Bin Laden Not Good At War, Logic

[Superstring]

"The blockade which the West is imposing on the government of Hamas proves that there is a Zionist-crusader war on Islam."


Let's see this "war on Islam" in slow motion:


1) Hamas pledge to destroy Israel, win Palestinian Parliament on said pledge

2) Financial aid is cut by nations friendly to Israel


If someone pledges to destroy your friend, are you going to give them money to do it with? And does not giving them money equate to an all-out war on the person's religious affiliation? Bin Laden is really not very astute for someone so keen on playing the war game.

[Claverhouse]

Isn't he supposed to be dead ?


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[CoHo]

OBL hasn't been on the forum in quite awhile so I don't think you'll get a response

[zhang_bob]

Isn't he supposed to be dead ?


Claverhouse :ph34r:
No,I see the new tape. I think it was crap.

[Claverhouse]

I remember the old tape after 9/11; that was crap also. Even then I wondered how anyone could tell the difference between two men in a cave who most people had never met, and two actors hired by the CIA.

Admittedly the one playing Osama looked like an animated corpse.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Dr. Haight]

Yeah, I think he would have done a video version, although since I heard he has been hiding out at Disneyland, that might have alarmed allot of Americans to see big Bin Laden with a Mickey hat on top of his turban and a vodka martini with a Goofy stir-stick. Hence, the audio only version.

[KuJo]

its not like Osama and the alqaeda leaders are not educated.... its the fact that a lot of radical muslims are gullible and stupid so now the alqaeda leaders barely have to do anything to get them riled up. it doesnt matter if OBL is dead or not, but he probably died in a cave.

[Jacque]

Israel really has only one staunch ally:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

That is, an ally willing to let anything fly.

[zhang_bob]

Israel really has only one staunch ally:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

That is, an ally willing to let anything fly.

Why did Britain not vote on the last few?

[mgb]

Let's see this "war on Islam" in slow motion:


1) Hamas pledge to destroy Israel, win Palestinian Parliament on said pledge

2) Financial aid is cut by nations friendly to Israel


If someone pledges to destroy your friend, are you going to give them money to do it with? And does not giving them money equate to an all-out war on the person's religious affiliation? Bin Laden is really not very astute for someone so keen on playing the war game.

It's pretty clear you don't have a very strong grasp of the politics at play here.

1) None of the Arabs really care about Palestinians. They only do because it serves their purposes to hate Israel. bin Laden himself has very little to do with Palestinian politics, so it's irrelevant to him if Hamas wins or loses an election. I mean, in the sense that an extremist group winning an election helps his cause it's good, but that's not really what his war is about.

2) There aren't that many nations friendly to Israel. Check the UN voting records. I think Canada even abstains from most of the votes. And even then, Palestine isn't a country, it's government only exists as a provisional authority. A lot of the aid they receive only really gets to them through direct efforts of humanitarian groups which aren't going to pull aid over political issues. And even then, what ever aid gets cut by the friends of Israel will probably be made up by the enemies of Israel, so it doesn't really matter.

As for being astute: well, he keeps pumping out tapes, they still haven't caught him, and the US has squandered hundreds of billions of dollars that could have been better spent on schools, health care, levies, cleanups, homelessness, pollution, flu shots, etc. All through one attack that cost him little to nothing to pull off. I'd say he's doing pretty well.

[zhang_bob]

bin Laden himself has very little to do with Palestinian politics, so it's irrelevant to him if Hamas wins or loses an election. I mean, in the sense that an extremist group winning an election helps his cause it's good, but that's not really what his war is about.

What is his cause then?

[mgb]

What is his cause then?

Two fold I think. Eliminate the American influence on the world, particularily Arab countries and also the elimination of an Israel state, which will probably be an enivitability if the former is accomplished.

[libertarianjim]

It's possible to be in videos after you're dead.

Just ask Tupac.

[zhang_bob]

Two fold I think. Eliminate the American influence on the world, particularily Arab countries and also the elimination of an Israel state, which will probably be an enivitability if the former is accomplished.
And he wants to do that why?

[Claverhouse]

Isn't there something outside that would hold your interest instead ? Like staring at the stars and wondering if there are other beings in the universe ?


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[PenguinHunter]

Let's see this "war on Islam" in slow motion:


1) Hamas pledge to destroy Israel, win Palestinian Parliament on said pledge

2) Financial aid is cut by nations friendly to Israel


If someone pledges to destroy your friend, are you going to give them money to do it with? And does not giving them money equate to an all-out war on the person's religious affiliation? Bin Laden is really not very astute for someone so keen on playing the war game.

To add to mgbradsh's post:

You have to understand some other things about Palestinian politics. Although Hamas touts an official stance that they aim to destroy Israel etc, their actual political activity is far more pragmatic. They say things like this and refuse to change it as an official stance because this gets them mass support. However, most of the leaders (and most of the Arab world) now grudgingly accept Israel's existence as a fact that has to be worked into future plans. In interviews I've read Hamas leaders tend to say that they accept Israel as a nation and have to learn to work towards a solution including Israel.

Most political scientists accept this now, judging from the positive book reviews of Mishal and Sela. (I direct you to a book by Shaul Mishal and Avraham Sela called The Palestinian Hamas (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0231116756/qid=1145832251/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/002-8168560-1633602?s=books&v=glance&n=283155). Obviously I don't expect you to read it. . . their writing style is a bit awkward and unless you are really interested in it, it will be boring as hell. I had to write a review of it this term and I was thinking about posting parts of it, so maybe I'll do that later.) The main point is that Hamas has developed themselves as a charity organization, providing social services to the Palestinian community that the Palestinian Authority could not, and has shown itself to be no less flexible than any other political movement. It goes through the history of the organization up until 2001.

I think cutting aid to Hamas is a huge mistake because up until that point they were set to provide a link between the Palestinian people and the outside world. The official stance has very little to do with Hamas's actual intentions in dealing with Israel. Obviously they want a viable state, but (through indirect dialogue and occasional public statements which claim that they do not rule out the possibility of finding a workable solution with Israel) they have shown that Hamas is willing to include Israel in their plans. This move, although it may not significantly hurt them financially, blacklists them in a way that can only serve to make the situation worse. It only supports the average Palestinian's view of the West as unsympathetic to the Palestinian side of the problem, which can only lead to more violence from disgruntled youth. Further, it creates the impression for Israel that they can treat the new Palestinian government however they want which only inflates tension. I don't know enough about Olmert to comment much on what he will likely do but, if the Hamas government appears politically isolated, I'm sure he'll milk that as best he can (as any leader out for the good of his country would do).

[Superstring]

To add to mgbradsh's post:

You have to understand some other things about Palestinian politics. Although Hamas touts an official stance that they aim to destroy Israel etc, their actual political activity is far more pragmatic. They say things like this and refuse to change it as an official stance because this gets them mass support. However, most of the leaders (and most of the Arab world) now grudgingly accept Israel's existence as a fact that has to be worked into future plans. In interviews I've read Hamas leaders tend to say that they accept Israel as a nation and have to learn to work towards a solution including Israel.

Most political scientists accept this now, judging from the positive book reviews of Mishal and Sela. (I direct you to a book by Shaul Mishal and Avraham Sela called The Palestinian Hamas (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0231116756/qid=1145832251/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/002-8168560-1633602?s=books&v=glance&n=283155). Obviously I don't expect you to read it. . . their writing style is a bit awkward and unless you are really interested in it, it will be boring as hell. I had to write a review of it this term and I was thinking about posting parts of it, so maybe I'll do that later.) The main point is that Hamas has developed themselves as a charity organization, providing social services to the Palestinian community that the Palestinian Authority could not, and has shown itself to be no less flexible than any other political movement. It goes through the history of the organization up until 2001.

I think cutting aid to Hamas is a huge mistake because up until that point they were set to provide a link between the Palestinian people and the outside world. The official stance has very little to do with Hamas's actual intentions in dealing with Israel. Obviously they want a viable state, but (through indirect dialogue and occasional public statements which claim that they do not rule out the possibility of finding a workable solution with Israel) they have shown that Hamas is willing to include Israel in their plans. This move, although it may not significantly hurt them financially, blacklists them in a way that can only serve to make the situation worse. It only supports the average Palestinian's view of the West as unsympathetic to the Palestinian side of the problem, which can only lead to more violence from disgruntled youth. Further, it creates the impression for Israel that they can treat the new Palestinian government however they want which only inflates tension. I don't know enough about Olmert to comment much on what he will likely do but, if the Hamas government appears politically isolated, I'm sure he'll milk that as best he can (as any leader out for the good of his country would do).

Sigh....what a vicious cycle.

[C.J.Woolf]

The main point is that Hamas has developed themselves as a charity organization, providing social services to the Palestinian community that the Palestinian Authority could not, and has shown itself to be no less flexible than any other political movement.
I didn't know that, but I'm not surprised. Many insurgencies set themselves up as an alternative government and provided services that the corrupt "legitimate" government would (not could) not. It's a great way to win popular support.

Hamas is just the latest terrorist group to go legit, like the IRA -- or Israel's Irgun, whose leader Menachem Begin became prime minister.

[dubbeltop]

I think israel is the reason why there are no conflicts in the middle east between arab nations. At least until Saddam power switch flipped by attacking kuwait. Btw i think that the middle east is only a giant pool of oil to america and that the palestinians are used by other arab states the same way israel is used by the americans and europe.

Anyway lets not forget that Jordan an Egypt are US allies and they like too keep Israel alive for domestic purposes.In the end its all about defusing a possible war between arabs powerhouses and the fall of the American economic+military supremacy.

Anyway i went to the cinema to see the movie 'Munich' and realises that a lot of things in this world are happening for a reason we dont understand yet.
Terrorists usually are well connected to and with secret services around the world.

So by attacking the USA Bin Laden made the first move in a game of chess between the elite of the west and the elite in the middle east. We are just the puppets in this interesting game....so..thats my view

[PenguinHunter]

I think israel is the reason why there are no conflicts in the middle east between arab nations.

How do you figure that? (Saudi and Yemen have been in conflict over borders - although it's more complicated than just that of course - for years. You note Saddam in Kuwait. More importantly was the Iran-Iraq war.) It's not like Israel has ever significantly united the Arab nations against it. As mgbradsh said, the governments of most Arab nations don't tend to view the Palestinian problem as a major issue that they have to deal with.


the palestinians are used by other arab states the same way israel is used by the americans and europe.

I don't think that really works. Israel was an accident which turned into a useful way to extend Western influence into the Middle East. Gaza and the West Bank were initially viewed as extensions of Egypt and Jordan respectively, not as some form of larger Arab influence. And now, Palestine is more like a sick cousin in the minds of a lot of Arabs.


Anyway lets not forget that Jordan an Egypt are US allies and they like too keep Israel alive for domestic purposes.In the end its all about defusing a possible war between arabs powerhouses and the fall of the American economic+military supremacy.

Which Arab powerhouses do you see going to war anytime soon?


So by attacking the USA Bin Laden made the first move in a game of chess between the elite of the west and the elite in the middle east.

I think you are giving Bin Laden too much credit. He's not particularly well-connected. Certainly the "elites" of the Middle East shun him. This game between the elites of the Middle East and the USA has been going since the 1950s and Bin Laden is just an unexpected event and an outlier, I dare say insignificant, in the long run. If anything, the attack on the US shows a sign of the decline of Islamism rather than the rise as it is so often portrayed. The fact that Islamist movements have to resort to terrorism to get noticed, and no longer aim towards large movements (like the Iranian Revolution) or political theory (Qutb or Mawdudi), shows that support (especially intellectual and elite) for Islamist politics, and any form of Pan-Arabism in particular, is flagging.

[PenguinHunter]

Many insurgencies set themselves up as an alternative government and provided services that the corrupt "legitimate" government would (not could) not. It's a great way to win popular support.

In the case of Hamas and the PA I would stand by "could" over "would" (although in most cases the "would" is right). It was more a lack of funding and an inability to reach the whole Palestinian population than corruption (although there is always corruption) which lead to a significant part of Hamas filling in the holes.

Another difference is that Hamas was not initially aiming to establish a popular government (they refused to participate in elections at least once - maybe more I can't remember) because it would implicitely grant legitimacy to Israel and the state of Palestine. The charity work in the 80s and 90s was more a legacy of the Muslim Brotherhood (from which Hamas arose during the first Intifada) than a manifestation of political ambitions. Charity for the sake of charity.

If you donated money to Hamas back then most of it would go to their charities and social networks, and a bit would go towards a car bomb. Of course this kind of street cred does help a ton if you ever do decide to launch a political career.

[dubbeltop]

Which Arab powerhouses do you see going to war anytime soon

Ehhh... barf you got me there .
(Yeah it took me 50 minutes to realise the only 'arab' 'powerhouse' in the middle east is the United States).

But i'll keep an eye out on your posts and the world news.

[PenguinHunter]

I was just getting at how there isn't really any imminent conflict between Arab nations for the existence of Israel to somehow prevent (which you didn't explain).

[dubbeltop]

Ok know lets see what i was thinking *****&*%&***** :

Answer Human :

Eeeh since the artificial creation of the state of israel several arab countries waged war with Israel
-Egypt(1967)
-Syria(1967)
-Jordan(1948)
-Lebanon(1948)
-Saudi-arabia(1948)
-Iraq(1948)

These nations except Syria,Iraq,Lebanon and S-A are friendly to the us and are vital to the future of western intrests in the middle east. The middle east is the most important region in the world because of its oil. Now the creation of israel after the WOII by The Americans and the jews was in fact the end of the british rule in the middle east and a buffer/beachhead/base for the American army to attack the arabs in the middle east if they boycotted delivery of oil to america. Until the nukes where there this could have been an option. So if israel wasnt there the americans wouldnt have been the superpower that it is today because it couldnt have used an invasion via Israel as a trump card during negotiations for oil. Since most automobiles use oil which is processed in the US(!) this is another reason for the Americans to keep israel alive since it has a connection to the mediterenean which is vital since now a fleet of warships or submarines or oil tankers can get to the middle east fast. Thats why America pays egypt and turkey its has the entire mediterenean as a landing zone and oil is safe from attacks. Dont you realize that without oil america is crippled to the max(!!!!). Thats why they want to prevent Iran from having nukes because two countries with nukes means the end of the nuclear threat like happened between Russia and the US.

So now assume that Israel wasnt created. This means tension in the region would be far greater. Since there would have been no western influence in the region islam and arab nations would still be in power and democracy(read stable government ) would be far more difficult to obtain. Lets not forget where the arab nations bought there weapons also : Russia(!) or USSR.
So the power vacuum andthe abundant oil in the region would have meant a US invasion of the middle east after WOII which would have been WOIII so...thats my view for know and i hope this isnt utter crapper since its has taken me another 50 minutes to make this up (my thumb seems to have grown for some reason).


Just for the spectators
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/

[PenguinHunter]

These nations except Syria,Iraq,Lebanon and S-A are friendly to the us and are vital to the future of western intrests in the middle east.

I would say that all those nations are friendly to the USA except possibly Iraq, although that will likely change in 10-20 years.


The middle east is the most important region in the world because of its oil. Now the creation of israel after the WOII by The Americans and the jews was in fact the end of the british rule in the middle east and a buffer/beachhead/base for the American army to attack the arabs in the middle east if they boycotted delivery of oil to america. Until the nukes where there this could have been an option. So if israel wasnt there the americans wouldnt have been the superpower that it is today because it couldnt have used an invasion via Israel as a trump card during negotiations for oil.

Oil was not a significant factor for the US and Britain in their involvement in Middle Eastern politics until the mid-60s. At the time of the creation of Israel it was certainly not an issue. Even if it was they failed miserably as one can see from the 1973 oil embargo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Oil_Embargo). The USA was in no position to invade any country in the Middle East and was ultimately forced by OAPEC to involve themselves in lengthy negotiations between Israel, Egypt and Syria.

It is more accurate to explain the US?s investment in Israel as initially a check against the expansion of Soviet interest in the region (because of fears of communism not oil reserves).


So now assume that Israel wasnt created. This means tension in the region would be far greater. Since there would have been no western influence in the region islam and arab nations would still be in power and democracy(read stable government ) would be far more difficult to obtain.

There are a lot of problems with this. . .

First, Western influence does not equal stability. Quite the contrary, most problems in the Middle East today can be linked back to the division into mandates by European powers combined with poorly chosen, appointed governments, disconnected from the populations, etc.

Second, it?s not as though Israel was the only connection between the Middle East and the West. Post-colonial/mandate Middle Eastern countries still had strong ties to Europe especially.

Third, the West doesn?t care if the Middle East is democratic.

Fourth, the existence of Israel has created far more regional instability than it could dispel.

Fifth, most nations of the Middle East already are quite stable. One can even argue some are more democratic than most Western nations (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=6664).

[Ferrus]

Why did Britain not vote on the last few?
Being too friendly to Israel is risky for any British government, especially a Labour one who's grassroots are ethnic minorites (most prominently Muslim immigrants).

[screamingflies]

its not like Osama and the alqaeda leaders are not educated.... its the fact that a lot of radical muslims are gullible and stupid
You are right! Many people call George Bush stupid for similar reasons
He's just an actor. There are the best & brightests sociologists behind him tweaking his image- maybe even to make him seem stupider. one of the reasons they say Al Gore lost the election is because he was "too intellectual" with world events & all that america didnt want an intellectual president they wanted a no-bullshit character. so in a sense it's the stupider person who doesnt realize this & acts smart

[coffeezombie]

You are right! Many people call George Bush stupid for similar reasons
He's just an actor. There are the best & brightests sociologists behind him tweaking his image- maybe even to make him seem stupider. one of the reasons they say Al Gore lost the election is because he was "too intellectual" with world events & all that america didnt want an intellectual president they wanted a no-bullshit character. so in a sense it's the stupider person who doesnt realize this & acts smart
Yeah, his stupid act is really working now, so well that he has a 36% approval rating.

[Lucas]

There are the best & brightests sociologists behind him tweaking his image- maybe even to make him seem stupider. so in a sense it's the stupider person who doesnt realize this & acts smart


W doesn't need 'the best and the brightest sociologists' to make him appear uneducated. He barely made it through a B.A. in history.

His image couldn't be improved in any way by using poor grammar and making stupid remarks like: "I would like to learn latin, so I could converse with the locals in Latin America."

During W's first campaign he was heralded as an 'average American' with values (bidding for a position no person of average faculties should ever hold!!!). He appeals to 'average America' because he has a patriarchal, no-nonsense, moralistic (and i hate to admit it) charismatic personality. The same principle applies to the social phenomena of actors, like Reagan and Shwarzenneger, being elected to the highest political positions. It is way too complex an issue to fall into a catch-all conspiracy theory about persuasion by social science, marketing of an image or political-puppetry.

[screamingflies]

Yeah, his stupid act is really working now, so well that he has a 36% approval rating.

The act got him elected & that is proof enough. I am not saying his accidental comments are part of the act, but his overall character (the way he carries himself) is less than intellectual. The slip ups are attributed to stupidity in light of his character. If an absent minded professor made the same comments he may just be called "forgetful" or "in his own world", etc.

the drop in approval rating is due to world events & the hatred towards his character is denoted from anxiety over world events, & this has no effect on what we're talking about.

[screamingflies]

W doesn't need 'the best and the brightest sociologists' to make him appear uneducated. He barely made it through a B.A. in history.

His image couldn't be improved in any way by using poor grammar and making stupid remarks like: "I would like to learn latin, so I could converse with the locals in Latin America."

During W's first campaign he was heralded as an 'average American' with values (bidding for a position no person of average faculties should ever hold!!!). He appeals to 'average America' because he has a patriarchal, no-nonsense, moralistic (and i hate to admit it) charismatic personality. The same principle applies to the social phenomena of actors, like Reagan and Shwarzenneger, being elected to the highest political positions. It is way too complex an issue to fall into a catch-all conspiracy theory about persuasion by social science, marketing of an image or political-puppetry.


I barely made it through history- because I was uninspired by the monotonous emphasis on rote memory, & I was inspired by other things. This does not make someone stupid... thats a stupid thing to say.

I think you are wrong in saying it is too complex of an issue to predict & manipulate. very wrong. The republican party picks the canditate with all these issues in mind, they're what they base the decision on. It may be a combination of bush's innate character & his focus on perpetuating it- but he is very much aware of his role, the role of his image. He deffinitly tweaks it. I think his IQ is reportedly 130- top 2 % of the population... that isnt stupid. I guess all that's just my opinion.

Btw- every speaker mispronounces things, some more than others (but this is not necessarily attributed to stupidity, speaking mistakes) the only reason people are focusing on George Bush in this way is because
1 it fits with his direct-approach image, &
2 the media is too liberal.

[ComePope]

Hannibal Lecter would make fine president

[zhang_bob]

Hannibal Lecter would make fine presidentCan`t get much worse than Bush.

[euterpenc]

I think our governement is lying to us.

[zhang_bob]

I think our governement is lying to us.About what?

[ComePope]

Some existentially thinkable thoughts are socially unthinkable

[dubbeltop]

i luv it when popes cum together

OFF TOPIC but still laughing......OFF TOPIC summer time