A man from Chicago, presumably Muslim, who travels the globe, is accused of being behind the Mumbai attacks a year ago.
Sound familiar?
It does to me. I'm no genius, but it sounds awfully familiar to me.
Let's get out the chalkboard.
The man's name is David Headley, and the connections to Obama are too questionable to not question, especially if you match up the letters in their names. I am not making up words here, these are their own names; names which, in at least one case, they chose for themselves.
Let's just take the first letter off of each name. O for Obama, H for Headley. "OH!" is an exclamation: this is important, this is big.
Next we take a B from Obama and EAD from Headley. You draw a "BEAD" on a target you're going to strike.
Then there's AM and EL. "AMEL" is an Arabic name, meaning "hard work." Curiouser and curiouser.
Finally, the last letter of each name, A and Y. "AY," as in, affirmative: yes, do proceed with the important attack we've been working hard for.
If you need it spelled out for you, there it is!
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at December 07, 2009 11:40 AM | Email ThisObama/Biden
are very similar to Al Qaeda's number one guy:
OsAMA/BIn laDEN.
(Cue exclamatory organ music).
I've posted this before. My wife and I sat horrified a week ago when 4 innocent police officers were gunned down. We looked at each other and said, the gunman will be a black man, and he will have a huge, violent ,criminal record. What a surprise. That was exactly the case.
Are we going to lock up dangerous criminals and protect innocent law abiding citizens? It doesn't seem likely.
Also read a story the other day about a man and a woman being beaten by "ten men" in Belltown. The victims did not provide a description of the men. Wonder why?
Posted by: jvon on December 7, 2009 01:11 PMSound Politics is survived by its bastard son, Red County.
Posted by: Walter Kronkite on December 7, 2009 01:20 PMWhen you make things deliberately obtuse and vague so as to set up some little inside joke, that makes you feel good (yay, you're in on your own little joke!) and everyone else just shrugs and says wtf? these kids are crazy..
:)
Posted by: AD on December 7, 2009 01:49 PMAre you implying that because I am conservative, and Beck is conservative, that I would not be likely to "make fun of Glenn Beck"? I can only think of one other reason you might say that: if you thought NO ONE should make fun of Glenn Beck.
When you make things deliberately obtuse and vague
I didn't think it was remotely obtuse or vague. I thought it was about as blunt as it possibly could be.
@11: What is your point?
Posted by: brasstax on December 7, 2009 04:30 PMI am glad to contribute to this humbling experience for you.
fitting, given his newfound desires...
Posted by: mike on December 7, 2009 05:41 PMBut . . . it would be AM and LE, not EL. What does AMLE spell?
I dunno, Pudge; most of the time I see your point, most of the time I agree, and a few times when I haven't agreed I've had lengthy and intelligent exchanges with you that I have enjoyed. This one - I'm not following. Even if I did, I assume you're making a joke, right? Otherwise, your post would seem to be as silly as numerology.
Posted by: srogers on December 7, 2009 06:04 PMYou and Mark are sooo right on.
BO is the anti-christ!
ya know Pudge, I could get to like you in another incarnation or so.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on December 7, 2009 07:28 PMyou need to speak arabic to understand.
Posted by: Andy on December 7, 2009 07:45 PMWhy?
the problem with soundpolitics nowadays is that a lot of the contributors deliberately talk down to readers. It doesn't make you look smart. It makes you look pompous. :)
Posted by: AD on December 8, 2009 04:23 AMObviously false. Several people got it, including, apparently, the first three commenters. And the only people who didn't get it -- like you -- were trying to read into it something that wasn't there.
And you're so glad to contribute to this humbling experience for all of us.
No, just brass. He's the only one that comment was directed to, and only because he said he took pride in something that he obviously ... shouldn't.
the problem with soundpolitics nowadays is that a lot of the contributors deliberately talk down to readers
I didn't talk down to you at all, or anyone else. I would have talked down to Unkl Witz if I had responded to him, but I didn't bother.
It doesn't make you look smart. It makes you look pompous.
I couldn't care less what you think I look like. Seriously.
Also, you didn't answer my questions to you. Why?
I think the problem for many of us is that we have never watched nor listened to Beck, so we didn't know who pudge was parodying. But now I know. Thanks.
Posted by: Truth Teller on December 8, 2009 07:25 AMYou didn't get my sarcasm, or more likely, are just using me to try to make a point. Either way, if you were seeking the limited audience of the first 3 comments, the post met it's goal. If you wish to include more of us that found it too vague, then develop the irony, so more of us can discuss/debate. Perhaps this post was meant as an inside joke. Despite what you said, I didn't read anything into your post, I just found it unclear. Enough of us did that it could be construed as a little constructive criticism, clearly lost on you.
Posted by: brasstax on December 8, 2009 08:22 AMNope.
or more likely, are just using me to try to make a point
Yep: I was making the point that you should feel humbled if you don't get something so obvious as this post.
Either way, if you were seeking the limited audience of the first 3 comments ...
I am not seeking any audience at all.
If you wish to include more of us ...
I don't wish to include anyone at all. I was just pointing out the fact that AD was wrong when he said no one got it. Again, you are reading into my words more than what's there, thinking that by saying some people got it, that I am trying to accomplish something, when I am merely responding to a false claim.
Perhaps this post was meant as an inside joke.
Nope. It was very obvious. Nothing inside about it at all.
I just found it unclear
There is nothing remotely unclear about it. The post is completely, entirely, transparent. No knowledge about Glenn Beck or chalkboards or anything else is needed (it makes reference to those things, but they are not necessary for getting it).
It's impossible for me to even understand what it is you don't get, which is why I say you're trying to read into it: I took two names and shoved them together to pretend to find hidden meaning that obviously isn't really there. That's all the post is. There's nothing to NOT get.
Well on your way there with this post.
Posted by: brasstax on December 8, 2009 11:29 AM