Osama tells us how to beat terrorism

Written by Christopher Auman
Published October 29, 2004

Does anyone see the problem here? See, there are two lines of thinking when it comes to our "war" on terror. Bush is for bringing the fight to the enemy — on their soil — with tanks, guns and 100,000 dead along the way.

Kerry is for protecting our homeland AND taking out the terrorists where they stand around the world. His proposal involves technology, communication, teamwork, and highly trained military ops programs.

I'm really not sure which route will end the terrorist threats against our country but — I may be wrong — but I believe the leader of our enemy might have just given us a hint during his broadcast yesterday.

Quote:

"O American people, I am speaking to tell you about the ideal way to avoid another Manhattan, about war and its causes and results."

"It is known that those who hate freedom do not possess proud souls like those of the 19, may God rest their souls. We fought you because we are free and because we want freedom for our nation. When you squander our security we squander yours."

"I am surprised by you. Despite entering the fourth year after Sept. 11, Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you and therefore the reasons are still there to repeat what happened."

"It never occurred to us that the commander in chief of the American forces (Bush) would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face those horrors alone at a time when they most needed him because he thought listening to a child discussing her goat and its ramming was more important than the planes and their ramming of the skyscrapers. This had given us three times the time needed to carry out the operations, thanks be to God..."

"Your security is not in the hands of (Democratic presidential candidate John) Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands and each state which does not harm our security will remain safe."

So, in summary.... "GET THE HELL OUT OF OUR LANDS, STOP KILLING OUR CHILDREN AND LEAVE US ALONE. Oh yeah — and your leader is a shmuck. Peace be to Allah." - OSAMA


Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
Osama tells us how to beat terrorism
Published: October 29, 2004
Type:
Section: Politics
Writer: Christopher Auman
Christopher Auman's BC Writer page
Christopher Auman's personal site
Spread the Word
Like this article?
Email this
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by Christopher Auman
All Politics Articles
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — October 29, 2004 @ 23:01PM — Vic [URL]

Um, didn't they destroy the WTC before we were "in their lands"?

Vic

#2 — October 29, 2004 @ 23:34PM — Victor Plenty [URL]

Let's review the timeline here, Vic.

Supposedly, they wanted to destroy the WTC (both in 1993 and in 2001) because of the American troops stationed in Saudi Arabia during and after the Gulf War.

You remember that war, right? Well, just in case here's a quick refresher. Iraq invades Kuwait. Most other Arab countries get nervous about Saddam, and get on the same side as the United States. Operation Desert Shield puts thousands of U.S. troops into Saudi Arabia to stop Saddam from further expansion... ringing any bells?

After Saddam got kicked out of Kuwait, most of those troops came home, but some of them continued to be based in Saudi Arabia, and supposedly, that annoyed al-Qaida enough to make Osama think he and his pals needed to kill a few thousand American civilians.

Now, after the vast majority of American troops have been withdrawn from Saudi Arabia, al-Qaida claims they still feel a duty to attack the United States, but now they claim it's because of the American troops in Iraq. Whatever their real motive may be, it's not likely to be the same as their stated motive in any of Osama's videotapes.

And you can bet any advice he might be giving us is not being given with Americans' best interests in his heart.

#3 — October 30, 2004 @ 00:29AM — urthshu [URL]

Its called a Hudna- an offer for a tactical cease-fire until they've re-armed and re-grouped. Its a muslim thing.

You'll note that he isn't talking about restoring a Global Caliphate or all of America converting to Islam anymore.

Huh. Why's that, you think?

#4 — October 30, 2004 @ 02:42AM — Lono [URL]

I feel compelled to speak on this issue, but you will hear it spun every which way this weekend. What we see in the tape is that Bin Laden is alive and well. His arms are fine and he clearly isn't someone who has been doing kidney dialysis from cave to cave. That Bin Laden is alive and well and seeks to be visible and continue to threaten us says to me Bush has accomplished NOTHING in the last four years. Bin Laden isn't dead, or even on the run. Bush has not succeeded, or even sufficiently tried to get Bin Laden. I think it is the boogey man that keeps the GOP happy... because it keeps you afraid.

Bush has failed us on every level, and we are very clearly no safer than we were. Imagine if your boss were to say to you

"Gordon, did you take care of the Penske file?"

"No sir, but I fully intend to. Really, the only way in the world the Penske file will get taken care of is by keeping me on the payroll. The one true fatal mistake you could make right now is to fire me and hire someone new to handle the Penske file. It will show weakness and inconsistancy to the Penske group"

"But Gordon, you have had three years to handle the Penske file! It was the only thing I asked you to do. The only thing you got done was the Brunson file, which I never asked you to do. In fact, my report says you lied about everything in the Brunson report.

"But sir, the Brunson file is directly related to the Penske file. In fact, the only way to get the Penske file done was to take care of the Brunson file first."

"Gordon, remember when you told me last year when we
had this same discussion? You told me that the Penske organization was dessimated.
You said they would never even show their face again, so completing the file was
moot? Remember that? Remember how you said "I don't know about
the Penske file, and frankly I don't care? Guess what, Penske is back
at the door. He is not amused!

needless to say, you would be swiftly fired. It would not have taken 3 years, either. Mr. President, for not having addressed the Bin Laden file after three years of grave concern... and instead spending all the company money and time on the Hussein file instead - you are fired!

#5 — October 30, 2004 @ 11:06AM — JR

You'll note that he isn't talking about restoring a Global Caliphate or all of America converting to Islam anymore.

Huh. Why's that, you think?

Because it doesn't play well with the moderates. Kind of like the far Right's intention to turn America into a Christian theocracy - they don't talk about that, they just blather on about the horrors of gay marriage and taxes.

#6 — October 30, 2004 @ 11:08AM — Vic [URL]

Victor,

So you're saying defending Kuwait was *bad*?

Lono,

To take the other side of your analogy, if Kerry is a job applicant for President of the United States sitting across from an interviewer, based on past experience, accomplishments, and his resume *I* certainly wouldn't hire him.

Kerry is telling the interviewer "Oh, ingore everything I've done for the past 30 years... I'll perform in a completely different way if you hire me."

Vic

#7 — October 30, 2004 @ 12:32PM — Victor Plenty [URL]

Whoa there, Vic! Slow down! Read it carefully, and then explain how you could possibly have extracted "defending Kuwait was bad" from my brief summary of the last 15 years or so of American involvement in Iraq.

Merely mentioning that Osama bin Laden and the rest of al-Qaida claimed they didn't like seeing American troops in Saudi Arabia is NOT the same thing as making that claim the central thesis of my comment.

I certainly never said we should base our own value judgements on what they want us to do or not do.

#8 — November 12, 2004 @ 00:30AM — Jenny

random house canada, this book's publisher has pulled the plug on OSAMA: THE MAKING OF A TERRORIST in all of canada, (the book is still available in the US) citing legal issues. but wouldn't specify. Anyone heard anything on the reasons for this?

#9 — November 12, 2004 @ 01:09AM — RJ [URL]

Probably because it was considered by the Leftist gov't of Canada to be "hateful speech" directed at a "minority" (Muslim terrorists residing in Canada).

Just a guess...

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/21623)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments