Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

April 24, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

THE WAR OF CIVILIZATIONS....Marc Lynch analyzes the latest address from Osama bin Laden:

While much of the media commentary has been on specific points bin Laden made (Darfur, Palestine), the overwhelming preoccupation of the tape was in fact the need for Muslims to accept the reality of a 'clash of civilizations.'....And as with the culture warriors of the West, bin Laden combines his opposition to this Crusader West with scorn for the Islamist moderates who he sees as the greatest threat to his own leadership of the Islamic umma.

....He's really quite extreme in his denunciations of those Islamist moderates the worst, most dangerous of all Islam's enemies in his eyes because they might mislead the umma. Even those who led the boycott against Denmark fell short he wants a boycott against America, since the Danish affront was only one case of a much wider problem in his view.

He's similarly scathing about those calling for dialogue with the West (the Copenhagen conference, the Saudi government, most Arab regimes), and accuses a number of Saudi and Gulf figures of spreading apostacy with their writings and fatwas. The West only calls for dialogue to weaken and confuse the Muslims, according to bin Laden, and only understands the language of force; the clash of civilizations exists, in his telling, because the West has attacked and continues to assault Islam, which makes dialogue a fool's game.

Well, that sounds familiar, doesn't it? If the enemy of my enemy is my friend, then we have a lot of potential friends in the Middle East. We shouldn't forget it.

Kevin Drum 5:19 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (126)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments


If the enemy of your enemy is your friend, then your enemy picks your friends for you.

Posted by: Ross Best on April 24, 2006 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

Hm. Is this enemy real, or an invention of the Republicans?

Posted by: republicrat on April 24, 2006 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

Well, that sounds familiar, doesn't it? If the enemy of my enemy is my friend, then we have a lot of potential friends in the Middle East. We shouldn't forget it. Kevin Drum

We don't have a single friend in the ME, and that includes Israel. We have "interests" and "clients," but no friends.

Posted by: JeffII on April 24, 2006 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin:

Exactly. It's what I've been saying about bin Laden and the Muslim world since well before the Iraq invasion ...

Only moderate Muslims can delegitimate Osama's imperialistic extremism -- and now with moderates in his sights, they have that much more incentive to do so.

We increase that incentive by not being so beligerent in that neck of the woods. Threatening Iran right now is one of the most counterproductive things we could be doing for just that reason.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on April 24, 2006 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, wasn't this Osama guy the source of all evil? And wasn't Saint George going to get him, dead or alive?

Whatever happened to that?

Posted by: craigie on April 24, 2006 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

Jeff & Ross:

"Enemy" and "friend" are just metaphors.

The *principle*, though, is valid.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on April 24, 2006 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

why no video? please. this is fredo's black ops against the american people. curious timing that it hits just as fredo's numbers plummet to alltime lows, with no end in sight.

also, helpful that it sets up an opportunity for 'osama' to carry out a domestic attack -- my guess, late summer -- that provides opportunity for bush to 'postpone' the election (which the dems would win and the subpeonas would begin dropping) and impose whatever domestic security controls his little black heart desires.

and for anyone interested in digital morphing:

When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing
By William M. Arkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Monday, Feb. 1, 1999

Digital morphing voice, video, and photo has come of age, available for use in psychological operations. PSYOPS, as the military calls it, seek to exploit human vulnerabilities in enemy governments, militaries and populations to pursue national and battlefield objectives.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm

Posted by: linda on April 24, 2006 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

that provides opportunity for bush to 'postpone' the election

I see I am no longer the only one who fears this.

Posted by: craigie on April 24, 2006 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK


>"Enemy" and "friend" are just metaphors.
>The *principle*, though, is valid.

Okay, as long as "valid" is just a metaphor.

But don't let your enemies choose your metaphors.

Posted by: Ross Best on April 24, 2006 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

So, after the US military admitted that it had a propaganda campaign to elevate the profile of al Zarqawi, by slipping a "letter" from Zarqawi to bin Laden to the ever useful NYT, which front-paged it....

AND...many observers believe that the "Al Qaeda in Iraq" which takes credit/blame for suicide bombs in Iraq is likely PART of this propaganda campaign, or at least an effort by Sunni Baathists to divert blame from their insurgents to those pesky "foreign fighters" (and the US finds this fiction just as useful)....

AND the Israeli government, at a time when it wants to link the new Hamas government to the Global Worldwide Terrorist Threat from al Qaeda, finds the US propaganda model useful and "discovers" the communication from al Qaeda where it explicitly describes its Palestinian operation.....

We're still taking these "press releases" from bin Laden seriously?

Posted by: luci on April 24, 2006 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

this is fredo's black ops against the american people. curious timing that it hits just as fredo's numbers plummet to alltime lows, with no end in sight. Posted by: linda

That's kind of off the mark as there is no "Michael" in the Bush family. Jeb (what the hell kind of name is that?) was supposed to be the smart one, and look what a fine job he's doing in Florida. So much for stage three of the Bush dynasty.

Shrubs more like Sonny - start a fight and ask questions later.

Neal would be Fredo if there was a talented sibling.

Posted by: JeffII on April 24, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

I haven't a clue about what Osama is talking about, clash of civilizations. The Middle East is comprised of nutcase governments for reasons having nothing to do with religion.

How many of us really beleive the battle between the Persians and the Arabs has anything to do with which immam is the 12th or 3rd or any of that crap? The battle with Persia is just the previous millennia's version of the Arab battle with the west or the previous battle with the east.

The middle east has always been transient, unstable, a stopping off point for the migration out of Africa.

Posted by: Matt on April 24, 2006 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK

So let me get this straight. The only thing that bin laden hates more than the infidels is moderate muslims and the only thing the authoritarian cultists hate more than islamic fascists is liberals. Can we please figure out a way to let them fight amoung themselves and leave the rest of us sane people out of it?

BTW on another matter, Jeff11 asked "Jeb (what the hell kind of name is that?)". It's a fine name -- a once had a golden retriever named Jeb!

Posted by: KP on April 24, 2006 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

jeffII -- take a slight disagreement. neil bush has actually been 'successful' at marketing his software; not to mention his walkaway from silverado. maybe marlon is the 'michael' of the family. fredo is truly w -- desperate to succeed and impress his daddy; but an utter failure at everything and surrounded by cronies and thieves. (well, actually the whole family fits that description)

remember the guy who finally did the deed. in a metaphorical sense, james baker plays that role:

April 24, 2006
Diplomatic Memo
Baker, Bush Family Fixer, Will Advise President on Iraq
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
WASHINGTON, April 23 ...
The analogy is far from perfect, but Republicans and Democrats are seeing parallels between the quiet designation last month of former Secretary of State James A. Baker III to head up a Congressionally mandated effort to generate new ideas on Iraq and the role of Acheson, who served under President Harry S. Truman.

Mr. Baker, a longtime confidant of the first President Bush who has maintained a close but complicated relationship with the current president, plans to travel to Baghdad and the region to meet with heads of state on a fact-finding mission that officials say was encouraged by both father and son and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/24/world/middleeast/24baker.html?pagewanted=print

Posted by: linda on April 24, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

Jeff II:

"Jeb" isn't a name; it's a nickname. An acronym of his initials (although the fact that some Redneck Riviera types doubtless think it's short for Jebediah prolly doesn't hurt). Dunno what his actual name is ...

I dunno ... I don't find most of the creepy conspiracy theory stuff too credible. If that were the case, we'd be hearing more invective against America and hints at another attack. Instead, Osama is ordering his groupies to go beleauger the UN in Darfur. Helluva pro-Bush strategic move, to make Osama the most hated enemy now of Old Europe :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on April 24, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

What Matt said.

There is no such thing as an Islamic civilization. Besides a version of Islam, just what, supposedly, do Indonesians have in common with Saudis, Yemenis, Iraqis. . . Oop! I forgot. There really is no such thing as a Saudi (except for the "House of Saud," aka House of Cards) or a Yemeni or an Iraqi.

Then again, there really is no such thing as a unified Indonesian culture either.

We could walk away from the ME tomorrow, including Israel, and, if we are to take him at his word, bin Laden would still have a beef against, at least, the Saudis.

Posted by: JeffII on April 24, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

Jeff II:

Well, I agree with you in the sense that there's no such thing as a "Christian civilization" or a "Jewish civilization" or a "Buddhist civilization" or a "Hindu civilization," either.

Religion is only one component of culture, obviously.

The reason why you hear it out of Qutb-inspired ideologues like Osama (and, on the other side of the coin, out of Huntington) is that the Caliphate ideology is founded on it. Since there's no explicit separation of church and state in the Koran (though most Muslims have made peace with degrees of it in practical terms -- Indonesia at one end, Iran at the other), it's easy for both Islamist radicals and archconservatives to talk this talk ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on April 24, 2006 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINK

Whatever happened to that?
Posted by: craigie on April 24, 2006 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

Osama Been Forgotten

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on April 24, 2006 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK
So let me get this straight. The only thing that bin laden hates more than the infidels is moderate muslims and the only thing the authoritarian cultists hate more than islamic fascists is liberals. Can we please figure out a way to let them fight amoung themselves and leave the rest of us sane people out of it?

Um, no.

Because the sane people are the actual target. Bin Laden wants to the Muslim world to hand him power over a new Caliphate, and uses the image of the West waging a Crusade against Islam as a source of fear to attempt to build support for that Caliphate.

Similarly, the Bush gang seeks expanded executive power and permanent right-wing domination, and uses fear of radical Islam, now that fear of Communism doesn't work so well, as the source of fear to push that agenda.

For Osama bin Laden, Bush has utility, while the moderate Muslims (using that term very broadly -- even Hamasm, which rejects bin Laden's call in favor of at least overtly seeking good relations with the West despite their conflict with Israel, would be included) stand directly in the way.

Similarly, for Bush, ObL has utility, while American liberals (and many conservatives, ex-neocons, libertarians, and others) stand directly in the way.

We can't get them to leave the sane people alone and fight each other, because their only interest in fighting each other is as a show, in order to advance their real struggle, which is against the sane people that stand in their path to the dominion they seek.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 24, 2006 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK

The reason why you hear it out of Qutb-inspired ideologues like Osama.

It's funny, but I remember a time when Syed Qutb was considered a moderate. I met Yusuf Al-Qaradawi twice, and I remember once when he was shouted down at a lecture for being too permissive on Islamic economic jurisprudence.

I'm not sure how this adds to the conversation, but I just found it interesting and thought I'd pass it along.

Posted by: enozinho on April 24, 2006 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINK

....He's really quite extreme in his denunciations of those Islamist moderates

"Dahab, the quasi hippy-ish Egyptian resort,...is heavily frequented by Egyptians...targetting Dahab makes this rather more domestic than a place like Sharm el-Sheikh." (Aqoul)


Posted by: leila on April 24, 2006 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Bob.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/09/AR2006040900890.html

The U.S. military is conducting a propaganda campaign to magnify the role of the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, according to internal military documents and officers familiar with the program. Some military intelligence officials believe [the effort] may have overstated his importance and helped the Bush administration tie the war to the organization responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

One briefing slide about U.S. "strategic communications" in Iraq, prepared for Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top U.S. commander in Iraq, describes the "home audience" as one of six major targets of the [propaganda campaign].

I believe they're only admitting the parts that are already exposed, and that they can (almost) plausibly claim were directed at the Iraqi population, as opposed to the US.

Posted by: luci on April 24, 2006 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINK

We can't get them to leave the sane people alone and fight each other, because their only interest in fighting each other is as a show, in order to advance their real struggle, which is against the sane people that stand in their path to the dominion they seek. Posted by: cmdicely

And just who are these "sane" people in the region or even the reasonable people? The Saudi monarchy? The Baathists in Syria? Hamas? Hezbollah? Musharif in Pakistan? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran? The Likud in Israel? The Taliban? Mubarak or the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt? Odd. Out of all the groups vying for or in power throughout the region, I cant seem to identify a moderate among them. Certainly no democrats or progressives. Lots of rationalist, which is sane behavior. But, nonetheless, not anyone we really want to do business with.

Posted by: JeffII on April 24, 2006 at 6:53 PM | PERMALINK

One thing I think people need to remember is that Ayman Al-Zawahiri left the Islamic Brotherhood because he thought they were too soft. Qutb was executed, Hassan Al-Banna was executed. Thousands of the "Ikhwan" died in prison, not for violent acts, but for what most would call legitimate political dissent.

The center was squeezed out of the Muslim world by decades of brutal oppression. The secularists are just embarrassed of the backwardness of their people and would rather be sipping Champaign in London than fixing their own countries.

What's left are the ignorant masses and the elites that use religious extremist rhetoric to keep them in line. The jihadis are a direct result of that squeeze. And I guarantee you that they would target their own countries more often, if their countries weren't such successful police states.

Posted by: enozinho on April 24, 2006 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINK

enozinho:

Who's Yusuf Al-Qaradawi?

luci:

Oh certainly. I just meant that I think the current Osama tape seems authentic from the POV of what kind of message would most effectively serve Bush's ends. Calling fighters to Darfur only makes the UN operation there look necessary.

But of course, the very existence of "al Qaeda" may be a myth created in the '98 Kenyan embassy bombing trial, spun by a guy who was itching to get into a witness protection program ... It was, of course, Khalil Sheikh Mohammed who organized the 9/11 operation, with Osama only playing a peripheral financing role ...

But *oh* what a useful enemy for the GOP.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on April 24, 2006 at 7:01 PM | PERMALINK

enozinho:

Yepperdoodle ... *sigh*

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on April 24, 2006 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK
And just who are these "sane" people in the region or even the reasonable people?

As should have been obvious, "sane" and "moderate" in my post were relative, rather than absolute, in comparison to the two listed (Bin Laden on one side, Bush regime on the other) apocalypic conflict factions.

As noted, Hamas is among those in the Muslim world that are comparatively "sane". As, really, are many on your list.

Out of all the groups vying for or in power throughout the region, I cant seem to identify a moderate among them. Certainly no democrats or progressives.

"Democrats" or "progressives" are the (again, comparatively) sane parties on the other side of the Crusade/Jihad that the nutballs are trying to lock the world into, not that side.

Lots of rationalist, which is sane behavior. But, nonetheless, not anyone we really want to do business with.

I'm not talking about people you or I want to to business with. I'm talking about people similarly situated with regard to bin Laden's intended Caliphate as we are with regard to the nascent right-wing dominion in the US that Bush seeks to advance with the fear of al-Qaeda.

They are bin Laden's real targets for elimination, ideologically at least, the way we are Bush's real targets.

That doesn't mean they are nice people or natural allies of ours, though we do have a common interests in the most insane of the nutballs failing, as the nutballs on their side fuel the nutballs on our side, and vice-versa.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 24, 2006 at 7:05 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely:

A really grotesque kind of symmetrical synergy if ever there was one ....

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on April 24, 2006 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINK
What's left are the ignorant masses and the elites that use religious extremist rhetoric to keep them in line. The jihadis are a direct result of that squeeze. And I guarantee you that they would target their own countries more often, if their countries weren't such successful police states.

As it is, they still target their own countries plenty, its just that (except for a few cases once the US War on Terror, Iraq, etc., got going, that garnered attention because they could be used to draw pictures about that war) the US public and media largely don't care.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 24, 2006 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINK

Anybody got a link to a translation of the full text? I've read al-Jazeera's edited version.

BTW, read 3 versions of Ahmadinejed's "annihilate Israel" speech and none of them quite said that although the inference was argualbly fair. Seems arabic is hard to translate accurately because of the subtle inferences.

Osama is dangerous. His speech reads as a Hitlerian rant. Keeps close enough to the truth, lays out the personal offences to a broad range of islamic listeners, has convincing bogeymen, feeds on paranoia, lays out a course of action, and , most importantly, has vision and a grand goal for his adherents. The New Caliphate.

But he doesn't lead the Wehrmacht.

I have little confidence that this or a future administration really knows how to deal with this. GW and his type will cntinue to pour gas--if not nukes--on the flames.

matt--transient and unstable would be a bit of an exaggeration and dismissive in the sweep of history.

Posted by: notthere on April 24, 2006 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK

Bob - Yusuf Al-Qaradawi's Wiki

Basically, he's the unofficial scholor of the Muslim Brotherhood. He's one of the big guys on Al-Jazeera.

Posted by: enozinho on April 24, 2006 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK

the US public and media largely don't care.

Osama must have been surprised that nobody flinched on this side of the pond when he blew up two U.S. embassies at once. If there is a bright side, he's at least as thick as Dear Leader.

Posted by: enozinho on April 24, 2006 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINK

O.K.....

Time to go back to your junior high classes in logic and propaganda.....assuming you went to Jesuit school like me and had to take such courses.

First, OBL has heretofore been smart enough to repeatedly state that the American goverment is his enemy , not the American people.

Second,this is a 180 degree departure from his usual way of appealing to his Islamic followers.

Third, this is first time he has acually threatened to target "ordinary americans" as enemies instead of the symbolic type attack of the WTC..

So.. what can we deduce from this?

If he is alive and made this speech...was it too "inflame" americans so they would support the adm leading them deeper and deeper into the ME morrass where OBL thinks we will eventually bleed ourselves out?

Or...was this a ploy to stir the pot among arabs even more and at the same time set us up for another "terrier" attack by "others' by planting the OBL seed.

OBL and the neo's have the same goal...a Appointment in Samara, at which one of us will die.

That is why it is impossible to know if this latest OBL tape is legit or not.

But maybe we can figure it out by asking.... who is in the most hurry to get to the ultimate showdown ...OBL or the Neo's?

Who is currently losing their momentum and support in advancement of their goals and needs the shove worst?

Posted by: Carroll on April 24, 2006 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINK

he New Caliphate.

But he doesn't lead the Wehrmacht. Posted by: notthere

Right. In fact, the Caliphate was, for its day, a rather moderate governing force, not unlike Rome once it had subdued whatever area it had invaded, which always brings to mind that scene in Life of Brian.

Reg: They've bled us white, the bastards. They've taken everything we had, and not just from us, from our fathers, and from our fathers' fathers.
Loretta: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers.
Reg: Yeah.
Loretta: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers.
Reg: Yeah. All right, Stan. Don't labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?!
Xerxes: The aqueduct?
Reg: What?
Xerxes: The aqueduct.
Reg: Oh. Yeah, yeah. They did give us that. Uh, that's true. Yeah.
Commando 3: And the sanitation.
Loretta: Oh, yeah, the sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like?
Reg: Yeah. All right. I'll grant you the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done.
Matthias: And the roads.
Reg: Well, yeah. Obviously the roads. I mean, the roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads--
Commando: Irrigation.
Xerxes: Medicine.
Commandos: Huh? Heh? Huh...
Commando 2: Education.
Commandos: Ohh...
Reg: Yeah, yeah. All right. Fair enough.
Commando 1: And the wine.
Commandos: Oh, yes. Yeah...
Francis: Yeah. Yeah, that's something we'd really miss, Reg, if the Romans left. Huh.
Commando: Public baths.
Loretta: And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg.
Francis: Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let's face it. They're the only ones who could in a place like this.
Commandos: Hehh, heh. Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh.
Reg: But apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Xerxes: Brought peace?
Reg: Oh, peace? Shut up!

Posted by: JeffII on April 24, 2006 at 7:20 PM | PERMALINK

JeffII--LOL. Reg (GW): Oh, peace? Shut up!

Yeah. The Caliphate is held out like the Emerald City. It's the 1000 year Reich.

But I hate this "Clash of Civilizations." We can make it a selffulfilling prophecy as the neocons want. At the moment all we've got is a Trotsky but we're (deliberately?) making him bigger all the time.

Carroll--"...most hurry to get to the ultimate showdown..."?? Step inside the mind of the revolutionary. Even when we capture Osama (are we trying?), it may already be too late. We might be holding smoke.

Posted by: notthere on April 24, 2006 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK

A clash of civilizations, jeez, is Rove giving OBL pointers on how to whip up hysteria amongst the faithful?
I think OBL is trying to get his own "wag the dog" thing going considering his poll numbers are down amongst the "we don't have everything we want, but that vest looks kinda heavy and uncomfortable, don't ya think?" masses.

Posted by: sheerahkahn on April 24, 2006 at 7:58 PM | PERMALINK

An interesting analysis of the bin Laden tape is given by the blogger TigerHawk from today's Best of the Web:

Al Qaeda drew a line in the sands of the Sunni Triangle, and the United States Army and Marines walked right across it. First, al Qaeda tried to kill Americans, per bin Laden's orders. It largely failed. Then al Qaeda went after America's allies, and succeeded only in turning public opinion against itself in every Muslim country it attacked. After thirty months of battlefield defeats and political embarrassments, bin Laden won't even mention Iraq in one of his rare public utterances, and he rallies his troops to fight a war where American soldiers aren't. How humiliating. How delightful.

Al Qaeda has lost in Iraq, and bin Laden is desperate to change the subject. He and his organization are at grave risk of being discredited, and when that happens it will be much harder for al Qaeda to attract recruits, raise money, or deal with governments.

Hope he's right.

Posted by: Chicounsel on April 24, 2006 at 8:16 PM | PERMALINK

'Al Qaeda has lost in Iraq, and bin Laden is desperate to change the subject. He and his organization are at grave risk of being discredited, and when that happens it will be much harder for al Qaeda to attract recruits, raise money, or deal with governments.'
--chicounsel

Substitute "GOP" for "al-Qaeda" and "Bush" for "bin Laden" and it rings equally true.

Of course, Bush and bin Laden are cut from the same cloth - spoiled, rich cowards who have never done an honest day's work in their life and are more than happy to send someone else's children off to die for their twisted ideology.

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on April 24, 2006 at 8:23 PM | PERMALINK

If you say so, Stephen

Posted by: Chicounsel on April 24, 2006 at 8:26 PM | PERMALINK

begin quote

WANTED: SUFFICIENTLY SCARY ENEMY, APPLY WITHIN....Matt Yglesias quotes Francis Fukuyama telling us the obvious about the neocon agenda:

During the 1990s "There was actually a deliberate search for an enemy because they felt that the Republican Party didn't do as well" when foreign policy wasn't on the issue agenda.

They tried hyping China first, and then after 9/11 switched to Islamic fundamentalism. As Matt says, "I think this is very telling, and reveals a great deal about the mentality that's been guiding America's foreign policy during the Bush years."

Indeed it does. As for me, I just want to hear Bill Kristol deny it.

end quote

OBL will stop being a threat as soon as the Republicans quit exaggerating his importance.

Posted by: republicrat on April 24, 2006 at 8:30 PM | PERMALINK

Of course, Bush and bin Laden are cut from the same cloth - spoiled, rich cowards who have never done an honest day's work in their life and are more than happy to send someone else's children off to die for their twisted ideology.

Well, there is one key difference -- bin Laden actually volunteered and went off to fight for a cause he believed in.

Posted by: Stefan on April 24, 2006 at 8:33 PM | PERMALINK

"Jeb" isn't a name; it's a nickname. An acronym of his initials (although the fact that some Redneck Riviera types doubtless think it's short for Jebediah prolly doesn't hurt). Dunno what his actual name is ...

John Ellis.

Posted by: moderleft on April 24, 2006 at 8:35 PM | PERMALINK

Wow. I'm more convinced than ever that the conspiracy theorists are correct, and that OBL is on GWB's payroll.

Dang, it sounds like they are even sharing costs by using the same speech writer.

Posted by: Disputo on April 24, 2006 at 8:37 PM | PERMALINK

Per Stephen Kriz, I've decided to rewrite the whole ChickenHawk...er, excuse me, TigerHawk paragraphs, and have discovered that with a little editing they actually make a lot of sense:

America drew a line in the sands of Iraq, and the jihadis and Iraqi Resistance walked right across it. First, the US armed forces tried to kill bin Laden in Afghanistan, per Bush's boasts. They largely failed. Then America went after countries which had nothing whatsoever to do with Al Qaeda, and succeeded only in turning public opinion against itself in every Muslim country it attacked. After forty months of battlefield defeats and political embarrassments, Bush won't even mention bin Laden in one of his rare public appearances, and he rallies his troops to fight a war where Al Qaeda isn't. How humiliating. How depresssing.

The United States has lost in Iraq, and Bush is desperate to change the subject. He and his organization are at grave risk of being discredited, and when that happens it will be much harder for the GOP to attract recruits, raise money, or deal with governments.

Posted by: Stefan on April 24, 2006 at 8:42 PM | PERMALINK

Chicounsel--
if that's what TigerHawk said, then this is what Osama said:

"...
This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children - also in Iraq - as Bush Jr did, in order to remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to assist in the pilfering of Iraq's oil and other outrages.
...
...
So the war went ahead, the death toll rose, the American economy bled, and Bush became embroiled in the swamps of Iraq that threaten his future. He fits the saying "like the naughty she-goat who used her hoof to dig up a knife from under the earth".
...."

So, not exactly not mentioning Iraq. He may be broadening the front. As someone above pointed out, even with non-acceptance in the broad Iraqi public, it may suit at least the Sunnis to have a few more guns in the streets.

And I don't see the "battlefield defeats" as long as they stick to guerilla tactics. So, does BlackHawk have an agenda? "How humiliating. How delightful." Just asking? 'Cos I rather think it's us getting humiliated and it aint "delightful".

Posted by: notthere on April 24, 2006 at 8:49 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan: Touch. Nice, nice job.

Posted by: Windhorse on April 24, 2006 at 9:01 PM | PERMALINK

>The West only calls for dialogue to weaken and
>confuse the Muslims, according to bin Laden, and
>only understands the language of force
Oh dear. Bernard Lewis (advisor to Bush) claimed, of course, that the Arabs only understand a big stick. God save us from the extremists on EVERY side.

Posted by: Jim on April 24, 2006 at 9:09 PM | PERMALINK

Osama's dead.

These tapes are like the nose of the Leader in Woody Allen's movie "Sleeper".

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on April 24, 2006 at 9:56 PM | PERMALINK

"Osama's dead.
Those tapes are like the nose of the Leader in Woody Allen's movie "Sleeper.""

Yeah, why is he releasing _audio_tapes? Why not a videotape, holding a copy of today's edition of the Karachi Times? Then there'd be no doubt of his survival.

Posted by: Peter on April 24, 2006 at 10:16 PM | PERMALINK

Why not a videotape, holding a copy of today's edition of the Karachi Times?
Posted by: Peter on April 24, 2006 at 10:16 PM | PERMALINK

Once he does that, he'd be criticized for lowering the standard of proof when he stops doing it. And if he does that all the time,
it's information on what city he's in.

The CIA may be incompetent. But he's got a big reward on his head, that some Middle Eastern Warlord Drug-Runner might want to take.

Posted by: McA on April 24, 2006 at 11:58 PM | PERMALINK

He's not mentioning Iraq because the new elected government (which is the closest thing to a people's Arab government) hates his guts thanks to Zarqawi - which is a great way of undermining his claim to be a legitimate alternative to corrupt Westernized oil dictators.

He's thinking Sudan. Because he needs a place for the movement to get funding, and fight without confronting a really serious US army. So he goes somwhere with no oil.

With luck he can get some funding from ethnic cleansing for Darfur or something, and rebuild a core of experienced fighters.

In a way, Iraq was a humiliation. Because Al Qaeda has shown its more effective at killing Arab civilians and offending the locals than it is at killing US troops.

No one likes someone whose strategy was to ignite a civil war in your own country by blowing up Mosques. Even if the alternative is big round-eyes walking all over.

Posted by: McA on April 25, 2006 at 12:05 AM | PERMALINK

McA

See above or read what he says. Iraq is mentioned.

Sudan has oil. China is interested. Apparently we'd rather see them all fight.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of people out there training. For the same reason that Bush's poularity is falling here.

Yes. Iraq is a humiliation ... for us. Glad you think he's losing when we're spending billions for nothing except losing 60+ US troops a month, 2400 and climbing. Other people's lives cheap to you? To say nothing of the poor blasted Iraqis.

They don't want us there whoever blew the mosque. Nice jump to conclusion, though.

zero for 5. great batting.
Ignorance must be bliss.

Posted by: notthere on April 25, 2006 at 1:49 AM | PERMALINK

Yes. Iraq is a humiliation ... for us. Glad you think he's losing when we're spending billions for nothing except losing 60+ US troops a month, 2400 and climbing.

Posted by: notthere on April 25, 2006 at 1:49 AM | PERMALINK

Beats the Clinton years where you were spending lots on defence, his organization was growing and he got to plan a plot to kill 3000 of your people
at the cost of US$50,000.

Posted by: mca@y.com on April 25, 2006 at 6:26 AM | PERMALINK

Beats the Clinton years where you were spending lots on defence, his organization was growing and he got to plan a plot to kill 3000 of your people
at the cost of US$50,000.

Posted by: mca@y.com on April 25, 2006 at 6:26 AM | PERMALINK

Killing civilians is cheaper. Always.

So if you decide not to fight because of that, you encourage everyone to learn to target your civilians.

Posted by: McA on April 25, 2006 at 6:43 AM | PERMALINK

He's thinking Sudan. Because he needs a place for the movement to get funding, and fight without confronting a really serious US army. So he goes somwhere with no oil.

Sorry, slappy - Sudan has plenty of oil.

With luck he can get some funding from ethnic cleansing for Darfur or something, and rebuild a core of experienced fighters.

He has a core of experienced fighters. You know, the ones that cross the Iraqi border, fight US troops, then leave. Wouldn't be successful if the incompetent Iraqi army could enforce its borders.

In a way, Iraq was a humiliation. Because Al Qaeda has shown its more effective at killing Arab civilians and offending the locals than it is at killing US troops.

Humiliation? Iraq is hardly a humiliation. The country is teetering on civil war. The infrastructure still sucks. Iranian infiltration is everywhere. It's the perfect training ground/testbed for future Al-Qaeda fighters.

No one likes someone whose strategy was to ignite a civil war in your own country by blowing up Mosques. Even if the alternative is big round-eyes walking all over.

Really? Then explain why Bin Laden's approval ratings in the Muslim world are so high.


Posted by: Monkey Butt on April 25, 2006 at 9:19 AM | PERMALINK

Then explain why Bin Laden's approval ratings in the Muslim world are so high.

Posted by: Monkey Butt on April 25, 2006 at 9:19 AM | PERMALINK

Explain why Al Qaeda in Iraq keeps getting denounced by elected politicans.

The Muslim world likes Osama not because they like Osama but as an anti-american/anti-west/anti-jew symbol. Just like American Hippie's liked Mao as an anti-establishment symbol without thinking through what Mao did when in power.

If you ask a Muslim government whether they want Osama around, few would anymore. The nutty Americans will start asking permission to bomb your border towns, where he might be found. Or to bomb anyway and deny responsibility.
And Osama would retaliate by blowing up your Western style leisure spots.

In the past, Osama was very cool. Even with heads of state. Because he would set off bombs far away from his bases of operation, like NY. Now he shits where he lives. Which means most Muslim governments are keen to avoid Al Qaeda.

Posted by: McA on April 25, 2006 at 9:46 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry, slappy - Sudan has plenty of oil.

Posted by: Monkey Butt on April 25, 2006 at 9:19 AM | PERMALINK

Well, if they link up with Al Qaeda, Haliburton could do with more oil projects.

Posted by: McA on April 25, 2006 at 9:47 AM | PERMALINK

http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/14420183.htm?source=rss&channel=inquirer_nation

And here's an example. Look at Sudan's reaction
to the tape.

"Fuck off, you'll attract too much heat"

Posted by: McA on April 25, 2006 at 9:49 AM | PERMALINK

Following the debacle that was the Amman, Jordan hotel bombing, the vast majority of that country including his own family vociferously denounced Zarqawi. This was preceeded by Osama's Saudi Family denouncing him prompting his move to Sudan years ago, so I have a hard time buying the claim of high approval ratings.

Iraq is far from a civil war, and their infrastructure has sucked for thousands of years. And yes it is a good training, and killing ground for Al Qaeda and that was exactly the purpose. Al Qaeda's infrastructure and means have been seriously compromised and their only means of destruction remains a towel headed grunt in a Toyota. The formation of a permanent government in Iraq will be yet another blow to the extremists and they will continue to lose more ground and more momentum. It just hasn't happend in the amount of time it takes to watch the daily show so the liberals are a little nervous.

Posted by: Jay on April 25, 2006 at 10:05 AM | PERMALINK

"a towel headed grunt in a Toyota" tells you everything you need to know about Jay...but keep clapping, sweetie, clap harder, in fact, and see if that makes your fantasies come true...

Posted by: An Interested Party on April 25, 2006 at 10:22 AM | PERMALINK

You keep complaining and I'll keep clapping. I happen to think that wiping out car bombers is a good thing. Complaining about everything though suits you well and if kept up, maybe one of those grunts will car-bomb your ass.

Posted by: Jay on April 25, 2006 at 10:27 AM | PERMALINK

>'Al Qaeda has lost in Iraq

The troll stupidity is amazing. They way overestimate how much Al Qaeda is actually doing in Iraq* and don't seem to get that, even when we reduce that slice of the action to their true levels it's still way more than under Saddam.

That hardly sounds like losing, given their MO.

And this whole excerpt, which once again will go over the 101st Fighting Keyboarders heads, is exactly why Iran not only doesn't "harbor" Bin Laden but would kill him immediately if they could get a hold of him.

*hell, they don't even understand what Al Qaeda is - hint: those things you blow your nose with aren't actually "kleenexes", they're facial tissues. Next time you're beating off to your beloved Malkin you're using petroleum jelly, not necessarily "vaseline".

Ah, they'll never figure it out. Why do I bother.

Posted by: doesn't matter on April 25, 2006 at 10:31 AM | PERMALINK

Certainly they will never get an opportunity to do anything to you, unless you are posting from Iraq? I highly doubt that, more like from your mother's basement with a picture of your hero, the Doughy Pantload, pasted over your monitor...

Posted by: An Interested Party on April 25, 2006 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINK

Ah, the Jaybot:

Accuses us of being worried:

>so the liberals are a little nervous.

Then an assertion that not only is not supported by reality but is self-inconsistent:

>I happen to think that wiping out car bombers is a good thing

Car bombers wipe themselves out, moron. And they were rather sparse on the ground before we showed up. So we've created them. Whaddya think of that.

And as always, since he secretly knows he's full of shit and we're laughing at him, he hopes we die in some way that he can say "I told you so". Which of course makes no sense, 'cause we'll be, y'know, dead and won't be able to hear him. Hey dude, it would make more sense for you to start wishing YOU would die and we could all wail over your body and our insensitivity like Aunt Polly in Tom Sawyer's daydream:

>maybe one of those grunts will car-bomb your ass.

Grow the fuck up, and stop clapping because it is just annoying us adults.

Posted by: doesn't matter on April 25, 2006 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

Far from being adults, liberals are nothing more than naive and immature. "We created the car bombers" is a perfect example of your self loathing and complete misunderstanding of the world you occupy and complain about.

Al Qaeda is losing Iraq and their cause in general as the majority of peaceful Muslims grow tired of being their victims. The left continues to fester in their lack of vision, platform, and backbone and can only resort to complaining about everything. And you call that being an adult. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Posted by: Jay on April 25, 2006 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

*sigh* As usual, the pedophile Cut 'N Run Jay's pieces always need a heavy dose of editing. Why does he bother to run the first draft without checking with me first? Here it is, rewritten so it actually makes sense:

"The Bush regime is losing Iraq and their cause in general as the majority of peaceful Muslims grow tired of being their victims. The right continues to fester in their lack of vision, platform, and backbone and can only resort to complaining about everything. And you call that being an adult. I guess I shouldn't be surprised."

Posted by: Stefan on April 25, 2006 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

Stefan, at least be original. Your tactics are that of a first grader at recess. Again though, why should I be surprised.

Posted by: Jay on April 25, 2006 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

Your tactics are that of a first grader at recess.

Disturbing, isn't it, that the pedophile Jay, who's before commented on his belief that raping twelve year old girls isn't abuse, always comes back to first graders, isn't it?

Posted by: Stefan on April 25, 2006 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK

Shit for brains Stefan, Please cite my specific post wherein I claimed that raping twelve year olds is not abuse. You're a lying piece of fucking shit which means you are a liberal.

Posted by: Jay on April 25, 2006 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

"You're a lying piece of fucking shit which means you are a liberal."

Remind me again who is the child and who is the adult?

Posted by: An Interested Party on April 25, 2006 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

Adults refrain from slander. Meaning most liberals are children.

Posted by: Jay on April 25, 2006 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

So I guess Karl Rove is a child...figures...

Posted by: An Interested Party on April 25, 2006 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

Shit for brains Stefan, Please cite my specific post wherein I claimed that raping twelve year olds is not abuse. You're a lying piece of fucking shit which means you are a liberal.

In the March 20-21, 2006 WaMo thread "Comment on Democratic Strategery" Cut 'N Run Jay defended David Koresh, who raped and impregnated girls as young as 12 years old, with these words:

"Fathering children with girls teen girls doens not constitute child molestation specifically when girls of that age are allowed to marry in many countries, even in some states in this country. Is it right, no. But does it justify killing them? no...."
Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

[remember, when we're discussing "teen girls" we're talking about girls as young as 12 -- Stefan]

Posted by: Stefan on April 25, 2006 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK
Explain why Al Qaeda in Iraq keeps getting denounced by elected politicans.

Maybe its because the US has a large Army in Iraq and doesn't have reputation of being nice to people it suspects might not be sufficiently antagonistic to al-Qaeda?

Posted by: cmdicely on April 25, 2006 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

Nothing like coercion to get your point of view across...

Posted by: An Interested Party on April 25, 2006 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

Did I say I condone it? No. Did I say it was not right. Yes.

It also states "teen" girls which excludes 12 year olds. In many states and countries, "teen" girls may marry. I am sorry the facts disagree with your position, of course I am sure you are use to that and from now on refrain from slander or any dialogue with me. I despise you.

Posted by: Jay on April 25, 2006 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

Ugh, I just read that thread again. What a sick, sick fuck you are, Jay. I seriously hope some child predator-specializing law enforcement agent is following this. Ugh.

Posted by: shortstop on April 25, 2006 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

Did I say I condone it? No. Did I say it was not right. Yes.

You asked "Please cite my specific post wherein I claimed that raping twelve year olds is not abuse," and I provided a post wherein you claimed "Fathering children with girls teen girls doens not constitute child molestation...." I'd call that condoning.

It also states "teen" girls which excludes 12 year olds. In many states and countries, "teen" girls may marry.

We'd been discussing David Koresh, who had raped and impregnated many teenage girls, some as young as 12, so yes, the universe of girls under discussion did not exclude 12 year olds.

In many states and countries, "teen" girls may marry.

None of those girls were married (unless you count David Koresh telling a twelve year old "Ok, you're married to me now" and then raping her as marriage).

Posted by: Stefan on April 25, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

Ugh, I just read that thread again. What a sick, sick fuck you are, Jay. I seriously hope some child predator-specializing law enforcement agent is following this. Ugh.

They are. I let a friend of mine in the DA's office know.

Posted by: Stefan on April 25, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

McA: Explain why Al Qaeda in Iraq keeps getting denounced by elected politicans.

Yes, let's talk about elected politicians in the Middle East. They are loved by their people and speak for them with compassion. They promote freedom and help their people and are quite free of corruption. /sarcasm

Most elected politicians in the Middle East are hated by their people. Even using "elected politicans" is a stretch. Most elections are a farce. And when they're real, you get HAMAS in Palestine and Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. You telling me that HAMAS and Muslim Brotherhood are against Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden? Slappy, Muslim Brotherhood's Al-Zawahiri is OBL's right hand man.

Get your head out of your ass.

Posted by: Monkey Butt on April 25, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

Cut 'N Run Jay: I despise you.

Considering the source, high praise indeed.

Posted by: Stefan on April 25, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

You guys are the sick fucks. btw, shit for brains, I said cite a specific post wherein I claimed raping twelve years was ok. You failed, because there is no such post.

You're allegations of child abuse by the Branch Davidians is unfounded and the only thing you can cite to excuse the inexcusable murder of those people at the hands of Democrat President Bill Clinton. He violated their civil rights and murdered them which is far worse than anything GW has ever done. You're continued excuses for that are pathetic and criminal.

You have my e-mail address and I have yet to hear from the DA. What's going on? Or are you still full of more of your own shit.

Posted by: Jay on April 25, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

Most elected politicians are hated by their own people and that includes this country. So the only legitimate elections are the ones that elect Hamas and other terrorist groups but the ones that elect moderates are bogus? 11 million people went to the polls on three different occasions, risking their life and you discredit their efforts. No wonder the liberals are becoming irrelevant.

Monkey Butt would definitely be an expert on planting a head in ones ass.

Posted by: Jay on April 25, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

Still have yet to hear from the DA. Can't imagine what's going on. I mean shit for brains Stefan is a man (oh excuse me, child) of his own word isn't he?

Posted by: Jay on April 25, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

You guys are the sick fucks...

I'm just glad we're not the ones defending the worst administration in US history.

Posted by: obscure on April 25, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

You were defending the worst administration in history. President Jimmy Carters administration.

Posted by: Jay on April 25, 2006 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

You're also indirectly defending the other worst administration in history. Saddam Husseins administration.

Posted by: Jay on April 25, 2006 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

Where the hell is the DA? Or does that "friend" of yours also know that you're a moron. A kind a pity friendship I suppose.

Posted by: Jay on April 25, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

Guys ... my good liberal friends ...

Do we really want to even hint about prosecuting somebody for their political opinions, no matter how much we disagree with them?

Even if Jay were advocating sex with 12-year-olds, I'd have a problem with it -- unless of course he was talking about specific girls he was about to try to rape -- in which case, catch the fucker.

But he was only saying that Koresh's relations with them were less bad than than the government burning down the compound. Which is an arguable point.

Sorry ... my ACLU hackles just went up a little bit on this.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on April 25, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK
Do we really want to even hint about prosecuting somebody for their political opinions, no matter how much we disagree with them?

I don't think anyone's talking about that.

Suggesting the authorities be aware of people endorsing certain types of criminal behavior is different than suggesting that they be prosecuted for those endorsements.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 25, 2006 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

Uh, Bob, see, anyone prosecuting Jay would be doing so not for his political opinions, but because they found actual evidence that he was in fact a pedophile. If they did find such evidence, it would be because they were led to an investigation of same by his unusual remarks here. The remarks themselves are not prosecutable, nor should they be. See the difference?

I'll leave it up to the authorities to judge whether Jay's contributions in total to the other thread--have you read it, by the way, or are you going by what Jay's arguing here?--are of interest.

Posted by: shortstop on April 25, 2006 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely & shortstop:

Does this remind either of you of the same rationale government supporters have for warrantless wiretaps?

"It's not what they're saying that's criminal -- its that these people could be actual terrorists."

I see it as a slippery slope.

Shortstop, I used to post on a nationally-networked BBS in the mid-90s with a guy from Utah who was about as anti-government, pro-Koresh as one could get. I'm familiar with the sort of argument Jay might have made, though I didn't read that thread when it happened.

Still strikes me that it's like saying Saddam's rape rooms were horrible but an invasion of Iraq would be worse.

That doesn't make anti-invasion folks pro-rape room by default.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on April 25, 2006 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

I'm familiar with the sort of argument Jay might have made, though I didn't read that thread when it happened.

Then may politely I suggest that you stop talking and actually go read the thread, rather than continue to make wild guesses about "the sort of argument Jay might have made"? You might be less likely to make false analogies.

If you take a few minutes to educate yourself about what you're talking about and still think we're out of line, you and I will simply agree to disagree.

Posted by: shortstop on April 25, 2006 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop:

I am hardly going to waste my time researching some drivelly argument by an obvious troll. If you think what Jay says is worth alerting a district attorney, strikes me as it's incumbent on you to present the evidence.

Kevin runs this blog on pure free-speech principles. He doesn't even go back and delete Chinese character spam. I support that. I am *extremely* relectant to see *anybody* persecuted for what they might write on a blog unless it pointed to some imminent criminal activity.

Obviously opining about the Koresh tragedy over a decade after the fact can't possibly fit that criteria.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on April 25, 2006 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

relectant = reluctant

Posted by: rmck1 on April 25, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

persecuted = prosecuted, for that matter.

By all means, persecute away :)

Posted by: rmck1 on April 25, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

Bob, liberals don't really ascribe to free speech. They only tolerate speech that support their views. You made a great point on their unfounded delirium re: pedophilia. Guilty until proven innocent; which is diametrically opposed to democracy and freedom. See the correlation.

Posted by: Jay on April 25, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

Does this remind either of you of the same rationale government supporters have for warrantless wiretaps?

No.

I am hardly going to waste my time researching some drivelly argument by an obvious troll.

Then stop wasting our time commenting about it.

I am *extremely* relectant to see *anybody* persecuted for what they might write on a blog unless it pointed to some imminent criminal activity.

For Christ's sake, stop confusing the issue. Nobody is talking about prosecuting (not persecuting) anybody for what they write on a blog. However, someone who writes on a blog that he believes raping teenage girls is not child molestation might, you would think, be exhibiting some characteristics in common consistent with pedophilia, characteristics that might lead him to act out those beliefs. It's not the expression, it's the action.

Obviously opining about the Koresh tragedy over a decade after the fact can't possibly fit that criteria.

And obviously we're not talking about his general opinions about Koresh, so I don't know what point you imagine you're trying to make.

Posted by: Stefan on April 25, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

Now I know a little of what those ACLU lawyers felt like defending a bunch of chowderheaded Nazis who wanted to march in a small Midwestern town ... :(

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on April 25, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

um...shit for brains, I get tired of calling your bullshit, but since that's all you spew, I will have to do it again. I never said "raping teenage girls does not constitute child molestation". Does your constant lying ever bother you?

Posted by: Jay on April 25, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan:

First of all, calmn down a little and visualize who you're debating with. Bob .. you know ... a guy who's with you on virtually all issues. No need to get all exasperated and self-righteous about this.

If the issue is actions and not words, well then ... how do you get definitively from somebody who supports marrying 12 year olds to someone who supports rape?

Granted, I'd of course agree with you that sex with 12 year olds amounts, in nearly all cases at least in the Western world, to rape. But that doesn't mean the person who's making the argument is viewing it that way.

It just could be a manifestation of colossal sexual ignorance. And there's no *crime* in that.

Now the reason this bugs me is that getting from words to *potential* actions is precisely the same rationale that the government is using to monitor Muslim organizations. You know ... we've got to wiretap those mosques, because any imam who supports Hamas violence against Israel is just *this far* away from supporting terrorist actions on American soil ...

I'm sorry ... once again I see this kind of reasoning as a slippery slope.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on April 25, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

I never said "raping teenage girls does not constitute child molestation".

Fathering children with girls teen girls doens not constitute child molestation specifically when girls of that age are allowed to marry in many countries, even in some states in this country. Is it right, no. But does it justify killing them? no....
Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

How an adult man "fathers" children with teenage girls without raping them I'll leave to others to decide....

Posted by: Stefan on April 25, 2006 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINK
Does this remind either of you of the same rationale government supporters have for warrantless wiretaps?

No.

Specifically, I don't see anyone here advocating, in the slightest, that anyone investigate any aspect of Jays life that would traditionally be considered "private" without probable cause.

Its like someone calling the cops to report suspicious activity that does not, itself, present even probable cause of a crime.

I am *extremely* relectant to see *anybody* persecuted for what they might write on a blog unless it pointed to some imminent criminal activity.

Notifying law enforcement isn't the same thing as recommending prosecution (or persecution).

Look, I don't think Jays said anything that I would feel like reporting to law enforcement, but similarly, I don't think anything that Stefan or anyone else has said here is anywhere close to calling for Jay to be prosecuted.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 25, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan:

I have to agree with Jay here that it certainly doesn't justify killing them.

Whether or not the sexual congress amounted to rape.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on April 25, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

Granted, I'd of course agree with you that sex with 12 year olds amounts, in nearly all cases at least in the Western world, to rape. But that doesn't mean the person who's making the argument is viewing it that way.

The 12 year old girl who's being raped might.

Posted by: Stefan on April 25, 2006 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely:

Alerting a DA over comments on a blog not in any way pointing to an iminent criminal act is, to my way of thinging, way over the top ...

And once again, it reminds me of nothing so much as Islamo-paranoia.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on April 25, 2006 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan:

The person making the argument is not carrying out the act.

Again -- words vs actions.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on April 25, 2006 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK

Teenage girls also include 18 year olds, shit for brains, who are legally able to give consent. I guess in your little feminine mind "fathering" equates to "raping". Interesting. Do you always rush to judgement and conclusions based on.......oh wait, I guess you do being a liberal. Nevermind.

Posted by: Jay on April 25, 2006 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

Jay:

Having sex with a 12-year-old amounts to statutory rape in all American jurisdictions, so the issue of consent is entirely moot.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on April 25, 2006 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

Bob, I have NEVER mentioned "12 year olds", That is an unfounded lie perpetuated by shit for brains, and now continued. Of course, any sexual relations with 12 year olds and most teens for that matter is rape and child molestation in most jurisdictions. My point is that in many countries and states, girls as old as 15 may marry and give consent. I will say it again, does that make it right, no. But the unfounded accusations of child molestation directed towards the Branch Davidians did not justify Clinton killing them. In liberals minds though I guess it does, interesting isn't it?

Posted by: Jay on April 25, 2006 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

Jay:

Except that the idea of Janet Reno executing a deliberate act of murder against the Mt. Carmel residents is also a false issue.

They shot tear gas cannisters. They did not *intend* to ignite the place. Was it bad tactics? Hell yes, and Janet Reno herself would certainly agree.

And while I agree that the "child molestation" charges were thrown out last minute in a news conference to gin up public support for an immediate government action (we had known about these charges with Koresh for years), they came in the contest of a withering and draining standoff. Nobody was thinking clearly at the time.

So I call what happened at Waco a horrible tragedy -- but hardly a deliberate act of mass murder.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on April 25, 2006 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

contest = context

Posted by: rmck1 on April 25, 2006 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK

I concur.

Posted by: Jay on April 25, 2006 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

Jay:

Aww, shit ... what fun is that? :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on April 25, 2006 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK

Good one, Bob.

Posted by: Jay on April 25, 2006 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINK

My strong suspicion is that there's no evidence at all; that was simply the product of an argument that got out of hand whereby Jay said the child molestation charges leveled by Janet Reno didn't justify torching the compound.

Why continue to "suspect," especially at such mind-blowing length? The answers are a few clicks away; as I mentioned earlier, the thread is still there for you to read. Hint: Start at the part where Jay responds to someone's observation that Koresh had sex with children as young as 12 by flatly denying that such an activity constitutes child molestation. Take the ride downhill from there.

Round about 4 p.m. Eastern, you claimed you just couldn't spare the time to find out what you were talking about, yet you couldn't seem to stop talking. Apparently your schedule promptly cleared up, because seven hours later, you're still carrying on in the darkness, still guessing as to what Jay might have said. And incredibly, you're not even embarrassed about that! Instead, you've worked yourself up into some kind of self-justifying righteous indignation against the people who actually are familiar with the conversation in question.

It's hard as hell to admit one misspoke because one didn't know as much as one thought about something. I should know; I hate it, too, and I've had to do it my share of times, including very recently on this blog. But hanging on like a pit bull to bad analogies and misplaced arguments because it's embarrassing to back off just makes the hanger-on look ridiculous.

You may disagree with the way we've all handled our responses to Jay, which would have been a valid discussion had you shown any desire to address the actual situation rather than the increasingly dramatic version in your head. As long as you remain defiantly, foolishly, willfully ignorant of the conversation that prompted those responses, I don't see any reason to give you any more of what is starting to look like frantically desired attention.

Posted by: shortstop on April 26, 2006 at 12:29 AM | PERMALINK

shortstop

> "My strong suspicion is that there's no evidence at all; that was
> simply the product of an argument that got out of hand whereby Jay
> said the child molestation charges leveled by Janet Reno didn't
> justify torching the compound."

> Why continue to "suspect," especially at such mind-blowing length?

Longer than your five-paragraph response here?

> The answers are a few clicks away; as I mentioned earlier, the
> thread is still there for you to read. Hint: Start at the part
> where Jay responds to someone's observation that Koresh had sex
> with children as young as 12 by flatly denying that such an activity
> constitutes child molestation. Take the ride downhill from there.

Look, I'm not going to enable a sick innuendo game. If
there's some sort of evidence that Jay's a child molester --
then post it. The smoking gun! But of course there isn't --
just interpretations of what he said which you, I or anyone
might strongly disagree with but which proves exactly nothing.

Guess what, shortstop: Jay's *entitled* to believe that having
sex with children as young as 12 doesn't constitute child abuse
without that being turned into an accusation of child predation.

> Round about 4 p.m. Eastern, you claimed you just couldn't
> spare the time to find out what you were talking about, yet
> you couldn't seem to stop talking. Apparently your schedule
> promptly cleared up, because seven hours later, you're still
> carrying on in the darkness, still guessing as to what Jay
> might have said. And incredibly, you're not even embarrassed
> about that! Instead, you've worked yourself up into some kind
> of self-justifying righteous indignation against the people
> who actually are familiar with the conversation in question.

There is only *one* thing Jay could have said that would justify
sic'ing a DA on him: "Ooh, that 12 year old I know is really
bot and I have a great plan for how I'm going to nail her."

Jay *didn't say anything like that*, did he. Of course not.
I don't need to read the thread because it is so screamingly
obvious that he didn't. I've seen the argument around the
edges and I know enough of Jay's views to know well enough
just how this argument got twisted around to those grounds.

You, OTOH, can simply end this and prove me wrong by posting
the smoking gun. Go ahead, shortstop -- I double dare ya.

The burden of proof here's on you. I'm not the one who believes
that what Jay said is worth bringing law enforcement into it.

> It's hard as hell to admit one misspoke because one didn't
> know as much as one thought about something. I should know; I
> hate it, too, and I've had to do it my share of times, including
> very recently on this blog. But hanging on like a pit bull
> to bad analogies and misplaced arguments because it's embarrassing
> to back off just makes the hanger-on look ridiculous.

Shortstop, I'm not wrong -- you are. To me this is an issue of
principle, because I believe that the universe of things sayable on
a blog in the heat of a debate that should bring in law enforcement
is very, very small. It is absolutely wrong to narc on somebody
because you *think* what they say implies *how they will act* based
on an *interpretation* of their argument rather than a concrete
statement of specific criminal intent against a specific somebody.

There's nothing like that in the thread with Jay. GUARANTEED.

> You may disagree with the way we've all handled our responses
> to Jay, which would have been a valid discussion had you shown
> any desire to address the actual situation rather than the
> increasingly dramatic version in your head. As long as you remain
> defiantly, foolishly, willfully ignorant of the conversation that
> prompted those responses, I don't see any reason to give you any
> more of what is starting to look like frantically desired attention.

But you saw a reason to crank out a five-grapf response anyway.

Heh.

The "dramatic version" is the version that believes that
you need to call the cops on somebody for a blog post.

I'm rather of the opinion that Big Brother can go fuck himself.

End of story.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on April 26, 2006 at 1:20 AM | PERMALINK

shortstop:

Okay ... I went and found the thread and read it. I should have remembered it, because I was debating with Jay, and throsz and I talked a little about Riverbend.

Pretty useless expenditure of 20 minutes of my life that I'll never get back -- but I couldn't quite beat the ignorance argument.

So guess what? Aside from the quote that Stefan posted above, there was nothing in it to imply Jay has a jones for 12 year olds.

Oh, there was a lot of *baiting* on that score from other people. People apparently didn't like Jay's views on the age of consent -- which is fine. I don't agree with those views, either.

But nothing exactly worth alerting his local FBI over. It was obvious that he was referring to Koresh's "marriages" as being consensual -- to define away the issue of child abuse so he could paint the Waco atrocity as strictly the fault of the Clinton DOJ.

A dumb-ass argument, for sure.

But calling it worthy of criminal sanction is, quite frankly, literally chilling.

You and I obviously don't see eye-to-eye on what constitutes free speech, shortstop.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on April 26, 2006 at 1:52 AM | PERMALINK

This is why I jumped in and challenged this whole line of argument, and the principals backed off ...

I just came back to this thread and read this. I never backed off, I merely went on with my day after the thread degenerated into a mutual exchange between Jay and Bob. I stand by my original point, which is that Jay does not believe that an adult man raping a 12 year old is child molestation, and that anyone who believes that is worth keeping an eye on.


Posted by: Stefan on April 26, 2006 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

Stefan, for a lawyer, that's a pretty disingenuous tautology, don't you think?

Yeah, I'm with the child molesters for championing Jay's free speech rights -- just like I'm with the terrorists for opposing warrantless wiretapping.

At no time did Jay ever *advocate* having sex with 12-year-olds. If you think he needs having an "eye kept on him" for the quote you posted above (and context out of which it arose), then I only have one question for you, Stefan:

Why aren't you working for the Bush DOJ?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on April 26, 2006 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan:

> "I stand by my original point, which is that Jay does not believe
> that an adult man raping a 12 year old is child molestation,
> and that anyone who believes that is worth keeping an eye on."

I have several questions for you, Stefan.
Please take the stand for cross-examination.

1) Do you honestly -- in your heart -- believe that your
above framing is a fair characterization of what Jay believes
-- let alone what he actually said? Because I've reread
the thread and I certainly don't. Especially since blog
exchanges tend to puff people up into extreme, rhetorical
positions just to oppose what other people are saying.

2) Since you cannot prove that Jay agrees with the terms of your
characterization -- at no time did he advocate rape, at no time
did he advocate sex with 12-year-olds (and in the most damning
quote of that whole thread stated that he believes what Koresh
did with young girls was wrong), you'll have to agree that what
you said above amounts to an interpretation of what Jay said, no?

3) By what logic then to you arrive at a fear that Jay might
molest a 12 year old based, not on a concete statement of intent,
but on an interpretation (a misinterpretation) of his *beliefs*?

4) Do you believe that it's right for the government
to "watch" people based on their beliefs? More
tellingly, on what you believe their beliefs are?

5) Do you find this compatible with your views on how the Bush
DOJ handles terrorism? If so, what are the salient differences?

Enquiring minds wanna know ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on April 26, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

Notice how Stefan twisted what Jay said. Jay said "teen girls." Stefan said "12 year olds."

I'll just jump back in to clear this up. The original discussion back in March on "The Democratic Strategery" thread involved a discussion of David Koresh's child abuse. Koresh had "married" (by force) several teenage girls and had raped and impregnated them -- some of the girls were as young as 12, others were 13, 14, 16, etc., a fact that I or others had mentioned on that thread.

The overall discussion, therefore, was of teenage girls as young as 12. When Jay said that "Fathering children with girls teen girls doens not constitute child molestation..." he was referring specifically to my claims about Koresh and his teenage victims, and therefore yes, it is quite justified to claim we were talking about 12 year olds.

Posted by: Stefan on April 26, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

Jay also made his argument contingent on the legally defined age of consent.

No, he didn't, really. He claimed that Koresh's "marriages" gave him license to abuse his teenage victims, even though they were illegal polygamous marriages conducted by force, and therefore have nothing whatsoever to do with the legally defined age of consent.

Obviously even in Kansas or Alabama you aren't entitled to marry (let alone have sex with) a 12 year old.

And yet that's what Koresh did, and that's what Jay was defending.

And even then, he called the practice of early marriage (even if legal) wrong.

He also said what Koresh did was not child molestation, which it plainly was.

Posted by: Stefan on April 26, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

Jesus, Jason, you can be drafted into the Army at age 18.

Really? In what country? Because you can't be drafted into the Army at age 18 in the US -- since, of course, we have no draft.

Posted by: Stefan on April 26, 2006 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

Jason:

> "Do you believe that it's right for the government
> to "watch" people based on their beliefs? More
> tellingly, on what you believe their beliefs are?"

> This is patently ridiculous to the nth degree.

No, unfortuately it happens to be the crux of the issue. It's
perfectly possible, after all, to slam the Reno DOJ for torching
Mt. Carmel based on the fact that burning to death is worse for
children than being molested and even raped by Koresh, while having
exactly zero brief for child molestation or child molesters.

And that's my interpretation of Jay's argument after having
carefully read the whole thing. He said some hyperbolic,
unequivocal things with which I think anyone would disagree.
But in no place did he condone Koresh's actions in themselves.

If that's the case, than the proper interpretation of what Jay said
(what you believe his belief is) is precisely the salient issue.

Otherwise, there's simply nothing he ever said that would
even imply direct criminal/immoral designs on underage women.

> No one cares what the fellow 'believes.' He's not
> espousing an idea, an ideology or a system of beliefs.

You think child molesters don't have a belief system -- an ideology?
Of course they do, just like every criminal. Here it is: Consent
laws are ridiculous because they vary from state to state. Young
teens are really hot. Statutory rape is meaningless if she says yes.

These are *precisely* the sort of underlying ideas that Stefan,
shortstop and apparently you believe are implied in Jay's words.

But Jay has said things which directly contradict them.

> He is, after all, talking about
> justifying a criminal act when he says:

> "Fathering children with girls teen girls
> doens not constitute child molestation..."

And had he said *de facto* child molestation, he'd be simply stating
a fact. Now granted, it's problematic in states where the age of
consent is quite young whether or not the consent the young woman
gives is meaningful or psychologically healthy. In fact, I'd advocate
a national rise in the age of marital consent to 21 for both men and
women, because I believe very young marriage is socially detrimental.

But *criminal*? From that quote? You're simply wrong, Jason. The
very best you can argue is that this is often wrong, because in the
real world, fathering kids with an immature 15-year-old can be a
form of psychological abuse. And of course you had to quote Jay
out of context to make what he said sound truly scary, because in
the full sentence he clearly qualified it based on marriage. Which
is rhetorical dishonesty based on being *cough* wedded to a position.

If it's legal in a state to marry a girl at 15, it's certainly
not *criminal* to father a child with her -- healthy or otherwise.

> Now, what part of a 'belief' is that?

What particular *actions* are you alleging Jay advocates?

> Where does the notion of free speech allow an
> individual to turn that around so that they can
> advocate on behalf of normalizing criminal behavior?

Even if Jay *were* advocating normalizing criminal behavior (hey,
I advocate legalizing recreational marijuana use and so do a lot
of people), how is that tantamount to proving that he participates
in it? Even if he said truly sick, predatory things about "hot" 12
year olds -- how do you know that he's not just, you know, BSing?

> It's a weak justification of a
> heinous criminal act, plain and simple.

It's a weak justification to use anything Jay said on that thread
for the heinous act of having law enforcement monitor his posts.

> Anyone, regardless of their political
> affiliation, with a shred of decency can see it.

Anyone, regardless of their political affiliation, with
a shred of decency would call this neo-McCarthyism.

Stefan, disappointingly (and I have tremendous respect for him)
got himself over his head in this and I trust is just arguing
at this point because he's a lawyer and he argues for a living.

It's a shame this thread is just about dead and doubtless he
won't see it -- but cmdicely (an astute law student) is not likely
to follow his lead here. The civil liberties issues are clear.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on April 26, 2006 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

Jason:

> Four full comments in reply? Each of
> them over five paragraphs in length?

*nod*

> Goodness. Are you this boring in real life?

Probably :)

> Chances are the poor fellow has just been drinking heavily
> and then posting crackpot theories on blog threads.

No, that's more like rdw :) Jay is just another freeper troll,
no different in essence than conspiracy nut, or MountainDan, or
BigRiver, or GOPGregory, or Birkel any of a dozen or so posters
who like come on this blog to taunt us left-wing anti-Bush types.

Most likely he's a college kid goofing off in his studies.

> In any case, one would hope that local law enforcement
> agencies have identified him and have investigated
> him and his background to make certain that he is
> not currently molesting any 12 year old girls.

No, Jason, "one" would not hope this, anymore than "one" would hope
that Joe McCarthy ran down every librarian who ever signed a left-wing
petition in the 30s or that the DHS picks every brown-skinned man
with an Arab surname off a Manhattan street and forces them to
produce documentation to demonstrate that they aren't terrorists.

The right wing advocates this kind of shit, Jason. *We* don't.

> An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, they say.

And he who trades liberty for security deserves neither.

For the very last time:

Arguing that torching Mt. Carmel was more heinous than
what happened within the compound is no reason *at all* to
reasonably suspect anyone of being a real life child molester.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on April 26, 2006 at 9:37 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly