Bin Laden: Islamist or Patsy Poll-Tweaker?

Reason: Blogger, Bush-Basher, Bin Laden: Why does an Islamist warrior sound suspiciously like Michael Moore?: [why do you concieve that you can think in two dimensions? ]

Then it struck me: Bin Laden is a blogger. Not literally, of course, but he certainly speaks in the [bon mots] language of the blogosphere. He references Robert Fisk and Michael Moore, those darlings of the anti-war Web. In his latest statement, he recommends that people [is that merkins? or chinese?] read Rogue State by leftist author William Blum, another favorite of the leftwing blogosphere whose email newsletter, "Anti-Empire Report," is frequently republished and discussed. [ forgot your coffee today? this is verbose rubbish] Bin Laden also repeats conspiracy theories about 9/11 and lines of attack against Bush that I have read a thousand times on a thousand blogs [you, buffoon, write like a tritely turdalist].

.../... [sounds JUST like a PHONY CIA plant to ]
His justifications for 9/11 also changed in tune with Western theories. At first, in September 2001, he disavowed responsibility for 9/11, instead pinning the blame on some dastardly conspiracy within America itself. He talked about "a government within the government in the United States" which may have facilitated the attacks because "there are intelligence agencies in the US which require billions of dollars of funds from the Congress and the government every year." Such theories will sound familiar to anyone who happened upon conspiracy-theory websites or some of the wackier blogs in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. By October, bin Laden was celebrating 9/11's impact on America's economy and sense of resolve, talking about "the psychological shock of the attack," .../...

Bin Laden's parasitical relationship with Western debate really came into its own from 2004 onwards. During this period he has sounded almost indistinguishable from various Bush-bashing blogs. In April 2004 he ranted about "big media," describing them as "agents of deception and exploitation." He said the war in Iraq "is making billions of dollars for the big corporations, whether it be those who manufacture weapons or reconstruction firms like Halliburton and its offshoot sister companies." Halliburton has, of course, become the bête noir of anti-war bloggers. Bin Laden also said, "It is all too clear, then, who benefits most from stirring up this war and bloodshed: the merchants of war who direct world policy from behind the scenes." This is also a popular idea in the blogosphere: that a wicked cabal led by Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney (both of whom have HUGE big business links) is leading America to war. Indeed, in his latest statement bin Laden spells out who these "merchants of war" are, describing Iraq as "the ill-omened plan of the four—Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz." He has also adopted the "war for oil" argument of various anti-war bloggers, arguing that the "black gold blinded [Bush]."

Bin Laden frequently namedrops the anti-war blogosphere's favorite authors and activists. In October 2004 he advised the White House to read "Robert Fisk, who is a fellow [Westerner] and a co-religionist of yours, but one whom I consider unbiased." [OBL sounds as powerless and un-indoctrinated as I am, what a HOAX; QED /jks] In the same statement bin Laden chastised Bush for leaving "50,000 of his citizens in the two towers" because he considered "a little girl's story about a goat and its butting [to be] more important than dealing with airplanes and their butting into skyscrapers."—a clear reference to Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11, which opens with footage of Bush reading My Pet Goat to a classroom of children on the morning of 9/11. Did bin Laden watch a pirate [why could he not buy one , damn twit; 'piracy' is for mongrels without money] DVD of Fahrenheit 9/11, or did he read about it on the Web? And now he has recommended that Bush and Co. read Blum's Rogue State. Funny [no it is apish, like how all boosh's accusations agains Saddam prior to hoaxed invadion were the precise thruth about his own 'bad theater play'] how this Islamist warrior never recommends that we read the Koran. [QED, he is a bad fake made by incompetents seeking a patsy for their Able-Danger -assisted- "attack" on the WTC. Gee, that computes better than 'your' tripe, yes? /jks]

Who knows whether bin Laden has access to the Web? Who knows whether he reads blogs, or [has constipation or polyps? ] or rather hears such arguments from supportive visitors from Pakistan or Afghanistan or [stan-istan , moron] Wherever-istan. But one thing is clear: His arguments sound remarkably familiar. Like bloggers he seems obsessed by media coverage of the Iraq war (and of himself) rather than by the substance of the war itself; and he certainly speaks in the shrill tones of some of the crankier left-wing bloggers. Bin Laden, it seems to me, is regurgitating the arguments of Western commentators and using them to justify his crimes [they do not need justifying, nor will the next two centuries of their retaliation]. He is less the armed wing of a clear or coherent Islamist-imperialism or Islamo-fascism than he is the armed [what evidence of arms or means or even 'cells' ? sheet-head? ] wing of the blogosphere, of the West's own fearful and tortured debates about war and terrorism today.

Brendan O'Neill is deputy editor of spiked in London. His [emesis?] journalism is archived [at noplace but his own fathead shrine] http://www.brendanoneill.net/.