Will Osama be replacing Howard Dean as the Chairman of the Dems?

[Joeokar]

I guess he talks about how evil and corrupt the USA is, how noble and upright Osama are and how they're kicking our ass, gleefully, because he's pro-American.

So criticizing US policy mean you think the USA is a evil corrupt nation and that you love Osama. Well i am off to work.

[Don Corleone]

Edit: Inappropriate post.

[Ironside]

On a side note:

I think Osama has done wonders with the new stylist. Beard's in much better trim, a little "Just for Men" action going on. Much improved style.

And who says a Jihadist can't "make a statement" too!

Considering that and his more toned down message, it's quite certain that he's attemting an image change. Not entirely certain for what though, but most likely to get a "sane" image for either legend status, or a later stronger political move.

[Don Corleone]

Edit: Inappropriate post.

[Zaknafien]

Don Corleone, you should be warned for such a personal attack. That is disgusting to imply such a thing about someone (me) who is actually fighting against Al Qaeda for YOU. I'll think of your ignorance when I'm in Dora district in November killing Sunni nationalist insurgents for you.

For your information it is the job of the intelligence community and the organization I am part of to study and know our enemies better than we know ourselves.

Yes, if we changed our policies, the attacks would stop.

And the call for Americans to convert is nothing new, it is the job of any Muslim to implore his enemies to convert to the faith. It is also required by Islamic law when engaged in warfare against an infidel enemy. Perhaps you should learn more about our enemies before you make judgements about policy instead of acting with the hubris and gall of a stereotypical ignorant American.

[Zaknafien]

"I" think he favors the Islamist militants and seems to enjoy it when they deal the US a setback. I've come to that conclusion by reading three + months of his posts where he gets giddy whenever a new bomb goes off, or a new report comes out saying the Islamists have made some progress somewhere, not to mention his views on 9/11. As for blaming the US, just read what he's written in this thread, let alone other ones.

But I never said he himself said that he was. That's what I don't get about Zak. He goes on and on and on about how awful the American government is, how evil American citizens are, how we deserve everything we get, how respectable and worthy Osama bin Laden is, yet he claims he's pro-American. I don't see it.

1. the American Government is awful

2. The Ameircan PEOPLE are not evil. We are a wonderful, generous, and kind people. Its our policies driven by the corporations and factions within the neocon conservative christian government that are evil.

3. UBL is a worthy enemy for the US, nothing more. I am simply trying to tell you why he believes what he believes. If we don't understand why millions of people are turning to Islamism,we will never defeat it.

[Don Corleone]

Edit: Inappropriate post.

[Zaknafien]

Because I made a vow to obey the orders of the President of the United States, even if he is an ignorant fascist.

I have never talked about my fellow citizens. The average American is a moral and upright fellow, if ignorant of world politics. It is our government that has failed and continues to fail us by pursuing policies to make a small group more wealthy.

And the Soldiers I serve with and myself, we do not kill for anyone. It is to protect one another that we kill in self defence.

[Lemur]

In fairness, Don, Zank has not disparaged the American people, he has not advocated a win for the Islamists, and his overall point about "understand your enemy" is valid and self-evident.

Beyond those points, I disagree with everything else he has posted in this thread.

[Marshal Murat]

the call for Americans to convert is nothing new, it is the job of any Muslim to implore his enemies to convert to the faith. It is also required by Islamic law when engaged in warfare against an infidel enemy.

I can appreciate that statement in itself. I seem to remember something akin to that statement in my world studies class, and I can see the reason in it. I understood the points and got the message. Good.

Then there is the...

Perhaps you should learn more about our enemies before you make judgments about policy instead of acting with the hubris and gall of a stereotypical ignorant American.

(Underlining my notes)

Oooh. That was bad. While it's great to give incisive and cutting remarks about the 'hubris and gall' of the stereotypical Americans, it ruins your statment. You attack and alienate the reader, putting him off of whatever you have said or will say. Especially the "Perhaps you should learn" part. Patronizing, critical, and uncalled for.
A better one would be

As required by my job I, gotta know these things. If you look at (enter wikipedia or a credible site) the call for conversion is quite typical when engaged in a war against 'infidels' (Americans in this case).

In the revised quote, I didn't alienate the reader (gall, hubris, stereotypical ignorant American), nor did I provide a remark that would seem very offensive or hostile. I also defend your previous claim, and didn't offend or intentionally try to cause offense.
Then we can have a

Then again, this is the org. and where would we be if we didn't have people like Zak or Crazed Rabbit? We would be solving world problems. That's right. Solving world problems, and that's not what we are here for. Also, use of "ignorant fascist" begins to tread on Godwin's law

[Zaknafien]

Heh, good points

[Don Corleone]

I apologize to Zak. I should not have said what I said in here. Regardless of strenuously I might disagree with things Zak has said in this and other threads, he has every right to say them. What's more, as he points out, he's actually in service right now and it reflects poorly on me to criticize him, regardless of what he says.

And I apologize to everyone else in here. My ugly outburst was inappropriate, and not my best work.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

He vexes me too Don.

On the one hand, Zak is by his own account out there "defending freedom." I never served personally, so his service puts me to shame.

On the other hand, he completely buys into an explanation of "why things happen as they do" that I consider to be conspiracy theory semi-nonsense.

The dichotomy is hard to reconcile at times.

[Zaknafien]

Very upstanding of you Don, no hard feelings here. All I am trying to do is get people to look beyond the propaganda they see on the nightly news broadcasts and the cable news in the US. There are reasons why these people hate us, it is not because of who we are or how we live, but rather what we've done to them in the past and continue to do now.

[Don Corleone]

Thank you for your service Zak, and I apologize for what I said and how I said it.

[econ21]

Zak, I'm no backroom moderator, but in the spirit of Don's last post, you might consider editing your earlier post:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...1&postcount=35

Specifically the two word sentence in the first para.

[Marshal Murat]

I commend the gentlemanly conduct of both of you, and Zak, that was a good post. I didn't feel alienated nor offended.

Back to the discussion.

[Devastatin Dave]

Well, since I have served and am currently working for the government, let me take this oppurtinity to tell Zank that he's full of crap. What we've "done" to them? Get bent. If you think they're so damn worthy, go get an AK, climb on a camel, and get on the side you feel has the moral authority to rage this war. No matter how thoughtful and understanding you try to be to these dirtbags, they still want you dead, they want your family dead, and they want your culture and civilization dead. So get with the team and reality. Jeez.

Don and Seamus, this guys the same as Tribes and the other anti American goof-ups running around. Don't back down because of his need to get back pats from the enemies of our nation.

[Zaknafien]

Dave, with all do respect you are completely off-base. If you think the US government is innocent of all wrongdoing in the world, you're insane. Sure it may have been in the commercial interests of some companies within the US, and I'm all for cheap oil and services, but we've occupied, intimidated, murdered, lied, assassinated, and sponsored death squads and other thugs for decades all across the world. We've backed dictators who did what we said, we've killed democratically elected leaders who were loved by their people. We've turned Saudi Arabia into a US military zone to secure the oil, and myriad other ventures from the 1950s onward.

You need to understand WHY they hate us, not just that they do. There is no way to win a strategic victory over people who are fighting for a devout belief in their religion and their culture; there will always be more Sunni and Shia alike all across the world, including hundreds of non-Arabic converts, willing to flock to this banner of 'standing up to the man' and 'little guy versus big guy' heroics that the fight is portrayed as.

Its not anti-American to realize that we have been screwed up for decades; its time we realized we need to make changes in our republic and how it operates overseas. Some people think America has some sort of destiny to rule the world, and its this short-sighted hubris that can cause the downfall of our great civilization.

[econ21]

We've turned Saudi Arabia into a US military zone to secure the oil ...

I thought US bases were only established in Saudi Arabia in the build up to the First Gulf War?[1] And that it was that development that made OBL turn his sights on the US instead of the USSR? (The story I heard was that he asked the Saudis to let him combat Saddam with Mujahedin.)

If that is true, it is quite a big indictment of OBL. There was near unanimity worldwide that Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was illegitimate. Evicting Iraq from Kuwait may have essentially been "securing the oil", but it was eminently justifiable and in no way warranted the start of the terror campaign that led to 9/11. I really don't think the First Gulf War was an example of US hubris and wrongdoing - they even got the Syrians to pitch in!

There may be wider issues about the US propping up the House of Saud, but my concern there would be to do with democracy - which OBL has just made clear he disdains - and human rights (esp. women's rights).




[1]And that they are gone or going now, as the US has bases in Iraq and elsewhere in the region?

[Brenus]

“Despite the propaganda put out by "the West" (i.e., The U.S.), the goal of "Islamism" or "Islamists" is not to destroy the United States but rather to wage war militarily against the invasion of the lands of Islam. The U.S. has been occupying what UBL sees as his homeland and that of Islam for some 30+ years now. He sees his campaign as a defensive jihad, which is the duty of all Muslims, everywhere. Which is why a lot of 'moderates' are open to his message as well.”

Well, it is a little bit completed. The goal of the Islamo-fascist is not to wage war against the US as such; it is to wage war against the non-Muslim...
It is a political goal and a religious one, due to the fact Islam dictates the daily life, the life of the city, so it is pure politic.

The problem is we have to propaganda machines:
The Islamists, succeeding to convince the even moderates that it was a war against Islam (and forgetting the NATO intervention in favour of the Muslims in Bosnia and in Kosovo).
The ambivalence in speeches by the moderates, not keen enough to deny any right to Bin Laden to speak for them and even apparently sympathising with some a his grievances (he’s doing wrong but he’s got a point here) just give to OBL want he needed.
Even you had these stupid people, after the Knighthood of Saldam Ruzdie, giving to OBL the title the Sabre of Islam: they recognised and honoured a killer as one of them, and after they complained that the Western World doesn’t understand them…

The US President’s rhetoric based of the war of civilisations and the same kind of simplification and half and entire lies which led to the war in Iraq.

“For an example, look at the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Islamists fought them because they invaded an Islamic country and tried to wipe out the Islamic faith therein. There were no Islamic attacks on the SU prior to this, nor were there after they withdrew from Afghanistan.” It was more a war of liberation in the name of the Country and Nationalism than a war in the name of Islam.
The arrival of the Taliban recruited and trained in Pakistan, imposing Pakistani’s rules of Islam which made this war an Islamic War.
The invocation of the name of God doesn’t make a war a Religious war.

The Mudjahidin went to fight in Bosnia, in Algeria, and every where they could find a good infidel to fight... Put bombs in France as well, long before...

[Del Arroyo]

AQ's fatal and unnatural philosophy limits their success and the potential for lasting influence. It was less than a year ago that AQI felt at the top of their power and went as far as to declare their own government for Iraq. What has happened since? They've burned out. They are still there, and perhaps they will be for some time, but their extremism ensures that they will always be undercut by more moderate elements, even if these moderates are also militant.

Zak: I understand that you're trying to be objective and constructive man but really you're slipping into defeatism. And that isn't going to help us any more than blindness has. No matter what the US has done, bottom line, that kind of stuff happens, it's what countries always have done and always will do. If we made mistakes, we'll have to learn from them, and if we've made some enemies, we'll have to deal with them.

[Tribesman]

Don and Seamus, this guys the same as Tribes and the other anti American goof-ups running around.

Hey dave , how come the goof ups have been consistantly right about this debacle while the good ol flag waving "patriots" have been consistantly wrong .

[Zaknafien]

I agree with that, DA. We've made mistakes and enemies, and our only choice now is not to repreat the mistakes, and to kill the enemies. Unfortunately we're probably going to have to kill a majority of Muslims on the planet to be secure in this matter. :(

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I hope and pray that that will not be necessary.

[Adrian II]

The remarkable thing about Osama's video is how much he borrows from western discourse. I believe it was a British columnist who last week called Osama a parasite of western thought. An apt description. It has been noted before how modern Al Qaeda's propaganda, organising principles (cell structure, sophisticated financing) and methods are. For instance by John Grey in Al Qaeda And What It Means To Be Modern, which is not a bad choice if you have an hour or two to spare by the way.

For these reasons I doubt that we should try to understand Al Qaeda's behaviour from the traditional muslim perspective referred by Zaknafien.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The remarkable thing about Osama's video is how much he borrows from western discourse. I believe it was a British columnist who last week called Osama a parasite of western thought. An apt description. It has been noted before how modern Al Qaeda's propaganda, organising principles (cell structure, sophisticated financing) and methods are. For instance by John Grey in Al Qaeda And What It Means To Be Modern, which is not a bad choice if you have an hour or two to spare by the way.

For these reasons I doubt that we should try to understand Al Qaeda's behaviour from the traditional muslim perspective referred by Zaknafien.

You seem to imply that AQ is no longer the purely Ethno-Islamic standard bearer that much of its PR efforts lays out. Interesting counter. Have to grab that book sometime.

[Zaknafien]

Oh no, I agree with that; AQ is becoming a banner for discontents of all sorts to rally to, a rebellious battle-flag for the dispossessed across the world to turn to. Much the same can be said of the Islamic religion in general. I don't think that has anything to do with the appeal that AQ broadly has to a majority of Islamic adherrants across the world, however.

[econ21]

I don't think that has anything to do with the appeal that AQ broadly has to a majority of Islamic adherrants across the world, however.

I bridled at this reference to AQ appealing to the majority of Muslims (much as I silently blanched at your earlier reference to having to kill the majority of Muslims in the world).

However, a google search (Al Qaeda opinion poll Muslims) through up the following as the first hit, which is quite interesting:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi...t=346&lb=hmpg1

The majority in four big Muslim countries support some of AQ goals - I would describe them as AQs limited goals - such as stopping US support for Israel and expelling US forces from Muslim countries. They also view US policy as being aimed against Islam.

However, a very large majority oppose AQs methods - specifically attacks on civilians. That's pretty important, given that the defining feature of AQ is arguably its methods rather than its Islamicism (lots of Islamic regimes and parties in the world that don't go crashing planes into buildings).

They are also pro-democracy and pro-globalisation, so I am sceptical of the extent to which they support AQs deeper goals or values.