Hey, wait a minute, Osama. This Darfur thing is supposed to be all about racism. Don't disrupt the media dogmas, please.
By Mike Pflanz in the Telegraph (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):
Osama bin Laden has issued a fresh call for a "holy war" against a new 26,000-strong peacekeeping force for Darfur, which will include British support staff.In an audio recording issued by al-Qa'eda this week, bin Laden also said that Muslims in Sudan and its neighbours must target the Khartoum government for agreeing to the deployment.
"This is a brazen occupation, and only an infidel apostate seeks it or agrees to it," bin Laden said.
"It is the duty of the people of Islam in the Sudan and its environs, especially the Arabian peninsula, to perform jihad against the crusader invaders and wage armed rebellion to remove those who let them in."
He always couches his appeals in this kind of language: "the people of Islam," etc. Yet the one thing the West is determined not to notice or to take into account is the religious nature of those appeals.
Is it just me,
or have you guy´s noticed that Usama soon will be att war with everybody on this planet. That guy is realy in a hurry to condemn all and everyone who´s not dancing to his tune.
Can somebody else sence the desperation of the intollerant people. When you don´t fall in line the will threaten you with all kinds of hell and soon they´re alone the righteous!
Will muslims wake up to this inner logic of islamism? And thus take a real and serious look at islam it self? The core-texts in the qur'an and sunnah, that Usamasquad are using and recruting peacefull muslims by?
Just like a muslim, to declare jihad against a peacekeeping force attempting to prevent genocide and alleviate human suffering.
cAi
that tends to happen with malignant narcissists, either they must be your hero, or they must be your enemy...they don't care which you choose, as they must have the audience, one way or the other.
The good news is, this is a clear and unmistakable sign things are not only NOT going well with him & his ilk, but are going VERY badly...many (even amongst his peers) aren't even listening to him anymore as he's been more and more marginalized (yes, there is an advantage to just keeping him holed up in a mountain cave rather than making him a martyr by killing his sorry ass outright-it diminishes his status in his own peers eyes).
Now he admonishes his peers in illucid fashion, and his peers even see this one...and are wondering.
But you can bet there will be at least some attacks carried out, since only their moon god be invoked, and suddenly they...are...ON it!.
Bin Laden, calls for war in Darfur? Did anyone see him?
I was under the impression he was dead.
Why get involved,the blacks, if they replace the Arabs will be just as bad to their own people.
Whatever happens the Left will blame the USA/West anyway.
It's a rock and a hard place.
Bin Loser has become bigger than Illah with his constant statements on the duty of waging jihad everywhere. You'd think by now at least a couple of the Destroyers would ask who died and made him boss. Hell, he's trying to outdo Mr. Perfect at warmaking at this point.
frankly,
I don't care what happens in darfur...it's western sudan, aka, mOslem vs mOslem, the hollyweird left's obsession...
UNlike the SOUTHERN sudan where mOslems are butchering Christians, which the same hollyweird left doesn't give a rats @$$ about.
Mad Bin himself doesn't go to jihad, naturally. He is busy impregnating his countless wives for the sake of Allah, following the example of his pedophile prophet.
of course, he's gonna proliferate...
"...for he knows his time is short..."
"He always couches his appeals in this kind of language: "the people of Islam," etc. Yet the one thing the West is determined not to notice or to take into account is the religious nature of those appeals."
....The wheels are turning and the religious nature of the constant Islamic calls for violence are getting more and more recognition....
....there are many terms formerly avoided that are creeping into the daily newscasts and political interviews....and more and more people are reading this and similiar internet sites...
....the "infidels" (or at least the infidels who care enough to learn the facts) are getting "Islamic streetwise)....
...and the Militant Muslims are finding the road is getting more bumpy....
Osama is becoming the Baghdad Bob of Waziristan.
Issuing proclamations that no one cares about or believes.
Not even many Muslims anymore.
(Since we killed tons of them in Iraq and Afghanistan when they followed OBL's first 6 years of Jihad exhortations... and got nothing but a long dirt nap for their "Lion of Allah" troubles... it may be that the biggest Muslo-suckers are now with their 72 year old virgin.)
Keep blathing O' Bin.
You look stupider and less effective every time.
Probably because all people tire of Over The Top all the time
All people.
in an audio recording issued by al-Qa'eda this week, bin Laden also said that Muslims in Sudan and its neighbours must target the Khartoum government for agreeing to the deployment.
"This is a brazen occupation, and only an infidel apostate seeks it or agrees to it," bin Laden said.
............................
So now Osama bin Laden is calling the murderous Islamist government in Khartoum "Infidel Apostate"? Man, that dude is hardcore! Also, didn't Sudan give him a base from which to build Al Qeada in the early '90s? No loyalty there.
Jcom wrote:
I don't care what happens in darfur...it's western sudan, aka, mOslem vs mOslem, the hollyweird left's obsession...
UNlike the SOUTHERN sudan where mOslems are butchering Christians, which the same hollyweird left doesn't give a rats @$$ about.
.........
Yes, I've never understood this. Darfur is so obviously part of the global Jihad--they even use the same Qu'ranic rhetoric. Yet some of the same people who are convinced that Iraq (and even Afghanistan) are just wars for oil, and that the Intefada is just a war of liberation against "oppressive" Israel, and that would-be genocidal Ahmadinejad is just standing up against the bullying West for his little country, are all for "Peace-keeping" intervention in Darfur.
I do care about Darfur, but it's part of the Jihad tactic of Takfir--making it OK to target fellow Muslims by declaring them to be in one way or another insuficiently Muslim, or "Apostate".
Often just being non-Arab is sufficient grounds. Arab Khartoum is doing this with the non-Arab blacks of Darfur, Sunnis do it with Shi'ites and vice-versa, the basis of much of the oppression of Kurds and Berbers is based on this, and oppression of small-sect Muslims such as Azeris and Ahmadis. Or it can be a percieved insufficient commitment to the Jihad--this is what OBL is claiming vis-a-vis the Sudanese government.
I'm not sure why Darfur has become such a liberal darling cause--I have asked people and not gotten a coherent answer. It is clear, though, that it is one more thing about the global Jihad that is poorly understood by many in the West.
Osama bin Laden is now attacking the government in Khartoum, decrying the permission given by the fanatical Arab Muslims in Khartoum to the "infidels" -- i.e., allowing in some completely ineffective troops from the African Union to "keep the peace" in Darfur.
He needn't worry. Turabi is still Turabi, and the Muslims of Khartoum are just as fanatically vicious as they ever were. They are just willing to be a bit more mindful of Muhammad's "war is deception" as they attempt to diminish Western pressure on them. Hence that "peace treaty" with the Christians and animists in the southern Sudan, which "treaty" is, of course, merely a hudna or "truce" treaty and, for the past six months at least, has been grossly violated by the Sudanese government -- and with seeming indifference by the Western powers, which content themselves with the notion that there is now an agreement, a "peace agreement," in the southern Sudan, and they can all forget about that part of the Sudan.
In Darfur, the Sudanese government has made sure that the troops will only be from the African Union, and has repeatedly said that not a single Western soldier will be allowed in. In other words, there will be no force effective enough to smash the Janjaweed, and protect the black Africans being killed for the crime of being black African, rather than Arab, Muslims.
Osama Bin Laden and his Arabs famously treated the Afghani Muslims with indifference, or contempt. The Arabs, after all, are the "best of peoples" to whom the Qur'an was given, and -- so Muslims believe -- in Arabic. In his remarks on the Sudan, he reveals his indifference to, or rather his tacit approval of, the mass murdering of black Africans. That is not surprising. What is surprising is how this is overlooked by the entire Western world, including those -- such as Nicholas Kristof -- who write about the Sudan without any mention, much less understanding, of either Islam, or that aspect of Islam that makes it a vehicle for Arab cultural, linguistic, economic, and political imperialism. That subject is too difficult and too troubling for the heart-on-sleeves (and Pulitzers carefully pocketed) likes of Nicholas Kristof and others like him, who can report, who can be mere reporters, full of their easy anguish, but who cannot make sense, for themselves much less for others, of what it is they have been reporting on. They cannot explain the promptings, the attitudes, the atmospherics, that move the people who run the government in Khartoum. They cannot explain the Arab Muslim view of non-Arab Muslims. Don't expect someone on the mental level of Nicholas Kristof to conceivably beable to make a connection between the massacres of Kurds by Arabs in Iraq, and the cultural and linguistic imperialism of the Arabs directed at the Berbers in Algeria, and what is happening in Darfur, where he reports so much, and understands so little.
No, Bin Laden doesn't have to worry about the Turabi government in Khartoum. They know exactly how to delay any day of reckoning.
But what of the American government? Does it realize what an opportunity it is missing by not sending a few thousand troops to seize all of the southern Sudan (with its oil, that would allow that region to pay for itself, and deny those oil revenues to the Arabs in the north?), and Darfur, and holding them until a referendum on independence can be held? That would be a blow for that "freedom" and "democracy" that, unlike in Iraq, might actually mean something because the southern Sudanese are not Muslims, and those in Darfur are nominal Muslims who, having had a taste of the Arab Muslim attitudes, might be willing to listen to the message of Christianity -- already hundreds of refugees from Darfur have apparently, once out of the Sudan, converted to Christianity. Quite an opportunity presents itself for the American government to draw a line against further Arab (and Egyptian Arab) expansion further south, threatening Ethiopia, and Kenya, and the rest of the littoral, including Tanzaniya, which is where the old Arab slave trade had its entrepots, at Pemba and Zanzibar, to ship those black slaves to the Arab slave markets of Muscat, and beyond.
But Tarbaby Iraq gets in the way. It gets in the way of properly dealing with Iran's nuclear project. It gets in the way of domestic surveillance that is amply justified. It gets in the way of thinking clearly about the future of the Western countries now subject to demopraphic assault from within. It gets in the way of considering the Jihad as a world-wide phenomenon, one for which terrorism is the least effective of its weapons.
Bin Laden needn't worry about the Sudan. The government there knows exactly what it needs to do to protect the Arab Muslim position, and it has already violated the "peace agreement" with the south in ways that, if Bin Laden knew, would leave him well-satisfied. And they are doing much the same, or trying to, in Darfur.
Those who need to worry about the Sudan are the Infidels. Why has the American government not yet taken the step -- the "humanitarian" step -- of rescuing the black Africans of Darfur and the southern Sudan? Why has it not allowed its troops to be deployed effectively, instead of ineffectively -- to attain exactly the wrong goals -- in Iraq? Why has it not created a situation in which the Arab League would have to denounce the Americans (and other Western troops) for protecting the obviously grateful (see those photographs of smiling black faces surrounding their saviors and protectors) for ending the mass murder, by Arabs, of black Africans. What better way to drive a wedge between Arabs and sub-Saharan Africa? What better way to bring to the attention of black Americans, one group long targetted for sinister campaigns of Da'wa, that the Arabs conducted a slave trade that lasted far longer (indeed lasts to this day, despite Western efforts to end it), and claimed far more victims (see "The Hideous Trade") than the Atlantic slave trade and that the Qur'an permanently recognizes the institution of slavery (and Saudi clerics have restated that position repeatedly), and the fury of the Arab League over the rescue of black Africans in Darfur or southern Sudan ought to tell us all a great deal about the real attitudes and intentions of the Arabs.
The Sudan presents a great opportunity to weaken the Camp of Islam, through a very small deployment and application of force. Iraq, on the other hand, presents a great opportunity to weaken the Camp of Islam not through the bringing of "democracy" and keeping the country together, but by the removal of American troops, in order that the pre-existing fissures, sectarian and ethnic, may work themselves out, as they inevitably will.
There is no contradiction here between a policy of removal in Iraq and intervention in Sudan. Both measures would contribute to weakening the Camp of Islam. And that is, or should be, the goal.
Let's call for a slimwa against this universal bore.
Let's hope the last thing he sees is a Bhutto bullet, or better still, the dust ammo flareup of a US marine.
(many thanks to our forces)
And since this is a wish list, want to see Zawahiri and a few members of the muslim botherhood along with Osi as well.
I'm not sure why Darfur has become such a liberal darling cause--I have asked people and not gotten a coherent answer.
by gravenimage
IMHO, Darfur is like Bosnia. After a decade of Muslim terrorism against the West, primarily in Europe, Bosnia gave liberals a picture of besieged Muslims being put down by the evil infidel. THESE were Muslims they could support, since they had been living under Communism for decades and were now trying to live in freedom.
Darfur (to the liberals) is yet another case of innocent besieged Muslims who had never tried to hurt anyone. The Left feels secure in helping them and promoting their cause. It doesn't hurt that race is part of the equation. It's also the cause of the underdog being put down by the apparatus of the state, which always tugs at the heart.
I just love Bin Ladens consept of getting along.
Translation: "How dare these infidels meddle in our civil wars! Who are they to tell us Muslims how to keep peace? Can't they get it through their fat skulls that Islam = peace? Besides, better it be black Muslims to die violently at the holy hands of their Arab brethren (and vicey versey) than to have unholy peace forced upon them by 26,000 foreign unbelievers!"