Osama is alive.

[Darksoul]

-Maybe its a problem with "career politicians". Does anyone think the founding fathers had in mind people who spend their lives working politics? I know this thread is directed at Bush and Kerry and bin Laden, but I can't help and point a finger at another part of the "machine". (Insert Pink Floyd joke) The president can only serve 2 terms, while those in congress and elsewhere can serve a lifetime. I think maybe they should only serve one term, and let someone else take a swing. There is something to be said for incumbents, they're comfortable, lazy, non-attentive to their constituents.

-My other point is the "War on Terror" crap. There is no way the US or anyone can win a war on terror, with the exact same reasoning as the war on drugs, and we know a lot of money has been wasted to no avail with that one. Going into the middle east to tackle these extremists group isn't a bad thing, if you have a real plan, including exit strategy. Then to shift gears and go after Iraq. Fine, whatever. Bad intelligence and they dont' want to take the blame, so shift it somewhere. How convenient.

-And Osama...one of many enemies the US faces. Is he alive? How old is the tape? Do the "experts" know what they're talking about? And will this affect the election? Do we citizens have any real control anymore? Maybe we are the incumbents...

A---)

 

[PeachMonkey]

Well, sometimes our Congress acts a little slow, but usually, if a treaty gets ratified, it gets honored, usually.

Ask the Native Americans about that one.

 

[Makalakumu]

...I seriously don't understand how we couldn't find this guy...an Arab over six foot with a towel around his head and a beard to his knees dragging around a dialysis machine...we should've at least been able to see the ruts in the sand...we should've dropped in a cargo of New York City sewer rats...that would've driven his **** outta those caves...

Ya know, I think that the kidney disease that Osama suffers is an urban legend. We have to remember that UBL has been in Afghanistan fighting superpowers for decades. First the Russians and now us. (Which is forboding in a sense, because it means that right now he is probably killing our soldiers with the same weapons our country supplied to kill the russians."

The bottom line. The man knows how to hide. And he knows how to command ill equipped troops to kill.

We may not ever catch him. If we put more troops on the ground in Afghanistan, it will become hell on earth, just like it did for the Russians. You'll never hear the political leaders say anything close to this though. They want our country to appear strong and invincible.

In a way, President Bush came close to the truth by saying, he didn't think about him much. It might be an appropriate strategy considering the fact that much of the fall of the Soviety Union came from the amount of crap they lost in that country....

Just food for thought...

upnorthkyosa

 

[Baytor]

I really thougth the guy was dead too. Maybe the need for dialysis is false. Maybe he has better hideouts than we thought. Maybe he's hiding in Saudi Arabia or Iran, and getting treatment there. Maybe the CIA used him in a weird experiment when he was fighting the russians. They spliced roach DNA into him, making him almost impossible to kill, but afraid of sudden bright light.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

In a way, President Bush came close to the truth by saying, he didn't think about him much. It might be an appropriate strategy considering the fact that much of the fall of the Soviety Union came from the amount of crap they lost in that country....

We're losing OUR crap in Iraq, Upnorth.

This has been said many times of the war on terror..."It is better to kill the terrorists OVER THERE, rather than OVER HERE."

I suspect Osama is saying, "It is better to kill the Americans OVER THERE (in Iraq), rather than OVER HERE (in Pakistan).

As is, we're using Pakistanis to hunt for him...which is turning out to be as effective as sending Afghanis to seal off Tora Bora.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Flatlander]

I saw a translation of his new video last night on the news. They claim that he sounds conciliatory, using the concept of "we only attack America because America attacks us", which is a far cry from "We will crush a America, we will never stop", (these are not direct quotes).

It's quite obvious that this was a strategically timed release of his speech, but I'm having difficulty divining what his strategy is. What does he really want the American voters to do?

 

[Baytor]

I saw a translation of his new video last night on the news. They claim that he sounds conciliatory, using the concept of "we only attack America because America attacks us", which is a far cry from "We will crush a America, we will never stop", (these are not direct quotes).

It's quite obvious that this was a strategically timed release of his speech, but I'm having difficulty divining what his strategy is. What does he really want the American voters to do?

1 - Pull all military people out of the Middle East.
2 - Stop supporting Israel.
3 - Convert to his extremist form of Islam.
I think that would about cover what he really wants. I don't have any transcripts to back that up, but if I remember correctly, I think it's accurate.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Certain segments of Islam are starting to react adversely to terrorism. The beheadings are not well accepted by some Muslims, and the killing of the children in Beslan unsettled many. I suspect this is the reason for the conciliatory tone. Either that or he irrationally thinks he can drum up sympathy for his cause in the US.

Regards,


Steve

 

[michaeledward]

[/b]
1 - Pull all military people out of the Middle East.
2 - Stop supporting Israel.
3 - Convert to his extremist form of Islam.

I think I agree with points 1 & 2. I think point 3 is a bit more difficult to make. Although there have been some statements concerning a 'New Caliphate', the stronger statements have been about getting the United States service out of Mecca.

And of course, when we measure some of the comments from Ann Coulter, Paul Wolfowitz, and William Kristol, even the statements about the 'New Caliphate' sound pretty rhetorical, too.

 

[Flatlander]

You know, I think the next few years will bear out a growing and better defined separation between the Islamic moderates and extremists. At least, I hope so.

I hope that it inspires a moderation of the non-Islam extremism as well. We're all filling up the planet, we'd better learn how to be better neighbours soon.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Yup, I'm all for #1 and #2.

Hell, lets go 1 further, lets pull all our troops back from everywhere, and really man and fortify our own borders.

#3 though.....I dunno....it just doesn't seem christian y'know?

 

[michaeledward]

I think that perhaps a 'major' drawback of United States forward deployment is appropriate, but not a complete drawback. It certainly would have a huge impact on the military budget.

I also think a major re-thinking of our borders is necessary. Although, I am more in favor of wide open borders. Let everyone in, who wishes to come in. It would put an immediate end to 'illegal immigration'. We could then turn our focus to shining light on the 'underground economy', which so devistates our society.

But, back to our forward deployment ... I saw this little statistic earlier today. I wonder how many people are aware of these facts:

According to the Defense Department's annual "Base Structure Report" for fiscal year 2003, which itemizes foreign and domestic U.S. military real estate, the Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and HAS another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories. Pentagon bureaucrats calculate that it would require at least $113.2 billion to replace just the foreign bases -- surely far too low a figure but still larger than the gross domestic product of most countries -- and an estimated $591,519.8 million to replace all of them. The military high command deploys to our overseas bases some 253,288 uniformed personnel, plus an equal number of dependents and Department of Defense civilian officials, and employs an additional 44,446 locally hired foreigners. The Pentagon claims that these bases contain 44,870 barracks, hangars, hospitals, and other buildings, which it owns, and that it leases 4,844 more.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-08.htm

 

[Baytor]

I think I agree with points 1 & 2. I think point 3 is a bit more difficult to make. Although there have been some statements concerning a 'New Caliphate', the stronger statements have been about getting the United States service out of Mecca.

And of course, when we measure some of the comments from Ann Coulter, Paul Wolfowitz, and William Kristol, even the statements about the 'New Caliphate' sound pretty rhetorical, too.

I don't think it is that far of a jump. Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't part of his problem with us our culture, which he finds corrupt and morally bankrupt? Wouldn't our converting to his branch of Islam (is it wahabi?) be a simple solution to that problem?

While I think that is something he would want, I don't think that even he thinks it is very likely. Anyway, that's why I put that down on my list.

 

[Andrew Green]

I think he'd be happy with "Stop trying to tell the rest of the world what is right and wrong".

Personally I found the rational for the "Weapons of Mass destruction" hunt kinda silly... I mean if the US wants to disarm other countries, shouldn't it disarm itself first?

 

[michaeledward]

I don't think it is that far of a jump. Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't part of his problem with us our culture, which he finds corrupt and morally bankrupt? Wouldn't our converting to his branch of Islam (is it wahabi?) be a simple solution to that problem?

While I think that is something he would want, I don't think that even he thinks it is very likely. Anyway, that's why I put that down on my list.

The idea that 'our culture' is part of his problem gets presented quite often by the President ("They hate us because of our Freedom"), but I am not certain that any of the statements from Al Qaeda make that claim.

From what I have seen, Osama bin Laden's great anger with the United States is that our military set up bases on Saudi Arabian soil prior to the 1991 Gulf War. When the war objectives were completed, we did not remove our military. As I understand it, the presence of non-islamic military in the holy land of Mecca and Medina is offensive to the wahabi branch of Islam.

Now, since 911, the United States military has dramatically reduced its presence in Saudi Arabia. But we are currently constructing 17 permanent bases on Iraqi soil. Don't know how that is going to go over.

Anyhow ... it is easier for the powerful to sell the idea that 'our freedom' is what they hate. It doesn't take a lot of nuance.

Lastly, there have been some statements from the radical Islamists, that they wish to see the rise of a 'New Caliphate'; a world wide Islamic church. If you think back 1000 years, 1,100 years, Islam was the cultural, economic, religious power on the planet. Of course, the tribes with long memories would like to return to that global structure, as compared to the colonial expriences of the last century or two.

 

[Baytor]

I agree that it is easier to say that "they hate our freedom". It is also smarter. By making freedom the issue, not behavior, you can potentially get the same reaction from two very different people. For example, lets take 2 well known names, Jerry Falwell and Larry Flint. These are two people with very different world view. When you say, they hate our freedom, Falwell might think, "They hate the fact that I'm right and they are godless heathens." Flint might think, "They hate the fact that I take pictures of hot naked women...." The point here is that by saying "freedom", you get 2 people to potentially agree with you, where they may not agree with each other on anything before. Politically, this is great because you don't offend anyone.

But it's not our freedom they hate. It's our behavior. We allow consenting adults to smoke , drink alcohol, and have sex outside of a marriage that's probably been arranged by our parents. Our tv's broadcast this message of "do whatever you want" all the time, all over the world. This, and other things, are contrary to the teachings of the Wahhabi sect, which is considered a very strict one.

http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/a/al/al_qaida.html

According to the link above (so take it with a grain of salt), al quida's religious inspiration came from the Wahhabi sect. This would be logical, the wahhabi sect is the official state religion of Saudi Arabia, so OBL would likely have been taught by Wahhabi teachers.

This link provides some good info about religion in Saudi Arabia.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2002/14012.htm

So, bottom line, does OBL hate us because we are corrupt? Probably. I don't think that is the driving factor for him though. After all, he spent time training with our CIA to fight the Russians. Like you said, one of the major factors was the US/coalition forces in SA during the first gulf war. I think that Israel is a secondary issue for him. But think our culture is also part of it.

At any rate, I enjoyed the conversation.:asian:

 

[Fight with attitude]

Personally I found the rational for the "Weapons of Mass destruction" hunt kinda silly... I mean if the US wants to disarm other countries, shouldn't it disarm itself first?

Sure it would be nice to see the US disarm itself but if me and you had guns pointed at each other and I wanted to throw both of them away I wouldn't put mind down first and hope that you would follow. No, I would keep the gun pointed at you until you through away your gun and then I would thorw away mind.

I wouldn't want to give you the chance to shoot me.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Well, can we shoot first, then put ours down?

 

[Makalakumu]

In a way, President Bush came close to the truth by saying, he didn't think about him much. It might be an appropriate strategy considering the fact that much of the fall of the Soviety Union came from the amount of crap they lost in that country....

We're losing OUR crap in Iraq, Upnorth.

This has been said many times of the war on terror..."It is better to kill the terrorists OVER THERE, rather than OVER HERE."

I suspect Osama is saying, "It is better to kill the Americans OVER THERE (in Iraq), rather than OVER HERE (in Pakistan).

As is, we're using Pakistanis to hunt for him...which is turning out to be as effective as sending Afghanis to seal off Tora Bora.


Regards,


Steve

I agree with this sentiment 100%. The mujahedeen want to lure their enemies into a muslim nation because its easier for them to fight then. I think that who ever is the next president is going to have to deal with an Iraq that is going to be turning very much into a Soviet Afghanistan. Bush the Elder has talked about this very thing in regards to actually invading Iraq.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Interesting.

I don't think bin Laden cares a hoot about who will win the next US election. I think we are all a bit self-focused to think that somehow he's trying to tell us who to vote for, or who he supports. I agree with what has been said here before, he's angry about past and current wrongs he perceives against various parts of the world, not what each President is like.

I think this can be a minor boost for Kerry, if only because Bush the Younger has mentioned that he has stopped thinking about him. This may bring the point home to many, it seems, Americans who believed the whole bait-and-switch after September 11, when suddenly we went from hunting down bin Laden to going after Hussein. "Whhherrrghh? Huh? What happened? Weren't we supposed to be fighting the terrorists?"

Then again, Bush may call bin Laden "evil", which seems to stimulate people to support him, assuming that he (Bush) is "good" or "valiant" in contrast.