October 29, 2004

Terms of Armistice, Terms of Surrender

Wretchard from Belmont Club on Bin Laden's statement. I've added the emphasis:

It is important to notice what [Bin Laden] has stopped saying in this speech. He has stopped talking about the restoration of the Global Caliphate. There is no more mention of the return of Andalusia. There is no more anticipation that Islam will sweep the world. He is no longer boasting that Americans run at the slightest wounds; that they are more cowardly than the Russians. He is not talking about future operations to swathe the world in fire but dwelling on past glories. He is basically saying if you leave us alone we will leave you alone. Though it is couched in his customary orbicular phraseology he is basically asking for time out.
The conclusion?
The American answer to Osama's proposal will be given on Election Day. One response is to agree that the United States of America will henceforth act like Sweden, which is on track to become majority Islamic sometime after the middle of this century. The electorate best knows which candidate will serve this end; which candidate most promises to be European-like in attitude and they can choose that path with both eyes open. The electorate can strike that bargain and Osama may keep his word. The other course is to reject Osama's terms utterly; to recognize the pleading in his outwardly belligerent manner and reply that his fugitive existence; the loss of his sanctuaries; the annihilation of his men are but the merest foretaste of what is yet to come: to say that to enemies such as he, the initials 'US' will always mean Unconditional Surrender.

Osama has stated his terms. He awaits America's answer.

Read the whole thing.

And think about what you really, really want on Tuesday. Do we want Versailles, or the deck of the Missouri?

If you don't know the difference, learn it before you vote.


Posted by Mitch at October 29, 2004 10:03 PM | TrackBack

It is about time that someone recalled that we are not children of some paltry inheritance. On hundreds of contested fields, in thousands of skirmishes, on distant waves, at heights that the naked eye can scarcely see, our men have waged war, and they have earned victory. Victory against the full power of the German, against the never defeated Japanese, and against many another who rose against us. Many have challenged us, none have ever lived to brag about it. No one has ever come looking for a rematch.

On the shoulder flash of the 1st Marine Division, there is a single word therein etched, Guadalcanal. Ships in our Navy have titles such as Tarawa and Guam. Often they bear the names of famous ships in our past, ships with glorious legacies, ships which have known immense victories, such as Ranger, Constellation, and of course Enterprise.

Any one of our storied Army divisions that has earned its place in the pantheon of military glory, {such as the 1st, the 3rd, the 42nd Rainbow, the 28th Keystone, the 1st and 2nd Cavalry, the 82nd, the 101st, and on and on it goes}, any one of those divisions gazes upon the pathetic pretentions of Osama and his gang with contempt.

It is about time that we treat bin laden with nothing but deserved disdain. No parley, no discussion, no negotiation, no summit, no intermediary, no emmisary, no conduit, no diplomatic back channel. Between us and you there is a chasm. It seperates the brave from the craven, the civilized from the barbaric, it divides nothing less than the damned from the saved. You have offered war, we have accepted. let it then be to the end, let it be victory or defeat, victor or vanquished, let it be to the death.

Dan M. Esq.

Posted by: Dan M at October 29, 2004 10:52 PM

Mitch, you are free to have your actions dictated by the whims of a tyrant. You are free to argue that a vote for John Kerry is a vote for Osama.

But you're just this side of evil for doing it.

For you to make this argument....

I've lost a great deal of respect for you.

Posted by: Jeff Fecke at October 29, 2004 11:49 PM


And you are free to maintain the reading comprehension of a sixth grader, too. I didn't say a vote for Kerry was a vote for Bin Laden. I said Bin Laden very, very much prefers a Kerry presidency, and this videotape pretty much confirms it. Do try to see the distinction.

Leftybloggers the world over have pretty much squealed like stuck cats at the notion that terrorists desperately prefer Kerry in office over Bush - but we see it here. Explain that away.

My actions are dictated by my desire to kill tyrants (plural), rather than find a way to co-exist with them. For you to suggest otherwise is...well, you know the drill.

And quit calling people "evil",Jeff. You're not qualified.

Posted by: mitch at October 30, 2004 07:45 AM

Jeff, This assesment from an Arab expert pretty much sums it up, don't you think?

Diaa Rashwan, a Cairo-based expert on extremist Muslim militants, said bin Laden was trying to influence Americans "to give Kerry their votes, not Bush."

Posted by: DocC at October 30, 2004 11:52 AM

Dipshit. Er, sorry, I mean, Jeff.

Weren't you the fuckwit who was calling Bush "Dear Leader" not so long ago?

Comparing Bush to a dictator that runs concentration camps and has slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people? Yep. You're the one to call people evil.

If I were a terrorist, I'd like Kerry in office. On 9/10, I supported Paul Wellstone. I voted for my first Republican in 2002. I bought my first gun ten months ago.

And its Dems like you that make me realize my only mistake was being a Democrat in the first place.

Posted by: Dean at October 30, 2004 09:23 PM