Bin Laden

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » February 28, 2004, 4:24 pm

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... in_laden_1

On Saturday, Pentagon and Pakistani officials denied an Iranian state radio report that bin Laden had been captured "a long time ago" in Pakistan's border region with Afghanistan

When they say "Iranian state radio report," are they referring to some official government report? I'm not familiar with Iranian media.

At any rate, I know we've discussed this here, but if bin Laden does get captured before the election, and you would be pretty naive to think it was coincidence.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 28, 2004, 4:32 pm

Honestly I'm not sure which plays better for the administration politically...

"You are safer now because we captured Bin Laden"...or "He is still out there"...

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » February 28, 2004, 4:39 pm

Arborealus wrote:Honestly I'm not sure which plays better for the administration politically...

"You are safer now because we captured Bin Laden"...or "He is still out there"...

Bush will be deified by the masses if Bin Laden is captured. With his sluggish popularity right now, it would be just what he needs to win the election.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » February 28, 2004, 4:41 pm

It's too soon. Another 3 or 4 months, after the Democratic candidate is chosen and the mud slinging has really started to heat up, then they'd pull out the trump card if they do in fact already have him. The Saddam capture showed that it wasn't enough to make people rally to Bush like they did after 9/11, they don't want to screw up this PR event again.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » February 28, 2004, 6:48 pm

The chance of them already having him, but holding him to announce later, and actually successfully keeping that secret, In my opinion is extremely slight.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » February 28, 2004, 9:13 pm

Lalanae wrote:When they say "Iranian state radio report," are they referring to some official government report? I'm not familiar with Iranian media.

the media in Iran is state (government) run. usually this is a bad thing because it also means state controlled. there are exceptions of course where true democratic countries have state run media like the uk and canada, but private companies can run their own news as well.

in Iran's case, like most countries like that, the state run media is the only media.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » February 28, 2004, 9:17 pm

If you can color public opinion with glossy speculation, why bother with the truth?

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 28, 2004, 9:26 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:If you can color public opinion with glossy speculation, why bother with the truth?

Like the existence of WMDs in Iraqu!...

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » February 28, 2004, 9:37 pm

saddam was evil and had to be removed from power even if the government had to lie to its people and the world to do it.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » February 28, 2004, 9:50 pm

Rare agreement with Kyu here..

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » February 28, 2004, 10:48 pm

christ

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » February 28, 2004, 10:58 pm

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » February 28, 2004, 11:17 pm

I am critical of Bush in a number of areas:

1. The gay marraige thing is ridiculous. We should not be easting taxpayer money trying to make a constitutional amendment. Seriously, who gives a fuck.

2. The pre war intelligence with Iraq certainly does appear shoddy. While I cannot completely place this on The Bush administration's shoulders, some blame certainly should be placed here. I should mention that I fully support the war without a single shred of WMD or Al Queda eveidence and I don't believe this should have ever been our main reason for going in because there are plenty of other better reasons for the war(not for this thread). And Pud, while this is a huge negative, there is not a shred of evidence that the Administration lied to the public knowingly, as much as many people would like to believe otherwise.

3. While I support the tax cuts, the administration's predictions for the economy have fallen short repeatedly. While the economy does again look like it is growing, it is not growing as fast as it might or as fast as they expected. This makes a difference because the magnitude of the tax cuts were based on these guesses.

All of that being said, it takes a seriously one sided mind to propose that the Bush administration is hiding Bin Laden for political gain. That is just so absurd that any time I ever see you post about politics from here on out, I will most likely summarily ignore you. If you want to attack Bush, use facts, God knows they are out there. Don't fucking resort to concocting some far fetched fabrication like this. Facts people, facts. Please. . .they are good.

Stan

QED

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » February 28, 2004, 11:42 pm

Akaran_D wrote:Rare agreement with Kyu here..

teehee

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 29, 2004, 12:34 am

Bush has some shock and awe planned for this November.

Homeland Security will work down to Guarded and then, pending how the election is going, will head up to High or Severe.

Winnow - Campaign Advisor
Non biased and available for hire

Free advice to Democrats: change mascot from a Donkey to a Wolverine to secure the 18-23 vote!

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » February 29, 2004, 2:23 am

In the absence of any clear moral standard the truth becomes elusive.

Whereas the effects of not knowing the truth remain in force.

Sadly this our country.

The truth is a hassle.
The truth is, uncomfortable.
We see truth as a shackle to what we want to do.

Even if what we want to do, rends havoc on others, and scars our soul.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 29, 2004, 2:28 am

Adex_Xeda wrote:In the absence of any clear moral standard the truth becomes untranslatable.

Hrrrm but I have no moral standards and I realize that statement is untrue...

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » February 29, 2004, 4:04 am

You have a moral standard Arb, it's probably something geared to allow you the most personal freedom possible. Granted I can only assume this from what you've posted and I do know there's more to a man than his VV postings.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 29, 2004, 4:18 am

Adex_Xeda wrote:You have a moral standard Arb, it's probably something geared to allow you the most personal freedom possible.

Well thats the third respose I have read now...

And no I have ethical standards derived from 40 years of thinking and being...Moral standards rely on someone else's authority...And optimizing everyone's personal freedom is very important to me...Maximizing my personal freedom would deny all others their's and is abhorrently antithetical my personal philosophy...

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » February 29, 2004, 3:51 pm

Morality is the standards of rightness and goodness by which we judge human behavior.

Ethics is the philosophical study of morality, the search for principles that justify the moral standards that we seek to apply.

You have a personal moral standard.

Using that "personal" moral standard. How about lies?

They harm people, are you comforable casually tossing them around? Or, do you belive there is merit in attempting to arrive at the truth of things?

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 29, 2004, 8:56 pm

Re: morals and ethics...read the greeks I have explained it to you twice...I will not bother further...

I have no desire to further derail a thread responding to vague implication and insinuation...

If you have issues with the veracity of any of my posts please address those issues specifically in those threads...

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 1, 2004, 4:33 pm

Now there's no reason to get defensive Arb.

I speak with no hostility towards you.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 1, 2004, 4:36 pm

Besides you have a very interesting take on life.

I like to hear your perspective on things.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » March 1, 2004, 4:38 pm

Adex your post does imply that Arbor somehow perpetuates "untruth" or that his morality/ethics/whatever does.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 1, 2004, 8:55 pm

I'm speaking more in general.

I notice that in our country people casually toss out lies as if they don't have negative consequences.

I speculate that lieing is more accepted nowadays because we all have fragmented moral standards. We don't all agree on right and wrong as much these days.

Arb mentioned that he has no moral standards. What an interesting person. I'd like his opinion on these topics.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » March 1, 2004, 9:03 pm

i look at that chart again and wonder, why did they put a low risk level on it? As long as this thing is up, will it EVER reach low?

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » March 1, 2004, 10:46 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Now there's no reason to get defensive Arb.

I speak with no hostility towards you.

Well the "are you comfortable with casually tossing [lies] around?" added to the previous post, now deleted, in which you characterized me as a "hypocrite" do seem more about attacking me personally than curiosity...

...nevertheless this thread is about an issue other than ethical philosophy...feel free to start one though I may choose to participate...

miir · Post by **miir** » March 2, 2004, 12:43 pm

there is not a shred of evidence that the Administration lied to the public knowingly

So you're saying that they had no idea that they were clueless?

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 2, 2004, 8:18 pm

My suggestions are relevant to this topic.

Bush is accused of doctoring the truth to push his goals.

Some here doctor the truth to push forward the idea that Bush has Bin Laden in his pocket, ready for an politically impactful release.

Both sides, people treat the truth as if it has little value. Their goals and winning seem to be more important than determining the truth.

I posted what I noticed.

Is it ok to slam bush with creative yet unfounded accusations just to further your cause?

Is it ok for bush to stretch the facts of his situation to win public support for a war?

Do we cause harm by treating the truth with such little respect?
Do we cause harm by casually lieing?

If this is bad thing to do, then both sides of the arguement are guilty.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 2, 2004, 9:09 pm

Avestan wrote: there is not a shred of evidence that the Administration lied to the public knowingly,

I sense a scandal!

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » March 2, 2004, 9:14 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Do we cause harm by treating the truth with such little respect?
Do we cause harm by casually lieing?

Sort of off topic, but I'd like to say I think this is the only time you haven't treated each new sentence as a paragraph!

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 3, 2004, 3:59 am

I find spaces between sentances make text easier to read.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » March 3, 2004, 9:42 am

Adex_Xeda wrote:My suggestions are relevant to this topic.

Bush is accused of doctoring the truth to push his goals.

Some here doctor the truth to push forward the idea that Bush has Bin Laden in his pocket, ready for an politically impactful release.

Both sides, people treat the truth as if it has little value. Their goals and winning seem to be more important than determining the truth.

I posted what I noticed.

Is it ok to slam bush with creative yet unfounded accusations just to further your cause?

Is it ok for bush to stretch the facts of his situation to win public support for a war?

Do we cause harm by treating the truth with such little respect?
Do we cause harm by casually lieing?

If this is bad thing to do, then both sides of the arguement are guilty.

I certainly did not intend to imply that Bin Laden had been captured...I just wondered which would do more service for the current administration...

I do not subscribe in any way to Machiavellian ideology...truthful debate on issues is critical to democratic ideals...both of the major parties are playing in cavalier fashion with the truth...which inspires nothing in me so much as disdain...

The end does noy justify the means...the means are equally important

By the way I do not see that anyone has implied that Bin Laden has been captured other than Iranian state radio...

Bush however did unequivocally state repeatedly that there were WMDs in Iraq and that this was why we were going to war...And we certainly know there were among his resources no definite indications that this was the case. Bush is certainly now backpedaling trying to find the intelligence "breakdowns"...but ultimately He is the one who unequivocally stated that they were there...he didn't say best evidence indicates sadam may have wmd...he said it was "truth" and used this as a rationale to push our country into a war...so he lied ultimately...at least regarding wmds...

If I'm president I don't say that WMDs exist unless I see pictures of said devices with intelligence indicating the presence of chemical/radiological payload...The president is ultimately responsible for why he says what he says...Note that he has yet to say that he was wrong? he is acting like a child pointing to the intelligence community and saying well they told me so...the buck does ultimately stop at the oval office...

miir · Post by **miir** » March 3, 2004, 12:29 pm

There's a big difference between the leader of the most powerful country of the world and being accountable for what you say..... then being a bunch of smartasses shooting the shit on a internet message board.

If we want to speculate that bin laden has already been captured and that it wont be 'announced' until a crucial time, we have that luxury.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 3, 2004, 11:30 pm

Miir you swarthy mangina. Are you still hanging out in an online game nowadays?

BTW I agree, standards on people are not consistant.

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » March 3, 2004, 11:33 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Miir you swarthy mangina. Are you still hanging out in an online game nowadays?

BTW I agree, standards on people are not consistant.

He is teh slut bard Effie of Kratos!

/bite Miir!

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 18, 2004, 12:37 pm

And now this

http://english.mehrnews.com/wfNewsDetai ... =Political

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » March 18, 2004, 12:47 pm

If it is true and they get caught, bush can claim they say its vital to iraq's safety (im sorry its hard to say that without laughing)
If its true and they do not get caught, then oh look we found wmd's!

VeeshanVault

Bin Laden

Bin Laden

Re: Bin Laden