Osama’s Penchant for Porn

Is anyone surprised at the titillating news of yesterday that the Navy SEAL team that invaded Osama bin Laden’s hiding-in-plain-sight compound recovered a big box of pornographic videos from bin Laden’s bedroom?

Really, what is the difference between this and, say, finding a copy of a Playboy magazine stuffed between the mattress and box spring of a 13 year old boy’s bed.

The whole radical Muslim thing?

All this does is underline how similar we all are. In a time when the radical right beats their chest about how “Islamofascists” are inherently different from Christian evangelicals, I have to just point to Osama’s porn stash as proof in the pudding that there is little difference between us.

As a matter of fact, I would go you one better and say that if you have strong religious feelings to the extent that you want to want to push your belief system on others, the chances are very good that you like to watch videos of naked ladies.

The man may have been a monster who masterminded the deaths of thousands over the past 10 years, but in the end, he was a human man who lived a lie just like the religious sexoholics who currently serve in state legislatures and congress. Just like the evangelicals who pound on the Holy Bible with one hand, and pound on some other thing with the other.

The Westernization of Osama bin Laden

Osama bin Laden hates Westerners. Westerners and Infidels.

So I find it not just a little ironic that, in a recent news article, bin Laden appears to be adopting a significantly Western idea and promoting it on his recently distributed audio cassette tape: prevent flooding near large bodies of water.

We in the West have been doing that for a couple of centuries now, in some cases to our detriment, the Mississippi Delta being one such case of exchanging subsiding wetlands for maintaining unflooded streets in New Orleans.

But I find this new attitude of bin Laden, an attitude that seems to be scoring him points in Pakistan which has recently suffered huge losses in the torrential rains and subsequent flooding, to be somewhat anti-Islamic and more pro-Western culture.

Islam, I am told, is all about Allah’s will, and submission to the will of Allah. Is this not right? Isn’t this the origin of the appendix to all stated predictions and hopes? In sh’ Allah? Roughly “God willing,” but more at “if it is God’s will.”

It comes from al-Qur’an, in Suryat Al Kahf:

“And never say of anything, 'I shall do such and such thing tomorrow. Except [with the saying]: 'If God wills!”

I’ve always seen Islam as somewhat fatalistic, that if something happens it is because it is the will of Allah. This is not too far flung from Christian beliefs that disastrous things occur because we cannot know the mind of God. But for the most part, we in the West often work at cross purposes to natural disasters (also known as, in the insurance industry, as acts of God). We work to avoid future flood disasters for instance by building levees.

But from the language I have seen from his tape, it now appears that bin Laden thinks that it is perfectly OK to work against Allah’s will and work to prevent Him from flooding His lands and harming His people.

In short, maybe there is some hope out there that some of these ideas, that are clearly Western in origin, are beginning to make some headway in the Middle East, and ironically enough, originating from the Number 1 Enemy of Western Culture: Osama bin Laden.

Maybe someday peace will break out in the Middle East. In sh’ Allah.

Bush Regime Can’t Make Up Its Mind on Pakistan

With us or agin’ us? I recall several years back in Bush’s speech on the War on Terror that if a country wasn’t with America on this, then they were “with the Terrorists”. Well a lot of water has gone under the bridge since that speech, and it would appear that not only is the vast majority of Americans “with the Terrorists” but also nearly every country in the world – I can’t speak for Rwanda, haven’t heard how they feel about the War.

But now, today I see two conflicting reports about Pakistan and I want to know which is the correct one. According to this White House publication, the US and Pakistan are BFF

“Pakistan: Three years ago, Pakistan was one of the few countries in the world that recognized the Taliban regime, and al-Qaida was active and recruiting in Pakistan without serious opposition. Yet the United States was not on good terms with Pakistan’s military and civilian leaders – the very people we would need to help shut down al-Qaida operations in that part of the world. Today, the United States and Pakistan are working closely in the fight against terror, and Pakistani forces are rounding up terrorists along their nation’s western border. President Musharraf is a friend of our country, who helped us capture Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the operational planner behind the 9/11 attacks. Today, because we are working with Pakistani leaders, Pakistan is an ally in the war on terror, and the American people are safer.”

Well this ally had some pretty harsh words today on the news that the United States could take action inside Pakistan. To this news, White House homeland security adviser Frances Townsend said "There are no tools off the table, and we use all our instruments of national power to be effective."

Basically it comes from a NIE by Mike McConnell, Bush’s National Security Advisor, the gist of it is found in this quote from McConnell:

“Instead of pushing Al Qaeda out, the people who live in these federally administered tribal areas [in Pakistan], they made a safe haven for training and recruiting. And so, in that period of time, Al Qaeda has been able to regain some of its momentum.”

A Pakistani official, Interior Minister Aftab Sherpao, was righteously pissed off at this.

“Our stance is that Osama bin Laden is not present in Pakistan. If anyone has the information he should give it to us, so that we can apprehend him.”

Chief military spokesman Major General Waheed Arshad chimed in as well:

“Pakistani forces are quite capable of conducting operation(s) against militants on their territory and only they have the authority to do so.”

So we have a curious friendship here, one that can be best summed up by an ancient Nigerian proverb

“Hold a true friend with both your hands”.

Why is this so applicable? Well, I have to add this little addendum to the end of the proverb to make it make some sense:

“…so he can’t stab you in the back.”

"Surging" Troops to Afghanistan, Too?

I first read about it in the Houston, Texas Chron, and now in the Washington Post. “Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Wednesday he would consider more troops for Afghanistan…”.The numbers he is considering are reported to be around two thousand. The Afghanistan government is requesting 2300. That is, two thousand troops in addition to the 20,000 plus troops being “surged” to Iraq.

So now, not only is the War in Iraq being escalated, the War On Terror in Afghanistan is, as well. Actually, no. The War On Terror in Afghanistan is being put on hold while we fight the War On The Taliban. Put on hold because we can’t find any Al-Qaeda terrorists to kill.

The Taliban, it will be recalled, were not Al-Qaeda, just the Islamic Fundamentalist government in Afghanistan that took power when the Russians were booted out. Their association with Al-Qaeda was to the extent that they gave them safe haven within their borders, and allowed them to train there. It was an alliance of convenience. Made inconvenient to them when their guests decided to kill on a mass scale. Al-Qaeda - Taliban: all painted together with broad brush strokes.

I recall another Taliban alliance of convenience that came home to roost in Sugar Land, Texas. You remember the alliance that was forged in the late 1990’s between Unocal, an oil company with offices in Sugar Land (and recently swallowed up by ChevronTexaco), and the Taliban? Oh, but that's not fair - that's when the Taliban only did stuff like destroy 2000 year old Buddhist shrines with cannon fire.

I’m not rambling, I'm just trying to understand things here. Who we are actually fighting, and why.

But my main concern in all of this is why we are escalating the war in Afghanistan when we are not involving the real culprit in all of this, our friend and ally, Pakistan.

According to all intelligence on this, the Taliban are not established in Afghanistan. Their organized elements are encamped across the border, in Pakistan. They cross the border to engage our troops in Afghanistan, and then break off and return to Pakistan where US troops cannot go, because Pakistan is our ally.

So by not engaging their military in uprooting these elements within their own borders, like a true ally would, is Pakistan then harboring them in a safe haven, allowing them to engage our troops at will? Are they not doing for the Taliban what the Taliban were themselves doing for Al-Qaeda?

And why do we continue to fight these fights alone?