July 01, 2006

Bin Laden Warns US on Somalia

A warning from bin Laden? Well, that should shake us up. We certainly wouldn't want to hack off bin Laden. Very important to make sure he doesn't get riled up. I mean, taking out his boys in Afghanistan was one thing. Then there's that $25 million dollar bounty on his head. I'm sure taking out his boy Zarqawi with a 500-pounder was yet another irritant. Relationships between the U.S. and al-Qaeda are certainly not what they were back in the salad days of the 1980s. Some have even described them as "strained." If we keep this up, bin Laden might start thinking of the U.S. as his enemy or something. Nope, can't have that.

Reuters has it straight from the horse's mouth: . . .

"We will fight (U.S.) soldiers on the land of Somalia ... and we reserve the right to punish it on its land and anywhere possible," said the speaker on the tape, sounding like the Saudi-born militant.

A U.S. intelligence official, declining to be named, said there was no reason to doubt it was bin Laden on the tape, which was posted on an Internet site used by Islamists.

So, al Qaeda reserves the right to attack the U.S.? What the hell does that mean? How did they acquire this "right"? Can they give up this right if they accidentally forget to reserve it? If they do, can we call a foul on them if they do it anyway? Could we drag Osama up in front of Kofi Annan and get a red card? I'm kinda fuzzy on the rules, here.

With respect to Sudan and Somalia, I really need some help understanding the inertia. Those two hellholes are in complete chaos right now. I understand Powell's "pottery barn" theory of military intervention--i.e., "you break it, you buy it." I can see how this applies to Iran and Syria, as examples. There are evil, anti-U.S. governments in place, but there is stability. Things could be worse. In contrast, Sudan and Somalia are already broken! If you're a Sudanese or Somalian Christian lying prostrate with a jihadi knife against your throat, life really can't get much worse. So, what's the argument against rolling in, killing off the jihadi thugs and rolling out? What's the argument against giving the anti-jihadi team a fighting chance? Are we worried about irritating Osama? Are we concerned about what Kofi Annan and Jacques Chirac think? I'm really at a loss here. What's the argument for sitting by while Sudan and Somalia eliminate their Christian and secularist populations and become the new al-Qaeda strongholds? Will we continue to stand by as the African Taliban and their Janjaweed militias begin to destabilize the neighboring countries?

If you have a good explanation for our nation's current strategy here, please share.

Posted by: Ragnar at 03:44 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 561 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Yeah, we wouldn't want to mess with the place where bin Laden is holed up.......

Posted by: Rusty at July 01, 2006 03:58 PM (BXC/2)

2 Exactly.

Posted by: The All-Seeing Eye at July 01, 2006 04:01 PM (b+/K9)

3 OBL is trying to use reverse psychology to get America in a new front in Africa. He hopes it will further enrage the anti-everything crowd and cultivate a new crop of "insurgents" in these countries to grind down America's strength. What he does not realize is that he is the military equivalent of Wile E. Coyote.

Posted by: Chuck the Lucky at July 01, 2006 05:06 PM (scKzN)

4 If we go in there they will say we are racist for picking on a black country. Or we are picking on only muslim countries.

Posted by: josh at July 01, 2006 08:41 PM (MGRcs)

5 Bin Lden: You coward, come out and say that to my face. Heh, heh.

Posted by: greyrooster at July 02, 2006 09:00 AM (N2Rg1)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
31kb generated in CPU 0.0115, elapsed 0.0375 seconds.
34 queries taking 0.0311 seconds, 160 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.