Bin Laden offers truce


PDA






rick_reno
January 19, 2006, 11:34 AM
I wish they'd capture or kill him, the sooner the better.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/19/D8F7QUA02.html

Al-Jazeera aired an audiotape purportedly from Osama bin Laden on Thursday, saying al-Qaida is making preparations for attacks in the United States but offering a truce to build Iraq and Afghanistan.

The voice in the tape said heightened security measures in the United States are not the reason there have been no attacks there since Sept. 11, 2001. Instead, the reason is "because there are operations that need preparations, and you will see them," he said.

"Based on what I have said, it is better not to fight the Muslims on their land," he said. "We do not mind offering you a truce that is fair and long-term. ... So we can build Iraq and Afghanistan ... there is no shame in this solution because it prevents wasting of billions of dollars ... to merchants of war."

The speaker did not give conditions for a truce in the excerpts aired by Al-Jazeera.

If you enjoyed reading about "Bin Laden offers truce" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Ermac
January 19, 2006, 11:40 AM
BinLaden and his usual rhetoric :scrutiny:

We need to find the f*cker and just end it

Manedwolf
January 19, 2006, 11:43 AM
BinLaden and his usual rhetoric :scrutiny:

We need to find the f*cker and just end it

Correction. We should have found him in 2001 and ended it. It's now 2006.

He's LAUGHING at us.

wingnutx
January 19, 2006, 11:45 AM
purportedly from Osama bin Laden


Funny how he quit making videos after we bombed Tora Bora.

geekWithA.45
January 19, 2006, 11:47 AM
He showed up on video right before the election, with the same deal, remember?

IIRC, it was vote for Kerry, and I won't hurt you.

Human garbage, with whom we will make no deals.

wingnutx
January 19, 2006, 11:49 AM
iirc that one was audio only, and also unverifiable.

Delmar
January 19, 2006, 11:51 AM
So, King Chump wants to make a deal with the infidels?? WE have a DEAL for you, sonny! Your 67 virgins are waiting patiently.......

1911 guy
January 19, 2006, 11:53 AM
The massive outrage that immediatley followed 9/11. If he were to organize another large scale attack on American soil, he would accomplish little more than putting fence sitters firmly in the hawk camp while making fence sitters of the doves.
Maybe he also forgot the fact that we have a president that for the faults he has, is not afraid to ream some third world country a new a$$ hole for conspiring with terrorists and a VP who wants nothing more than to turn the middle east into a sheet of glass.
Maybe he also forgot that even the lib media reported that after 9/11 firearm sales went up at a phenomenal rate. "Flyover Country" is one step closer to getting ready to skull fornicate someone. Grandmas who will run into a ditch to avoid an animal are blasting Bin Laden on computer screens instead of playing solitair.
Maybe he forgot the reason Japan was afraid to take the war to American soil. Does "rifle behind every blade of grass" ring a bell? Maybe he forgot that we are not the only country that has a price on his head and every time he pulls a stunt he loses more allies. I think his turban is wrapped a little too tight to allow for clear thinking on his part.

Camp David
January 19, 2006, 12:04 PM
Al-Jazeera aired an audiotape purportedly from Osama bin Laden on Thursday....

While I respect the journalism creed, there is validity to the charge that a media bureau such as Al-Jazeera fuels world terror by continually serving the terrorists by broadcasting such threats...

What is the consensus herein regarding the nations of the world penalizing Al-Jazeera itself, and thereby denying terrorists a vehicle to carry their threats?

Does Al-Jazeera have an obligation to the world not to be used as a vehicle for the terrorists?

This is hardly the first time that Al-Jazeera has somehow managed to get hold of a tape from Al Qaeda; are these videos sent by mail, couriered to the station, or hand delivered? What would happen if Al-Jazeera were shut down?

As I said, while I respect the journalism effort, in my mind Al-Jazeera
has become an adjunct terror facilitator by its repeated broadcasts of terror threats... isn't that illegal?

1911 guy
January 19, 2006, 12:11 PM
Well said. I suspect that Al Jazeera realizes these things also and that is why they have their broadcast facilities in the same buildings as hospitals and schools. Wouldn't look good if we bombed a non-combatant facility to take out an arm of the enemy's propoganda machine.

Zundfolge
January 19, 2006, 12:21 PM
now I'm worried ... I find myself in agreement with Camp David ... that is surely a sign of the coming Apocalypse. :p

cuchulainn
January 19, 2006, 12:24 PM
Golly, let's do it! We'll be safe trusting bin Ladin and Al-Jazeera -- they've never done anything to make us doubt their honor and goodwill. La La La.

1911 guy
January 19, 2006, 12:27 PM
I had the same thought! No offense meant, Camp David, but some of your posts on other threads got me fired up. This one, however, is right on the money, in my opinion. Is that hoofbeats I hear? :p

Lobotomy Boy
January 19, 2006, 12:34 PM
The massive outrage that immediatley followed 9/11. If he were to organize another large scale attack on American soil, he would accomplish little more than putting fence sitters firmly in the hawk camp while making fence sitters of the doves.

Excellent point. The problem is that this works both ways and we should keep these principles in mind when conducting ourselves in foriegn affairs. This doesn't mean we should coddle terrorists, as those who only see life in stark, black-and-white terms might deduce, but we certainly need to be aware that every time we botch something, such as the initial occupation of Iraq, we have the same effect on other countries as 9/11 had on us. Why should we react in a normal, human fashion yet be surprised and outraged when people from other countries react the same way?

boofus
January 19, 2006, 12:47 PM
The guy that has the upper hand in a fight doesn't ask for a truce.

The war is getting to him and he wants to scream uncle.

Al jazeera is part of the enemy Command, Control, and Communications and is fair game for military strikes.

DigitalWarrior
January 19, 2006, 12:51 PM
While I respect the journalism creed, there is validity to the charge that a media bureau such as Al-Jazeera fuels world terror by continually serving the terrorists by broadcasting such threats...

What is the consensus herein regarding the nations of the world penalizing Al-Jazeera itself, and thereby denying terrorists a vehicle to carry their threats?

Does Al-Jazeera have an obligation to the world not to be used as a vehicle for the terrorists?

This is hardly the first time that Al-Jazeera has somehow managed to get hold of a tape from Al Qaeda; are these videos sent by mail, couriered to the station, or hand delivered? What would happen if Al-Jazeera were shut down?

As I said, while I respect the journalism effort, in my mind Al-Jazeera
has become an adjunct terror facilitator by its repeated broadcasts of terror threats... isn't that illegal?

They are a news organization. What they do is cover happenings around the world that their target audience has an interest in. They voice opinions that are common in their area and are rare here. I believe that there is partisanship for people who share their worldview, but technically still news. It is their right to speak freely when reporting news.

It is similar to Faux news. Faux News covers people who voice opinions that would be considered appalling in other parts of the world.

I still think they suck, but it is their right to suck.

22-rimfire
January 19, 2006, 12:55 PM
America is a finickey place when it comes to public opinion. Everybody talks about WWII like all of America was behind Roosevelt in conducting the war. Not so. I don't believe there was a majority in favor of the war except immediately after Pearl Harbor. So another successful terrorist act would galvanize public opinion in the short term, but not change a thing in the long term unless it was nuclear. Sometimes our leaders just have to do what is "right" regardless of public opinion. Iran seems to be next in line if their actions are consistant with rhetoric. I hope things cool down. Eventually something is going to break in the Middle East though. We need to take steps to develop our synfuel industry (oil shales and coal) and subsidize it as we will need it. One of the reasons we won in WWII is because of OIL supplies from the East Texas Oil Field. Those don't exist any more and we are vulnerable.

Rusher
January 19, 2006, 12:57 PM
I just dont beleive it.....it could be the base trying to turn them selves in to victims in order to gain sympathy ............or who knows a US psy-ops game to weaken the resolve of the lower ranks........it just doesnt sound like bin laden type speak

rick_reno
January 19, 2006, 12:59 PM
Text of tape message is here - assuming we can believe Al Jazeera.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/593298A0-3C1A-4EB4-B29D-EA1A9678D922.htm


"The new operations of al-Qaida has not happened not because we could not penetrate the security measures. It is being prepared and you'll see it in your homeland very soon," the voice attributed to bin Laden said, apparently addressing Americans.

"This message is about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how to end those wars," it began.

"It was not my intention to talk to you about this, because those wars are definitely going our way.

"But what triggered my desire to talk to you is the continuous deliberate misinformation given by your President [George] Bush, when it comes to polls made in your home country which reveal that the majority of your people are willing to withdraw US forces from Iraq.

"We know that the majority of your people want this war to end and opinion polls show the Americans don't want to fight the Muslims on Muslim land, nor do they want Muslims to fight them on their (US) land.

"But Bush does not want this and claims that it's better to fight his enemies on their land rather than on American land.

"Bush tried to ignore the polls that demanded that he end the war in Iraq.

"We are getting increasingly stronger while your situation is getting from bad to worse," he told the US, referring to poor US troop morale and the huge economic losses inflicted by the war.

"The war in Iraq is raging and the operations in Afghanistan are increasing."

"In response to the substance of the polls in the US, which indicate that Americans do not want to fight Muslims on Muslim land, nor do they want Muslims to fight them on their land, we do not mind offering a long-term truce based on just conditions that we will stick to.

"We are a nation that Allah banned from lying and stabbing others in the back, hence both parties of the truce will enjoy stability and security to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, which were destroyed by war.

"There is no problem in this solution, but it will prevent hundreds of billions from going to influential people and warlords in America - those who supported Bush's electoral campaign - and from this, we can understand Bush and his gang's insistence on continuing the war."

Addressing Americans again, he said: "If your desire for peace, stability and reconciliation was true, here we have given you the answer to your call."

Bin Laden, who had not been heard of since a 27 December 2004 audiotape in which he anointed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Iraq's most wanted man, as al-Qaida's leader in Iraq, also said his network was winning the war against the US.

"I would like to tell you that everything is going to our advantage and the number of your dead is increasing, according to Pentagon figures."

Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's deputy, said in a September videotape that his leader was still alive and leading the jihad against the West.

boofus
January 19, 2006, 01:00 PM
Everybody talks about WWII like all of America was behind Roosevelt in conducting the war. Not so. I don't believe there was a majority in favor of the war except immediately after Pearl Harbor.

The 'american' Left sprouts roots directly from the cowards, communists and enemy sympathizers from WW2. WW2 was about as justified a war as there could possibly be but yet there were still worthless leftist scumbags that protested against it, refused to serve, and undermined the war effort.

Just listen to the garbage played on the so-called 'progressive' radio stations. They rever the sub-human trash that protested the war against Hitler and Japanese aggression. Even though WW2 was an obvious case of Fight or Die.

22-rimfire
January 19, 2006, 01:07 PM
Al Qaeda, a truce? They started it. Who would you negotiate a truce with? They would be dead before the negotiators got to the meeting.

Biker
January 19, 2006, 01:11 PM
I just dont beleive it.....it could be the base trying to turn them selves in to victims in order to gain sympathy ............or who knows a US psy-ops game to weaken the resolve of the lower ranks........it just doesnt sound like bin laden type speak
I agree. Likely 'rope-a-dope'. Your enemy is always nicest to you just before he shanks ya.
Something wicked this way comes, methinks.
Biker

Deodanth
January 19, 2006, 01:18 PM
Bin Laden is very likely dead already. The SOB was on dialysis when we attacked Afghanistan, even healthy he would have been hard-pressed to hide from the world-wide intelligence manhunt that ensued, and the later attacks that I believe either directly resulted in his death or so exacerbated his failing health situation as to indirectly have led to his death. While some may imagine the old boy in a cave with a portable dialysis machine and a generator running, shaking his fist at the west, IMNSHO it's more likely that he's buried in an unmarked grave somewhere with an imposter sending out the very occasional radio messages to keep the stream of ignorant and impressionable disposable young people flowing from Syria, Iran, Turkey, et al.

~D

GTSteve03
January 19, 2006, 01:19 PM
This is obviously a last-ditch ploy by Al Quaeda to prevent total defeat.

Don't forget, the terrorists are on their last legs. We are turning the corner in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are bringing the shining beacon of liberty to that oppressed land. We must not falter in our resolve. We will not waver. Freedom is on the march!

Camp David
January 19, 2006, 01:23 PM
Something wicked this way comes, methinks.
Biker

Biker: Al Qaeda's 2nd in Command was targetted on Pakistan/Afghanistan border in the last week by armed UAV; we are unable to determine if he is alive or dead, but for sure several deputies were killed in the bombing... Did you expect bin Laden to release a tape saying he surrenders? Of course he is again going to threaten west...

Alex45ACP
January 19, 2006, 01:25 PM
I bet it's a fake, probably created by our own government.

Manedwolf
January 19, 2006, 01:31 PM
This is obviously a last-ditch ploy by Al Quaeda to prevent total defeat.

Don't forget, the terrorists are on their last legs. We are turning the corner in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are bringing the shining beacon of liberty to that oppressed land. We must not falter in our resolve. We will not waver. Freedom is on the march!

Question..just how many times have we been told that we have "turned a corner", now?

And you know if you keep turning corners, you go in a circle...

Biker
January 19, 2006, 01:32 PM
The fact that we haven't been hit with another major attack in 5 years doesn't necessarily mean anything. These people are very patient. I just find it hard to believe, that given the financing available to them and our wide open borders, we have prevented them from doing anything.
I can only conclude that they haven't hit us again because it simply isn't time yet.
jmo...
Biker

Manedwolf
January 19, 2006, 01:33 PM
Bin Laden is very likely dead already. The SOB was on dialysis when we attacked Afghanistan, even healthy he would have been hard-pressed to hide from the world-wide intelligence manhunt that ensued, and the later attacks that I believe either directly resulted in his death or so exacerbated his failing health situation as to indirectly have led to his death. While some may imagine the old boy in a cave with a portable dialysis machine and a generator running, shaking his fist at the west, IMNSHO it's more likely that he's buried in an unmarked grave somewhere with an imposter sending out the very occasional radio messages to keep the stream of ignorant and impressionable disposable young people flowing from Syria, Iran, Turkey, et al.

~D

And it appears to be working, doesn't it.

Headless Thompson Gunner
January 19, 2006, 01:33 PM
If bin Laden and Al Queda are succeeding as well as they claim, what would they possibly stand to gain by offering a truce? You don't offer to compromise when you're winning.

As for bin Laden's threats of new attacks... Well, I'm still waiting for him to make good on his threat to attack all of us red state yokels who voted Bush back into office.

geekWithA.45
January 19, 2006, 01:34 PM
OBL sounds a lot like baghdad Bob in this one.

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/

Manedwolf
January 19, 2006, 01:36 PM
The fact that we haven't been hit with another major attack in 5 years doesn't necessarily mean anything. These people are very patient. I just find it hard to believe, that given the financing available to them and our wide open borders, we have prevented them from doing anything.
I can only conclude that they haven't hit us again because it simply isn't time yet.
jmo...
Biker

That's one thing a lot of people don't get. That culture of the region is a VERY patient culture. 9/11 took over ten years to plan.

These are people whose families can often speak of insults that occured two centuries ago as if they happened last week.

I'm reminded of what one elderly Mujahadeen apparently said to an American writer a while back, when asked about that sort of thing. He pointed to the American's wristwatch, smiled and said "You may have the watches, but we...we have the time."

Scary.

Camp David
January 19, 2006, 01:39 PM
In a related part of story, France defends right to Nuke the terrorists!

France defends right to nuclear reply to terrorism
By Elizabeth Pineau
Thu Jan 19, 9:11 AM ET
BREST, France (Reuters) - France said on Thursday it would be ready to use nuclear weapons against any state that carried out a terrorist attack against it, reaffirming the need for its nuclear deterrent.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060119/wl_nm/nuclear_arms_france_dc_2


Folks.. this is getting a tad bit serious....
How's your K-rations and ammunition supply?

:uhoh:

Headless Thompson Gunner
January 19, 2006, 01:40 PM
The fact that we haven't been hit with another major attack in 5 years doesn't necessarily mean anything. These people are very patient. I just find it hard to believe, that given the financing available to them and our wide open borders, we have prevented them from doing anything.
I can only conclude that they haven't hit us again because it simply isn't time yet.
jmo...
Biker
Or maybe they've had to focus all of their attention elsewhere, on Iraq. Far better to have Al Queda fighting against our trained and armed soldiers in Iraq than against our unprepared civillians here in the States. (Of course, the Iraq war was a massive stroke of stupidity. Just ask any of the leftists...:rolleyes: )

Anyway, time will tell if bin Laden can still deliver. I think he's just a paper tiger at this point. If he was still able to kill another few thousand civillians here in the US he would have done it already.

Janitor
January 19, 2006, 01:43 PM
What I (and I see others) still don't get ...

"We are getting increasingly stronger while your situation is getting from bad to worse,"
Why on earth if they're on top of this war, are they offering a truce? T I'm fairly sure it's not compassion - the man's more like a rabid skunk than a human being.

Manedwolf
January 19, 2006, 01:43 PM
In a related part of story, France defends right to Nuke the terrorists!

France defends right to nuclear reply to terrorism
By Elizabeth Pineau
Thu Jan 19, 9:11 AM ET
BREST, France (Reuters) - France said on Thursday it would be ready to use nuclear weapons against any state that carried out a terrorist attack against it, reaffirming the need for its nuclear deterrent.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060119/wl_nm/nuclear_arms_france_dc_2


Folks.. this is getting a tad bit serious....
How's your K-rations and ammunition supply?

:uhoh:


I would more just advise people to have a few bottles of potassium iodide, enough for themselves, their family, pets, etc.

In the event that someone uses a nuke, and if it malfunctions and doesn't airburst, but instead explodes at ground level, or if it's aimed to do that, there will be a fallout plume of radioactive dirt. And where that goes depends on the prevailing global winds at the time.

Potassium iodide, taken on the schedule on the bottle, goes right to your thyroid and fills it with harmless iodine temporarily. This prevents radioactive iodine, carried in fallout, from getting into your thyroid by simply taking up the same space. The radioactive sort would otherwise cause really nasty and fatal cancers.

And if you don't want to order it from online disaster-supply online places, (it's cheap) a few GNCs have it on the shelf as well.

Lucky
January 19, 2006, 02:01 PM
Umm, I always thought that the newspapers were probably the only way to communicate with cells that are so isolated that no-one knows they exist. Consider it, some teenagers in France get together and decide to form a cell. They are now part of 'The base'. But no-one knows! After the Spain bombings Bin Laden declared a peace-treaty with Europe - lol!. The only explanation I can guess is that is the only way they can have a semblence of control over their cells.

So, technically, in my theory, you should bomb : Breitbart.com, REUTERS, ASSOCIATED PRESS, AFP & DRUDGE REPORT - because they are all collaberating with terrorists. As well as Al Jazeera. With the world-wide media destroyed A.Q. would have to use more traceable forms of communication.

Basically you could make a strong case for penalizing anyone who talks about A.Q., and for suspending freedom of communication or expression altogether.

It worries me, but it's true. If you put results above rights, the most effective results are obtained by the most restrictive methods.

rick_reno
January 19, 2006, 02:14 PM
This tape might be nothing more than a fund raising effort. Reports are the big money is going to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq, because he's viewed as being on the front line of their war with the infidels - and Arab money goes where the action is.

RealGun
January 19, 2006, 02:17 PM
While I respect the journalism creed, there is validity to the charge that a media bureau such as Al-Jazeera fuels world terror by continually serving the terrorists by broadcasting such threats...

What is the consensus herein regarding the nations of the world penalizing Al-Jazeera itself, and thereby denying terrorists a vehicle to carry their threats?

Does Al-Jazeera have an obligation to the world not to be used as a vehicle for the terrorists?

This is hardly the first time that Al-Jazeera has somehow managed to get hold of a tape from Al Qaeda; are these videos sent by mail, couriered to the station, or hand delivered? What would happen if Al-Jazeera were shut down?

As I said, while I respect the journalism effort, in my mind Al-Jazeera
has become an adjunct terror facilitator by its repeated broadcasts of terror threats... isn't that illegal?


This states very well my reaction and resulting questions. In the US, a news source would be expected to put real effort into validating a story before publishing it. They do actually cooperate with the government on what should or should not be broadcasted. That is fundamentally voluntary, as I understand it, although I wouldn't be surprised to learn of leveraging in some cases.

Al Jazeera is political and nationalistic and is not a legitimate news source by Western standards. As far as I am concerned, the activity of Al Jazeera should be a topic of conflict between the US and that country, in the foreground, not the background. Al Jazeera speaks for that country. The press is not free to cooperate with criminals.

odysseus
January 19, 2006, 02:17 PM
So, technically, in my theory, you should bomb : Breitbart.com, REUTERS, ASSOCIATED PRESS, AFP & DRUDGE REPORT - because they are all collaberating with terrorists. As well as Al Jazeera. With the world-wide media destroyed A.Q. would have to use more traceable forms of communication.

Basically you could make a strong case for penalizing anyone who talks about A.Q., and for suspending freedom of communication or expression altogether.

It worries me, but it's true. If you put results above rights, the most effective results are obtained by the most restrictive methods.

This is a pretty disturbing premise, especially for a forum with all of us advocating Constitutional rights for gun owners. We can't pick and choose the Amendments we like. It's already illegal to collaborate with terrorists, so if yo have that informatoin that Reuters, Associated Press, and other US news companies have been - then report it. Otherwise they have the right to print and be protected under our constitution.

Al Jazeera is another case, and is not bound to our laws - however how we are percieved as a country of Liberty internationally has some importance to our own causes we push to the international community. Not sure about them, they certainly are A.Q. friendly.

As much as I hate A.Q and Bin Laden, I find advocating the bombing of news agencies that report on A.Q. very troubeling.

rick_reno
January 19, 2006, 02:27 PM
This states very well my reaction and resulting questions. In the US, a news source would be expected to put real effort into validating a story before publishing it. They do actually cooperate with the government on what should or should not be broadcast. That is fundamentally voluntary, as I understand it, although I wouldn't be surprised to learn of leveraging in some cases.

Al Jazeera is political and nationalistic and is not a legitimate news source by Western standards. As far as I am concerned, the activity of Al Jazeera should be a topic of conflict between the US and that country, in the foreground, not the background. Al Jazeera speaks for that country. The press is not free to cooperate with criminals.

Why don't we forget about killing the messenger - and concentrate our efforts on killing the person who generated the message? I'd really like to see Bush and Co. go after this guy - with EVERY tool we have available. I recall Bush promising us that we would catch him and bring him to justice. What happened?

Titus
January 19, 2006, 02:32 PM
Bin Laden sounds like the kind of guy you run into from time to time. He acts like he wants to start something, but then you realize how much time he's taking talking about what he "could" do, but "doesn't want to". Maybe he does have something up his sleeve, but I have a hard taking him seriously about how well he's doing when he has to go to all that trouble just to get a tape recording of himself out.

RealGun
January 19, 2006, 02:35 PM
Why don't we forget about killing the messenger - and concentrate our efforts on killing the person who generated the message? I'd really like to see Bush and Co. go after this guy - with EVERY tool we have available. I recall Bush promising us that we would catch him and bring him to justice. What happened?

But what if we were motivated to get him just to stop Al Jazeera from fanning the flames among the al Quaida faithful. Isn't that exactly the reaction here?

Lone_Gunman
January 19, 2006, 02:37 PM
I think he's just a paper tiger at this point. If he was still able to kill another few thousand civillians here in the US he would have done it already.


So does that mean the War on Terror is over? If so, lets repeal the patriot act, quit spying on citizens, and resume our consitutional republic.

Derby FALs
January 19, 2006, 02:37 PM
The guy that has the upper hand in a fight doesn't ask for a truce.


That's what Pyrrhus said.

Headless Thompson Gunner
January 19, 2006, 02:43 PM
Why don't we forget about killing the messenger - and concentrate our efforts on killing the person who generated the message? I'd really like to see Bush and Co. go after this guy - with EVERY tool we have available. I recall Bush promising us that we would catch him and bring him to justice. What happened?
Every tool, eh? Perhaps we could try wire tapping Al Queda's international phone calls, including calls to/from their associates here in the States.

Just a thought... :evil:

JJpdxpinkpistols
January 19, 2006, 02:55 PM
It's already illegal to collaborate with terrorists, so if yo have that informatoin that Reuters, Associated Press, and other US news companies have been - then report it. Otherwise they have the right to print and be protected under our constitution.

Al Jazeera is another case, and is not bound to our laws - however how we are percieved as a country of Liberty internationally has some importance to our own causes we push to the international community. Not sure about them, they certainly are A.Q. friendly.

AQ friendly or not, you can be damned sure that *any* news outlet -- ANY, would run this tape, verified or not.

Whether or not it is ethical, this guy is responsible for thousands of deaths, trillions of dollars are spent to find the guy, his spectre has loomed over at least 3 elections in our country alone, has launched wars, and both launched and defined political careers. We have restructured our entire governmental agency allocation because of him (DHS). He is, arguably, the most influential person of this decade.

If any news outlet got a tape that they thought came from him, they would broadcast it. No doubt.

As far as disturbing...it seems rather standard that those who aren't like us should die, right? Right? Is there an echo in here?

SSN Vet
January 19, 2006, 03:05 PM
Al Jazeera is the propaganda machine of radical Islamic Jihad!!

They whip up hatred 24/7 in every program.

Jihad is using the media as well if not better than Hitler or Stalin ever did.

We could (and I say should) drop every satelite that broadcasts enemy propaganda.

Biker
January 19, 2006, 03:07 PM
Al Jazeera is the propaganda machine of radical Islamic Jihad!!

They whip up hatred 24/7 in every program.

Jihad is using the media as well if not better than Hitler or Stalin ever did.

We could (and I say should) drop every satelite that broadcasts enemy propaganda.
Would that also include Fox and CNN?
Biker

bogie
January 19, 2006, 03:36 PM
I think a conventional nuke is out... Remember - these guys didn't buy or build a cruise missile - they stole big airplanes. And 9/11 would have been a LOT worse if they'd flown the planes in a few stories lower, you know? You gotta wonder why they picked that high...

I'm thinking tanker trailers, or a large scale gas attack, maybe a large OKC-scale bomb, in a populated area where the blast could be confined by large buildings...

JJpdxpinkpistols
January 19, 2006, 03:37 PM
Al Jazeera is the propaganda machine of radical Islamic Jihad!!

They whip up hatred 24/7 in every program.

Jihad is using the media as well if not better than Hitler or Stalin ever did.

We could (and I say should) drop every satelite that broadcasts enemy propaganda.

SSN Vet:

I am not going to defend Al Jazeera, specifically, tho I would +1 Bikers comment--I am leery of "drop every satelite" of those you don't agree with, even in a time of war. If nothing else, it shows us the drum-beat the other side may be marching to.

What I *am* curious about is...how much Al Jazeera have you actually *seen*? Serious question here: How much of Al Jazeera's feed have you watched?

Thanks!

SSN Vet
January 19, 2006, 03:38 PM
BTW...

I fully expext to see a mushroom cloud (on t.v. if not in person) either over the L.A, N.Y., D.C., Moscow or Tel Aviv in my life time.

The question is ... what then??

Do we roll over and become a subservient state to whoever wants to threaten us?

Do we counter nuke Tehran and kill just as many civilians?

Or do we get the lead out and stop whining about how much it's going to cost, or how much the ACLU is going to complain, or how many mama's are going to hold a protest, or how many poor terrorist had to stand in their underware with a bag over their head, or how many young Arab boys will turn into suicide bombers and FINALLY GET SERIOUS and go KICK SOME MAJOR A##!!

I'm with Patton....the object of war is to KILL the enemy!

Despite what some on THR have expressed in other power projection threads,
we can KILL a whole lot of uniformed combatants, with out killing civilians or dropping nukes!

If Syria aides terrorist....Bomb ever troop position and government building in Syria.

If Iran breaks the U.N. seals on their breeder reactor...level every power generating facility in the country.

Sending these folks back into the dark ages is very doable.
Let them worry about defending their borders from their neighbors and surpressing the uprisings from their own people....then stand back and let them kill each other.

Am I the only person who honestly believes that global Jihad is a every bit as powerful a ideology as communism was? That it's goal is world domination? And that we could lose this war and every freedom we hold deer if we fail to win decisively.

How the heck do you think north Africa and Spain became part of Islamic world (Spain was under Muslim rule for over a century). Islam is a religion that is happy to make it's converts at the edge of a sword.

Why do you think the Serbs. hate the Bosnian Muslims so bad.....or did you not know that the Moors over ran what we now call Yugoslovia.

Did you not know that the moors laid siege to Vienna for over a year!!

That's Vienna!!!...in Austria...the seat of the Hapsburg Dynasty (a.k.a. the Hloly Roman Emperor) that ruled all of Europe for centuries.

Time to wake up and smell the coffee shipmates....this is a fight for our lives!!

JJpdxpinkpistols
January 19, 2006, 03:44 PM
I'm thinking tanker trailers, or a large scale gas attack, maybe a large OKC-scale bomb, in a populated area where the blast could be confined by large buildings...

Since they seem to be cribbing from Clancy novels, and they talk about the heartland, I say shopping malls, timed attacks, on a saturday, and several ieds/guns.

Thats my hunch.

As for his "Truce" offer: WE have no party with which to negotiate a truce. In other words, it would be unilateral on our part, as there is no manner with wich leverage complaince from the other team. Now, if OBL really wants to guarantee that they would honor a truce, i am sure that he could surrender to the nearest American Representative, and we would be happy to take his personal guarantee. :neener:

bogie
January 19, 2006, 03:56 PM
On Monday, fly over the area with a buncha B-52s, and drop leaflets saying that we don't want to harm people, but that reactors are going to be targeted. Please leave.

On Tuesday, see how many tons of HE can fit inside a 1 square mile area.

JMusic
January 19, 2006, 04:03 PM
This will be the last tape made for a while by the a#%hole. He's busy right now collecting his friends in Pakistan with a putty knife and garbage bag. Bush was not far of the mark when he initialy called this a crusade though he was quickly corrected by his PC team. I have a hard time believing a Christian religion would remain silent as 3000 people were vaporized and their constituants celebrated in the streets. We speak of justice in this matter. I for one believe vengeance is more appropriate.
Jim

Lucky
January 19, 2006, 04:44 PM
This is a pretty disturbing premise, especially for a forum with all of us advocating Constitutional rights for gun owners. We can't pick and choose the Amendments we like. It's already illegal to collaborate with terrorists, so if yo have that informatoin that Reuters, Associated Press, and other US news companies have been - then report it. Otherwise they have the right to print and be protected under our constitution.

Al Jazeera is another case, and is not bound to our laws - however how we are percieved as a country of Liberty internationally has some importance to our own causes we push to the international community. Not sure about them, they certainly are A.Q. friendly.

As much as I hate A.Q and Bin Laden, I find advocating the bombing of news agencies that report on A.Q. very troubeling.

Eh, I know what you are saying, but I think it's pretty darn likely that 'cells' just form up and OBL has no way of knowing who or where they are, so the only way to give any sort of direction to these cells is through speeches they broadcast. Thus any media that broadcasts that speech is collaberating.

In my perfect world we'd all be armed, we'd all be vigilant, and we'd all be free. If anyone put a bag down and walked away the person nearest him would stop him to tell him he forgot it, and look inside it to see what he forgot. Simple as that. If people tried to hijack an airplane they'd be outnumbered 50:1. The gov't would not attack the citizen's freedoms, ever, and the response to 'terrorism' would be rational and logical. If the chance of being killed by terrorism is 1/1000th that of being killed in an MVA, then people would act accordingly and not live in paranoia of terrorists. There'd probably be little reason for terrorists to attack, anyway, if the perfect world minded it's own business, asked nothing of others except to have them do the same.

But we don't live there, there is a war on for as the rest of the forseeable future, and there is every reason to believe that these broadcasts are THE method of communicating policy with cells around the world. If you bomb only A.J. the message will still be spread, you have to destroy them all or none of them.

I'd be fine doing nothing and taking my chances knowing that I'm as likely to get struck by lightning as by OBL, but you advocated strikes, I'm just showing you that you need to target every media facility, not the ones you don't subscribe to. Really, you read a transcript of the tape, and then complained about the station that broadcast the tape. It's hypocritical, you should also be complaining about anyone who provided transcripts or summations of the tape.

Manedwolf
January 19, 2006, 04:47 PM
Since they seem to be cribbing from Clancy novels, and they talk about the heartland, I say shopping malls, timed attacks, on a saturday, and several ieds/guns.

Thats my hunch.

As for his "Truce" offer: WE have no party with which to negotiate a truce. In other words, it would be unilateral on our part, as there is no manner with wich leverage complaince from the other team. Now, if OBL really wants to guarantee that they would honor a truce, i am sure that he could surrender to the nearest American Representative, and we would be happy to take his personal guarantee. :neener:

Just a few bombs in malls and large stores, and it'd likely break the back of the US economy due to the sudden loss of consumer spending in retail stores.

Manedwolf
January 19, 2006, 04:48 PM
This will be the last tape made for a while by the a#%hole. He's busy right now collecting his friends in Pakistan with a putty knife and garbage bag. Bush was not far of the mark when he initialy called this a crusade though he was quickly corrected by his PC team. I have a hard time believing a Christian religion would remain silent as 3000 people were vaporized and their constituants celebrated in the streets. We speak of justice in this matter. I for one believe vengeance is more appropriate.
Jim

Then how come OBL is still alive, when he did that in 2001, and it's 2006 now?

Manedwolf
January 19, 2006, 04:51 PM
Why don't we forget about killing the messenger - and concentrate our efforts on killing the person who generated the message? I'd really like to see Bush and Co. go after this guy - with EVERY tool we have available. I recall Bush promising us that we would catch him and bring him to justice. What happened?

What happened? Here. Read it in his own words:

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, responding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

dolanp
January 19, 2006, 04:54 PM
The voice in the tape said heightened security measures in the United States are not the reason there have been no attacks there since Sept. 11, 2001. Instead, the reason is "because there are operations that need preparations, and you will see them," he said.

Unfortunately I think OBL speaks the truth on this point. With our pourous border and overreactive focus on other things, it will be very difficult to fight a determined enemy using guerilla tactics who sneaks into the country and wants to blow something up regardless of whether he dies in the process.

davec
January 19, 2006, 05:03 PM
Republicans hit a rough patch with the Abranoff thing et al, and right on cue Bin Laden comes out of the woodwork.

Biker
January 19, 2006, 05:07 PM
davec...
Wonder if he has a Swiss bank account under the name of E. Goldstein?;)
Biker

cbsbyte
January 19, 2006, 05:37 PM
Personally, I would not be suprised if info came out that Bin Laden, and/or AL Queda are working for the CIA. Money and materials where given to him by Regan and Bush I during the Russian Afgan invasion... why not now. This whole mess could be contrived plot by powerful forces, not just Republicans, in the US government that want to secure their power by using false means to subvert the sheeples rights under the Consitiution.

itgoesboom
January 19, 2006, 06:06 PM
THIS (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=/SpecialReports/archive/200601/SPE20060111a.html) was posted over at Frugal Squirrels. It is a good analysis of the situation, and shows a pattern that predicts when attacks will occur outside of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The article actually came out before the OBL tape, but I think that the OBL tape strengthens the argument made.

I think this tape is a warning that we are about to be hit. :(

We have had 2 Zawahiri tapes, the last being in the first week of January this year. That is the pattern that has been set according to the article, and there has been a target mentioned "land of the Romans". America is definatly the new Roman Empire, especially when viewed from their perspective.

And now OBL comes out with a tape saying preperations are being made?

Sorry, I think that cells in the US have just been given the 'go-ahead' to strike within the next few weeks.

Here are some samples of what is in the article:

The pattern Brown observed is that each Zawahiri video appears to be part of a pair, with the second video followed by a significant attack within 30 days, outside of the major combat zones of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The videos released on Sept. 9 and Nov. 9, 2004, were the first "set" and were followed by the Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, bombings on Dec. 6, 2004. The second "set" of videos was released Feb. 20 and June 26, 2005, followed by the July 7 London bombings. A third set of videos was released Aug. 4 and Sept 1, 2005, followed by the bombings in Bali, Indonesia, on Oct. 1, 2005.

A Cybercast News Service exclusive report on Sept. 8 of last year detailed Brown's warning regarding an impending October attack.

The fourth set of videos, according to Brown's theory was released on Oct. 23, 2005 and last week -- Jan. 6.

"This pattern has held for at least three of al Qaeda's last large-scale attacks," said Brown, "This most recent video is likely a signal that a large-scale operation is about to be launched within the next 30 days. The question is where."
A clue may be found in the Internet postings of the enigmatic Abu-Hafs al-Masri Brigades, said Brown. The brigades appear to be 'green-lighting' coming attacks prior to the release of the second video of each pair, Brown said.

The video that preceded the London bombings was itself preceded by a post by the "European division" of the brigades under the title, "Letter to mujahedeen in Europe." The posting stated in part, "We now call on the mujahedeen around the world to launch the expected attack." The message appeared on an al Qaeda-linked Internet forum.



and

However, the November reference to the "land of the Romans" could be misdirection Brown said, since al Qaeda is known to use coded language in many of its communications. The Global Islamic Media Front (GIMF) has indicated that al Qaeda intentionally labeled Italy as its target, prior to the London bombings.

If the "land of the Romans" doesn't refer to Rome, what might it refer to? Dan Darling of the Manhattan Institute believes it could be a reference to the United States. "It could just as easily apply to the U.S. -- America as the new Rome," said Darling.

Brown also believes the al Qaeda threat could apply to the U.S. and that America is the likelier target.


I.G.B.

Lobotomy Boy
January 19, 2006, 06:19 PM
I just visited a friend who specializes in military science, and he believes that we did some major damage to Al Qaeda with the predator attack. He said that no innocent people were hurt--that any women at the scene of the attack were basically Al Qaeda concubines (he used a bit rougher language, specificying the act in which they were probably engaged when the missiles hit) and that any youngsters there were Al Qaeda in training.

This guy is a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat. He campaigned for John Kerry. But he's also extremely well-informed about Afghanistan and Pakistan, and I trust his judgment on this. If he says we hurt Al Qaeda, I believe him.

I wonder if this is what's motivated Osama Bin Laden to issue his latest threat? My guess is that it was probably in the works, and that our operatives knew about it, which is why they struck the AQ with missiles.

Biker
January 19, 2006, 06:28 PM
If true LB, this is indeed great news.:)
Biker

rick_reno
January 19, 2006, 06:32 PM
What happened? Here. Read it in his own words:

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, responding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

I see - our "leadership" lost interest. Makes sense.

jeff-10
January 19, 2006, 06:43 PM
You can only imagine what John Kerry's response would be to OBL if he hadn't been such a sorry excuse for a presidential canidate. I can just see it now. John Kerry and OBL shaking hands in the Rose Garden, saying there will be peace in the world and it was all just a big understanding. It would have been a great photo op for the Democrats...

Camp David
January 19, 2006, 06:49 PM
I fully expext to see a mushroom cloud (on t.v. if not in person) either over the L.A, N.Y., D.C....This is precisely what the current administration is trying to prevent. Before you accept the Democrat criticism of Bush, you might wish to think about the alternate!

This administration has successfully prevented further domestic terror since 09/11/01... they deserve our support.

Manedwolf
January 19, 2006, 06:54 PM
You can only imagine what John Kerry's response would be to OBL if he hadn't been such a sorry excuse for a presidential canidate. I can just see it now. John Kerry and OBL shaking hands in the Rose Garden, saying there will be peace in the world and it was all just a big understanding. It would have been a great photo op for the Democrats...

Kinda like Rummy shaking hands with Saddam back in the 80's?

And no, I can't imagine John Kerry's response. All I know is that for strategic incompetence, it'd be hard to beat the current corporate civilians we have running this "war". My points are:

1. Bin Laden should be dead. Why isn't he? It's five years later.

2. Why didn't we finish the job in Afghanistan? The Taliban is still there, and there's still attacks. You can't "mostly" put out a fire and then send the firefighters elsewhere.

3. Iraq? We "won" when we toppled Sadaam. Now we're tied up in a longterm occupation, and you can't win an occupation. N. Korea has a nutcase with ACTUAL nukes that could even reach the US west coast, Iran has a loudmouth who might want them, and our armed forces are already stretched too thin to do anything about it.

Has anyone considered that this might be a PLOY by bin Laden to bring support for action in Iraq back up, so we don't pull out? If we don't, he keeps getting recruits, we keep losing troops in a war of attrition, and we have our own Afghanistan...a situation he is VERY familiar with, since it led, in large part, to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Perhaps he's hoping for the same. He's not stupid. Underestimating the intelligence of your enemy and being dismissive of their possible strategy is the best way to wind up dead.

GTSteve03
January 19, 2006, 06:55 PM
This administration has successfully prevented further domestic terror since 09/11/01... they deserve our support.
I also own this rock that I've kept in my pocket for years. I've never once been attacked by a bear when carrying this rock. I'd be willing to sell it to you for the cheap price of $100. Guaranteed bear attack stopper!

Manedwolf
January 19, 2006, 07:02 PM
I also own this rock that I've kept in my pocket for years. I've never once been attacked by a bear when carrying this rock. I'd be willing to sell it to you for the cheap price of $100. Guaranteed bear attack stopper!

+1

I've seen mostly empty rhetoric and squealing pigs of politicians rooting local projects from the Homeland Security funding trough. Ports aren't secure, control of the borders is a joke, first-responder budgets have been cut, police budgets cut, no large-scale plans, we can't even deal with a hurricane we KNOW is coming!

And the only "prevented" they keep babbling on about is that one Brooklyn Bridge bit that was already debunked.

Oh, yes, and we have cases like politicians protecting us by banning 50-cal rifles because "only a terrorist would use one, to shoot down planes". Yeah. Real effective.

liberty911
January 19, 2006, 07:11 PM
The fact that we haven't been hit with another major attack in 5 years doesn't necessarily mean anything. These people are very patient. I just find it hard to believe, that given the financing available to them and our wide open borders, we have prevented them from doing anything.
I can only conclude that they haven't hit us again because it simply isn't time yet.
jmo...
Biker

I couldn't agree more. Many Americans have a very short memory. If something does happen, I am sure it will be reported as "the one that slipped through the cracks." The US hasn't been able to find Bin Laden in 6 years. Why should we believe they have prevented any act of terror from occuring on US soils if they can't even find a single individual who supposedly heads the plot?

Lobotomy Boy
January 19, 2006, 07:20 PM
This administration has successfully prevented further domestic terror since 09/11/01... they deserve our support.

If, God forbid, Osama Bin Laden isn't just spouting hot air and we are in for another domestic terrorist attack, you will no longer be able to keep using this as an excuse for Bush violating FISA laws. I imagine the response to another terrorist attack will be to further erode our civil liberties.

rick_reno
January 19, 2006, 07:29 PM
If, God forbid, Osama Bin Laden isn't just spouting hot air and we are in for another domestic terrorist attack, you will no longer be able to keep using this as an excuse for Bush violating FISA laws. I imagine the response to another terrorist attack will be to further erode our civil liberties.

They DO want to get the Patriot Act up and running, an attack would certainly move that effort forward.

The only notable thing I see in the Bush administration is their incompetence is outweighed only by their arrogance. The one thing they've done right are the Supreme Court appointments - they've really shined in this important area.
(Note: I'm ignoring the stumble with the Miers nomination)

RealGun
January 19, 2006, 08:01 PM
I couldn't agree more. Many Americans have a very short memory. If something does happen, I am sure it will be reported as "the one that slipped through the cracks." The US hasn't been able to find Bin Laden in 6 years. Why should we believe they have prevented any act of terror from occuring on US soils if they can't even find a single individual who supposedly heads the plot?

OBL is in Pakistan. We aren't allowed in Pakistan. Pakistan is supposed to be looking for him. We are supposed to be believe Pakistan will look for OBL and detain or kill him. We are lastly supposed to believe that Pakistan is hostile to OBL and does not support his jihad.

rick_reno
January 19, 2006, 08:43 PM
OBL is in Pakistan. We aren't allowed in Pakistan. Pakistan is supposed to be looking for him. We are supposed to be believe Pakistan.

You're not telling me you trust Pakistan and Musharraf? I know you trust Bush, but it's a real stretch to buy into what Musharraf says. It's not in General Musharraf's best interests - and let's be honest, his only interest is to stay in power - to find Bin Laden while he's still popular with the people. That could be a career limiting move.

Moving on - I believe I have a solution. OBL wants a truce. A truce is usually negotiated in a face to face meeting. We agree meet him in a place of his choosing - and then we make that place go away. Problem solved.

JMusic
January 19, 2006, 08:49 PM
I haven't read all the posts here but Manedwolf I'm not sure what your comment toward me is all about. There has been a new precedent recently preformed here. We are now shooting people on the Pakastani side which should have happened 5 years ago. I hear there was some serious damage done to our enemy with this attack and my hope is that it is just the start. I think this is a new tactic. I wish I could shoot Bin Laden, Hell I could use the money but that will not be the end of this. We will have to wipe out generations of Muslims to be safe again. If the Muslim religion does not pitch in and help, this may very well turn into a religous war. Bin Laden's head on a stick will not be the end, probably not even the begining of the end, but damn it sure would be satisfying wouldn't it?

f4t9r
January 19, 2006, 08:54 PM
Correction. We should have found him in 2001 and ended it. It's now 2006.

He's LAUGHING at us.

sad , but some truth to what you say , should have stayed on him

Lobotomy Boy
January 19, 2006, 08:57 PM
Just by being alive he has, in a sense, beaten Bush.

Optical Serenity
January 19, 2006, 09:06 PM
Its hard to blame a business that simply wants to report what they are given and make money from it...Is Al-Jazeera doing anything that US News agencies wouldn't do? Probably not...

SIGarmed
January 19, 2006, 09:13 PM
Ridiculous. A truce when you are suposedly in a position of strength? I thought people here where smarter than that? The terrorists are hurting plain and simple.

They've been turning the people of Iraq against them every day. They've been killing anyone and everyone not just westerners. That doesn't get you support. Neither will a so called "truce".

RealGun
January 19, 2006, 09:13 PM
You're not telling me you trust Pakistan and Musharraf? I know you trust Bush, but it's a real stretch to buy into what Musharraf says. It's not in General Musharraf's best interests - and let's be honest, his only interest is to stay in power - to find Bin Laden while he's still popular with the people. That could be a career limiting move.

Moving on - I believe I have a solution. OBL wants a truce. A truce is usually negotiated in a face to face meeting. We agree meet him in a place of his choosing - and then we make that place go away. Problem solved.

I edited my post to be a bit more clear and complete. You can make up your own mind. I am stating what I believe is the case. I believe Pakistan should be confronted. I don't trust them at all. We can't even go in to help with earthquake recovery aid.

Biker
January 19, 2006, 09:35 PM
Ridiculous. A truce when you are suposedly in a position of strength? I thought people here where smarter than that? The terrorists are hurting plain and simple.

They've been turning the people of Iraq against them every day. They've been killing anyone and everyone not just westerners. That doesn't get you support. Neither will a so called "truce".
They don't want a truce. It's a ruse, I suspect.
As Sun Tzu said, "When strong appear weak, when weak, appear strong...."
War is deception.
Biker

Standing Wolf
January 19, 2006, 09:47 PM
Just by being alive he has, in a sense, beaten Bush.

Seems to me Jorge Bush has been doing quite an effective job of that all by himself.

22-rimfire
January 19, 2006, 09:56 PM
Oreilly interviewed a guy tonight that essentially said that we do not understand the muslim mind, A warning and offer of a truce such as OBL gave is consistant with their religion.... before they commit some act of aggression. I have no idea if this is true from a religious perspective, but it certainly is food for thought.

JMusic
January 19, 2006, 10:17 PM
I don't trust any of them from the middle east. Musharraf though is in a tight spot, so are we. Imagine what would happen if Musharraf was over thrown and some dick like the pres from Iran took over with access to Nukes. This is not an easy solution unless we as Americans decide to commit to total war on the scale of a world war. With that in mind what is the next solution. Seems to me that the use of predators armed with hellfires may very well be a good step. You can't blame Bush for this it will be bigger than any one president to solve. I'm not blaming Bush or defending him. Like it or not we are caught up in political world affairs unless we decide to have all out war. That people is unwinnable on everyones account. World destruction. Some here on THR know what I am saying. We cannot watussi with North Korea, Iran, Pakastan, without pulling in some major players who have Nukes. They will start to fly. It is unknown if the world would be satisfied with a limited exchange.
Jim

Lobotomy Boy
January 19, 2006, 10:23 PM
Jim, I am afraid you may be right. It's really starting to look like we are on the march towards world war, and there are no easy answers. And as much as I am starting to despise the man, I agree that this is bigger than Bush or any one president.

Bigman
January 19, 2006, 10:47 PM
Binladen wants to trick people in to believing turth he is full of ???? alwas was and alwas will be
Dont belive any thing a killer says

PCGS65
January 20, 2006, 12:51 AM
Would that also include Fox and CNN?
Biker
Biker it's funny you mention this. Back when slick willie was pres a radio station I listened to called CNN the Clinton News Network LOL because of the democratic propaganda. See ya

Lone_Gunman
January 20, 2006, 12:51 AM
Could they be on the verge of another attack?

Perhaps he has asked for a truce, knowing we would turn him down. And when we do, he attacks shortly thereafter, and justifies this in the Muslim world by saying he asked for peace, and we refused.

Manedwolf
January 20, 2006, 12:58 AM
Could they be on the verge of another attack?

Perhaps he has asked for a truce, knowing we would turn him down. And when we do, he attacks shortly thereafter, and justifies this in the Muslim world by saying he asked for peace, and we refused.

Or, as I said, he sees that the poll numbers for support of the Iraq occupation are going down. The US could be in danger of pulling out.

Osama never liked Saddam, and vice versa. Maybe he doesn't WANT the the US to pull out of Iraq. It keeps the flames going, keeps his recruitment up. Iraq is the best recruitment tool for jihadists he could ever have hoped for. That, and having been a leader of the Mujahadeen that ground down the Soviets in Afghanistan, he knows just what a grinding war of attrition can do to a superpower, and wants that to happen to us. In Iraq. It also keeps us from sending resources back after HIM! He's safe as long as we're tied up in Iraq!

So in other words, he says this, immediate reaction from a lot of the US is "Hey! Bad Guy wants us to leave Iraq, naaw, that means we should stay!"...and it goes on. And on. And on. He gets more recruits all the time, we lose more men, women and equipment.

That culture plans things in terms of decades and centuries, not days and weeks.

Waitone
January 20, 2006, 12:59 AM
People wanting to know why OBL is still alive is right on the money. Everyone knows competitent leadership would have done in the enemy's leadership from the outset of hostilities. The way the Allies popped Adolph right at the beginning of WWII was genius. Tojo being captured and killed right around Pearl Harbor was a great strategic move. Mussolini's capture and execution right after that unfortunate Ethopia thingy was brilliant. Bush needs to read a few history books to learn how real presidents don't wait for the military to destroy the opposition army. Yea, those were the good ol' days when presidents had hair on their . . . .:scrutiny:

Bush has taken the fight right to the leadership of the badguys. Because of his directives the badguy leadership walk around with a class A pucker factor and that is A Good Thang.:rolleyes:

bogie
January 20, 2006, 02:23 AM
Why don't y'all just come out and say it?

"Vote for anyone but Bush."

That's all I've been hearing for the past 4-5 years, and I'm getting tired of it.

Go back to Democratic Underground. You're boring.

Lobotomy Boy
January 20, 2006, 08:57 AM
Waitone, those were all legitimate leaders of functioning nation states. OBL is basically a rogue mass murderer. Big difference. We took out a legitimate leader of a more-or-less functioning nation state in Iraq in 2003, and look how well that turned out. On the other hand, capturing Carlos the Jackal was a good thing for all concerned.

GTSteve03
January 20, 2006, 09:46 AM
Bush has taken the fight right to the leadership of the badguys. Because of his directives the badguy leadership walk around with a class A pucker factor and that is A Good Thang.:rolleyes:
Yeah, Bin Laden and Zarqawi sure are quaking in their boots. I mean, they've been around for how long now and neither has been captured?

Taking the fight to the enemy. That worked really well for Germany against Russia, didn't it? :rolleyes:

bogie
January 20, 2006, 10:14 AM
Jim, I am afraid you may be right. It's really starting to look like we are on the march towards world war, and there are no easy answers. And as much as I am starting to despise the man, I agree that this is bigger than Bush or any one president.

Congratulations. When you look at recent history, this all started with Carter, when "students" overran the American embassy in Iran. Going back further, some think that it started in the late forties. But it really started about a thousandish years ago. Islam wants the world. However.

These people have been at war a LONG time. It was only recently that they again had the money to actively fight.

We've had a world war going for upwards of 30 years. It's just been sorta low key.

Lucky
January 20, 2006, 11:01 AM
THIS (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=/SpecialReports/archive/200601/SPE20060111a.html) was posted over at Frugal Squirrels. It is a good analysis of the situation, and shows a pattern that predicts when attacks will occur outside of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The article actually came out before the OBL tape, but I think that the OBL tape strengthens the argument made.

I think this tape is a warning that we are about to be hit. :(

We have had 2 Zawahiri tapes, the last being in the first week of January this year. That is the pattern that has been set according to the article,
I.G.B.

So it could be like the WW2 broadcasts, like the ones from Britain to the resistance in WW2. Radio Free Europe iirc. They'd finish the news or whatever, then (in the movies) they read out a list of meaningless phrases, which have per-determined meanings to people listening.

But OBL can't very well set up a big transmitter, so he just gives the tapes to the media and they all broadcast it for him.

But instead of censoring that, which would be logical and justifiable, the gov'ts all pass laws to wire-tap their citizens, instead. UFB.

itgoesboom
January 20, 2006, 03:00 PM
So it could be like the WW2 broadcasts, like the ones from Britain to the resistance in WW2. Radio Free Europe iirc. They'd finish the news or whatever, then (in the movies) they read out a list of meaningless phrases, which have per-determined meanings to people listening.

But OBL can't very well set up a big transmitter, so he just gives the tapes to the media and they all broadcast it for him.

But instead of censoring that, which would be logical and justifiable, the gov'ts all pass laws to wire-tap their citizens, instead. UFB.


Yes and No.

First off, the Zawahiri broadcasts are just the 'greenlight' to go ahead with the attack within a set time frame (or so goes the theory). The target and cell is communicated by a message on a website (current one targets "land of the Romans"). All of this is in the article that I posted.

Second off, we have something called the first amendment. The .gov can't just say "because of terrorism concerns, the first amendment no longer applies, we will now censor all news". Despite all the constitutional arguments against what the current administration has done, destroying the first amendment, and creating a state run media, which is what it would take, would push many people over the edge and the current admin would be pushed out.

Thirdly, even if you could censor it from US media, Al-Jazeera isn't US media. It is based in Qatar, which is a US ally, so we aren't going to bomb the headquarters there. So even if the US censored it, it would still be broadcast in the Middle East, and shown online.

So there is no point to censoring our news, and doing so would be even more damaging to our country.

The big concerning thing here right now is that the pattern is set, 1 broadcast by Zawahiri, a coded web message to the cell with it's target, and a second Zawahiri message as a greenlight, followed shortly with an attack.

So now we have the first Zawahiri message, sent out on October 23rd, 2005, followed by a web message by Abu-Hafs al-Masri Brigades stating the attack would happen in "the land of the Romans" (either Italy (Rome), or the US (New Roman Empire)), and then we have a second Zawahiri messsage on January 6th, 2006.

So that pattern is complete.

But the argument that the US is the next target, and the next attack will be a large one is bolstered by the new Bin Laden audio tape. This breaks the pattern up a little, and is directed towards the US. The offer of truce can be considered traditional in the Islamic world before an attack, giving their enemy a chance avert the strike by achieving whatever is demanded. You will note that same pattern for other attacks against other countries, you will note the same pattern when they were chopping heads off of people in Iraq, you will notice a similar pattern going back years. Warn, give a chance for peace, and then attack.

So that pattern is complete as well.

Another thing that has been mentioned elsewhere, is that Zawahiri is going to release another message in the next couple days. That would signal not only that he is still alive, but could be another green light, and would also shift the pattern a little bit.

Now all that is left is an attack against us, and with Bin Laden chiming in again, and Zawahiri possibly about to let out another tape, we could be facing multiple cells of terrorists attacking us independantly.

Just something to think about.

I.G.B.

foghornl
January 20, 2006, 03:28 PM
My truce offer to Osama, Zawahiri, et al:

We will stop shooting pointy things at you when you are busy pushing up daisies.

carlrodd
January 20, 2006, 03:46 PM
If the Muslim religion does not pitch in and help, this may very well turn into a religous war. Bin Laden's head on a stick will not be the end, probably not even the begining of the end, but damn it sure would be satisfying wouldn't it?

this already IS a religious war. and it doesn't help that everybody in power everywhere refuses to acknowledge it...except for the muslims of course. why is it ok anywhere else to say, "we hate america...it is a christian nation and they are infidels", but if we were to say, "you know what, you're right...for all intents and purposes this is still in many ways a 'christian' nation, and since you have declared yourselves our enemy, we will wipe you from the face of the earth in the name of god.", we of course would be vilified both at home and internationally. but at the end of the day, we are still fighting a holy war, because the muslim world will always see us as a religious enemy.....and not just the extreme elements of the muslim world.

by and large, the muslim world is a contentious place. we will never have peace with them, if we invade we will never pacify the people, and we can always expect them to do whatever is in their power to thwart whatever our initiatives are, good or bad. let's get off the petroleum kick and take away their only source of leverage. let em start roaming the deserts again.

Lobotomy Boy
January 20, 2006, 03:51 PM
As someone who is somewhere between agnostic and atheist (probably closer to atheist), does that mean that the Islamic world is at war with the rest of you but not me?

Sindawe
January 20, 2006, 03:57 PM
As someone who is somewhere between agnostic and atheist (probably closer to atheist), does that mean that the Islamic world is at war with the rest of you but not me?Nope, you're in there as well LB. As far as I understand it, Christians and Jews given a bit of dispensation since they are "People of the Book". You agnostics/atheists are down here with us Pagans. :evil:

Back on topic: Well, if the pattern follows the form others have noted, we should have our answer about an attack w/in 30 days.

swampsniper
January 20, 2006, 04:02 PM
As someone who is somewhere between agnostic and atheist (probably closer to atheist), does that mean that the Islamic world is at war with the rest of you but not me?

Hey, you are so far down on their poop list, you are below pigs and dogs!
No hope for you!:what:

Mongo the Mutterer
January 20, 2006, 04:07 PM
I say we agree to a truce.

He can come here to sign it, and either his brains land on the paper or his signature.

Ooops, option two is no longer available...

Virgins for you, you POS (and they all look like Yassir Arafat, and they bring along your mother in laws).:evil:

carlrodd
January 20, 2006, 04:18 PM
As someone who is somewhere between agnostic and atheist (probably closer to atheist), does that mean that the Islamic world is at war with the rest of you but not me?

blah, blah, blah. this topic has already been discussed more than a million times. nobody called you a christian. if you aren't willing to admit, whether you like it or agree with it, that our many of our nation's mindsets, laws, traditions etc are fused with some of the foundations of traditional christian thinking, than you are being naive..plainly. it's simply a matter of fact, and is evidenced by muslim nations seeing us precisely as i have just explained. furthermore, this is exactly the sort of attitude that keeps us from addressing the situation realistically.

whether you are personally a 'christian' or not is of no consequence. you are a citizen in a country that muslims see as christian. as do israelis incidentally. do the math.

jlbraun
January 20, 2006, 04:37 PM
He showed up on video right before the election, with the same deal, remember?

IIRC, it was vote for Kerry, and I won't hurt you.

Human garbage, with whom we will make no deals.

YDRC (You don't remember correctly). In fact, Bin Ladin mentioned Kerry only once. The rest of his diatribe revolved around how easy it was to bait and enrage the Bush administration. Secondly, there was no "vote for X" message at all, and he said that it didn't matter who won the election, and that he didn't care.

Here (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm) is the transcript.

Please don't use the words of this madman to create intention and desire where none exist.

Mad Chemist
January 20, 2006, 04:58 PM
The massive outrage that immediatley followed 9/11. If he were to organize another large scale attack on American soil, he would accomplish little more than putting fence sitters firmly in the hawk camp while making fence sitters of the doves.
Maybe he also forgot the fact that we have a president that for the faults he has, is not afraid to ream some third world country a new a$$ hole for conspiring with terrorists and a VP who wants nothing more than to turn the middle east into a sheet of glass.
Maybe he also forgot that even the lib media reported that after 9/11 firearm sales went up at a phenomenal rate. "Flyover Country" is one step closer to getting ready to skull fornicate someone. Grandmas who will run into a ditch to avoid an animal are blasting Bin Laden on computer screens instead of playing solitair.
Maybe he forgot the reason Japan was afraid to take the war to American soil. Does "rifle behind every blade of grass" ring a bell? Maybe he forgot that we are not the only country that has a price on his head and every time he pulls a stunt he loses more allies. I think his turban is wrapped a little too tight to allow for clear thinking on his part.

I don't think OBL forgot any of this. In fact, he's counting on it. It's a war of attrition being waged, as long Iraq remains unstable Al Qaeda becomes stronger. The only disadvantage for Bin Laden if the possibility that Zarquari has usurped much of his control.

JH

JJpdxpinkpistols
January 20, 2006, 05:14 PM
blah, blah, blah. this topic has already been discussed more than a million times. nobody called you a christian.

Well, thats a dang good thing, for the sake of accuracy. :rolleyes:

if you aren't willing to admit, whether you like it or agree with it, that our many of our nation's mindsets, laws, traditions etc are fused with some of the foundations of traditional christian thinking,

I would hope that a quick look at the Yule Tree might show...oh...nevermind. Yes, of course, this country has some laws, traditions, etc that share a foundation in christian thinking. Actually, not so "traditional", but whatever.

it's simply a matter of fact, and is evidenced by muslim nations seeing us precisely as i have just explained.

Not quite. Koran 5:82

[5:82] You will find that the worst enemies of the believers are the Jews and the idol worshipers. And you will find that the closest people in friendship to the believers are those who say, "We are Christian." This is because they have priests and monks among them, and they are not arrogant.

I believe this is a translation by Adberry.

I wanna make something absolutely clear: if you search for "Koran 5:82" you will find a good dozen or so translations of the same comment, each slightly clear. Mistranslation of the word "kafir" is often blamed by one side or the other.

And the point????? If you get a shoddy translation, and then base your entire outlook on same, then you can draw wrong conclusions.

PS: I am not Muslim, nor am I Islamist, nor am I a Arabic, nor do I speak Arabic. I am, however, a student of mis-translations -- my mom was a linguist with a background in a priori and cognative structure and philosophy.

rick_reno
January 20, 2006, 08:01 PM
The only disadvantage for Bin Laden if the possibility that Zarquari has usurped much of his control.

Reports are that Zarquari is taking the bulk of Arab money going to finance their efforts. The money goes where the action is, and with Zarquari fighting the infidels on a daily basis it's what the rich Arab's want to fund. It's possible the recent Bin Laden tape is nothing more than a fund raising effort - it's also possible it's a tool designed to get the Patriot Act passed. It's doubtful we'll ever know.

CAnnoneer
January 21, 2006, 12:25 AM
OBL? Somebody smoke that dirtbag already! Gaaargh :cuss:

Look back into history. OBL was a biped without a country, with a bunch of people wanting him dead. He went to the Tabilan for protection!!! How are we supposed to believe now that this fugitive is eluding capture now with 25 million on his head?? It is obvious a government is protecting him. The only thing to determine is which one it is. What we are meant to believe by the media is beyond insulting to one's intelligence. :cuss:

JMusic
January 21, 2006, 11:12 AM
Someone mentioned Carter as the start of this mess, it actually started prior to that. We can blame Yasssar Arafat for the modern terrorist. He recognized that it took generation building to have the dedication that now lurks in the likes of suicide bombers. Much as Hitler destroyed his youth, Araffat took grade school kids in the 60's and started teaching hate against westeners. The PLO was an anemic form of what has now turned into a vipers nest. This will be a war of enilation of generations. You watch and see.:(
Jim

FNFiveSeven
January 21, 2006, 11:41 AM
It is obvious a government is protecting him.

Folks, it's obvious Bin Laden is dead. He's been dead for a long time. Anyone who doesn't believe this needs to pull their head out of the sand and do a little independent thinking.

Let's see... we've got the world's most wanted man, who started suffering from a serious kidney disease at least 5 YEARS ago. And for some inexplicable reason, despite his great wealth, the ONLY form of communication we've seen since Sept 11 has been a series of audio-only tape recordings?! Am I supposed to believe OBL and his terrorist network can't afford a camcorder? C'mon guys! :banghead:

The question here isn't whether OBL made the tape, but who did, and why. It is in the best interest of both the Muslim fundamentalists and the Bush administration to keep the public believing that OBL is alive and well. I wouldn't be surprised to learn this administration has been mailing tapes off to Al Jazeera every time Bush's poll numbers drop. I can see it already...

"Let's see, we need to drum up more support for the Patriot Act, and Bush's poll numbers are down 5 points... which tape do we send... hmmm... ah yes, tape 47, that'll do the trick. Good thing the American people are such a bunch of gullible pushovers... they'll believe anything! Bwa Ha ha ha..."

Lobotomy Boy
January 21, 2006, 11:47 AM
Blackrazor, my response to your post indicates just how far down the Bush administration has dragged our country. Three years ago I would have written off your post as some whacked-out theory from a tinfoil-hat wearing white supremicist in a compound in Idaho or somewhere. A year ago I would have still been skeptical. Today it makes perfect sense to me, and I feel guilty about having been so close-minded three years ago.

Biker
January 21, 2006, 12:07 PM
I'm afraid that I'm a member of that club too. Let's see, a week after disasterous mistake in Pakistan, a new Bin Laden tape comes out. Has anyone seen poll numbers since Bin Laden's newest release?
I don't know for sure if it's just paranoia on my part, but in all seriousness, he always seems to make an appearance at opportune times for this Administration.:confused:
Biker

Waitone
January 21, 2006, 04:29 PM
I don't know for sure if it's just paranoia on my part, but in all seriousness, he always seems to make an appearance at opportune times for this Administration. Let us join Sherman and Mr. Peabody in Mr. Peabody's WayBack Machine and return to the mid 80's for a quick trip to Nicaragua and the Gong Show hosted by Daniel Ortega. Ortega was a stooge working hand in hand with a particular American political party of same some note. He was a marxist and he hated everything Yanque. He proved to be a quite useful idiot for this one particular party. The Yanque Party went out of its way to use Ortega against the incumbent US president up to and including writing incomprehensible legislation trying to regulate affairs of state between 2 sovereign nations. We had US senators and rep make pilgrimages south just to bask in the glow of Mr. Ortega. Anything Mr. Ortega wanted was what he got. Why, because he was a publicity tool which was used against the incumbent US president. Big Media just plain ol' slobbered every time Ortega showed up in the news because of some official action or comment by the unnamed US political party.

Trouble is every time the unnamed party scored points against the incumbent president using Ortega, Ortega would pull some completely stupid, boneheaded, and unnecessary maneuver which would make him look like an idiot and the unnamed US political party look like jackasses. It was funny to see how this guy would undercut his benefactors at every turn.

Was the guy an idiot? Yep, an idiot with lots of guns and plenty of air time in the US. Was it convenient that every time the unnamed US political party scored a point Ortega would pull a boner and nullify any PR advantage? Yep, even looked at times like Ortega was working for the incumbent president.

Why the story? To reinforce my point made on other threads; no need for conspiracy to explain something easily explained to stupidity, greed and/or arrogance. OBL is an Arab. He looks at the world in general and the US in particular as an unhappy Arab. He is going to do things according to his radical, sick, demented ideology. If he was smart and really wanted to get to us, he would simply disappear and retire to some beach somewhere and wait for us to tear ourselves apart.

Biker
January 21, 2006, 05:16 PM
The Sherman and Mr Peabody reference just earned you a beer which I will drink in your absence but in your honor.:)
edit: Doesn't mean I necessarily agree with you, but you got cool points for that one.
Biker:p

JMusic
January 21, 2006, 06:36 PM
Biker I didn't even read his statement and I'm drinking a beer to it. Hell here's to drinking a beer for drinking a beer!!!:)
Jim

Biker
January 21, 2006, 06:38 PM
Well now, I guess that means that I'll just have to toast you too!:)
Biker

Malone LaVeigh
January 21, 2006, 06:47 PM
The only notable thing I see in the Bush administration is their incompetence is outweighed only by their arrogance. The one thing they've done right are the Supreme Court appointments - they've really shined in this important area.
Five free points to whoever first identifies what's ironic about this statement.

Waitone
January 21, 2006, 06:53 PM
Me, me, me <waving hand>

Bush nominated Alito only after being bitch-slapped after nominating a cronie name Harriette Meiers.

Malone LaVeigh
January 21, 2006, 07:00 PM
Me, me, me <waving hand>

Bush nominated Alioto only after being bitch-slapped after nominating a cronie name Harriette Meiers.
Sorry, that's not the correct answer.

Waitone
January 21, 2006, 07:03 PM
:mad:

JMusic
January 21, 2006, 07:09 PM
Bush couldn't buy a judge nomination until the Senate put their foot down and threatened to outlaw filabusters.

Art Eatman
January 21, 2006, 07:26 PM
This thread is like an old ET song, "Driftwood on the River".

:), Art

If you enjoyed reading about "Bin Laden offers truce" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!