Bin Laden Video is genuine
American intelligence sources have confirmed that the latest tape of Osama bin Laden is genuine and is proof that the al-Qaeda leader is still alive.
In Sydney, President Bush told reporters: "The tape is a reminder about the dangerous world in which we live. And it is a reminder that we must work together to protect . . . against these extremists who murder the innocent in order to achieve their political objectives."Actually the tape is a reminder that Bush, in his insane quest to invade Iraq, virtually ignored bin Laden as the US moved most of it's resources from Afghanistan to Iraq.
The same President who once called for bin Laden "dead or alive" eventually changed this priority stating, "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
The tape reminds the world of Bush's failure to bring to justice the man who his administration claim was behind 9-11. And all because US oil companies wanted access to Saddam's oil.
Their profits were put before the security of ordinary Americans. And now bin Laden's mocks from his secret hideaway...
For Bush to try to sell this is as somehow verifying his own argument takes shamelessness to new levels.
Click title for full article.
17 comments:
Bush led us into Iraq to "protect" us from possible nook-lar weapons. But I think the arguement could be made that in ignoring the Taliban and bin Laden in Afghanistan in favor of attacking Iraq has helped put the presidency of Musharif (sp?) in jeopardy and contributed to increased islamic militarism in Pakistan, a nation that already has the Bomb. Suppose islamists gain control there? Then what will Herr Chimp have to say (and how will he blame it on Democrats)?
Dave,
The problem for Musharraf is that the US's Middle Eastern policies in general - and specifically as they relate to Israel and the Palestinians - has greatly increased support for bin Laden and his extremist form of Islam.
Bin Laden and his cohorts won't be defeated simply by killing or capturing bin Laden and his henchmen. This is a war based on US support for corrupt regimes like Saudi Arabia and for aiding the Israeli decimation of the Palestinian people.
Bush's greatest lie is in pretending that we are engaged in a war which can be won militarily.
It simply can't. No more than the British could win their war against the IRA with guns.
And you are right, Bush is aiding bin Laden with his wanton killing of Muslims in Iraq. This strenghtens bin Laden's hand and brings more people to his "cause". It also makes Musharraf's position almost impossible to sustain.
The Bush policy is so wayward that it's almost as if they don't actually have a policy at all. They certainly don't have one that deals with political realities as they actually are.
I have doubts about the authenticity of the tape. I'd feel more comfortable if it could be independently verified. I remember a previous tape in which the "Bin Laden" had a different face and a heavier build. This may be a case of the tail wagging the dog. The content of his message seems rooted in internal US political debate and seems aimed at discrediting those on the left...it is far too rooted in America's internal debate to credibly come from an outside religious extremist.
The tape reminds the world of Bush's failure to bring to justice the man who his administration claim was behind 9-11.
You are aware of course that Bin Laden also claims he's behind 9-11, right? That you use the word "claim" in order to express some incredulity speaks volumes.
And all because US oil companies wanted access to Saddam's oil.
Another fallacy, as indicated here.
Several participants said U.S. Embassy officials began to ratchet up pressure to finalize some law before mid-September.
"They were absolutely desperate for anything," said one participant who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to comment publicly about the negotiations. "The irony here is that, far from the U.S. pursuing its interest in privatizing the oil sector, and get its hands on Iraqi oil . . . the U.S. was pushing hard to take the path of least resistance, and push for strong centralization and Iraqi state participation."
But I think the arguement could be made that in ignoring the Taliban and bin Laden in Afghanistan
Since we have not ignored the Taliban and bin Laden in Afghanistan, no, the argument could not be made.
Herr Chimp have to say (and how will he blame it on Democrats)?
Personal attacks and irrational hatred by the radical left. I guess when they can't make reasoned arguments, that's all that's left.
Bin Laden and his cohorts won't be defeated simply by killing or capturing bin Laden and his henchmen.
Technically, if Bin Laden and his cohorts are all captured or killed, then one must logically conclude that they have been defeated. That said, I believe you are referring to their ideology. I would love to read your exposition on how Bin Laden and his cohorts and/or their ideology should be defeated.
it is far too rooted in America's internal debate to credibly come from an outside religious extremist.
I believe your analysis is faulty. One can get news and the Internet via satellite, even from a cave in Pakistan. Even ignoring that for a minute, you of course must have heard of Adam Gadahn.
This is a perfect example of how the most vicious on the left, via this so-called "internal debate", are in-fact providing aid and comfort to our enemies. But hey, why worry what effects our politically motivated free speech might have, as long as we feel good about ourselves and satisfy our own needs, what does it matter?
You are aware of course that Bin Laden also claims he's behind 9-11, right? That you use the word "claim" in order to express some incredulity speaks volumes.
I used the word "claim" in the same way that the FBI approach the matter.
They have him listed as one of their most wanted men, and they list the many crimes that they accuse him of having taken part in. However, they make no mention of 9-11 as they say they have no proof of his involvement in that attack. Does this "speak volumes" about the FBI?
Technically, if Bin Laden and his cohorts are all captured or killed, then one must logically conclude that they have been defeated.
This is where you reveal that you actually share the warped Bush logic. The scenario you paint will simply never, ever, be achieved.
Support for his insane cause has actually risen whilst Bush has engaged in actions that you support wholeheartedly.
I actually think people like you help him to achieve his ends. The invasion of Iraq was a God send to bin Laden. The more innocent Muslims you kill over there, the more you drive the average Muslim into thinking that perhaps what he says is right.
You are supporting the Bush regime as they do his work for him.
Sunday, Bloody Sunday was a disaster for the people of Northern Ireland, but it was payday for the IRA. After that day, they had never had it so good.
In the exact same way Iraq suits bin Laden. It feeds him...
That said, I believe you are referring to their ideology. I would love to read your exposition on how Bin Laden and his cohorts and/or their ideology should be defeated.
You'll never be able to convert someone like him to common sense - like Bush, he is a blind ideologue - however, you can stop people from joining his cause and thus swelling the ranks of these nutters.
However, to do so the US would have to start being even handed in their dealings with Israel and the Palestinians, a matter in which their bias is simply shameless.
And, as this conflict is the No 1 source of anger on the Arab street, and as no US government - Republican or Democrat - is going to do anything to seriously address this imbalance, I suspect bin Laden will continue to have converts driven towards him by this insane and dangerous and utterly counterproductive US foreign policy.
However, to do so the US would have to start being even handed in their dealings with Israel and the Palestinians, a matter in which their bias is simply shameless.
So then you believe that if halt support for the Israelis (an insane notion, but I'll go with it for now) and prop-up the Palestinians (we'll forget the whole dancing in the street thing and the Americans murdered by Palestinians, again for the sake of argument), then radical Islam will lose its luster.
While such a strategy is appealing in its simplicity, you fail to address how we will convince Wahabis and Salafists that they've been living a lie and they've just interpreted the Great Allah's wishes all wrong/ You also fail to address the fact that so-called radical Islam has existed prior to what you believe is our objectionable foreign policy (I've stripped the hyperbole for simplicity).
How could I have forgotten this...
Technically, if Bin Laden and his cohorts are all captured or killed, then one must logically conclude that they have been defeated.
This is where you reveal that you actually share the warped Bush logic.
No, I claimed that simple logic dictates that the given statement holds. However, I gave you an out by stating that I believed you were referring to the ideology, in which case the truth would not hold.
Sunday, Bloody Sunday was a disaster for the people of Northern Ireland, but it was payday for the IRA. After that day, they had never had it so good.
I'll keep combing Amazon.uk for the book, "All Foreign Policy Can Somehow Be Related to Northern Ireland". Surely someone over there's written it.
Kel, have a look at Paul Joseph Watsons article in Prison Planet on 18th July to see his rather nice comparison of old and new footage.
He demonstrates quite convincingly in my eyes, at that best the new stuff is spliced in with old to add to additional trembles to the terror, and keep everyone hiding under their duvets or puffing up with righteous indignation..Some of the footage has been used up the 3 times he concludes.. just enough to get a good Pavlovian response from the press.
So then you believe that if halt support for the Israelis (an insane notion, but I'll go with it for now) and prop-up the Palestinians (we'll forget the whole dancing in the street thing and the Americans murdered by Palestinians, again for the sake of argument), then radical Islam will lose its luster.
Why do you consider the US taking a more even handed approach the the Israeli-Palestine issue "an insane notion"?
And as for your other comments, I see you still insist that no analogy can ever be made with Northern Ireland (and I suppose Vietnam) as you still refuse to accept that you are fighting a hidden enemy who seek support from the local population.
Melody, Thanks for that. I'll look it up.
as you still refuse to accept that you are fighting a hidden enemy who seek support from the local population.
I have never claimed that we are not. But since you believe I have stated it, I'm sure you can point me to where I have made such a claim.
I have never claimed that we are not. But since you believe I have stated it, I'm sure you can point me to where I have made such a claim.
If you do, indeed, see the similarity then perhaps you will explain why you make so many snide comments every time I bring up the Northern Ireland analogy?
If you do, indeed, see the similarity then perhaps you will explain why you make so many snide comments every time I bring up the Northern Ireland analogy?
I see only a superficial similarity.
Leaving aside the fact that you, once again, use someone else's argument instead of your own; I found several things interesting in the article which you linked to.
For instance, General Petraeus feels that the “Northern Ireland experience” of his British deputy commander was “really quite instructive” when it comes to the Iraq conflict.
Nor does the article appear to back up some of your other beliefs. I note that the author feels that the NI comparison's irrelevance "makes citing it as a case for continued large-scale deployment in Iraq disingenuous at best."
I take his point that the British enjoyed the support of the Protestant population and that there is no Iraqi equivalent, I also accept his point that the death rate amongst American troops far exceeds anything that the British suffered in Northern Ireland. However, he appears to be denouncing the analogy as a reason for American troops remaining in Iraq; are you sure that this is a position that you support?
I still maintain that NI is a valid comparison of how to take on an insurgency movement, even whilst agreeing with the author that the situation in Iraq is even more dire than the situation which existed in Northern Ireland.
As you linked to this article, am I to take it that you agree with the author's broader points regarding the futility of the American mission there? Indeed, I am left wondering if you actually read that article before you linked to it...
Post a Comment