Osama's 'Letter to America'

Im amused at the thought that bin laden only wants us to feel what muslims feel ...and he wants to avenge their deaths...Has anyone here listened to him? 1) he is banished from his own country (Saudi arabia)...2)he has called for holy war not only against America and Israel, but against those Arab countries like Saudi and kuwait, who don't agree with his philosophy....Do any of you really and truly belive he has other muslims best intentions in mind? I like the part where he calls for America to convert to Islam or else!!....He is a self serving ego maniac who not only killed thousands, but has caused his own people death and destruction...Look at Mullah Omar in Afghan...Where's he? Most people never even heard of this guy prior to 9-11, but Osamd f*ed him over and now this former king is riding around on a donkey in the mountains of pakistan wearing a dress in disguise because of this man's actions....I'd love to hear that conversation:

Mullah: "why did you fly planes into the tower again?"

Osama: " to bring down the paper tiger and drive them from the middleast"

Mullah: " and now this paper tiger is sitting in my palace organizing a war against iraq, Im sorry I don't understand your plan...tell me again"

Osama: " we are going to bring them to their knees in a holy war"

Mullah: " um . Osama baby, i think your bladder bag needs to be changed...they had the war...they dethroned me and now they have a larger presence then ever before..keep it up and Iran might be next"
 
" ... The United States faces two possibilities during the next 10 years: It can follow the hawks’ path, with negative consequences for all but especially for itself. Or it can realize that the negatives are too great. Simon Tisdall of the Guardian recently argued that even disregarding international public opinion, “the U.S. is not able to fight a successful Iraqi war by itself without incurring immense damage, not least in terms of its economic interests and its energy supply. Mr. Bush is reduced to talking tough and looking ineffectual.” And if the United States still invades Iraq and is then forced to withdraw, it will look even more ineffectual.

President Bush’s options appear extremely limited, and there is little doubt that the United States will continue to decline as a decisive force in world affairs over the next decade. The real question is not whether U.S. hegemony is waning but whether the United States can devise a way to descend gracefully, with minimum damage to the world, and to itself."



Immanuel Wallerstein is a senior research scholar at Yale University and author of, most recently, The End of the World As We Know It: Social Science for the Twenty-First Century (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999).


full article at http://www.foreignpolicy.com/issue_julyaug_2002/wallerstein.html
 
how delightfully naive wild. putting your faith in a social 'scientist' (!).

i assume you quoted that particular one simply because you liked his conclusions. nothing too wrong with that; we all do it from time to time.
 
Quote from wild:

" ... The United States faces two possibilities during the next 10 years: It can follow the hawks’ path, with negative consequences for all but especially for itself. Or it can realize that the negatives are too great. Simon Tisdall of the Guardian recently argued that even disregarding international public opinion, “the U.S. is not able to fight a successful Iraqi war by itself without incurring immense damage, not least in terms of its economic interests and its energy supply. Mr. Bush is reduced to talking tough and looking ineffectual.” And if the United States still invades Iraq and is then forced to withdraw, it will look even more ineffectual.

President Bush’s options appear extremely limited, and there is little doubt that the United States will continue to decline as a decisive force in world affairs over the next decade. The real question is not whether U.S. hegemony is waning but whether the United States can devise a way to descend gracefully, with minimum damage to the world, and to itself."



Immanuel Wallerstein is a senior research scholar at Yale University and author of, most recently, The End of the World As We Know It: Social Science for the Twenty-First Century (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999).


full article at http://www.foreignpolicy.com/issue_julyaug_2002/wallerstein.html
More...

Is it surprising that Wild would quote someone who offers up only two possibilities during the next two years?

Only two possibilities?

Sounds a bit like black and white thinking, all or nothing thinking to me.

Sounds a bit like George Bush with his evil or good approach to life.

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." No other possibilities, is that right?

Reality is always full of many more than two possibilities, and always more shades of gray than all black or all white.

However, when Wild wants support his anti-American he will quote just about anyone to accomplish that goal.

No objectivity with Wild, but do we really expect objectivity from the all or nothing, extremist, US versus Them, black or white only, finely honed German mind?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top