PDA

View Full Version : Bin Laden releases new tapes


G4scott
Feb 11, 2003, 02:27 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/11/sprj.irq.wrap/index.html

He's calling for all muslims to fight the US and protect Iraq. There's more to come, but none of the news sites have been updated with it yet...

Moxiemike
Feb 11, 2003, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by G4scott
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/11/sprj.irq.wrap/index.html

He's calling for all muslims to fight the US and protect Iraq. There's more to come, but none of the news sites have been updated with it yet...

And shooting up the chart with a flourish is M.C. O. Bin Laden, with his newest single on Flaming Turban records.......

Heehee. I want an Mp3 of it. So the RIAA can bust me. ;)

Foucault
Feb 11, 2003, 02:42 PM
So I guess he's still alive.... All the more reason to go to WAR!!! Woo hoo!!

Mr. Anderson
Feb 11, 2003, 02:52 PM
I don't see what benefit Bin Laden lending his 'support' to the people of Iraq is going to do except just get everyone all worked up. What's Sadam got to think on this one? He doesn't need any more problems and Bin Laden would be a problem, regardless on whether he's in the country or not.

D

Chad4Mac
Feb 11, 2003, 03:16 PM
The next tidbit of news should be coming from Iraq saying that they do not support Bin Laden and have no filiation with the terrorist group.

If not, I feel that the American people will overwhelmingly support a war with Iraq.

It's a waiting game...

Chad4Mac

3rdpath
Feb 11, 2003, 03:27 PM
amazingly convenient timing isn't it?

the u.s. can't provide a link between osama and iraq and now "he" provides one for us...just in time to support our war....

yea, right.

the media's being played like a fiddle here.

G4scott
Feb 11, 2003, 03:34 PM
OK, here's the story on the tapes, as far as I know.

-They could be over a year old, because there is no proof of when they were created.

-The arab tv station that aired the tapes formerly denied the existance of such tapes.

This will probably raise the terrorism alert in the US, and at US embassays and military bases around the world. I can bet, though, that whoever was in charge of airing these tapes, whether or not they are fresh or not, really wants the US to go to war with Iraq. The only problem, is that now, it will fuel the fire for terrorism against the US and possibly our allies.

barkmonster
Feb 11, 2003, 04:16 PM
In the UK we've had similar stories, right after they started going on about the hightened security around Heathrow Airport (even terrorists only focus on the south of England just like the government and media do, apparently).

There's been nothing other than vague reports of a possible threat today. Then later today, around the time you'd imagine the US governent had been at work for a few hours, we get this report of a new bin laden video.

Chad4Mac
Feb 11, 2003, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by 3rdpath
amazingly convenient timing isn't it?

the u.s. can't provide a link between osama and iraq and now "he" provides one for us...just in time to support our war....

yea, right.

the media's being played like a fiddle here.

Right. The U.S. made the tapes.

Anyway, Iraq still has the upper hand. It's quite simple: they release a statement saying we do don't support Bin Laden and we are working with the UN to solve this worldly problem.

That's what RATIONAL thinking countries do. But since were trying to reason with a IRRATIONAL country this won't happen.

Chad4Mac

MrMacMan
Feb 11, 2003, 05:01 PM
God damn.

Bin Laden doesn't look any different. He looks exactally the same as the last videos. wait a minute...

what could that mean?

Oh well. I don't care any more.

dswan34
Feb 11, 2003, 05:13 PM
God damn.

Bin Laden doesn't look any different. He looks exactally the same as the last videos. wait a minute...

what could that mean?


-It could mean that an audiotape was released today and the video on your screen is the same old stuff.

3rdpath
Feb 11, 2003, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by Chad4Mac


Right. The U.S. made the tapes.

Anyway, Iraq still has the upper hand. It's quite simple: they release a statement saying we do don't support Bin Laden and we are working with the UN to solve this worldly problem.

That's what RATIONAL thinking countries do. But since were trying to reason with a IRRATIONAL country this won't happen.

Chad4Mac

actually, i was commenting on the timing of the tape's release...

but if you're blissfully naive enough to believe the government wouldn't stoop to creating evidence, then i've got some scenic coastal property to sell you.


enjoy your chocolates, forrest....
:rolleyes:

macfan
Feb 11, 2003, 05:32 PM
If the US was creating the tape, don't you think the link would have been made much more plain? I didn't hear much of a solid link there other than bin Laden calling for and offering Saddam support. Also, was there no comment from bin Laden about the shuttle, a recent event that has been hailed by others as evidence for God's judgment on America? Seems a little out of character for him not to gloat over this. The fact that there is no video makes me wonder what's wrong with bin Laden. Did he have a sex change operation? Did his arms get blown off? Part of his face? Is he so sick that he looks like he's about to die? It's not hard to do a video. Canon ZR series cameran and a 12 inch powerbook make a mobile studio. Burn it on a DVD and it's easier to smuggle than an audio tape. Is it really him, or is he dead? We really can't tell.

job
Feb 11, 2003, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by 3rdpath
the media's being played like a fiddle here.

ah, but which media? ;)

Al-Jajazerra or CNN? :p

job
Feb 11, 2003, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by barkmonster
In the UK we've had similar stories, right after they started going on about the hightened security around Heathrow Airport (even terrorists only focus on the south of England just like the government and media do, apparently).

What about the Algerian illegals/asylum seekers who were producing ricin?

Besides the fact they murdered a police officer...

ddtlm
Feb 11, 2003, 05:39 PM
3rdpath:

Paranoid.

wdlove
Feb 11, 2003, 05:57 PM
The tape should not have been released by our media without our government having a chance to check for any secret code. By government estimates there are approximately 5,000 Al Qaeda members is the US. The media should not help bin Laden pass on messages on to his troops. :(

barkmonster
Feb 11, 2003, 06:15 PM
What about the Algerian illegals/asylum seekers who were producing ricin?

Besides the fact they murdered a police officer...

We were lucky they were caught it time, who knows what they could have done.

It's the timing of both the heathrow security increase and the bin laden tape being within apparent hours of each other that I'm refering to.

NOT all recent news items relating to terrorism!

It's a little too convenient timing for both news items to come out on the same day.

Unless I'm reading too much into it and they released the tape after the security increase so they didn't alarm people by doing it the otherway round. I can only imagine the panic if the bin laden tape was known about publically before the tanks and troops rolled into heathrow to assist the police. People would think all kinds of irrational things.

macdiehard
Feb 11, 2003, 07:03 PM
My gosh, the ministry of deception and propaganda must be laughing at how easy everyone takes it all in. Give me a break!

Here is the latest from John Ashcroft. Remember Germany 1930s, everyone went along for the ride. Of course those of us speaking out may soon not be able to. The fabrication of external enemies is always the classic means of state manipulation, why do you think there always is one?

Canada here I come.

"
John Ashcroft has created closely-guarded draft-legislation that extends the powers of the Patriot Act in ways not previously imagined by the average, trusting citizen. PBS calls it "a sweeping expansion of the government's police powers." Secret arrests of U.S. citizens. Stripping of U.S. citizenship. Surveillance of citizens without judicial sanction or oversight. Powers so frightening to one insider that he or she leaked the document to the non-partisan Center for Public Integrity, which, in turn, gave it to PBS to place on its web site. (see below) CPI's Charles Lewis tells PBS's Bill Moyers (see below), "The realm between public and private, between foreign and domestic, all these things have morphed into the citizen against all of this out there this morass of regulations and rules and intrusions. And at the same time they can come after you, get your credit card data, your library records, your Internet searching, everything. And they'll decide whether or not you're a suspect or not. Whether or not they like you. If you're a disfavored political group, or from the wrong ethnic background, then you might become on the radar screen of some folks that you don't know about, you can't find out about, and they can do things. They have this is incredible power." Lewis notes that the Ashcroft draft-legislation was leaked now so that people would know about it and do something to stop it before we're in the middle of a war or a terrorist attack: "I'm afraid they're waiting for a war or something and then they're gonna pop this baby out and then try to jam it through." --Politex, 02.08.03

G4scott
Feb 11, 2003, 07:04 PM
Ok, before anybody else goes off about how the media is jumping the gun playing the tapes and such, remember that it was that major arab TV network (Al Jazeera?) that played these tapes, even though they had previously denied existence of such tapes. The US, and other news agencies, are just reporting on what another news agency is airing.

There is also no mention of when the tapes were made. They could be really old.

The government also knew about these tapes hours before they were broadcasted by anybody. Colin Powell had mentioned something earlier in the day to congress, or some other group.

What we need to do, is position all of our troops, and have them ready for war in Iraq, and give saddam his final warning: Show us everything you've got, or tell us who you sold/gave it to, or we will OWN your sorry little @$$... I have a feeling that the reason saddam is refusing to comply with un resolutions and show us any weapons that we know he has produced, is becasue he has sold some of them to terrorist groups. This is a scarry thought. Either we take out Saddam soon, or force him to destroy whatever WMD's and chemical weapons he's got, because sooner or later, they will most likely end up in the hands of terrorists, if they aren't already.

macdiehard
Feb 11, 2003, 07:12 PM
By the way for everyone that trusts in their Government. The UK is an uproar over Tony Blair misleading the House of Commons. Apparently the secret intelligence dossier presented to the house and praised by Colin Powell included 9 pages plagerized from a US students Phd thesis on the 1990 Gulf War. Basically Blair passed off 1990 information as current.

British Intelligence even called leading UK newspapers to say they didn't have anything to do with the report.

In order to justify the war, they have prove the connection with terrorists because everyone reallly knows that Sadaam doesn't have the intention or capability to attack USA. They need this connection badly and la Voila Bin Laddy turns up again.

Isn't this a board for computer people, they can do anything they want.

1990 lies - Iraqis stole incubators - truth, story invented by New York PR agency

Powell presents photos of Iraqis on Saudi border - Florida journalist proves the pictures are false when she orders her own satelite photos.

Afghanistan - no way to prove Satelite photos anymore, US bought up all commericial rights. They live and learn and get smarter.

Remember Germany, everyone went along for the ride. Are you riding this time?

macfan
Feb 11, 2003, 07:34 PM
DUCK!

Here comes another black helicopter!

LethalWolfe
Feb 11, 2003, 07:56 PM
Okay, so where's Don't Hurt Me? We need another zealot to counter-balance Macdiehard. :D


Lethal

Kid Red
Feb 11, 2003, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by dswan34
God damn.

Bin Laden doesn't look any different. He looks exactally the same as the last videos. wait a minute...

what could that mean?


-It could mean that an audiotape was released today and the video on your screen is the same old stuff.


Yes, that's an old photo. When you only have audio they show a picture of the person talking or something for the viewer to look at.

Chad4Mac
Feb 11, 2003, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by 3rdpath


actually, i was commenting on the timing of the tape's release...

but if you're blissfully naive enough to believe the government wouldn't stoop to creating evidence, then i've got some scenic coastal property to sell you.


enjoy your chocolates, forrest....
:rolleyes:

Oh dear. Calm down weeman.

Who's playing the media's fiddle?

Chad4Mac

3rdpath
Feb 11, 2003, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
3rdpath:

Paranoid.

not to stretch your limited vocabulary but the best description would be: skeptical

even in my relatively short lifetime i've witnessed numerous lies and deceptions by our government...such as emphatic denials of u2 planes over cuba...until francis gary powers was captured. the bay of pigs... which has been conveniently rewritten in our history books to not include anyone from the u.s military. u.s. initiated coups...to more recent deceptions such as the incubator story cited by macdiehard in a previous post( a ploy to win the support of women for our war effort).

i'd ask the families of the 58,000 soldiers who died in vietnam if they feel the government was truthful about our intentions there.

i wonder how the young guy who, years ago, proudly showed me his new bulldog tattoo would now feel knowing that the u.s. government sent his chopper into somalia ill-prepared and without a decisive mission.

he trusted his government enough to bet his life on it...i don't

MrMacMan
Feb 11, 2003, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by Kid Red



Yes, that's an old photo. When you only have audio they show a picture of the person talking or something for the viewer to look at.

Bah.

Okay so I opened a thread about the lieing of this tape.

Look at it.
:shamefull promotion:
Hey I'm allowed one every 100 posts.

macfan
Feb 11, 2003, 11:40 PM
such as emphatic denials of u2 planes over cuba...until francis gary powers was captured.

Powers was captured in the Soviet Union, not Cuba.

More to the point, the truth about Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was bad enough without any of the alleged fabrications produced by Kuwait before the United Nations.

the bay of pigs... which has been conveniently rewritten in our history books to not include anyone from the u.s military.

Don't know what you're reading. I've always read that the Bay of Pigs was a US-backed operation.

3rdpath
Feb 12, 2003, 12:46 AM
Originally posted by macfan


Powers was captured in the Soviet Union, not Cuba.

More to the point, the truth about Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was bad enough without any of the alleged fabrications produced by Kuwait before the United Nations.



Don't know what you're reading. I've always read that the Bay of Pigs was a US-backed operation.

my mistake, meant ussr but was thinking ahead...change location-statement still stands. flat-out lies were told.

re: bay of pigs...the government never denied backing "1500 cuban expatriates" but the truth was there were american military personnel involved. these semantics were quite important in our ability to deny invading another country.

and the " alleged fabrications" were a tandem effort by the u.s. and kuwait.

748s
Feb 12, 2003, 06:40 AM
Originally posted by 3rdpath


i'd ask the families of the 58,000 soldiers who died in vietnam if they feel the government was truthful about our intentions there.

[/B]

they got vietnam up and running over the gulf of tonkin incident. that incident turned out to be pure fantasy, never happened. fabricated to have a war. too many people died based on a lie.
has anything changed?

peterjhill
Feb 12, 2003, 08:14 AM
What a stupid arguement this is:

The State Department, eager to boost support for a possible war against Iraq, portrayed the audiotape, broadcast by al-Jazeera television in Qatar Tuesday, as proof that Iraq and bin Laden's al Qaeda network were in cahoots.

From:Reuters (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=1&cid=578&u=/nm/20030212/ts_nm/iraq_dc)

This does not prove they are in "cahoots" All it means is that 'Osama' knows how to take advantage of a situation. He sees this as a way to increase membership in al Qaeda. If we go to war against Iraq, it is certain that we are gonna kill a sh'eye't load of Iraqis. The wives and children of the dead (and I am sure we will probably have widowers as well) will feel that Osama is right and happily volunteer to be his next suicide bomber. This does NOT mean that Sadaam and Osama have had ANY talks directly or indirectly.

It is a dangerous game that we play. I am not sold on war yet. I am more concerned with how we will act after we bomb them. We have to convince the Iraqi people that they are better off without Sadaam, and many of the citizens there seem pretty happy now. They aren't of course the minority ethnic groups. These people, after a war need to have all the food and water they need. They will need jobs, a community, the things that people in the USA feel are necessary (except for the SUVs). Otherwise there will be a painful occupation of Iraq or worse, countries pulling their troops out of an unstable Iraq which could then disrupt its neighbors like Turkey and Iran, specifically Turkey.

All in all, it is a tough place to be in, for the leaders of the UN security council. They will find it difficult to gain the overwhelming support in their countries for any course of action.

MacBandit
Feb 12, 2003, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by macdiehard
By the way for everyone that trusts in their Government. The UK is an uproar over Tony Blair misleading the House of Commons. Apparently the secret intelligence dossier presented to the house and praised by Colin Powell included 9 pages plagerized from a US students Phd thesis on the 1990 Gulf War. Basically Blair passed off 1990 information as current.

British Intelligence even called leading UK newspapers to say they didn't have anything to do with the report.

In order to justify the war, they have prove the connection with terrorists because everyone reallly knows that Sadaam doesn't have the intention or capability to attack USA. They need this connection badly and la Voila Bin Laddy turns up again.

Isn't this a board for computer people, they can do anything they want.

1990 lies - Iraqis stole incubators - truth, story invented by New York PR agency

Powell presents photos of Iraqis on Saudi border - Florida journalist proves the pictures are false when she orders her own satelite photos.

Afghanistan - no way to prove Satelite photos anymore, US bought up all commericial rights. They live and learn and get smarter.

Remember Germany, everyone went along for the ride. Are you riding this time?

What's your source? Where can I get more information on this?

macdiehard
Feb 12, 2003, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by MacBandit


Definately read Maggie O'Kane, has the incubator story and fake satelite photographs. There is no information in the US media. Storming Norman came out against the war, it's hardlly reported in US media. Let me if you want more stuff.

What's your source? Where can I get more information on this?

Maggie O'Kane: War in Iraq
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/12-4-2002-31589.asp

False trails that lead to the al-Qaeda 'links'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,887381,00.html

UK war dossier a sham, say experts
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,890916,00.html

Don't let the facts get in the way
Given its history, US intelligence should come with a health warning
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,889664,00.html

macdiehard
Feb 12, 2003, 11:31 AM
Excerpted from the Manchester Guardian, here is a proven example of faking Satelite photos for their own ends.

------

No casus belli? Invent one!

As Colin Powell presents evidence to the UN to justify war, Maggie O'Kane argues that the US's justification for the first Gulf war does not bear scrutiny

Wednesday February 5, 2003

In 1990 as the US prepared for its first war with Iraq there was heavy reliance on the use of "classified" satellite photographs purporting to show that in September 1990 - a month after the invasion of Kuwait - 265,000 Iraqi soldiers and 1,500 tanks were massing on the border to gear up to invade Saudi Arabia. The threat of Saddam aggressively expanding his empire to Saudi Arabia was crucial to the decision to go to war, but the satellite pictures were never made public.

Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2 1990. The US cabinet met the same day. At that point, war was no more than a possibility. Norman Schwarzkopf recalls the prevailing mood in his autobiography, It Doesn't Take a Hero. He quotes General Colin Powell's remark to him: "I think we could go to war if they invaded Saudi Arabia. I doubt if we would go to war over Kuwait."

Within days the mood at the top had hardened. When Schwarzkopf next met Powell, he was told to prepare to go to Saudi Arabia. "I was stunned," he says in his book. "A lot must have happened after I left Camp David that Powell wasn't talking about. President Bush had made up his mind to send troops."

A lot had changed. By the early weeks of September, America and Britain were leading the march towards war. Somehow, almost without anybody noticing, the agenda was changing. Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait alone was no longer acceptable. New resolutions had been adopted by the UN security council

The photographs, which are still classified in the US (for security reasons, according to Brent Scowcroft, President Bush senior's national security advisor), purportedly showed more than a quarter of a million Iraqi troops massed on the Saudi border poised to pounce. Except, when a resourceful Florida-based reporter at the St Petersburg Times persuaded her newspaper to buy the same independently commissioned satellite photos from a commercial satellite to verify the Pentagon's line, she saw no sign of a quarter of a million troops or their tanks.

Jean Heller, an investigative reporter on the St Petersburg Times, has been nominated for a Pulitzer prize five times and come second twice, so when she asked permission to spend $3,200 (1,950) on two satellite pictures, the newspaper backed her.

Heller's curiosity had been aroused in September when she read a report of a commercial satellite - the Soyuz Karta - orbiting and taking pictures over Kuwait. She wanted to see what the only independent pictures would make of the alleged massive build-up of Iraqi troops on the Kuwait/Saudi border. Soyuz Karta agreed to provide them. But no trace of the 265,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks that the US officials said were there could be found in the photographs.

"The satellite pictures were so clear that at Riyadh airport in Saudi Arabia you could see American planes sitting wingtip to wingtip," Heller says.

She took the photographs for analysis to two experts. "I looked at them with a colleague of mine and we both said exactly the same thing at exactly the same moment: 'Where are they?'" recalls Peter Zimmerman, a satellite expert at George Washington University.

'We could see clearly the main road leading right through Kuwait, south to Saudi Arabia, but it was covered with sand banks from the wind and it was clear that no army had moved over it. We could see empty barracks where you would have expected these thousands of troops to be billeted, but they were deserted as well."

Jean Heller wrote her story for the St Petersburg Times. It opened with the words: "It's time to draft Agatha Christie for duty in the Middle East. Call it, The Case of the Vanishing Enemy."

Looking back now, Heller says: "If the story had appeared in the New York Times or the Washington Post, all hell would have broken loose. But here we are, a newspaper in Florida, the retirement capital of the world, and what are we supposed to know?"

A year later, Powell would admit to getting the numbers wrong. There was no massive build-up. But by then, the war had been fought.

macfan
Feb 12, 2003, 03:11 PM
Don't leave out the part about how the US managed to make it look like we had more forces in the region by showing the same material being off loaded again and again!

King Fahd met with Richard Cheney and requested U.S. military assistance for Saudi Arabia on August 6, four days after Iraq invaded Kuwait. That there may have been incorrect intelligence estimates later as to Iraqi troop strength in Kuwait probably didn't have any real effect on the decision to deploy forces to defend Saudi Arabia, and certainly had no impact on the decision to eject Saddam from Kuwait after negotiations failed. No one doubted the presence of Iraqi forces in Kuwait.

As Colin Powell presents evidence to the UN to justify war, Maggie O'Kane argues that the US's justification for the first Gulf war does not bear scrutiny

The headline on the story is, like the alleged troop strength estimates, something of a PR spin. The UN and US justification for the first Gulf War was that Saddam had invaded Kuwait and wasn't leaving when asked, not that his troops were massing on the Saudi border. I saw the Iraqi tanks in Kuwait City on August 2 on CNN, as did the rest of the world. Did the Kuwaitis make up some things that were even worse? Maybe so--they certainly used a PR firm to their benefit, but the facts do bear out that there was more than sufficient justification for military action against Iraq to remove him from Kuwait.

macdiehard
Feb 12, 2003, 04:01 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by macfan
[B]

King Fahd met with Richard Cheney and requested U.S. military assistance for Saudi Arabia on August 6, four days after Iraq invaded Kuwait. That there may have been incorrect intelligence estimates later as to Iraqi troop strength in Kuwait probably didn't have any real effect on the decision to deploy forces to defend Saudi Arabia, and certainly had no impact on the decision to eject Saddam from Kuwait after negotiations failed. No one doubted the presence of Iraqi forces in Kuwait.


"Incorrect intelligence" wasn't the case. It was deliberate deception using a faked photographs. Those photographs were used to convince King Fahd to except American troops in Saudi, whos presence is one of the biggest thorn to some people in the Islamic world.

Macfan, we have differenct values, I assume that "they lie" and deceive all the time because they are interested in power, oil, selling weapons etc. You assume they are acting in your best interests, ends justify means. I am sure we'll never agree on any perspective, however the evidence is irrefutable that they the governement uses deception all the time - that this is ok and even valuable, is a value judgement which assumes a huge amount of trust, unfortunately I don't have that trust and I think an increasing amount of Americans don't trust them either.


Anyway I respect your opinion.

macdiehard
Feb 12, 2003, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by macfan
but the facts do bear out that there was more than sufficient justification for military action against Iraq to remove him from Kuwait.

Maybe so, but the facts also bear out that the US government uses lies and deception to further it's objective and it may suggest that some of what we are hearing now is lies and deception. If you are confortable with that, then fine, a lot of people are not, in America and around the world.

Also the concept of that we are in a crisis i.e the War on Terrorism which therefore requires harsh measures, like lieing and deception and suspending all due legal process and rights of privacy, is a classic strategy employed by all the Nazi dictators and nasty dictators of the world.

The main thing about the Germany was that as long as they were just killing jews, the other people didn't care. It's a very very dangerous position to take.

macfan
Feb 12, 2003, 05:23 PM
It was deliberate deception using a faked photographs.

We don't know that. We do know that the request for help came before the alleged photos allegedly showing that there weren't Iraqi troops on the border with Kuwait. If you look at the size of Kuwait, there is no difference from a military standpoint between having troops further north in Kuwait vs. having them massed in the south. Troops in Kuwait are by nature of geography on the Saudi border. Was the threat exaggerated? Could be, but then again, they had just had a big shock in that Saddam actually invaded Kuwait.

What is sometimes called deception and lying is often a matter of framing known facts and placing certain emphases on particular elements therein to support a particular course of action. It is inevitable in all discourse. For example, either a the French or German official the other day made the argument that he saw "no evidence" of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That's nuts. There's plenty of evidence. However, from the perspective of his government, the evidence isn't convenient and concrete enough to warrant action at this time, so it becomes "no evidence." At the same time, how can one really argue that the so called bin Laden tape shows that Saddam and Osama are allies? Colin Powell seems to think they are aligned, but there wasn't much in the tape to indicate a solid connection (there is other evidence of Saddam's links to Islamic terrorists). However, Powell and the administration have chosen to characterize the tapes as showing a growing nexsus between the two.

About deception, it can be a very useful tool, particluarly in time of war. The Japanese used deception prior to their raid on Pearl Harbor. Deception saved thousands of allied lives in WWII as false information was fed to Germany about allied plans. Having said that, it is important for the government to be truthful and it is important to protect the legal processs and rights that we enjoy. At the same time, there are actions that need to be taken to provide better security. You are seeing the tension between those two play out, and you are seeing our system of checks and balances do its job quite well. We are not suspending legal processes and rights. For example, the traitor John Walker was tried in a court. Terrorist Richard Reid, who tried to blow up an airliner and was only stopped by his own stupidity and the attention of other passengers and cabin staff was not summarily executed. He was tried in a court of law and was given his full legal rights.

The main thing about the Germany was that as long as they were just killing jews, the other people didn't care.

That's not the way it was. Do not rewrite history like that. They didn't fire up the camps until after they started the war. The main thing about Germany was that the rest of the world was unwilling to face down Hitler when he was small and weak, and they were forced to face him down when he was big and powerful. The world will do well to learn from that error in an era where big and powerful can be had for a few pounds of enriched uranium.

Did you know that the general thinking at the time in the region was that Saddam would never invade Kuwait because one Arab state wouldn't attack another Arab state? Almost comical in hindsight.

macdiehard
Feb 12, 2003, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by macfan


You are seeing the tension between those two play out, and you are seeing our system of checks and balances do its job quite well.

No you are seeing or believing it's doing a job quite well.

Your answers are well crafted, almost too professional but not convincing to those who are awake. You choose your way of life, if you and fellow Americans believe in war and destruction as way of life, you are all entitled to it.

Unfortunately life is a circle. All arguments have a flip side but karma always comes to roost. You can argue till the cows come home that Hiroshima was neccessary to prevent suffering and one day some people, may use the same argument to drop a nuclear bomb on USA. They will use all the same arguments. We had to get them before they got this. Of course you will argue that they are evil and on on wrong side of right and wrong but the only reality will be that a b**** has gone off.

The War on Terrorism is just setting off an endless chain of destruction. Unless the peace lovers elevate the spirititual awakening of this country, it will end up being destroyed. I really hope that doesn't happen but if you all want destruction it will happen. You have the free will to decide whether to destroy another or not but you don't have the free will to prevent the karmic consequence.

It's your choice my friend. I will choose the path of peace. It looks like you and your brothers will choose a path of destruction. It is your right and I don't deny that.

You may see your country as a peace maker other see a country with masive amounts of weapons of mass destruction, biological weapons, chemical weapons. They see a country alway seeking another war, a country encircling the world with milititary bases. A country acting alone against world opinion. We both wear glasses but of different colors.

Killing is sin, in every religion. As you sow shall you reap, karma is inevitable, all the woman, families, children that die in Irak, karma will be reaped this lifetime, next life time, the life time after that. I can argue all day but I can not bring your enlightenment through words. You can only experience it. This life time your support death and destruction, maybe next or next after that you will support peace. Enjoy your journey my friend, it's all true, nothing right or wrong about it. You choose your experience.

macdiehard
Feb 12, 2003, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by macfan


The world will do well to learn from that error in an era where big and powerful can be had for a few pounds of enriched uranium.



I think the world is learning this, and that's why France, Germany, and Russia, and China are starting to wake up to the fact if they don't block the USA now it will become an unstoppabl tyrant on the world.

One thing that all surprises me about American society is that people keep repeating over and over again how incredible it is at the same it's probably the only country in the world where children regularly gun other children down in their play grounds. Has it ever occured to you Macdiehard that the USA is a civilization that is serious ill and in decline? Has it ever occured to you the connection to the violence in your own society and the size of your miliitary and weapons exports - 53 billion last year. It's all connected. I love many things about America but it is seriously ill.

macfan
Feb 12, 2003, 06:45 PM
You may see your country as a peace maker other see a country with masive amounts of weapons of mass destruction, biological weapons, chemical weapons. They see a country alway seeking another war, a country encircling the world with milititary bases. A country acting alone against world opinion. We both wear glasses but of different colors.

Your perspcetive is too one-sided. Sure, there are those who don't like the United States. However, a look at the facts would tend to indicate that they see a country which they would like to move to and live in because of the ecomomic opportunity and freedom that it represents. Remember the student protests in China in 1989? They built a statue based on the Statue of Liberty and called it the Goddess of Democracy. This is not because they hated the United States and saw us as imperialists. A look at the popular culture around the world indicates not hatred, but admiration. (Yes, I am aware of the cultural imperialism arguments, but no one if forcing people around the world to wear jeans or like Michael Jordan).

Killing is sin, in every religion.

Indeed, that is not the case. Many religions do not proscribe killing. Islamic law, for example, allows for capital punishment for a variety of offenses including adultery. It also allows for wars against the infiedels.

It raises a question. Is it moral to kill someone to protect someone else? If someone comes into my house and threatens my family, I might feel bad after I kill him with a gun or a baseball bat, but I won't be guilty of murder. If I am able but do not defend my family and they are killed, am I not a party to the crime of murder?

The War on Terrorism is just setting off an endless chain of destruction.

What would you specifically propose be done about the problem of terrorism in the short term and in the long term?

There are always two sides to an argument, but those sides are not always equally valid. An argument could be and was made for slavery in the United States, an argument was made against it. The two are not equally valid, however. Not in this life, and not in any other.