligning himself with them — I find completely unpersuasive, given what both Crocker and Petraeus clearly articulated today: that a precipitous withdrawal of troops would rejuvenate AQI, hand the global jihadist movement a victory, and allow Iran and Hezbollah to fill the vacuum in Iraq.
Bin Laden simply isn’t that clever. Or, better, I’ll put it this way: he seems to believe that “progressives” are truly committed to many of their arguments; what he hasn’t accounted for is how cynical many politicians are, and how they simply give voice to certain arguments they find convenient for clubbing their political opponents, without being at all invested in them beyond their ability to win over true believers in various voting blocs to pull together an electoral coalition they think can put them into power.
Finally, please avoid the [sic] stuff when quoting comments. I don’t proofread most of this stuff, because I’m conversing, not writing an academic paper for peer review. Were I, I can assure you I’d catch those kinds of things — so pointing them out only makes you look like you’re trying to score points by flashing your intellectual bona fides.
If you think mine are in doubt, you shouldn’t bother arguing with me.
“Do these guys know that even President Bush has repeatedly called for respect and tolerance for the majority of Muslims that are peaceful and opposed to terrorism?”
Okay. What did he say about the rest of them? More importantly, what do you say about the rest of them? If 1200 years of aggression and expansionism aren’t enough of a historical perspective for you to work with, what the fuck exactly are you looking for?
Anyway, I’m done for the evening. I have to go wash off a deplorable Rockies loss (an umpire’s call cost them two runs, and then Clint Hurdle used a guy fresh off the disabled list to pitch to the middle of the Phils lineup in the bottom of the 10th, our closer sitting unused in the bullpen. He also started a light hitting triple A second baseman in the leadoff spot on a “hunch.” 0-5, 3 men lob).
Football and maybe a Guinness ought to do the trick. But the Rockies are now done, I think. It was a nice run, but the after losing 3/5 of their starting rotation — and 2 of the replacements — they then lost their leadoff and second hitter on successive at bats a few nights back.
If they can take two in this series, I’ll be astounded. But that’s their last hope.
Jeff – bin Laden echoes both left and right positions in that video. But the bigger point is, do you think he is actually trying to find common ground with anyone in the west? Or is he using these communiques to further his own agenda? I simply don’t take him at face value. You have to ask yourself why he included references to global warming. Do you think its because of his affection for American environmentalists?
My answer to these and many other related questions is that bin Laden is interested in creating divisions, and dammit, it’s working. When the right posts obnoxious accusations about bin Laden and the left being ideologically aligned (and there are more now from David Brooks and John Gibson) the left will not simply absorb the blows. So we fight back. And bin Laden gets a good chuckle out of what a bunch of pliable idiots we all are. Don’t give him the satisfaction!
You know, Mark, you’re supposed to swing at the pitch. Not at flies or thin air or whatever the hell you were swinging at there. As for respecting and tolerating the majority of muslims who are opposed to terrorism (and I won’t say “peaceful”, because a good number of them of them are kicking terrorist ass, with my blessings), what the hell do you think we’re doing in Iraq with those very same people you “progressives” would like to throw to the wolves?
A guy posting from “@ News Corpse” wants to throw stones? There’s another tick on the old irony meter.
Attach? No. It’s pointing out the similiarities that exist within the messages. The similiarities werent’ put there, and the messages aren’t being misquoted. Test it. Read unattributed quotes and tell me you can distinguish whetehr the source is al Qaeda or some “Progressive.”
I speak solely for myself, but, yes.
I don’t care what’s “productive.” I just care what it is.
Of course not. That would imply intent and don’t find progressives to be that thoughtful. It’s a blend of emotionalism, knee-jerk contrarianism, and myopia that have lead the progressives down the primrose path.
You need to pay attention. It’s not a war n bin Laden. It’s not a war on 9/11 perpetrators. It’s not even a war on al Qaeda. Its a war on terror. The stated goal, going all the way back to 2001, is to counter all terrorists of international reach.
So how do you feel about the GWOT efforts in Indonesia? How about Colombia and Nicaragua? Horn of Africa? The Philippines? How come the only parts of this the Progressives even acknowledge is Iraq and Afghanistan?
As for the Simpsonesque desire to go after “the real Terrorists,” I question your (plural) integrity. As soon as you’ve got what you want, you’ll move the goalposts again. Just like the flip-flop from, “Generals say we needed more troops–we never had enough troops” to “how can you support escalation,” (really, is this example alone not indictment enough of the Progressive patriotic impulse?) we’ll discover that the only real difference between Iraq and Afghanistan is that in Iraq (primarilly due to volume of fire) the bad guys are somewhat more effective at hitting us and once the relative measure is gone you’ll be screaming for the abandonment of the Afghans as well.
I think that you judge others through teh view around the log in your eye; assuming that it’s got anything to do with trying to gain some advantage over anyone other than the terrorists. The difference is between shooting at the target downrange and waiving the weapon about with the finger on the trigger. If Progressives insist on wandering into my lane,….
Shorter: you guys were being tools of bin Laden first!
I got no response to that; just thought it needed paring down a bit.
My personal viewpoint on things of this nature is this: you can disagree with me all you want, but when you start accusing me of being a lying, racist, greedy oil-grubbing scum, civil debate is now over. Shame on me for throwing civility aside, though.
Mark’s concerns as regards broad-brushing are admirable, though; I urge him to have a a pep-talk with Glenn Greenwald(s) to that effect.
Jeff – bin Laden echoes both left and right positions in that video.-No.Pretty much just the left.- But the bigger point is, do you think he is actually trying to find common ground with anyone in the west?-Yes. The left. Or is he using these communiques to further his own agenda?Yes.- By getting the lefties to end Bushcos evil war on terror.- I simply don’t take him at face value.-Why can’t you use that same discernment when teddy Kennedy opens his piehole.- You have to ask yourself why he included references to global warming. Do you think its because of his affection for American environmentalists?-No. Because the rabid environmental movement is made up of rabid lefties.
My answer to these and many other related questions is that bin Laden is interested in creating divisions, and dammit, it’s working.-Yep. You guys seem to be working very had for his agenda. Conservatives, not so much.- When the right posts obnoxious accusations about bin Laden and the left being ideologically aligned (and there are more now from David Brooks and John Gibson) the left will not simply absorb the blows.-Sometimes the truth is painful. But, please, show us how the left isn’t supporting the terrorists agenda.I’ll wait here.- So we fight back. And bin Laden gets a good chuckle out of what a bunch of pliable idiots we all are.-No. You are.- Don’t give him the satisfaction!-Hence, the war on terror.-
“lying, racist, greedy oil-grubbing scum”
I forgot election-stealing, dissent-crushing and 9-11 causing. Feel free to add to the list as you see fit, though.
Bin Laden’s goal is to drive out the infidel and re-establish the caliphate: he wants the US completely out of the Middle East. So does the anti-war Left. So if you are in complete agreement on the main objective, why does it seem so hard to believe OBL would try to reach out by sponsoring some of your minor (in his eyes) goals?
And you’re not bothering to ask yourself why the message he’s parroting to further his own agenda — to sow division as you say — is yours.
The Left wants us to ask, “Why do they hate us?” We want the Left to ask, “Why does he sound like us?”
Aaron Brown was on Smerconish’s show this morning as part of the 9/11 remembrance. He avoided (good man) any judgment as to the wars or the Bush Admin. but what he choose to close with was telling.
I’ll have to paraphrase but it was along the lines of “We need to have meaningful discussion and a strategy to deal with the question of fundamentalist Islam and I don’t think we’ve had that yet. After all, we can’t kill them all. Not even close.”
And there you have it.
Here’s a newsflash to both Brown and Mark: Suggesting in a vacuum that alternatives to the GWOT haven’t been discussed or considered is about the biggest pile of Meerkat crap I have ever heard. I give you: The Clinton Administration. Law enforcement, lob a few missiles, withdraw when the going gets tough. How did that work out?
While the strategic implications are on going and continue to develop there is no viable strategy that will not have intellegence support, confrontation and targeting of safe havens as critical elements. Why is this the case? Because both the words and the actions of radicalized jihadists indicate their fundamental stubborness to continue down a path that liberal western democracies will not and should not tolerate!
This doesn’t mean that we wantomly carpet bomb the brown people but it does mean that the considerations of interdiction are already in place, albiet adapting on an ongoing basis. To suggest that we haven’t considered all of the possibilites of alterantive strategies (like John Kerry’s “summit”) is idiotic on a mind numbing level. At some point, a real recognition of the very substance of the enemy is required. I beleive that some leftists actually get this but manifest it as “We’ve overvalued the terrorist threat.”
Aaron Brown should stay the hell out of GWOT strategy making.
Speaking of missile-lobbing, I actually heard someone claim that the aspirin factory we missiled in the Sudan was an active AQ training site.
Sans evidence, of course, or even other sources of hearsay. Hell, as far as I’ve been able to tell, they haven’t even been able to establish that the place produced any sort of CW, or CW precursors.
Slart:
In “The Age of Sacred Terror” by Benjaman and Simon (Clinton Admin members of the NCC and, admittedly, apologists for the same) the writers lay out the case for the attack on the pharmaceutical factory. It was known that bin Laden had an ownership stake in the company which raised some flags. The key piece of evidence that caused the attack to be green lighted was a soil sample from the grounds procured by a Sudanese operative. The sample tested positive for a chemical precursor that was used in the manufacture of Sarin. There was no training site there.
Let me reiterate: They didn’t find Sarin or any other nerve gas, just the one chemical precursor used in making Sarin.
The next time somebody yells at you about the lack of “evidence” of WMD’s in Iraq, replay this little bit of revisionist history for them.
I’ve read that the soil samples were suspect, somewhere or other.
Other than that, mostly agreed.
Either you’re obtuse or dishonest! Or pliably deflecting due criticism 90 degrees from true, which is a good chuckle!
Check your idiotic screed for giving satisfaction to complete blithering irrationality, Marko!
[…] up on “The Useful Idiot’s Guide to Useful Idiocy,” we have author Martin Amis with this anecdote: In the summer of 2006 I came back to live in the UK […]
akhbar harakah
moesko island
dueling banjos tab banjo
chicken roscoes waffle
hickory iwanna
erotic pencil art
free erotic sex stories of lactating mothers
free erotic interracial breeding stories
erotic music video hub
girls locker room erotic stories naked shower wet
korn fuck that
erotic nights og the living dead
erotic slide show
erotic senior citizen
erotic pictures of long nails
sexy hard erect long erotic lactating nipples
erotic chess set
nifty erotic stories acrhive
san antonio erotic massage
download clip of the erotic dreams of jeannie
new jersey erotic massage dover spa
underage erotic story
las vegas erotic adult conventions
boundaries kathy shower extremely rare erotic vhs
new jersey erotic massage dover
lorox security camera
human security apt of the philippines
iga detection and virus and fluorescence
just antivirus no spyware programs
kimmons security
human parvo virus epidemic westchester
kim kardashion sextape links
killflash 10 trojan remover
lauren mary kim
honda accord 1993 cassette security codes