Bin Laden is alive, but he’s not wishing any Americans peace or goodwill on the eve of the elections. I think that fasting Bin Laden needs to do right now for Ramadan must be going to his head.
[quote]“Your security is not in the hands of [Democratic challenger John] Kerry or [President] Bush or al-Qaida. Your security is in your hands,” bin Laden said.
“We fought you because we are free … and want to regain freedom for our nation. As you undermine our security we undermine yours,” bin Laden added.
Bin Laden criticized Bush sharply, saying that the president is “still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you and therefore the reasons are still there to repeat what happened” on Sept. 11, 2001.
[/quote]
Bush vowed that no Americans will hear Bin Laden’s words and feel fear.
Of course he’s a ruthless fucker who should be brought to justice, and he’s the one the US should have gone after years ago instead of mucking around in Iraq, but his statement is not completely illogical is it?
He says, “We fought you because we are free … and want to regain freedom for our nation.” He’s right that his people, the Saudi people, are not free. They have no voice in their government, they do not live in a democracy. While the US talks about spreading democracy around the globe, it is perfectly content to support the undemocratic Saudi kingdom.
I recognize the flaw in Osama’s argument is that he would probably be strongly opposed to the instillation of a true democracy and Constitutional rights for all Saudi citizens, but I understand that he has been attempting for years to remove the Saudi royal family, and if he weren’t a ruthless terrorist even Fred Smith might support that goal, no?
I’m not trying to stir up shit. The acts he has committed are inexcusable. The ends do not justify the means. But isn’t his goal of ousting the monarchy a reasonable one, and isn’t it understandable he would resent Western complicity in supporting the monarchy?
I can’t help but laugh everytime the news repeats the lines about president Bush being more concerned about a little girl’s, I think it was “goat,” than the 50,000 people in the trade centre. I mean what they fuck kind of statement is that? It’s almost camp.
Now that you’ve characterized OBL as a reasonable and rational person who just wants to get rid of the House of Saud, I’ve had a brainstorm. Jeez, I wish I could contact him somehow, because I think I have his solution.
Hey OBL, if you want to get rid of the House of Saud, instead of attacking the US…attack the House of Saud!
(off-stage whispering)
Oh?
(more off-stage whispering)
I see.
Erm, my assistants have just informed me that OBL isn’t a person to be reasoned with after all, but is rather a religous whacko slash psycho slash nutbar, sort of like an exponential Jim Jones but without the intellectual pedigree.
I don’t get it. Does Michael Moore promote violence, and in what way?
Here’s one that i could show has some plausibility: OBL and Bush both share the same scriptwriter - the covert CIA operative who is in fact running the US and Al Qaida.
Why did the US ever make Bin Laden, that’s what I’d like to know. Maybe they thought, wrongly, that if they made a monster in the Middle East that monster would be too far away to ever hurt America. The CIA showed Bin Laden how to make terrorist camps. When they left him their with all his job training, what did they expect him to do? In 1986, [quote]these camps, now dubbed
I don’t get it. Does Michael Moore promote violence, and in what way?
[/quote]
anytime moore or any other liberal ever uses the “my pet goat” story again, the first thing that will pop into people’s minds is “hey, isn’t that what osama said?”
while i’m not a big fan of the trite “blame america for everything” attitude, i do appreciate your view that any muslim who sets up a radical islamic school is a “monster”.
radical islamic schools = terrorist camps. love it! we need your help to shut down all the “terrorist camps” which still exist today in the middle east, europe, and even some here in the us.
[quote]When they left him their with all his job training, what did they expect him to do?
[/quote]
i’m not really understanding your position here. so you think the us should have killed him once the soviets were driven out?
I get what you mean, now. Because Bush never brings up his mistakes, it’s not in Bush’s speeches. Thus, illogically, OBL and MM have the same script writer, because they both know that Bush’s mistake was a serious one?
According to OBL, he implied that there was so much coordination that the extra time Bush gave the child’s story wasn’t important. But it does give us the hint that Bin Laden watches the news.
We also know that Michael Moore watches the news, so the odd man out is Bush. Michael Moore and Bin Laden both watch the news, so they’re in the same boat, I just wonder where the candlestick maker is. Bush said in September, 2003, “I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what’s moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are … probably read the news themselves.”
[quote=“twocs”]Pakistan, the US and Britain provided military trainers.
When they left [Bin Laden] there with all [the CIA] job training (recruiter and payroller for US taught “terrorist universities” in Iraq), what did they expect him to do?[/quote]
My position: In hindsight, US policy in Iraq in the 1980s was not the wisest policy. It was more of a rhetorical question.
I don’t know if you could call Bush a wise man, Aug. 6, 2003: “We’ve got a year-and-a-while during my first term to make the world a more peaceful place and we’ll deal with it. Washington loves speculation. Clearly, you love speculation. You love it. You love to speculate about… Let me finish, please, let me finish. You love to speculate about whether so-and-so is going to be a part of the administration or not. And I understand the game. But I have got to do my job, and I’m going to do it. And I’m going to do it with the Secretary of State.”
I think Bin Laden has been in hiding in a country sympathetic to his “cause” even before 9/11 with the full knowledge of the president/dictator of that country. If they were operating the way they always used to, he would have been captured by now.
Twocs, you really are an illiterate fool. Go read any of the histories of the Afghani war, such as “Charlie Wilson’s War”, and you will learn that OBL was so anti-American, even before Afghanistan, that the CIA wouldn’t work with him. The CIA’s program was separate from OBL’s.
This has been discussed repeatedly on this forum and elsewhere, yet you keep repeating the same lies over and over again. You are hopeless.
The house of Saud (like Israel next door-ish) is propped up by the U.S. military, nicht wahr? That makes the U.S. a legitimate target.
Of course, a guy like Bin Ladin is in no position to wage conventional war against the world’s most powerful army, so he had little recourse other than to do as he has done. We would not pay attention to him if he were more “reasonable.”
And are not we Americans, who tend to go about their daily lives not caring what atrocities our government commits, basically just the same as he is? How many innocent people would WE kill (or look the other way while our military kills) in order to maintain our oil supply?
let him give it his best shot from his cave, the pussy. sooner or later we’ll find him and drop a bomb on his ass, then we’ll see how much recourse he has or how many tapes he can make.
If you drop a bomb, there will be little or no evidence that he’s dead. The US forces should locate Bin Laden alive or dead, but in at least recognizable. Otherwise there will be a bigger mythos surrounding him, encouraging others to follow his lead.
On September 13, 2001 (and many weeks and months following) Bush said of Osama, “You can run, but you can’t hide.” Well, it looks like Bush was wrong; Osama can both run and hide. Funny how he also used the same slogan to describe Kerry and his record.
:bravo: 
