Osama Tape

[Pangloss]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6663896

 

This is hitting at just the right moment to catch the Friday evening news cycle. Normally this is the "take out the trash" news day, but Jennings, Rather and Brokaw will all be on the air tonight (they don't always "do" Fridays).

 

I predict this will sharply spike Bush's poll numbers over the weekend polls, which are typically conducted on Friday night and Saturday. It could be just enough to nudge Ohio and New Jersey, both of which have been moving to the right specifically because of security issues, over the edge.

 

Nothing helps an incumbant like a murderous terrorist telling you what you've done wrong.

[Douglas]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6663896

 

This is hitting at just the right moment to catch the Friday evening news cycle. Normally this is the "take out the trash" news day' date=' but Jennings, Rather and Brokaw will all be on the air tonight (they don't always "do" Fridays).

 

I predict this will sharply spike Bush's poll numbers over the weekend polls, which are typically conducted on Friday night and Saturday. It could be just enough to nudge Ohio and New Jersey, both of which have been moving to the right specifically because of security issues, over the edge.

 

Nothing helps an incumbant like a murderous terrorist telling you what you've done wrong.[/quote']

Presumably, this is Osama's speech, at 8:00 pm GMT

 

Friday 29 October 2004, 23:26 Makka Time, 20:26 GMT

 

Usama bin Ladin claimed responsibility of the 9/11attacks

 

Usama bin Ladin appeared on Aljazeera television on Friday accusing US President George W. Bush of deceiving the American people.

 

In an address just days ahead of the US presidential election, bin Ladin also said the US administration resembled "corrupt" Arab governments.

 

He accused Bush of reacting slowly to the September 11 attacks, saying: "I never thought that the supreme leader would leave 50,000 of his people in the two towers to face the terrifying events alone at the time they were in need for him."

 

Refering to next week's elections, he told Americans: "Your security is not in the hands of (Democratic candidate John) Kerry or (President George W.) Bush or al-Qaida. Your security is in your own hands ...."

 

He accused Bush of "misleading" the American people four years after the September 11 attacks.

 

Claiming responsibility for the attacks, bin Ladin said, "we decided to destroy towers in America," because "we want to regain the freedom of our nation."

 

He added that "the reasons to repeat what happened" on 11 September 2001 remain.

 

 

Aljazeera

[bloodhound]

the main thing is that , he hasn't endorsed Kerry.

[Pangloss]

the main thing is that , he hasn't endorsed Kerry.

 

Something tells me that's not how it'll play in Peoria.

 

The dynamic here is "Osama said WHAT? Yeah ok, I know how to vote now."

[Douglas]

the main thing is that , he hasn't endorsed Kerry.

I'm chuckling Bloodhound

[LucidDreamer]

Osama is a Bush supporter. He knows that this will swing the vote in favor of Bush. Why else would he do this now? Since Osama is more in favor of promoting terrorism and making the terrorists organizations stronger than anyone on the planet I would have to conclude that he believes that Bush will make the terrorist organizations stronger. He would know more than anyone which president will make terrorism worse and his organization stronger so I am now more certain than ever, given the present information, that Bush is more dangerous than Kerry and that Kerry will do a better job of eliminating terrorism. What do you guys think?

[Pangloss]

Interestingly convoluted. I like the way you think -- devious and insightful.

 

But it won't play in Peoria either.

 

(Understand, I'm not pushing a pro-Bush agenda here. I'm commenting on what I believe the story is.)

[LucidDreamer]

Of course the other scenario is that Osama is just being a terrorist. He has already concluded that the foreign policy won't change whether Bush or Kerry is elected so he specifically chose this time during the election--not because he is trying to influence the election but because we believe that our government can protect us from harm if we just make the right decisions. He wants us to feel like we are never safe and that our decisions on how to fight terrorism won't affect our outcome and keep us from harm. He wants us to feel like the only way we can be safe is to bow down to his demands. Terrorist leaders are master brain washers so this is not a stretch.

 

Of course for this plan to work so that we are really terrorized he must show that he actually has the power to strike at us. And he must attack the American people on their homeland--an attack on foreign land won't do it. And he must attack within a certain time period from the release of the video. He knows that he will appear impotent if an attack does not follow his threat so he must either be desperate or he must be confident that the attack will succeed.

[Douglas]

Of course the other scenario is that Osama is just being a terrorist.

The way I see it is.....that Haliburton contacted Osama and offered 377 tons of high explosives if he made a speech.

[Mad Mardigan]

Osma is a CIA asset, just think, who gave him the money, training, and weapons to fight against Russia in Afganistan. Why is there always a time in need for a new law to be passed to take rights from us, who is there to attack? Open your eyes, Osma is just like Pol Pot, Stalin, Hussien, and so on, an evil power used to invoke more control. We have used evil men in the past to help our cause, how is this any different?

[budullewraagh]

what the hell? do you even know who pol pot was? he killed millions of the educated class. stalin supposedly killed millions (but we cant be sure that that wasnt just anti-communistic propaganda). hussein killed 5000 kurds 9 years ago. bin laden killed 2700+ american citizens and has destroyed various american things worldwide. you're talking about four totally different people.

[Ophiolite]

No, I think MM is talking about the ways in which leaders of the 'free, democratic' west, will use any bogeyman - world communism, the drug menace, terrorism - to further restrict our freedoms.

 

 

Harking back to earlier posts by LucidDreamer, may I say LucidWriter would have worked just as neatly. Your points are well argued.

To expand on one aspect - you mention Osama may be either desparate or confident to suggest he will strike big in the US again. Not necessarily. Terror and horror are closely allied. In a horror film much of the horror comes from the uncertainty and the waiting. So too with terror.

'I'm going to strike, sometime. Just wait.' Using this tactic Osama has managed to screw up the US economy and totally detract the US and the world from things that are much more important. It is for that reason that I agree with you - he wants Bush re-elected because the Iraq invasion has done wonders for his recruitment, if not of active terrorists, undoubtedly of sympathisers.

[Pangloss]

My response to the old "but he used to be an ally of the west" argument has always been very simple:

 

"So what?"

 

Sometimes it's a matter of not knowing they're evil until later on. Other times (as with Saddam) it's more a matter of expedience -- using the tools that are available. It's not like we're alone in this. After all, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is an arab saying.

 

It's a sick world out there. It wants to KILL you. Yes YOU. Wake up and smell the coffee.

[budullewraagh]

if everybody wanted to kill you you would be dead

 

if i met you i would shake your hand, and probably not stab you

 

the terrorist thing is mostly bs. i am completely positive that myself, as well as at least 5 other members of this forum, could make some pretty damaging bombs/toxic gases with the chemicals we have now. i am also positive that there are tens of thousands of people just like us in the US alone, but we are mostly rational people, and so are people in general. really, it's easy to make such chems as acetone peroxide, nitrogen trichloride (or tribromide or triiodide), nitroglycerine, trinitrophenol, pentaerithritoltetranitrate, trinitrotoluene, various mustard agents, armstrong's mixture, peroxymonosulfuric acid...and people can still make novichok agents, sarin (it's only the ester of an organofluorophospahte), ethyl perchlorate...

 

but we don't do it. and almost nobody else does, or else we'd have sarin gas in our ventilation systems, ebola in our water supply and bombs going off everywhere

[Pangloss]

You're right, they're all our friends. Why are we so mean to them? It must be all our fault that they hate us. Somebody give me a dagger, I feel an attack of self-loathing coming on.

 

"Well pardon me for breathing which I don't do anyway so I don't know why I say it oh GOD I'm so depressed...."

[budullewraagh]

it's not so black and white. dont be so myopic

[Pangloss]

The danger here is not in my expression of caution when dealing with other nations (even ones that appear friendly), but in your expression that terrorism is "mostly BS".

[Diedra Moose]

"Well pardon me for breathing which I don't do anyway so I don't know why I say it oh GOD I'm so depressed...."

 

Nice quote on Marvin the robot, but on the issue of terrorism...

 

Let's face it: the US created Osama bin Laden. Granted, it helped that he was and remains a religious fanatic; but the US gave him the knowledge, means and the rhetoric for his terrorist machine.

 

9/11 was horrible beyond any doubt. No one deserves to die such a horrible death. However, we cannot in good conscience say that we didn't have it coming. The US has made meddling in foreign governments a policy starting with the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. That's not even fifty years after we declared indpendence!!! Since then we wrote ourselves into the Cuban constituation (PLatt amandment), tried to invade China (Korea), invented pretense to go to Vietnam (Gulf of Tonkin), toppled socialist governments in Central and South America which lead to some of the bloodiest civil wars in history.

 

And then there's Israel...by no means do I mean to say that the Israelis didn't desrve a state, or don't deserve a state, but Palestinians do have a point when they say they deserve access to their religious homeland too. You can't jsut carve up a nation and expect everyone to do little jigs aobut it. It's kind of like when we took half of Mexico's land in the 1840s. People fought and continue to fight over the land that is left (Chiapas and the Zapatistas). (To add insult to injury, gold was found in California like a week after the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed which gave CA to the US in 1849).

 

Violence is definitely not the answer to all this mess. But waht is? I found bin Laden's message less a threat and more an appeal to our better sense. Israel and the US should treat Muslims and the Muslim world with little more dignity and respect. That said, those Muslims who take it upon themselves to get children to go blow people up should get with the picture as well.

 

This is a cycle of violence...how do we end it?

[AL]

Osama is a Bush supporter. He knows that this will swing the vote in favor of Bush. Why else would he do this now? Since Osama is more in favor of promoting terrorism and making the terrorists organizations stronger than anyone on the planet I would have to conclude that he believes that Bush will make the terrorist organizations stronger. He would know more than anyone which president will make terrorism worse and his organization stronger so I am now more certain than ever, given the present information, that Bush is more dangerous than Kerry and that Kerry will do a better job of eliminating terrorism. What do you guys think?

 

Something which might support your argument, but this comes from Al Jazeera, so take it with enough salt to buoy the Titanic out of the Atlantic:

The declaration turned its attention to President Bush, saying: "A word for the foolish Bush. We are very keen that you do not lose in the forthcoming elections as we know very well that any big attack can bring down your government and this is what we do not want.

 

"We cannot get anyone who is more foolish than you, who deals with matters with force instead of wisdom and diplomacy.

 

"Your stupidity and religious extremism is what we want as our people will not awaken from their deep sleep except when there is an enemy.

 

"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilisation.

 

"Because of this we desire you [bush] to be elected."

Source: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/EC3AC145-96B2-4858-AE3D-63FDE0B59D69.htm

This declaration comes from "the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, which claims to act on behalf of al-Qaida."

 

Make of it what you will.

[Ophiolite]

This is a cycle of violence...how do we end it?

Unfortunately cyles of violence, like outdated scientific theories, generally end when all the protagonists are dead. Recognising the responsiblity that we (i.e. the west) bear in many of these matters can go a long way to detach the young from the unhelpful attitudes of the old guard, and so speed that day.

 

(And before someone throws a bleeding-heart liberal soubriquet at me, let me assure you I am speaking from a very selfish posture of not wanting myself or my family blow up, oppressed or economically disadvantaged, because we haven't the gumption to address the genuine needs of others.)

 

Diedra - liked your whole post.

[Pangloss]

However, we cannot in good conscience say that we didn't have it coming.

 

I can. And I'll bet I can find 2,992 families who agree with me.

 

The argument that we deserved the action taken against us is a very poor one, and its origin is entirely partisan in nature. We'd be hearing exactly the same argument if our president were Al Gore right now, but it would be coming from the opposite side.

 

That fact alone should tell everyone EVERYTHING they need to know about the validity of that argument.

[LucidDreamer]

However, we cannot in good conscience say that we didn't have it coming

 

That comment cannot be justified. I'm assuming that he meant to say that we should have been more aware of the possibility of an attack, given certain aspects of our foreign policy.

[Pangloss]

By the way, I have no problem with the reasoning that we've screwed up plenty of times in the Middle East. The point I'm making above is that there is NO justification for terrorism.

 

I'm no Israeli Defense Minister -- I'm not suggesting action-reaction. I'm simply saying let's call a spade a spade.

[Ophiolite]

I thought that would be the line of Deirdra's you would go for, It was the most contentious. I've lifted this from one of my posts to the Mind of a Terrorist thread.

 

A final point that may offend some, so I shall put it in personal terms to try to reduce the offence. If I am ever on a plane that is hi-jacked please do not allow any part of the media, or any politician, to refer to me as an innocent victim. In voting as I vote (or even worse not voting), in living the consumer life style I do, in focusing on my life, my needs, my wants (where 'my' includes family, friends, and fellow Economist subscribers), I have lost all entitlement to be considered innocent.

[Pangloss]

So?

 

One person's opinion, which I don't even entirely disagree with. (shrug)