Al-Qaida releases new Bin Laden tape just before U.S. election - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

irateplatypus · 10-29-2004, 03:36 PM

Let's give this another try.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041029/D861BCR02.html

Quote:

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - Osama bin Laden, addressing the American public four days ahead of presidential elections, said in a video aired Friday that the United States can avoid another Sept. 11 attack if it stops threatening the security of Muslims.

Reading a statement, the al-Qaida leader refrained from threats of new attacks and instead appealed to Americans.

"Your security is not in the hands of Kerry, Bush or al-Qaida. Your security is in your own hands," bin Laden said, referring to the president and his Democratic opponent. "Each state that does not mess with our security, has naturally guaranteed its own security."

Admitting for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks, bin Laden said he did so because of injustices against the Lebanese and Palestinians by Israel and the United States.

It was the first footage in more than a year of the fugitive al-Qaida leader, thought to be hiding in the mountains along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. The video, broadcast on Al-Jazeera television, showed bin Laden with a long gray beard, wearing traditional white robes, a turban and a golden cloak, standing behind a table with papers and in front of a plain, brown curtain.

He gestured and his hands were steady as he spoke.

The FBI and Justice Department had no immediate assessment of the tape. Officials said one part of their analysis will be to discern whether there may be hidden messages or clues about a possible future attack against the United States. But they said it was too early to know that yet.

Al-Jazeera said it broadcast one minute of the five-minute tape. There was no way to determine when the tape was made - but it offered evidence that bin Laden was alive and actively following events. Sen. John Kerry emerged as the Democratic candidate in the spring.

Bin Laden said he wanted to explain why he ordered the suicide airline hijackings that hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon so Americans would know how to avoid "another disaster."

"To the U.S. people, my talk is to you about the best way to avoid another disaster," he said. "I tell you: security is an important element of human life and free people do not give up their security."

He accused President Bush of misleading Americans by saying the attack was carried out because al-Qaida "hates freedom." Bin Laden said his followers have left alone countries that do not threaten Muslims.

"We fought you because we are free .... and want to regain freedom for our nation. As you undermine our security we undermine yours," he said.

He said he was first inspired to attack the United States by the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon in which towers and buildings in Beirut were destroyed in the siege of the capital.

"While I was looking at these destroyed towers in Lebanon, it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished with the same and that we should destroy towers in America, so that it tastes what we taste and would be deterred from killing our children and women," he said.

"God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind," he said.

Bin Laden suggested Bush was slow to react to the Sept. 11 attacks, giving the hijackers more time than they expected. At the time of the attacks, the president was listening to schoolchildren in Florida reading a book.

"It never occurred to us that the commander-in-chief of the American armed forces would leave 50,000 of his citizens in the two towers to face these horrors alone," he said, referring to the number of people who worked at the World Trade Center.

"It appeared to him (Bush) that a little girl's talk about her goat and its butting was more important than the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers. That gave us three times the required time to carry out the operations, thank God," he said.

In planning the attacks, bin Laden said he told Mohammed Atta, one of the hijackers, that the strikes had to be carried out "within 20 minutes before Bush and his administration noticed."

The image of bin Laden reading a statement was dramatically different from the few other videos of the al-Qaida leader that have emerged since the Sept. 11 attacks.

In the last videotape, issued Sept. 10, 2003, bin Laden is seen walking through rocky terrain with his top deputy Ayman al-Zawahri, both carrying automatic rifles. In a taped message issued at the same time, bin Laden praises the "great damage to the enemy" on Sept. 11 and mentions five hijackers by name.

In December 2001, the Pentagon released a videotape in which bin Laden is shown at a dinner with associates in Afghanistan on Nov. 9, 2001, saying the destruction of the Sept. 11 attacks exceeded even his "optimistic" calculations.

But in none of his previous messages, audio or video, did bin Laden directly state that he ordered the attacks.

U.S. authorities have long said they believe bin Laden is hiding in a rugged, mountainous tribal region of Pakistan that borders Afghanistan, but there has been no firm evidence of his whereabouts for three years.

The last audiotape purportedly from bin Laden came in April. The speaker on the tape, which CIA analysts said likely was the al-Qaida leader, offered a truce to European nations if they pull troops out of Muslim countries. The tape referred to the March 22 assassination by Israel of Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin.

Al-Zawahri, bin Laden's Egyptian deputy, has spoken on three recent audiotapes that emerged on June 11, Sept. 9 and Oct. 1 this year. In the latest, he called on young Muslims to strike the United States and its allies.

I would expect Al-Qaida would have a strategy to effect the U.S. elections. Whether those plans would be similar to what happened in Spain... I do not know. What do you all think about his statements regarding the motivation behind the 9-11 attacks (U.S.'s role in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict)? Personally, I don't think the real motivations are anywhere near that simple or contained within that scope. I wonder what the political shakout would be if another attack was attempted...?

I wonder if willravel will trade in his tinfoil hat with these new admissions?

all in good fun will.

The_wall · 10-29-2004, 03:44 PM

I think it is quite an important note that Bin Laden himself said the attacks where not because of our freedom, but rather our foreign policy. I know we're not supposed to negotiate with terrorists, but perhaps we should listen to what he said and take it into account.

archer2371 · 10-29-2004, 03:52 PM

Sounds a bit Hitlerish to me. "Hey, I'll stop if you do this for me," or "This is the last time, I swear!" Look, until a Muslim rules all of America, bin Laden just won't be satisfied. To me it's just a continuation of the conquering and invasions that all started with Muhammad, the steel of the scimitar is not something that is completely unknown to Islam. I really don't see bin Laden stopping terrorism against the United States if we pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan, so I see it as a bunch of b.s. from him, nothing unusual, more of the same hate-filled drivel. Question is whether or not it's got any code words laced in there that activate terror cells.

Journeyman · 10-29-2004, 03:52 PM

Well, our policy is to support Israel militarily/financially, and Israel's policy seems to be to shit on it's Arab population, but Arabs both within and outside of Israel's borders seem to hold the policy of driving the Jews into the sea. So, I'm content with American foreign policy towards Israel.

powerclown · 10-29-2004, 04:09 PM

Couldn't have said it any better than archer2371.
His closing statement in particular I found pertinent.

Silvy · 10-29-2004, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_wall

I think it is quite an important note that Bin Laden himself said the attacks where not because of our freedom, but rather our foreign policy. I know we're not supposed to negotiate with terrorists, but perhaps we should listen to what he said and take it into account.

If the US government would have listened a bit more carefully to foreigners, they would've told you that before. (though I've got a feeling that to Bush, the world is just a big game of Risk).
Osama Bin Laden and most of the likes of him do not want to conquer the US, kill americans or destroy religious freedom. (although that last part may be the next step). First and foremost they feel that the US is interfering with their local affairs, to such an extent that their daily lives are dominated by US influence. This of course has to do with the superpower status of the US. To stay that way the US needs to know and influence world affairs, just to keep on top of things. But in OBL's eyes "the US needs to retreat to their homeland, right now the US is bullying the world around".
Several big american companies are owned by Middle Eastern or Asian entities, how do you feel about that, especially if it seems that through those interests they are influencing your government to make certain descisions. (say to allow a Chinese fleet of warships to maintain a regular patrol route just outside US waters, or preferential economic deals with Russia, or build an oil pipeline from Alaska through several states (without local taps) through Mexico all the way down to venezuela).

Together with that is the reasonably strong economy of the US in the last century. Many visible products, trends and inventions were done in the US, that were gulped down by the public in Europe and elsewhere. To people who feel "traditional" the public has sold out to the US by wearing Jeans, listening to american music, and watching american movies. They feel that their country is slowly succumbing to american culture.
(It is however american freedom which allows the public in america to enjoy such non-traditional things. Americans are less strict in their religion (overall) than many middle eastern countries. The public in those countries in large quantities likes that, and thus OBL's frustration. So in some sense it is about the freedom US citizens have. He didn't attack Germany, France, Great Brittain, Australia, and other such countries that enjoy reasonable freedoms, even though chances of retaliation were far slimmer there.)

Their attack was in my opinion a response to the large influence the US has in the middle east. Large oil interests, and paranoia about certain parts of the world in the last century haven't helped matters much (as in a large military presence).

Just my $0.02

(it's all my opinion, I haven't done any research)

matteo101 · 10-29-2004, 04:21 PM

"It appeared to him (Bush) that a little girl's talk about her goat and its butting was more important than the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers. That gave us three times the required time to carry out the operations, thank God,"

This particular line must be just a slap in the face for George.

bling · 10-29-2004, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silvy

If the US government would have listened a bit more carefully to foreigners, they would've told you that before.

Quite a few American's have been saying essentially the same thing for years and years.

When all is said and done this tape basically comes down to one of the original tenets of humanity: If you kill 3000 innocent people, anything you say from that point forward is unimportant.

ballze · 10-29-2004, 04:31 PM

This is all about our support of Israel, if you look to what really went on with Israel you can't blame the Arabs. Don't take this the wrong way either I have nothing against Israel or our policy of supporting them. But how would you like it if you were told by the UN that you have to move or you now live in a different country. What you don;t hear on the news is that if you are palistine you don't have the right to vote in Israel unless you have so much land (I think). But if you are an Israeli citizen (jewish) you can live on the street and vote. And did I also mention that you are the only country that the US will grant dual citizenship to. That even holds true today, There are millions of Israelis that live her 360 days out of the year and just go back to Vote!

Silvy · 10-29-2004, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

Quite a few American's have been saying essentially the same thing for years and years.

When all is said and done this tape basically comes down to one of the original tenets of humanity: If you kill 3000 innocent people, anything you say from that point forward is unimportant.

Both are quite true.

I know a few americans personally, and they're attitudes ranged to all sides. But the US government seems intent on one side of the issue... And as a reaction that is perfectly OK (hell, if they killed thousands of my countrymen I don't think I'd be anywhere near reasonable) And as such terrorism is no way of dealing with "undue influence".
But legitimate or not, it is a reason.

And anything he says, comes out of the mouth of a terrorist. And how some of us might think "hey, there honesty in there", he is still a terrorist, and therefore deserves no negotiation.
Btw, for all things I think the US should've done different* , I do not fault them for trying to capture OBL.

*I can't say I'm knowledgeable enough to judge foreign-policy objectively, but you get my drift.

ballze · 10-29-2004, 04:49 PM

Look the few Americans you know should of seen what I did. I had to see two buildings that I went into many times and have friends who died saving lives. My life changed, if you ask me we should of just Nuked all of them and saved our time and money....

THANK GOD FOR
GEORGE W. BUSH

matteo101 · 10-29-2004, 04:52 PM

MOD NOTE: FLAMES WILL NOT BE TOLERATED

Do you not understand that by your means of retaliation it would have depicted the VERY means of which happened to you? Revenge and vengence are what caused 911, and this is exactly what you want to impose on the middle east.

Edit: Sorry...won't happen again.

trickyy · 10-29-2004, 04:56 PM

but the whole "freedom-hating" is a joke
if they really hated the concept of freedom, amsterdam would be rubble by now

he sounds a little more docile than usual. maybe because the military reportedly has a good idea as to his location right now, i dunno.

if he is being completely truthful, it was kind of counterproductive on his part to attack us. as if he didn't realize we would freak out? we're killing a lot of arabs these days. i don't know if we're going to stop anytime soon; we are in it DEEP.

Rodney · 10-29-2004, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silvy

Btw, for all things I think the US should've done different* , I do not fault them for trying to capture OBL.

Neither do I, and I am an American. The problems arose when the government deemphasized capturing Bin Laden in favor of using him as excuse to invade Iraq.

I realize that some in the administration thought that, by using the excuse of Bin Laden to take down a Middle Eastern dictatorship, they could directly to the source of terrorism in the Middle East by establishing a western-style democracy that would influence change in the remainder of middle eastern states, many of which sponsor or tolerate terrorists.

The problem is that the administration's plans were unrealistic in the extreme and, because they felt they had to lie to get the backing to carry them out, there could be no real debate on the issues. So these unrealistic men carried out their farfetched plans without examination from experts and people with more experience in the Middle East. And of course everything went wrong. And moreover, the people in power still refuse to admit any errors or the real reason for their actions.

Let me paraphrase somebody else: It is a poor and wretched truth that needs a bodyguard of lies for protection.

Silvy · 10-29-2004, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ballze

Look the few Americans you know should of seen what I did. I had to see two buildings that I went into many times and have friends who died saving lives. My life changed, if you ask me we should of just Nuked all of them and saved our time and money....

THANK GOD FOR
GEORGE W. BUSH

I did not intend to address 9/11 as a non-event. Far from that. I do however see the difference between trying to capture/kill/whatever those responsible, and re-paving the entire middle east.

To continue on my previous post:
The fact that George W. Bush ousted 2 governments in 4 years, and set up shaky democratic governments (at best), only adds to the fire that lives inside those who wish to see America gone. To them americans are ignorant in believing that theirs is the only way, and that americans think of themselves as superior. They too see the footage from Abu Ghraib (sp?), they too here the news of bombed weddings, they too see the way in which America is making the world "safer" by occupying souvereign countries.

America is keen on protecting national interests above the interests of other countries, or the world at large. Take the Kyoto protocol, the International Court, Nuclearweapons treaties, and the like. The general feeling is (and not only in the middle east): If the US cannot add a clause in the agreement that they reserve the right to do whatever they please, they won't sign it.

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-29-2004, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silvy

America is keen on protecting national interests above the interests of other countries, or the world at large. Take the Kyoto protocol, the International Court, Nuclearweapons treaties, and the like. The general feeling is (and not only in the middle east): If the US cannot add a clause in the agreement that they reserve the right to do whatever they please, they won't sign it.

Go go National Sovereignity!

Rdr4evr · 10-29-2004, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ballze

Look the few Americans you know should of seen what I did. I had to see two buildings that I went into many times and have friends who died saving lives. My life changed, if you ask me we should of just Nuked all of them and saved our time and money....

THANK GOD FOR
GEORGE W. BUSH

Here is a perfect example of a Bush supporter.

tecoyah · 10-29-2004, 06:35 PM

............: / .............

Mephisto2 · 10-29-2004, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

Quite a few American's have been saying essentially the same thing for years and years.

When all is said and done this tape basically comes down to one of the original tenets of humanity: If you kill 3000 innocent people, anything you say from that point forward is unimportant.

REALLY?!!

So I guess anything the Americans and Bush Administration say is unimportant? Even they agree that at least this number of "innocent people" have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq by US military forces.

Or perhaps, just perhaps, things are never quite that simple. Of course you should listen and learn and investigate what is happening in the world. Failure to do so would be just prancing along with blinkers on...

Kinda like what BushCo is doing right now.

Mr Mephisto

bling · 10-29-2004, 07:31 PM

Well, I was speaking rather specifically to the excuses that anyone who has killed 3000 innocent people use to justify their actions.

In that same regard, the Bush (or any gov't) excuse of "collateral damage" is equally invalid.

Unimportant was probably the wrong word.

And further, what Bin Laden thinks is important. Not to me, but to his prospects for seeking wellness in his mind, if he ever decided to seek that.

So yes, you're right - it's not as simple as I had stated.

Mephisto2 · 10-29-2004, 08:31 PM

I hope I didn't come across too sarcastic.

What I find interesting about this tape (and I haven't seen it all, but only the reports that refer to it) are people's reactions.

Is it really a surprise that Bin Laden admits he attacked America because of their foreign policy? I'm not trying to rattle any cages here, or be provocative. But for goodness sake, why do you think he did it?

I know Noam Chomsky is not universally popular here, but allow me to paraphrase one of his insightful remarks. One of the ways to fight terrorism is to stop practicing it. By this I mean, it's possible to remove the drivers, the "seeds" of terrorism.

I'm not suggesting dialogue with OBL or his ilk. But to me it's patently clear that progress requires a change in the way the US handles itself abroad.

The war on terrorism can never be won. I think everyone agrees that. It's unwinnable. Every time a US bomb falls on a wedding in Afghanistan, or a hospital in Iraq, or an innocent civilian's house in Faluja, another extremist is born. Of course this is simplification, but you know what I mean.

Therefore, militarily, you can't "win the war." It's self sustaining. It's a postive feedback loop.

Therefore you (we?) need an integrated approach. Fight the terrorists that are out there. But also address the reasons they act as they do. Try to understand the underlying motivation. Sometimes it will be pure hatred. But even that has a reason. Sometimes it will be religious fundamentalist beliefs that non-Muslims should be killed. In that case, foster tolerant muslim groups. Fundamentalists and fanatics are bred in times of stress and disadvantage. There are plenty of rich and tolerant muslim countries. It is only in areas like the middle east that "terrorism" seems endemic.

Finally, try to address the Palestinian Question. This is the one, single issue that does more to create terrorists than any other. If it is solved then we make a great advance.

Mr Mephisto

Willravel · 10-29-2004, 09:19 PM

Hahaha. I was mentioned! Agreed that all of this is in good fun. In actuality, I don't expect anyone to agree with me over the previously mentioned 'tinfoul' (clever, eh?). I realize that a lot of what I posted on the 9/11 threads in paranoia is hard to believe. Don't think less of me because I don't rule out the possibility. I just want to get to the bottom of some pretty serious questions. (Anyone who wants to know what the freak we're talking about see the '9/11 is Bush's falit' thread and the 'what happened on 9/11' and 'mystery of the dissapearing 757' thread in paranoia).

As those questions pertain to the announcement by OBL, by the way he speaks, it sounds like he just got done watching F 9/11. In referring to Bush sitting in a classroom, I just get this picture of OBL watching F 9/11 on some bigscreen tv somewhere. For me, it's hard to forget how close the ties between OBL and the CIA are. Is it wise to rule out the possibility he's as much of a tool as Fox or CNN? Maybe all the apt anallogies of America being a global conglomerate have made my sense of trust run thin. It's hard for me to look at any news without a skeptical eye.

Of course, that's just me. I could be wrong.

powerclown · 10-29-2004, 09:22 PM

Quote:

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. The terror attacks killed nearly 3,000 people.

"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.

"US Foreign Policy in Arab Lands", he whines...
If you had things your way, it'd be Arab Policy in Western Lands.

Welcome to 2004, you hairy bastard. Things have changed a bit since 1134. This isn't the world of Saladin and your ancient Arab heroes anymore. Those days are loooong gone.

* * * * * * * * *

John F. Kerry on Friday, in response to the latest Bin Laden tape:

Quote:

"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."

He's learning fast.

Mephisto2 · 10-29-2004, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

He's learning fast.

Bush could learn something about actually fighting for your country (rather than dodging it) from him too.

Mr Mephisto

irateplatypus · 10-29-2004, 11:13 PM

not necessarily from people on this board, but i've spoken with a couple people who recommended that we withdraw support from israel to end al-qaida's war on the United States.

somewhere beyond the grave... Neville Chamberlain is frantically waving his arms and screaming "Don't fall for it!"

Zeld2.0 · 10-29-2004, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

not necessarily from people on this board, but i've spoken with a couple people who recommended that we withdraw support from israel to end al-qaida's war on the United States.

somewhere beyond the grave... Neville Chamberlain is frantically waving his arms and screaming "Don't fall for it!"

If only it were possible to predict the future would that actually stand.

But the entire appeasement argument is getting foolish here - given the state of Europe and the countries involved in 1939 compared to today, 2004, and how the countries in the world involved actually stacked up, the appeasement argument doesn't work when these other factors come in.

irateplatypus · 10-29-2004, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeld2.0

But the entire appeasement argument is getting foolish here - given the state of Europe and the countries involved in 1939 compared to today, 2004, and how the countries in the world involved actually stacked up, the appeasement argument doesn't work when these other factors come in.

i'm unsure of what you mean. are you saying that appeasing al-qaida would be stupid? maybe you're saying it's the best course of action? are you saying conceding to bin laden is not analogous in meaningful ways to conceding to hitler? in what way is the geopolitical structure is different now from what it was then?

Zeld2.0 · 10-29-2004, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

i'm unsure of what you mean. are you saying that appeasing al-qaida would be stupid? maybe you're saying it's the best course of action? are you saying conceding to bin laden is not analogous in meaningful ways to conceding to hitler? in what way is the geopolitical structure is different now from what it was then?

Sorry that was a bit ambiguous but I'm saying that its a mistake to believe changing course/choosing options is appeasement given the geopolitical situation of the world now.

Appeasement in 1938/1939 was a mistake because it was done from a position of weakness. Hitler by then already had immense power, had a superior land force, air force, economy, resources, etc. behind him. Britain/France then was in a poor position to oppose him. However, the mistake was appeasing him from that position of weakness - when you give the stronger guy concessions, you dig an even bigger hole for yourself.

The situation today is different - you are in a position of strength (or at least you would believe we are, wouldn't you?). To be hoenst, I don't know what to do (and neither do any of us or our politicians imo) with the situation in Israel but its pretty obvious that keepign the status quo is keeping the same issues attached to it.

But if you are in a position of strength, appeasemenet isn't a sign of weakness - you have to use it to your advantage. So if you get rid of supporting Israel, turn that advantage in strength elsewhere - get the favor of strong Arab nations that can a) listen to you and b) handle the problem of terrorists by aiding those who handle it as a domestic issue.

Anyways the point isn't I'm trying to make a solution for the issue, i'm pointing out that appeasement isn't so black/white as one would suggest looking straight at Chamberlain. When one delves deeper, one realizes that you cannot appease while you are weak, for you dig yourself into a deeper hole. However, when one is in a position of strength, you can use appeasement as a tool to manuever around a force and take em from another angle.

Because keeping the status quo sure as hell ain't going anywehre right now.

Sparhawk · 10-30-2004, 09:34 AM

^^ Sun Tzu is alive and well in 2004. Good post, Zeld2.0

powerclown · 10-30-2004, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Bush could learn something about actually fighting for your country (rather than dodging it) from him too.

Mr Mephisto

Indeed, Kerry served his country honorably, and he served it well and with great skill. No complaint from me whatsoever about Kerry's military record. He was an extraordinary soldier in Vietnam.

D Rice · 10-30-2004, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Indeed, Kerry served his country honorably, and he served it well and with great skill. No complaint from me whatsoever about Kerry's military record. He was an extraordinary soldier in Vietnam.

I completly agree with powerclown on Kerry's service for the country. Once we get past this political crap and really think about it both of these guys love this country jsut as much as the other one and want to do what is best with it. I do not think it is any easier or harder for GWB to send the U.S. to war than it is John Kerry.

D Rice · 10-30-2004, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodney

Neither do I, and I am an American. The problems arose when the government deemphasized capturing Bin Laden in favor of using him as excuse to invade Iraq.

I realize that some in the administration thought that, by using the excuse of Bin Laden to take down a Middle Eastern dictatorship, they could directly to the source of terrorism in the Middle East by establishing a western-style democracy that would influence change in the remainder of middle eastern states, many of which sponsor or tolerate terrorists.

The problem is that the administration's plans were unrealistic in the extreme and, because they felt they had to lie to get the backing to carry them out, there could be no real debate on the issues. So these unrealistic men carried out their farfetched plans without examination from experts and people with more experience in the Middle East. And of course everything went wrong. And moreover, the people in power still refuse to admit any errors or the real reason for their actions.

Let me paraphrase somebody else: It is a poor and wretched truth that needs a bodyguard of lies for protection.

This may sound like a stupid conspiracy to all but think about it. For the last two years we will hear every few months that the U.S. is closing down on the capture of OBL. How much is Saddam Hus helping us right now. Maybe a little. If we knwo where OBL is and we have the technology to basically monitor everything he is doing (people he is talking to, phone calls, training) is that not more helpful for America in a war against terrorism?

archer2371 · 10-30-2004, 12:05 PM

Your statement actually has more weight than you think D Rice. During World War II, we had operations that resulted in the capture of the Enigma encoding machines used by the Nazis and this was not known until after the war, so as to protect all that sensitive information and the troops who were assigned to get that information. From an operational security and intelligence gathering aspect, knowing what Osama is doing and knowing who he is talking to is something better than capturing or killing him. Killing him would only serve to make him a martyr, and he's a valuable source of information of us, why compromise those two points. If we have the chance to capture him without him killing himself, I think that we would take the opportunity, but only if we were absolutely sure that he's not wired to a suitcase bomb.

roachboy · 10-30-2004, 01:05 PM

strange having to parallel threads on the same topic...

anyway--this tape, its timing, etc., started me wondering if osama bin laden actually exists.

he has always seemed to me more a structural necessity than actual person---the anchor of the "war on terror" narrative, the mythology, the face that enabled a personification to replace the hole created by 9/11, the signifier than enabled the transition from shock to action against someone, anyone.

the narrative needs bin laden as the narrative of jesus needed judas.

i have never been convinced that al qeada carried out the attacks on 9/11 entirely--i thought that if you were going to carry out such an attack, the entire organization would logically be on the planes.

but whatever, what is obvious is that in the period directly after 9/11 someone needed to be held to account so that a response could be undertaken. what mattered was the response in and of itself. i was skeptical from the start about how the narrative was created and maintained, but i understood how it could be compelling and why things that otherwise would be seens as problematic judgements would be undertaken once it was in place (e.g. the overwhleming support for the legal frame within which the "war on terror" has functioned, probably extending into the much more problematic vote to authorize the iraq war--without the bigger narrative, i doubt seriously that the iraq war would have been possible, given the shabbiness of the case for it)

if you go to bbc's website, you get a short video comparative analysis of bin laden;s varous appearances

www.bbc.co.uk

it does not have a seperate link so far as i can tell, so i do not know how long it will be up.

i dont adduce this as evidence for what i am saying, just as the thing that started me wondering about it.

quicksteal · 10-30-2004, 01:37 PM

Is there a link to an English translation of the video? I want to watch the thing, but I can't find it.

edit: found a transcript..for those who want to read it, here is a link:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...11-2002_pg7_28

flstf · 10-30-2004, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trickyy

but the whole "freedom-hating" is a joke
if they really hated the concept of freedom, amsterdam would be rubble by now

In my opinion if the U.S. wasn't here to take the heat. Europe would be the "Great Satin".

Boo · 10-30-2004, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matteo101

"It appeared to him (Bush) that a little girl's talk about her goat and its butting was more important than the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers. That gave us three times the required time to carry out the operations, thank God,"

This particular line must be just a slap in the face for George.

BL is correct on this one, Bush should have jumped in the nearest phonebooth, changed clothes and stopped the attack.

bling · 10-30-2004, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boo

BL is correct on this one, Bush should have jumped in the nearest phonebooth, changed clothes and stopped the attack.

It amazes me that this absolutist line of reasoning, particularly on this issue, continues.

Is it honest to suggest that Bush had two options? Sit on his ass and do nothing or jump up immediately and cause a panic (or in this case, don Superman's clothes to save the day)?

Obviously not. There were many possible reactions to the information he received. One of them would obviously be politely interupting the teacher and addressing the children that he had to excuse himself for a moment. Such a response would be called rational.

Bodyhammer86 · 10-30-2004, 06:01 PM

Why is the seven minutes thing even an issue for Bush? There was absolutely nothing he could've done in those seven minutes that would've either saved lives or any difference at all, period. Furthermore, people did not judge FDR based on his reaction after he was notified about Pearl Harbor, so why rag on Bush for his reaction?

Bodyhammer86 · 10-30-2004, 06:08 PM

From http://moorewatch.com/index.php/gues...ose_7_minutes/

Quote:

The systemic failures of 9/11 are too numerous to count. This is not because the FAA or NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) didn’t have a plan for protecting US citizens, but because no one had conceived of hijackers turning transcontinental flights filled with 11,400 gallons of jet fuel, essentially, into missiles. Not only did all 19 hijackers defeat multiple layers of security—which had the sole purpose of stopping a hijacking from occurring in the first place—but, once successful, they “invented a new kind of war,” as one military commander put it. “No one at the FAA or the airlines that day had ever dealt with multiple hijackings. Such a plot had not been carried out anywhere in the world in more than 30 years, and never in the United States. As news of the hijackings filtered through the FAA and the airlines, it does not seem to have occurred to the leadership that they needed to alert other aircraft in the air that they too might be at risk” (10).

Some of you will want timelines. This is not a surprise since you’ve been so concerned with “seven minutes” in the first place. What I’m telling you is: forget the timelines. This is not because they invalidate what I’m saying (they most certainly do), but because the chaos that ensued because of this new kind of warfare made certain those planes were going to crash. The following are key factors in contributing to this chaos:

a.) NORAD Mission and Structure. NORAD was structured to counter a Soviet threat, not hijackers flying plans into downtown Manhattan. As one of the fighters originally scrambled from Langley said, “I reverted to the Russian threat…I’m thinking cruise missile threat from the sea. You know you look down and see the Pentagon burning and I thought the bastards snuck one by us…You couldn’t see any airplanes, and no one told us anything” (45).

b.) Interagency Collaboration. The FAA and NORAD had a system in place for dealing with a hijacking—a “routine” hijacking. Normally, in the event of a hijacking a pilot would notify FAA controllers by “squawking” a transponder code of “7500” (17). This would set in motion the proper procedures for dealing with such a situation. Those procedures, which include sending information up the chain of command and waiting for orders to come back down, takes time. On 9/11 they didn’t have time. Because the terrorists turned off the aircrafts’ transponders, FAA officials were left scratching their heads (for much longer than seven minutes). As one official said on 9/11: “I don’t know where I’m scrambling these guys to. I need a direction, a destination” (20). One needs to simply read page 27 of the report to see the consequences turning off the transponders had on the outcome of September 11th: “The Langley fighters were heading east, not north, for three reasons. First, unlike a normal scramble order, this order did not include a distance to the target or the target’s location. Second, a “generic” flight plan--prepared to get the aircraft airborne and out of local airspace quickly—incorrectly led the Langley fighters to believe they were ordered to fly due east (090) for 60 miles. Third, the lead pilot and local FAA controller incorrectly assumed the flight plan instruction to go “090 for 60” superseded the original scramble order...The time was 9:38. The Pentagon had been struck by American 77 at 9:37:46. The Langley fighters were about 150 miles away” (27).

Finally, let us assume that for some reason George Bush was able to give the “engage” order to the proper military commanders as he sat in front of the school children reading “My Pet Goat.” Would it have helped? No. Even after the order to engage civilian aircraft was authorized and passed to NEADS (NORAD’S Northeast Air Defense Sector), the commanders in charge of passing along the order to their pilots refused! “The NEADS commander told us he did not pass along the order because he was unaware of its ramifications. Both the mission commander and the senior weapons director indicated they did not pass the order to the fighters circling Washington and New York because they were unsure how the pilots would, or should, proceed with this guidance. In short, while leaders in Washington believed that the fighters above them had been instructed to “take out” hostile aircraft, the only orders actually conveyed to the pilots were to ‘ID type and tail’” (43).

(Some of you will ask about the “interceptor” plane that arrived two minutes after flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania. Sorry, it wasn’t an interceptor—it was an unarmed C-130 Cargo plane.)

I’m sure that many Moore fans are still unconvinced. It won’t matter that, “As it turned out, NEADS air defenders had nine minutes’ notice on the first hijacked plane, no advance notice on the second, no advance notice on the third, and no advance notice on the forth” (31). It won’t matter that commanders ignored to pass the “engage” order on, even after the President sent the order. All that will matter is that Moore says otherwise. Some will concede that nothing could have been done, but that the president still looked indecisive. Here is what the 9/11 Commission reports:

“The president told us his instinct was to project calm, not to have the country see an excited reaction at a moment of crisis. The press was standing behind the children; he saw their phones and pagers start to ring. The President felt he should project strength and calm until he could better understand what was happening” (38).

10-29-2004, 03:44 PM	#2 (permalink)
The_wall Psycho Location: Rhode Island biatches!	I think it is quite an important note that Bin Laden himself said the attacks where not because of our freedom, but rather our foreign policy. I know we're not supposed to negotiate with terrorists, but perhaps we should listen to what he said and take it into account. __________________ "We do what we like and we like what we do!"~andrew Wk Procrastinate now, don't put off to the last minute.

10-29-2004, 03:52 PM	#3 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	Sounds a bit Hitlerish to me. "Hey, I'll stop if you do this for me," or "This is the last time, I swear!" Look, until a Muslim rules all of America, bin Laden just won't be satisfied. To me it's just a continuation of the conquering and invasions that all started with Muhammad, the steel of the scimitar is not something that is completely unknown to Islam. I really don't see bin Laden stopping terrorism against the United States if we pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan, so I see it as a bunch of b.s. from him, nothing unusual, more of the same hate-filled drivel. Question is whether or not it's got any code words laced in there that activate terror cells. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

10-29-2004, 04:52 PM	#12 (permalink)
matteo101 In transition Location: north, no south abit, over to the right, getting warmer...there!	MOD NOTE: FLAMES WILL NOT BE TOLERATED Do you not understand that by your means of retaliation it would have depicted the VERY means of which happened to you? Revenge and vengence are what caused 911, and this is exactly what you want to impose on the middle east. Edit: Sorry...won't happen again. Last edited by matteo101; 10-29-2004 at 11:21 PM..

10-29-2004, 06:35 PM	#18 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	monitoring ............: / ............. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

10-29-2004, 11:13 PM	#25 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	not necessarily from people on this board, but i've spoken with a couple people who recommended that we withdraw support from israel to end al-qaida's war on the United States. somewhere beyond the grave... Neville Chamberlain is frantically waving his arms and screaming "Don't fall for it!" __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

10-29-2004, 03:52 PM	#4 (permalink)
Journeyman Like John Goodman, but not. Location: SFBA, California	Well, our policy is to support Israel militarily/financially, and Israel's policy seems to be to shit on it's Arab population, but Arabs both within and outside of Israel's borders seem to hold the policy of driving the Jews into the sea. So, I'm content with American foreign policy towards Israel.

10-29-2004, 04:09 PM	#5 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	Couldn't have said it any better than archer2371. His closing statement in particular I found pertinent.

10-29-2004, 04:21 PM	#7 (permalink)
matteo101 In transition Location: north, no south abit, over to the right, getting warmer...there!	"It appeared to him (Bush) that a little girl's talk about her goat and its butting was more important than the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers. That gave us three times the required time to carry out the operations, thank God," This particular line must be just a slap in the face for George.

10-29-2004, 04:31 PM	#9 (permalink)
ballze Crazy	This is all about our support of Israel, if you look to what really went on with Israel you can't blame the Arabs. Don't take this the wrong way either I have nothing against Israel or our policy of supporting them. But how would you like it if you were told by the UN that you have to move or you now live in a different country. What you don;t hear on the news is that if you are palistine you don't have the right to vote in Israel unless you have so much land (I think). But if you are an Israeli citizen (jewish) you can live on the street and vote. And did I also mention that you are the only country that the US will grant dual citizenship to. That even holds true today, There are millions of Israelis that live her 360 days out of the year and just go back to Vote!

10-29-2004, 04:49 PM	#11 (permalink)
ballze Crazy	Look the few Americans you know should of seen what I did. I had to see two buildings that I went into many times and have friends who died saving lives. My life changed, if you ask me we should of just Nuked all of them and saved our time and money.... THANK GOD FOR GEORGE W. BUSH

10-29-2004, 04:56 PM	#13 (permalink)
trickyy ►	but the whole "freedom-hating" is a joke if they really hated the concept of freedom, amsterdam would be rubble by now he sounds a little more docile than usual. maybe because the military reportedly has a good idea as to his location right now, i dunno. if he is being completely truthful, it was kind of counterproductive on his part to attack us. as if he didn't realize we would freak out? we're killing a lot of arabs these days. i don't know if we're going to stop anytime soon; we are in it DEEP.

10-29-2004, 07:31 PM	#20 (permalink)
bling Banned	Well, I was speaking rather specifically to the excuses that anyone who has killed 3000 innocent people use to justify their actions. In that same regard, the Bush (or any gov't) excuse of "collateral damage" is equally invalid. Unimportant was probably the wrong word. And further, what Bin Laden thinks is important. Not to me, but to his prospects for seeking wellness in his mind, if he ever decided to seek that. So yes, you're right - it's not as simple as I had stated.

10-29-2004, 08:31 PM	#21 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	I hope I didn't come across too sarcastic. What I find interesting about this tape (and I haven't seen it all, but only the reports that refer to it) are people's reactions. Is it really a surprise that Bin Laden admits he attacked America because of their foreign policy? I'm not trying to rattle any cages here, or be provocative. But for goodness sake, why do you think he did it? I know Noam Chomsky is not universally popular here, but allow me to paraphrase one of his insightful remarks. One of the ways to fight terrorism is to stop practicing it. By this I mean, it's possible to remove the drivers, the "seeds" of terrorism. I'm not suggesting dialogue with OBL or his ilk. But to me it's patently clear that progress requires a change in the way the US handles itself abroad. The war on terrorism can never be won. I think everyone agrees that. It's unwinnable. Every time a US bomb falls on a wedding in Afghanistan, or a hospital in Iraq, or an innocent civilian's house in Faluja, another extremist is born. Of course this is simplification, but you know what I mean. Therefore, militarily, you can't "win the war." It's self sustaining. It's a postive feedback loop. Therefore you (we?) need an integrated approach. Fight the terrorists that are out there. But also address the reasons they act as they do. Try to understand the underlying motivation. Sometimes it will be pure hatred. But even that has a reason. Sometimes it will be religious fundamentalist beliefs that non-Muslims should be killed. In that case, foster tolerant muslim groups. Fundamentalists and fanatics are bred in times of stress and disadvantage. There are plenty of rich and tolerant muslim countries. It is only in areas like the middle east that "terrorism" seems endemic. Finally, try to address the Palestinian Question. This is the one, single issue that does more to create terrorists than any other. If it is solved then we make a great advance. Mr Mephisto

10-29-2004, 09:19 PM	#22 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Hahaha. I was mentioned! Agreed that all of this is in good fun. In actuality, I don't expect anyone to agree with me over the previously mentioned 'tinfoul' (clever, eh?). I realize that a lot of what I posted on the 9/11 threads in paranoia is hard to believe. Don't think less of me because I don't rule out the possibility. I just want to get to the bottom of some pretty serious questions. (Anyone who wants to know what the freak we're talking about see the '9/11 is Bush's falit' thread and the 'what happened on 9/11' and 'mystery of the dissapearing 757' thread in paranoia). As those questions pertain to the announcement by OBL, by the way he speaks, it sounds like he just got done watching F 9/11. In referring to Bush sitting in a classroom, I just get this picture of OBL watching F 9/11 on some bigscreen tv somewhere. For me, it's hard to forget how close the ties between OBL and the CIA are. Is it wise to rule out the possibility he's as much of a tool as Fox or CNN? Maybe all the apt anallogies of America being a global conglomerate have made my sense of trust run thin. It's hard for me to look at any news without a skeptical eye. Of course, that's just me. I could be wrong.

10-30-2004, 09:34 AM	#29 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	^^ Sun Tzu is alive and well in 2004. Good post, Zeld2.0 __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

10-30-2004, 12:05 PM	#33 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	Your statement actually has more weight than you think D Rice. During World War II, we had operations that resulted in the capture of the Enigma encoding machines used by the Nazis and this was not known until after the war, so as to protect all that sensitive information and the troops who were assigned to get that information. From an operational security and intelligence gathering aspect, knowing what Osama is doing and knowing who he is talking to is something better than capturing or killing him. Killing him would only serve to make him a martyr, and he's a valuable source of information of us, why compromise those two points. If we have the chance to capture him without him killing himself, I think that we would take the opportunity, but only if we were absolutely sure that he's not wired to a suitcase bomb. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif." Last edited by archer2371; 10-30-2004 at 12:07 PM.. Reason: Addition

10-30-2004, 01:05 PM	#34 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	strange having to parallel threads on the same topic... anyway--this tape, its timing, etc., started me wondering if osama bin laden actually exists. he has always seemed to me more a structural necessity than actual person---the anchor of the "war on terror" narrative, the mythology, the face that enabled a personification to replace the hole created by 9/11, the signifier than enabled the transition from shock to action against someone, anyone. the narrative needs bin laden as the narrative of jesus needed judas. i have never been convinced that al qeada carried out the attacks on 9/11 entirely--i thought that if you were going to carry out such an attack, the entire organization would logically be on the planes. but whatever, what is obvious is that in the period directly after 9/11 someone needed to be held to account so that a response could be undertaken. what mattered was the response in and of itself. i was skeptical from the start about how the narrative was created and maintained, but i understood how it could be compelling and why things that otherwise would be seens as problematic judgements would be undertaken once it was in place (e.g. the overwhleming support for the legal frame within which the "war on terror" has functioned, probably extending into the much more problematic vote to authorize the iraq war--without the bigger narrative, i doubt seriously that the iraq war would have been possible, given the shabbiness of the case for it) if you go to bbc's website, you get a short video comparative analysis of bin laden;s varous appearances www.bbc.co.uk it does not have a seperate link so far as i can tell, so i do not know how long it will be up. i dont adduce this as evidence for what i am saying, just as the thing that started me wondering about it. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-30-2004, 01:37 PM	#35 (permalink)
quicksteal Crazy Location: Auburn, AL	Is there a link to an English translation of the video? I want to watch the thing, but I can't find it. edit: found a transcript..for those who want to read it, here is a link: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...11-2002_pg7_28 Last edited by quicksteal; 10-30-2004 at 01:45 PM..

10-30-2004, 06:01 PM	#39 (permalink)
Bodyhammer86 Insane Location: Mattoon, Il	Why is the seven minutes thing even an issue for Bush? There was absolutely nothing he could've done in those seven minutes that would've either saved lives or any difference at all, period. Furthermore, people did not judge FDR based on his reaction after he was notified about Pearl Harbor, so why rag on Bush for his reaction? __________________ Pantera, Shadows Fall, Fear Factory, Opeth, Porcupine Tree, Dimmu Borgir, Watch Them Die, Motorhead, Beyond the Embrace, Himsa, Black Label Society, Machine Head, In Flames, Soilwork, Dark Tranquility, Children of Bodom, Norther, Nightrage, At the Gates, God Forbid, Killswitch Engage, Lamb of God, All That Remains, Anthrax, Mudvayne, Arch Enemy, and Old Man's Child \m/