Back on November 24, 2002 Osama bin Laden promised to destroy the economy of the west. It’s six years later and his prophecy appears to have come true, at least in the United States. But yet the media has all but ignored his threat as the cause of our current problems. There is no doubt that Laden, his family, and his vast supporters have great influence in Saudi Arabia (as well as the rest of the Middle East) and they could easily have brought about the various scenarios we are facing now: high gas prices, devalued dollar, etc. Thus, the question of the day is whether his threat was in fact carried out or whether it’s all one big coincidence.




  1. acme says:

    I think obl was surprised by Allah taking down the towers, but disappointed by the Taliban getting wiped out.

    THEN, surprised by how over-terrorized Bush-America diverted to Iraq, and now happy that Bush has killed even more Americans than himself.

    And now pleasantly surprised by Taliban resurgence in Afgahnistan, failure in Iraq, rising oil prices (btw which *some* Americans and a lot of Texans actually profit from), other signs of economic despair, and Bush et al continuing to keep America feeling terrorized.

    Come on, let’s take control back. Drop the arrogance, focus back on Afgahnistan, and focus back on minding our own business. And btw, terrorism may come back in other forms, like a dirty bomb in a container on a ship, in which case we should be working harder at making more cooperative relationships with our international neighbors… especially the ones sending us all the stuff via container ships that we so voraciously consume.

    That’s just one example of what terrorists might do someday. Hey, maybe they’re even spraying our produce with salmonella right now?

    Ie, our biggest problem never was Iraq, or even Saddam. We “stayed the course” until we got WAY lost, and into trillions of dollars lost. Brilliant economics there, huh, fearful, terrorized, flag-waving “Patriots”?

  2. MikeN says:

    How do you know there is currently a recession?

  3. MikeN says:

    If the hypothesis is correct, that’s one more reason why Bill Clinton should have accepted Sudan’s offer to hand over Bin Laden. Could details of this offer have been what Sandy Berger stole from the National Archives?

  4. acme says:

    What’s so damned important about whether it’s actually called a recession, or not?

    We’ve screwed up big time, and could have been a lot “further ahead”, or a lot “less behind” depending on your preferred terminology.

  5. acme says:

    We’ve screwed up big time, and could have been a lot “further ahead”, or a lot “less behind”, depending on your preferred perspective.

    One’s preferred terminology (“recession” or not) isn’t really the point.

  6. Uncle Patso says:

    To paraphrase Shakespeare, “The fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves”