Osama's Message to America!

[digitaljez]

...leave behind us a stable democracy in Iraq that will, truly, represent all of the people there...

Even black people who's names are similar to convicted felons ? That's radical. If it works perhaps we could adopt it in the West.

[rmd3]

If you think it's not for oil, I, again, refer you to "Strategic Geography and the Changing Middle East" published by Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

If you think 911 was done by Osama... come on. Do people still believe that?! They lie about everything, but accusing Osama of 911 couldn't be a lie. And as for terrorism (the use of scare tactics for political motives) who used 911 the most as a scare tactic to eat away at the constitution?

I can believe bessler, but I can't believe Bin Laden did 911. Often people like to point to the way the towers came down as a proof, and there are good proofs out there that just focus on the physical evidence without going into theories of who-done-it.

I like to look at evidence meant to fool Americans, but are inconsistent with Islam. Leaving a Qur'an and a picture of Bin Laden in a rental car was a joke. First, Muslims are required to be ritually clean before touching the Qur'an, it doesn't make sense that a Muslim would leave a copy in a car for a non-Muslim (who isn't going to be doing the required cleansing) to handle. Second, a picture of Bin Laden in the car. What? Bin Laden is reportedly from the fundamentalists who reject photographs altogether (unless forced to comply with government laws).
Third, go to a strip club first, eh? ...you'll never convince me.

When Popular Mechanics ran that article debunking the 911 "conspiracy" theories, it really convinced me that the homeland security secretary's cousin was just place in the magazine. It's what they didn't focus on that they didn't talk about which might have more relevance.

There's more physics in support of someone doing a controlled demolition of the towers than an airplane... We are sooooo willing to think another world leader has nefarious motives... and would kill some of his own people... but not any of ours! No no no we are the good guys.



By the way, how many iraqi children had died under sanctions?

http://www.peace-action.org/camp/justice/iraqfs.pdf

"5000 died every month due to sanctions" ... ouch... how many years were there sanctions? ....wow... how sad...


What did Jesus say.... something about pointing out a speck in your brother's eye, but see the log in your own first.


We should above all else, not spin ourselves. God help us.
-Randall

[Joel Wright]

Second, a picture of Bin Laden in the car. What? Bin Laden is reportedly from the fundamentalists who reject photographs altogether (unless forced to comply with government laws).
Gee that must be his stunt double in the videos he puts out.
Wonder what the guy really looks like.Rotflmao.

[rmd3]

You mean those grainy videos? ...whatever. If you think any video or auto is hard to fake, you're kidding yourself. What was Bin Ladens first reaction after 911?

Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks

DOHA, Qatar (CNN) -- Islamic militant leader Osama bin Laden, the man the United States considers the prime suspect in last week's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, denied any role Sunday in the actions believed to have killed thousands.

In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.

"I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations," bin Laden said.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/i ... index.html

What videos did he put out before 911, can you send me a link.

Wait a second, this is a red herring. Pictures they forbid have to do with the reason for having them. Like the idea of having a bin Laden picture in the car? For what purpose? Venerate the guy? Remind the suicide bomber of his "Sheikh"? Using a TV, video, picture for communication is another reason. So the whole point is having a picture in the car like some sort of baseball card reminder.... that's the joke.

If it was to communicate who-done-it, why did bin Laden deny it?

Unbelievable. Is that you're argument?

-Randall

PS. Did anyone catch that ex-CIA disguise maker on Oprah a few months ago. He was fitting people with prosthetic faces for those who had parts of their faces removed due to injury or illness. He mentioned that they (in the CIA) would make fake faces for people that would go in the field and they would have to withstand close scrutiny.... "Give me a bin Laden face to go, and grainy up the video feed. We need a diversion again."

[Joel Wright]

So your point is Bin Laden would never allow his photo to be taken.
Thus no photos, due to his believes, so BIN Laden could'nt possibly be involved?So how do you know what he looks like?

[rmd3]

My point was that a suicide bomber who adheres to wahhabism/salafism thread of fundamentalist thought would not be carrying around a picture of bin Laden for purposes like I had posters of the rock groups on the walls of my room when I was a kid.

Pictures/TV/video for communication/education purposes might just be fine for them. The intention is the key in the matter.

So I never said that Bin Laden would never allow his picture to be taken. There must be an interview somewhere where it was taken, or even a pre-911 propaganda video - but the intention in both those matters would be to communicate not venerate. Like I said, if the photo in the rental car was meant to communicate who-done-it, why did Bin Laden deny it?

So you're saying because there was a photo, therefore Bin Laden must have done it? Quick... let's hide our photos!

Or are you saying you believe bin laden videos more than initial statements of denial? What is the reason for dismissing his denial?

Look, I am not convinced that he did it. I don't see any evidence that he did it that can not be debunked, and neither does the FBI...

The FBI's "Most Wanted Terrorists" web page does not state that Bin Laden is wanted for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
The FBI page states: "Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world."

When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on the FBI's web page, Rex Tomb of the FBI's public affairs unit is reported to have said, "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."

Source: http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/displa ... /index.php

-Randall

[ken_behrendt]

I heard a US Senator discussing the "war" on terrorism in Iraq today and he mentioned an interesting detail. Apparently, only about 8% of the "enemy combatants" in Iraq are terrorists trained by Al-Qaeda. The other 92% are just average Iraqi citizens!

It is also interesting to note that the newly formed government of Iraq consists of various people selected for their elections by the coalition who must live entire within the fortress-like security of the "Green Zone" maintained by the coalition there. I suspect that when the day comes that the US is ready to "stand down", most of those Green Zone Iraqi politicians will, for their own safety, have to leave along with us and will be granted asylum in the US or Europe. We all saw this scenario played out 30 years ago during the "fall" of Saigon. Didn't someone once say that "those who forget history are doomed to relive it"?


Anyway, I have no doubts that the 9/11 attack on WTC towers was planned and executed by Al-Qaeda trained terrorists. Osama has mentioned in subsequent audio tapes that Al-Qaeda planned the operation and that he considered it a bonus that the two towers collapsed and the death toll was so high.

As for the towers collapsing because bombs planted in the builds as part of some conspiracy to get the West involved in the Middle East is concerned, I consider that very highly improbable. One could then go on to extrapolate one's "theory" that all of the attacks against the West by terrorists in the decade leading up to 9/11 were also part of a bizarre plot involving the CIA, various White House administrations, the Pentagon, etc., etc. I have about as much belief in that scenario as I do in the one that states space aliens are walking about Area 51 over in New Mexico and directing our secret weapons programs.


ken

[Michael]

Whether it was a real act of terrorism or if there was a larger plot involved one thing is for sure. The bush government used the attack as an excuse to go to war against Iraq, plain and simple. Watching Bushes interaction with the U.N. one could tell he didn't respect what the world thought and you could hear the drumbeat in the background getting lounder and louder.

[rmd3]

Ken, I didn't know you believed in space aliens in area 51! ;)

All I am saying is "innocent until proven guilty" - that is the foundation of our legal system. Audio tapes are like video tapes - you can fake 'em. We have a radio station here that has played "Bush" saying some outrageous things about terrorizing people. If the FBI has no hard evidence, who am I to jump to conclusions...

Improbable does not mean impossible. I am certainly not extrapolating any "conspiracy" theories, just looking at physical evidence. There's no question that 911 was used like Michael said, and there is no question that "Bin Laden" videos furthers the same agenda.

At the risk of repeating myself once again, in the book "Strategic Geography and the Changing Middle East" it mentions that if a WTC bombing worse than the first occurred and if a "rogue" nation were intending (not having, but intending) a WMD program, that would be good enough for a preemptive war.

To quote Stan Lee.... 'nuff said! ...time to get back to my besslering...

[winkle]

what would 5 or 10 million more barrels of oil a day do to the 87 billion dollar profit the oil companys made last year

War on Iraq: Keeping Iraq's Oil In the Ground

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/37371/

[docfeelsgood]

racer 270 ; wish Gen. Patton could have seen this . can you add some of your special fuel mix to this and a nitrous set up ?? this just might get you the loan you desire at the local bank !!! and a getaway vehicle besides !! what was the fifth card ???

http://www.shopmetrospy.com/cgi-bin/cNc ... tro&pid=41

[ken_behrendt]

rmd3 wrote:

...in the book "Strategic Geography and the Changing Middle East" it mentions that if a WTC bombing worse than the first occurred and if a "rogue" nation were intending (not having, but intending) a WMD program, that would be good enough for a preemptive war.

Well, this exactly describes what is happening in Iran right now. We have a revolutionary, apochalyptic state, that actively supports and finances terrorists throughout the Middle East, busily at work on their first nuclear weapon. They also already have intermediate range missiles that can deliver their soon to be developed nukes to targets as far away as Egypt and Easter Europe.

Of course, I fully expect the West to act against them long before they have that capability.

An air campaign against Iran in one thing, but a full scale invasion is something else. The American people, I am convinced, have had enough of involvement in the Middle East. I even wonder if another successful 9/11 attack on American soil would create enough outrage in our citizens for them to support extending our military presence from Iraq and Afghanistan into Iran.

Most of the muslims in the Middle East have experienced a "colonial heritage" wherein Western powers invaded their countries in order to loot their natural resouces (mainly oil). And, of course, they view our present involvement in the Middle East in similar terms. However, I believe that a significant portion of their populations do like the freedoms and democracy represented by the West.

Osama and his cronies would like to take over all democratic, pro-West muslim countries and replace their secular governments with fundamentalist theocracies. Then, in a final act of consolidation, unite all of the individual muslim theocracies into a single, globe girdling Taliban style super power or "Caliphate".

Right now, I would say that the probability of him achieving his vision is about 50%. If the West, armed with its awesome technology, can absorb the costs in terms of money, equipment, and manpower, then the muslim countries can be "converted" into pro Western democracies in which Islam is still practiced, but exerts minimal influence on the government or the secular legal system. If the West can not "stay the course", then, ultimately, over a billion people will, politically, go back in time by about 1200 years!

What will happen? It's really too early to tell. But, the entire destiny of these nations as well as the rest of the world could hinge on a single event in the near future. That event might be the Iranian development of nuclear weapons or the capture of Osama bin Ladin.


ken

[rmd3]

Ken,

Of course it's true that there is strategic geography at play!

An Iranian perspective might be this: America gives billions to Israel who is, from their perspective, occupying Palestine and targets Palestinians. America had revolted against England and is led by an evangelical-minded President. Any guess as to what Iran thinks: America is a revolutionary, apochalyptic state, that actively supports and finances terrorists?!

As for the agenda of Al-Qaeda, take a listen to: http://www.zikrcast.com/podcast/audio/LBLA1.mp3.
The topic is "Does Islam Present a Program for World Domination" It's an American Muslim scholar, Zaid Shakir, and an analysis of Al-Qaeda's agenda and Iran.

I think you need to take a listen before you write your opinions.

Democracy doesn't necessarily guarantee freedom, nor does theocracy necessarily limit it.

Iran has a bomb or not, it won't change agendas. It didn't in the case of Saddam.

-Randall

[ken_behrendt]

Randall...

Well, I'm sure that over in Tehran the ayatollahs and mullahs are 100% convinced that they are in the right and have God (Allah) on their side. As you point out, they view the West with suspicion and consider the USA to be the "Great Satan" out to destroy Islam.

From our point of view, it is the Islamic jihadists and other extremists that are "evil doers" and a menace to free people everywhere.

Although the West certainly has a lot of innocent blood on its hands, I think that, overall, its stated intentions are the best for most of humanity. That is, freedom of religion, representational government, elections, a secular legal system, etc.

It's obvious to me that the West and radical Islam are now locked in a serious battle that will be ongoing for many years to come with occasional atrocities being inflicted by both sides. Who will "win" in the end. Right now, as I said, I think it's 50/50. How the West handles the emerging Iranian crisis will probably be pivotal to what will develop. If, in the process of using nuclear munitions to "take out" Iranian uranium enrichment facilities something should go wrong and thousands of Iranian civilians are killed, then that will do more to energize the jihadist movement against the West than any propaganda tapes from Al Qaeda could ever hope to do.


ken

[rmd3]

Ken,

I can't agree with this oversimplification. Life is too precious to throw blanket statements about another people or what we think their intentions are without actually listening to them or finding accurate translations to their statements.

-Randall