Reply
Mon 5 Dec, 2005 10:47 am
With Enemies Like George Bush, Who Needs Friends?
David Wallechinsky
12.03.2005
Just for a few moments, try to imagine the years since 9/11 from the point of view of Osama bin Laden. Before September 11, 2001, bin Laden was already a popular figure among Islamist extremists who admired him as a rich man who played an important role in expelling Soviet troops from Afghanistan and then supported veterans of the anti-Soviet war.
Tapes of his lectures were bestsellers in many countries, but he had dreams of greater glory: he wanted to be viewed as the leader of all the Arab people. Although bin Laden does not appear to have been that involved in the actual conception and organization of the 9/11 attacks, George Bush and his administration portrayed him as such and, in terms of publicity, that was fine with bin Laden. Of course there was a downside to the aftermath of the attacks. Bin Laden had to give up his terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and flee and hide and evade.
After a while, though, George Bush seemed to lose interest in catching bin Laden. Instead he invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein. At one point, in September 2003, a Washington Post poll found that 69% of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks, which, of course, he wasn't. Imagine how Osama bin Laden felt about that. Here he had gone to all that trouble to kill thousands of Americans, and Saddam Hussein was getting all the credit. This was particularly galling because bin Laden despised Saddam Hussein, who was a rival because he too wanted to be viewed as the leader of all Arabs.
Four days before the 2004 U.S. presidential election, bin Laden released a videotaped speech for the first time in almost three years, thus ending speculation that he was dead. In the U.S., there was much gabbing in the media as to whether bin Laden did this in order to help the Democrats or to help the Republicans. My guess is that he wasn't trying to help either side. It is more likely that he was tired of being ignored, he saw that the world was focused on the American election and he released his video at that time in order to capture the most possible attention.
However obsessed Osama bin Laden is with personal power, he still believes in advancing his ideology through terrorist acts, which made the loss of his training camps difficult to take. He had first operated training camps in Afghanistan in the 1980s, before transferring his operations to Sudan and then back to Afghanistan. From the time U.S.-led forces attacked Afghanistan in October 2001 until March 2003, al-Qaeda did not have an effective training camp. Fortunately for them, George Bush came to the rescue. Imagine how Osama bin Laden feels now. Bush overthrew and arrested bin Laden's old rival, Saddam Hussein, and he transformed Iraq into a cauldron of chaos and violence. It is not possible to build formal terrorist training camps in Iraq, the kind where militants can gain instruction outdoors in the fresh air, but, from the point of view of Osama bin Laden and his admirers, George Bush turned Iraq into something even better: a place to actually practice killing Americans and others. Instead of becoming students, aspiring terrorists can now serve as on-the-job apprentices.
Although most of the insurgents in Iraq really are Iraqis, wannabe terrorists from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan and other countries have been streaming into Iraq. There they have their choice of dozens of cells who will teach them how to build and plant bombs, and they can even watch as suicide bombers kill innocent people. After trying out a deadly attack or two, these newly trained terrorists can return to their own countries or even travel to new countries, spread what they have learned in Iraq and kill people in the nations of their choosing. For Osama bin Laden, it is no doubt frustrating that he has to remain in the background while Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorist leaders gain the headlines, but at least bin Laden has the satisfaction of knowing that, thanks to the bumbling response of George Bush, he will go down in history as the godfather of the attacks that led to the accelerated growth of worldwide Islamist terrorism.
BBB: Ever consider creating a thread where you can post all of the news/opinion articles you consider interesting, rather than create a new thread for each one? Even if you do a new thread like that each day that would cut back on the number of new threads I have to ignore.
Please consider it.
BumbleBee, great article.
Wouldn't you like to see all of BBB's great articles in one convenient location?
Nah, why?
You act as if being forced to skip her threads is a huge imposition.
Cycloptichorn
I realize many may enjoy her postings, I was just suggesting she create a 'BBB News" thread where she could post all the news articles she wanted, without having to create a new thread for each one. And everyone could enjoy her posts in one convenient location.
I thought it was a good idea.
Difficult to keep the disparate topics straight when it comes to conversation, lumped all in one thread together.
Which is the point, after all.
I see what you're saying tho.
Cycloptichorn
Are you sure you didn't just think it was a chance for a gratuitous insult?
Feel free to post your own articles in response. That might actually be interesting.
"Gratuitous insult"? Where?
She could call her new thread:
BBB's liberal news
or perhaps:
News and views with BBB
Ticomaya wrote:"Gratuitous insult"? Where?
I don't know... the part where you implied that BBB's postings are frivolous and unworthy of you time?
But carry on. Sounds like you're having a bad case of the Mondays. I'll check on you after lunch to see if you've cheered up.
DrewDad:
Quote:Are you sure you didn't just think it was a chance for a gratuitous insult?
Ticoyama:
Quote:"Gratuitous insult"? Where?
Here:
Quote:Even if you do a new thread like that each day that would cut back on the number of new threads I have to ignore.
It was very clear you were saying you simply ignore the articles BBB posts. Pretty smarmy of you to insult everyone's intelligence now by playing innocent - just own your nastiness, it'll save us the energy of having to ignore all your denials.
snood wrote:It was very clear you were saying you simply ignore the articles BBB posts.
I generally do.
You consider that an insult?
Tico
You might want to not worry about my postings and find ways to improve your own. You are free not to read any of my posts but I realize that you often feel compelled to impose your pro-Bush conservative opinions on whatever topic I post. Maybe you need to deal with your compulsion and quit fretting over my posts.
If you were really observant, you would notice that I make great effort to provide continuity re my posts to existing topics. I spend a lot of time searching for existing thread topics and only start a new thread when I can't find an appropriate thread topic or can't find an existing old one to bring up to date. I sometimes start a new thread, such as the columns of the New York Times columnists for which people have to pay to read so A2Kers know that I've found a source for them---for free.
A2K was designed around topics and I do my best to follow the pattern. Your suggestion would defeat A2K's basic design and be a useless format.
BBB
Ticomaya wrote:She could call her new thread:
BBB's liberal news
or perhaps:
News and views with BBB
It seems to me rather more orderly and sensible to establish threads on the basis of topic. For example, we might have a thread titled "Torture - Why Jesus Would Approve."
On the other hand, I do see some efficiency value in a single thread which would enclose a group of related posts such as we would find under a heading like "Tico's Take" or "TownHall Tells the Tale"
Blatham
But, Blatham, how would people know to look under the thread about Blatham's heart attack for "torture, would Jesus approve"? Now that I think about it, it might fit after all if I remember correctly your pain and the agony we all felt worrying about you and Lola.
BBB :wink:
B
Given the years that many of us are stacking up, perhaps we ought to have a thread titled "Who's Next?"
Blatham
blatham wrote:B
Given the years that many of us are stacking up, perhaps we ought to have a thread titled "Who's Next?"
That's a scary idea because I'm 76 (and 1/2).
Does anyone know who is the oldest poster on A2K?
BBB
Sorry. I don't know how to deal with this other than with flippancy. Gin might help, but I hate hangovers.
I'm not sure who tops our list. Clearly, I can't make a guess regarding anyone I have personally met as I could be really wrong and it'd be trouble.
So...my guess is george.
Re: With Enemies Like George Bush, Who Needs Friends?
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Although bin Laden does not appear to have been that involved in the actual conception and organization of the 9/11 attacks
I don't think that's correct.