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.
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
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.
You doubt the authenticity of the tape and then turn around and use Prison Planet to justify a conspiracy theory? Pshaw.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
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...
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 worse:
"Senator Kerry and President Bush have held 11 secret meetings in the past 2 weeks, planning their next move. The agenda? More than to destroy the happiness in the world, more than to destroy the health of children, more than to spoil the innocent -- their goal is nothing less than the complete and ttal destruction of EXISTENCE ITSELF... and believe me, they will not rest until their goal is met."
-- Ronald E. Carthright, former senior advisor to John F Kennedy and Ronald Reagan
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.
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.
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.
"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;
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.
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.
I bet the rest of the tape was:
Note to self; Dont attempt humour at 6 o'clock in the morning without sleep.
I don't know man. Bin Laden killed 3000 civilians, and what, 50 servicemen on the USS Cole? Bush has killed 100,000 civilians and 1000 servicemen. This is not to say that Bin Laden isn't a violent murderous psychopath. It's just to say that, even though I saw the towers fall with my own eyes, even though I hate bin Laden and everything he stands for with a firey, burning passion, even though if given the chance I would rip bin Laden's balls off and feed them to him before I rip off his head, shit down his neck, and feed him to the wolves... It's just that, put into perspective, he's less scary than Bush.
And if he *did* do it again, you'd still be voting for Bush, using the excuse that Kerry would be worse.
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.
He meant before America sided with Israel against Lebanon and Palestine. He says so, and then continues, "And as I was looking at those towers that were destroyed in Lebanon, it occurred to me that we have to punish the transgressor with the same -- 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."
What he's trying to say is "Yeah I took out the WTC, but you started it."
The very fact that Bush specifically mentioned how important it was to kill/capture Osama and then outsourced the job to groups who were also actively fighting eachother, who let him escape, and then to add insult to injury denied he ever said Osama was a priority and that he didn't even think about him anymore, is one of the many reasons i did not vote for Bush (early voting r0x0rZ!).
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? ;)
> 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
> 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
I'm curious why so many people think Bush is our best bet for security. Has he actually done anything any other president wouldn't have done? (Other than getting us into an unnecessary war in Iraq?)
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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
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.
I don't think terrorist backing will help the Kerry campaign as much as bin Laden seems to think it will.
Maybe he doesn't think it will help Kerry.
Don't you think he would have considered that anything seemingly pro-Kerry from him would help Bush?
Maybe he really wants Bush to win because so far he has remained safe and sound with Bush in charge.
I bet Osama is hiding under a bridge.
I bet he's in a disco in Germany.
I hate Liberals and Conservatives.
If you are a Liberal or a Conservative, then HAVE A NICE DAY!
Courage.
Fear in America is a little different. It doesn't elicit compliance, it elicits swift violence and a suspenstion of the normal rules.
My poorly socialized little yippy dog is exactly the same way. When he gets scared, he runs around and barks and snarls and snaps at any damned thing he can get away with. He never actually confronts the thing he's scared of (because he's scared of it, duh), but his little stuffed animals really get the shit kicked out of them.
I think it's pretty damned funny that we got so scared of Bin Laden, so as a country we decided to take our agression out on a country that we saw as no threat to us. Boy, do we look foolish, now that Iraq has refused to be our little stuffed animal to kick around.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The very fact that Bush specifically mentioned how important it was to kill/capture Osama and then outsourced the job
At the time when this was done, Kerry agreed with Bush that this was the way to go. Kerry said that it was a good idea because it would keep down the number of American casualties.
Now Kerry says Bush was "outsourcing", which is bad, and that he, Kerry, has not changed his position. What a classy guy.
Anything worth doing is worth doing badly -- G.K. Chesterton
I'm getting really tired of the "Terrorists for Kerry" argument. It's entirely baseless and is absurd. If the terrorists didn't like Bush as much as the Republicans say they don't, why haven't there been any attempts on his life? Secondly, after all that Bush has really managed to accomplish with regards Terrorism, it makes more sense that the terrorsists want Bush in office. His actions have actually increase the support that these organizations have by building sympathy. It's like using a baseball bat to destroy a jello mold. Sure, you broke the jello mold, but now you've just got jello over everything else and people are pissed becuase now they have to worry about jello on them.
It's not just that Bush removed a strong and secular government from Iraq, one that hated Osama's Islamicism, leaving the vacuum needed by religious fundamentalists sympathetic to Al Quaeda who want to grab power. (Al Sader is polling at 50% nationally!)
It's also that Bush is the best Al Quaeda recruiter that anyone could imagine. Sure, we've destroyed a nominal number of terrorists and training camps, but all the intelligence agencies report that new recruits pour in far faster than we are able to kill them.
So of course Bin Laden, and anyone sympathetic to Al Quaeda, wants Bush to stay in power. I can't imagine a US response to 9/11 which would have been better from the Al Quaeda point of view. Obviously, there would be an Afghanistan invasion. But such a tepid one, where we bribe local warlords to do our fighting, is something Osama could not have dreamed of. All he had to do is bribe them more, and he stays alive. Meanwhile, the recruiting is in full swing, not in concentrated training camps which are easy to hit, but all over the world, including the US and Europe. There is no hope of a systematic campaign against these new recruits, because this would certainly involve serious coordination between the US and other states, but Bush's America is so politically isolated now that this cooperation is impossible. So basically, Al Quaeda cells can drop their roots all over the world, and during their most vulnerable phase (the next four years) they have nothing to fear from the USA if Bush remains president.
The above is just so obvious that I can't imagine how it might escape someone, so I don't get how people might even consider the idea that Bin Laden would prefer that Kerry becomes president.
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.
...
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.
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.