# New Bin-Laden Tape



## Alex252 (29 Oct 2004)

Osama bin Laden delivered a new videotaped message in which he told Americans their security does not depend on the president they elect, but on U.S. policy.

The tape was aired on the Arab language network Al-Jazeera Friday, just four days before the U.S. presidential election.

It's the first videotaped message from the al Qaeda leader in nearly three years.

Bin Laden said the message was being delivered directly to the American people, saying the attacks of September 11, 2001 were the result of U.S. foreign policy in Arab lands, specifically referring to Lebanon and the Palestinians.

At one point, he mentioned both President Bush and Democratic candidate Sen. John Kerry.

"Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked," bin Laden said in the video.

Bush told reporters as he was boarding Air Force One for Columbus, Ohio, "Americans will not be intimidated or influenced by an enemy of our country. I'm sure Senator Kerry agrees with this. ... We are at war with these terrorists, and I am confident we will prevail."

Kerry told reporters in West Palm Beach, Florida: "Let me make it clear; crystal clear -- as Americans, we are absolutely united in our determination to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden and the terrorists." 

He added: "They are barbarians. And I will stop at absolutely nothing to hunt down, capture or kill the terrorists wherever they are, whatever it takes. Period." 

Bin Laden criticizes Bush
Bin Laden sharply criticized President Bush for his behavior on the morning of September 11, 2001, when the president was reading "My Pet Goat" to a group of schoolchildren in Florida at the time he was informed of the attacks.

"It never occurred that the highest leader of the military armed forces would leave 50,000 people to face the horror that they faced all by themselves when they needed him most," bin Laden said. 

"He was more interested in listening to the child's story about the goat rather than worry about what was happening to the towers. So, that gave us double the time for us to execute our attacks."

Bin Laden was wearing a gold robe with a white headdress and white cloak. He had a long mostly gray beard, and appeared to be sitting behind a desk, reading from a paper statement, occasionally moving his right hand as he spoke.

Intelligence officials have warned previously about the possibility of al Qaeda trying to attack the United States around the time of next Tuesday's election, similar to the al Qaeda train bombings in Madrid on March 11 before the Spanish presidential election.

"Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked."
-- Osana bin Laden   
   
A U.S. government official said that based on initial analysis of the new bin Laden tape, "There have not been discussions about raising the nation's security posture or threat level."

The official said that the government is waiting for the intelligence community to further analyze the tape, but on first glance it did not appear to contain any specific threat information. The official said that among things analysts will be looking for are hidden messages.

In the video, bin Laden said he decided to attack the twin towers of the World Trade Center in 1982 after the invasion of Lebanon by Israel.

"In those dark moments, my soul was thinking about lots of things that are hard to describe but they brought a feeling to do something about the aggressors and punish them," he said. 

"When I looked at the towers that were destroyed in Lebanon, it occurred to me that we should do the same to them. And the towers in America should have fallen down in order for Americans to feel what we have felt."

He underscored it was U.S. foreign policy that led to the attacks, saying, "Bush has told you that we do not like freedom. Then, why didn't we hit Sweden?"

The statement aired Friday is the first videotaped message from the al Qaeda leader since December 2001.

Since he was last seen speaking on tape, at least seven audiotapes have surfaced on which a voice believed to be bin Laden issued messages. The most recent came in April, when he made references to the train bombings in Madrid the month before. 


Any comments?


----------



## KevinB (29 Oct 2004)

Simply designed for more fearmongering - and to get them to vote for Kerry  ;D...


----------



## Goober (29 Oct 2004)

> "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked."



I just hope the Canadian public is not comforted by this statement in any way. The last thing we need right now is for people to be disillusioned about their safety.


----------



## Alex252 (29 Oct 2004)

*I just hope the Canadian public is not comforted by this statement in any way. The last thing we need right now is for people to be disillusioned about their safety.* 
Yup


----------



## Infanteer (29 Oct 2004)

Well, at least we no he's still alive....


----------



## the 48th regulator (29 Oct 2004)

yep the 25 mil is still up fer grabs

yeeha!

tess 

:threat:


----------



## CBH99 (29 Oct 2004)

I agree, Bin Laden isn't the most trustworthy individual out there.  I don't pretend to believe what he says for a second.  And, it wouldn't surprize me if most Canadians do feel more comforted by this videotape - the general public is so ignorant towards even the most basic of military concepts and practices, it wouldn't surprize me in the least if they believed what he was saying.

Now I know some of you might jump down my throat for this - if you don't have anything constructive to say, then don't say anything at all - but, does anybody else feel as if maybe we create a lot of the enemies we have these days?  I'm not saying "We created Al-Qeida" or anything like that...but one thing Mr. Bin Laden does bring up that is worth looking into further, is - does our foreign policy (By our, I mean the western world as a whole) work against us?  Does our policies of sanctions, pre-emptive military strikes, and aggressive peace enforcement (Namely the USA in Iraq, in regards to their aggressive tactics when compared to the British, Polish or Australians) serve the terrorists' goals moreso than our own?

I know some of you blindly support Bush in everything he does, and others may agree on some things and disagree on others.  (The ability to form one's own opinion, rather than having their opinion thrown onto them by the not-so-neutral media is quite a pleasant find these days).  But, does anybody else feel that maybe SOME of Mr. Bin Laden's words have merit?  I still think we should bomb the hell out of him, and I'd put a round through his head myself given the opportunity - so I'm not preaching for him.  But, perhaps some aspects of our foreign policy serve him more than they serve us?  Alienating an entire continent from the rest of the world?  Breaking international law, and pre-emptively attacking a country in which our goals and objectives have noticably changed since when we first went in?  Labelling people as terrorists and insurgents when they're not, when they're only crime is challenging the way things are being done?  Tearing the world apart by saying "Either your with us or against us", and not having any respect for any other viewpoints other than those that blindly support the objective in mind?  Perhaps SOME of Mr. Bin Laden's words are worth contemplating, in that maybe our "war on terrorism" has a lot more shades of grey than we like to admit.  You can't fight and ideology with bullets and bombs.  You can protect yourself physically, with bullets and bombs, but you can't eliminate two clashing ideologies with military hardware alone.


----------



## JBP (30 Oct 2004)

> You can protect yourself physically, with bullets and bombs, but you can't eliminate two clashing ideologies with military hardware alone



No SHIT eh!  

Yet, for thousands of years all these freakin' religious people have been clubbing eachother over the head and stabbing, shooting, bombing, maiming, raping, pillaging ALL in the name of religion! OH HOLLY GOD, ALLAH! Whoever the hell the little green men in the sky are! It's all for you! I did it because of YOU!


Ahem... It's not the "God" of any nation. It's shit-faced phsyco's who get in control. Bin Laden does have some points alright, but, as you've all previously mentioned. It's fear tactics too. Again though, who TRAINED Bin Laden and his croonies? US of A. Course he's a good terrorist! The USA has got the best of'em! Almost every US president and government leader who has been assasinated has been in the US military at one point or another. The USA works thier people by fear.

Anyway, 





> in that maybe our "war on terrorism" has a lot more shades of grey than we like to admit.


 <----------- Is also just what they want us to think, so they can barge in and kill/arrest anyone or any nation they want. I do believe that the USA should protect itself and do everything in it's power to keep it's place as the most powerful nation on earth, who wouldn't? But umm.. Can we say overkill? "Geez umm.. Where'd those darn nukes and WMD go Bob?", "Well I'm not sure, we kicked the weapons inspectors out when they told us they weren't done yet!".... 

Again though, now all that High Explosive has gone missing from Iraq to who-knows-where? BIN LADEN maybe? You just never know....


World's a crazy place!

 ;D


----------



## banko (30 Oct 2004)

I think there should be a distiction made between US policy and the policy of the rest of the western world. We get shafted by their policy, look at NAFTA, the softwood lumber problems, BSE, etc. Their attitude of "with us or against us" is nothing new, it has always been around. It's only been made a public statement recently. The US had an amazing show of support after 9/11 but they squandered it with lies and deciet. The "war on terror" was a joke, if they were able to find Saddam they should have been able to find Osama... they've had 3 years to do it, are they even making a effort anymore? I think they don't want to find him, as long as he's around they will be able to write themselves blank cheques for anything to do with their millitary...

The US not only trained and funded Osama, but they funded Saddam for many years. I remember seeing pictures or Iraqi troops (at the beginning of gulf war I) with the latest and greatest American kit... obviously they got it from somewhere... I agree that US foreign policy creates enemies, it is obvious not just in the middle east but all over the world - Asia, Africa, Central/South america... it's easier to name continents than it is to name countries...

Does anyone remember that incident in China a few years ago when that chinese fighter jet collided with a US spy plane? The Chinese gov't said that the US was violating their airspace. The US said no, we were 150 miles offshore, at the limit or chinese airspace. It seems that everyone else said the US should have been 200 miles off the coast, as defined by international law. The US said that that law is good for everyone else, except for them... 

There is also the international ban on landmines, everyone that signed this treaty will not use land mines. The US signed the treaty but says no one is allowed to use landmines except for them.

Yes, I agree that the US makes their own enemies... looking forward to anyone proving me wrong...


----------



## Pencil Tech (30 Oct 2004)

Sorry, I definitely have to disagree with Kevin B. This will help Bush and it's quite predictable just before the election isn't it? (Maybe Ashcroft will give us another Orange Alert this week!) For whatever reason, Americans think Bush is more likely to guarantee their security (even though in IMHO he has made the world much more dangerous).Bush said to Bin Laden "You can run but you can't hide", well, excuse me, but Bin Laden seems to be doing a pretty fair job of hiding if you ask me. Bush's Iraq policy has turned that country into a terrorist playground and that certainly serves Bin Laden's purposes. Do you really think Osama would rather have Kerry as President? Bush is a fundamentalist Christian and Bin Laden is a fundamentalist Muslim and that's the way they like it. It's a Crusade for both of them and Bin Laden wants Bush to be bogged down in Irag, and scaring away any potential allies the US may have by his arrogance and stupidity..


----------



## KevinB (30 Oct 2004)

PencilTech 
I really do think they want Kerry - Democrats have short attention spans - and Kerry is not goign to get anymore help in Iraq than Bush - many gov'ts have made that one crystal clear (German, French and Canadian to note a few)

 Secondly Bush is going to go step by step thru the middle east despite world opinion - Kerry won;t and I think Kerry will scale back the GWOT.

 IF Binny Boy was trying to upset or antogonize us - he woudl have been back at his same old - Death to the US/BRIT/CANADIAN/AUSTRALIA/NEW ZELAND/SPAIN and POLAND routine that was so popular with him in post 911 times.  Now he is saying he won't be chopping the heads off, or blowing up port cities or etc... from countries that lost their spine and dropped out of the GWOT.

 Do you really think that is a PRO BUSH agenda?


----------



## Rfn (30 Oct 2004)

> There is also the international ban on landmines, everyone that signed this treaty will not use land mines. The US signed the treaty but says no one is allowed to use landmines except for them.



I really like coming here and reading all the different views, even from the predictable Yankee go home' crowd that I figured would come out after the release of the newest Bin Laden tape. The folks that post here are among the most credible and sensible.

What I don't like is outright false information. The US never signed the treaty to ban landmines:
http://www.icbl.org/treaty/members?eZSESSIDicbl=c35dafe65699227f7567aabb72131ce4


----------



## winchable (30 Oct 2004)

> The US never signed the treaty to ban landmines



Anyone familiar with politics know the reason for this?


----------



## Gunnerlove (30 Oct 2004)

One big reason was that if the US had signed the land mine treaties they would have been forced to remove all of their antipersonnel landmines from the DMZ separating north and south Korea.


----------



## Infanteer (30 Oct 2004)

They felt (rightly) that it would sacrifice force protection measures for their troops (especially in Korea) for an idealistic cause that is not grounded in reality.   Imagine we all decided to get rid of our Military following the Kellogg-Briand Pact?   :


----------



## GGboy (30 Oct 2004)

Back to bin Laden: I actually found it interesting that he wasn't ranting and raving as usual. By his lunatic standards, this sounded almost conciliatory. Maybe the boys of CJTF in Afghanistan are getting closer than he likes?
There was a report today in a Kuwaiti paper that he's supposedly in northeast Afghanistan, instead of the Pakistan border as previously thought.
As for the idea that the West/U.S. policies fuel or cause terrorism, I'd urge everyone interested to read any of al Qaeda's early manifestos (try a great Arab translation site for instance: http://www.memri.org). These guys claim to want U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia, but when you scratch the surface that's not all they want. They want Israel obliterated; an Islamic republic stretching from Iran to Morocco; and they ultimately would like southern Spain returned to Islam. I'm not making this up ... go read up on it.
Point is: their demands are unending ... doesn't matter what we give them, they're always going to want more.


----------



## KevinB (30 Oct 2004)

GGboy said:
			
		

> Point is: their demands are unending ... doesn't matter what we give them, they're always going to want more.



NAIL ON THE HEAD


----------



## Goober (31 Oct 2004)

The terrorists, and Bin Ladin and co. are using a series of positive and negative rewards to remove allies from the US and from Iraq. Negative rewards like decapitations, and positive rewards like "We won't attack you because you don't support the US".

The negative rewards are working, and this new tape will probably fulfill its purpose too.


----------



## Alex252 (31 Oct 2004)

The negative rewards are working, and this new tape will probably fulfill its purpose too. 
I agree


----------



## PARAMEDIC (31 Oct 2004)

how many of us saw this coming.... makes me sad that the american people might fall for it.

Im not a conspiracy theorist but that tape was hanging in the holster for a long time.

Funny this electoral race is almost a carbon copy of the bush vs al gore race..but with a few exceptions,

i.e bush holds some trump cards this time too ( saddam and bin laden)

bah! i give up draw what conclucion you may ..i have drawn mine already and so far all that i have expected have come true.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (31 Oct 2004)

banko said:
			
		

> I think there should be a distiction made between US policy and the policy of the rest of the western world. We get shafted by their policy, look at NAFTA, the softwood lumber problems, BSE, etc. Their attitude of "with us or against us" is nothing new, it has always been around. It's only been made a public statement recently. The US had an amazing show of support after 9/11 but they squandered it with lies and deciet. The "war on terror" was a joke, if they were able to find Saddam they should have been able to find Osama... they've had 3 years to do it, are they even making a effort anymore? I think they don't want to find him, as long as he's around they will be able to write themselves blank cheques for anything to do with their millitary...
> 
> The US not only trained and funded Osama, but they funded Saddam for many years. I remember seeing pictures or Iraqi troops (at the beginning of gulf war I) with the latest and greatest American kit... obviously they got it from somewhere... I agree that US foreign policy creates enemies, it is obvious not just in the middle east but all over the world - Asia, Africa, Central/South america... it's easier to name continents than it is to name countries...
> 
> ...



All right.

1)   The US stepped up and invested massive funds to rebuild Germany and Japan after WWII. 
2)   The US stepped up and use incredible resources to keep Berlin from getting swallowed by the soviets.   
3)   The US stepped up and supported Israel which is the only reason there wasn't a second holocaust and let's be clear that every other nation the planet would've stood by and let it happen.
4)   The US stepped up and intervened in Bosnia-Herzogovena to protect muslims while the Europeans doddled.
5)   The US has brought democracy to Afghanistan (including a constitution guaranteeing the rights and freedoms for its women)
6)   The US has almost brought democracy to Iraq (which will include a constitution which will be the first to protect ethnic minorities in any Islamic Middle Eastern Country - by comparison if you're a Jew try to get a visa to Saudi Arabia and see what happens).
7)   Etc.

Bottom Line:   The United States is the only country in the world who has the ethic and the ability to make positive change on this planet.   If the United States did not exist, this world would be a much more tyrannical, ethnically cleansed and repressive place.   So have they made enemies - Yes.   They've made enemies of those who want to perpetrate evil and those that are willing to profit from them.   France, Russia and China were all willing to take bribes (in the billions) to keep Saddam in power whilst he killed 100,000's of his own people.   And radical Islamists of all stripes hate the USA for not allowing that holocaust that they want to perpetrate.   They've made enemies of radical Islamists because they have allowed democracy into Afghanistan as opposed to Theocratic Council of Mullahs.   They have allowed women to work, to vote, to drive and to get an education whereas radical Islamists would prefer them in servitude.   So has the United States made enemies?   Yes.   But I would argue they made those enemies for the right reasons and it is unfortunate that you are too blind to see that....



Matthew.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (31 Oct 2004)

Isn't it funny how the rhetoric kings shut up when someone presents facts?
Well said.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (31 Oct 2004)

_Quote from Banko,
Does anyone remember that incident in China a few years ago when that chinese fighter jet collided with a US spy plane? The Chinese gov't said that the US was violating their airspace. The US said no, we were 150 miles offshore, at the limit or chinese airspace. It seems that everyone else said the US should have been 200 miles off the coast, as defined by international law. The US said that that law is good for everyone else, except for them... _ 

Maybe before you spout off on your anti-USA rant you should try something like checking the facts first....or do you make up your mind without them?

US Spy Plane Did Violate China's Airspace: Powell
US Secretary of State Colin Powell has admitted that the ill-fated US EP-3 surveillance plane did violate China's airspace, and said he was sorry for that. 

Appearing on CBS television's "Face the Nation" program Sunday, Powell said: "We do acknowledge that we violated their (China's) airspace, ... And we regret that. We have expressed sorrow for it. And we're sorry that that happened." 

The secretary also repeated his regret over the loss of a Chinese pilot in the April 1 spy plane incident. He said that "there is a widow (the wife of missing Chinese pilot Wang Wei) out there, and we regret that. We're sorry that her husband was lost." 

While joining TV program "Fox News Sunday," Powell said: "We have expressed regrets and we expressed our sorry, and we are sorry that a life was lost. The only life lost at this point was that of a Chinese pilot. And so I think it's a very proper thing to express our regrets and sorrow over that." 

A U.S. EP-3 electronic surveillance plane bumped into a Chinese jet fighter near China's Hainan Island on April 1, causing it to crash into the South China Sea. The damaged U.S. plane made an emergency landing in an airstrip on the island. Wang Wei, the Chinese pilot from the crashed fighter, is still missing. 

The Chinese government has made solemn representations with the U.S. side, demanding that Washington bear full responsibility for the incident and apologize to China.


----------



## GGboy (31 Oct 2004)

Look: the U.S. has made more than its share of foreign policy mistakes -- show me a country that hasn't.
But the idea that their various well-documented examples of stupid or immoral policies somehow led to 9/11 or the current rash of kidnappings and murders in Iraq is just ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as the idea that murderous scumbags like bin Laden distinguish between Americans and British or French or German or Canadians ... we're all just "crusaders" to these guys. 
They'd as soon kill a Canadian as an American, given the chance, and they certainly don't give a damn about our "soft power," "peacekeeping tradition" or any of the other fables spouted by the brains trust at DFAIT. 
But don't take my word for it: Go ask the guys in 3 RCR.


----------



## winchable (1 Nov 2004)

Word on the street is Bin Ladens talking less junk because the schism between extreme and everyone else is widening so much now that he'll lose any protection al-quaeda might have been affored by fence sitters.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Nov 2004)

Che said:
			
		

> Word on the street is Bin Ladens talking less junk because the schism between extreme and everyone else is widening so much now that he'll lose any protection al-quaeda might have been affored by fence sitters.



Makes sense from me.   He probably is somewhat concerned that Americans are sitting in Kabul and Baghdad and have taken an interest in what others are doing.   As well, the fact that affiliates are beheading fellow Muslims now may not sit well with the fence sitters - they didn't mind poking America in the eye but a raging Polyphemus and a war between believers in Dar-al-Islam doesn't seem to be what they bargined for.   My best guess is to look to how Crown Prince Abdullah does - if AQ loses Saudi then they're in for it.

What does everyone else think?


----------



## Marauder (1 Nov 2004)

I think binnie is scared for the same reason sKerry should be... Bush and the headshed in the Pentagon are kicking ass, taking names, and not being squeemish about it. OBL was all fire, brimstone, and Allah's will being done after 9/11, but now he seems to be running hard on trying to play nice with the little minions of the Great Satan. To me, that says he knows his only way to save his sorry ass is to try and pump up a sKerry administration in the minds of the American people (the ones he swore he would exterminate, mind you) and pray that they vote Bush out. To me, that says more for Bush and his last four years in charge than anything Karl Rove can throw in an attack ad.

As for any more binnie videos, there's really only one I want to see. I want to see one where binnie is down on his knees crying like a bitch, with a squad of SOCOM/JSOC types standing around him singing "Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue" by Toby Keith. Then the biggest operator of the bunch would take a dull, rusty piece of steel taken from the heart of Ground Zero and proceed to saw off the bastard's head. For the finale, I want to see the guys drink Jim Beam out of his skull, and then take a big steaming shit in it, before burying it wrapped in a pig's stomach in the field in Pennsylvania where Mr. Beamer & Co. first fought back against bin Laden and associates. That's the only bin Laden video worth paying any attention to.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (1 Nov 2004)

Che said:
			
		

> Word on the street is Bin Ladens talking less junk because the schism between extreme and everyone else is widening so much now that he'll lose any protection al-quaeda might have been affored by fence sitters.



An interesting take on it ... I've read a few opinons (and suggested earlier in this thread) that note that under the usual rhetoric (+ the Michael Moore rhetoric) the overal tone has changed quite a bit: he's a lot less cocky, and instead of going on and on about historical grievances, just issued the "quasi-threat" about not attacking, etc. ... not quite a surrender, but much less threatening (of course some feel it was a signal for some pre-election attacks, too).

Apparently a significant chunk of the original video was edited for the airwaves, including a 6-minute tirade against Bush (specifically 'his all-about-the-oil invasion of Iraq').


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (1 Nov 2004)

Marauder said:
			
		

> As for any more binnie videos, there's really only one I want to see. I want to see one where binnie is down on his knees crying like a *****, with a squad of SOCOM/JSOC types standing around him singing "Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue" by Toby Keith. Then the biggest operator of the bunch would take a dull, rusty piece of steel taken from the heart of Ground Zero and proceed to saw off the *******'s head. For the finale, I want to see the guys drink Jim Beam out of his skull, and then take a big steaming crap in it, before burying it wrapped in a pig's stomach in the field in Pennsylvania where Mr. Beamer & Co. first fought back against bin Laden and associates. That's the only bin Laden video worth paying any attention to.


Gotta go ... I'm off to Roger's to preorder that one!  :threat:


----------



## dutchie (1 Nov 2004)

Ok, I have had a belly full of debating the whole 'Bush is the devil', war in Iraq is BS, etc, etc, etc. My views have not changed, but my head hurts from beating it against the wall so much - I need a break.

But let's say for instance that Bush is as bad as everyone (including me) says he is. Compared to the other US Presidents in history, he's a little more aggressive, sure, but not off the charts by any means. Clinton was no angel, Reagan really went after US interests abroad (Cent America, Cold War, Middel East, etc), Kennedy (the darling of Democrats everywhere) invaded Cuba and then there's the whole 'Vietnam thing', and so on... What I'm saying is this: Bush is doing what every other US President has done, *and what Kerry will do*: Serve the US interests domestically and abroad. Period. They have the power and the will to act with impunity, right or wrong (I would argue wrong). Debate is great, but there has to be some sense of reality. 

Two things came to mind when I saw that video:

1-Bin Laden doesn't look sick, lame, or injured. Reports have been surfacing since Afghanistan was invaded saying he had kidney disease, needed dialysis, on his death bed, injured in a bombing of Tora Bora or whatever,   etc. He looks pretty healthy to me..

2-Why the hell has he been able to excape capture all this time? It must be one of two things: an INABILITY or an UNWILLINGNESS to capture him by the US. 

Which is it?


----------



## Goober (1 Nov 2004)

My head hurts for the same reason yours does Caesar.

To answer your question, I would say inability. I really do think that the US, and Bush and co. want to catch him, I don't believe there is any conspiracy to not catch him, but Bin Ladin has many supporters who are helping him keep safe.


----------



## Acorn (1 Nov 2004)

If the ability to capture UBL existed Bush would have ordered it by now. That would be a sure four more years. If UBL is captured tonight then we can talk conspiracies.

Acorn


----------



## Britney Spears (1 Nov 2004)

> But let's say for instance that Bush is as bad as everyone (including me) says he is. Compared to the other US Presidents in history, he's a little more aggressive, sure, but not off the charts by any means.



Aggressive in his pursuit of the war on terror? No. Aggressive in first foisting on to the public and then carrying out the invasion of Iraq, which contributes nothing at all to the destruction of Al Qaida or the capture of OBL? Yes. I suspect that if half the resources used to invade Iraq were put to use in Afghanistan, OBL may well be already captured.

Why do people give Bush credit for the defeat of the Taliban? Most of the countries bordering Afghanistan (Russian, China, India, The central Asian states) certainly have no sympathy towards them or OBL, no nation in the world has anything  good to say about them, OBL was known to be in Afghanistan.  All of this was widely known BEFORE 9/11. Post 9/11, how do you know when the whole world hates you? When CANADA declares war on you and sends ground troops. I don't see what meaningful contribution or insightful leadership Bush has provided since 9/11.  How many weeks did he spend debating over whether to topple the Taliban? How many skeptical foreign allies did he have to convince?  How much leadership, foresight, diplomacy or worldiness( In my opinion attributes of a good president) did it take to declare war on the Taliban and AL Qaida, after they publicly admit responsibility for the spectacular murder of 3000 Americans? None. It was not a "tough decision", I (Britney Spears) could have made it just as easily.

 I am firmly of the opinion that Bush has done nothing during the GWoT in Afghanistan before or after 9/11 to prove that he is a better leader than I (Britney Spears). I invite the readers of the forum to prove otherwise.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Nov 2004)

Man enough to use his real name? ^-^


----------



## banko (1 Nov 2004)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Man enough to use his real name? ^-^



Or just man enough not to worry about having a different opinion than the forum moderator... ;D


----------



## Britney Spears (1 Nov 2004)

> Man enough to use his real name?



If my name contained any of the elements "Geroge" or "Bush" I would not hesitate to make it known. 
I would also have degrees from Yale and Harvard, as well as a lucrative career in business, despite having no academic prowess and no business sense that didn't come with the name.

So, I think you'll agree that "using his real name" has not helped his case in our little discussion.


----------



## banko (1 Nov 2004)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> All right.
> 
> 1)   The US stepped up and invested massive funds to rebuild Germany and Japan after WWII.
> 2)   The US stepped up and use incredible resources to keep Berlin from getting swallowed by the soviets.
> ...



Your points are valid, but I still think that you are making the US gov't out to be more angellic than they really are. I think they invested money in Germany after WWII only out of fear of the Russians. That is why there was East and West Germany, the wall, Cold War, etc. The US helped Japan after killing thousands of people by dropping 2 atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, even though these were not military targets. Helping these countries wasn't out of the goodness of their hearts or because they wanted to help people devastated by war. You said that the US stepped up resources to stop Berlin from getting swallowed up by the Soviets, why was it so important to keep Berlin away from them?

I don't agree that the US is the only country in the world that can make a positive change in the world, and hopefully they are the only ones that think they can do it all on their own. Should they really be given cart blanche to do whatever they want? I would hope that the US still has to be accountable for their actions. I agree that Saddam was a pretty terrible guy and he did not deserve to be in power, but did the US really go in just to liberate the Iraqi people? If they did, when do they plan to go in to liberate the North Koreans or the people suffering in Darfur? The UN and the rest of the world should do more to make the world a better place, and maybe the US should make a better effort to work WITH member countries of the UN.

I honestly don't think that the US is some great evil nation, but let's not fool anyone here - they are looking out for their best interests... do you think the makers of US foriegn policy really care about some guy hearding goats in Afghanistan or if some Afghani woman is allowed to drive?

I would rather see the US as the world's only superpower than a country like China, but letting the American gov't do whatever they want is not a good idea.


----------



## dutchie (1 Nov 2004)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Aggressive in his pursuit of the war on terror? No. Aggressive in first foisting on to the public and then carrying out the invasion of Iraq, which contributes nothing at all to the destruction of Al Qaida or the capture of OBL? Yes. I suspect that if half the resources used to invade Iraq were put to use in Afghanistan, OBL may well be already captured.



This is a first. I have actually defended Bush to someone. I can't believe I prompted someone to reply that I give Bush too much credit.

Wow. I'm gonna save this one.

(no offence Britney. If you read some of my other posts, you'll see I am no fan of Bush).


----------



## Britney Spears (1 Nov 2004)

> I can't believe I prompted someone to reply that I give Bush too much credit.



It wasn't a reply to you in particular, I've only skimmed some of your posts but I get (and share) the setiment.

While I'm throwing down gauntlets, I'm also going to state my firm opinion that Dick Cheny is the real POTUSA, GWB just plays one on TV.


----------



## KevinB (2 Nov 2004)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> While I'm throwing down gauntlets, I'm also going to state my firm opinion that Dick Cheny is the real POTUSA, GWB just plays one on TV.



WTF - What planet are you on - Dick is hospital bound more than not.


----------



## GGboy (2 Nov 2004)

I heard an interesting theory about why OBL hasn't been captured yet: apparently the $25-million price on his head is so big that tribesmen in the Northwest province of Pakistan (where he's reputedly hiding out) don't believe it. The number's too big for your average village headman to take seriously, so they assume it's BS. Dunno if it's true or not, but it's an interesting idea ...
Eventually they're going to catch him. Look how long it took to get hold of Carlos the Jackal, but they did it in the end. My bet is that he'll get ratted out by one of the tribes he's hiding out with, one of these days.
And for the record, OBL's little performance this weekend was his first public admission of responsibility for 9/11. The other claim was on that captured videotape they found in a safe house in Kabul, and wasn't for public consumption.


----------



## Britney Spears (2 Nov 2004)

Nah, I can accept him as being astute enough to dictate most of Bush's policies. Any kind of consistency or reason in Bush's policies must be Cheney's idea, Only reason he's not the prez is because he's too obviously evil (Haliburton CEO, public endorsements of Arthur Andersen, Enron, etc...)   ;D


----------



## Guardian (2 Nov 2004)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Nah, I can accept him as being astute enough to dictate most of Bush's policies. Any kind of consistency or reason in Bush's policies must be Cheney's idea, Only reason he's not the prez is because he's too obviously evil (Haliburton CEO, public endorsements of Arthur Andersen, Enron, etc...) ;D



Cheney pulling Bush's strings? Please.........

This argument appeals to people because it plays to our pride - we all like to feel better / smarter than someone else, right?

And the idea that the President of the United States is a foolish simpleton, who can't string a coherent sentence together, has great appeal. Cheney playing George like a puppet... wow. I feel so intelligent by comparison! Even more so because so few others realize it!

Well, it doesn't hold water. A look at Bush's past shows that he is actually a very intelligent man. His scores on US military entrance tests were higher than John Kerry's. His SAT score was in a high percentile. He learned to fly a fighter jet - and I'm sure than Inch would agree that stupid people don't make very good pilots. He has an MBA - hard degree to get, and a hard program to get into at most universities, but Bush earned his from Harvard. Not the mark of an idiot - that university has a reputation to uphold, and wouldn't just sell an MBA to some rich guy. Bush was a corporate leader for many years, and the governor of Texas - not a small state. His popularity there's quite high, so he obiously didn't do bad there.

Argue that Bush made mistakes - sure. (I'd certainly agree.) Argue that his judgement is bad - it's certainly possible. (I can buy that, too.) Argue that he's just a dumb puppet on a string - that's not a coherent, intellectual argument. The facts don't support it.

Like KevinB said, Cheney's health isn't really up to the "puppetmaster" job, either.


----------



## PARAMEDIC (2 Nov 2004)

lol ceaser you make some good points but I believe the world or everyone in general who doesnt like Bush or his policies are more  irratated by 2 simple facts:

and i think its the same reason why most people are in disagreement with his simpleton gun toting cowboy image.

1) They hyped the hunt for terrorist to a point that they had the average Ameican believing that Afghanistan would be a walk in the park and they would have Osama by the end of the week. 
THE MAIN reason to go to war (against the terrorist)  after 9/11.
" HE CAN RUN BUT HE CANT HIDE" anyone remember that line, spoken and directed towards Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda.
Getting rid of the Taliban and bringing freedom to afghans was a secondary mission, one for which the American people were neither sympathetic or Interested in , post 9/11. 
( we can get into another topic of how the focus of the American people was shifted thru media from Osama to the Taliban when the HUNT wasn't going as predicted)

If the same amount of troops that was sent to Iraq + the ones sent to afghanistan  combined with coalition troops could have got the job done a long time back. Thus fulfilling the primary purpose to go to war and sending a *strong* message to would be terrorist. 
The Americans post 9/11 had a strong sympathy vote thus favouring the willingness for countries too join the cause.

2) Weapons Of Mass Destruction ...The reason to go to war against Iraq. I'll give him credit for using the momentum gained from the hunt for terrorist and converting it into a viable cause for going to war against Saddam. Which when no weapons were found turned into Liberating and bringing freedom to Iraqees ??(blah) I could  seguay into CNN "the most trusted name in news" LMAO 

The American approach seems like an episode of WWF, we all know whats gonna happen but we watch anyways 

The reason for that, The Iraqee people were hurting long before and since Bush took office, see the only problem is the WOMD card couldn't be played then. Americans have always reserved the right to a preemtive strike, so what harm could come from being safe than sorry...world opinion ...oops too late for that, any person around the world if asked then or now to truthfully say why the Americans attacked Iraq well the answer would be a resounding "oil" or partly "daddy's unfinished business", not hunting terrorist, liberating Iraqees or weapons of mass destruction.

Afghanistan primary mission Osama and Al queda "Dead or Alive" . Afghanistan secondary mission take out Taliban and liberate Afghans.
Iraq primary mission Weapons of mass destruction "search and destroy". Iraq secondary mission take out Saddam and liberate Iraqees. 

Neither primary missions have been fulfilled.

Its the since we are here might as well approach.

Bush had my vote to go after Osama but lost my vote to go after Saddam.

Osama and co. (warrented and logical) Saddam and Iraq.......we can get into another discussion about that.


----------



## Guardian (2 Nov 2004)

Paramedic, you make some good points, but the coherence of your argument is lost in your grammatical and spelling errors. My eyes are huting.....  :crybaby:


----------



## PARAMEDIC (2 Nov 2004)

Guardian said:
			
		

> Paramedic, you make some good points, but the coherence of your argument is lost in your grammatical and spelling errors. My eyes are huting.....   :crybaby:



see I check this board early in the morning before my first cup of coffee ( after coming home from night shift and before i go to my administrative job in the morning), so I don't really give a rats arse if it is grammatically accurate or if my spelling is right, as long as i get my point across.

seeing how you understood my stance, makes me know that my post has served its purpose.

As for trying to rub me the wrong way dont even think about it.

I want to hear peopls opinions on my post regarding to the subject of my post not how it is presented.

Review your post and make sure your spellings are correct before you go on to try and correct someone else. 

I have quoted you which i feel is the most prudent thing to do.


----------



## Guardian (2 Nov 2004)

Ouch! Shot myself in the foot. Good catch, Paramedic. My apologies....


----------



## muskrat89 (2 Nov 2004)

> 1) They hyped the hunt for terrorist to a point that they had the average Ameican believing that Afghanistan would be a walk in the park and they would have Osama by the end of the week.




If the average American believed that (which I disagree with, btw) then that is their own fault. President Bush and his administration made it crystal clear, stressing over and over, that the "war on terror" would probably take decades, if not longer.....


----------

