Blogcritics: Comments on Osama tells us how to beat terrorism

Comment by RJ

Fri, 12 Nov 2004 01:09:55 EST

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...

Comment by Jenny

Fri, 12 Nov 2004 00:30:59 EST

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?

Comment by Victor Plenty

Sat, 30 Oct 2004 12:32:03 EDT

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.

Comment by Vic

Sat, 30 Oct 2004 11:08:19 EDT

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

Comment by JR

Sat, 30 Oct 2004 11:06:54 EDT

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.

Comment by Lono

Sat, 30 Oct 2004 02:42:35 EDT

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!

Comment by urthshu

Sat, 30 Oct 2004 00:29:47 EDT

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?

Comment by Victor Plenty

Fri, 29 Oct 2004 23:34:54 EDT

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.

Comment by Vic

Fri, 29 Oct 2004 23:01:10 EDT

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