pardon my skepticism, but...

So. Osama Bin Laden turns up and says, "Go Iraq!" just when the US need him to. In a voice-only transmission.

Actually, from what I watched of the transmission (did you know you can get Al Jezzira (sp?) on Sky's digital service? I don't have it, though, so I had to watch the broadcast on MSNBC instead) and also from subsequent comments, it seems like the US still don't have a case. Osama, or Osama's voice, called on all muslims to hang tuff in the face of the honkies, yo. The specific references to Iraq included negative comments on Saddam and his cohort. Dissin' him, Al-Qaeda[1] stylee. So basically Osama's in favour of regime change in Iraq. Isn't that what Dubya and friends want?

And then, our good buddy Colin Powell. Colin, if I say, "all catholics in Nor'n Ir'n should rise up and fight off the protestants," would you say I support the IRA or other republican groups? I know your own country has a bit of trouble separating church and state, and lord[2] knows we've had our own problems with that, but here you have a muslim radical and, yes, terrorist, urging fellow muslims to, you know, fight against non-muslims (that's infidel, to you; it's not, as the MSNBC reporter put it, a particularly emotionally-charged word when used in its intended place, i.e. to point out that you're not one of the Chosen Ones). Iraq's government/junta/whatever is secular with ties of convenience to the muslims, and as evidenced by Bin Laden's comments, these ties don't carry much weight in the radical muslim world. In much the same way, I guess, as radical Jews have no time for anyone who'd like a Palestinian state, and radical Republicans (the Irish kind, not the morons in power in the US) have no time for anyone who'll accept partition of Ireland as a solution to "The Troubles". I'm not having trouble understanding this distinction. Somehow, I suspect I'm not the only one.

Anyway. Time to buy up a few cases of beer for the wall-to-wall war coverage.

[1] They keep changing the "correct" spelling. How am I supposed to keep track? [2] The Good Lord, of course. Not any of your bad, common-or-garden lords.

interesting snippet

Some time back I ran across an article, probably via MetaFilter, in which someone argued that there was no point in trying to figure out what wrong America had done to Islam to cause the World Trade Centre attacks. The upshot of the article was that Islam's goal was the total elimination of infidels, and thus America's mere presence was the problem in the eyes of Islam, and every other infidel was doomed, too. So quit yer bleedin'-heart bellyaching and kill them before they kill us, it rounded out.

Now, I've just found another article via Metafilter, http://www.topica.com/lists/psychohistory/read/message.html?sort=d&mid=1711891071&start=4389, in which I find this quote:

Serious Islamic leaders (e.g. the King of Jordan, the Prime Minster of Malaysia, the Grand Mufti of Bosnia) believe that the Islamic world must recapture the glory days of 12-13th C Islam. That means finding tolerance and building great education institutions and places of learning. The King was passionate on the subject. It also means freedom of movement and speech within and among the Islamic nations. And, most importantly to the WEF, it means flourishing free trade and support for entrepeneurs with minimal state regulation. (However, there were also several Middle East respresentatives who argued precisely the opposite. They believe bringing down Saddam Hussein and then pushing the Israel/Palestine issue could actually result in a Golden Age for Arab Islam.)

I note especially the word "tolerance" in there. Interesting. I'm offering this without judgement, btw. If you're interested, dig around and see what you can find.