They just don’t understand Americans

Among the things captured when Osama bin Laden departed this world to get his seventy-two white grapes were his personal journals. The Los Angeles Times noted:

In one passage, Bin Laden wondered how many Americans would have to die in U.S. cities to force the U.S. government to withdraw from the Arab world. He concluded that it would require another mass murder on the scale of the Sept. 11 attacks to spur a reversal in U.S. policy, an official said.

Hat tip to Donald Douglas.

This is where Mr bin Laden, like Hideki Tojo and Isoroku Yamamoto before him, and, I’d guess, a lot of people who aren’t Americans have never understood America. Naval Marshall General Yamamoto opposed war with the United States, but believed that if it was to come, the United States Pacific Fleet had to be knocked out first. He accomplished that much, but in the process took a divided nation which wanted to stay out of the wars in the Pacific and Europe and united our people behind President Roosevelt, in one great, boiling, angry mass, fixed on revenge for the attacks and destruction of enemies we had suffered to survive as long as they left us alone.

George Bush took the Presidency of a nation very divided in its opinion of him, with many people thinking that he somehow cheated his way into the Oval Office; al Qaeda’s attack on September 11th united the American people behind President Bush, in one great, boiling, angry mass, fixed on revenge for the attacks and destruction of enemies we had suffered to survive as long as they left us alone.

The reaction of the American people to what Osama bin Fishfood thought would be an attack to “force the U.S. government to withdraw from the Arab world” would be to redouble our efforts to exterminate the vermin. That has been our history, and that is simply what Americans do.

28 Comments

  1. If you ain’t never been an American, ain’t never gonna be an American, you will never understand Americans. We ain’t the French. And that’s the biggest problem the Islamic Terrorists have. Until recently, they have never had to deal with Americans on a large scale. But they brought that on themselves, and if they want to bring any more heat on themselves they should attempt to do what Osama bin Fishfood (me likey) suggested. I just gotta say if they do, watch out. They ain’t seen nuttin yet.

    And as regarding Yamamoto, he knew the Japanese attack on Pearl didn’t do the job. There was too much left undone (aircraft carriers for one) at Pearl. And he knew it would only wake a sleeping giant. And that it did.

    Don’t make me angry, follower of Mohammed the pedophile. You wouldn’t like me when I’m angry.

  2. Uh-huh:

    The Arabic-language network Al-Jazeera released a full transcript Monday of the most recent videotape from Osama bin Laden in which the head of al Qaeda said his group’s goal is to force America into bankruptcy.

    Al-Jazeera aired portions of the videotape Friday but released the full transcript of the entire tape on its Web site Monday.

    “We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah,” bin Laden said in the transcript.
    [...]
    He also said al Qaeda has found it “easy for us to provoke and bait this administration.”

    “All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations,” bin Laden said.
    [...]
    As part of the “bleed-until-bankruptcy plan,” bin Laden cited a British estimate that it cost al Qaeda about $500,000 to carry out the attacks of September 11, 2001, an amount that he said paled in comparison with the costs incurred by the United States.

    “Every dollar of al Qaeda defeated a million dollars, by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs,” he said. “As for the economic deficit, it has reached record astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars.

    The total U.S. national debt is more than $7 trillion. The U.S. federal deficit was $413 billion in 2004, according to the Treasury Department.

    “It is true that this shows that al Qaeda has gained, but on the other hand it shows that the Bush administration has also gained, something that anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Halliburton and its kind, will be convinced.

    “And it all shows that the real loser is you,” he said. “It is the American people and their economy.”

    As for President Bush’s Iraq policy, Bin Laden said, “the darkness of black gold blurred his vision and insight, and he gave priority to private interests over the public interests of America.

    Sounds like he’s got America pretty well pegged there.

  3. The Phoenician quotes one of his heroes:

    “And it all shows that the real loser is you,” he said. “It is the American people and their economy.”

    And that shows why we’re alive, and he’s stone-cold graveyard dead.

  4. “And that shows why we’re alive, and he’s stone-cold graveyard dead.”

    That’s true, Dana, and a good thing. But you need to broaden your understanding of the damage that al Qaeda has wrought on us.

    PiaToR’s cite, written in 2004, speaks of a $7 trillion debt; well now it is doubled, $14 trillion!! I have seen estimates that the total cost of the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War will be in excess of $3 trillion when everything is added up. This is HUGE. Who is really winning these wars, I ask?

    Add to this our increased political polarization and resultant dysfunction, the corporate corruption of our government and the resultant public chaos due to the ever increasing income gap, and we have on our hands a nation which is slipping badly.

    Do not be fooled, Dana. Getting ObL, a good thing, does not mean we are winning. And I blame most of it on you Republicans, for your support of government corruption, and for your failure to properly prioritize our efforts to fix our fiscal problems by your continuing to subscribe to the trickle down theory which has done us so much damage already.

  5. “Don’t make me angry, follower of Mohammed the pedophile. You wouldn’t like me when I’m angry.”

    John, it is quite obvious to me that you are always angry, a condition which needs professional attention. You are incapable of carrying on a civil conversation.

  6. Better, Dana, I like the way this wise man has put it:

    “Some believe that this was a “war” we were in with al Qaeda – and you don’t do trials during war. It’s thinking like this that makes me fear that, while bin Laden may be dead, he may have “won” the bigger battle. Let’s be clear: There is no “war with al Qaeda.” Wars are between nations. Al Qaeda was an organization of fanatics who committed crimes. That we elevated them to nation status – they loved it! It was great for their recruiting drive.

    We did exactly what bin Laden said he wanted us to do: Give up our freedoms (like the freedom to be assumed innocent until proven guilty), engage our military in Muslim countries so that we will be hated by Muslims, and wipe ourselves out financially in doing so. Done, done and done, Osama. You had our number. You somehow knew we would eagerly give up our constitutional rights and become more like the authoritarian state you dreamed of. You knew we would exhaust our military and willingly go into more debt in eight years than we had accumulated in the previous 200 years combined.

    Maybe you knew us so well because you were once one of our mercenaries, funded and armed by us via our friends in Pakistan to fight the other Evil Empire in the last battle of the Cold War. Only, when the killing stopped, the trained killer, our “Frankenstein,” couldn’t. The monster, you, would soon turn on us.

    If we really want to send bin Laden not just to his death, but also to his defeat, may I suggest that we reverse all of that right now. End the wars, bring the troops home, make the rich pay for this mess, and restore our privacy and due process rights that used to distinguish us from any other country. Right now, our democracy looks like Singapore and our economy has gone desperately Greek.

    I know it will be hard to turn the clock back to before 9/11 when all we had to worry about were candidates stealing elections. A multi-billion dollar industry has grown up around “homeland security” and the terror wars. These war profiteers will not want to give up their booty so easily. They will want to keep us in fear so they can keep raking it in. We will have to stop them. But first we must stop believing them.”

    And who is this wise man? Take a guess!

  7. No, Perry, I am incapable of being civil with a passive-aggressive arrogantly ignorant asshole such as yourself. I can be civil with civil people; you are not civil people.

  8. John, thank you for making my point about you, as you continue your backwards downhill slide!

    Let us now focus on the issues, instead of on personal attacks. Take our national debt and our continuing penchant for wars, as just discussed with Dana, and a subject for continuing discussions, since both are really serious issues facing us as we speak.

  9. Perry, I came here armed with that article, as well. And if this truth bothers the Right:

    We did exactly what bin Laden said he wanted us to do: Give up our freedoms (like the freedom to be assumed innocent until proven guilty), engage our military in Muslim countries so that we will be hated by Muslims, and wipe ourselves out financially in doing so. Done, done and done, Osama.

    … well, they can say the guy who wrote it is fat, and consider the argument won.

  10. Dana, please delete the comment timestamped 13 May 2011 at 09:41 as abuse.

    Did you ever intend to apply your rules evenly?

  11. Perry #1: John, it is quite obvious to me that you are always angry, a condition which needs professional attention. You are incapable of carrying on a civil conversation.

    Perry #2: Let us now focus on the issues, instead of on personal attacks.

    Perry Hood, aka the Sybil of the blogging world.

    LMAO …

  12. … well, they can say the guy who wrote it is fat, and consider the argument won.

    You mean, sort of like the “logic” that putting a bullet in an unarmed man’s skull is “legal” and “morally justified,” but waterboarding a murderous terrorist to obtain information that could saves thousands of innocent lives is “illegal” and “morally reprehensible?”

    Like that, Nang?

  13. In Tora, Tora, Tora at the end of the movie, Yomomota who understood America for having gone to University here said “We have awakened a sleeping Giant and filled him with great resolve.” Especially since the Jap declaration of war was delivered after Pearl Harbor was attcked.

  14. Hube:

    You mean, sort of like the “logic” that putting a bullet in an unarmed man’s skull is “legal” and “morally justified,” but waterboarding a murderous terrorist to obtain information that could saves thousands of innocent lives is “illegal” and “morally reprehensible?”

    We have these things called laws. They tend to be specific. These two cases are not difficult to understand.

    And, to be pedantic, your “murderous terrorist” isn’t a murderous terrorist, until he’s found guilty of murdering and terrorizing. He’s a suspect, and deserves the same rights as you.

  15. “…, but waterboarding a murderous terrorist to obtain information that could saves thousands of innocent lives is “illegal” and “morally reprehensible?” “

    I suppose you know more about the use of torture than Leon Panetta and John McCain, Hube, is that what you are saying?

    “I asked CIA Director Leon Panetta for the facts, and he told me the following: The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. The first mention of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — the nickname of the al-Qaeda courier who ultimately led us to bin Laden — as well as a description of him as an important member of al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country, who we believe was not tortured. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts or an accurate description of his role in al-Qaeda.

    In fact, the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on Khalid Sheik Mohammed produced false and misleading information. He specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married and ceased his role as an al-Qaeda facilitator — none of which was true. According to the staff of the Senate intelligence committee, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee — information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti’s real role in al-Qaeda and his true relationship to bin Laden — was obtained through standard, noncoercive means.”

    You don’t, Hube!

    Torture is immoral, in my opinion!!

  16. Nangleator says:
    13 May 2011 at 12:57

    You mean, sort of like the “logic” that putting a bullet in an unarmed man’s skull is “legal” and “morally justified,” but waterboarding a murderous terrorist to obtain information that could saves thousands of innocent lives is “illegal” and “morally reprehensible?”

    And, to be pedantic, your “murderous terrorist” isn’t a murderous terrorist, until he’s found guilty of murdering and terrorizing. He’s a suspect, and deserves the same rights as you.

    I read this as you would prefer the GWOT be fought like cops and robbers, and the captured get their Miranda rights read to them. You’re mixing our system of justice of the common criminal and law enforcement, with enemy combatants.

  17. “I read this as you would prefer the GWOT be fought like cops and robbers, and the captured get their Miranda rights read to them. You’re mixing our system of justice of the common criminal and law enforcement, with enemy combatants.”

    No, Yorkshire, what I am saying is that we should not lower ourselves into immoral acts, like torture, like invading a sovereign nation that did not attack us, in response to attacks by terrorists.

    I am also saying that ObL set us up, and that in panic we fell into his trap, $3.3 trillion spent, over 6,000 troops lost, collateral loss of life, and serious infrastructure damage on an innocent nation, not to mention our severely divided nation and damaged relations with Muslims world wide.

    Looking at the impact on us of ObL, please tell me who is really winning?

    The good news is that our homeland security has been improved immensely. Couldn’t we have accomplished this without going to war against Iraq on mostly false pretenses?

  18. Let’s see, the Perry who described Dana Pico and myself as right-wing propagandists not worth taking seriously; the Perry who uses patronizing language and declared DNW, Yorkshire, Dana, Eric, ropelight, myself and other Conservatives “disappointed” him; the Perry who demands citations that have previously been given — even in the article itself he did not read but on which he comments; the Perry who calls duly elected Governors and duly elected Legislators “dictators”; the Perry who accuses Conservatives of being anti-Obama just to be anti-Obama despite the record showing those Conservatives approved of certain things Obama did or said; that Perry has the audacity to claim someone cannot be civil with him? What a crock of fecal matter!

  19. What does this have to do with civil discourse, John? Nothing, because it is mostly made up stuff, but that’s OK, because it’s no surprise, it’s your routine, and therefore expected, and meaningless! And, you continue to slip back into your personal insult mode, rather than conduct a civil debate. Frankly, John, other than pushing back and calling attention to your insulting rants, I don’t care, so carry on as you see fit.

  20. Perry says:
    13 May 2011 at 13:53 (Edit)
    “I read this as you would prefer the GWOT be fought like cops and robbers, and the captured get their Miranda rights read to them. You’re mixing our system of justice of the common criminal and law enforcement, with enemy combatants.”

    No, Yorkshire, what I am saying is that we should not lower ourselves into immoral acts, like torture, like invading a sovereign nation that did not attack us, in response to attacks by terrorists.

    So Perry and Nang are one person??

  21. Blubonnet says:
    13 May 2011 at 21:27 (Edit)
    Excuse me for interrupting but, I need to post this on the 9-11-01 thread, and it needs to be made available to post onto.

    It’s FEMA talking on 9-11-01

    SHould be moved. We’re trying our best to keep our end of the bargain.

  22. What does this have to do with civil discourse, John? Nothing, because it is mostly made up stuff, but that’s OK, because it’s no surprise, it’s your routine, and therefore expected, and meaningless!

    How many times must you be burned by your own words, Perry, before you learn to shut up before spreading your dishonest propaganda? Not one bit of it was “made up” (which means a lie, and you damned-well know it). And my “routine” does not in any manner involve lying and you damned-well know it. But your routine does indeed involve accusing me of lying, accusing Dana and me of being right-wing propagandists, demanding citations that have already been provided, ignoring citations you demanded when presented, ignoring citations you haven’t demanded, ignoring your own past actions and demands.

    Here’s your chance, Perry. What do you want me to prove out of the long list of my factual statements about you?
    1) You described Dana Pico and myself as right-wing propagandists not worth taking seriously.
    2) You used patronizing language and declared DNW, Yorkshire, Dana, Eric, ropelight, myself and other Conservatives “disappointed” you.
    3) You demand citations that have previously been given — even in the article itself you did not read but on which you commented. (This one is iffy because you may have read the article and ignored the citations while in the thread demanding the citation you ignored. If that is the case, so much the worse for YOU.)
    4) You who called duly elected Governors and duly elected Legislators “dictators”.
    5) You accused Conservatives of being anti-Obama just to be anti-Obama despite the record showing those Conservatives approved of certain things Obama did or said.

    Which one do you want me to prove, Perry? Which ones will you admit to, Perry? You made an accusation, Perry. Do you have the balls to back up your accusation, Perry? Or are you a coward, Perry? Or maybe you will show a spine and admit that I am absolutely right on all five points. Nah, can’t expect that out of the passive-aggressive arrogantly ignorant hyper-partisan you are, Perry.

    Come on, Perry, MAN UP… if you have the balls.

  23. Ya see, Perry, I have you by the short hairs. If you have the balls to challenge any one of those five points, you know that, despite my 250-wpm reading and my lack of search skills, I can hang you on every one of those five points. If you grow a spine and admit you were lying when you accused me of lying on those five points, you lose all manner of credibility with your Leftist comrades.

    So, you’re left with two choices: a) Do your normal passive-aggressive hand-wave thing to pretend you’re “above it all” while covered head-to-toe in slimy mud, or b) Ignore the challenge altogether in your normal cowardly approach when proven dead wrong.

    So, are you going to MAN UP and grow some balls? Or are you going to MAN UP and grow a spine? Or are you going to be a passive-aggressive lying coward? Or are you going to be a lying coward? The ball is in your court, sonny boy.

  24. John, dear, you don’t sound like you are being a very good Christian, talking that way, shame!!!

  25. Perry quoted:

    Better, Dana, I like the way this wise man has put it:

    “Some believe that this was a “war” we were in with al Qaeda – and you don’t do trials during war. It’s thinking like this that makes me fear that, while bin Laden may be dead, he may have “won” the bigger battle. Let’s be clear: There is no “war with al Qaeda.” Wars are between nations. Al Qaeda was an organization of fanatics who committed crimes. That we elevated them to nation status – they loved it! It was great for their recruiting drive.

    The idea that wars can exist only between nations is disabused by our own history: the Barbary Wars were against pirates — though they claimed some land — and our various Indian wars were wars of conquest against various tribes. Our War of Northern Aggression was against several states we did not recognize as a separate nation, and, under your restrictive definition, there has never been and can never be a civil war, anywhere, since at least one side cannot (legally) claim to be a nation.

    The concept of war has changed. We went to war against Germany and Japan, against entire nations, with the intention of subjecting those entire nations to our will. We were perfectly willing to destroy German and Japanese cities from the air, to destroy the ability of those nations to resist being defeated, because that was what had to be done to win those wars.

    Fast forward to 2003: we did not declare war against Iraq, but sent in troops to depose its government, while trying, mostly but not entirely with success, to destroy as little of the country and civilian population of Iraq as possible; we separated our war aims from defeating countries to deposing governments. We did not try to destroy Afghanistan, but to remove the Islamist government and liberate the population.

    Wars are no longer moving fronts on a map, with uniformed armies facing uniformed armies, trying to extend governing control behind their fronts. Considering the death and destruction in Europe from 1939 through 1945, I’d say it’s a good thing that the nature of war has changed; it’s still violent and deadly, but it isn’t as violent or as deadly as it was sixty years ago.

  26. ” Wars are between nations.”

    Not always, Perry. The Peasant Wars were between Catholics and Protestants and the Crusades were between Christians and Muslems. Today, whether you like it or not, we are engaged in a war with Islamist radicals known broadly as terrorists. You may deny it all you want but each time these Islamists blow up a bus in London, a train in Madrid, a hotel in India, a school in Russia or a building in New York they are actively engaging in war. Just because there are several differently named entities involved does not lessen their impact on lives. And just because they don’t wear a uniform does not make them civilian criminals. They all have one thing in common; they want to impose their brand of religion on you and me. If we refuse to submit they will kill us. That, to me, is war.

Comments are closed.