Osama Bin Laden and Warlovers Agree on Iraq

Osama pretties himself up by dyeing his beard and speaks:

Bin Laden makes no overt threats and does not directly call for attacks, according to the transcript, which was first posted by ABC News on its Web site.

Instead, he addresses Americans, lecturing them on the failures of their leaders to stop the war in Iraq despite growing public opposition in the U.S.

"There are two solutions to stopping it. One is from our side, and it is to escalate the fighting and killing against you. This is our duty, and our brothers are carrying it out," bin Laden said.

"The second solution is from your side. I invite you to embrace Islam," he said.

One result of that, bin Laden said, would be an end to the Iraq war. He said "warmongering owners of the major corporations" would rush to appease voters who showed they are looking for an alternative, "and this alternative is Islam."

Right, dude. What I was looking for was a medieval religion so that I, too, could apply Just For Men in a cave while eating a lamb that was the first female animal I had seen in a year and a half and scheming to drag Saudi Arabia from the 19th century back to the 12th.

Actually, I have a better idea: Why don't I help elect a President who will go into Pakistan and hunt your ass down? Yeah, that's a much better idea.

But I can't help but notice that Bin Laden's rhetoric on the Iraq war is exactly the same as rightwingers here in America.  He takes credit on behalf of al Qaeda for opposing the U.S. there, just like the rightwingers. And he says that they will go on fighting us until we convert to Islam, just like the rightwingers do.

Hmmm. I wonder. Has anyone ever seen Osama and Michelle Malkin in the same place?

Update: On a related note, Jim Henley:

Islam lacks a hierarchy that can enforce orthodoxy. Anyone can proclaim himself an “Imam” and start issuing doctrinal claims. He will attain just as much authority as his powers of persuasion.

If you think about it, the Islamophobic Right are setting themselves up as Imams of a sort. I’m talking about the bedwetters at LGF and Jihadwatch and Gates of Vienna and WND and beyond, the professors and pundits who insist that the Koran “really means” that all Muslims must engage in violent holy war against non-Muslims, and that any Muslim who doesn’t do this is “a bad Muslim.” ...

[A]side from the absurdity of a bunch of haoles declaring themselves the authoritative interpreters of a religion they don’t practice and don’t even like, think of the pragmatic problems. There are clearly lay Muslims and Muslim clergy who argue against the doctrine that all Muslims are obligated to wage real war on all non-Muslims. Why would Westerners try to cut the legs out from under these people? What moron tells the Muslim in the next cubicle or across the counter or down the street, “No, you fool! You need to try to kill me!”

The only answer I can come up with is, “the stupid kind of moron.” Going forward, I think we need to start referring to these people as what they are, radical Imams. Promulgators of anti-Western interpretations of Muslim doctrine. Mullah Atlas. Mullah Johnson. Mullah Malkin. Mullah Farah. Mullah Pipes. By their own logic, we should deport them. Okay, we should clap them into camps and torture them by their own logic, but I’m against that kind of thing.

"Mullah Malkin". Heh. Indeed.

Comments

[thereisnorule6]

Osama is the ultimate blogger.