New Bin Laden tape

Jag · Post by **Jag** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:42 pm

Apparently this is the first time he actually takes credit for 9/11 and promises more attacks since we haven't changed the causes of the first attack. He also says Bush deceived the US and that the idea for attacking the towers came after he saw Israeli warplanes attack buildings in Lebannon in 82.

This is some scary shit, my feeling always was that an attack would take place if Bush gets reelected to punish the US and our evil ways. Too bad we can't find this fucker. Its interesting though how he is seeking to directly influence the election though.

Eco-Logic · Post by **Eco-Logic** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:50 pm

Didn't it just now air?

I agree, this is quiet scary.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 5:00 pm

It just showed on Al Jazeera, CNN has shown clips of it.

I'm always struck by how... for lack of a better word, rational... the man seems. It takes a truly twisted soul to talk so dispassionately about such evil threats and promises.

SuperHiro · Post by **SuperHiro** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 5:02 pm

Million bucks says if Kerry wins the election OBL will take credit for it.

Million bucks also say that a few undecideds just decided to vote Bush.

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 5:03 pm

Every President that has bombed any country has been able to talk calmly about it.

Hetz · Post by **Hetz** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 5:27 pm

Million bucks also say that a few undecideds just decided to vote Bush.

Million bucks says that a few undecideds just decided to vote for Kerry since they are now seeing the man that Bush admits he "doesn't worry about much anymore" and the mastermind of 9/11 going on TV and mocking us before the election.

Bush has done nothing except drag us into a quagmire in Iraq, when we should have been going after this bastard and his associates with all of our forces.

SuperHiro · Post by **SuperHiro** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 5:31 pm

Hetz wrote:
Million bucks also say that a few undecideds just decided to vote Bush.
Million bucks says that a few undecideds just decided to vote for Kerry since they are now seeing the man that Bush admits he "doesn't worry about much anymore" and the mastermind of 9/11 going on TV and mocking us before the election.

Bush has done nothing except drag us into a quagmire in Iraq, when we should have been going after this bastard and his associates with all of our forces.

Oh wait.

I misread the initial post. I thought OBL was saying that if Bush get's reelected he was going to attack. I see now that that's not the case.

Whoops.

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 5:31 pm

This is bin Laden showing his followers and the rest of the world that the USA isn't all powerful and all knowing.

Anyone here still thinks that bin Laden is unimportant in the 'big picture' of terrorism?

Poleaxe · Post by **Poleaxe** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 5:46 pm

Dirt wrote:This is bin Laden showing his followers and the rest of the world that the USA isn't all powerful and all knowing.

Anyone here still thinks that bin Laden is unimportant in the 'big picture' of terrorism?

It's a tape. Just a tape.

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 5:50 pm

Poleaxe wrote:
Dirt wrote:This is bin Laden showing his followers and the rest of the world that the USA isn't all powerful and all knowing.

Anyone here still thinks that bin Laden is unimportant in the 'big picture' of terrorism?
It's a tape. Just a tape.

And "Old Glory" is just a flag.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 5:52 pm

Bin Laden actually said it doesn't matter who we elect, it's US policy that has to change. They're going to attack whether we elect Bush, Kerry, or Triumph the Insult Comic Dog.

As far as the political effect?

Some people will see the tape, blame Bush for not capturing Bin Laden, and vote for Kerry.

Some people will see the tape, realize the continued threat from terrorism, and vote for Bush.

In other words, this tape won't effect a diddly-damn thing.

Jag · Post by **Jag** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 6:06 pm

The tape will not (and should not) affect anything. I read some more of the transcripts of the tape and it does seem that he is saying that it doesn't matter who is in office, just that the US policies need to change to avoid attacks. The implication being that Bush will be more of the same and Kerry may or may not change things. From what I read in international papers, Kerry is merely the lesser of two evils to the arab street.

CSL · Post by **CSL** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 6:21 pm

Dirt wrote:
Poleaxe wrote:
Dirt wrote:This is bin Laden showing his followers and the rest of the world that the USA isn't all powerful and all knowing.

Anyone here still thinks that bin Laden is unimportant in the 'big picture' of terrorism?
It's a tape. Just a tape.
And "Old Glory" is just a flag.

But.........it is just a flag.

The flag means nothing, only the ideas behind it mean anything.

Edit: IMHO

$iljanus · Post by **$iljanus** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 7:02 pm

I think bin Laden must have a Blockbuster Video near his cave and rented Fareinheit 9/11 recently...

"It appeared to him (Bush) that a little girl's talk about her goat and its butting was more important than the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers. That gave us three times the required time to carry out the operations, thank God," he said.

WPD · Post by **WPD** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 7:10 pm

CSL wrote:
Dirt wrote:
Poleaxe wrote:
Dirt wrote:This is bin Laden showing his followers and the rest of the world that the USA isn't all powerful and all knowing.

Anyone here still thinks that bin Laden is unimportant in the 'big picture' of terrorism?
It's a tape. Just a tape.
And "Old Glory" is just a flag.
But.........it is just a flag.

The flag means nothing, only the ideas behind it mean anything.

Edit: IMHO

It isn't the flag that matters, but the size of the pole.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 7:39 pm

siljanus wrote:I think bin Laden must have a Blockbuster Video near his cave and rented Fareinheit 9/11 recently...

"It appeared to him (Bush) that a little girl's talk about her goat and its butting was more important than the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers. That gave us three times the required time to carry out the operations, thank God," he said.

Bin Laden is just talking trash. While that 7 minute lag looks bad, it didn't really give them space to complete operations. The element of suprise did that on its own.

Poleaxe · Post by **Poleaxe** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 7:50 pm

WPD wrote:
CSL wrote:
Dirt wrote:
Poleaxe wrote:
Dirt wrote:This is bin Laden showing his followers and the rest of the world that the USA isn't all powerful and all knowing.

Anyone here still thinks that bin Laden is unimportant in the 'big picture' of terrorism?
It's a tape. Just a tape.
And "Old Glory" is just a flag.
But.........it is just a flag.

The flag means nothing, only the ideas behind it mean anything.

Edit: IMHO
It isn't the flag that matters, but the size of the pole.

And America has one big-ass pole no matter who the president is. It doesn't matter whether Bush or Kerry gets elected, because if AQ attacks us on our soil again something or someone is going to get ruined.

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 7:52 pm

Poleaxe wrote:And America has one big-ass pole no matter who the president is. It doesn't matter whether Bush or Kerry gets elected, because if AQ attacks us on our soil again something or someone is going to get ruined.

We were attacked. On 9/11/2001. Someone was ruined. But it wasn't Osama bin Laden. Why wasn't our entire armed forces out to get Osama bin Laden until he was ruined?

gnox · Post by **gnox** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 8:13 pm

Poleaxe wrote:
And America has one big-ass pole no matter who the president is. It doesn't matter whether Bush or Kerry gets elected, because if AQ attacks us on our soil again something or someone is going to get ruined.

Hopefully the right "something or someone".

Poleaxe · Post by **Poleaxe** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 9:09 pm

Dirt wrote:
Poleaxe wrote:And America has one big-ass pole no matter who the president is. It doesn't matter whether Bush or Kerry gets elected, because if AQ attacks us on our soil again something or someone is going to get ruined.
We were attacked. On 9/11/2001. Someone was ruined. But it wasn't Osama bin Laden. Why wasn't our entire armed forces out to get Osama bin Laden until he was ruined?

And do you believe that the death of OBL will be the death of AQ? A democratic Iraq in ten years will do more for the world than the death of Osamma today.

jblank · Post by **jblank** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 9:58 pm

Poleaxe wrote:
Dirt wrote:
Poleaxe wrote:And America has one big-ass pole no matter who the president is. It doesn't matter whether Bush or Kerry gets elected, because if AQ attacks us on our soil again something or someone is going to get ruined.
We were attacked. On 9/11/2001. Someone was ruined. But it wasn't Osama bin Laden. Why wasn't our entire armed forces out to get Osama bin Laden until he was ruined?
And do you believe that the death of OBL will be the death of AQ? A democratic Iraq in ten years will do more for the world than the death of Osamma today.

Not sure I agree. Personally, I dont think a "Democratic" Iraq, will do enough, or mean enough, when compared against the losses its costing us in troops, and what its costing us in the ignoring of Al Qaeda and the rest of the REAL terrorists. Is a Democratic Iraq worth 2000-2500 US troop losses, which will what it will be 10 years from now? Will it be worth the fact that we let Bin Laden escape? In my opinion no, in fact, I think going into Iraq, will create more problems, more terrorists, if you will. I wish I had your optimism my friend.

triggercut · Post by **triggercut** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 12:58 am

I agree with YK.

CSL · Post by **CSL** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:10 am

jblank wrote:
Poleaxe wrote:
Dirt wrote:
Poleaxe wrote:And America has one big-ass pole no matter who the president is. It doesn't matter whether Bush or Kerry gets elected, because if AQ attacks us on our soil again something or someone is going to get ruined.
We were attacked. On 9/11/2001. Someone was ruined. But it wasn't Osama bin Laden. Why wasn't our entire armed forces out to get Osama bin Laden until he was ruined?
And do you believe that the death of OBL will be the death of AQ? A democratic Iraq in ten years will do more for the world than the death of Osamma today.
Not sure I agree. Personally, I dont think a "Democratic" Iraq, will do enough, or mean enough, when compared against the losses its costing us in troops, and what its costing us in the ignoring of Al Qaeda and the rest of the REAL terrorists. Is a Democratic Iraq worth 2000-2500 US troop losses, which will what it will be 10 years from now? Will it be worth the fact that we let Bin Laden escape? In my opinion no, in fact, I think going into Iraq, will create more problems, more terrorists, if you will. I wish I had your optimism my friend.

America lost 300,000 dead to help establish post-war democracies in World War Two. Is 2000-2500 lives that big a sacrifice to enact a democratic Iraq? Unless Iraq becomes a failed project those men and women will have given their lives for the greater good.

I agree with you that OBL should have never become the secondary priority though.

(Not trying to dimish the sacrifice of those dying in Iraq)

Cam · Post by **Cam** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:57 am

Is an Iraqi democracy going to be such a great idea?

Although I'll admit a lack of knowledge in such matters, I believe the country is divided into what can be seen as three groups; the Sunni, the Shia, and the Kurds. If a legislative body of some kind is controlled by one of these groups, will the other two groups "fall in line" and respect the will of the majority, or would civil war be inevitable? I do realize that the Kurds are the minority in any scenario.

If a civil war erupts, then is the U.S. obliged to enter that conflict as well? The more I think about it, the more I see U.S. troops in Iraq for a very, very long time.

Thank you very much, Mr President...

KingB · Post by **KingB** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:05 pm

jblank wrote:
Poleaxe wrote:
Dirt wrote:
Poleaxe wrote:And America has one big-ass pole no matter who the president is. It doesn't matter whether Bush or Kerry gets elected, because if AQ attacks us on our soil again something or someone is going to get ruined.
We were attacked. On 9/11/2001. Someone was ruined. But it wasn't Osama bin Laden. Why wasn't our entire armed forces out to get Osama bin Laden until he was ruined?
And do you believe that the death of OBL will be the death of AQ? A democratic Iraq in ten years will do more for the world than the death of Osamma today.
Not sure I agree. Personally, I dont think a "Democratic" Iraq, will do enough, or mean enough, when compared against the losses its costing us in troops, and what its costing us in the ignoring of Al Qaeda and the rest of the REAL terrorists. Is a Democratic Iraq worth 2000-2500 US troop losses, which will what it will be 10 years from now? Will it be worth the fact that we let Bin Laden escape? In my opinion no, in fact, I think going into Iraq, will create more problems, more terrorists, if you will. I wish I had your optimism my friend.

I think we all wish all democrats would have more optimism.

Anonymous Bosch · Post by **Anonymous Bosch** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 2:05 pm

Poleaxe wrote:
Dirt wrote:This is bin Laden showing his followers and the rest of the world that the USA isn't all powerful and all knowing.

Anyone here still thinks that bin Laden is unimportant in the 'big picture' of terrorism?
It's a tape. Just a tape.

Exactly.

C'mon, is there any doubt whatsoever that OBL would have MUCH preferred to demonstrate to his followers and the rest of the world that the USA isn't all-powerful and all-knowing by launching another terrorist attack on U.S. soil instead of just making a tape?

Asharak · Post by **Asharak** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 5:15 pm

Fireball1244 wrote:I'm always struck by how... for lack of a better word, rational... the man seems. It takes a truly twisted soul to talk so dispassionately about such evil threats and promises.

Terrorism is rational.

I'm not saying OBL is/isn't rational, as I haven't met him or had the opportunity to read a proper psychiatric study on the guy, but just because he kills civilians doesn't make him insane.

A dictionary and some military history should suffice to prove that.

Jag wrote:From what I read in international papers, Kerry is merely the lesser of two evils to the arab street.

Not to get into the opinions of the Arab street (are we really suggesting the OBL speaks for the Arab public in general?), but certainly OBL sees little difference in who sits in the chair; it's what America stands for that causes him a problem, not who's standing for America. Even if America changed all the concrete policies that he can point to as bad things - troops in Saudia Arabia, etc. - he would still despise the West for its representation of immoral decadence.

- Ash

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:24 pm

Poleaxe wrote:
Dirt wrote:
Poleaxe wrote:And America has one big-ass pole no matter who the president is. It doesn't matter whether Bush or Kerry gets elected, because if AQ attacks us on our soil again something or someone is going to get ruined.
We were attacked. On 9/11/2001. Someone was ruined. But it wasn't Osama bin Laden. Why wasn't our entire armed forces out to get Osama bin Laden until he was ruined?
And do you believe that the death of OBL will be the death of AQ? A democratic Iraq in ten years will do more for the world than the death of Osamma today.

The death of Osama bin Laden will show the world that if you fuck with us, you will be found, captured, tried and executed.

As someone mentione, a democratic Iraq controlled by whom? The Sunnis? The Shia? The Kurds?

Germany, Japan, Italy were each single countries that had already (for the most part) fought and resolved their issues of identity.

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:33 pm

Just a tape:

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

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:33 pm

Just a tape:

Uncle Osama wants you!

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 10:51 am

Is 2000-2500 lives that big a sacrifice to enact a democratic Iraq?

Ask yourself that question again and then ask yourself how much you dedicated your existance to a democratic Iraq. You will probably come closer to making the question less rhetorical and more real.

Poleaxe · Post by **Poleaxe** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 10:58 am

LordMortis wrote:
Is 2000-2500 lives that big a sacrifice to enact a democratic Iraq?
Ask yourself that question again and then ask yourself how much you dedicated your existance to a democratic Iraq. You will probably come closer to making the question less rhetorical and more real.

That is a poor way to make decisions. I understand that some will disagree.

jblank · Post by **jblank** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 11:06 am

LordMortis wrote:
Is 2000-2500 lives that big a sacrifice to enact a democratic Iraq?
Ask yourself that question again and then ask yourself how much you dedicated your existance to a democratic Iraq. You will probably come closer to making the question less rhetorical and more real.

Not sure I understand what you are getting at, but let me try to explain what I meant. I am just not sure that we will be able to accomplish this great and free Iraq. I think they are going to be under constant attack, for many years, and it will prevent them from progressing. Because of that, and the likelyhood of at least a doubling of US casualties, I dont believe the mission will have been worth it.

We have created far more terrorists in Iraq, than we have killed, there are areas of the country still controlled by rebel factions, and all signs that I see, point to continued bloodshed, more violence, and more chaos. Nobody has yet been able to convince me that this is an improvement, or will be one, and still, day after day, our boys get killed, for what I ask?

Schroeder · Post by **Schroeder** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 12:12 pm

jblank wrote:
We have created far more terrorists in Iraq, than we have killed, there are areas of the country still controlled by rebel factions, and all signs that I see, point to continued bloodshed, more violence, and more chaos.

Jblank, I get what you're saying...

However, I doubt that MORE terrorists are being created by the U.S. actions than would have likely come into existance otherwise. (ie. some folks hate US for exisiting...they hate without need of a reason.) In addition, from a strategic standpoint I would much rather have the action in Iraq taking place in the manner that it is rather than in several other more dangerous (to the U.S.) ways.

Rather than having all of the terrorists scattered over many areas of the middle east and abroad, they now are gathered (more or less) into an area where they CAN be directly/indirectly combatted by military forces. Granted, the combat is messy, slow, frustrating, and nontraditional. But, it's still better than having them continue to gather resources, etc. for strikes against major U.S. civilian centers and targets.

CS

Coskesh · Post by **Coskesh** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 12:27 pm

How will a democratic Iraq help so much in that region? Most Arab/Islamic countries don't trust the US because of our dealings in the past. If Iraq does become a democracy, it will have the 'taint of the western devil's hands' all over it.

Sure, it'll help secure our oil interests in that country, but I really dont' see how it will help people outside of Iraq.

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 12:28 pm

Schroeder wrote:Rather than having all of the terrorists scattered over many areas of the middle east and abroad, they now are gathered (more or less) into an area where they CAN be directly/indirectly combatted by military forces. Granted, the combat is messy, slow, frustrating, and nontraditional. But, it's still better than having them continue to gather resources, etc. for strikes against major U.S. civilian centers and targets.

CS

What makes you so sure they're gathered into 1 place now?

jblank · Post by **jblank** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 12:33 pm

Schroeder wrote:
jblank wrote:
We have created far more terrorists in Iraq, than we have killed, there are areas of the country still controlled by rebel factions, and all signs that I see, point to continued bloodshed, more violence, and more chaos.

Jblank, I get what you're saying...

However, I doubt that MORE terrorists are being created by the U.S. actions than would have likely come into existance otherwise. (ie. some folks hate US for exisiting...they hate without need of a reason.) In addition, from a strategic standpoint I would much rather have the action in Iraq taking place in the manner that it is rather than in several other more dangerous (to the U.S.) ways.

Rather than having all of the terrorists scattered over many areas of the middle east and abroad, they now are gathered (more or less) into an area where they CAN be directly/indirectly combatted by military forces. Granted, the combat is messy, slow, frustrating, and nontraditional. But, it's still better than having them continue to gather resources, etc. for strikes against major U.S. civilian centers and targets.

CS

Well, we dont really know that they are all there. Granted, a lot are, but we left many Al Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan, and I think its possible there are some here, in the US, as well.

I also take issue with your contention that we have not created more new terrorists. I would almost bet anything that we have, especially for those whose families we bombed, killing relatives, for those people whose homes we barge into, at 3 in the morning, only to find out we have the wrong people, etc, etc, etc.

I hope you are right, but again, I just dont see any plan that leads me to believe its gonna improve, in fact if anything, it may get worse.

SuperHiro · Post by **SuperHiro** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 12:39 pm

Schroeder wrote: Rather than having all of the terrorists scattered over many areas of the middle east and abroad, they now are gathered (more or less) into an area where they CAN be directly/indirectly combatted by military forces. Granted, the combat is messy, slow, frustrating, and nontraditional. But, it's still better than having them continue to gather resources, etc. for strikes against major U.S. civilian centers and targets.

I understand this line of thinking. But I think it's really bad reasoning. Basically, we're using our soldiers as bait.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 12:43 pm

That is a poor way to make decisions. I understand that some will disagree.

You might be correct. I might very well disagree. However I am not sure what decisions or method you are talking about. I am talking about examining a level commitment as a measure for a level of support. What are you talking about?

Schroeder · Post by **Schroeder** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 1:24 pm

SuperHiro wrote:
Schroeder wrote: Rather than having all of the terrorists scattered over many areas of the middle east and abroad, they now are gathered (more or less) into an area where they CAN be directly/indirectly combatted by military forces. Granted, the combat is messy, slow, frustrating, and nontraditional. But, it's still better than having them continue to gather resources, etc. for strikes against major U.S. civilian centers and targets.
I understand this line of thinking. But I think it's really bad reasoning. Basically, we're using our soldiers as bait.

Bait?

Well, I would imagine that most of the folks in the military would take exception to that. It also seems to me that in most military situations it is infinitely better to take the initiative with your enemy rather than being reactive to him.

We are taking the initiative in the current conflict by attacking, disrupting, and interfering with the enemy in his own backyard rather than in ours. In addition, by forging Iraq into a democracy we set up a scenario where we can eventually (in years to come) fight the hatred I mention above with Freedom, Pepsi, and blue jeans instead of bullets.

I'm not saying I approve completely of the method from a moral standpoint. However, it is a viable and proven method.