Slashdot Mirror
New Bin Laden Tape Surfaces
An anonymous submitter writes "Osama bin Laden delivered a new videotaped message in which he told Americans their security does not depend on the president they elect, but on U.S. policy. 'Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda.'"
Uh....
I know there was no official announcement, but the generalized concensus was that this guy was dead. All of that bombing out in the moutains, they won't say he's dead because they didn't find a body, but then, all they could find were body *parts*, and no DNA to compare it against.
This kinda screws up a WHOLE lotta thoughts of security in the middle east. Were not even going to talk about the good/bad/ugly that is Iraq.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
As illogical as it seems, this will scare USians into voting Bush/Cheney in this election. I think this is Karl Rove's October surprise and it will have a very distinct impact on the opinion polls across the nation. Unfortunately the impact will almost certainly benefit the Bushites.
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda.'"
Let me be the first to breathe a huge sigh of relief.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
That I for one welcome our new terrorist overlords. Fastest troll ever.
Does he actually want to defeat Bush, or does he know that Bush's approval ratings go up whenever he(Bin Ladin) makes a threat, and so he actually wants Bush elected?
OR does he know we know he knows, and he actually want Kerry elected?
Or.. wait a second.. does he know we know he knows we know he knows, and he actually wants Bush elected? DIABOLICAL!
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Do we really trust an Osama bin Laden tape that's surfaced right before the election? How do we know who really made it, or is responsible? And why would Osama bin Laden decide to finally clame responsibility after he said he didn't do it?
And a site note,
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/091004hilton.mp3
"This [9-11 terror] was all planned. This was a government-ordered operation. Bush personally signed the order. He personally authorized the attacks. He is guilty of treason and mass murder." Stanley Hilton (former senior advisor to Senator Bob Dole), 2004 interview
Bush had failed Americans with his Middle East policies, deceiving the nation and putting it at risk from further al Qaeda strikes, bin Laden said. The speech was his clearest claim yet of responsibility for the Sept. 11 strikes of 2001.
Appearing in a video released from hiding to Al Jazeera television four days before the U.S. presidential poll and gesturing with a finger to stress points, he said the Sept. 11 attacks would not have been so severe if Bush had been alert.
"Despite entering the fourth year after Sept. 11, Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you and therefore the reasons are still there to repeat what happened," he said.
It looked like a deliberate attempt to influence the U.S. election on Tuesday.
But he made little mention of Bush's Democratic challenger John Kerry, saying only: "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands and each state which does not harm our security will remain safe."
"our" security? Whose security?
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
Is there anything on the tape that can date it well? Kerry has been the choice (unofficially) for quite a while (few months) so it could have been made any time during then, even earlier if he had made one for each candidate. Are we even sure it's him and not an impersonator?
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
From the CNN article:
The terrorists will not scare the United States as it did Spain, the Phillippines and other countries. I do not believe Kerry would be as effective at this as Bush, but I do believe he will pursue and destroy al Qaeda should he become our President. Anything else sets the precedence to begin the destruction of America.
I believe that all Americans should unite behind our President, whoever he is in January, to continue and win this war for our security and the security of free people everywhere.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Just read what the man said. He makes sense. I trust him more than Bush or Kerry. You may say that he murdered 3000 at WTC, but it strikes me that he was at war. Was his war more bogus than our own in Iraq. We have killed 15 THOUSAND innocent civilians in Iraq. Seems like we are the murderous sociopaths, not OBL.
y &u=/ap/ 20041029/ap_on_re_mi_ea/bin_laden_tape_16
Here is a good transscipt of the tape:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor
eat shiat and bark at the moon
I think this is Karl Rove's October surprise and it will have a very distinct impact on the opinion polls across the nation. Unfortunately the impact will almost certainly benefit the Bushites.
As a part-time tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist, I too wonder about the timing here. CNN are suggesting this was a "Bin Laden October surprise" designed to tip the scales in favour of Kerry.
Bin Laden talks about how US aggression in the Middle East (e.g., he refers to 1982 US Naval support to the Israeli offensive against Lebanon) is his major motivation. All this seems to point to "Vote Bush Out" as the main mesage, for Bush has clearly shown that he is prepared to launch pre-emptive wars overseas (Iraq.)
But my gut feeling is that this new tape will only spur people on to vote for Bush, as it lends credence to his belief in an ongoing crusade against the "evils of terror", which of course is what Bin Laden personifies in a very powerful way for the average American voter.
So, knowing Karl Rove's interest in reverse-psychology publicity stunts, one has to wonder if this really is a genuine tape or not...
Of course he makes sense, thats how he gets such a large group of followers prepared to die! I've no doubt that he actually believes what he is saying aswell. Even so that doesn't excuse his actions, nor are the actions of Bush excusable in my mind. But, being Australian, my opinion doesn't count on who the "leader of the free world" is.
groklaw, wired and slashdot. The holy trinity of work based time wasting.
He and other muslims have been at war against the United States for 20 years - we've just been to stupid to see that and to take corrective action.
The figure I heard was 21,800 Iraqi Civilians - that was on the McLaughlin Report a few weeks ago. That of course doesn't include the number of dead American soldiers and the number of dead Iraqi soldiers.
... at all - but I will say that Bush Jr. has murdered at least seven times as many Iraqi civilians as Osama murdered Americans. And while I am an American I will not be so arrogant as to pretend that American lives are somehow more valuable than Iraqi lives.
... but they are both terrible people.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that I trust Osama bin Laden
I feel it is perfectly fair to pin these as 'murderes at the hand of Bush Jr.' - just as fair as it is to say that Bin Laden killed people on Sept. 11th. Neither of them did the actual killing - both of them did the planning and made the call to have the people killed.
In this regard Bush Jr. has shown himself to be a larger risk to the safety of the people of this world than Osama has. There are of course other factors and I'm not sure I could decide which one I trust _less_
"Ashlee Simpson and her band of infidels had failed Americans with her Saturday Night Live performance, deceiving the nation and putting it at risk from further al Qaeda strikes", bin Laden said. The speech was his clearest claim yet of responsibility for the Sept. 11 strikes of 2001.
Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
Funny how the above statement applies equally well to Bush and his troops, as it does to bin Laden and his followers.
Which, I think, was the parent's point.
-- mind over pixel
Even using 15K as an accurate measurement of civilian casualties (and, to say the least, there is a large amount of contention over the exact number and how many 'combatants' were accidentally included), it still beats the number of people Saddam killed per time -- estimated at 300K over 23 years. 300K / 23 = 13K, 15K / 1.5 = 10K. From just a numbers point of view, I'd say things are better now than under Saddam. More importantly, the civilians that have been killed are collateral damage vs the terrorist philosophy of using them as targets with the goal of spreading fear among a wider population.
War is hell and innocent people die, its redeeming quality is that we end up with a better, more lasting peace, and advance the interests of our culture in having a safer world. If you (not the parent poster, the generic "you") can't see that that's worth more than a status quo world of dictators "contained", that it's something worth risking and taking lives for, then just do us all a favor and put away your megaphone, protest sign, and STFU so we can defend civilization.
Oh, and in response to OBL's reasoning behind the 9/11 attacks, I would support Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, any day over the dictatorships trying to push it into the sea.
[page title: Access Denied]
Access Denied
You don't have permission to access "http://www.georgewbush.com/" on this server.
I have never understood how readers of a technical blog, can have such a warped sense of logic.
OBL planned and ordered the direct attack of innocent civilians. Bush is waging a war to bring people who use such tactics to justice. At the same time we do everything we can to respect international treaties, and spare innocent lives. Young people today have no concept of what true war is like. 50 million people died fighting WWII. I'll take todays war over the wars of yesteryear any day. Peace is always better, but ignoring the rest of the world and doing nothing is unacceptable.
We could go back to the time where we just lob a few cruise missiles into aspirin factories, to protect civilians and american soldiers, everytime we get bombed. But it seems to me, that's what we used to do, and it led to September 11th.
He's an admitted multiple mass murdered, one of the greatest villians of his time, and you're quibbling over his grammar?
If I wiki grammar nazi, is there a link to your picture?!
Well said. Who would argue that the American Civil war wasn't worth it? Or that we should have stayed out of WWII?
Every major war in the world for the last 150 years has led to the advancement of rights, liberty, and economic improvement. Sure it's terrible when people die, but war is inevitible. And usually good always wins in the end, and the world is better off.
Why haven't we caught this guy? Why is he still putting mix tapes out?
-- jimmycarter
You are both WAY off. Try 100,000
http://news.google.com/news?q=iraq+100%2C000
Bush is waging a war to bring people who use such tactics to justice.
I find it pretty sad that people like you have convinced yourself that attacking Iraq was somehow related to bringing terrorists to justice.
over 100K people die every day in this world, and 5K of them are Americans. A lot of them are dying from cancer. Why don't we wage war on cancer instead?
eat shiat and bark at the moon
And the site's fine now, BTW.
of this topic. His request is simple, he's asking the US public to do some self-reflection; to allow a bit of humility, to examine ourselves. It's a fantastic ploy, and I'm sure BL is sincere.
However, I hardly think for a second that Joe-Six-Pack-Swing-Voter is going to even bother to humor that sort of thinking. This leaves both canidates to ignore the line of argumentation that he has put forth. More than that, no mainstream news paper will dare touch it, for fear of being bashed as "Liberal". This leaves the tabloids.
I also think there is a nuance to what the US view is that escapes the understanding of most people who aren't Americans. Fear in America is a little different. It doesn't elicit compliance, it elicits swift violence and a suspenstion of the normal rules. (Until Spain, I actually thought this was pretty universal.) The argument in America isn't about what's the proper response to fear, but whether it's all bullshit to get Bush re-elected or whether it's justified. I subscribe to the former, but when it comes to fear, if it's not your friend shoot it. Write the poem about your feelings later. And however little I might think of Bush, and particularly his motley crew, I know which team I play for.
Oh yeah, I forgot. Iraqi's bombing Iraqi's in Iraq are insurgents. There are no terrorists in Iraq.
Open your eyes.
Attacking Iraq was about bringing a Dictator to justice, because once again we were the only ones willing. You can believe everyone sat around flying kites in Iraq before we arrived. You can also believe that Hitler just giving Jews free showers.
Saying that we are the cause of terror in the middle east is like saying a man who gets killed trying to stop a fight deserved it. We're in Iraq, we miscalculated the response, we'll fix the problems, and see it through to the end. War isn't perfect, nothing is. But giving up because things don't go perfectly, is worse than losing.
"You American people, my speech to you is the best way to avoid another conflict about the war and its reasons and results. I am telling you security is an important pillar of human life. And free people don't let go of their security contrary to Bush's claims that we hate freedom. He should tell us why we didn't hit Sweden for instance. Its known that those who hate freedom don't have dignified souls, like the 19 who were blessed. But we fought you because we are free people, we don't sleep on our oppression. We want to regain the freedom of our Muslim nation as you spill our security, we spill your security.
I am so surprised by you. Although we are in the fourth year after the events of sept 11, Bush is still practicing distortion and misleading on you, and obscuring the main reasons and therefore the reasons are still existing to repeat what happened before. I will tell you the reasons behind theses incidents.
I will be honest with you on the moment when the decision was taken to understand. We never thought of hitting the towers. But after we were so fed up, and we saw the oppression of the American Israeli coalition on our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind and the incidents that really touched me directly goes back to 1982 and the following incidents. When the US permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon with the assistance of the 6th fleet. In these hard moments, it occurred to me so many meanings I cant explain but it resulted in a general feeling of rejecting oppression and gave me a hard determination to punish the oppressors. While I was looking at the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it came to my mind to punish the oppressor the same way and destroy towers in the US to get a taste of what they tasted, and quit killing our children and women.
We didn't find difficulty dealing with Bush and his administration due to the similarity of his regime and the regims in our countries. Whish half of them are ruled by military and the other half by sons of kings and presidents and our experience with them is long. Both parties are arrogant and stubborn and the greediness and taking money without right and that similarity appeared during the visits of Bush to the region while people from our side were impressed by the US and hoped that these visits would influence our countries. Here he is being influenced by these regimes, Royal and military. And was feeling jealous they were staying for decades in power stealing the nations finances without anybody overseeing them. So he transferred the oppression of freedom and tyranny to his son and they call it the Patriot Law to fight terrorism. He was bright in putting his sons as governors in states and he didn't forget to transfer his experience from the rulers of our region to Florida to falsify elections to benefit from it in critical times.
We agreed with Mohamed Atta, god bless him, to execute the whole operation in 20 minutes. Before Bush and his administration would pay attention and we never thought that the high commander of the US armies would leave 50 thousand of his citizens in both towers to face the horrors by themselves when they most needed him because it seemed to distract his attention from listening to the girl telling him about her goat butting was more important than paying attention to airplanes butting the towers which gave us three times the time to execute the operation thank god.
Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al Qaeda. Your security is in your hands. Each state that doenst mess with our security has automatically secured their security."
$_='while(read+STDIN,$_,2048){$a=29;$b=73;$c=142;
Sorry about the italics. Only insurgents was supposed to be italicised(sarcasm).
One thing I have to agree with him upon: the demonization that he's fighting America because he dislikes freedom is absurd. The only spin on that argument that is remotely plausible is that he's fighting against secularization and disrespect for Islamic law, and in that case why wouldn't he just come out and say it rather than beat around the Bush with proclamations that they're supporting those bad guys who hurt some of our guys?
No, bin Laden truly believes that the US is meddling in affairs where it does not belong. The way he goes about acting upon his beliefs is somewhat less than proper, of course. But they are, at least in his twisted mind, well founded.
Funny how many people (i.e. the rest of the world) knew what the response would be - and knew that the Iraqis would NOT appreciate our "help". I'm never quite sure whether those are insurgents of freedom fighters trying to get the American regime out of their country.
To call them terrorists is a cop out. You can't just go around calling everyone who disagrees with you a terrorist. It's infantile.
Yes, Saddam was a bad person. One of many in this world. That did not justify the crimes commited by the Bush Administration.
Bush goes one step further -- Not only does he prepare our soldiers to die, he makes them so depressed they kill themselfs. Military suicide rates are growing rapidly, for those that don't know.
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
I mean, seriously. This is humongous news. I would call it the news of the year so far.
Anyway, I think there will be two main responses to this tape:
1. Osama bin Laden is still alive, which means Bush didn't do the job we asked him to do, instead taking us into another war for questionable reasons. Americans should vote for Kerry.
2. Osama bin Laden knows about response #1, so the reason why he put out the tape now is so that Kerry will win the election. He wants Kerry to win the election because Kerry is a weak leader. Therefore, Americans should vote for Bush.
And, of course, there will be a smaller number of people who think that the tape is fake. It's not really surprising that all three viewpoints have already appeared on Slashdot.
Rob
" Funny how many people (i.e. the rest of the world) knew what the response would be - and knew that the Iraqis would NOT appreciate our "help". I'm never quite sure whether those are insurgents of freedom fighters trying to get the American regime out of their country.
To call them terrorists is a cop out. You can't just go around calling everyone who disagrees with you a terrorist. It's infantile."
No I call people who target and kill civilians with car bombs terrorists. You can call them freedom fighters if you want but if you can't tell the difference you have bigger problems.
Here's a link that works.
where the comment ends and sig begins
Damn. And here's the link to the correct page.
where the comment ends and sig begins
Few people seem to understand Osama bin Laden is an educated and well-spoken man. He's not just some fundie psychopath that "hates us for our freedom". In his opinion, international terrorism is the only means to get to the end of percieved US imperalism. While I strongly disagree with his methods, he does have a well articulated position.
... just because the position is held by terrorists, doesn't mean that the position is false.
I'm not a betting man, but I bet if we took an even handed approach to the Israel/Palestine problem as well as let the middle east be the middle east, we'd see a drastic decrease in worldwide terrorism.
Of course, the mainstream would denounce such a change in policy as "letting the terrorists win". Here's a newsflash, kids
Jill: "The terrorists say 2 + 2 = 4! What are they crazy?"
Bob: "I've consulted my calculator, and it says 2 + 2 = 4 as well."
Jill: "Quit siding with the terrorists, Bob. Why do you hate America?"
This conversation is similar to any conversation I try to have with someone who is sure that America is Always Right.
Osama bin Laden delivered a new videotaped message...
... DOH!
And no one stopped him? Amazing, most be one sleepy clerk at the desk:
Osama walks in and hands the clerk a video.
Osama: A bit of news, my dear fellow.
Clerk: Thank you Mr. Laden, if you will just sign here.
Later the boss pops by:
Boss: What's up ?
Clerk: Not much, oh wait, a delivery of a video tape.
Boss: Okay, who's it from.
Clerk: It's is from
although they actually have an army (contrary to dubya's beliefs) it seems definitely the country of choice now for non-anonymous cowards like me, myself and I ...
... and full of gorgeous blondes, too. Besides they have a working social security system and healthcare.
from the excerpts at reuters:
Security is an important foundation of human life and free people do not squander their security, contrary to Bush's claims that we hate freedom. Let him tell us why we did not attack Sweden for example.
Life has become the ideology of its absence - T.W. Adorno
Yeah, but that number is indefensibly unsupportable.
I bet the rest of the tape was:
Note to self; Dont attempt humour at 6 o'clock in the morning without sleep.
Bush is not intimidated by the other side's call for peace.
CNN Transcript here
-molo
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
The most powerful part of this message is that it was sent on a video tape and not as Hijacked airplanes crashing into our buildings.
I have no doubt that if Bin Laden could attack us like he did on 9/11 that he would. The fact that he hasn't been able to do this for over three years is why I am voting for Bush
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
Actually -what is in their "text books" is VERY important. It means the youth is being fed a steady diet of hate mongering - that everything bad in their lives is due to the great Satan. It's very much the same way that Hitler blamed the Jews for Germany's ills. Bin Laden blames us for everything wrong in the Middle east instead of looking to their own societies for most of their ills.
Have you compiled your kernel today??
Didn't New Scientist just recently post that the civilian death toll was 100,000, not including Fallujah, and 200,000 including Fallujah? So, thatt's 100,000/1.5= 66K. Hmm... beats Saddam by a factor of 5. Better, more lasting peace? Yeah, right.
It's definitely an influential tool, but it's just one tool used to spread the hatred, the message would get out anyway. I'm sure that a good amount of USA bashing happens verbally and via other media, and censoring textbooks wouldn't fix the problem anyway not to mention the moral and backlash issues with censorship.
Anyone notice how all the media are basically publishing the same words of the same text regarding this story? Isen't there any independant thinking journalists left?
Also: Does anyone have a link to an english version of a transcript of what Bin Laden said in the video? I'd like to make up my own mind about what this guy has to say VS getting just choice quotes.
So what do you call people who target and kill civilians with bombs from flying planes? freedom fighters?
raj
Sarovar.org Hosting for open source projects in Indi
This is one of those rare awkward moments where I find that the world's most hated terrorist, who deserves to die a bloody painful death with all of his terrorists buddies, argues the same reasons as I do against re-electing Bush.
I don't think terrorist backing will help the Kerry campaign as much as bin Laden seems to think it will. We wanted more people to hear some of the arguments in Farenheit 9/11 through a major media outlet, but not like this. It sucks that democrats can't get their criticisms even acknowledged in the "liberal" media but a terrorist who quotes them is heard around the world.
I bet Osama is hiding under a bridge.
In fact, Schlesinger's recent book says that the US has had strong isolationist tendencies for most of its (short) history--for example, our failure to join the League of Nations, when the sitting US president was the driving force behind it. It's only been since the end of WWII that America has embraced... uh... what's the opposite of isolationism? Multinationalism?
Not to say that the US should return to an isolationist approach to foreign policy. Just pointing out that it's far from a given that we have a moral obligation to cross the globe and usurp dictators who do not pose an immediate threat to our national security, no matter how badly they treat their own people.
And usually good always wins in the end, and the world is better off.
Does good usually win, or is it just that the winners get to write the history books? ;)
Was UBL sleeping on the hard stone floor of a cave in the wild frontier of western Pakistan. Or, by the hard concrete proped on a chaise lounge poolside somewhere. He obviously was manicured,and had had a recent beard trimming.
With his calm relaxed demenor it seemed as if he might have just had a chiropractic adjustment.
After three years of having the Empire's top assassins and agents after him. He has held up better then Saddam, and also looks better then the pres.
--User0x45
> We could go back to the time where we just lob a few cruise missiles into aspirin factories, to protect civilians and american soldiers, everytime we get bombed.
So now we're bombing restaurants and barber shops in a country that didn't bomb us?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> Attacking Iraq was about bringing a Dictator to justice, because once again we were the only ones willing.
Great! When are we going to take on the rest of the dictators and mass murderers?
> We're in Iraq, we miscalculated the response, we'll fix the problems, and see it through to the end.
The way we saw it through in Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia?
There's a reason Saddam thought he could hide until it was over.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> Who would argue that the American Civil war wasn't worth it?
The sad thing about that war is that England gave up slavery two generations sooner, and didn't have to fight a civil war to do it.
> Every major war in the world for the last 150 years has led to the advancement of rights, liberty, and economic improvement.
Only if you're selective about what you look at. For example, WWI gave us Fascism and Communism, and economic collapse in Germany.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
HOW THE FUCK IS THIS POST +5 INSIGHTFUL?? Has slashdot turned into fucking Al Jazeera now?
OSAMA BIN LADEN is a murderer, he targeted the World Trade Center, a CIVILIAN INSTITUTION. The World Trade Center was never a military building, it had nothing to do with the US military. Being "at war" is NO EXCUSE for targeting civilans. NONE.
To compare Osama's terrorism to the war in Iraq is BEYOND RIDICULOUS. You say 15k civilians in Iraq were killed... how many of these civilians were targeted by the US military?? That number would be ZERO. How many were killed by terrorist car bombs that seem to go off every day in Iraq? A LOT. How many people were being tortured, starved and gassed by Saddam when he was in power?? A WHOLE LOT MORE THAN 15K.
We have killed 15 THOUSAND innocent civilians in Iraq.
Really? I don't remember seeing any actual military estimate on how man civilian casualties there have been. Are you really willing to believe the number our enemies are touting? Can anyone really know the number of enemy combatents that were too cowardly to dress in a soldiers's uniform?
I trust him more than Bush or Kerry.
Say what you want about the man, but he is not trustful. He's an asshole, and you sir are one too if you think his word is worth anything.
-Grym
Is going to point out that according to the man himself, WE WERE ATTACKED BECAUSE OF OUR SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL? (and note that he cited direct military support for Israeli policy)
Or shall we just continue to pretend this doesn't matter?
Regardless of what you think may about Israel, you have to admit that this makes a helluvalot more sense than "they hate our freedom."
It may be more productive to address this one issue than to run around invading whomever we like and justifying it by calling them terrorists no matter how tenuous the relationship is between them and Al Qaeda.
And to think I used to be much like you. Manipulated by those in high places, by the corporations, by the war machine, by those who exploit the religious nuts, by a those driven to achieve and to create a lasting legacy. Whipped up into a righteous fury, ready to go out and die for nothing but a fatter wallet for some CEO, for some investor.
And how sad that humans should do this, when our time alive is so short. That we should allow ourselves to be manipulated like this. And not only do we allow ourselves to abdicate our powers of logic and take such rash actions, but we also forego a chance at a more logical and rational alternative world, a world where we all do not have to strive so hard, where we would not have to stress ourselves so much just to survive, a world where we devote all that wasted energy and wealth to more worthwhile pursuits, such as medical research to lenghten our own lives. Such a tragedy....
eat shiat and bark at the moon
The constitution requires that any President being, among other things, a natural-born citizen of the States. Even if Bin Laden (I can't believe I am saying this) wanted to be President, he is not qualified.
The same is true of Governator in California. He can be a Senator someday, if California *ahem* decides that, but Arnold simply does not legally qualify to be President. This was actually a common joke when he was running for Californian Governor, they saw it as the natural evolution.
I think it is interesting that Osama's war with the United States is atleast arguably more justafiable(though not excusable) than the our war with Iraq.
We attacked Iraq before they attacked us. They posed no immediate threat, etc, etc. The particulars are arguable according to whom you decide to vote for, but that is the way of things. Heck, we have even killd 5 times as many people as Osama killed in 9-11....
Didn't we warn ourselves in the days after the attacks, that we shouldn't let them change us. That changing our liberties, our society and our convictions were what the terrorists wanted. Isn't this what we vowed not to allow to happen?
The word 'backfire' doesn't seem to quite cover the current situation.
Of course he makes sense, thats how he gets such a large group of followers prepared to die! I've no doubt that he actually believes what he is saying aswell. Even so that doesn't excuse his actions Funny how the above statement applies equally well to Bush and his troops, as it does to bin Laden and his followers.
How can you even begin to honestly compare U.S. troops in Iraq working to establish a democratic free, Iraq to the honorless fanatics that flew planes filled with innocent civilians into buildings filled with yet more innocent civilians?
The comparison isn't even close, and I would enjoy watching you try to make it in front of the good men I personally know who are over in Iraq as we speak.
-Grym
Try to understand this: the previous Spanish governement took Spain to war against the will of a large majority of the people. Why can't you understand that this tends to upset people, and may cause them to vote for the guy how says he'll take them out of there?
Every major war in the world for the last 150 years has led to the advancement of rights, liberty, and economic improvement. Sure it's terrible when people die, but war is inevitible. And usually good always wins in the end, and the world is better off.
You might want to ask for a refund for your history degree.
But for sure he's studied it.
The mafia is also very nice and friendly, as long as you pay them and don't go to the police or hinder their enforcers they will not put you at the bottom of the river in concrete overshoes. Nice guys ain't they?
Same thing really with organisations like this. As long as the world lets them be, allows their members into their countries to convert citizens, allows them to build a super powerfull base then they won't harm you, promise, honestly.
Every speech, every statement said by anyone must be tested against the agenda that person has. Goes for people like Bush where you constantly have to ask if what he is saying in election speeches compares to his personal and those of his backers agenda. Same for Kerry. Same for Bin Laden.
If you read the speech carefully you see that it blames everything on somebody else. What this means is easy. If only the world had done everything the way he wanted to then he wouldn't have to do the things he did. Sounds like the excuses of a wifebeater to me. If only she had dinner ready in time he wouldn't have had to beat her into hospital. Not his fault, clearly it is the wives fault.
To understand this tape you have to understand one single thing. The world is divided. Not just the west but the muslim world as well. There are even muslims who, shock and horror, think that the Israely conflict is kept in place by certain muslims because it is very handy distractor from internal affairs. Who dare to ask the question why exactly no arab nation has taking in the palestine refugees. And just why the occupied terrortories with all the hard Israely rule are actually one of the very few muslim democracies in the region. Dangerous thoughts. Especially to Al Quada and there backers.
So this message can be seen in the following light. Trying to get the weaker westerners (those who would give into bullies/mafia/abusive spouses) to think that if only they give Al Quada everything it wants it will let them in peace. Won't work. Give a bully a finger and tommorow he will be back for the hand.
It is also trying to get those muslims who are in the doubt to switch sides. Or at least create conflict.
A united world is the greatest enemie of terrorists. What do you think Bin Ladens agenda really is. World peace? Harmony between muslims and the west? Religious tolerance?
Don't forget he and his followers/backers had decades in Afghanistan to shape that country to their vision. We also had refugees fleeing to the infidel west for the same amount of decades.
This is a political speech. Trust it like you trust any political speech.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Actually -what is in their "text books" is VERY important. It means the youth is being fed a steady diet of hate mongering - that everything bad in their lives is due to the great Satan. It's very much the same way that Hitler blamed the Jews for Germany's ills. Bin Laden blames us for everything wrong in the Middle east instead of looking to their own societies for most of their ills
Is this a post of agreement? If not, what exactly is your point? Are you saying that we, like the Jews were somehow responsible for Nazi Germany or, in our case, radical Islam?
I'm sorry, but how can you blame the U.S. or Bush, for that matter, with the propoganda they feed their populace? It's not like they'll include the U.S.'s actions in Bosnia against the Anti-muslim movement. Instead they're likely to be shown pictures of the poor, misunderstood suicide bombers in Israel.
The only way we're going to make these people happy is if we don't exist, and despite however good an alternative that may sound to some of the appeizers I see here on /, and in Europe, it's not an acceptible option for me.
-Grym
Certain religions, notably christians and muslims, have at their core the simple fact that everyone who is not one of them is evil. The christians have mostly managed to defeat themselves to the point that it is now a very different religion then the one that went on crusades to spread the fate.
Spreading the fate meaning of course converting or killing everyone in their path.
This has now changed were the majority of who now call themselves christians are quit prepared to live next to a heathen and not set them on fire. Some even are so liberal as to suggest that other religions may have a validity as well. Freaky.
Before you pat yourselve on the back as the great enlightened western christian remember it was very very different only a few decades ago and just try to imagine a non-"god bless america" spouting president.
Anyway the muslim religion is a slightly different affair, not much but enough to mean that "defending the fate by the sword" is still considered reasonably by some who claim to be muslim.
Turkey is currently a very intresting example. Turkey is a bit of an outsider. It is not part of arabia apparently, you should hear immigrant turks and marrokans talk about each other. The KKK could take lessons. Anyway turks are apparently closer to europeans then arabians. Currently turkey pretty much has its heart set on joining the Europian Union (EU) wich is not exactly winning itself a lot of friends in arab. It is also remarkably neutral to Israel (partly perhaps because commenting on oppressing palestines might get people to point the similar oppression of Koerds/kurds?).
But there is a problem with turkey. It has a very weird goverment structure. While it has a very strict segregation between church and state wich is the way europeans like it, this is only there because the military wich is extremely powerfull says that it must be so. If the EU gets its way and turkey will become closer to a western democracy might there be a danger that the citizens will vote for putting religion back into the state? At the moment it is secular but only because the military comes down like a ton of bricks on anyone who wants to destroy the work of Atta Turk.
Why should the citizens of Turkey vote to put their country, by western standards, back into the dark ages? Well gee, you might as well ask why certain westerners still believe in the monarchie even free countries like france have people who want to put royalty back as the head of state. Same with russia were you got people who want the tsaars back.
Where ever you go you will have people who don't like the way things are and think that if only you go back to the days of old it will all be alright again.
Turkey is currently going through a lot of change. Partly it is becoming extremely western with freedom of religion for all and more and more people "enjoying" an allmost western style of live. But other parts of it are extremely poor with communities torn apart because the old rules no longer apply.
So Turkey, a very western nation that can only be called a muslim state because the majority of its citizens go to the moskee (and not because it follows muslim law wich is how well muslims define a muslim country) is at a crossroad. Either it goes west and is accepted into the EU and the people elect to stay secular (Ultimate politics irony, to get accepted into the EU it has to be secular and at the same time give up military control that enforces secularity).
Back to answering your question
Now ask youreselve this. With knowing this about turkey, what do you think Al Quada and people like them thinks about this. Is turkey a western puppet? Or free muslims choosing their own path. Mmm?
Oh the military is part of nato and gets american aid.
Well the answer I am afraid has already been given as Turkey is having its own terrorist war with muslims fundam
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Doesn't explain the withdrawal from Iraq does it?
There's no need. 80% of Spain population was already against the war, and the government went in Iraq anyway. No surprise that it got booted out of office.
The comparison isn't even close, and I would enjoy watching you try to make it in front of the good men I personally know who are over in Iraq as we speak.
Are they prepared to die? Then they are similar to Bin Laden's followers in the way the person you are responding to claims they are.
Instead of mindlessly flaming somebody, try actually reading what they wrote next time. He didn't say that USA soldiers are terrorists.
If somebody says that Bin Laden's followers have two arms and two legs, will you flame me when I point out that USA soldiers do as well?
It's not that it has happened before; it's that because it happened there is less war, more food, more industry, more trade, more communication, more knowledge, more art, and more people.
I do like your amusing contradiction, "people who aren't as sensitive as I think they ought to be, should be killed." Does it ever occur to you that oversensitivity might be what leads to conflict?
The wages of conquest are civilization.
Being "at war" is NO EXCUSE for targeting civilans.
Dresden, Nagasaki, Hiroshima...
Does anyone have a torrent?
It been a while since 9/11, what exactly took him so long to get Israel into his arguments? Before it was americas support for the Saudi Arabia royal family.
This guy wants to create a fundamentalist muslims world. Now you just have to ask youreselve where you are going to so say no. It doesn't matter were you draw the line in the sand. Sooner or later he will be there and you will have to either stand or surrender.
Do not use his public speeches to learn what he wants. Use what he says when the world ain't listening. The speeches he makes to his own followers. Those tell a completly different story. He doesn't really care about the palestines. Same as saddam never did or any arabian leader. If they did they would have taken the refugees into their own country and created a palestine state on their own soil.
The western way of life is his enemy. There is nothing you can do to appease him as your filthy heathen dog breath is what he wants stopped. But he ain't gonna say that on a tape send to the western world. That might unite the world against him. No instead he sends a tape guaranteed to get the west to fight amongst themselves.
Real world politics ain't choosing the side who is right. It is choosing the side wich is least objectionable. Even bush wins that one by a landslide. Hell, stalin would win. And talking about WW2 leaders. Trying to appease Bin Laden is like trying to appease Hitler. Those who would be the allies thought that Hitler could be appeased by giving him Polen. That worked well, didn't it?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
The compareison is very close. Don't kill civilians, don't kill innocent people.
America is not fighting for a democratic, free Iraq. If that were the case, Iraqis could have a free election, America wouldn't invade the country and keep it under its military control for more than a year. They wouldn't instate their own puppets, they would select someone within the country, not import him from outside.
Are they [U.S. Soldiers] prepared to die?
For the defense and well-being of their countrymen? Yes. For a violent, twisted intrepretation of a religion? No. Do you not see the difference?
Instead of mindlessly flaming somebody, try actually reading what they wrote next time. He didn't say that USA soldiers are terrorists.
You're right: No, he didn't. He just inferred that they were as deluded as the terrorists, which I'm arguing isn't even remotely the case.
If somebody says that Bin Laden's followers have two arms and two legs, will you flame me when I point out that USA soldiers do as well?
No, I won't, but if you follow your hypothetical statement with vile comparisons between the intentions or psychology of U.S. troops and Islamic terrorists, you're damn right I will.
-Grym
America can get away with killing so many because it didn't happen in New York, it didn't happen in a day and it didn't happen out of the blue.
The word you are looking for is: imperialism.
I don't see a difference between guidig a plane into a building filled with civilians with dropping a bomb on top of a building filled with civilians.
I don't either. But, please, show me an example of a case were the United States intentionally attacked civilian targets in Iraq for only that purpose. Many people would like to pretend that the men in street-clothes armed with AK-47s and RPGs were, in fact, civilians, but that's bullshit and you know it.
The fact of the matter is, the modern-day U.S. military doesn't intentionally target civilians and does its absolute best to minimize civilian casualties. Can you honestly say the same for the terrorists you seem to sympathize with? You know--the same bastards who intentionally target EMS personnel (the people trying to SAVE lives) in Israel after a suicide bombing?
The compareison is very close. Don't kill civilians, don't kill innocent people.
No it's not! There's an EXTREME psychological (and ethical) difference between a soldier who accidently kills a non-combatant and terrorist who intentionally kills as many innocent "infidels" as possible.
America is not fighting for a democratic, free Iraq.
What makes you say that? A democratic, free Iraq is in the both Iraq's AND United State's best interests. It would undermine the legitimacy of every extremist Islam theocracy and finally give us an ally other than Israel in the region.
If that were the case, Iraqis could have a free election, America wouldn't invade the country and keep it under its military control for more than a year. They wouldn't instate their own puppets, they would select someone within the country, not import him from outside.
What kind of idealistic world do you live in? Were you honestly expecting a democratic Iraq to be established the day after Saddam was ousted? After World War II, Germany was in shambles and remained so for nearly a decade. In fact, with regard to recovery after a war and decades under a brutal regime, Iraq is doing amazingly well with respect to history. These things have and always will take time. Temporary solutions, as uncomfortable as they may be for all sides, will have to do in the meantime. However, I assure you, once the Iraqi people are back on their feet, the U.S. will leave--just like we said we will. I mean, why would we stay a second longer than we have to? Please don't tell me you're one of the people that buys that "No Blood for Oil" crap.
-Grym
...he's got a point.
You should take bin Laden's statements with the greatest seriousness. In fact, the U.S. government has effectively declared war on Arabs and Muslims. Here is just one example: New York Governor Pataki's statements are equivalent to a declaration of war.
To get votes from Jews in the United States, U.S. politicians go into the Jewish community and declare their "support for Israel". That's code for support for Israeli violence. Many politicians don't care about the morality of their actions. They don't care whether U.S. government support for Israeli violence is actually good for Jews. They just want the vote.
Non-Jewish United States citizens never hear about this support for foreign wars. It isn't a secret; it's on Pataki's web site. But it is effectively a secret, because no one tells U.S. citizens that they are engaging in a war that will definitely cause them to be attacked.
There is a one-sentence record in ancient Jewish texts, that are now part of the Christian Bible, that a Pharoah of Egypt had some complaint against the Jews about 3,200 years ago. Since then, at least every 200 years, the Jews have annoyed the surrounding cultures enough that they have been the targets of extreme violence. Certainly this is regrettable. Certainly something should be done about this. However, there is no evidence that anyone presently in power in the U.S. government has a sophisticated understanding of the problems, or any sensible ideas about how a nation thousands of miles from Israel could be helpful. In fact, it seems that U.S. government support for Jewish violence is like pouring "gasoline on a fire", as one Jewish leader said.
The U.S. government, at present, fully supports the use of violence to achieve its goals. Under George W. Bush, the U.S. government believes that it is okay to kill people and destroy their property even when the U.S. is not directly or immediately threatened.
Most U.S. citizens do not make the connection that a policy of violence supported by the U.S. government means that they will inevitably be attacked.
Quoting from the CNN article, here are some of Osama bin Laden's words: "And as I was looking at those towers that were destroyed in Lebanon [with U.S. government help], it occurred to me that we have to punish the transgressor with the same" he says, "and that we had to destroy the towers in America, so that they taste what we tasted and they stop killing our women and children."
If you live in Kalispell, Montana, USA, to pick a place at random, it is unlikely that you will be directly attacked by Arab terrorists. However, attacks on the U.S. affect you profoundly because they lower your quality of life, just as the U.S. attacks on Iraq lowered the quality of life there.
Ultimately, security is in your own hands.
Every citizen should be proficient in of defending his liberty. Here is an excellent tool.
Hey Osama! Come and get it!
fuck you, dirty terrorist cunt
God sometimes I wish there was just a "WRONG" option for moderation. Slavery is not what the civil war was about, slavery was incidental. The civil war was about the north, who did not use something, trying to abolish said something, which the south depended on. You can replace something with slavery, popcorn, or beanie babies, but the civil was was really about states' sovereignty vs federal sovereignty, and whose trumped the other. (Especially since early on the states were almost separate countries, and the US was basically like the EU is now.) The civil war was fought for a political issue we still struggle with today, slavery just happened to be the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of the piling up of issues that led up to the civil war.
Mirror here: http://www.georgewbush.org/
This sig is intentionally left blank
I find that mentioning of "Sweden" a most unwelcome distinction, and I advise you not to take travel advice from that lethal loonie.
I consider the report on press freedom from Reporters sans frontières a lot more authoritative on the subject of freedom (even if it only talks about the press), and I still can't figure out why Sweden ranked 11, alongside Estonia and Germany, below all the other Nordic countries. I don't mind that listing; we probably deserve it, but it would be nice to know what is wrong so that we can fix it.
However, what was aired yesterday was a collective insult against human civilization, and if CNN gave me mod points I'd mod that tape -4711, Troll.
Hmm, because we all know America would never bow to terrorism, they just sponsor it instead, right?
Wonder where the IRA got most of its funding?
Wonder who set up Osama bin Laden with billions of dollars and weaponry (to fight the Russians)?
There are _plenty_ more examples if you bother to look; pull your head out of your ass.
The Spanish people, according to pretty much every poll, overwhelmingly opposed the war in Iraq, but their government just went ahead anyway. Surprise surprise, the people voted them out of office as a result, who'd have guessed?
Kinda like the UK, except that the British propaganda machine is so well-oiled, and the opposition so bad, that Blair might well get away with it. Australia already _did_ get away with it: their economy is doing so well that the public let Howard off with that small Iraq thing.
It's a fucking tragedy: your leaders take you to war against some weak middle-Eastern country because your leaders want a power-base there (which they been after for decades) and tidy profits from oil (seen the price for a barrel of Brent crude lately?), and you let them get away with it because they tell you that they're "keeping you safe". Shame on you. Who the fuck d'you think put you in danger in the first place?
I don't think we Americans ever intentionally kill civilians. However, even when the body counts roll in from an errant bomb, commanders will shrug, say sorry, and say collateral damage can't be avoided.
I don't think collateral damage can be avoided. I don't think we use it as a tool to terrorize the population into submission. However, the effect is the same: the people slowly turn against us. 15,000 innocent people dead is quite a powerful recruiting tool for young, angry, impressionable fundamentallists.
We feel our actions are justified because it wasn't intentional. They feel their actions are justified because 15,000 (possibly many more) of their countrymen were killed.
If I was an Iraqi, even if I didn't like country's leader and I'm somewhat glad he's removed by a foreign power, when my family is blown up because a general was dining in the restaurant next door, I'd be pretty upset. As an Iraqi I could easy see how all the talk of "freedom" an "liberation" becomes empty, pointless talk.
I feel we're much worse in absolute numbers (15,000+ dead in a year), while they're much worse in subjective terms of "awfulness", but in the end this war is dirty, awful, sad, and could've been avoided.
Actually, the body count is estimated to be around 100,000 civillians. Which makes your last statement even more true.
9 99 96596
See this article from New Scientist.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns
Nice Marmot
However, I assure you, once the Iraqi people are back on their feet, the U.S. will leave--just like we said we will. I mean, why would we stay a second longer than we have to? Please don't tell me you're one of the people that buys that "No Blood for Oil" crap.
e 58 76.htm
Oh I don't, maybe that were still in Germany and Japan, and that we're in well over 100 countries.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/7-24-98.html
a newer link:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/articl
Maybe because the US has a long history of interfering with foreign nations for economic interests.
http://www.neravt.com/left/invade.htm
Considering this, I highly doubt we will just pick up and leave.
Nice Marmot
Because everyone now knows that spain bows to terrorism.
Considering that a large majority of the Spanish people were opposed to the Iraq war from the start, it should surprise no one that the Aznar government was voted out. Especially when the government's dishonesty about the Madrid attacks is taken into account. It's not bowing to terrorism, it's bowing to democracy.
Should that have gone unanswered?
You're not living in the real world. What you and others who think like you fail to realize is that 'a more logical and rational world' requires everyone to cooperate. Criminals do not cooperate -- that's why they're criminals. More worthwhile pursuits like research and development are secondary when criminals are pointing weapons at your family, and dedicating their lives to kill them. As long as you and those as mistaken as you allow others to care for your security and keep quiet, that's fine by me.
Don't have the nuts to fight for you own personal security? Well, that's what you pay taxes for. Let the government do their job and protect your sorry butt so you can sit at home and read /. Fine.
Open your mouth against my security, and you're gonna get a reaction. Security and stability is essential to pursuits like research. The capital for research and development is not available if its getting flushed out of the economy by criminals. The ability for research and development for better quality of life isn't available if its getting spent for research into murder prevention and criminal apprehension.
BAH! The resultant war on terrorism is a totally logical conclusion to the attacks of foreign terrorists.
Sit back, relax if you want, and watch as the world becomes a safer place for everyone, while the Federal, State and Local gov'ts in the US and their International allies take the stand and make the sacrifices that lesser nations of lesser people are not willing to make.
We make these sacrifices so that in the future the world has the possibility of being '... a world where we all do not have to strive so hard, where we would not have to stress ourselves so much just to survive, a world where we devote all that wasted energy and wealth to more worthwhile pursuits, such as medical research to lenghten our own lives.'
You poor mistaken Bastard.
My affinity for hyperbole knows no bounds
This neglects two important concepts -- intent, and success at attaining a goal.
1. OBL admits to *purposefully* targeting innocent civilians. We don't do that.
2. Don't you think OBL would have killed more civilians if he had the chance? Do you get the feeling he was holding back somehow? Considering his goal of removing the US as a superpower and removing our influence from their life, he has failed miserably.
Now consider our actions in Iraq. I could argue that we are trying to accomplish a FAR more difficult task, and we are much closer to our goal the he is to his.
And I'm not sure where you got the 15k figure, I've usually seen much smaller numbers.
I suspect you might be including foriegn fighters, Insurgents, terrorists -- yaknow, people without a uniform, but they happened to be shooting at our troops.
However, I hardly think for a second that Joe-Six-Pack-Swing-Voter is going to even bother to humor that sort of thinking.
There are no "Joe-Six-Pack-Swing-Voters" -- all the Joe-Six-Packs decided before this race even started to vote for Bush.
This time, we do take it seriously. Finally, we have a leader who takes it very seriously. As serious as a Heart Attack. No more lobbing missiles at empty buildings. No more cut-and-run from terrorists. No more keeping our head down and hoping the terrorists stop killing us.
That's why we deposed the terrorist Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
That's why we toppled terrorist Saddam and his regime in Iraq.
That's why we're working to prevent the extremist regime in Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
That's why we're working to contain the nuclear threat in paranoid and war-ready North Korea.
That's why we're working with ex-terrorist Libya's newfound willingness to play by the rules.
That's why we've got much of the world working with us to capture international terrorists. No more do regimes look the other way in hopes of not being a target -- Every Nation is a target in this deadly game.
Fact is, OBL is aligning his groups despicable acts with history long after the attacks occur. He's not fighting a war -- he's a political power-broker buying followers with rhetoric. He's not aspiring to high ideals -- he's looking to gain political clout via any means available.
There's no justification for his, nor his followers actions. He's a murderer. He's a criminal. He's a pile of dung, and one day he'll be dead. Let's hope that day comes sooner rather than later.
My affinity for hyperbole knows no bounds
The most powerful part of this message is that it was sent on a video tape and not as Hijacked airplanes crashing into our buildings.
I have no doubt that if Bin Laden could attack us like he did on 9/11 that he would.
Bin Laden has always sent out tapes, and always had a long time between major attacks.
The fact that he is send ing out a video, is only indicating that he is alive, not that he is incapable of attack...
The fact that he hasn't been able to do this for over three years is why I am voting for Bush
Wow, Clinton kept him from attacking for about 5 years (first WTC till embassy bombings) , I guess we should vote democrat!
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
More importantly, the civilians that have been killed are collateral damage vs the terrorist philosophy of using them as targets with the goal of spreading fear among a wider population.
W T F ! ?
It's real easy for an armchair cowboy to make that sort of statement. I'll bet the families and friends of those dead men, women, and children would not be so casual in their assessment of the situation.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
The effects of being a rallying banner for terrorism are limited.
I'm not so sure about that. GW has been incredibly successful at rallying the terrorist.
Remember, he is a uniter. Since, this is the only group that has actually been "united" under his leadership... that must have been what he meant.
Seriously, you walk into a bar at midnight and proclaim that you are going to beat the shit of the baddest mofo in the house... you think everyone is going to back down?
You'll be lucky to survive the ordeal.
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
But, please, show me an example of a case were the United States intentionally attacked civilian targets in Iraq for only that purpose.
During both Iraqi invasions, America took out ALL radio communication centers with smart bombs.. Yes they were targeted, but you better believe your ass that civilians that had nothing to do with the government died on those days.
The pentegon, the political centers, and our financial centers were the targets of Osamma's attack; these were just as strategic as the civilian communication centers of Iraq. (in terms of the limited attacking resources). They didn't bomb hospitals, nuclear power plants, dams or schools. They were military targets, aimed at crippling a nation; not destroying it.. And guess what, to a large extent, they were successful. Do not underestimate or make primitive your enemy, for they will surely over-come you. Great nations in history have fallen exactly because of such underestimations.
-Michael
I think that it's juat a little scary how the man who's at the top of the FBI's most wanted list also makes some of the most rational arguments for a change in U.S. foreign policy to something more humanitarian.
He also makes good points. It's not about freedom, as Bush has made it out to be, because if it was about that then Sweeden, the Netherlands, and just about every other developed country in the world before the USA would be a smoldering pile of rubble.
Let's see how the politicos here in the States and their lapdogs, mass media, spin this into some crazy completely anti-american rhetoric (granted, there's plenty of that in there), and not even take one look at lucent the points that he's made.
So yeah, that's why they attacked us, because they thought "oh no another cruise missle strike! I wish the Americans wouldn't attack us with missles and fight us here, on our own soil, so they can destroy our houses and turn our streets into battle grounds!"
Yeah, that makes sense.
--Stephen
"warped sense of logic" indeed...
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
No I call people who target and kill civilians with car bombs terrorists. You can call them freedom fighters if you want but if you can't tell the difference you have bigger problems.
Ok, then we should invade Ireland, all of Africa, and most of middle and south America.. Because these people have "freedom fighters/ terrorists" as well. Oh, and we should probably have layed genocide to the southern US states for when they terrorized the north prior and during the civil war.
Terrorism is a facade that the establishment lays on the heads of insurgents. Freedom fighters is a facade that the oppressed lays on their own insurgency. The point is that the political process has broken down, and there are large segments of society which do not have representation. It is highly likely that they will rebell.. Yes there are those power-mongers which don't care about representation, but merely want to overthrow the government for their self rule, but this sort of activity doesn't tend to inspire an entire nation into revolt. You need a cause, and that cause can only exist if there is a voice that isn't being respected (much less heard).
-Michael
This page shows a faked "talking head", done 2.5 years ago in academic world.
original article at boston globe has apparently been pulled, but here is first paragraph which might help to resurrect it with google or wayback.
At MIT, they can put words in our mouths
By Gareth Cook, Globe Staff
Boston Globe Online
2002.05.15
CAMBRIDGE - Scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have created the first realistic videos of people saying things they never said - a scientific leap that raises unsettling questions about falsifying the moving image.
...
The researchers have already begun testing the technology on video of Ted Koppel, anchor of ABC's " Nightline, " with the aim of dubbing a show in Spanish, according to Tony F. Ezzat, the graduate student who heads the MIT team. Yet as this and similar technology makes its way out of academic laboratories, even the scientists involved see ways it could be misused: to discredit political dissidents on television, to embarrass people with fabricated video posted on the Web, or to illegally use trusted figures to endorse products.
...
I agree with this.
U.S. government policies have made it more likely that Jews will suffer.
--
100 Facts and 1 Opinion -- The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration
Who should I believe about Osama bin Laden's ideas and intentions? You or Osama bin Laden?
Who should I believe about Arab feelings? You or the foreign minister of Iran and the King of Jordon, who both agreed with OBL about Arab concerns during recent interviews on the Charlie Rose show?
It's not a video game. Arabs don't like being killed. They will retaliate, and try to kill you, actually kill you, not just make you lose points.
--
George W. Bush's brother was shown in a lawsuit deposition on 20/20 talking about his prostitutes and using government influence to make money. Family values?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/padilla_12-
another example
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6012286/site/new
US citizens. Arrested. No charge. No lawyer. No trial.
Yet a lot of civilians tend to die during those attacks.
By your logic, as long as the WTC and Pentagon had some military/economic value, then it wasn't the "civilians" that were targetted.
Hey, let's keep this on the topic at hand. Don't branch out to any other terrorist organization.
No. It's the same lack of concern for civilian lives. As long as the target is hit, it doesn't matter how many civilians are killed.
It is in our best interests, that is correct. But the GP's original statement that we are "not fighting for a democratic, free Iraq" is also correct.
We are creating a situation in Iraq and Afghanistan that will draw and create terrorists for years to come.
Nope. But within a year, yes. After all, we only went in to take out Saddam and Co. Instead, we are STILL dropping BOMBS on their cities.
Yep, but we had done a LOT of damage to their cities. They had to rebuild almost everything.
If you want to compare it to history, Saddam had electricity and water back to pre-war conditions within a month after Gulf War I. Why can't we even accomplish what Saddam did?
I guess that depends upon how you define "once the Iraqi people are back on their feet".
To make sure the new government does what we want it to.
So we should do the blood for oil thing?
Is it okay to target the police in a police state?
Is it okay to target someone giving aid to the enemy's troops?
Is it okay to target someone giving information to the enemy about the resistance's membership/plans?
Bin Laden is after power and influence. There was an article recently about the al-Qaeda stolen notebooks which basically said that part of the purpose of 9/11 was to incite an attack against Afghanistan to "unite the downtrodden muslim peoples" against a common enemy. The problem was that bin Laden and his minions didn't command the attention of enough terrorists and his organization was losing power.
Of course, this plan failed.. The US was pretty effective in Afghanistan.. but fortunately (for bin Laden), Bush had other plans. The invasion of Iraq, the questionable treatment of prisoners (in Cuba and Iraq) have served al-Qaeda quite well. Bush has now shown "America's true colors".
Therefore, I read this message as saying.. "Look world! I'm a clear and present danger still". Analysts on the BBC have said that Republican spin doctors have the upper hand with this one since it is easy to say that "Kerry doesn't get it" and "is underestimating the danger". Kerry's will have trouble though, because bin Laden said things like "we are not against freedom" and seemingly attacked Bush and his policies, so Kerry cannot use any of those arguments and say "look! bin Laden says...." because if he does so it would look like he's working WITH bin Laden or AGREEING with him.. which is political death!
So bin Laden is endorsing Bush. Bush is his best bet. Bin Laden plays his part by attacking Bush policies, americans vote for Bush (since he's bin Laden's enemy). He likes Bush because Bush keeps implementing policies that alienate the world and especially arab muslims (al-Qaeda's main recruits). Kerry may have different policies, policies which may still hurt al-Qaeda (surely Bush has managed to hurt as well), but may not be as alienating to outsiders. Therefore, Bush is a better bet for bin Laden.
Ding! You've just hit Godwin's Law and therefore lost the argument.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
Going to Iraq was the dumbest move Spain ever did. It was also the dumbest move we Portuguese ever did. The American president can't even point our country in the map, and we'll sure get a diplomatic bashing within Europe because of this. Look at Barroso's problems trying to get his European Commission elected for an obvious example.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
I want you to consider this situation very carefully:
You have two children, fred and tom. You make them a pie and set it on the table, then leave to take care of some buisness. Fred says they should share the pie. Tom asserts that he should have the whole pie. They get into a fight. When you get back into the room, you ask them what they're fighting about, and they both try to explain their situation. What do you do?
If you do the fair thing and say they should share the pie, Tom accuses you of always taking Fred's side. Taking an 'even handed' approach to this problem is the wrong thing to do; Tom is a prick and any attempt to see his point of view is pointless and stupid.
The same is true of the Israeli/Palenstinian conflict. What do you mean by 'an even handed approach?' It seems to me that saying there should be a palestinian state and an israeli state peacefully coexisiting is reasonably even handed - and that's exactly what bush has called for. George W. Bush is the first american president to call for a two-state solution, and he's also the first american president to pressure the israelis to withdraw from occupied territories without an agreement from the palestinians - something the israelis just voted to do. Bin laden doesn't given a damn about that - in his mind, the israelis don't have a right to live, so the only 'fair' solution in his mind is to let all of the arab countries gang up on israel and wipe them off the face of the earth. He states this clearly in his letter to america:
The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its price, and pay for it heavily.
Notice that he doesn't call for peacefull coexistence for israel, he calls for its outright destruction - so in his mind, if all of the arab countries in the middle east simultaneously invaded israel, if we did anyting to try and help the israelis out, we'd be acting unfairly.
If you think he doesn't hate us for our freedom, you really need to read the rest of the letter he wrote to the united states. He outlines just why he's making war on us. It's not just our 'support' for israel, it's our way of government:
You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator.
It's right there - plain as day. Because we don't follow Islamic law and instead decided to craft our own constitution, we are evil. Read on:
Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?
You mean to tell me that guy isn't nuts?
That said, I certaintly agree that he's not stupid. It's quite obvious what he's trying to do in this latest video - he knows he's getting his ass handed to him and he wants to call it quits. Notice that in his letter he warns that he's going to kick our asses, whereas in this lastest video he tell us that if we leave him alone, he'll leave us alone. Yeah. Right. He's purposely using the same sort of rhetoric bandied about by the leftists in this country in hopes of persuading americans that he's right. Consider the reaction of CryoFan to this same article - he says that Bin Laden Makes m
My blog
For the defense and well-being of their countrymen? Yes. For a violent, twisted intrepretation of a religion? No. Do you not see the difference?
Of course I see the difference. But the person you were replying to didn't say that they were alike in that way. Only that they were alike in that they are all putting their lives on the line. He didn't compare their motivations in doing so.
He just inferred that they were as deluded as the terrorists, which I'm arguing isn't even remotely the case.
He didn't infer that, you inferred that by reading too much into what he wrote.
if you follow your hypothetical statement with vile comparisons between the intentions or psychology of U.S. troops and Islamic terrorists, you're damn right I will.
You completely missed the point. Saying that USA soldiers and terrorists are alike in some ways does not mean that they are alike in all ways. The person you were replying to made a perfectly reasonable claim - that both are prepared to die for their cause. You jumped to conclusions and flamed him for saying that they are the same, which he didn't say.
Time and time again you hear of battles that leaves one American dead, and 20 or more insurgents killed. Doesn't it strike you as odd that that ratio pretty much carries over when you compare American deaths vs the Iraqi "civilian" casualty count?
Maybe some of those "civilians" arn't so civilian.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There were alternative viewpoints. They were suppressed. Look at the aluminum tubes fiasco- a lot of people tried to tell the CIA that those tubes were for rockets, not centrifuges, but their informed opinion was disregarded because it didn't fit the party line.
Shit, it's hardly surprising that everyone in the White House thought he had weapons. When you use that as your starting point and only gather evidence that supports your idea, never get critical outside viewpoints, and refuse to consider the alternative- that he had no WMD- well, of course that's the answer you get.
Sure, at the time it was hard to rule out the possibility that he had a bunch of nerve gas artillery shells buried in a hole somwhere, or whatnot. You know what? It wouldn't have made any difference if he had. He could have used chemical weapons on us in the Gulf, but he didn't. If he wanted to attack us, he had ten years after the first Gulf War to do so, and he didn't. Why not? Because America has a massive conventional and nuclear deterrent.
Saddam was a twisted motherfucker, sure. But he had a rational drive for self-preservation and a strong sense of paranoia, which kept him from seriously attacking the U.S. And the "lots of other people thought so too" defense just doesn't cut it for the president. For one, when you take charge you are supposed to take responsibility. For another, he should have access to better intelligence than anyone else on the planet. He has access to intelligence from the CIA, the NSA plus the ability to ask other countries like the UK for their intelligence. If Bush had been seriously interested in the truth he could have gotten it.
seriously it looks like an endorsemant of kerry. The things he said about bush not being striaght with the american people, the comments about my pet goat, being the son of a president and intouducing the patriot act all sound like democrat talking points. Does anyone disagree with this? In fact, it looks like BinLaden just watched Farenheit 9/11 and copied a few pointers from it. While he dismisses Kerry, he certainly does echo him and vice versa. I suspected that kerry woudl be bin ladens choice and this pretty much confirms it.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
The 15,000 figure comes from iraqbodycount.net who bases the number on western media reports of civilians killed, and only includes those reports that have been reported by at least 2 sources. Their methodology is very conservative and if anything vastly underestimates the number of civilian casualties. The 100,000 figure is probably closer to the reality, but it is based on extrapolation so it is not very precise.
It makes me sad to think that many people seams to hardly care about those "collateral damages". I'll admit that even me, I forget about them, I need to fall on this kind of post to start feeling bad. I think that the fact that this is kind of a "taboo" subject to main stream media have something to do with it.
Sad :(
My question to supporters and non supporters of the war is: Do 100 000 civilians death is an acceptable price to pay to overthrow a dictator? (I am definitely more interested on the arguments than on the obvious position of each camp)
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
Wow, do you really think the opposite of isolationism is imperialism?
The word I was trying to think of was internationalism.
It seems clear that Bush and his friends are behind this. An "endorsement" of Kerry from bin Laden at this late in the game is basically going to work directly in favor of Bush.
As we know, Bush has never really tried to capture (or kill, or anything) bin Laden, and in fact needs him alive in order to keep the war on terror going. Well, except that now he's got Zarqawi, so maybe bin Laden is becoming expendable.
Think about this, for a second:
You (if you are a US resident) are much, much more likely to die in a car accident than in a terrorist attack. Why does this "war" have such a grip on people? Why do people roll over for the PATRIOT Act when ALL it does is reduce their liberties and does absolutely nothing to keep them safe? Where is the legislation to make vehicles safer? Where is the legislation to make SUVs less dangerous to other vehicles on the road?
He attacked to avenge something that happened in 1982, when most of the people who died on 9-11 were probably in school.
The single weakest copout in the world, when presented with an opposing argument it to simply claim that the other side is manipulated and brainwashed.
How sad... when I cannot think of a good argument, that response is always there... "you have been brainwashed by Massa/Da Man/The Illuminati".
How secure you must feel, that you do not have to compose intelligent arguments because they are not necessary.
IIRC, didn't LBJ do exactly that?
> You might want to ask for a refund for your history degree.
I don't think so. It's granted from Star Trek University, and comes with a free tri-corder. Even if the degree is a bit utopian, the tri-corder is cool.
Slate, not exactly a publication known for supporting the war in Iraq, suggests this number is probably closer to 8 thousand.
And these two: Marc Cooper and Matthew Yglesias, anti-war types from the left, seem to agree.
Full disclosure, I got this from Instapundit.
Also see this article: World trembles as Bush shapes up for four more years.
Here is a quote: One can only imagine what the reaction of the American public would be if the government was to employ at home the same tactics it uses in other countries.
Another quote: The Osama bin Laden tapes, the one aired this weekend and those before, demonstrate in the clearest possible fashion that these people the target of the War on Terror are incensed by the U.S. relationship with Israel where there are no boundaries to U.S. support. Israel ironically harbors weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical, and biological, and accounts to no-one. Israel has not complied with scores of UN resolutions, has invaded several countries (carried out bombings and assassinations), and has illegally occupied the West Bank since 1967.
--
100 Facts and 1 Opinion -- The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration
For what its worth, Slate suggests the civilian death toll is closer to 8 thousand.
And here's some left leaning blogs that seem to agree: Marc Cooper and Matthew Yglesias
Honestly, that is a huge variation in numbers, and I'm not sure who to believe.
But I suspect it will be difficult to argue that Iraqi civilians were less likely to die in the long term under Sadaam. So, if you choose that route, good luck to you.
My question is, who gave us the right to make the choice to spend Iraqi lives to change the Iragi government. One of the fundamental tenets of democracy is that people have the right to choose their own government. It is a paradox that a committed democrat must respect the decision of a people to choose a non-democratic form of government.
If people have the right to choose their government, then they also have the duty to choose their government. If the people of Iraq chose not to overthrow Saddam, then who are we to say their choice was wrong. Perhaps the Iraqis didn't want to spend 100,000 lives (and counting).
And for those of you who are thinking that the people of Iraq could not have overthrown Saddam, it seems to me that they are doing a hell of a job of standing up to the US.
I agree, it's incredibly sad, and, I think, infuriating.
I mentioned the 100,000 estimate to some people I know. They argued that that estimate was probably high, which is true. And they thought that made it okay. They act as if, oh, say, 80,000 is a perfectly acceptable loss of life.
And I sit here, going nuts, because there's nothing I can do. I've already voted, though Kerry was taking New York whether I helped out or not. The people who I'd like to convince about this war either refuse to listen, or already do agree with me. So I sit by while tens of thousands die for nothing, because there's nothing I can do that will make any further difference. I've filled out a form to vote, and I've written letters, and...that's all a half-educated 19-year-old can do, besides seethe.
The craziest thing is that these people who condone mass murder think I'm an (a)/(im)moral person because I don't believe in an invisible man in the sky.
If you want to compare death rates now to under Saddam, the 100,000 estimate isn't exactly of people killed. It's the difference. There are 100,000 more dead Iraqis than there would have been had the U.S. left Saddam in power.
I don't give a shit if it's part of war. That's why civilized countries are so reluctant to go to war. Those 100,000 dead left millions with lost loved ones, and that is cause not for indignance or sadness, but absolute outrage.
America is no longer the moral pinnacle of the world. This nation's actions make the terrorists look noble: at least they fight for a cause.
This isn't a stock market correction you idiot. I second that - get a refund on your history degree.
Dresden. Hiroshima. Nagasaki. Vietnam. Nossirree Bob.
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
Oh yeah, those daycare centers are just breeding grounds for terrorists.
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
There's a reason Saddam thought he could hide until it was over.
But he was wrong, wasn't he?
Making a single issue the focal point of the leadership of what is essentially the most powerful nation on the planet makes no sense. This thread is fucked.
Bullshit, propaganda was a vital part of the NAZI regime. That's how they prepared the populace to accept eugenics, liquidation of the Jews and other "undesirables", and war against their neighbors. Part of their program was to spoon-feed this stuff to school children, as part of their curriculum, so that they would have proper "German" attitudes. For an example, see Der Giftpilz.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
OH yea, and there's just a TON of daycare centers in a society where women are expected to stay home and care for the children.
What part of Godwyn's law didn't you understand?
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
It's obvious that you don't understand it.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
If you read the details about what Kerry did in Vietnam, there's no question about which side Bin Laden is on.
http://tinyurl.com/4ny52
Now the ignorant will vote for Bush
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
"Doesn't it strike you as odd that that ratio pretty much carries over when you compare American deaths vs the Iraqi "civilian" casualty count?"
please...that's wild speculation. I could just as easily use that argument to suggest that some of those "insurgents" weren't so insurgent.
I was sure the the president would roll him out as a prisioner this month.
boy was i wrong
I am living proof of the Peter Principle
In that case, you should do something about it. Go to Iraq. The U.S. Army will help you.
I don't think we can be sure how it will effect the voting. Some people will say "oh, he put out the tape to influence the election because he wants Kerry to win." Others will say "No, he wants Bush to be re-elected because the Iraq fiasco has been the greatest recruiting tool EVER and this tape will scare people into voting for Bush"
Personally, I think he put the tape own this close to the elections to raise his own stature in the Museum world without much though about our elections.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
no, *you* take your megaphone and what have you, go to iraq, do what you do, whatever you call it - don't drag us and our troops for pointless war. you want it, you go do it. defend civilization my ass.
I was in Spain one week after the terrorist attacks in Madrid, the reasons why Spaniards kicked out the liars in goverment is that the right wing former goverment used all the power of the state to try to blame ETA (the Basque terrorists) for the attacks without haveing any shred of evidence, because they feared the backslash from the electorate after the attacks.
The effort was so cynical and clumsy that the people got completely fed up with them and kicked them, rightly, out of office.
To suggest that the Spanish people, who have lived with terrorism for more than 30 years, and with state sponsored terrorism for even longer, would be scared by a single terrorist attack is a vulgar lie.
You should apologize frankly.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
A 6'4" person in a burka, would probably stand out - just my opinion. :)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Here's a link to the Al-Jazeera translation (thanks to William Gibson for pointing it out). Apparently it's a little closer to the meaning of the original Arabic than the other Net translations.
The US never attacked civillians on purpose? What about Abu Ghraib?
Your "respect to history" sounds like a sad joke... I am really sick of listening that ignorant nonsense you people keep repeating over and over again, obviously not knowing the real history of postwar Germany. For those who are too lazy to actually read some hostory books, let me at least quote Condi's Phony History: Sorry, Dr. Rice, postwar Germany was nothing like Iraq by Daniel Benjamin, who was a director for counterterrorism on the National Security Council staff and a co-author of The Age of Sacred Terror. I quote the entire article, with emphasis added for people too lazy to follow the link and read the entire article. Posting as AC because I am not a karma whore, I just want people to stop spreading that nonsense.
Sort of a distributed denial of attack service.
(No, I don't mean a cartoon mouth mover using his old tapes. I mean creating new images, so they can't be identified by simply confirming to old tapes. Don't forget that his hair grows, so patterns on it will shift.)
Google for Lancet Journal, a prestigious scientific UK magazine that did some scientific calculations.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I was reading this post by deanj today (almost 72 hours after he/she posted it), and left the computer for about 15 mins.
deanj's post was at (Score:4, Informative) when I loaded it. When I came returned after 15 mins, I clicked on the parent link, and deanj's post had been modded down to (Score:0), entirely by 'Overrated' moderations.
Someone is abusing his or her privileges due to disagreeing with the post. Shame on you. Even stranger is that so much moderation was done so late.
james n.
HOW THE FUCK IS THIS POST +5 INSIGHTFUL??
Because Bin laden essentially said "Even though you started this I'm willing to stop if you are"
OSAMA BIN LADEN is a murderer
So is Bush.
he targeted the World Trade Center, a CIVILIAN INSTITUTION. The World Trade Center was never a military building, it had nothing to do with the US military.
Civilians in a democracy are responsible for their what their government does - if it chooses to sanction the killing of civilians in other countries they should be surprised if some of them strikes back. And if they don't have a mega big army they are going to blow up smaller stuff.
Being "at war" is NO EXCUSE for targeting civilans. NONE.
Which is indeed what the UN said to Bush, don't go in because you are going to kill a lot of civilians - but he didn't care.
You say 15k civilians in Iraq were killed
Actually its more like 100000 civilians were killed because of Bush's illegal war against a country that hadn't anything to do with Bin Ladens attack. A lot of children are without parents down there right now, they hate the US and when they grow up they'll probably strike back in 10-15-20 years - I'm sure there lot of idiot voters who then will whine "why are they after us, we are so innocent"
How many people were being tortured, starved and gassed by Saddam when he was in power??
Very few in later years, people stopped fighting him.
Infact in later years more people were starving to death because of the US backed sanctions.
Don't get me wrong, I think Bin Laden is dangerous lunatic - but then so is Bush and everything he has done the last few years makes the world a more dangerous place, and now the world is stuck with him for 4 more damn years!
Oh we weep for the bad education of the americans.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating