|
« Calm down guys, calm down
Main |
January 09, 2004
Spot the difference
According to the Telegraph diarist, the Guardian has been in a bit of a flap over the latest columnist who burst onto its pages this week, one Osama bin Laden. One or two of the comrades appear to feel that publishing the latest (alleged) bin Laden rant might have gone just a teeny bit too far. So what did the west's public enemy number one actually say? He urged jihad against the 'Zionist-crusader chain of evil' and declared that Baghdad had been occupied 'under the guise of the search for weapons of mass destruction'. Yup, sounds like a regular Guardian columnist to me. Posted by melanie at January 9, 2004
Comments
Andrew Neil in The Scotsman "• The Guardian did us all a favour yesterday by publishing the transcript of Osama bin Laden’s latest edict. I know some will resent giving his evil ramblings further publicity, but it is important to know the nature of the enemy and the short clips carried in the broadcast media don’t give us the full flavour of what he is all about. Read the transcript, however, and you will quickly see that this is not a terrorism which can be dealt with through tackling its "root causes", as the anti-American, liberal-Left constantly urge. This is a man who regards both the Middle East road map, and even the more radical recent Geneva peace initiative, as a "trick" and specifically states that the only "dialogue" he wants is "through arms". He will only cease his terrorism when every Israeli has been swept into the sea and the whole of the Middle East is under al-Qaeda-style control - so why you would want to remove his "causes" of terrorism is beyond me. As with German Nazism 60 years ago, so with Islamo-Fascism today: the only effective response is force. The Guardian has done well to bring that home; pity it has yet to dawn on its own leader writers." Posted by: rob at January 9, 2004 07:26 PMNow that Osama is a journalist can we expect Reporters sans Frontières to rush to his defence once the Americans capture him? Posted by: Eursoc at January 13, 2004 09:40 AM |
