Pepe speaks

September 13, 2004 7:11 PM

Why al-Qaeda is winning As nihilistic as it may be, al-Qaeda, from a business point of view, is a major success: three years after September 11, it is a global brand and a global movement. The Middle East, in this scenario, is just a regional base station. This global brand does not have much to do with Islam. But it has everything to do with the globalization of anti-imperialism. And the empire, whatever its definition, has its center in Washington. Bin Laden is laughing: Bush's crusade has legitimized an obscure sect as a worldwide symbol of political revolt. How could bin Laden not vote for Bush?
posted by rdone (20 comments total)

How could bin Laden not vote for Bush?

He's not a U.S. citizen. Just sayin'.
posted by bitpart at 7:19 PM on September 13, 2004

9/11 did more for a-Q's "brand awareness" than anything else.
posted by stbalbach at 7:20 PM on September 13, 2004

"Sunlight is the best disinfectant."

- Justice Louis Brandeis
posted by uncanny hengeman at 7:20 PM on September 13, 2004

What should have been a long, meticulous police operation was turned by Bush - instigated by his foreign policy adviser, God...

Hah!
posted by iamck at 7:24 PM on September 13, 2004

What should have been a long, meticulous police operation....

Exactly! We didn't declare a "War on Terrorism" when Timothy McVeigh bombed the Oklahoma City Building, it was a police matter that was handled the way 9/11 should have been.

And ohh yeah, we caught Timothy McVeigh... whereas Bin Laden roams free so that the neverending war can continue on for as long as Bush needs it to.
posted by banished at 7:35 PM on September 13, 2004

...an illegal, preemptive attack on a nation that had nothing to do with terror.

Nothing to do with 9/11, maybe, but hardly nothing to do with terror.
posted by Krrrlson at 7:57 PM on September 13, 2004

War on terror is as ridiculous as the liberals war on hunger and poverty in the 60s. War, Terror, Hunger and Poverty are not going anywhere. This war is on partcular "terrorists" whom, seem to still be operating. Let's not confuse war on terror, versus the war on terrorists who caused 9/11.
posted by stbalbach at 8:01 PM on September 13, 2004

By these standards Krrrlson Iraq had a lot less to do with terror than Saudi Arabia. Is that perhaps something Bush wants to take care of during a potential second term?
posted by clevershark at 8:03 PM on September 13, 2004

By Krrlson's standards, since there were more Al Quaeda members in the US than in Iraq, should the US have invaded itself?
posted by Space Coyote at 8:47 PM on September 13, 2004

instigated by his foreign policy adviser, God...

Not even the republicans have that much respect for Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove.

or, for that matter, God...
posted by weston at 8:56 PM on September 13, 2004

By these standards Krrrlson Iraq had a lot less to do with terror than Saudi Arabia. Agreed.

By Krrlson's standards, since there were more Al Quaeda members in the US than in Iraq, should the US have invaded itself?

But, uh -- how exactly do "my standards" translate into those assertions, and where did I say anything about invasion?
posted by Krrrlson at 10:35 PM on September 13, 2004

...latter statement referring to Space Coyote and not clevershark...
posted by Krrrlson at 10:37 PM on September 13, 2004

it was a police matter that was handled the way 9/11 should have been.

Right. I can just picture two cops knocking on the wall of a cave in Pakistan, "Come out, bin Laden, we've got a warrant."

Invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do, but something tells me that al Qaeda wouldn't come quietly.
posted by jonmc at 7:01 AM on September 14, 2004

Don't be obtuse jonmc.
The military has historically performed "police actions" outside our borders.
posted by nofundy at 7:14 AM on September 14, 2004

Well, then we're right back to "war" then aren't we? Since I imagine you'll acknowledge that "police action" is merely euphemistic. Military action post-9/11 was certainly justified, we just did it wrong.
posted by jonmc at 7:21 AM on September 14, 2004

Well, no... not if you take "police actions" to mean running over, taking people in or taking them down, and then returning home to write the reports.

What happened couldn't be described as policing action, just as military assault.
posted by twine42 at 7:39 AM on September 14, 2004

Well, no... not if you take "police actions" to mean running over, taking people in or taking them down, and then returning home to write the reports.

Good thing we knew exactly where bin Laden was.
posted by Krrrlson at 11:25 AM on September 14, 2004

I think Noriega is a precedent here. Not a great one, but one nonetheless.
posted by infowar at 1:10 PM on September 14, 2004

I propose the following related threads:

Why the North Koreans are winning

Why Castro is Winning

Why Communism is winning

Why Socialism is winning

Why the New York Mets are winning

Why John Kerry is winning

Why Howard Dean won

Why Yasser Arafat is a statesman

(to be continued)
posted by ParisParamus at 1:37 PM on September 14, 2004

Oh yes:

Why French is the world's language
posted by ParisParamus at 1:38 PM on September 14, 2004