April 24, 2006

BAD ANIMATRONICS, GOOD ANALYSIS:

Bin Laden's chilling call to arms (BEN LYNFIELD IN JERUSALEM AND MICHAEL THEODOULOU, 4/24/06, The Scotsman)

AL-QAEDA leader Osama bin Laden issued ominous new threats in an audiotape broadcast yesterday on Arab television, accusing Western civilians of supporting a war on Islam and urging his followers to go to Sudan to fight a proposed UN peacekeeping force.

The speaker, who sounded like the Saudi-born militant, also said that the West's shunning of the Hamas Palestinian government showed it was waging a "crusader-Zionist war" on Muslims.

In the tape, bin Laden blamed Western civilians for causing death and destruction in the Muslim world because they had re-elected their leaders.


While OBL most likely died at Tora Bora, al Qaeda correctly points out that our peacekeeping efforts in Sudan are just another aspect of the Crusade, that the political leaders waging it have paid little or no price at the polls, and that citizens are responsible for the actions of their governments.

Posted by Orrin Judd at April 24, 2006 8:50 AM
Comments

More ominous threats? I thought he wasn't an ominous threat and that the Bush administration just made all this up to lie us into war?

Is it possible for these guys to keep one storyline going at a time?

Posted by: Mikey at April 24, 2006 10:18 AM

Osama's reduced to begging the civilized world for more funding for Hamas.

Posted by: Mike Morley at April 24, 2006 10:52 AM

Osama should go live in Gaza. He'd be untouchable by the West, and he could take Arafat's place. Who knows, a future Democratic President might even invite him to stay at the White House.

Posted by: jim hamlen at April 24, 2006 11:40 AM

But Osama and his goon squads don't have to fund an intellegence gathering organization and spies when so many on the Left (Mary McCarthy, Dana Priest, The Washington Post) are willing to do the work for free.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at April 24, 2006 12:08 PM

oj: please clarify. Are you saying that saving innocent (Christian) population from genocidal (Muslim) murderers in the Sudan qualifies as a continuation of the Crusades as a defensive war (Christendom defending itself against Islam)? What price should have been paid at the polls for defending Christians in Sudan?

Posted by: frank at April 24, 2006 12:28 PM

The Crusade isn't defensive. We did save the Christian in the South of Sudan. Now we're saving the black Muslims in the West. We're transforming that nation. That's what the Crusade does.

Posted by: oj at April 24, 2006 12:33 PM

Plenty of invectives regarding Israel, Palestine, etc. On Darfur. Even on the friggin' cartoons.

Yet not one word on Iraq.

Posted by: Gideon at April 24, 2006 5:19 PM
« YOU MISSED TWO BODYGUARDS: | Main | SOCIAL DARWINISM SCORES AGAIN: »