Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs

Osama bin Laden says in a new message that al-Qaida will continue its holy war against Israel and its allies until it liberates Palestine. Today's message comes as President Bush wraps up his visit to Israel to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Jewish state.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Links

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

It is just to end Israeli oppression in Palestine regardless of whether or not BIN LADEN asks for it.

Not to worry-Dubya has promised there'll be a Palestinian state by the time he leaves office. And we've still got that whole bin laden Dead or Alive thing working so well.

It's not like he ever failed to achieve a goal before, either.

Poor Palestinians-everybody's soccer ball.

Convenient that Bin Laden chose to make this recording so that it would coincide with Bush's visit to Israel and that it offer a new reason for Al Quaeda's Jihad against the US. It began as a response to American troops on Saudi soil but it seems to refocus to whatever policy requires justification. Today it is unquestioning support for Israel because obviously, if Al Quaeda is opposed to Israely occupation of Palestinian territories then we are for them to be consistent with the WARRRRRRROOOOONNNNNTEERRRRRORR
RRRRR!

I'm sort of surprised though that Osama didn't endorse Obama. I'm sure that is coming after he is the official nominee.

If the palestinians cause is so great, why doesn't some other muslim country offer to take them and feed them and let them shit up their country?

Because they are like the down-trodden in every country - no one really gives a shit about them except for political speeches. Fuck the palestinians and fuck Israel.





broken link

Danni-pretty good timing for a guy stuck in a cave in upthewazoostan, isn't it?

Wait, I though George Bush was fueling this Holy War!

It's unfortunate the U.S. gave up looking for Binny.

"why doesn't some other muslim country offer to take them "

lipzoidial

there won't be peace without a real two state solution period

your ignorant comments make no sense

they palestians as a people shouldn't have to leave their own country, to suggest otherwise is hypocracy.

hey if the native american cause was so great why didn't we ship them off to some other country?

My question is, does O. bin Laden still have relevance? The reports on terrorists which I have read indicate that even Al Qaeda has lost its standing as _the_ "umbrella organization". Even that the Taliban tend to ignore him. Perhaps that is why he pediodically makes pronouncements, so at least Westerners will "recognize" his "preeminance".

FYI-probably more symbolic relevance than operational.

Sort of like Col. Sanders after the franchise went national.

Well, since Osama Bin Laden died in 2002 it's obviously yet another fabricated recording that we will never get access to. I'd like independent analysts assessment - the CIA are completely untrustworthy.

Not to worry-Dubya has promised there'll be a Palestinian state by the time he leaves office. And we've still got that whole bin laden Dead or Alive thing working so well.

It's not like he ever failed to achieve a goal before, either.

Posted by northguy3 at 2008-05-16 12:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Shame on you Georgie, you should have gotten this accomplished.....you know like Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton did (and all those others too).

The Palestinian issue has been at the crux of Arab animosity for over 50 years. Our one sided approach has created a hotbed of ill feelings towards the West.

Last case in point was when we stood by while Israel massively overreacted to the Hamas rocket attacks and destroyed Lebanon's infrastructure, rebuilt after a long and bloody civil war that finally came to an end. Lebanon is the prime example of everything Bush 43 said we wanted in the ME:

A democratically elected government.

Lebanon now has the largest Christian population in the ME. That title belonged to Iraq before Bush/Cheney decided (against Cheney's own 1994 sound reasoning ) to invade. Saddam may have been an awful person, but he let everyone worship according to their beliefs without intervention. Now Iraq will most likely turn more theocratic as years go by, and Christians will be persecuted - something that did NOT happen pre-invasion.


Americanunity,

A government, elected or not, is not legitimate if it can not prevent people from launching rocket attacks at a neighboring country.

Wait, I though George Bush was fueling this Holy War!

Posted by jonryker at 2008-05-16 12:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Oh, he is. By causing the conflict in the ME, Bush has driven Oil prices up 600%. All this cash windfall helps the Royal Saud's (Bush's bestest buddies) to able to give more money to the terrorist groups like they were before 9/11.

Must be comforting to know that the man you voted for not only conducts personal business with the family of the greatest threat to American civilians, but that he also does personal business with the Saud family that funds them. BUT Obama called her 'sweetie'!!!!!!

A government, elected or not, is not legitimate if it can not prevent people from launching rocket attacks at a neighboring country.

Posted by jonryker


So the Iraq government isn't legitimate since the kurds and MEK still attack neighboring countries?
4000 lives for what?

Shame on you Georgie, you should have gotten this accomplished.....you know like Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton did (and all those others too

can you provide links where any of these guys promised to create a Palestinian state in their last year in office?

And it's been almost 7 years since dead or alive. Wher's Osama bin forgotten?

Emmanuel Goldstein

The Palestinian issue has been at the problem of the world for all of recorded history.

"The Palestinian issue has been at the crux of Arab animosity for over 50 years."

Really? And what was the crux of their animosity before that? We had it out with them before Israel existed several centuries ago. You know..."From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli...." Tripoli is in Libya, you know. What was the cause of "Arab animosity" back then? Read some history for the answer. THEN...please tell us what will be the cause of "Arab animosity" if Israel goes away.

"What was the cause of "Arab animosity" back then?

Posted by jestgettinalong at 2008-05-16 04:13 PM"

Gee, I don't know, maybe these little things called the crusades?

Maybe things like Operation Ajax?

We had it out with them before Israel existed several centuries ago. You know..."From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli...." Tripoli is in Libya, you know.
------------------------------
----------------
The Marine Hymn debuted in Paris in 1859, shortly after it was written.

It has nothing to do with the crusades. Tripoli is a militarily strategic location because of where it is and it's altitude. It's located above an important port and bay. It's been an important military objective for a very long time and has been occupied at one time or another by every major mediterranean power (Spain, Egypt, Turkey, Greece, Rome, etc. etc. etc.)

"In the early part of the 19th century, the regency at Tripoli, owing to its piratical practices, was twice involved in war with the United States."

They started it because the Pasha was supporting and harboring pirates which attacked US assets in the Atlantic and Mediterranean.

The mention of Tripoli in the hymn is due to a contingent of 500 marines that hiked across the desert from Alexandria in 1805 to flank the Pasha's forces.

The entire region feared pirates sailing out of Tripoli, so the Arabs (at the time) were very glad to see us fix the problem.

Then as now, the Marines got'er done.

-Viz

shrinkify.com

or

www.youtube.com

Learn something new every day.

As an example of how meaningless the right wing's attacks are on Obama's suggestion we talk to our enemies, Chris Matthews absolutely OWNED a right wing radio host who beat the drum of 'appeasement' on Matthew's show.

thinkprogress.org

When pressed to clarify how Hitler was appeased, he spun and spun the same tired rhetoric yet could not name why. Appeasement is when you GIVE them something, NOT when you talk to them. The example Bush used was that of Neville Chamberlain, who conceded half of Czechoslovakia to Hitler before WW2. THAT is appeasement, not talking to your enemies.

We talked to the soviets, and yes, even made concessions all throughout the Cold War. So, to say you don't talk to your enemies is just ridiculous.

Shit, if Bush had LISTENED to our allies before invading Iraq we wouldn't be carrying the full burden of Iraq right now. He totally pissed our allies off. Talking TO and talking WITH and in concert with friends and enemies has been a foundation stone of our foreign policy for decades.

The Palestinian issue needs to be settled once and for all with fairness. Israel has broken every single treaty since the country was formed - destroying towns granted the Palestinians in treaty after treaty and building settlement after settlement in their place despite international sanctions and will.

I want everyone to get along. But, without fairness in our foreign policy nothing will ever move forward. To ignore the fact Israel has more Security Council votes condemning it than any other country practically the last 50 years is to say that it's OK when 'friends' break treaties and act unilaterally, and not OK when our enemies do. Common sense dictates that the U.S. should have a more balanced view. So far, our attitudes and actions have resulted in an over 50 year stalemate of violence and destruction from both Israel and the Palestinians.

The dr left, and all dems attack GW daily, but that's not divisive? that's been your drum beat for years, and now you say GW is being divisive? Does that mean the dem's don't allow any dissent???

"The Palestinian issue has been at the problem of the world for all of recorded history."

What?

When does 'recorded history' start and just what was the problem in the beginning?

Come forth.

Watch the video! Watch the video!

Yeah!




Bush must be digging through the glove box of his pickup looking for that crumpled 'Roadmap To Peace' he was touting in 2003.

where's waldo?

TOP THREE PLACES to find Osama Bin Laden:

1. In his grave. Don't you think he would be on video talking trash with a newspaper with today's date if he was alive?

2. In Pakistan.

3. At the Four Seasons under CIA supervision.

Auntie - Osama has discussed current events in his videos, and the CIA says its him in the videos. Unless he could see the future before he died (Osamadamus?), he ain't dead.

Remember: Osama first demand was that the infidel US get out of the Holy Land (Saudi Arabia). Shrub promptly complied after 9-11.

The Palestinian have truth and justice on their side. Every Arab understands this even if we don't. So Osama conveniently wraps himself in this issue now.

Also Remember: Iraq has so much oil it can pay for its own liberation. "Wanted, Dead or Alive", Bring'em on. Mission Accomplished. Last Throes. bla bla bla

Another excuse for JIHAD.

1. A homeland for the Palestinians
2. Jews dare to exist
3. Western decadence
4. Those Shiites are just flat-out wrong

It's all about the backwards, upside
down and fucked up Islamic culture.

(Where are the protestations of Muslims that don't agree with Jihad?)

Where are the protestations of Muslims that don't agree with Jihad?



Huh? Every muslim agrees with the concept of Jihad, asswipe (good name... I meant it as an insult).

What we don't agree with is terrorism.

Jihad comes with rules that are fat as a phone book.

Terrorism has no rules.

They (the rock throwing idiots) don't deserve a homeland, who wants to live near these scumbags.
Thats like living next door to obama and his dip shit wife.

Thats like living next door to obama and his dip shit wife.


Ooo... good one!

"Gee, I don't know, maybe these little things called the crusades?"

Wow, Monte...I completely forgot about the United States sending the Marines in during those episodes. Which democrat was president? On the other hand, there WAS this little matter.

"After the United States won its independence in the treaty of 1783, it had to protect its own commerce against dangers such as the Barbary pirates. As early as 1784 Congress followed the tradition of the European shipping powers and appropriated $80,000 as tribute to the Barbary states, directing its ministers in Europe, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, to begin negotiations with them. Trouble began the next year, in July 1785, when Algerians captured two American ships and the dey of Algiers held their crews of twenty-one people for a ransom of nearly $60,000."

And then, The FIRST Democrat president said THIS:

"Paying the ransom would only lead to further demands, Jefferson argued in letters to future presidents John Adams, then America's minister to Great Britain, and James Monroe, then a member of Congress. As Jefferson wrote to Adams in a July 11, 1786, letter, "I acknolege [sic] I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace thro' the medium of war." Paying tribute will merely invite more demands, and even if a coalition proves workable, the only solution is a strong navy that can reach the pirates, Jefferson argued in an August 18, 1786, letter to James Monroe: "The states must see the rod; perhaps it must be felt by some one of them. . . . Every national citizen must wish to see an effective instrument of coercion, and should fear to see it on any other element than the water. A naval force can never endanger our liberties, nor occasion bloodshed; a land force would do both." "From what I learn from the temper of my countrymen and their tenaciousness of their money," Jefferson added in a December 26, 1786, letter to the president of Yale College, Ezra Stiles, "it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them."

Ol' Jeff (democrats had balls back then) took ACTION!

"When Jefferson became president in 1801 he refused to accede to Tripoli's demands for an immediate payment of $225,000 and an annual payment of $25,000. The pasha of Tripoli then declared war on the United States. Although as secretary of state and vice president he had opposed developing an American navy capable of anything more than coastal defense, President Jefferson dispatched a squadron of naval vessels to the Mediterranean. As he declared in his first annual message to Congress: "To this state of general peace with which we have been blessed, one only exception exists. Tripoli, the least considerable of the Barbary States, had come forward with demands unfounded either in right or in compact, and had permitted itself to denounce war, on our failure to comply before a given day. The style of the demand admitted but one answer. I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean. . . ."

It was all because of Israel that they hated us...right?



A government, elected or not, is not legitimate if it can not prevent people from launching rocket attacks at a neighboring country.

Another enept ignorant soul spout the western love israel crap.

Why are they launching rockets? Why are they launching only to this particular area?

Could it be they are launching rocket to an area of stolen land and won't let those who are settling there have peace until israel gives the land back.....could it be something like this?

If you try, you might be able to gather some information and find out about what is really goin on, but alas, you're just interested in spouting the controled israeli loving western owned media talking points.



Ol' Jeff (democrats had balls back then) took ACTION!
~jest



Then 222 years later Ol' Chimpy (republicans had no sense back then) invaded and got our country into a devastating QUAGMIRE!

"Then 222 years later Ol' Chimpy (republicans had no sense back then) invaded and got our country into a devastating QUAGMIRE!"

What??? You expect I'm gonna defend "Ol' Chimpy?" We haven't had a real "Democrat" in power since Harry Truman. All that's left in the party are leftist-socialists. And...today's "Republicans" have absolutely no claim to being called "conservatives." Discussing the evils and virtues of the two parties is a joke. They are both big spending, vote buying, pandering bureaucracies that are running the country into ruin for the purpose of getting and retaining POWER. Those who believe Obama is going to "change" anything are deluding themselves. I can't wait to see him going head to head with Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Nancy pelosi, John Murtha and all the others who have been running Washington for DECADES. What's going to change is going to be Obama.



What??? You expect I'm gonna defend "Ol' Chimpy?" We haven't had a real "Democrat" in power since Harry Truman. All that's left in the party are leftist-socialist


So WTF is a real Republican and when was one last scene?



They are both big spending, vote buying, pandering bureaucracies that are running the country into ruin for the purpose of getting and retaining POWER.


"They" have no money to spend.

Public financing of elections might be the only solution.


"So WTF is a real Republican and when was one last scene?"

A REAL Republican is someone who believes in limited government, fiscal responsibility, individual responsibility, Constitutional freedoms and individual liberties. Goldwater was probably the last one. Reagan came close but missed the mark in some respects. I was especially disappointed in him when he failed to disband the Department of Education as he had promised.

Could it be they are launching rocket to an area of stolen land...

Do you think there were no Jews in Palestine before 1948?

What about the Ottoman Empire - they "owned" the land for 500 years. Maybe it should go back to them?

I'm sure the Turks would be much more forgiving if someone was shooting rockets at their homes, schools, and businesses.

The fact is the animosity started when the Zionists joined the Brits and liberated Palestine, and in return the Muslim riots started.

They could have lived in peace, but they choose not to do so. Since 1920 they have been attacking the Jews, and when Israel became a country they started one war after another.

It's all about their "caliphate" and their desire that "infidels" live under their rule. They are so much better than everyone else. Hamas is a child of the Muslim Brotherhood which plans to extend the "caliphate" to encompass the whole world. Do you think they will respect your rights if they take over this country?

The Muslims don't want peace, they want domination.
Assad tolerated them until they tried to assassinate him. Then he leveled Hama. Bombed it, shelled it, and sent tanks and infantry into the city to kill anyone left alive.

That's exactly what Israel should do in Gaza.

"Public financing of elections might be the only solution."

That's not going to control "spending." I don't care how much they spend campaigning as long as they aren't spending OUR money. I'm talking about AFTER they get into office and start spending OUR money on private projects to garner votes to RETAIN power.

"The Muslims don't want peace, they want domination."

True, true, so true....folks should read their history: Notice the use of the words, "battle, conquest, expedition, campaign, capture etc." throughout.

www.barkati.net

"Then he leveled Hama. Bombed it, shelled it, and sent tanks and infantry into the city to kill anyone left alive.

That's exactly what Israel should do in Gaza."

Can't do it. Israel, the U.S. and other civilized peoples are restricted to fighting "kinder, gentler" wars. Muslims are not.



I don't care how much they spend campaigning as long as they aren't spending OUR money.
Jest



Here is the catch, as seen in practice today.

If they're not spending the peoples money in getting elected, then they're spending someone else's money.

When elected who are they obligated to, when they are spending the peoples money?


Not pretty but is at the very least a reality.



Jest

You continualy bring up places you don't want to spend US money.

I have places I don't want to spend our money as well, and Israel would be a great start point. And most probable a good thing for Israel as well.



Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort
RSS Spec