Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Bin Laden Tape
Dieselstation Car Forums > Parking Lot > Off Topic
PAULIE_D


Here's the article from CTV (Canada):

QUOTE
Bin Laden threatens more attacks in new tape
CTV.ca News Staff

Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden has appeared on a new videotape directly admitting to organizing the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and threatening more attacks to come.

Al-Jazeera broadcast parts of the 18-minute-long tape Friday evening.

In his clearest comments yet taking responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, bin Laden addresses the American people and says the 9/11 attacks were carried out because "we are a free people ... and we want to regain the freedom of our nation.''

"We decided to destroy towers in America,'' the al Qaeda leader says, adding the attacks were even more destructive than they had hoped.

He ads that he thought of the idea of attacking the U.S. skyscrapers when he saw Israeli aircraft bombing tower blocks in Lebanon in 1982.

Appearing healthy and reading from a sheet of paper, he says the attacks would have been less severe if U.S. President George Bush had been more alert.

"It never occurred to us that the commander in chief of the country would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face those horrors alone ... because he thought listening to a child discussing her goats was more important," bin Laden said, referring to Bush's visit to a school when the attack occurred.

Speaking just days ahead of the U.S. presidential election, he then says the United States could face new attacks because the reasons for mounting the Sept. 11 strikes still exist.

"Despite entering the fourth year after Sept. 11, Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you and therefore the reasons are still there to repeat what happened," bin Laden tells Americans.

This is the first video of the al Qaeda leader to surface in more than a year

Al-Jazeera did not say how it received the tape nor how it has concluded that it is authentic.

The Qatari-based channel has previously received audio and videotapes from people linked to al Qaeda.

More to come...
NorthPoint
An interesting development. It's the first proof that he is actually still alive. The quip about "My Pet Goat" is quite the slap in Bush's face.

Not sure if it is intended to affect the election but I can't see why or how it would.
PAULIE_D
Here's another article from CBC (Canada):

QUOTE
Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11
Last Updated Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:15:52 EDT
QATAR - Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden appeared in a new videotaped message aired on an Arabic TV station Friday night, finally claiming responsibility for the 2001 attacks against the United States, just four days before the American presidential election.


INDEPTH: Remembering September 11
"We decided to destroy towers in America" because "we are a free people... and we want to regain the freedom of our nation," bin Laden said, dressed in yellow and white robes and videotaped against a plain brown background.

 
The World Trade Center towers burning on Sept. 11, 2001. 
In the 18-minute message, played on Qatar-based Al-Jazeera, bin Laden threatened new attacks against Americans if the policies of George W. Bush's government do not change, and outlined "the best way to avoid another Manhattan."

According to translators, bin Laden told American voters: "Your security is not in the hands of [Democratic candidate John] Kerry or Bush or al-Qaeda. Your security is in your hands."

Al-Jazeera said it received the tape earlier in the day. If it is proven to be legitimate, it would be the first time the world has heard from the fugitive al-Qaeda leader in more than a year.

On the tape, bin Laden said he decided that militants should start planning to attack the United States in the wake of Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon, when apartment towers in Beirut were bombed. The U.S. backed Israel in that action, he said.


FROM OCT. 29, 2004: 'American al-Qaeda' threatens renewed attacks

He said al-Qaeda's suicide airplane attacks against the World Trade Center Towers and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, would have been less severe if Bush had been more vigilant and acted more quickly on that day.

Instead, he said, Bush continued listening to "a story about a goat."

The president was visiting a school in Florida when an aide told him that a plane had flown into the World Trade Center. A cameraman captured the stunned politician continuing to listening to a child reading My Pet Goat for the next seven minutes.

The al-Qaeda leader said the hijackers had planned to have all the attacks take place within 20 minutes because they were sure the Americans would react quickly and start shooting down errant airplanes.

A total of 58 minutes elapsed between the time the first plane hit the first Manhattan office tower and the moment the third plane crashed into the Pentagon's headquarters in the Washington area.

A fourth plane crashed into a Pennsylvania field after passengers learned what had happened to the other hijacked airplanes and stormed the cockpit in order to divert it from a fourth populated target. That crash came one hour and 25 minutes after the initial airplane hit its target.

Bin Laden also said Bush had misled the American people in the three years since al Qaeda's 19 hijackers accomplished their deadly mission.

"Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you and therefore the reasons are still there to repeat what happened," he said.


Written by CBC News Online staff


And here is the article from CNN's site ... seems like some key content is missing from the article.

QUOTE
Bin Laden: U.S. security depends on policy
New tape aired on Al-Jazeera
Friday, October 29, 2004 Posted: 4:46 PM EDT (2046 GMT)

Bin Laden delivers a videotaped message broadcasted on Arabic language network Al-Jazeera.

(CNN) -- Osama bin Laden delivered a new videotaped message in which he told Americans their security does not depend on the president they elect, but on U.S. policy.

He also claimed responsibility for the attacks of September 11, 2001, which killed nearly 3,000 people.

"Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda," bin Laden said in the video aired on the Arabic language network Al-Jazeera.


It's amusing to spot the key differences between the Canadian articles and American article.

The Canadain articles focus on Bin Laden's criticism of Bush and almost seems to imply that re-electing Bush will lead to more attacks.

The American article lacks much of the detail provided in the Canadian articles and stresses that the frequency / likelyhood of terrorist attacks is not dependent on which candidate is elected.

Odd, eh ????
dukenukem
Heres a sequence of events in Chronological order
Innotech
and now Kerry is towing the bush party lines. "We will take down the terrorists whatever it takes"
This is too fucked up. Kerry go the fuck home.
NorthPoint
QUOTE(Innotech @ Oct 29 2004, 05:12 PM)
and now Kerry is towing the bush party lines. "We will take down the terrorists whatever it takes"
This is too fucked up.  Kerry go the fuck home.

In Bush's own words regarding Osama Bin Laden, "I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."
Innotech
QUOTE(NorthPoint @ Oct 29 2004, 02:36 PM)
QUOTE(Innotech @ Oct 29 2004, 05:12 PM)
and now Kerry is towing the bush party lines. "We will take down the terrorists whatever it takes"
This is too fucked up.  Kerry go the fuck home.

In Bush's own words regarding Osama Bin Laden, "I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."

and CLinton vowed to stop terrorism in his term, even connecting Iraq to al qaeda, exactly as Bush does now, except it wasnt nearly so criticized back then. yadda yadda it goes on.
NorthPoint
The best quote ever from Bush, "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

So true.
NorthPoint
QUOTE(Innotech @ Oct 29 2004, 05:37 PM)
and CLinton vowed to stop terrorism in his term, even connecting Iraq to al qaeda, exactly as Bush does now, except it wasnt nearly so criticized back then. yadda yadda it goes on.

Source?
clarkma5
I imagine this will get spun severely by the Bush camp. They use fear for control. Damn fascists.
clarkma5
Not to mention they're from typically republican-leaning publications, like the Weekly Standard and the National Review.
Innotech
QUOTE(clarkma5 @ Oct 29 2004, 03:04 PM)
I imagine this will get spun severely by the Bush camp. They use fear for control. Damn fascists.

AHAHAHAHA
oh youre serious.
so I guess Kerry with his "Bush will reinstate the draft and leave social security in a wreck" isnt fear mongering?

ALso keep in mind that Kerry actually praised the "outsourcing" of afghan battle of tora bora when the hunt for Bin Laden was on. He said basically he was glad that American GIs werent going in there and instead more experienced afghan troops. Sounds to me like another about face to gain votes.
In any case, I know bush has fucked up sometimes, all presidents do. however what he HAs done is kept hte US from major attack for the last 4 years, and managed to severely disrupt two major terrorist regimes. Something I find funny...
Kerry claims that Bush "outsourced" the battle of tora Bora. Well no shit, thats what allies are for.
Now Kerry wants to OUTSOURCE the Iraq war to our allies and to the UN. Im not ever claiming bush is perfect, but what he is is osmeone who at least knows what the fuck he wants to do and a pretty good idea of how to do it. Kerry just says "oh I have a better plan" which means jack shit until he actually explains in detail what he wants. Most people have no fucking clue what Kerry wants because Kerry doesnt even know.
Vote Nader.
PAULIE_D
Let's face facts here boys ... the media distorts the truth ... it's up to us to draw our own conclusions and it's usually impossible to find 2 people in the same room that share the exact same view on world politics.
clarkma5
Look, idiot, I MEAN innotech, Bush and the neo-cons are bad for this country. I'm not necessarily anti-Republican (in fact, I like their message of small government) but you have to face the fact that the conservative politicians, who are in complete control of the government, combined with a conservative, nationalistic media are working hard to move the united states to a pseudo-fascist one-party state through fear mongering and inciting intense patriotism that clouds the judgement of the (notably stupid) american public. Do the democrats use fear? Yeah, they do, almost everybody does...it's called rhetoric. The immorality and great extent of the conservative fear-mongering, however, puts them on a completely different level.

If you're a republican, fine, I can understand why; traditionally Republicans have a lot of good things to say that I agree with. You should realize, however, that Bush is the worst thing that has happened to america and will continue to be if re-elected.
Innotech
QUOTE(PAULIE_D @ Oct 29 2004, 03:20 PM)
Let's face facts here boys ... the media distorts truth ... it's up to us to draw our own conclusions and it's usually impossible to find 2 people in the same room that share the same view on world politics.

yes the media makes a living of doing this. BBC, CNN, CBS, MSNBC, ABC, FOx, AL Jazeera...they are all biased as fuck in one direction or another. the trick is to just find the facts in the news and ignore what is obviously opinion. the fact is, regardless of WHERE I found thosel inks, the fact remains the same, Clinton and his advisors BELIEVED IRAQ WAS CONNECTED TO AL QAEDA. Period. I have even seen video of this shit when it happenbed, right around the Lewinsky scandal in 1998 or so. Video itself doesnt lie nearly as easily, especially when every fucking network shows it.
Innotech
QUOTE(clarkma5 @ Oct 29 2004, 03:23 PM)
Look, idiot, I MEAN innotech, Bush and the neo-cons are bad for this country. I'm not necessarily anti-Republican (in fact, I like their message of small government) but you have to face the fact that the conservative politicians, who are in complete control of the government, combined with a conservative, nationalistic media are working hard to move the united states to a pseudo-fascist one-party state through fear mongering and inciting intense patriotism that clouds the judgement of the (notably stupid) american public. Do the democrats use fear? Yeah, they do, almost everybody does...it's called rhetoric. The immorality and great extent of the conservative fear-mongering, however, puts them on a completely different level.

If you're a republican, fine, I can understand why; traditionally Republicans have a lot of good things to say that I agree with. You should realize, however, that Bush is the worst thing that has happened to america and will continue to be if re-elected.

I am republican because htey use common sense when making judgements about issues. they htink things through and use experience. thats not to say Republicans arent greedy fucks or htat they dont screw up. When they do, they fuck up bad, but Democrats are even worse. To be honest, While I am pro Bush I am sick of all the fucking politics, the scare mongering of both sides, smear campaigns, distortions, half truths, all the bullshit from Clintons term to hte present. Dont htink I just turn a lbind eye to what bush does. But as I see it, hes far more capable than Kerry is, but I do agree that govt needs to be less partisan and more evenly divided amongst hte parties, perhaps with more independents mixed in. Nader has some htings I agree with, and a lot I do not, but he doesnt just nod his fucking head to whatever hte american public is currently idealizing. Thats what Kerry does, and why I dont like him. If he at least stood for osmething and stuck with it, Id first of all know hwat the fuck he actually bleieves, and second Id consider anything he says to be far more credible. As it is, I prefer to listen to Edwards than Kerry. As for Bush, I htink Iraq was indeed messed up. I think Saddam did have or was in the process of developing WMDs, and just because the evidence isnt htere, does not mean that there were none. IT just means that we still dont know. thats a hell of a time to make assumptions. Like assuming there is no God just because of Evolution or what have you. Humans just dont KNOW.
However, I think Bush underestimated the scale of Al Qaeda and insurgent retaliation, and should have done a better job selling htis war to the people, because the reasons given are legitimate, but again, shaky, and I also blame aLL the media for turning one of hte reasons: WMDS, into hte main issue. Also all htose fucks who said it was for cheap oil, despite our gas now up to $52/barrel.
American politics in general is bullshit, and unless both parties shape up seriously fast, Im seriously considering oging independent.
DakianDelomast
ooo political stupidity.
clarkma5
yeah, american politics is BS. I already voted, and I voted for Kerry for president, but all the other offices that were open (senators, representatives, state assembly, etc.) I voted libertarian. Libertarians take the sensible, small-government approach of constitutionalist republicans with the open-minded, liberal social policy of democrats, and the end result is ideal: civil liberties for all, less government fluff, less dishonesty in government.

As for you being a Bush supporter, I reiterate my view on bush and his administration: THEY AREN'T REPUBLICANS. Republicans believe in small government that vests power in the states and the individual, NOT a massive federal blob that Bush has repeatedly supported through his actions (didja know he has DOUBLED SPENDING DURING HIS TERM!?) Just look at the Patriot Act: it's a thinly veiled power grab, at the expense of our civil rights. Government LOVES getting more power, and that's what Bush's administration is supporting.

AGAIN, I can TOTALLY, COMPLETELY understand supporting traditional Republicanism; if it weren't for their lack of a liberal social value system (rights for gays, and so on) I would BE a Republican. However, the "republicans" of today are republicans by name only...they're fascists, frequently religiously fundamental, and they're ruining our country. Their propaganda has been so effective as to disguise their evil, misguided agenda from the vast majority of the united states. A vote for Bush is a vote for the destruction of America.
dukenukem
is it just me or are all republican campaigns .. not just the presidential necessarily nastier than others ?
one
Hey, you!

Vote for Jimmy Dean : Biscuits.
Innotech
QUOTE(clarkma5 @ Oct 29 2004, 03:41 PM)
yeah, american politics is BS. I already voted, and I voted for Kerry for president, but all the other offices that were open (senators, representatives, state assembly, etc.) I voted libertarian. Libertarians take the sensible, small-government approach of constitutionalist republicans with the open-minded, liberal social policy of democrats, and the end result is ideal: civil liberties for all, less government fluff, less dishonesty in government.

As for you being a Bush supporter, I reiterate my view on bush and his administration: THEY AREN'T REPUBLICANS. Republicans believe in small government that vests power in the states and the individual, NOT a massive federal blob that Bush has repeatedly supported through his actions (didja know he has DOUBLED SPENDING DURING HIS TERM!?) Just look at the Patriot Act: it's a thinly veiled power grab, at the expense of our civil rights. Government LOVES getting more power, and that's what Bush's administration is supporting.

AGAIN, I can TOTALLY, COMPLETELY understand supporting traditional Republicanism; if it weren't for their lack of a liberal social value system (rights for gays, and so on) I would BE a Republican. However, the "republicans" of today are republicans by name only...they're fascists, frequently religiously fundamental, and they're ruining our country. Their propaganda has been so effective as to disguise their evil, misguided agenda from the vast majority of the united states. A vote for Bush is a vote for the destruction of America.

I dont see the fascism in republicans sorry. I do see how htey have strayed from traditional republican vlaues, which is why I said I dont support everything they do anymore, but the core vlaues remain the same and I feel bush has many of htose core values still. He also has some decidedly liberal values on certain topics htat have been endlessly discussed but I wont go into them. However to me voting for Kerry is throwing votes away. I can understand hating bush but in that case you should really voter independent or we probably will never get out of hte current cycle of bad democrat, bad republican.
clarkma5
Yeah, I understand what you're saying about the current cycle, but here's my view and why I voted for kerry:

The way I see it, there are four major candidates: Bush, Kerry, Badnarik, and Nader. I don't like Nader because the Green Party is a big-government operation. I don't like Badnarik because he's really radical (elimination of public schools, concel and carry without a permit? Pardon?). I HATE Bush because he is a monstrous idiot who, I maintain, operates like a fascist (without a brain. He probably has senile dementia, for what that's worth, which is a wasting disease of the brain). That leaves me with kerry. Now, kerry is not my first choice for somebody who would be president...he's too vague, he's frighteningly centrist, etc. However, I find him intelligent, competent, and I believe he will improve our lot more than the other candidates would, so that's why I voted for him.

Kerry is often called "the lesser of 2 evils" by proponents of third-party supporters, inferring that people should vote third-party. After looking long and hard at third parties this time 'round, I've decided that Kerry is the "lesser of 4 evils", with the other candidates being, simply, a waste of my time.
Innotech
QUOTE(clarkma5 @ Oct 29 2004, 04:40 PM)
Yeah, I understand what you're saying about the current cycle, but here's my view and why I voted for kerry:

The way I see it, there are four major candidates: Bush, Kerry, Badnarik, and Nader. I don't like Nader because the Green Party is a big-government operation. I don't like Badnarik because he's really radical (elimination of public schools, concel and carry without a permit? Pardon?). I HATE Bush because he is a monstrous idiot who, I maintain, operates like a fascist (without a brain. He probably has senile dementia, for what that's worth, which is a wasting disease of the brain). That leaves me with kerry. Now, kerry is not my first choice for somebody who would be president...he's too vague, he's frighteningly centrist, etc. However, I find him intelligent, competent, and I believe he will improve our lot more than the other candidates would, so that's why I voted for him.

Kerry is often called "the lesser of 2 evils" by proponents of third-party supporters, inferring that people should vote third-party. After looking long and hard at third parties this time 'round, I've decided that Kerry is the "lesser of 4 evils", with the other candidates being, simply, a waste of my time.

Id actually prefer you to not vote at all if thats how you decide. Kerry will not fix Iraq, he wont just raise taxes on the rich and he wont changem uch of anyhting.
Speaking of which, raising taxes is what hurts companies in the first place and MAKES them outsource jobs overseas! Great htinking Kerry. Thats one example of what I mean when I say Kerry isnt any smarter than Bush is, because he simply goes with what looks good on peoper, but may end up to be quite different when reality rears its head. ALl presidents have to deal with it. Ideals rarely ever get realized due to bureacracy. I do think Bush made govt bigher, which I dont particularly care for. Now what makes me actually laugh is htat a lot of people vote for Kerry, claimimng he will make america more free, but his socialist agendas are aimed at giving govt MORe control over people, with more care and social programs, and what that does is effectively make people dependent on govt for survival, which I know you can see isnt a good hting, because it makesp eple quite literally slaves to hte system. People voting htemselves technically into slavery. How ironic.
I can see hwy more and more people just dont bother voting.
clarkma5
Kerry's been pretty clear on the fact that he knows that raising taxes on business is what causes outsourcing, and he intends to do something about it. In fact, that's probably his clearest stance on anything.

As for "not bothering to vote", I certainly think it was important for me to vote because I LIKE KERRY. *gasp* He's not perfect *gasp* but he's the best horse in the race. He may not FIX what Bush screwed up, but why the hell would you ever vote for somebody who made those mistakes in the first place!? Kerry's our best chance at the moment; I'm optimistic about an America under a Kerry administration. In Kerry I see Bill Clinton, and Bill Clinton is one of the best presidents this country ever had, and Bill Clinton DEFINITELY wasn't perfect. If perfection was a requirement for every candidate, we wouldn't have elections in this country.

And I also predict that parts of Kerry's agenda I disagree with will be held back by a conservative legislature. What this country NEEDS is to have opposing parties in different branches of government, not all-republican or all-democrat. That way things are compromised and we strike a steady course that will keep our country healthy. For that reason ALONE Kerry is a smart choice for president.
Innotech
QUOTE(clarkma5 @ Oct 29 2004, 05:09 PM)
Kerry's been pretty clear on the fact that he knows that raising taxes on business is what causes outsourcing, and he intends to do something about it. In fact, that's probably his clearest stance on anything.

As for "not bothering to vote", I certainly think it was important for me to vote because I LIKE KERRY. *gasp* He's not perfect *gasp* but he's the best horse in the race. He may not FIX what Bush screwed up, but why the hell would you ever vote for somebody who made those mistakes in the first place!? Kerry's our best chance at the moment; I'm optimistic about an America under a Kerry administration. In Kerry I see Bill Clinton, and Bill Clinton is one of the best presidents this country ever had, and Bill Clinton DEFINITELY wasn't perfect. If perfection was a requirement for every candidate, we wouldn't have elections in this country.

And I also predict that parts of Kerry's agenda I disagree with will be held back by a conservative legislature. What this country NEEDS is to have opposing parties in different branches of government, not all-republican or all-democrat. That way things are compromised and we strike a steady course that will keep our country healthy. For that reason ALONE Kerry is a smart choice for president.

Bush didnt screw anything up anymore than it already was. He didnt exactly fix all the problems he tried to, but he did a good job defending hte country.
As for Bill CLinton, he allowed the WTC bombing to occur as well as the USS xcole incident. He bombed that chemical factory in Sudan because intelligence (Which he actually cut funding to) was supposedly faulty and claimed the factory was tied to Iraq and Al Qaeda (which I still think is possible despite the 9/11 commission findings) In other words bush did what CLinton was too scared to do, and I respect Bush for doing it. CLinton wanted to do it, but never did because it would obviously hurt his polling record and popularity. thats what he was concerned about, not hte black people, not hte poor people, and certainly not hte middle class. He only cared about how he looked to the american public and htey fell for it. Then again, his opponent was a total bore named Bob Dole so I dont blame people for voting for charisma over senility.
But what I dont like about CLinton I like even less in Kerry, because Kerry wont even agree with CLinton if it doesnt follow what americans seem to want. that to me means he wouldnt be a strong decisive leader, and would probably hesistate to do anything, when time is pretty critical. NOw I htink Bush should rerally consider his options in this war if reelected and figure out whats going wrong and how to fix it, but thats easier said than done. Its easier for a senator to say "oh I have a better idea" than it is to magically make that idea happen. I have ideas too, but it doesnt mean that htey will work or provide any advantage over whats already in place. You cant promise america everythingl ike Kerry does and hten expect it all to come true.
Innotech
Im getting a headache guys. Ill be happy to debate this on a later day.
one
^

*guy.


Only you and clarkma have been debating.

I'm telling you, vote Jimmy Dean.
gotvenm
QUOTE(clarkma5 @ Oct 29 2004, 07:09 PM)
and Bill Clinton is one of the best presidents this country ever had

Thats it.
You have been officially pronounced as "Out of your Mind." tongue.gif

Everyone knows Ronald Reagan was the best president we have ever had...
clarkma5
Ronald Reagan brought more problems to the table than solutions. I have no idea why he's idolized so damn much.
umop apisdn
QUOTE(clarkma5 @ Oct 29 2004, 11:41 PM)
Ronald Reagan brought more problems to the table than solutions. I have no idea why he's idolized so damn much.

laugh.gif

I don't know about all that, but I'll agree that Ronnie was/is HIGHLY over-rated IMO.
DakianDelomast
We haven't had a good president since FDR.
McKhaos
I don't know how to say this , but all sings point to the fact that , if Bush is elected again , you gringos are preety much fucked .
So , don't re-elect that son-of-a-Bush .
gotvenm
I say, " Flush the Johns !"
inky159
QUOTE(McKhaos @ Oct 30 2004, 12:48 PM)
[...] son-of-a-Bush .

laugh.gif I like it.
umop apisdn
QUOTE(DakianDelomast @ Oct 30 2004, 08:10 AM)
We haven't had a good president since FDR.

Even though FDR did the Texas-two-step all over the constitution, and from that standpoint he was probably one of the WORST Presidents ever.
DakianDelomast
Oh I know. Hell its even rumored that he knew about pearl harbor. But I will never ever say that he wasn't the right man for the right time.

Actually I want another teddy roosevelt...
clarkma5
*can't speak about pre-Reagan presidents, because I'm young and their actions were so damned distant*

However, if I had to pick a pre-Reagan president I like (outside of people like, ya know, George Washington or Abraham Lincoln) it would probably be Lyndon B. Johnson. He did a helluva lot to advance civil right.
DakianDelomast
QUOTE(clarkma5 @ Oct 30 2004, 05:49 PM)
*can't speak about pre-Reagan presidents, because I'm young and their actions were so damned distant*

However, if I had to pick a pre-Reagan president I like (outside of people like, ya know, George Washington or Abraham Lincoln) it would probably be Lyndon B. Johnson. He did a helluva lot to advance civil right.

angry.gif
clarkma5
?
BlackJack
whistle.gif







*click on it*
PAULIE_D
QUOTE(BlackJack @ Oct 31 2004, 01:08 AM)

wow .... just ..... wow
BlackJack
mhm, yea. my thoughts exactly.
DakianDelomast
QUOTE(BlackJack @ Oct 31 2004, 12:08 AM)
whistle.gif







*click on it*

Horray someone on the internet has an opinion that I could care less about.
ZonDa
QUOTE
Bin Laden's October surprise


  By Paul Reynolds
World Affairs correspondent, BBC News website 



Bin Laden's video message comes four days before the US election
Osama Bin Laden sprung the October surprise many had expected, not in the form of a bomb but as a political bombshell.
Clearly, his video message was designed for maximum impact on the US presidential election, although analysts appear divided as to what impact it will have.

At the same time, it contained a warning, an explanation and an offer.

And, at least in the edited version released by the Arabic TV channel al-Jazeera, it avoided religious rhetoric.

Bin Laden was talking to Americans in a language he thinks they will understand.

Warning

"Oh American people, my talk to you is about the best way to avoid another Manhattan, about the war, its causes, and results," he said at the start of the message.

QUICK GUIDE


What is al-Qaeda?


Thus another 9/11 on the United States is threatened - although one might ask why it has not been achieved, so far at least, if such an attack is still in his mind.

By mentioning Sweden as a country not under threat, he implicitly threatened others that do support US policies.

Explanation

There was much familiar al-Qaeda material here about injustice, the US-Israeli alliance and the fate of the Palestinians.

He interestingly revealed that it was during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 that he first thought of toppling the towers of America.

  Your security does not lie in the hands of Kerry, Bush or al-Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands

Osama Bin Laden


Bin Laden address: Excerpts
Who is Osama Bin Laden? 
"While I was looking at those destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me to punish the unjust one in a similar manner by destroying towers in the United States," he said.

This preceded his alliance with the Americans against the Russians in Afghanistan.

His thinking is therefore very long term.

Osama bin Laden did not put forward a detailed political programme - but he did outline his strategy.

He is a not an irrational fanatic.

That strategy is two fold. It is firstly to get the US and its allies to withdraw from the Muslim world (and stop supporting Israel of course) and secondly to remove the Arab rulers he opposes.

His language for these rulers is dismissive and he lumps President Bush in with them as the son of a former President.

"We did not find it difficult to deal with Bush and his administration because it is similar to regimes in our countries, half of which are governed by the military and the other half of which are governed by the sons of kings and presidents," he said.

"In both categories, you find many who are characterised by hubris, arrogance, greed, and unlawful acquisition of money."

And along the way he scorns Mr Bush's decision to remain in the school classroom for seven minutes after being told that the World Trade Center had been attacked. He knows how to needle his enemy on a personal level.

Offer

"Your security does not lie in the hands of Kerry, Bush or al-Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Each and every state that does not tamper with our security will have automatically assured its own security," he said.

He appears to realise that John Kerry is not in fact offering much change in policy in the war on terror declared by President Bush.

THE BIN LADEN TAPES
29 Oct: Al-Jazeera airs video of Bin Laden admitting he carried out 11 September attacks
15 April: Bin Laden audio tape gives Europe three months to pull troops out of Islamic nations
4 Jan: Al-Jazeera airs audio tape calling on Muslims to keep fighting holy war in Middle East
10 Sept 03: Video footage shows Bin Laden walking through rocky terrain with al-Zawahri, two taped messages accompany video 
So the appeal is to the American people and also to the peoples of other countries interested in their own "security".

He has previously offered a truce with Europe.

Here he is doing so to the United States, perhaps in the knowledge that it will be rejected.

But he can then say later, if he manages to mount another attack, that his offer was rejected.

Incidentally this is not the first time he has taken responsibility for 9/11.

On a videotape found after the war in Afghanistan he is seen talking to his associates and remarking that he, an engineer it must not be forgotten, thought that only the top halves of the twin towers would fall.

In that tape, although not made for public consumption, he revealed himself to be a thoughtful operator as well as a dedicated fighter.

Just as he did in this latest tape.


This is the english vesion of the story

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_ea...ast/3967565.stm
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2018 Invision Power Services, Inc.