The Guardian Prints Column by al-Qaeda Financier

Via -- um, I'd rather not get into that right now. Let's just say his name rhymes with Space of Blades.

It looks like the English newspaper The Guardian has published an opinion column by Saad al-Fagih, an al-Qaeda financier. You know, because a homicidal thug's opinions are as valid as anyone else's, I guess.

But rather than devote a post to the Guardian's obvious and severe problems (you can find that here), I thought I'd actually address the substance of al-Fagih's column, entitled "Give up your freedoms - or change tack."

al-Fagih's argues that England is playing directly into al-Qaeda's hands with its harsh new crackdowns on Islamist fanatics. "No one will be more pleased than Osama bin Laden with the new measures announced by Tony Blair." I beg to differ. The Brits who no longer have to breathe the same air as the human garbage who actively agitate for the violent overthrow of the government -- and who until now have done so with government protection -- will be pretty darn pleased. Then again, it seems there's a fair number of Brits who don't feel that way (George Galloway I'm looking at you).

"There are two reasons for Bin Laden's satisfaction at what doubtless looks to him like a historic victory.

"First, he will believe he has succeeded in forcing Britain to abandon a number of hard-earned achievements in the fields of justice and liberty - achievements that took centuries of struggle and evolution to accomplish."

Uh, yeah. I'm sure Osama bin Laden, of all people, thinks that the Western world is full of justice, while the Islamic world is not. Right. I guess that explains why he lives in Afghanistan and plots the destruction of every non-Muslim government in the world.

"The second reason for Bin Laden's satisfaction is that his strategy is based on absolute polarisation. The world is to be split into two opposing camps: a bloc of Muslims with no infidels in their midst and one of infidels with no Muslims in their midst."

If that's his strategy, then he's a much bigger fool than anybody has ever given him credit for, for two reasons. First, his terror network survives only by virtue of its ability to blend into society. If polarization causes human society to split into two discernable camps, and if one of those camps has a (ahem) clear military advantage over the other, then the war will soon be over, with the radical Muslim extremists on the losing end. Consider that the only reason fighting is still going on in Iraq is because U.S. troops aren't up against a standing, discernable army; they are fighting against a shadowy enemy that usually isn't discernable on sight. Change that equation, and you strip away the only military advantage the Iraq jihadis enjoy right now. Is Osama that dumb? I'd like to think so, but I tend to doubt it.

The second reason is that as long as society is unpolarized, there will be terrorist apologists biting at the heels of those who are serious about stopping the terrorists. If the world is divided into only two camps -- those who think militant Islam is a good thing, and those who think it is a bad thing -- then those who think it is a bad thing will enjoy unrestricted freedom of action in crushing militant Islam in the most efficient way possible. No one can seriously doubt that the Zarqawis of the world are playing our media outlets and our private political dissensions for their own advantage. Will bin Laden really be happy to lose that advantage? I tend to think he's smarter than that.

"It is perhaps not surprising that Bin Laden was able to manipulate the cowboy element in the American political structures to his advantage, turning them into his own PR outfit, which influenced huge numbers of Muslims to become supporters of his group."

Now this is just bad timing, coming so soon after a poll showing support for bin Laden and terrorism is declining in Muslim countries. I guess the guy should spend more time on the internet.

Also, I love that "manipulate the cowboy element" bit. It makes me wonder whether this was written by a terrorist financier, or some of the guys I knew in law school. It's uncanny how similar they tend to sound.

"Yet Blair did not follow his acknowledgements to their logical conclusions. He did not say that this growth of al-Qaida occurred during his and Bush's colossal war against it, using all the military, political and intelligence powers at their disposal. The logical conclusion must be that the so-called war on terror in its present form, including the invasion of Iraq, is yielding precisely the opposite results to those intended."

That's an interesting theory, but he's failed to mention that al-Qaeda was also growing during the Bill "Ignore them and they'll go away" Clinton era. And he failed to mention that, as a result of the War on Terror, 25 million Afghans, including women, had a chance to vote for the first time in the history of the nation. And 25 million Iraqis, including women, had a chance to vote for the first time in the history of the nation. And Libyan dictator Muamar Ghadaffi opened up his country to weapons inspectors. And Lebanese protestors managed to peacefully topple a puppet government and force Syrian troops out after thirty years. And Kygyzstan kicked out a dictator. And now Mauritania has kicked out a dictator. And Ukraine peacefully mobilized against a would-be election-rigger. And Egypt loosened some restrictions on voting. And Saudi Arabia granted women the right to vote in municipal elections. And Kuwait and the U.A.E. are seriously discussing expanding women's rights.

And gee, that's an awfully long list; a mighty impressive set of trophies on Bush's mantlepiece. Compare all of that to what happened before the War on Terror. What does Bill Clinton have on his mantlepiece, other than a stained blue dress?

"I thought this composure would translate into alarm at Blair's subservience to the Americans. Then the political machinery started to run, using the American method of turning the smallest of prejudices, suppressed by centuries of civilisation, into fires stoked by politicians and the media. I have been surprised at the ease with which hard-won hallmarks of civilisation, historical and ethical commitments, have been dismissed so lightly."

Yeah, well, you blow people up in their own country, they're not likely to start liking Muslim extremists more, you know? Interesting that this clown considers a pile of dead British bodies such a trifle, such an insignificant speck, that it's positively shocking that the Brits had the audacity to react with anything other than stiff indifference.

Tell you what. Let's discuss Tom Tancredo's plan to nuke Mecca a little more seriously, and see how Muslims "lightly dismiss" their "historical and ethical commitments." Better yet, let's duct tape this pile of pig droppings to the tip of the Tomahawk missile we finally end up launching into bin Laden's filthy cave.