Does Newt Gingrich Work for Osama bin Laden?
 

There is ample reason to think so:

Over the past two weeks, in a series of articles and speeches, Gingrich has declared a religious war that suits al-Qaida's agenda almost perfectly. While denouncing "Islamists" rather than Islam, Gingrich has blurred the distinction by selecting as his initial target the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero. Everything Bin Laden says about the United States, Gingrich validates. All you have to do is read their statements, side by side.

Read, here: The Gingrich-Bin Laden alliance. - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine

Since Bush's idiotic invasion of Iraq, Republicans have been playing by bin Laden's playbook, page by page.

Idiots.

Such politics are played to the party base not the enemy.

Al Qaeda may want a religious war, but it doesn't serve Al qaeda's purposes, unless total destruction of Al Qaeda and Muslims in general is their goal. Al Qaeda wants a religious war because they are delusional and think Allah will bail them out when the nukes fly.

What utter nonsense. I am not familiar with Slate, but I bet they compare other Republicans to Hitler as well. This has to be a leftie loonie site, this Slate.

The idea of building a mosque, a couple blocks from ground zero is ludicrous. I wonder how many New Yorker's actually want this to happen?

What's next? Germany building monuments to the Nazis? With Jewish hatred pretty common in Europe these days.......

The thing is, there is still historical animosity between Islam and Christianity, at least on the radical Islamic side. Get this, the radicals really want to kill your ass, and your family. If you don't believe it, take your family for a vacation to the M.E. And wear a cross around your neck, with an American Flag on your lapel. You might get unwanted attention. Yet, how many Muslims walk down our streets daily, dressed as so you know what they are? And who don't have to fear some Christian chopping their heads off, or putting a bullet in their heads. Yeah, compare this Nation to some of those Islamic Countries. Try building a church in those places. http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/lol.gif

Isn't it coincidental that the Dome of the Rock was built upon the old Jewish Temple Mount? http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/lol.gif The founder of Christianity refused to fight back, and would not let his followers fight to save him either. On the other hand, Mohammed, was a fucking war leader and general. Who killed a load of folks, in the name of Allah. The first step is the last step, when it comes to any religion. Any religion that was born of violence, by its founder, should be scrutinized very closely. That Christianity was militant, only shows how people can corrupt a religion. Islam on the other hand was corrupt from the get-go. It was born of violence, perpetrated by its very founder. And we are surprised wehn radical elements embrace killing, and who are not particular about whom they kill? http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/lol.gif

Hmm.

Do you apply the same standards to Obama?

He's "playing by bil Laden's playbook" as well:

1. Increasing troops in AFG
2. Secret prisons and indefinite detention
3. Airstrikes on Pakistan

So, does Barack Obama also work for Osama Bin Laden?

Or are you just parroting a bunch of utter idiocy from Slate in the interest of partisan gamesmanship?

Osama would want the mosque to go up.

But since its not Osama putting it up, and the guy responsible is not a fugitive, there is no legal basis to block it.

It might be ill advised, insensitive, insulting ect ect, but none of those things are illegal.

We just need to make sure there are plenty of undercover FBI agents in there.

bingo.............

For God's sakes!
The question cannot be, "okay, does a majority agree to build this mosque?"
The question is, "do religious minorities have the right?"
And in this country the answer must be "yes!" That's what makes this place special! That's the WHOLE POINT of religious freedom!!! DUH!!!

Geeze, why is that so hard to understand!?! http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...es/cursing.gif

God save our country from conservatives...

I grant your point regarding #2. That is indefensible (as opposed to points #1 and #3).

But you're evading the question.

All three of those play into Bin Laden's hands, propaganda-wise. More so, IMHO, than Gingrich simply because Gingrich can't do anything but talk, whereas Obama is in a position to act.

So is Obama working for Bin Laden?

There's lots of effective things you can do that also provide propaganda opportunities for the enemy.

I think many people make the mistake of thinking that just because we lost Vietnam in the press and world opinion, that we'll only win this war the same way. But the information war is only a part of the effort. YOu still have to win on the ground. Even the North Vietnamese knew that. And they weren't afraid to hand the West propaganda victories when a strategic gain was more important. You think the NVA won any points for their treatment of civilians or constant breaking of their agreements?

Taking out Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders is brilliant tactics, because it removes important leaders from the field, and it strikes fear and paranoia among Al Qaeda and the Taliban's ranks. I'd be willing to pay a pretty big PR price for that. And considering how important Obama considers his international popularity, even he thinks it's worth the price.

You rightly make the point that continuing to tacitly fascilitate torture is also counter-productive. Yet you have not addressed the point that the antics of the Republican Party play into terrorist hands. Are you admitting that they do? I've been honest with you, can you do the same?

As for Afghanistan, Obama had to play the hand he was dealt. After much debate, he decided it was in America's long-term security interests to make one last-ditch effort to secure Afghanistan from the Taliban (and thus al Qaeda). Airstrikes in Pakistan are an essential part of that effort.

But although you would love to side-track the discussion into debating Obama's strategy in Afghanistan, let's not let you off so easily. You have not addressed that point that right-winger Republicans are demonstrating the very behaviors bin Laden accuses us of--behaviors that are detrimental to our standing in the world and indeed, to our national security.

You seem to be portraying Obama as the victim here. Actually Obama has stated repeatedly, unequivocally, that Afghanistan was the "right war". On the campaign trail he waved the banner and cited that we can't afford to lose there. Didn't hear a lot of debate or hand wringing from him.

So does that make him Osama bin Ladin's lackey....???


.

I'm not blaming Obama or Gingrich.

Honestly, it doesn't matter what we do from a propaganda perspective.

We oppose the mosque: "The Infidel is denying Allah and the Prophet!"
We don't oppose it: " Allah has granted us victory over the kuffar! Theey dare not oppose our mosque on their sacred ground!"

Obama changes course in Afghanistan: "We are defeating the Infidel! They are confused and lost! Allah Akbar!"
Obama doesn't change course in Afghanistan: "Allah has made the kuffar too scared to engage us! Allah Akbar!"

No matter what happens, Osama Bin Hidin will claim it is a sigh of Allah's blessings on the Mujahideen.

Matt

Exactly right. And the primary reason we should never have invaded either Iraq or Afghanistan. There is just no winning those battles.

There was no way we could leave Al Qaeda safe and sound in Afghanistan.

There were plenty of ways to get Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan without invading.
Invasion created up a whole new problem, one that was unrelated to Al Qaeda.
We are now involved in trying to occupy an area that has never been occupied successfully, not by the Soviets, not by the British Empire, not by Alexander the Great. When George W. Bush attempted something that Alexander the Great failed at the outcome was pretty much determined.
Obama thought that a little more force could change the picture, at least long enough for us to pretend to have won, he was wrong.

There were plenty of ways to get Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan without invading.

No there wasn't. But I'm interested in your ideas on that. The Taliban weren't going to kick out Al Qaeda, they needed them. Al Qaeda was propping up the regime with money and more fanatical footsoldiers than they had in their Taliban forces.

Now we didn't have to occupy and try to rebuild. We could have just made sure the Taliban never got strong enough to return to power. You can argue against the nationbuilding, but I don't know that there's any serious argument against the invasion.

How do you do the latter without the former?

The Northern Alliance is stronger than the Taliban as long as they are better armed and Al Qaeda isn't able to back the Taliban up. Al qaeda had 5000 fanatical fighters. Now the Taliban are pretty close to being on their own, while the Northern Alliance enjoys the support of most of the world, with arms and money.