cue the section of Farenheit 9/11 where Michael Moore shows the relationship between Bush & the Bin-Ladens
Also cue the part where he mentions how the bin Laden family has disowned Osama, meaning showing Bush cozying up to the bin Laden family is a lazy and incorrect way of implying that Bush and Osama are homies.
Oh, wait...that part didn't seem to make it into the movie. Bush sucks dick, ass, and nuts, but there's no need to go making lazy shorthand invective when there's plenty of factual stuff around, Mikey.
Also cue the part where he mentions how the bin Laden family has disowned Osama, meaning showing Bush cozying up to the bin Laden family is a lazy and incorrect way of implying that Bush and Osama are homies.
Oh, wait...that part didn't seem to make it into the movie. Bush sucks dick, ass, and nuts, but there's no need to go making lazy shorthand invective when there's plenty of factual stuff around, Mikey.
So you're taking the Bin Laden family's word over Michael Moore's? Who knows to what degree the family has distanced themselves from him, regardless of their public statements. Everyone's got an agenda, and regardless of the current situation, the US at one time supported Bin Laden and the Taliban against the russians in Afganistan, the family was investors in the Carlyle Group, many in Bush's foreign policy group said before 9/11 that their objectives would be hard to achieve with a "pearl harbor" type of event, etc. I'm getting into tin foil hat territory here, but my point is that theres not enough infomation for anyone to know whether these connections mean anything, let along call them flat out incorrect.
This article, from 2 months after the attack, details the ambiguous nature of the family. It is long, and I only made it through half, but the point is, who knows...
But yes, i agree, Bush does suck "dick, ass, and nuts..."
So you're taking the Bin Laden family's word over Michael Moore's?
Sort of, but more to the point, I'm taking my good friend's dad's word over Moore's, largely because he has done a lot of business in the Middle East over the years (he's a banker), including a lot in Saudi Arabia. And if you're doing such business in SA, you're going to be dealing with the bin Ladens sooner or later. And to hear him tell it, the bin Ladens have gone to great lengths to distance themselves from Osama--they pretty much have to if they want to get any investors on board. It's a very complicated situation made all the more complicated by cultural chasms, but from what I've heard, the bin Laden family is hardly out there supporting Osama.
But furthermore, I'm rejecting the really lazy shorthand of simply saying "the bin Laden family" as a means to connect a person with terrorism. If you want to prove Bush's involvement with terrorism, prove it. Relying on weak-ass implication--especially when there's very good reason to think that which is being implied is quite wrong--isn't gonna cut it.
regardless of the current situation, the US at one time supported Bin Laden and the Taliban against the russians in Afganistan, the family was investors in the Carlyle Group, many in Bush's foreign policy group said before 9/11 that their objectives would be hard to achieve with a "pearl harbor" type of event, etc.
All true, and the U.S. has a sordid history of supporting awful people who are convenient allies at the time only to do a complete 180 when those allies are no longer convenient. Hell, Saddam's the same story. We loved him back in the 1980s because we thought he'd be a convenient ally against Iran. But then he deviated from the program and became public enemy number one.
I'm getting into tin foil hat territory here,
Yeah, and I have a strong distaste for that--left or right. And that's really my ultimate point. Bush has done so much shady, stupid, and just plain wrong things, there's no need to veer into tinfoil hat territory. Conspiracy theories don't really help, and time spent spinning them and chasing them down would be better spent pursuing the same ultimate goals using the surfeit of readily provable stuff. Trying to imply a buddy-buddy connection between Bush and Osama during Bush's presidency the way Michael Moore did is a bit like tilting at a windmill, ya know?
So you're taking the Bin Laden family's word over Michael Moore's?
I have an idea on how we can get to the truth in the matter.....we can either take the entire Bin Laden family to GitMo......inject them with truth serum, torture them using car batteries, jumper cables and evil accupunture methods, and then threaten to put dog collars on them and make them participate in sex acts with reptiles...
OR
We can threaten to with hold Ben & Jerry's ice cream from Michael Mooore for lets say...10-12 hours.
So you're taking the Bin Laden family's word over Michael Moore's?
Sort of, but more to the point, I'm taking my good friend's dad's word over Moore's, largely because he has done a lot of business in the Middle East over the years (he's a banker), including a lot in Saudi Arabia. And if you're doing such business in SA, you're going to be dealing with the bin Ladens sooner or later. And to hear him tell it, the bin Ladens have gone to great lengths to distance themselves from Osama--they pretty much have to if they want to get any investors on board. It's a very complicated situation made all the more complicated by cultural chasms, but from what I've heard, the bin Laden family is hardly out there supporting Osama.
But furthermore, I'm rejecting the really lazy shorthand of simply saying "the bin Laden family" as a means to connect a person with terrorism. If you want to prove Bush's involvement with terrorism, prove it. Relying on weak-ass implication--especially when there's very good reason to think that which is being implied is quite wrong--isn't gonna cut it.
regardless of the current situation, the US at one time supported Bin Laden and the Taliban against the russians in Afganistan, the family was investors in the Carlyle Group, many in Bush's foreign policy group said before 9/11 that their objectives would be hard to achieve with a "pearl harbor" type of event, etc.
All true, and the U.S. has a sordid history of supporting awful people who are convenient allies at the time only to do a complete 180 when those allies are no longer convenient. Hell, Saddam's the same story. We loved him back in the 1980s because we thought he'd be a convenient ally against Iran. But then he deviated from the program and became public enemy number one.
I'm getting into tin foil hat territory here,
Yeah, and I have a strong distaste for that--left or right. And that's really my ultimate point. Bush has done so much shady, stupid, and just plain wrong things, there's no need to veer into tinfoil hat territory. Conspiracy theories don't really help, and time spent spinning them and chasing them down would be better spent pursuing the same ultimate goals using the surfeit of readily provable stuff. Trying to imply a buddy-buddy connection between Bush and Osama during Bush's presidency the way Michael Moore did is a bit like tilting at a windmill, ya know?
PEOPLE! this whole argument about Bush-Bin Laden connections is a smokescreen.
Did bin Laden intend to help Bush get re-elected by releasing the tape when he did? YES.
Did he do this at the behest of Bush or because they are friends or because their interests are alligned? NO.
Bin Laden wanted to see Bush re-elected because it's in HIS interest. He knew Bush would further alienate the Muslim world and thus create more support for global jihad.
While we in the West are stepping on eggshells to avoid identifying this as a "clash of civilizations" people like Bin Laden have been actually calling for one for some time now. Bush helps this process along. Thus bin Laden gave him a little push by releasing a scary tape to urge more ignorant Americans over to the Bush side and ensure four more years of a perceived clash between America and the (Muslim) World.
So you're taking the Bin Laden family's word over Michael Moore's?
Sort of, but more to the point, I'm taking my good friend's dad's word over Moore's, largely because he has done a lot of business in the Middle East over the years (he's a banker), including a lot in Saudi Arabia. And if you're doing such business in SA, you're going to be dealing with the bin Ladens sooner or later. And to hear him tell it, the bin Ladens have gone to great lengths to distance themselves from Osama--they pretty much have to if they want to get any investors on board. It's a very complicated situation made all the more complicated by cultural chasms, but from what I've heard, the bin Laden family is hardly out there supporting Osama.
But furthermore, I'm rejecting the really lazy shorthand of simply saying "the bin Laden family" as a means to connect a person with terrorism. If you want to prove Bush's involvement with terrorism, prove it. Relying on weak-ass implication--especially when there's very good reason to think that which is being implied is quite wrong--isn't gonna cut it.
regardless of the current situation, the US at one time supported Bin Laden and the Taliban against the russians in Afganistan, the family was investors in the Carlyle Group, many in Bush's foreign policy group said before 9/11 that their objectives would be hard to achieve with a "pearl harbor" type of event, etc.
All true, and the U.S. has a sordid history of supporting awful people who are convenient allies at the time only to do a complete 180 when those allies are no longer convenient. Hell, Saddam's the same story. We loved him back in the 1980s because we thought he'd be a convenient ally against Iran. But then he deviated from the program and became public enemy number one.
I'm getting into tin foil hat territory here,
Yeah, and I have a strong distaste for that--left or right. And that's really my ultimate point. Bush has done so much shady, stupid, and just plain wrong things, there's no need to veer into tinfoil hat territory. Conspiracy theories don't really help, and time spent spinning them and chasing them down would be better spent pursuing the same ultimate goals using the surfeit of readily provable stuff. Trying to imply a buddy-buddy connection between Bush and Osama during Bush's presidency the way Michael Moore did is a bit like tilting at a windmill, ya know?
PEOPLE! this whole argument about Bush-Bin Laden connections is a smokescreen.
Did bin Laden intend to help Bush get re-elected by releasing the tape when he did? YES.
Did he do this at the behest of Bush or because they are friends or because their interests are alligned? NO.
Bin Laden wanted to see Bush re-elected because it's in HIS interest. He knew Bush would further alienate the Muslim world and thus create more support for global jihad.
While we in the West are stepping on eggshells to avoid identifying this as a "clash of civilizations" people like Bin Laden have been actually calling for one for some time now. Bush helps this process along. Thus bin Laden gave him a little push by releasing a scary tape to urge more ignorant Americans over to the Bush side and ensure four more years of a perceived clash between America and the (Muslim) World.
I agree with both of you, and I wasn't really trying to suggest a serious connection between the Bush administration and Osama, although I take Bush's extensive misdeeds to be an indication of his willingness to do anything to achieve his ends. I wouldn't put it past him, but I understand, with so many facts out there why discuss these. In a way it is a smokescreen, but I think it also shows the need to think about the corporate motivations behind the news and spin. My point is that all types of people have it in their intrest to portray the Binladen family as having cut all ties to Osama. As the New Yorker article and you yourself said, to do buisness there is to do buisness with the family, and cetrain intrests in our country depend on the continued support of that elite. Of course they're not "out there supporting Osama," that's big buisness marketing 101. My point is that no one wants to cuts off all buisness with the Middle east, but we have to temper the elite's desires to maintain the status quo with caution and pragmatism. While many US buisneses deal with the Bin Laden family, I don't know how you can say we can be so sure where the profits go, or what their motivations are. There are similar concerns with the whole port deal. Ultimately, there probably isn't much we can do without screwing up buisness relations, I just don't know if I trust your banker friend, with an obvious vested interest in the region as it now stands, to really know, or even to really want to know the deal. The only thing I can really see that would help would be to reduce our dependance on oil and, by extension, these Middle east countries. That way we have some bargaining power besides the military, without them having the ultimate trump card of oil prices. Basically, as the Bush policy has stoked the anti-americanism of the Middle East, the US needs to focus on diffusing the tension, and not just on maintaining buisness relationships. I don't think anybody can really know the relationship of the 600+ Binladen family members and Osama. BTW, At this point the only other really good idea i've heard, from NYT's Kristof was to swear off any permanent military bases in Iraq, diffusing some of the nationalism that's fueling the insurgency ...
You don't know that bin Laden was trying to help Bush get reelected. So you can't say that with any certainty. How much do you think Osama knows about American politics? I honestly believe that he was being genuine in the tape. Before we invaded Iraq, things were not going as planned for bin Laden. That was when the entire world rallied behind us(seems like ages), and supported our response to 9/11. Which was to crush the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Of coarse, then we gave OBL a huge gift. That was the unilateral preemptive preventive invasion of Iraq. It was just the thing OBL needed to rally Muslims from around the world, behind his cause. And the U.S. has been loosing ever since. And the stakes have gone up even higher. My point is, Osama thought that Afghanistan was going to be like Iraq is right now for us. He thought it would be like Afghanistan in the 80s, against Russia. Not to mention thinking that flying airplanes into skyscrapers is a good strategic move. He thinks we are going to get scared and avoid fighting. Not pick the guy who is going to get more of us killed. I like to think that OBL is trying to use reverse psychology on us too, but 1) there is no evidence of that, and 2) I just don't think it's true.
Bush has done so much shady, stupid, and just plain wrong things, there's no need to veer into tinfoil hat territory. Conspiracy theories don't really help, and time spent spinning them and chasing them down would be better spent pursuing the same ultimate goals using the surfeit of readily provable stuff.
Not to mention thinking that flying airplanes into skyscrapers is a good strategic move. He thinks we are going to get scared and avoid fighting. Not pick the guy who is going to get more of us killed. I like to think that OBL is trying to use reverse psychology on us too, but 1) there is no evidence of that, and 2) I just don't think it's true.
This isn't 'reverse psychology'. Anyone with any knowledge of US foreign policy would assume that they wouldn't simply back down from an all out attack on their own population/soil. Bin Laden's actions are more provocative than anything. He wanted to create more polarization between the Middle Eastern Muslim world and the Western world.
Not to mention thinking that flying airplanes into skyscrapers is a good strategic move. He thinks we are going to get scared and avoid fighting. Not pick the guy who is going to get more of us killed. I like to think that OBL is trying to use reverse psychology on us too, but 1) there is no evidence of that, and 2) I just don't think it's true.
This isn't 'reverse psychology'. Anyone with any knowledge of US foreign policy would assume that they wouldn't simply back down from an all out attack on their own population/soil. Bin Laden's actions are more provocative than anything. He wanted to create more polarization between the Middle Eastern Muslim world and the Western world.
Exactly, I don't think Bin Laden has to be a genius to know that having Bush in the White House is the ultimate recruiting tool. Unfortunately, I think its hard to even get jihadists excited about Kerry. Osama knew exactly what he was doing, a Kerry victory would be viewed by muslim moderates as reasonable, whereas a Bush victory is a vote for confronation, to keep his team excited all he had to do was express his support for Kerry, the voters did the rest...
Not to mention thinking that flying airplanes into skyscrapers is a good strategic move. He thinks we are going to get scared and avoid fighting. Not pick the guy who is going to get more of us killed. I like to think that OBL is trying to use reverse psychology on us too, but 1) there is no evidence of that, and 2) I just don't think it's true.
This isn't 'reverse psychology'. Anyone with any knowledge of US foreign policy would assume that they wouldn't simply back down from an all out attack on their own population/soil. Bin Laden's actions are more provocative than anything. He wanted to create more polarization between the Middle Eastern Muslim world and the Western world.
not reverse psychogogy? O.K. but it is still just a theory that really has no backing. It certainly did have that effect, and even Bush admits it. but it's just speculation as to if bin Laden was trying to give bush that last minute boost in the pols, by releasing a video that says exactly the opposite. It could be true, I guess. That is what I told people at the time. Although, I think bin Laden is very straight forward in his messages. He's always said exactly what he wants. In that tape he was staged kind of like a political figure, with a desk and backdrop. No camo or machine gun. He gave a long and diplomatic speech. I think it was for people in the middle east as well, even though he was addressing the american public. He doesn't want to be seen as a nut so he used the moment to attempt to show that he wasn't some crazy old tyrant, in over his head, who kills indiscriminately in the name of a peaceful religion.
And I'm not saying that he didn't think we would attack Afghanistan. but that he thought Afghanistan wouldn't go down so easily. He envisioned the freedom fighters to come back around and for us to get bogged down the way russia did. but then we gave him what he wanted when we ran over to Iraq.
I didn't get my point across very clearly before. my bad.
A) America did not support bin Laden in the eighties against the Soviets. When Jimmy Carter signed a secret executive order in 1979 to support the mujahadin against the Soviet occupiers, the orders were carried out through the Pakistani ISI. Some of the Afghan muj went on to work with the Taliban, others went on to work against the taliban, and formed the northern alliance. Bin Laden raised money for his own jihadis in Afghanistan and worked largely hand in glove with the current Saudi ambassador Turki al Faisal. The CIA certainly knew about them. The closest support we can trace of America giving money to what became later on al Qaeda, was a 1981 interview with Anwar Sadat one week before he was shot. He admitted that Jimmy Carter called him personally and asked that he provide cargo aircraft for the Afghan fighters in response to a question asking what his legacy as president will be the world's muslims. He was shot by the way a week later by a cell that included Ayman Zawahiri who was a spokesman for the assassins.
B) The theory that the Iraq war has enraged Muslims and created an environment in which more of them can be recruited to become suicide bombers is dubious. Mike Scheuer, the former head of CIA bin laden station is most associated with this theory, along with Richard Clarke. My problem is as follows. The Muslim world was already enflamed. The reasons for the mania are complex, some of it is Israel, some of it is frustration with corrupt American client leaders, some of it is the boredom and hopelessness of young educated men. The Iraq war is definitely unpopular in the muslim world. Almost everyone here in Egypt sympathizes with Zarqawi. But that too is changing. After the Iraqi jihadis bombed out a Palestinian wedding, opinion polls in Jordan, Lebanon and the West Bank changed against him. In a way, the savagery of Iraq's terrorists has alienated them from many Muslims who see them as killing more Muslims than infidels, which they do.
A further problem with this theory is that if we are to pursue a policy that does not anger potential car bombers, then we should have left the Taliban alone after 9-11. The Muslim world was not supportive of that campaign. The Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, urged Bush not to bomb them on Ramadan. The reason why this is less of an issue is because we have largely won there, even though dangers still persist. If America can win in Iraq (and I seriously doubt that today), then the war will likely demoralize bin Laden.
C) It's always sketchy to attribute motives and western thinking patterns to crazed terrorists like bin Laden. I think he released the tape to prove he was alive. He also probably believes that he can scare Americans and westerners into pushing their presidential candidates into meeting his demands, which is to withdraw all forces from the region. The socialists managed to come to power after the 3-11 attacks in Madrid. But can anyone imagine a candidate for president in 2008, or John Kerry in 2004 actually supporting this policy?
There were 2 studies done about foreign fighters and the Iraq war. One was done by a Saudi security expert, and another by an Israeli professor. They both looked at the records of dead and arrested foreign fighters. Their two studies both said that the Iraq war had radicalized a new generation of Muslims in the Middle East. That almost all of the foreign fighters that they had covered in their studies had not had any prior experience with jihadis or radical groups before the war, etc.
Afghanistan pissed people off, but when it was such a swift victory it demoralized the entire Islamist movement. Iraq pissed off a bunch more people, and because it's dragged on so much, it's got a lot of new people active and supportive of fighting the U.S. Zarqawi is doing all kinds of shit that's pissing people off. I've read that one of Bin Laden's assistants is completely against Zarqawi's idea of creating a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites, etc. Despite that, I think a lot of the people who get radicalized by the war, just want to fight the West, not so much join Zarqawi. They're watching Arab TV and all they see is carnage everyday and blame the U.S. for it.
I would argue that most Iraqis were radicalized by sanctions. Furthermore, most of the fighters are now fighting Iraqis. Finally, the theory of mass radicalization has some merit, but at its core it depends on the notion that terrorism floats in the ether afflicting otherwise nonviolent civilians like the bird flu or Hegelian Zeitgeist. The expertise needed to launch suicide attacks or make IEDs comes from a competent cadre of expert warmakers and terrorists that have been a feature of Arab statecraft since the 1970s.
I would argue that most Iraqis were radicalized by sanctions. Furthermore, most of the fighters are now fighting Iraqis. Finally, the theory of mass radicalization has some merit, but at its core it depends on the notion that terrorism floats in the ether afflicting otherwise nonviolent civilians like the bird flu or Hegelian Zeitgeist. The expertise needed to launch suicide attacks or make IEDs comes from a competent cadre of expert warmakers and terrorists that have been a feature of Arab statecraft since the 1970s.
V
The two studies were about FOREIGN fighters. And yes, most of the people fighting in Iraq now are homegrown Iraqis rather than foreign fighters, but the two studies do show a new level of radicalization occurring amongst Muslims that didn't exist before.
You can also throw in the Madrid bombings as another example of new converts to Islamism since the invasion of Iraq. From what I've read, they were not members of Al Qaeda, and were not involved in any organized radical groups before their attack. Rather they followed a radical imam who got arrested. They got pissed and met each other. Heard a speech by Bin Laden about how Spain and other European countries had to be punished for joining the U.S. in invading Iraq, and went out and blew up the train station.
As far as the expertise needed to carry out attacks, all you have to do is go to the internet. There are tons of Islamic sights where after a few passwords and background checks by the people who run them, you can not only watch videos of matyrs and attacks around the world by Jihadists, but get all the info you need about how to make bombs, work an AK-47, etc. It's all there on the internet waiting for people.
I can also buy the theory that Islamists have grown more and more radical and violent over the decades. I first started studying them in the early 90s and wrote my thesis on Islamic fundamentalist. They are definitely on a different level now then when I wrote the thesis. At the same time, I think you can look at specific events that pushed them along. Almost all Islamist experts talk about how Afghanistan was a turning point in the movement as it gave on the job training, provided networking, and more importantly a victory for the Islamist movement worldwide. I think Iraq has the potential to do the same. There are already reports of Zarqawi setting up terrorist camps in Iraq and trying to carry out attacks in Jordan and other countries. And as the two studies I talked about already and the Madrid bombing point to, there are new people joining the jihadists because of Iraq.
B) The theory that the Iraq war has enraged Muslims and created an environment in which more of them can be recruited to become suicide bombers is dubious. Mike Scheuer, the former head of CIA bin laden station is most associated with this theory, along with Richard Clarke. My problem is as follows. The Muslim world was already enflamed. The reasons for the mania are complex...The Iraq war is definitely unpopular in the muslim world. Almost everyone here in Egypt sympathizes with Zarqawi...opinion polls in Jordan, Lebanon and the West Bank changed against him. In a way, the savagery of Iraq's terrorists has alienated them from many Muslims who see them as killing more Muslims than infidels, which they do.
Vitamin, i usually disagree with you but find your opinions interesting and well thought out. This, however, is pretty weak man. So because muslims were already pissed, the Iraq war didn't make the problem worse. Thats like saying if the democrats win big in november (oh god please), that Katrina, Abramoff, Delay and the NSA spying had nothing to do with it, because people were already pissed in '04. I read the Scheuer book (super dense, wish i remembered more), and I thought it was on point. I don't think US foriegn policy should be based on what will piss of the world's muslims the least, but to say that Iraq hasn't made the situation worse is ridiculous. How could this utterly baseless war, regardless of the previous situation, not enflame the middle east and convince moderates that the US is evil.
Afghanistan pissed people off, but when it was such a swift victory it demoralized the entire Islamist movement. Iraq pissed off a bunch more people, and because it's dragged on so much, it's got a lot of new people active and supportive of fighting the U.S. Zarqawi is doing all kinds of shit that's pissing people off. Despite that, I think a lot of the people who get radicalized by the war, just want to fight the West, not so much join Zarqawi. They're watching Arab TV and all they see is carnage everyday and blame the U.S. for it.
DJBombjack
Miami 1,665 Posts
Comments
cue the section of Farenheit 9/11 where Michael Moore shows the relationship between Bush & the Bin-Ladens
yeah, like bin Laden didn't WANT to help Bush get re-elected? That was/is his aim all along.
Man the American electorate played right into bin Laden's hands, fucking idiots.
Also cue the part where he mentions how the bin Laden family has disowned Osama, meaning showing Bush cozying up to the bin Laden family is a lazy and incorrect way of implying that Bush and Osama are homies.
Oh, wait...that part didn't seem to make it into the movie. Bush sucks dick, ass, and nuts, but there's no need to go making lazy shorthand invective when there's plenty of factual stuff around, Mikey.
So you're taking the Bin Laden family's word over Michael Moore's? Who knows to what degree the family has distanced themselves from him, regardless of their public statements. Everyone's got an agenda, and regardless of the current situation, the US at one time supported Bin Laden and the Taliban against the russians in Afganistan, the family was investors in the Carlyle Group, many in Bush's foreign policy group said before 9/11 that their objectives would be hard to achieve with a "pearl harbor" type of event, etc. I'm getting into tin foil hat territory here, but my point is that theres not enough infomation for anyone to know whether these connections mean anything, let along call them flat out incorrect.
This article, from 2 months after the attack, details the ambiguous nature of the family. It is long, and I only made it through half, but the point is, who knows...
But yes, i agree, Bush does suck "dick, ass, and nuts..."
Sort of, but more to the point, I'm taking my good friend's dad's word over Moore's, largely because he has done a lot of business in the Middle East over the years (he's a banker), including a lot in Saudi Arabia. And if you're doing such business in SA, you're going to be dealing with the bin Ladens sooner or later. And to hear him tell it, the bin Ladens have gone to great lengths to distance themselves from Osama--they pretty much have to if they want to get any investors on board. It's a very complicated situation made all the more complicated by cultural chasms, but from what I've heard, the bin Laden family is hardly out there supporting Osama.
But furthermore, I'm rejecting the really lazy shorthand of simply saying "the bin Laden family" as a means to connect a person with terrorism. If you want to prove Bush's involvement with terrorism, prove it. Relying on weak-ass implication--especially when there's very good reason to think that which is being implied is quite wrong--isn't gonna cut it.
All true, and the U.S. has a sordid history of supporting awful people who are convenient allies at the time only to do a complete 180 when those allies are no longer convenient. Hell, Saddam's the same story. We loved him back in the 1980s because we thought he'd be a convenient ally against Iran. But then he deviated from the program and became public enemy number one.
Yeah, and I have a strong distaste for that--left or right. And that's really my ultimate point. Bush has done so much shady, stupid, and just plain wrong things, there's no need to veer into tinfoil hat territory. Conspiracy theories don't really help, and time spent spinning them and chasing them down would be better spent pursuing the same ultimate goals using the surfeit of readily provable stuff. Trying to imply a buddy-buddy connection between Bush and Osama during Bush's presidency the way Michael Moore did is a bit like tilting at a windmill, ya know?
I have an idea on how we can get to the truth in the matter.....we can either take the entire Bin Laden family to GitMo......inject them with truth serum, torture them using car batteries, jumper cables and evil accupunture methods, and then threaten to put dog collars on them and make them participate in sex acts with reptiles...
OR
We can threaten to with hold Ben & Jerry's ice cream from Michael Mooore for lets say...10-12 hours.
Both should reveal the truth
PEOPLE! this whole argument about Bush-Bin Laden connections is a smokescreen.
Did bin Laden intend to help Bush get re-elected by releasing the tape when he did? YES.
Did he do this at the behest of Bush or because they are friends or because their interests are alligned? NO.
Bin Laden wanted to see Bush re-elected because it's in HIS interest. He knew Bush would further alienate the Muslim world and thus create more support for global jihad.
While we in the West are stepping on eggshells to avoid identifying this as a "clash of civilizations" people like Bin Laden have been actually calling for one for some time now. Bush helps this process along. Thus bin Laden gave him a little push by releasing a scary tape to urge more ignorant Americans over to the Bush side and ensure four more years of a perceived clash between America and the (Muslim) World.
Now this I will cosign.
your contributions to this discussion are invaluable. now plaese to find another thread/site. there are grown men talking here.
Before we invaded Iraq, things were not going as planned for bin Laden. That was when the entire world rallied behind us(seems like ages), and supported our response to 9/11. Which was to crush the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Of coarse, then we gave OBL a huge gift. That was the unilateral preemptive preventive invasion of Iraq. It was just the thing OBL needed to rally Muslims from around the world, behind his cause. And the U.S. has been loosing ever since. And the stakes have gone up even higher.
My point is, Osama thought that Afghanistan was going to be like Iraq is right now for us. He thought it would be like Afghanistan in the 80s, against Russia. Not to mention thinking that flying airplanes into skyscrapers is a good strategic move. He thinks we are going to get scared and avoid fighting. Not pick the guy who is going to get more of us killed. I like to think that OBL is trying to use reverse psychology on us too, but 1) there is no evidence of that, and 2) I just don't think it's true.
So fucking on point.
This isn't 'reverse psychology'. Anyone with any knowledge of US foreign policy would assume that they wouldn't simply back down from an all out attack on their own population/soil. Bin Laden's actions are more provocative than anything. He wanted to create more polarization between the Middle Eastern Muslim world and the Western world.
Exactly, I don't think Bin Laden has to be a genius to know that having Bush in the White House is the ultimate recruiting tool. Unfortunately, I think its hard to even get jihadists excited about Kerry. Osama knew exactly what he was doing, a Kerry victory would be viewed by muslim moderates as reasonable, whereas a Bush victory is a vote for confronation, to keep his team excited all he had to do was express his support for Kerry, the voters did the rest...
not reverse psychogogy? O.K. but it is still just a theory that really has no backing. It certainly did have that effect, and even Bush admits it. but it's just speculation as to if bin Laden was trying to give bush that last minute boost in the pols, by releasing a video that says exactly the opposite. It could be true, I guess. That is what I told people at the time.
Although, I think bin Laden is very straight forward in his messages. He's always said exactly what he wants. In that tape he was staged kind of like a political figure, with a desk and backdrop. No camo or machine gun. He gave a long and diplomatic speech. I think it was for people in the middle east as well, even though he was addressing the american public. He doesn't want to be seen as a nut so he used the moment to attempt to show that he wasn't some crazy old tyrant, in over his head, who kills indiscriminately in the name of a peaceful religion.
And I'm not saying that he didn't think we would attack Afghanistan. but that he thought Afghanistan wouldn't go down so easily. He envisioned the freedom fighters to come back around and for us to get bogged down the way russia did. but then we gave him what he wanted when we ran over to Iraq.
I didn't get my point across very clearly before. my bad.
A) America did not support bin Laden in the eighties against the Soviets. When Jimmy Carter signed a secret executive order in 1979 to support the mujahadin against the Soviet occupiers, the orders were carried out through the Pakistani ISI. Some of the Afghan muj went on to work with the Taliban, others went on to work against the taliban, and formed the northern alliance. Bin Laden raised money for his own jihadis in Afghanistan and worked largely hand in glove with the current Saudi ambassador Turki al Faisal. The CIA certainly knew about them. The closest support we can trace of America giving money to what became later on al Qaeda, was a 1981 interview with Anwar Sadat one week before he was shot. He admitted that Jimmy Carter called him personally and asked that he provide cargo aircraft for the Afghan fighters in response to a question asking what his legacy as president will be the world's muslims. He was shot by the way a week later by a cell that included Ayman Zawahiri who was a spokesman for the assassins.
B) The theory that the Iraq war has enraged Muslims and created an environment in which more of them can be recruited to become suicide bombers is dubious. Mike Scheuer, the former head of CIA bin laden station is most associated with this theory, along with Richard Clarke. My problem is as follows. The Muslim world was already enflamed. The reasons for the mania are complex, some of it is Israel, some of it is frustration with corrupt American client leaders, some of it is the boredom and hopelessness of young educated men. The Iraq war is definitely unpopular in the muslim world. Almost everyone here in Egypt sympathizes with Zarqawi. But that too is changing. After the Iraqi jihadis bombed out a Palestinian wedding, opinion polls in Jordan, Lebanon and the West Bank changed against him. In a way, the savagery of Iraq's terrorists has alienated them from many Muslims who see them as killing more Muslims than infidels, which they do.
A further problem with this theory is that if we are to pursue a policy that does not anger potential car bombers, then we should have left the Taliban alone after 9-11. The Muslim world was not supportive of that campaign. The Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, urged Bush not to bomb them on Ramadan. The reason why this is less of an issue is because we have largely won there, even though dangers still persist. If America can win in Iraq (and I seriously doubt that today), then the war will likely demoralize bin Laden.
C) It's always sketchy to attribute motives and western thinking patterns to crazed terrorists like bin Laden. I think he released the tape to prove he was alive. He also probably believes that he can scare Americans and westerners into pushing their presidential candidates into meeting his demands, which is to withdraw all forces from the region. The socialists managed to come to power after the 3-11 attacks in Madrid. But can anyone imagine a candidate for president in 2008, or John Kerry in 2004 actually supporting this policy?
There were 2 studies done about foreign fighters and the Iraq war. One was done by a Saudi security expert, and another by an Israeli professor. They both looked at the records of dead and arrested foreign fighters. Their two studies both said that the Iraq war had radicalized a new generation of Muslims in the Middle East. That almost all of the foreign fighters that they had covered in their studies had not had any prior experience with jihadis or radical groups before the war, etc.
Afghanistan pissed people off, but when it was such a swift victory it demoralized the entire Islamist movement. Iraq pissed off a bunch more people, and because it's dragged on so much, it's got a lot of new people active and supportive of fighting the U.S. Zarqawi is doing all kinds of shit that's pissing people off. I've read that one of Bin Laden's assistants is completely against Zarqawi's idea of creating a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites, etc. Despite that, I think a lot of the people who get radicalized by the war, just want to fight the West, not so much join Zarqawi. They're watching Arab TV and all they see is carnage everyday and blame the U.S. for it.
I would argue that most Iraqis were radicalized by sanctions. Furthermore, most of the fighters are now fighting Iraqis. Finally, the theory of mass radicalization has some merit, but at its core it depends on the notion that terrorism floats in the ether afflicting otherwise nonviolent civilians like the bird flu or Hegelian Zeitgeist. The expertise needed to launch suicide attacks or make IEDs comes from a competent cadre of expert warmakers and terrorists that have been a feature of Arab statecraft since the 1970s.
V
The two studies were about FOREIGN fighters. And yes, most of the people fighting in Iraq now are homegrown Iraqis rather than foreign fighters, but the two studies do show a new level of radicalization occurring amongst Muslims that didn't exist before.
You can also throw in the Madrid bombings as another example of new converts to Islamism since the invasion of Iraq. From what I've read, they were not members of Al Qaeda, and were not involved in any organized radical groups before their attack. Rather they followed a radical imam who got arrested. They got pissed and met each other. Heard a speech by Bin Laden about how Spain and other European countries had to be punished for joining the U.S. in invading Iraq, and went out and blew up the train station.
As far as the expertise needed to carry out attacks, all you have to do is go to the internet. There are tons of Islamic sights where after a few passwords and background checks by the people who run them, you can not only watch videos of matyrs and attacks around the world by Jihadists, but get all the info you need about how to make bombs, work an AK-47, etc. It's all there on the internet waiting for people.
I can also buy the theory that Islamists have grown more and more radical and violent over the decades. I first started studying them in the early 90s and wrote my thesis on Islamic fundamentalist. They are definitely on a different level now then when I wrote the thesis. At the same time, I think you can look at specific events that pushed them along. Almost all Islamist experts talk about how Afghanistan was a turning point in the movement as it gave on the job training, provided networking, and more importantly a victory for the Islamist movement worldwide. I think Iraq has the potential to do the same. There are already reports of Zarqawi setting up terrorist camps in Iraq and trying to carry out attacks in Jordan and other countries. And as the two studies I talked about already and the Madrid bombing point to, there are new people joining the jihadists because of Iraq.
Vitamin, i usually disagree with you but find your opinions interesting and well thought out. This, however, is pretty weak man. So because muslims were already pissed, the Iraq war didn't make the problem worse. Thats like saying if the democrats win big in november (oh god please), that Katrina, Abramoff, Delay and the NSA spying had nothing to do with it, because people were already pissed in '04. I read the Scheuer book (super dense, wish i remembered more), and I thought it was on point. I don't think US foriegn policy should be based on what will piss of the world's muslims the least, but to say that Iraq hasn't made the situation worse is ridiculous. How could this utterly baseless war, regardless of the previous situation, not enflame the middle east and convince moderates that the US is evil.