Friday, October 29, 2004

bin laden: Further Faltering into Irrelevance

What cause is bin laden defending? That of Muslims? Nope. michael moore, conspiracy pundits, what everybody thinks of Bush and his motivations to go to Iraq are all irrelevant right now. What matters is that if you look at our actions on the ground, right now, our brave men and women are the ones defending Iraqis, fighting bin laden's outsourced lackeys alongside Iraqi Muslims. We're getting killed in combat, alongside Muslims, fighting a common perverted enemy that pretends to be of Muslim Faith, yet feeds on hatred, throwing its last ditch attempts at preserving and fostering this hatred. 170,000 Iraqi Men have enrolled to protect their country, and, despite tragic casualties, keep proudly signing-up at the recruiting offices. This might explain why bin laden isn't exactly dwelling on the casualties his lackeys are inflicting in Iraq ... he'd be drawing attention to the fact that he is, indeed, killing Muslims.

Let that sink-in for a second:

bin laden has even further lowered himself to cold-bloodedly killing Muslims.

His answer? "hey, let me get on TV and taunt Americans". Touché, indeed. He's still alive, prodding our fresh wound with his knife of hatred. ... What's with Sweden?

Yet, as I stare in the face of terror with anger and outrage, I look at an enemy slowly but infallibly approaching the event horizon of its ultimate downward spiral into the singularity of irrelevance.

One day, Afghanistan and Iraq will be proud, autonomous, independent, thriving Arab Muslim societies. They will be strong allies in protecting the Muslim Faith from terrorists.

Terrorism feeds on hatred. This hatred is the root of the terrorist ailment that has grafted itself onto the Muslim Faith. Attacking the root of this ailment, by painstakingly earning back Muslim credibility and building real Muslim alliances upon shared losses and beliefs, is, in my humble opinion, a highly underrated prong to a multi-pronged approach to fighting terrorism.

... One that I'm starting to believe Bush is judiciously pursuing.

Kerry is bringing the war on terror right back down to merely attacking the symptom of our ailment ... "al qaeda bad. al qaeda flew planes into towers. let's kill those terrorists". Should killing bin laden and his lackeys be the sole focus of a sound war on terror? What happens when we do kill those terrorists? What happens when we kill bin laden? What good will come out of granting him martyrdom while Muslim Children are born dead in a starving Iraq under the pressure of 12 years of continued U.N.-imposed economic sanctions? How long before someone else takes bin laden's place? Are we so blinded by our lust for retaliatory blood that we are unable to look ahead at the potential benefits of bringing a measure of peace and stability in the Middle-East to more effectively fight terrorism?

On November 2nd, I'll be questioning Kerry's strategy with my vote. And believe me, I really want to vote for Kerry. But right now, I can't bring myself to.

Bush in 2004I voted for Bush

2 comments:

Brett Rogers said...

Kerry's short-sighted approach is obvious to any who think it through. And it's unfortunate, because he could win the election.

You bring up a great point about martyrdom for bin Laden. It's why Israel has not killed Arafat. And they've been fighting their own war on terror for a long time, with enemies who swear to remove them from the face of the earth. They're smart. They understand the Islamic terrorist mindset. They know that Arafat is weak and that he is not the central point of their war.

So with bin Laden. From the bombing in Spain, to the Beslan massacre, to the Indonesian killings - all examples of Islamofascist terror, but not examples of bin Laden's control. Our enemy, which is the world's enemy, is much larger. And to focus only on bin Laden not only endangers us, but will hurt the trust others have that America can get the true bad guys.

One has to wonder - as you do - does Kerry "get" it?

Tom Brokaw had this exchange with Kerry:

Brokaw: Someone has analyzed the President's military aptitude tests and yours, and concluded that he has a higher IQ than you do.

Kerry: That's great. More power. I don't know how they've done it, because my record is not public. So I don't know where you're getting that from.

Perhaps Bush fights a smarter war on terror than Kerry might because Bush is smarter about it. But I'm certainly glad that you find Bush's better handling of our nation's war vote-worthy.

Smart post, Chris!

Chris Holland said...

Brett: Thanks.