Democrats & Liberals Archives

Osama is Laughing

After Osama bin Laden attacked America on 9/11 he laughed at what he thought was a great accomplishment. Then we blasted Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Osama was not laughing; he was in despair. So what did we do? We let him slip away at Tora Bora which brought him laughter again. When we removed our troops from Afghanistan and brought them to Iraq, he must have split his sides laughing.

Every 9/11 since then has been a day of laughter and joy to Osama. But none so much as yesterday's and today's hearings featuring General Petraeus. Essentially, Petraeus said and is saying that we should stay the course and fight in Iraq. Just what Osama was "praying" for. He wants a war of civilizations and we are presenting it to him.

Many warmongers are seizing on what Osama bin Laden said in his recent tape to demonize those who are against the Iraq War. Here is what Osama said:

People of America: the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq, for people have recently come to know that, after several years of tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped. Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there.

So what do those on the right say about this? Naturally they find fault with the left<:

Osama Bin Laden's latest tape sounds like a new commercial for, chastising Democrats for not ending the war in Iraq like they were elected to do.

Since Osama bin Laden sounds like Democrats, it obviously means that Republicans are right. This may be so if you take what Osama says literally. He very well knows that he is hated by all Americans. So he presents the message of the Democrats to encourage Americans to vote for Republicans. He has done this before and it worked.

But it will not work now. The American public knows the Iraq War is a mistake.

Osama bin Laden is laughing today because of the testimony of General Petraeus. Let's stop his laughter by getting out of Iraq and attacking Osama bin Laden in his cave in Pakistan!

Posted by Paul Siegel at September 11, 2007 6:00 PM
Comment #232597

I think O.B.L. would really be laughing if we did invade Pakistan and serch him out. That really would go over big with the Pakistany government. IMO we need bases in Iraq especially close to the Iranian border to keep tabs on their nuclear program.

Posted by: KAP at September 11, 2007 7:51 PM
Comment #232600

I frankly don’t give a good damn what OBL’s mood is. I only care that he is still alive to have one. I also don’t give a good damn about Americans who talk and act as if OBL should dictate our actions either in accordance with, or opposition, to what he says. These Americans are OBL’s puppets. OBL says put your right foot out, and many Americans, including Bush, put their left foot out. As if OBL is incapable of predicting such opposition to what he says.

OBL says leave Iraq, Bush says we stay. How easily some people are manipulated by basic child psychology known the world round. Our invading Iraq was not specifically anticipated by OBL, but, it sure was a windfall for his jihad movement. What OBL had counted on, was a gross overreaction by the US, like nuking Afghanistan, which would create sympathy for his cause and rejection of US overreaction. Bush gave OBL Iraq instead.

Worked just as well, in fact better. Nuking Afghanistan would have faded as an historical act by now. Iraq is still making history and widening terrorism as a means throughout the world, and recruiting ever more Muslims to the terrorist methodology in the name of repelling the west’s hegemony over Islamic nations like Pakistan, Iraq, and the UAE’s adoption of Halliburton.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 11, 2007 8:11 PM
Comment #232603

Unless you’re Osama bin Laden’s therapist, I don’t see how you’d know (or why you’d care) about his changing moods. By all accounts, the man believes that untold rewards await him in heaven if he’s killed for his cause. Perhaps he’d laugh with joy if he knew what he was about to die. By your logic, that means we should let him go free.

Osama believed that if the US invaded Afghanistan, we’d get bogged down and defeated there just as happened to the Soviets. This would have been a massive victory for Al Qaida propaganda instead of the defeat it turned into. Osama was dead wrong—don’t give him so much credit as a strategic thinker. The same goes for Iraq. If we leave Iraq prematurely, Al Qaida wins. I don’t think we should be giving Osama a mulligan in Iraq after his failure in Afghanistan. Don’t you think that OBL will be laughing if the American military runs away from a battlefield where they’re killing the enemy far faster than the enemy can kill them?

Posted by: Liam at September 11, 2007 8:46 PM
Comment #232616

In a conventional war, invasion and conquest and occupation of territory supposedly consitutes victory. The defeated is supposed to recognize the superior firepower, mobility, and technology of the conqueror, and accept the result.

Insurgencies and guerrilla resistances do not accept the result. They do not play by the rules. Instead, they result to asymmetrical warfare. It is a long-term approach, and extremely difficult to defeat. The battle is for hearts and minds, with the supposedly victorious conqueror at a disadvantage, especially if the conqueror does not share the same culture, language, or religion of the indigenous resistance.

That is why, especially in areas with clan or tribal cultures, killing the occupied faster than they can kill the occupier is actually counterproductive. A body count mentality becomes worse than useless- it actually fuels the insurgency, creating guerrillas faster than they can be slain.

For one year in Iraq, it was estimated there were 15,000 insurgents. That year, the US military estimated it killed 15,000 insurgents. But the actual number of insurgents increased, more than replacing the 15,000 dead.

Saddam Hussein and the Baathist party successfully defeated a Kurdish uprising in 1987-89 and a Shia uprising after the First Gulf War. They brutally suppressed the Kurdish and Shias. The suppression was an apt model for defeating insurgency in a clan/tribal model of society, because when a member of a resistance was killed, the suppression extended to the entire extended family, and even village.

Brutal, but effective.

That is an unacceptable model for the US.

It is worth pointing out even the most brutal suppression of the Afghan Mujahideen by the USSR failed. Osama bin Laden fought in that conflict, and fully expects the US will be defeated in the same way, by a long-term resistance which bleeds the occupying military and exhausts its economy.

Just a ramble…

Posted by: phx8 at September 11, 2007 11:31 PM
Comment #232618

Phx8, what you say about insurgencies and their history seems largely correct, but there is an extremely important additional factor when talking about Iraq.

In Iraq, the so-called “insurgency” targets the civilian population primarily, and the occupying force secondarily. This is a VERY important fact, and not one easily glossed over when it comes to evaluating the long-term prospects for either the insurgency or the occupation.

It might be more accurate to say that there are in fact TWO occupying foreign forces in Iraq today, once which is deliberately targeting and killing civilians, and one which is trying to protect them and ensure their long-term protection so they can leave.

Posted by: Liam at September 12, 2007 12:18 AM
Comment #232619

Liam: No, it’s not like that at all in Iraq. There are a dozen waring factions and they are all killing each other. It doesn’t really matter that we don’t deliberately target civilians, the outcome is the same. We are killing civilians because we can’t help it. The fighting is taking place right in the cities. Drag some of your old war movies out and watch them. In the Iraqi cities you have pitched battles, houses being blown up with rockets and bombs, and when thinks get quiet and people venture out of their homes to get water or food, a car bomb goes off.

This is the kind of stuff that has been and is still going on in Iraq. This isn’t a war between terrorist insurgents and the U.S. military, it is a civil war and our troops are right in the middle of it. There is a reason why the Iraqi government is disfunctional. They are at war with each other.

Posted by: jlw at September 12, 2007 12:59 AM
Comment #232620

The insurgency is really a civil war. It consists of something like 30 factions fighting on eight separate fronts. The major fronts: 1) Kirkuk; Sunni v Kurd, 2) Southern Iraq; Various Shia factions, and 3) Baghdad; Sunni v Shia.

The most unpopular faction consists of foreign jihadists. According to one poll, 95% of Iraqis oppose them. The next most unpopular faction consists of US troops, and @70% of Iraqis oppose us. (The Kurds support US troops, while the Shias oppose by a large majority, and the Sunnis oppose with near unanimity).

So! Conflating the insurgency with Al Qaida in Iraq is highly inaccurate. Most US casualties come at the hands of Sunni nationalists, such as the “Ex” Baathists and the 1920 Revolutionary Brigades. The kill our troops with IEDs, mortars, and small arms fire. Generally speaking, they do not launch indiscriminate attacks on civilians, although Shias are probably fair game. This contrasts with the next two most powerful Sunni factions, the Iraqi religious extremists and the foreign jihadists. These groups target both US troops and Shias. The foreign jihadists are the most odious, and the again, the most disliked by Iraqis.

Osama bin Laden represents a powerful symbol for Sunnis. However, his anti-historical vision of Islamic culture is completely at odds with the “Ex” Baathists and other Sunni nationalists. We are in the ironic position of supporting the supporters of Saddam Hussein, because the followers of Osama bin Laden, though small in number, are the worse alternative by far.

None of this changes the fact that Iraq is involved in a civil war. Sunnis have no interest in being ruled by Shias. When we finally realize the need to partition, or soft partition, or “federalize” the country, then we will finally cut the Gordian knot.

Until then, it is all pretty much a waste of time, and money, and lives.

And we definitely need to forget about permanent military bases, and forcing the Al-Maliki government to sign oil agreements highly favorable to Exxon/Mobil, BP, and Dutch Shell. We undercut everything we stand for when we treat Iraq like a colony, rather than a sovereign, liberated nation.

Posted by: phx8 at September 12, 2007 1:24 AM
Comment #232671

Time admit an historical fact. The US is and has been an imperial power for some time. We treat Iraq as a colony because it is one,a troublesome and new one.We have 700 military bases in 150 countries.The cold war was a battle of empires,not of competing economic idealogies. We won.God help us. Every currency is pegged to the dollar. We spend as much on the military as the rest of the world combined. We are an empire by any historical definition. The real question is wether we will be a benevolent empire or a rapaceous one. So long as corporations are allowed to call the shots ,I suspect the latter.

Posted by: BillS at September 12, 2007 9:42 PM
Comment #232686

So you want to bomb caves in Pakistan. Thats great, which one the one with Osama written on it. Get real. And attacking in Pakistan without their permission won’t do anything to push that country towards becoming a more radical Islamic state, will it. Had any republican suggested attacking within Pakistan as you or your buddy Obama has done he would have been labled an out of control cowboy. Do you have any other ideas for how to resolve the situation in Iraq/Afghanistan or is cave bombing the extent of what we can expect from a democrat in the White House? Doesn’t matter if GW created this mess or not, if a democrat wins the White House he/she won’t be able to call a do-over but will have to actually deal with the situation instead of just bitching about it.
Scarey thought.

Posted by: Carnak at September 13, 2007 1:40 AM
Comment #232748

I find it truly amazzing that after world war 1 we were victorious and propmtly pulled all of our troops out of Europe , what happened ?Germany rebuilt ,broke all treatys ending the war and we ended up with world war 2 ….Now democrats insist the only solution for iraq is to abandon all those who truly desire freedom and have risked there lives to obtain it by withdrawing all troops…..WE are still in germany….We are still in Japan….We are still in S Korea …..when will this countrys democrats finally realize that chamberlains stance failed …that running from an agressor will ultamatly fail and then what will happen ?Millions who assisted the US will be butchered while terrorists will claim (rightly so a victory) and then Iran along with syria will arm and assist in training the new terrorists who will then have a safe haven and come back to kill more americans …one of prime reasons i changed from a democrat to an independant is that the democrats have been taken over by radical hate america first groups who have no courage and most of the current sr democrats in congress and the senate should be forced to resighn for treason.

The fact that none of the dems running for president condemed the move on .org ad in the times monday shows who will determine US policy if any dems are elected president.

Posted by: Buck shot at September 13, 2007 5:40 PM
Comment #232773

Didn’t you get the word? Osama is “virtually impotent.”

Posted by: tommy times at September 13, 2007 9:29 PM
Comment #232777

Buck Shot,
“Abandon those who truly desire freedom”? And which Iraqis would that be? Iraqis have their own agendas, and their agendas have nothing to do with becoming an American colony. They want us out of their country. It is that simple.

Equating US withdrawal with “running from an aggressor” is ludicrous. The US invaded Iraq. We are the aggressor.

If the US could somehow quickly withdraw from Iraq, the estimate is that 30,000 - 50,000 Iraqis would be endangered enough to warrant evacuation.

I am absolutely disgusted with the blind support of imperialism exhibited by Bush Supporters. They are driving us towards another war, a war with Iran.

Militarism. Fascism. They run rampant. They undermine everything fine this country stands for. And it is despicable.

Posted by: phx8 at September 13, 2007 10:09 PM
Comment #232780

If the Iraqis want us to leave, then that’s something we agree on. It’s interesting, however, that Democrats persist in saying that Iraqis “want us to leave” when that much-touted recent ABC/BBC poll actually said that 46% wanted us to leave, not even a majority. And considering the relative size of the Shia population and the fact that they live in areas more accessible to pollsters, I can’t help but wonder how many of the minority who want an American withdrawal are those who are eager to get on with the business of massacring Sunnis without US interference.

As for Iran, I just love how some Americans—Democrats I can only assume—actually believe that the “facists” who are “driving us towards another war” are the Americans. That’s right. The only problem in the world is the United States. Everybody else, from Iran to North Korea, are perfect angels, and the sooner America is out of the way, the better.

Posted by: Liam at September 13, 2007 10:34 PM
Comment #232785

About the poll:
1) Two million Iraqis have fled the country, and another two million have been internally displaced; since February 2006, @ 830,000 have fled Baghdad alone; so it seems safe to say, poll or no poll, those people voted with their feet.
2) Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead. It also seems safe to say their quality of life has declined, and it seems equally safe to say they have not been polled.
3) A similar poll was taken at the same time, February 2007, by the Opinion Research Bureau.

The WaPo offers an analysis:

I would be curious to see a more recent snapshot.

Ah, the old “why do they hate America” argument… Nice… As if someone is arguing the “only” problem is the US… As if criticism of the US invasion, an invasion based upon pretexts and lies, somehow represents disloyalty to the Homeland; while loyalty to a policy of invasion and conquest, militarism and imperialism is the true expression of patriotism.

Posted by: phx8 at September 13, 2007 11:24 PM
Comment #232787

That so many have fled and hundreds of thousands have been killed leads us to what conclusion? That we should take actions that will guarantee hundreds of thousands of more deaths and refugees? Does that sound like a good idea?

Talking about American “facism,” and “imperialism,” however, is not a recipe for being taking seriously unless you are a member of the Information Ministry of Iran or North Korea.

Posted by: Liam at September 13, 2007 11:41 PM
Comment #232789

Imperialismm: “The policy of extending a nation’s authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.”

It is staring you in the face, Liam. Iraq represents a textbook example of imperialism. It is not just a Marxist catchphrase, comrade.

Militarism: “1) Glorification of the ideals of a professional military class.
2) Predominance of the armed forces in the administration or policy of the state.
3)A policy in which military preparedness is of primary importance to a state.

Consider for a moment how much the United States has changed in just six years- pardon me, The Homeland. How often do you hear the phrase “support the troops”? How long has it been since you have seen a military general in the media?

The Homeland spends as much as the rest of the world combined on defense. We are the major merchant of arms in the world, exporting as much as the next 14 largest exporters combined.

It is all around you. Perhaps you approve of US imperialism and militarism. Perhaps not. But it is an undeniable fact.

Posted by: phx8 at September 14, 2007 12:03 AM
Comment #232804

Buck Shot said: “WE are still in germany….We are still in Japan….We are still in S Korea …..”

Yep, and we are still growing our national debt at such a rapid rate as to set a historical speed record for riches to rags by any great civilization in history. We have no business in Germany, we have no business in S. Korea. There are regional players who would step in to take up our role if we pulled back. The same is true of Iraq.

The idiocy of promoting and defending a Shia dominated government which respects, and is working with Iran, as its much closer ally than the U.S., is incomprehensible. If we withdrew in stages and worked with the Sunni regional nations to seize our withdrawals as opportunities to negotiate balance of power agreements with Iran for a hands off Iraq borders arrangement, Iraq’s external security and the Middle East’s regional stability would be more stable than our remaining as an instigating occupier of Iraq. This would likely also result in the Iraqi government, of its own, seeing the wisdom of a soft partition tri-state federal government, dramatically reducing the internal violence in Iraq within a year or two.

What happened after WWI, was not America’s fault. It was Europe’s fault. 1930’s Germany was a regional problem, which European countries ignored. And Europe paid a dear price, thus they were presented the opportunity to learn from the experience, but, the U.S. stepped in instead, which is why Europe to this day, can afford national health insurance for its people, because the U.S. picks up the lion’s share of their military defense expense.

Opportunity cost. It is a concept you may want to learn about in depth. Because the history of the relationship between Europe and the U.S. after WWII was not without enormous opportunity costs for Americans whose bill has come due in the 21st century. Being the biggest and best armed bully on the cell block has its perks, but, also its commensurate liabilities, especially if the bully is not vigilant about the cost/benefit analysis of its own security measures. I give you 9/11 as an example, but only one of many.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 14, 2007 9:21 AM
Comment #232824

I distinctly remember a lot of handwringing about the UN and bombing during Ramadan in Oct-Dec 2001. I like the way the Democrats pretend they’re the real hawks because of Afghanitan, when they were lukewarm on that in ‘01-02 and none of their candidates for President in ‘04 supported adding troops to that theater. It’s a joke.

Posted by: Roach at September 14, 2007 2:00 PM
Comment #232849

Roach, Bush had already committed to a dual front war by the 2004 elections. Something Democrats apparently read about in history books, and Bush didn’t.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 14, 2007 5:12 PM
Post a comment