If that were really the case, he would be blowing up Saudi government institutions and attempting to assassinate Saudi leaders. He also has the capacity and following in Saudi Arabia to stir up domestic unrest. However, he prefers to kill innocent civilians and spread terror across the whole world. His primary concern is not Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, or Israel. It’s an anti-Western war wherein he wants to destroy western democracy and install a worldwide, fundamentalist Islamist state … either that or he’s just nutty.
It doesn’t make innocent civilians legitimate targets. And if he had such a beef with Israel and Saudi Arabia, he would be carrying out more terrorist attacks and assassinations against those regimes. Those are just excuses for him to win support among Muslim fundamentalists, which he has done successfully. Don’t get caught up in his propoganda. He’s a nutcase and deserves worse than what happened in Abu Gharaib prison. I know that sounds evil, but it’s only half as evil as what he has done, and not only to the US and its Western Allies, but to anyone who doesn’t follow his belief system. He has killed more Muslims than he has Westerners. He is an evil, evil man.
Bull. Notice what this attempt to influence the election amounts too–a video tape!! wow how scary. One nut job in a cave made a tape, yet Bush is not doing his job :loco:
Everything I have seen suggests there is no clear gainer or loser in this in the election.
If that were really the case, he would be blowing up Saudi government institutions and attempting to assassinate Saudi leaders. He also has the capacity and following in Saudi Arabia to stir up domestic unrest. However, he prefers to kill innocent civilians and spread terror across the whole world. His primary concern is not Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, or Israel. It’s an anti-Western war wherein he wants to destroy western democracy and install a worldwide, fundamentalist Islamist state … either that or he’s just nutty.[/quote]
Good points. Based on his logic it seems he should go after the house of Saud, not the house of Shrub. I’m sure he would love to depose the Saudi govt, not just for being a monarchy but also for the sin of its longstanding intimacy with the US, most egregiously allowing the Great Satan to use Saudi Arabia as a base for attacks on the muslim nation of Iraq in the prior war and this one.
But he is obviously pissed off at more than just the house of Saud. Obviously he is infuriated that after millenia of muslims fighting to keep the Crusaders and other intruders out of the muslim holy lands, the US has seriously contaminated the most holy muslim lands, the entire Saudi peninsula and now Baghdad (not to mention the fact that the US has aided Israel in its oppression of Palestine and is a godless land of depravity and debauchery and is spreading those vices around the world). While the 9/11 attacks were totally inexcusable, his anger as described above is not illogical if one tries to view the facts from the perspective of a fanatical muslim.
But, you are wrong to say he wants to “install a worldwide, fundamentalist Islamist state .” Just an error of terminology, but an important one. I’m sure he does want to install a worldwide Islamist state, but I believe the correct term is radical or extremist, not fundamentalist. Fundamentally it is a sin for muslims to kill innocent women and children. It is my understanding that the rash of suicide bombings by crazed muslims in recent years is a completly new phenomenon. It is directly contrary to the words of the Koran and there is no historical precedent for such acts. OBL and his pals are not fundamentalist muslims, they are wacko extremists.
OBL’s goals shift according to the political atmosphere. His main concern was not just the U.S. but the West as a whole, but now that the U.S. and Europe are fairly divided, he addresses most of his vitriole against Uncle Sam. I’m surprised he hasn’t said anything about Ronald McDonald yet. Anyway, his messages are more an effort to win support among Muslims, most of whom very openly reject his agenda and means of achieving it (namely, using terrorism to help ‘liberate’ countries in his name and create a pan-Arab state). Actually taking what he says, or most politicians say, at face value undermines the actual message. Osama was the kid who tied firecrackers to GI Joe dolls.
Not a boost for Kerry, but very clearly a boost for Bush – and more than likely enough to make absolutely certain that, with sufficient manipulation of the voting and counting processes in Florida, Ohio and perhaps one or two other key states, he will be declared the winner of the election on Wednesday.
The intelligent, clear-sighted and right-minded members of the US electorate, who would see the bin Laden tape as a stunning indictment of Bush and the failure of his “war on terror”, will already be firmly committed to voting for Kerry, so it won’t help him to garner any more votes in the election.
But some of the more mule-brained Americans who were wavering about who they should vote for or whether they should even bother to vote (such as formerly staunch Republicans who may have been reconsidering their allegiance because of how much they’ve suffered from the Bush administration’s disastrous mismanagement of the economy) might just be swayed to cast their votes for Bush after all by the kind of thinking displayed by some of the less enlightened posters in this thread.