Osama's Perspective.

[Solomon]

Right about now Osama Bin Laden has got to be tripping on himself. I mean, he helped destroy the Soviet Union as they got their whole economy sucked out from constant fighting in Afghanistan. That war that just sucked the life right of out of them. Bankrupted the system.

Here we are now, fell into the same trap. America did not learn her lesson from what happened to the Soviet Union. Instead she bragged and heaped praise on Reagan, convincing herself in the name of glory, and blind egotism, that it was Ronald Reagan that destroyed the Soviet Union.

Iraq is going to drain and suck the life out of America. 80 billion today. 25 billion tomorrow. And we're just getting started. You can start to feel this war, sucking the life right out of us.

Bin Laden must have messiah status over there by now. In fact, there is a parallel of sorts. During Christ's time, Jews were occupied by the Romans. The Jewish people expected a messiah, who would throw off the yoke of Roman occupation.

Two thousand years later, and now it's the Arabs occupied by the Americans. Same story. Different peoples.

What a stupid thing we did.

[htuttle]

1. What do you mean "we", Kemo Sabe?

[indigobusiness]

2. You make a good point.

I've been wondering when I would hear or see that sequence of words.

We were on the edge, we are now past the brink.

God bless the innocent.

[indigobusiness]

3. "mahdi" status is more apt.

I'm surprised this thread didn't get more traction.

[Solomon]

9. People can't wrap their head around the idea that for the other side,

Bin Laden is a "Jesus" figure. He does look like "jesus" is supposed to look, and each time we see him, he's never yelling, but always looks like he's calmly teaching something. I was always struck by the strangeness of it.

I agree with the use of the term "mahdi".

[indigobusiness]

10. he has a Christlike quality...

I just wish his methods were more like Ghandi. (did I spell that right?)

[indigobusiness]

4. Doesn't anybody

else have an opinion on this?

[rocktivity]

5. Ah, but look at where the money is flowing

Right back into Bush's pockets. And that doesn't even include the oil. I hope President Kerry enacts some kind of anti-war profiteering tax.

:headbang:
rocknation

[loudsue]

6. As usual, rocknation, you're right on the money.....

If there were such an anti-war-profiteering tax, and if it was punitive enough, we may not ever SEE another war!

:kick::kick::kick:

[indigobusiness]

8. NOw THAT'S a tax

we can live with.

[htuttle]

7. Two and a half years ago, when Bush invaded Afghanistan...

...I was certain Bush was playing right into Osama bin Laden's hands. I just asked myself, "Assuming that al Queda was actually involved in making the 9/11 attacks happen, what would they expect Bush's response to be?"

Given the close association between the Bush and bin Laden families over the years (which was known even back then), I assumed that bin Laden was aware of the likelihood that George Bush would do exactly what he did -- full-on military invasion with plenty of overkill and really big bombs.

When the US invaded Iraq, Osama won big -- two goals were accomplished with one action. One of his worst enemies in the region was eliminated by someone else, and they got their 'Caliphate-uniting' jihad all at the same time.

Added to this bounty of good fortune for bin Laden has been Bush's support for the Sharon government, Bush's alienation of most of the rest of the planet, and the remarkable looting of the US economy by Bush and his financial backers.

I can't imagine that Osama ever hoped for more.

[immoderate]

11. Agree.

Before the war, I told people, wrote letters to the editor, etc. that invading Iraq would create an incubator for terrorism, and a handy Anti-American target right in the middle of the middle east.

Unfortunately, the RW even today, says stupid things like, "I'd rather the war go on over there than back here." I respond, "You're happier if Americans get killed somewhere else?"

--IMM

[ThomWV]

12. Read Wes Clark's Article In The Washington Monthly

About how the Neo-cons have it so wrong when they spout their shit about Reagan having won the Cold War.

When I read the article I first though how intelligent Clark is, how well he writes, how he has a wonderful sense of history, and that there was not one single chance in hell that George W. Bu$h could have written the paper. An hour or two after I read it I came to understand that not only could Bu$h not have written the article, but that the stupid son of a bitch couldn't even read it and come out of the experience with a clue as to what it had said.

If you'd like to read it here's a link: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.clark.html