Thanks, Infidels! Yours, Osama B.L.


Newsday columnist James P. Pinkerton channels OBL in an interesting piece that argues the U.S. is doing Al Qaeda's dirty work by attacking Iraq.

My audiotape, released Tuesday, has sealed the fate of that socialist apostate, Saddam Hussein. I see Colin Powell on CNN saying it proves a "nexus" between my al-Qaida and his Iraq. Hah. As I said on that tape, the only connection between me and my enemies is my swordpoint hitting their neck.

The Americans have never understood that it has always been my dream to rid the Muslim Ummah—our world—of those secular Arabs who strut around like colonialist colonels in their epaulets and berets, men who preen like women, like peacocks. Such evildoers are obstacles to Islamic purity, to a return to the blessed days of the Caliphate, when mosque and state were united in holiness. Now, thanks to the Americans, those red infidels will be gone, buried under smart bombs. Who says the Great Satan can't be made to do God's work?

NEXT: Decadence Delayed

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Excellent posts all!


    OBL has already been martyred after a fasion … and an invasion will likely boost his recruitment, on that I think we are all in agreement. And yes, that is why he is encouraging the poor Iraqi to fight back; bloodier the better as far as that bastard is concerned.

  2. Posted by,

    Ironic post there, considering what happened when Stalin trusted Hitler!

    I doubt anyone doubts that OBL would not be above aligning with Saddam against us. But the questions this leads to are numerous. Under what conditions would this be most likely to happen? Attacking Iraq may be more likely to give them common cause. And even if OBL likes Saddam (a little), is it reciprocal? Can Hussein ever trust OBL enough to arm him? Lots of things are possible, but what’s likely?

    As to the zero terrorist attacks against Iraq, well first of all, compared to four, zero isn’t that signficant. If there were hundreds, or at least dozens, of al-Qaeda attacks against all sorts of nations but not Iraq, your point would be stronger.

    Furthermore, attacking the west makes for better demonization than attacking fellow Arabs. Remember, terrorist attacks by their very nature attack civilians or nonfighting soldiers. It’s not like al-Qaeda has the means to overthrow the Iraqi Ba’ath Party and take control of the Iraqi government. Choosing western targets best fits their MO.

  3. Steve W. Who’s killing who(m?) The body count is about 20 to 1 in favor of Israel so far and their gaining.

    If Geronimo had had a nuke he’d be charging our ass to go look at the Grand Canyon today. But he didn’t so they got killed or penned up on the shittiest ground in America, their kids were taken away to school to learn to be white, their homes were destroyed and whatever money was owed them was stolen.

    Check out the West Bank and Gaza. Just like Indian reservations but a little more pissed off.

  4. Lefty,

    American Indians consider some of that “shitty” land you refer to as sacred. You owe them an apology!

    One-third kidding there to make a point. But more importantly, what’s your point again, your reason for bringing up Manifest Destiny?

    If it’s to say we can’t have any argument with OBL because our nation has done bad things too, then PLEASE DON’T HELP!!

  5. marc webster,

    I believe I validated the anon poster’s point myself by saying that no one should doubt that it’s certainly possible for Hussein and OBL to ally. But in light of the consequences of the alliance the anon poster cited, which Hussein must surely be aware of, I thought it was worthwhile to look at what was likely under what circumstances rather than just what’s possible.

    You describe Hussein’s new MO well. But since we agree that the strangest of bedfellows can theoretically ally, I don’t see the significance of Hussein’s partial embrace of Islamism. The more relevant question I think is what would bring about an alliance of these natural adverseries and how would this be manifested?

  6. It is not normally held that the power mad ruler of a religious cult believes his own rhetoric. Why would anyone give that a second thought in regard to bin Laden?

    If Hussein and bin Laden are not working together, it is because of each’s considerations of how they can get their hands on more power. To think otherwise is folly.

  7. I was afraid you were going to make me get to the point. Caught again.

    Actually, I’m saying OBL’s mission is the same as ours in the 19th century – unify the “nation” – in his case, the nation of Islam. We pulled it off because of superior numbers and weaponry. OBL must do it with superior commitment and some very nasty undercover tactics.

    The real sand in his vaseline, though, is Israel, artificially inseminated into the region 60 years ago. We left troops over there after Desert Storm so we got on his hit list, too. Before that it was the Russian infidels who were sent packing.

    Sooner or later he hopes for a reckoning over the Jewish State. He and many like him are fanatic and will never stop unless either REASON prevails or they finally incinerate each other.

    Honest brokering has worked to bring long periods of relative quiet there in the past. Given the leadership of all the principles right now, though, it ain’t gonna happen.

  8. Lefty,

    Oh, so you brought up Manifest Destiny in order to help us all better understand OBL, I see.

    Yeah, right!!!
    Anyway, I’m sure there’s similarities just as I’m sure there’s differences. So what? Does it help us figure out what to DO about it??

  9. I was the anonymous poster who brought up the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. People missed two things about my post:

    Hitler didn’t turn on Stalin until he thought the fighting in the West was over. Taking land in the East was his goal from the beginning but he was willing to compromise it to deal with a more pressing situation. It gave him a lot of trouble to positiviely spin the pact with Russia after all their antiCommunist rhetoric–but they did it anyway, because they had a crisis in the West to deal with first. Why wouldn’t OBL do the same with Saddam?

    Another point I brought up that no one seems to have responded to: Nazi theories of racial superiority were an inherent part of Nazi thought, wouldn’t you say? YET they allied themselves with Japan. (Albert Speer said that he and his friends made fun of Himmler for trying to find racial links between the Aryans and Japanese–this flipflop on the inferiority of Asians was occasioned by the Japanese delegation presenting Himmmler with a samurai sword.)

    Unless you want to say that the Nazis didn’t mean any of that about racial inferiority and Communism, you have to credit the fact that fanatical people will compromise their ideals to some extent, if the stakes are high enough.

  10. Gabriel Hanna,

    I don’t see why you think I’m missing those points.

    Extreme circumstances drove Hitler to ally with those he normally wouldn’t.

    I’ve said more than once now that an OBL-Hussein isn’t impossible, but we should think about what circumstances would most likely bring it about. Count me among those who think that US initiation of war would seem to increase the chances of such a liaison.

    Another consideration is how such an alliance could be managed. Hitler had nothing to lose from either of those alliances. Could Hussein trust OBL with WMD’s? Would it be worth the gamble if Hussein faced no imminent threat to his power?

    Well, maybe maybe not, we’ll likely never know for sure. Ultimately, anyone could ally with anyone else, so saying that these two bad guys could ally is a red herring. Show us what’s more or less likely, not just what’s possible!

  11. Fyodor – Nope, there’s nothing to do about it now. The decision’s been made to go militarily into Iraq and occupy it – on the side of Israel. We can say anything we want but to the Muslims, that’s the way it is. It’ll be a cold day in Gaza before we can ever be an honest broker again.

    Get ready for a long, drawn out holy war. Bomb, retaliate. Bomb, retaliate. Ad finitum.

  12. To say Hitler’s alliances carried no risk is a little shaky. Stalin could have invaded when Hitler was in France, could he not? This was not terribly likely, I agree.

    So, you’re OBL and Saddam gives you one nuke. You can use it against Baghdad or NYC. Which will you choose?

    Anyway, you all talk as though Al Qaeda is the only terrorist group that exists. Suppose he gave one to Hamas or Hezbollah and they used it in Israel? Lefty favors that, but the rest of you don’t, I take it.

    Lefty, please explain why you think Saddam should be left in power, given the atrocities that occur daily in Iraq. This is all about morality for you, apparently… explain the moral equivalence between a government that permits dissent and a government that cuts out the tongues of dissidents, or rapes their wives or daughters or mothers while they watch. (Have a look at Amnesty International’s website.) No matter how impure American motives may or may not be, that does not mean Saddam is a good guy, or that we are anything like as evil as he. Too bad Hitler’s not alive so you can argue against war with him too.

  13. I’m tired of this but, OK.

    Check out the justice systems of every Mideast nation and you’re gonna find some atrocities. Same with Africa, South America, China, Phillipines, on and on. We’ll draw names out of a hat and go in and run their countries for them, one by one.

    That’s silly. In fact, I’m totally amoral about US foreign policy. We defend our country and our interests overseas. That’s it. Invading the weakest country in the Mideast does nothing to advance our interests (joining a holy war is in our interest?) and is not defending anything. Saddam is covered like a blanket. I don’t care if he stays or goes.

    So don’t give me that “evil” shit. Let God, or Allah or the Republican Guard judge him.

  14. G.H.,

    Suppose, suppose, suppose. We have no evidence that will happen, but it could. Cause Hussein is, quite admittedly, a bad guy. Sigh. Y’know the sci-fi parody book, Venus On The Half-Shell, depicted a futuristic circumstance in which Earth discovered a planet with good stuff to trade whose inhabitants communicated by smelling its each butts. So to do business with this planet, Earth sent all its perverts there, figuring we’d get rid of all our pervs in the process. But then Earth found that as many pervs as we sent there, there were still just as many back here on Earth!!

    Moral of the story? There’s always going to be bad guys know matter how many we get. And in fact, getting them in the wrong way’s just gonna produce more.

    Well, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe getting Saddam will bring peace. But I don’t think so. I think it’ll just bring more war. I’m with Lefty on that, as simplistic as he is about this doing it for Israel stuff. You got any evidence for that, Lefty? You ALL like to conjecture……

  15. Fyodor, do terrorists, or do they not, have state sponsors? Is Iraq, or is it not, one of those sponsors? Have state-sponsored terrorists, or have they not, killed Americans already, and people like the Balinese who do not threaten them? (I mean really, what had that to do with Israel or America? They saw a bunch of infidels and they killed them because they could. That is what we are up against.)

    If your answer to these questions is yes, I really think it is reasonable to assume that terrorists, and their state sponsors, are going to continue doing what they have been doing.

    It is true that there always will be bad people, but I fail to see how your argument doesn’t apply equally well to criminals as to dictatorships. Whatever. That’s not where we started. What I was trying to say from the beginning is that there is very good reason to think that fundamentalists like OBL and “secularists” such as Saddam is alleged to be can work together in the face of an enemy they hate more. You can’t just rule it out a priori, since we have seen the same sort of situation before, whether you talk of Hitler and Stalin or the Greek city states or whatever. Whether or not Al Qaeda specifically works with Saddam, other terrorist groups certainly do; and there are other states that sponsor terrorism as well. It is true that we may never eradicate terrorism, but we can certainly punish the states that suppport and encourage terrorism. When states cease supporting terror, terror will be much more difficult to inflict. States will cease supporting terror when the costs outweigh the benefits–surely I need not explain this to libertarians? Why have a conventional military, bound to lose against your enemy, when fanatics can help you get what you want much more cheaply, if less reliably? But if the consequence of that decision is to end up like the Taliban, perhaps these states will reconsider.

    As for Saddam’s crimes, I only brought them up since Lefty keeps talking moral equivalence. Lefty can’t possibly have any morals whatever to make the statements Lefty has made. And this is the last notice of Lefty I shall take.

  16. I’m totally amoral about US foreign policy. We defend our country and our interests overseas. That’s it. Invading the weakest country in the Mideast does nothing to advance our interests

    Iraq is not the weakest country in the Mideast by any stretch of the imagination. It’s weaker than Iran, Israel, and Turkey, and probably Syria. Should he become a nuclear power (which most intelligence services concede will require nothing more than obtaining fissile material) he’ll be stronger still and basically unopposable.

    Here’s our national interest: we’re paying a great deal of money babysitting Saddam with lots of troops to make sure the oil that the world economy is based on stays safe. Why are we paying money to keep this man alive? Kill him, topple his government, put a friendly one in its place, pack up and go the hell home! That’s our national interest.

  17. OBL couldn’t have said it better himself. He’s been trolling for bass for 10 years and finally landed a lunker.

  18. OBL called upon Iraqis to go into trenches to fight the Americans. Surely, he can’t be ignorant of what happens to those who adopted this strategy. What’s going on here?

  19. I don’t understand his logic. Is he saying that we shouldn’t do anything that bin Laden would favour? Should we only do things that would piss him off? Is he really saying that we shouldn’t push for a Palestinian state, because that’s what bin Laden would want? Or that we should start killing Muslem children, because that would really upset him? Am I asking too many rhetorical questions?

    I personally think that removing US troops from Saudi Arabia, a fall of the monarchy in Saudia Arabia and the creation of a Palestinian state would all be good for the US. Whether or not that coincides with OBL’s objectives shouldn’t be a factor at all.

  20. He’s not saying that we shouldn’t do anything that bin Laden would favor. He’s replying to the argument that Al Qaeda and Iraq are aligned.

  21. Harry,

    I think the Newsday columnist’s point was that, by attacking Iraq, we would inadvertently be helping Osama bin Laden’s quest for a holy jihad in the name of Islam.

    Bin Laden claims he wants us to stop oppressing Muslims and get out of Saudi Arabia, but is that what he really wants? Personally, I suspect that they’re not his actual ultimate goals, but simply hot-button issues that he exploits to gain sympathizers for his real objective, the creation of an Islamic empire.

    Don’t get me wrong, I agree with Harry’s argument, that getting US troops out of Saudi Arabia and a Palestinian state would be good for America. Assuming my speculation about Osama’s motives is true, if anything that makes it only all the more urgent that we push for certain things that OBL claims he wants. For us to do so would, presumably, undercut his efforts to recruit soldiers for his jihad.

  22. ” a fall of the monarchy in Saudia Arabia”

    That assumes the replacement regime is democratic, and not an even stricter fundamentalist Wahhabi regime. The latter is more likely, I think, because they’re so effective at rabble-rousing.

    Somehow, I don’t think it’d be an improvement if someone like Mullah Omar were in charge of Saudi Arabia’s oil wealth.

  23. Johnny,

    I agree with you that Palestine and US oppression of Muslems are not the real motivation for bin Laden. If you read the “bin Laden Terrorism Bible” at the smoking gun site, it makes it pretty clear that an Islamic empire and, in fact, the conversion of the entire world to Islam is their primary and possibly solitary motivation.

    And we seem to agree that a Palestinian state and withdrawal of US troops from the region would be good for the US. But what I can’t make up my mind on is whether war with Iraq will be good or bad in the long run for the US. And this guy’s article did not present any kind of convincing argument. Presumably it would help the cause of al Qaeda to kill bin Laden and make him a martyr. Does that mean we shouldn’t kill him?

    As far as the connection between al Qaeda and Iraq, it doesn’t seem to me to be any stretch of the imagination to think that a group of people (al Qaeda) anxious to cause massive damage to us and who showed an interest in using chemical/biological/nuclear weapons would be willing to purchase such weapons from countries willing to sell them (Iraq and North Korea). I just don’t know if that is enough for us to go to war.

    And Jon, I wasn’t assuming that the monarchy wouldn’t be replaced by Islamists. I think that at this point in time it is important to clearly know who our enemies are. I think the ambiguity that the royal family presents is worse than some raving mullah.

  24. It doesn’t matter who replaces them. As long as we keep our guns and foreign-aid money out of the mid-east, they will content themselves with killing each other, and selling us oil.

  25. On the one hand, I think it’s rather unfair to simply claim that we’ll be doing OBL’s bidding just because OBL also wants to get rid of Saddam. In fact, it’s highly similar to when hawks (like Instapundit) claim that those opposing our coming war are in league with Saddam.

    On the other hand, the question basically comes down to whether we’re likely, for all our expense, risks and killing, to achieve more good than bad, for us or for anyone else. And helping OBL, all other things being equal, is quite bad, right? So is that what we’ll be doing?

    I don’t think getting rid of Hussein is good for OBL in a direct sense since what replaces him will likely be no more sympathetic to his cause or susceptible to being overthrown by his cause (in the short run, anyway). So far, so good (in the short run).

    On the other other hand, as has been pointed out many times, invading Iraq would likely provide a mighty boost to al-Qaeda recruitment efforts.

    This is the main reason getting Saddam will be good for OBL, and the bloodier the war is, the worse we look and the stronger his movement becomes. Maybe that’s why he wants Iraqis to fight back!

    (Of course, there’s the long run instability our actions may wreak as well, but my crystal ball gets blurry that far ahead……)

  26. Ditto to Warren.

    OBL’s vision is kind of like our old Manifest Destiny in the name Allah. We ran out the English, French, Spanish, Russians and killed or imprisoned the Indians in order to have a united country, sea to sea. We did it in the name of fate, Mom, apple pie and…God.

    It’s kind of that “do as I say, not as I do” thing.

  27. Hey Lefty,

    Was that before or after we killed all those Jews who would not be forcibly converted in our most Christian nation?

  28. It’s easy to imagine that Bin Laden might feel this way. One could also imagine that Hitler was happy to see Mussolini fall in 1943, because the Italians weren’t Aryans and were crummy fighters. The reality is different.

    What do you think Bin Ladin would prefer: Iraq led by an anti-Western strongman, sufficiently sympathetic to Islam that he had the Koran printed in his blood — or a pro-Western democratic Iraq? (Or, if you want to be cynical, a pro-Western puppet Iraq?)

  29. Gabriel –

    Tall, dark, paunchy, twice-divorced, unemployed liberal looking to be taught morals. If interested, call 555-kissmyass.

  30. EMAIL:
    DATE: 01/25/2004 03:43:03
    ‘Love — a grave mental disease.’ Plato

  31. EMAIL:
    DATE: 05/20/2004 11:46:33
    Reality is not affected by our apprehension of it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.