I've got a new site meter; it's fascinating, because it shows me the location of servers accessing my blog - everywhere from Poland to New Zealand. And disturbing, because it says 90% of my hits come from people googling Osama bin Laden. Since I'd hate to let down my reading public, here's more of the Osama you know and love:

You can tell he's a good communicator because he talks with his hands

Now, having indulged the public thirst for recycled bin Laden photos, please indulge me with an explanation. Why do you want to see him? OK, he's handsome, with his equine nose and full lips, but judging by the number of bullet holes photoshopped onto his forehead in blogland, it's not a physical attraction.

I'll hazard a guess: people have bought the 'axis of evil' rhetoric. Bin Laden is an evil-doer, the number-one enemy of America, and his continued escape from justice warrants the war on terror. How could someone be so diabolically evil to bomb innocents, yet so fiendishly clever to escape the combined might of the Pakistani army & secret services, and the American army & CIA?

I have another guess: he's more valuable to the U.S. alive than dead. Bush is floundering in the war on terror: his congressional allies are questioning him like they wouldn't have dared a year ago. American soldiers keep dying. The election isn't going to stem the Resistance movement. Despite the best rhetoric of the interventionists, this 'exercise in democracy' is not a result of occupation, but of pressure on the occupiers by the Iraqi people themselves, and it won't lessen their support for national liberation. The Americans have finished their polish job on the occupation; the misery and brutality continues.

Decent ratings in the attractive Political-Islamist category - Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Capturing bin Laden now would be the swan song for Bush. He could pose as a hero for definitively defeating the enemy, maybe drag it out by putting bin Laden on trial. But with bin Laden away, who would justify the war on terror? After all, that's not supposed to end. Ahmadinejad has some potential, but he hasn't committed a crime on bin Laden's scale. Holocaust-denying and nuclear-power-caginess can't really justify an invasion. Besides, he's a populist with genuine support among the Iranian masses. Kim Jong Il hasn't invaded anyone. 'Zarqawi' gets caught, killed and escapes a couple times a month. Saddam Hussein is mounting a valiant defence of being Saddam Hussein. Who else remains?

No - for now, bin Laden is the best shadowy enemy available. But, gentle readers, I'd like to suggest that he's a stand-in. You don't have to believe in a 9/11 conspiracy to know that America needs its enemies, and if there aren't any big ones made to order, it'll create them. Bin Laden was a distant confidante of the CIA in its war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. He outlived his usefulness - or rather, he found another usefulness - as the 'Other' at the head of a terrorist network. Politically, he doesn't have much power, except that which the U.S. war on terror grants him. And if he disappears, they'll need another to take his place. 'Oceania must always be at war.'

If it's just pictures of killers you're looking for, here's my suggestion:


Bush recently admitted the war has cost 30,000 Iraqi lives; a low estimate, but that still makes him 10 times the killer Bin Laden is. To speak nothing of the torture and human rights violations his administration authorizes. And he exudes a certain boyish charm next to Osama's more scholarly good looks.

So, thanks for your visit, and please stay and browse. And since all the talk of mass-murdering fuckheads can leave a bad taste in your mouth, here's some more pleasant fare: gay-positive kung fu! The genre doesn't exactly challenge traditional gender roles. So, intentional homo-erotic subtext or not, you gotta admit this is pretty cute: