Osama video

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » October 31, 2004, 12:36 pm

Winnow wrote:
Toshira wrote:
Winnow wrote:Nice Osama lovefest going on in this thread. It turns my stomach.
Good - now you know how I feel about your constant Bush leg-humping.
I'm not a Bush lover but with all the Bush haters here I can see how'd you'd be fooled by anyone not calling Bush satan.

I'd give Bush anal tongue darts before saying something nice about Osama.

Thats why neocons are so godamn stupid regarding foreign policy. Sure maybe Toshira views him in a different light, but i realize Osama is an asshole, yet i realize that he is not motivated by "pure evil" and has real intentions and motives THAT HE BELIEVES ARE TRULY RIGHTEOUS...the truth is history has been written by the winners and there is no, or has never been any "good" or "evil" factions threw out history.

The "war on terrorism" cant be won with guns and bombs and high American casualties, Bush doesnt realize that you cant prevail over AN IDEA with brute physical force. He went into Iraq partially as an excuse because he didnt want to analyze what these "terrorists" true motives are.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 31, 2004, 12:54 pm

Look, Osama needs to die. There's no question of it.
He is not a salvageable person. No ammount of education or reducation or anything else will make him different. He's a threat to everyone in the world.

Saddam isn't a salvageable person either. That was a necessary invasion to stop long term potential problems. Yes, it has created hudnreds more. Do not mistake support for the war with support for how the war was handled.

I agree that there are dozens of other problems that need to be delt with. Pakistan, NK, Iran. These are not easy targets and probably would give us a much harder fight than Iraq. NK has nukes, Iran is developing them, and Pakistan is volitile enough to be vietnam x1000. Taking out Iraq was a step and I'm willing to say it was a step to show that yes, we have the power and the ability to come in, crush you and all you stand for if you're not going to stand up and play ball with the rest of the adults. Should Iraq have been first from a pure threat standpoint? Very, very doubtful. Was it enough to show the world that we don't care about what anyone else thinks when we feel we are being threatened and that we WILL blow the hell out of you if you even think crossways about dicking with us?

Maybe if it had been done right. It hasn't. Now, we deal with the consequences.

Tenuvil · Post by **Tenuvil** » October 31, 2004, 1:45 pm

Akaran_D wrote:Look, Osama needs to die...Saddam isn't a salvageable person either.... we have the power and the ability to come in, crush you and all you stand for if you're not going to stand up and play ball with the rest of the adults...we WILL blow the hell out of you if you even think crossways about dicking with us?

Akaran, think about what you said here. Granted these are out of context a bit, but man you're talking global fascism here. The USA doesn't own the globe, there is no "New World Order" (as far as I know anyway) and it shouldn't be this country's responsibility to pre-emptively attack any country that may be a potential threat. It's that kind of thinking that has gotten the US the awful reputation it has internationally.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 31, 2004, 1:49 pm

I think that if the gun was to antoher nations head, for example, China, the scenario would play out fairly much the same way. Consider if terrorists from another country struck out at China and then laughed about it / publically flaunted it.

Do you honestly think that China would waste time before shattering that country and then moving on to others if they continued to percieve them as a direct threat?

Tenuvil · Post by **Tenuvil** » October 31, 2004, 1:50 pm

China is also known for massive human rights violations.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 31, 2004, 1:58 pm

And so is Russia. And at one time, so was was all if Europe.

Ok, let's try this. What if it was England that this occured to? They would ask their allies for help. We would give it to them. They then percieved that there was a continual threat from the region that threatened their national borders and that the threat would manifiest itself far too quickly for diplomacy to be an issue.

How would they respond?

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » October 31, 2004, 2:07 pm

I think that if the gun was to antoher nations head, for example, China, the scenario would play out fairly much the same way.

What if it was England that this occured to? They would ask their allies for help.

Other nations, including England, have dealt with terrorism since the US was wearing diapers. Don't even try to think this is some new world event since you got hit for once. Oh and want to know how England solved their terrorist problem? They used diplomacy.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » October 31, 2004, 2:10 pm

It is not a question of how others would respond in similar situations. The question is how one should respond. The core question is "What is the best way to minimize terrorism in this world?"

It is the answer to this question which I think this administration has gotten wrong.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 31, 2004, 2:11 pm

Yes, because it worked so well to be diplomatic when the terrorists here in the US kicked them out.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 31, 2004, 2:12 pm

I think the answer IS 'how would you respond' instead of just 'how SHOULD you respond'.

We all do things we shouldn't. Having time to think about it is great, but what do you do when you find out Nation B is a clear and present threat to your home? Do you wait for it to be verified fifteen times over and risk the loss of life, or do you respond immedately and firmly?

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » October 31, 2004, 2:17 pm

I agree. Unfortunately our government is incompetent in understanding who is and who is not a threat to our security.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » October 31, 2004, 2:22 pm

Akaran_D wrote:I think the answer IS 'how would you respond' instead of just 'how SHOULD you respond'.

We all do things we shouldn't. Having time to think about it is great, but what do you do when you find out Nation B is a clear and present threat to your home? Do you wait for it to be verified fifteen times over and risk the loss of life, or do you respond immedately and firmly?

I'd want it to be verified beyond any shadow of a doubt before I invaded a sovereign country killing tens of thousands of innocents yes. But that might just be me, others seem more willing to invade on a whim.

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » October 31, 2004, 2:25 pm

Tenuvil wrote:China is also known for massive human rights violations.

Well, since the war, the US are actually working pretty good to get near Chinas standards

. Getting kicked from most of the human rights watch groups is pretty impressive with only 4 years with Bush.

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » October 31, 2004, 2:26 pm

Akaran_D wrote:I think the answer IS 'how would you respond' instead of just 'how SHOULD you respond'.

We all do things we shouldn't. Having time to think about it is great, but what do you do when you find out Nation B is a clear and present threat to your home? Do you wait for it to be verified fifteen times over and risk the loss of life, or do you respond immedately and firmly?

Just out of curiousity, how was Iraq a gerat risk for your home Akaran?

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 31, 2004, 2:34 pm

As it turns out, it wasn't.
It was a mistake. We now deal with the consequences.

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » October 31, 2004, 2:43 pm

Hmmmm, now we just need your president to figure that out too.....oh wait, that would be flipflopping, cant do that, would look weak, lets invade some other country to get the focus somewhere else

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 31, 2004, 2:46 pm

I have never said I support Bush..

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 31, 2004, 3:26 pm

Bush is far from perfect, yet what alternative do we have?

Kerry? yea right.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » October 31, 2004, 3:52 pm

Lesser of two evils.

noel · Post by **noel** » October 31, 2004, 4:59 pm

In the last chapter of Richard Clarke's book, he details (if I remember correctly) a 5 point plan to deal with terrorism. The key points I recall were:

1. Going after Usama and his Al-Quaeda organization (military action/etc.).
2. Using the world/political favor the US had after 9/11 to strengthen our relationships with friendly countries in the middle-east. (as opposed to invading Iraq and polarizing them against us while at the same time helping to create a breeding ground for terrorist recruitment)
3. Giving the necessary support to Afganistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Pakistan to help prevent their governments from being overthrown by radical Islamic fundamentalists that distort the peaceful religion for their own means.
4. Strengthening our homeland security, plugging up holes in airline security, etc. Fix the communication/political issues between organizations like the FBI/CIA/State Department/etc. (there was enough information prior to 9/11 that wasn't communicated between the CIA/FBI/etc. that it's likely 9/11 could have been prevented).

Those aren't in order, and they're just from memory since I have only listened to the audiobook, and haven't had a chance to pick up the hardback yet, but that's what should have been done. Note that nowhere does it say, "SOLVE ALL THE PROBLEMS DIPLOMATICALLY!!!" It says work on all fronts. Instead of just using our military brawn, user some foreign policy brains as well.

Edit: Winnow, I'll save you a post by pointing out that nowhere in my post do I mention the Democratic nominee for President.

Hoarmurath · Post by **Hoarmurath** » October 31, 2004, 5:58 pm

Denadeb wrote:Isn't it Usama not Osama

It's neither. Being an Arabic name, all we can do is spell it in a way that mimics it phonetically.

So, depending on your outlook, they are either both right or both wrong, but one is certainly not more or less correct than the other.

Here is how his name is really spelled: أسامة بن لادن

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » October 31, 2004, 7:57 pm

Akaran_D wrote:I think the answer IS 'how would you respond' instead of just 'how SHOULD you respond'.

We all do things we shouldn't. Having time to think about it is great, but what do you do when you find out Nation B is a clear and present threat to your home? Do you wait for it to be verified fifteen times over and risk the loss of life, or do you respond immedately and firmly?

I think by definition "clear and present" would tend to infer that the threat is already verified. If you need to verify that something is a threat, then it is not clear and present. I realize those statements are repetitive, but I wanted to reinforce my point.

So if we truly found that a country, and I mean any country, were a clear and present threat to America, then I would favor a first strike scenario. Preemption is a valuable military tool. However, lacking a clear and present threat I would tend to favor verifying fifteen times over, or however many times it took to be sure. You risk lives in any armed conflict, typically far more than you risk by being safe and sure, and possibly avoiding armed conflict all together.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 31, 2004, 8:55 pm

Kar:
You get a memo. On that memo it says, "Nation A is developing WMDs and is an immedate threat to us."

What do you do?

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » October 31, 2004, 9:11 pm

You find a way to defend yourself and you look into it a bit more. One memo != justification to invade a country with guns blazing.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » October 31, 2004, 9:50 pm

The intel the Bush administration used to justify their invasion, was from a source that clearly had a vested interest in the US removing Saddam from power. To say that you would have to regard his information with some doubt is an understatement, however; Bush chose to take it as gospel because it suited his purposes.

IIRC, all your intelligence sources have since said they didn't believe the information and passed it along with that assessment.

Where's the "memo" that required immediate action?

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » November 1, 2004, 1:32 am

Well, I thought I was clear on what I would do already, but I don't mind reiterating my point. And I guess I can spell it out in more detail.

First, I would send a return memo saying, "Send proof." I would also call the Joint Chiefs of Staff, my Foreign Policy Advisor, and whomever else I thought qualified (specifically people with tremendous knowlege of the political, economic, and religous climate of said Nation A), and tell them to start working on a invasion and exit strategy. You start this step now so that it is ready, hopefully, if/when you need it. If it isn't ready, you wait for it to be ready unless it is clear that doing so would invite an immediate catastrophe.

When the reply with "proof" came I would look at it, and judge the merit of said proof, and then I would distribute the proof to various agencies, (FBI, CIA, hell I might even call up my buddies ruling other countries) along with a memo asking them to honestly debunk the proof. (honestly meaning no fabrications)

Once I got those reports, I would read them and compare them against the proof report. Then I'd send both to the accuser, giving them a chance to prove their side again.

And I'd let that go back and forth until I was sure there was a threat, or sure there wasn't a threat. IF, I was sure there was a threat, I would 1) Go to Congress. 2) Use the War Powers Act to begin mobilizing and deploying the military. 3) Go to the UN, and do whatever it took to get an accord. If for whatever reason that did not happen, and I mean going all the way to a vote or veto, then I would act unilaterly. But, I would make it as clear as I possibly could, that I was doing so strictly as a last resort.*

As for the countries who opposed us in the UN, in light of a very clear threat; I would sever the economic ties with them that would be most detrimental to their countries. To show that perhaps they do have a vested interest in keeping America safe.

I'm sure many, maybe most, people think my ideas suck, but like I said, protecting civilian lives, and not just American, is too important to just rush into a armed conflict. Not to say we shouldn't strive to protect military lives, but they have at least volunteered to be in harms way.

*Note 1,2, & 3 are not necessarily in chronological order.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » November 1, 2004, 1:15 pm

Polls suggest this actually might have hurt Bush.

Bush's 17 point lead in "effectiveness against terrorism" is down to a 6 point lead in a Gallup poll released today.

If that represents a true sentiment in the population, Bush has lost the election.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » November 1, 2004, 1:54 pm

Voronwë wrote:Polls suggest this actually might have hurt Bush.

Bush's 17 point lead in "effectiveness against terrorism" is down to a 6 point lead in a Gallup poll released today.

If that represents a true sentiment in the population, Bush has lost the election.

Not if he's still considered more effective than Kerry would be even with the decline which seems to be the case in the polls.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » November 1, 2004, 2:13 pm

Winnow wrote:
Voronwë wrote:Polls suggest this actually might have hurt Bush.

Bush's 17 point lead in "effectiveness against terrorism" is down to a 6 point lead in a Gallup poll released today.

If that represents a true sentiment in the population, Bush has lost the election.
Not if he's still considered more effective than Kerry would be even with the decline which seems to be the case in the polls.

this is the only issue that Bush polls higher than Kerry on. The only one, and it has brought him to a dead heat in the overall polls. It is reasonable to extrapolate that if Bush loses ground in the only area where he has an advantage, it could be pretty costly.

to paraphrase an email read on a news show this morning - the caves and holes that we have Bin Laden apparently relegated to look like the Four Seasons - Riyadh.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » November 1, 2004, 2:23 pm

Whoa,

Osama says that states that don't mess with him will not be targeted for terror attacks.

What he talking about states as in Colorado, or Idaho? What this a reference to the electorial college results?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » November 1, 2004, 2:26 pm

you are kidding right?

noel · Post by **noel** » November 1, 2004, 2:29 pm

He's kidding.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » November 1, 2004, 2:46 pm

Any way to get the arabic translation? I got a guy here at work who could clear it up.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » November 1, 2004, 2:48 pm

States as in like.. Nations and stuff. Not individual states in the US

Tenuvil · Post by **Tenuvil** » November 1, 2004, 2:50 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Whoa,

Osama says that states that don't mess with him will not be targeted for terror attacks.

What he talking about states as in Colorado, or Idaho? What this a reference to the electorial college results?

lol

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » November 1, 2004, 2:52 pm

*Shrug*

November 1, 2004 -- WASHINGTON - Osama bin Laden warned in his October Surprise video that he will be closely monitoring the state-by-state election returns in tomorrow's presidential race — and will spare any state that votes against President Bush from being attacked, according to a new analysis of his statement.
The respected Middle East Media Research Institute, which monitors and translates Arabic media and Internet sites, said initial translations of a key portion of bin Laden's video rant to the American people Friday night missed an ostentatious bid by the Saudi-born terror master to divide American voters and tilt the election towards Democratic challenger John Kerry.

MEMRI said radical Islamist commentators monitored over the Internet this past weekend also interpreted the key passage of bin Laden's diatribe to mean that any U.S. state that votes to elect Bush on Tuesday will be considered an "enemy" and any state that votes for Kerry has "chosen to make peace with us."

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/33124.htm

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » November 1, 2004, 6:27 pm

That's it, I'm changing to vote with Bin Laden!

Post by **Sylvus** » November 1, 2004, 6:31 pm

Voting for Kerry means the terrorists win.

4 more years!!

krin · Post by **krin** » November 1, 2004, 6:35 pm

UBL 2%
Nader .5%

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » November 1, 2004, 7:11 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:*Shrug*

November 1, 2004 -- WASHINGTON - Osama bin Laden warned in his October Surprise video that he will be closely monitoring the state-by-state election returns in tomorrow's presidential race — and will spare any state that votes against President Bush from being attacked, according to a new analysis of his statement.
The respected Middle East Media Research Institute, which monitors and translates Arabic media and Internet sites, said initial translations of a key portion of bin Laden's video rant to the American people Friday night missed an ostentatious bid by the Saudi-born terror master to divide American voters and tilt the election towards Democratic challenger John Kerry.

MEMRI said radical Islamist commentators monitored over the Internet this past weekend also interpreted the key passage of bin Laden's diatribe to mean that any U.S. state that votes to elect Bush on Tuesday will be considered an "enemy" and any state that votes for Kerry has "chosen to make peace with us."
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/33124.htm

Do any of ya'll really think Osama is dumb enough, (remember; mastermind), to believe opposing Bush's election isn't a boost for Bush?

Holy crap, what am I asking...

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » November 1, 2004, 8:21 pm

You can reasonably interpret it both ways.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » November 1, 2004, 8:54 pm

Outside of the US a "state" is a country. There is no doubt about it. Even now after having lived here this long I often have to think for a second when somebody says "state" about Ohio or another territorial state because it is so natural for me to think country.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » November 1, 2004, 9:01 pm

Kelshara wrote:Outside of the US a "state" is a country. There is no doubt about it. Even now after having lived here this long I often have to think for a second when somebody says "state" about Ohio or another territorial state because it is so natural for me to think country.

That's because any single state in the U.S is still better than any other entire country! (a few bible belt states excluded)

Sweden might beat out Alabama due to their high speed internet.

noel · Post by **noel** » November 1, 2004, 9:08 pm

Winnow wrote:That's because any single state in the U.S is still better than any other entire country! (a few bible belt states excluded)

Sweden might beat out Alabama due to their high speed internet.

Because I'm curious...

I know you don't actually believe that. Why do you say things like that that you know are just going to piss people off?

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » November 1, 2004, 9:12 pm

heh doesn't piss me off when people who actually mean it say it. It makes me feel sorry for them and their ignorance.

noel · Post by **noel** » November 1, 2004, 9:15 pm

Winnow is far from stupid. I refuse to believe he actually means shit like that when he says it. He's either doing it just to rile people up or for some reason I can't discern.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » November 1, 2004, 9:17 pm

Bored at work. There's no deeper meaning*

*I'm not trying to get Ransure beat up while he's in europe!

Markulas · Post by **Markulas** » November 1, 2004, 9:39 pm

Is there a way to see how many votes Osama will get in the election tomorrow??

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » November 1, 2004, 9:41 pm

I dont' know about Osama, but I think there's an Obama running.

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » November 1, 2004, 10:34 pm

Oh god, please take that back Adex. Barack Obama is running for the Senate in my state of Illinois, and he's going to coast to a 70% victory over Alan Keyes. Having had the pleasure of meeting Obama, any comparison between the two should be stopped immediately.