Comments on: Pepe speaks

Pepe speaks

rdone — Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:11:43 -0800

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?

By: bitpart

bitpart — Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:19:06 -0800

How could bin Laden not vote for Bush? He's not a U.S. citizen. Just sayin'.

By: stbalbach

stbalbach — Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:20:26 -0800

9/11 did more for a-Q's "brand awareness" than anything else.

By: uncanny hengeman

uncanny hengeman — Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:20:31 -0800

"Sunlight is the best disinfectant." - Justice Louis Brandeis

By: iamck

iamck — Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:24:27 -0800

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

By: banished

banished — Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:35:35 -0800

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.

By: Krrrlson

Krrrlson — Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:57:09 -0800

...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.

By: stbalbach

stbalbach — Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:01:58 -0800

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.

By: clevershark

clevershark — Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:03:38 -0800

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?

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:47:57 -0800

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

By: weston

weston — Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:56:52 -0800

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...

By: Krrrlson

Krrrlson — Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:35:53 -0800

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?

By: Krrrlson

Krrrlson — Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:37:16 -0800

...latter statement referring to Space Coyote and not clevershark...

By: jonmc

jonmc — Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:01:11 -0800

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.

By: nofundy

nofundy — Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:14:41 -0800

Don't be obtuse jonmc. The military has historically performed "police actions" outside our borders.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:21:01 -0800

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.

By: twine42

twine42 — Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:39:58 -0800

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.

By: Krrrlson

Krrrlson — Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:25:48 -0800

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.

By: infowar

infowar — Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:10:21 -0800

I think Noriega is a precedent here. Not a great one, but one nonetheless.

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:37:36 -0800

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)

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:38:20 -0800

Oh yes: Why French is the world's language