"But the world isn't like that"

[jbor]

There was a videotape of Bin Laden saying how pleased he was with the way
the 9/11 attacks turned out, wasn't there? And it was a good two or three
weeks before the international forces were mobilised against Al Qaeda and
the Taliban, after much negotiation with the UN and with Western and Arab
leaders, and even after attempts to negotiate with the Taliban. There was
unanimous support for the international military alliance against Al Qaeda
in Afghanistan, and widespread popular approval worldwide. There were some
high-profile critics; not many though, and it soon became apparent that
mostly their objections were little more than a cover for opportunistic
Bush-bashing and anti-American or anti-capitalist propaganda and so their
arguments against the anti-terrorist campaign quickly lost all credibility.
The US (and international) reaction to the attacks was a much more measured
response than Bin Laden was counting on. He wanted to spark up a world war,
a pan-Arab alliance versus the West conflagration, and much of his
propaganda sought to unite and mobilise an Islamic bloc of nations. It
didn't happen. Ultimately, the Taliban and Al Qaeda were the big losers.

Is it my imagination or were most of Doug's delusional claims below even
sillier than usual?

best


on 16/10/02 1:02 AM, pynchonoid at pynchonoid at yahoo.com wrote:

> --- jbor <jbor at bigpond.com> wrote:
>> Yes, the original attack went exactly as planned,
> 
> 
> You were part of the planning team? Otherwise, this is
> propaganda.
> 
> 
>> Bush waited. 
> 
> 
> Myth. Within hours, according to many mainstream
> (including a lavish, bootlicking profile in Time
> magazine that was produced with the cooperation of
> Bush's handlers) and alternative media reports, Bush
> had decided to bomb Afghanistan.
> 
> 
>> He got
>> unanimous (except for the
>> Taliban, of course) international support to
>> proceed. 
> 
> 
> No, he only got the support of a few other
> bloodthirsty heads of state -- widespread disapproval
> and protest confronted Bush's decision to bomb
> Afghanistan, instead of focusing investigative
> activity to bring the criminals to justice.  As was
> widely reported at the time, the overwhelming
> international (in the West, at least) pro-American
> sentiment, sparked by sympathy for the 9-11 victims
> and their families, dissipated as it became obvious
> that Bush would seek revenge by bombing a defenseless
> country and kill thousands of innocent civilians int
> he process.
> 
> 
>> So, there was no Muslim/non-Muslim
>> polarisation, 
> 
> 
> Anti-American sentiment is at an all-time high,
> precisely because Bush and his followers are perceived
> as waging a crusade against Islam.  Try reading some
> of the reports from Islamic countries, if you don't
> have the opportunity to talk to people who live there.
> I have relatives who just returned from Syria and
> Turkey, on their way to Manila -- it's ugly out there
> for an American, having to explain Bush's statements
> and policies.
> 
> 
> 
>> and there was
>> no pan-Arab Jihad,
> 
> 
> Terrorist attacks across the globe in the past week or
> so, even Bush admits it -- it looks as if the
> terrorists, not Bush, had the ability to wait and time
> their attacks.
> 
> 
> 
>> and there was no ultimate
>> destruction of the "evil" West,
>> which is what bin Laden wanted and expected to
>> happen.
> 
> 
> Not yet, anyway.  Give Bush a few more weeks and let
> him launch a war on Iraq, and then we'll see, a tragic
> experiment, surely -- but I guess a few more thousands
> of civilians dead is a small price to pay to realize
> Bush's  dream of holy retribution against the
> "evildoers".
> 
> 
> jbor, yesterday:
>> Bin Laden made a grave error
>> in targeting the US on September 11 2001, because
>> that attack served to
>> mobilise an almighty global police force against him
>> and his allies. 
> 
> 
> Amen, brother!  
> Praise the almighty global police force!
> Hail Bush, Slayer of Evildoers!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>