America threatened again...
 

Sorry if this is a repost, I looked around and hadnt seen it.

Osama's back!
Kind of convenient that it happens right around election time, no?

Ack, this line got me - "The most recent, posted on a website known to be used by Islamist militants, strongly criticised the US and coalition forces in Iraq and ordered a jihad, or holy war, against them."

I'd just like to say, GOOD FUCKING JOB, BUSH!! CONGRATULATIONS ON STARTING A NEW WORLD WAR! :mad:

One thing that relieves me (unless I really turn into a conspiracy theorist), is that the tape "proves" that OBL is alive, and not in US custody.

So if tomorrow George Bush announces that they've captured him (showing video like Saddam's capture), I will be confident that they didn't reserve it for election day.
It's one GWB "scheme" that was predicted but not going to happen.

Other than that, I wish the world would come to it's senses and realises we're all just people. And shooting fellow human beings won't bring you closer to any god.

This whole declaration of jihad is non-news. Extremist militant Muslims declare jihad all the time. It's their thing, it's what they do.

America is always at risk.. we just didn't realize how much until recently. If Kerry is voted into office they'll declare Jihad against him.. it doesn't matter whose in office..they're going to declare Jihad against the "infidels" anyway.

True, but Bush makes it much easier for them to fight a Holy war. Bush gives them plenty more excuses to use, some valid, some not.

They've been fighting a holy war since before Bush was president. They were fighting a holy war when Clinton was president. They were fighting a holy war when H. W. Bush was president, when Regan was president, when Carter was president. They've been fighting a holy war since Israel was formed. They've been fighting a holy war since the British occupied the Middle east. They were fighting a holy war during the crusades. In fact, Muhammed himself waged a holy war against Mecca.

Islamic leaders have declared holy wars since the founding of Islam. They will always find a new excuse to fight a holy war regardless of who is president.

Sounds like they just want attention.

Didn't they already declare a Jihad on us back when this all started?

Yes, you are right, they will almost always have an excuse to declare a holy war, but in this day and age, I believe Bush does make it not only easier for them, but I believe it gains the "terrorists" more sympathy globally, which in turn means weak allianceship for the US as well as more reasons to attack on Americas own soil. Not only is the US possibly more hated than it ever was before, but Muslim extremists will flock to terrorize all "infidels" for as long as American forces kill their children (not that is anything new) on their holy land. Bush wrongfully invaded their holy ground killing their people and now they have a propaganda machine to recruit more suicide bombers to waste the "infidels". I believe this country is at more of a risk to be attacked under the Bush administration. If Bush gets re-elected and decides to attack Iran or maybe Syria, I wouldn't be surprised to see a suicide bombing in our local Starbucks. But yes, they will fight for as long as Israel and America are around, and most likely if they are gone as well. But Bush's foreign policy further fuels their passion and hate to destroy us.

Not only that, but I wouldnt trust Bush to lead us into war.
The man is a complete MORON. The fact that OUR lives are in his hands makes me sick!

Judging from the job in Iraq, if we went into war, I'd say we were boned.

So what do you suggest? A complete pull out of Iraq? Let the terrorists overrun the provisional government and create a terrorist state?

When Clinton pulled our troops out of Mogadishu, he gave Bin Laden's fight more cause than Osama Bin Laden could have ever hoped for. Bin Laden referred to our troops as "paper tigers," all growl and no bite. We must show strength, we must take the fight to them instead of allowing them to bring the fight to us as they did on 9/11. We must hunt them down wherever they are and cut them from the population like the cancer that they are. Like it or not, but the Bush doctrine has proven to be successful in that there have been no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11.

If we fall back, if we show weakness, then they will pounce on us and then there will be suicide bombings at the local Starbucks.

I'm not much for Bush either ..but if Kerry was elected I think the state of security and the war would be just as bad if not worse

No, I don't suggest we pull out after pulverizing the country, we have no choice but to finish the job, but we shouldn't have gone in there to begin with. We dug ourselves a deep hole, and now we must try and get out, Bush did not have an exit plan and now we are in a fucked up situation. And most of these "terrorists" you mention are not even Iraqi, most are from bordering countries that came in once Bush decided to attack Iraq.
Why are we taking the "fight" to Iraq? What on Earth did they have to do with 9/11? Afghanistan was understandable, but Iraq? They didn't bring the fight on 9/11, Bin Laden did, not Saddam. So we aren't taking this "fight" anywhere but into some innocent family’s backyard.
That is not saying much. People seem to forget that 9/11 happened under Bush's watch. Never in American history have we had a terrorist attack on US soil on the magnitude of 9/11, thanks to Bush ignoring the threats. Just because there have not been any attacks since the largest one in US history, does not mean anything. More attacks have been promised, and you can be sure they will be delivered if Bush remains in office, possibly even greater than 9/11.
If we want to fight, we better fight the right group.

It is undeniable that Saddam supported terrorist actions. He gave money to the families of Suicide bombers in Israel. We are not fighting a war on Al-Qaeda alone, we are fighting a war on Terrorism. Saddam's support of terrorism combined with his desire to have weapons of mass destruction meant that he had to be dealt with.

Clinton also ignored the warning signs during the entire 8 years of his presidency. Every time Al-Qaeda struck US intrests in the world, Clinton did nothing. With that lack of response, it was inevitable that they would carry out an attack on US soil. Bush established the Bush Doctrine after the attack and there hasn't been an attack in the US since.

this has 3 (yes, three) threads in TFP politics if anyone wants to join the discussion in there.

I suggest many, many tons of bombs.

Sorry, but I have no sympathy left for any more poor innocents killed by accident in a cross fire. When I was born, I was only given a certain amount of sympathy to use throughout my entire life. Unfortunately, the funerals and memorial services for 38 friends who died in 2001 sort used up my entire allotment of symapthetic feelings.

Bomb them. Kill them all. That why we have neutron bombs, right? What's that you say? We can bomb the whole country? The entire region? Why, sure we can. There's plenty for everyone!

Have a nice day.

Take your feelings there. Invert them. And you have the exact motivation for the people that ran those planes into those towers that killed your friends.

They've been fighting a holy war since Abraham had Isaac and Ishmael.

- weapons go missing in Iraq
- election day is creeping up
- New threats surface on video by Osama

= can we piece together the puzzle now?

I'm not arguing with anyone I just wondered if you guys could give me some facts to develop my opinion on. They keep bashing Bush saying that we lost 1000 soldiers...that really sux but I just wanna know how much of the enemy was defeated as well. Then I could know if it was really as pointless as people have made it out to be. So many people hate him for that. I can't say that if I had a love one lost there I wouldn't either. I'm trying to be open minded though. Trying to get every angle and see if maybe there was more good or progress than people would like to give him credit for or not.

Asta!!

Am I the only stupid mother-fucker around here? Bin-Laden wants to threaten me NOW (WTF)? If he wants to show up, let him come to my neighborhood.
This on top of the the clip (?) of the American-Taliban who states that 9/11 will be nothing if GW is not re-elected.
My question to Bin-Laden is: why forstall the elections? Let them happen. If they want Bin-Laden as leader, they'll say so. (Bush is Cheney's puppet, Bin-Laden has puppets elsewhere).

Well it's not really right to base a millitary campaign on how many people you killed in comparison to how many you lost. You weigh it based upon objectives accomplished. You base it upon the quickness of the acheivements. As of this point we've won half the war. The second half we have not. People say it's pointless not because we haven't killed thousands of Iraqi soldiers they say it's pointless because we did not HAVE to be there at this time. We did not HAVE to be doing what we are doing. Despite the fact an evil evil man has been deposed one has to ask do the ends justify the means? Some say yes many say no.
I voted for Bush in 2000. I firmly felt Gore was no better(and honestly he probably wasn't) and I felt Bush should be given a shot. I will not be voting for bush in 04. While for the most part I don't totally disagree with his policies but the war has ensured I can't in good conscious vote for him again. I won't go as far as many are saying in that he lied to us willingly. I think he was a victim of bad intel and bad advice. But any mistake has to be answered for. But at the same time I don't think Kerry is the right guy for the job so thusly...write in time.

I understand.

Asta!!

My final and only word on the matter: "Yee-haw" does not constitute a "doctrine".

There was zero strategic thinking put into the war on Iraq--you can tell by the utter lack of exit strategy. All the intelligence has indicated that Iraq's value as a "war on terror" target was on the decline. The war was launched solely as a political and business move. Over 1100 American men and women are dead as a result.

Bull.

Historic fact shows a long term policy of piracy, slavery, and murder associated with the residents of that area of the world.

Don't forget the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis nobody ever wants to mention.

The Bush Doctrine, though simplistic, is not "Yee-haw." It is the simple statement that anyone who supports or harbors terrorists is just as guilty as the terrorists and will be brought to justice along with the terrorists.

It is an undeniable truth that Saddam supported terrorists. He needed to be removed from power.

In the eyes of MANY other countries, Bush is a terrorist as well. Maybe someone should attack us out of the blue and remove Bush from power because he is a threat to the world. Once a couple of bombs drop in your backyard or maybe kill some of your friends and family, you would change your mentality.

Are you suggesting that the US deserves to be attacked?

No, I'm not suggesting that at all, chances are it might happen if Bush gets re-elected anyway. What I am saying is that in the eyes of many others, Bush is a terrorist as well. How would you feel if we were attacked because some country thought that Bush is dangerous and needs to be removed from power? How would you feel if you had loved ones killed because of it?

You seem to forget. We were attacked. And I'm glad Bush is in office because he has shown the resolve to go out into the world and deal with these threats before they try to attack us again.

Whaaaa......

Thousands of dead iraqis are a dime a dozen. personally, I think we could do with quite a few more. I mean, hell, it isn't as though President Hussein and his cronies didn't kill plenty of them just for grins.

It sounds like you sympathise with Hussein, with the they way you disrepect fellow human beings.

Statements like that make me sick.

Name one country which doesn't have piracy, slavery and murder in it's history.

The way I see it, if white people and arabs fight it out in a war to the death there can be only one winner... black Africans.

Whew! Just Bin-laden. I thought it might be Cheney again.

To everyone that is against the War on Terror and hugely against invading Iraq...I have an honest question!

If the US didn't invade Iraq to get rid of Hussein, what is the best action that should have happened then? Are you guys OK with letting Hussein stay in power treating his countrymen with pure hatred? Would you rather Hussein stay in power with hundreds of Iraqis dying per day at his will even though he's a known threat? Anyone alive in 1990 remembers that Hussein isn't just another Homeboy that might need talking to. If invading Iraq wasn't the right thing to do, then what was? Letting his terror flourish?

-Lasereth

undefinedWhat about the tens of thousands in Sudan that no one wants to mention?

Of course, American life is much more valuable than Iraqi life. You have the same mentality as Hussein.

We were talking about the current war in Iraq. But, you are right, all deaths should be mentioned and regarded, not just those of the precious American soldiers.

Laserth, that is a something that most whirled peas supporters conveniently forget.

I don't particularly want to see dead iraqis stacked like cordwood. It's bad enough seeing pictures of mass gravesite excavations or gassed corpses. Hussein and his pals murdered thousands upon thousands of Iraqis and Kurds. His evil is well-documented, but just as some people refuse to believe in Nazi death camps, some people will always refuse to believe that Hussein should have been removed.


lukethebandgeek - Darfur, Darfur, Darfur? Happy? BBC World Service and BBC News talks about Darfur all the time. I've heard it on CNN. And what would you have the US do about it? Invade? Start a war with Sudan? Wait for the UN to do something about it? The last time we went to Africa under UN auspices, the Army lost people because we weren't allowed adequate armor and air support.

What actions would you consider adequate? Deposing murderous criminal governments is not a popular activity in some quarters.

JWoody, outright piracy as a national policy is something unique to the arab world. Other countries have, from time to time, provided Letters of Marque to empower civilian ships to destroy or capture shipping under an opponents flag during war.

As for the lot of black Africans improving if caucasians and arabs were to kill each other: Dreamer. Exactly which group of caucasians and arabs was responsible for the genocide in Rawanda or the famine in Somalia?