Osama bin Laden is dead

[kuzadd]

wrt: osama tapes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videos_of_Osa...mber_16.2C_2001

September 16, 2001

On September 16, 2001, Osama bin Laden issued the following statement via al Jazeera in reference to the 9/11 attacks: "I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation." [1]

Then on Sept 28th/01 another denial.

http://www.justresponse.net/Bin_Laden1.html

Interestingly, the believers of the 'official conspiracy" theory, when faced with these denial announcements of OBL's will say, well how did Aljazeera get this, did it come anonymously?

If the denials came anonymously, as did the confession, why say one is true and one isn't?

Why not just discount them all?as they should be, As non-credible.

Interestingly the one tape was 'found' by the US army, yah, the 'found' a confession tape, I think it was 'fatty binladen' lol!!!!!

[jbg]

Not necessarily, Bush went into this war to get OBL and what do you think would happen if he came out and said he was dead. People would be screaming ..mission done, now get out of the Middle-East!!

Really? With the London Subway attacks, the recent Glasgow Attacks, and others? I don't think so.

[kimmy]

Who dropped the tape off? "Someone"

was that "someone" verified?

That someone could have been, anyone, who was it?

of course it was a scoop, and Al Jazeera ran with it, what media wouldn't, it's totally sensational! Ups the ratings! Ensuring higher rates for advertising. You see Aljazeera regardless of where it is based, is there to make money, same as any western media outlet.

It's interesting that you would think it would work any other way?

it still doesn't make the tape authentic, does it Kimmy?

no, it doesn't.

The contents of the tape would have been highly controversial in the entire Arab world. The decision to play it would not have been made lightly. The stakes for Al Jazeera would have been a lot higher than some ratings grab.

They wouldn't have broadcast it if they didn't consider it credible.

You haven't actually provided any reason to think that the 2004 video *isn't* credible.

Interestingly, the believers of the 'official conspiracy" theory, when faced with these denial announcements of OBL's will say, well how did Aljazeera get this, did it come anonymously?

If the denials came anonymously, as did the confession, why say one is true and one isn't?

Why not just discount them all?as they should be, As non-credible.

Uh, somebody who is delivering video-tapes for Al Qaeda is probably not going to stick around so that their credentials can be checked.

Why did Bin Laden initially deny any connection to the 9/11 attacks?

Because his goal has been to united the Arab world against the US. He knew that if he denied the attacks, the Arab world would view a US attack against him as unjustified aggression.

By 2004, with most of the Arab world furious with Bush, there was no longer any reason to deny the attacks. Some people respond "yah well why did he send out a video just in time to help Bush win the election huh huh huh?"

Well duh. Why wouldn't he. With Bush doing such a great job of turning the Muslim world against America, of course Bin Laden wanted Bush to win the election. Why let Bush get replaced by somebody who Muslims didn't hate? Why let Bush get replaced by somebody who wants to build some kind of truce with the Muslim world? John Kerry winning the 2004 election would have been a big setback for what Bin Laden had been working for.

Somebody has a quote in their signiture that says, essentially, that George W. Bush has done everything that Osama Bin Laden could have hoped for.

I notice as always Kimmy you, resort to smear, and that shows , as always "kimmy's weakness"

I am sorry , I missed the "half-baked conspiracy website" that kimmy was referring to ?

You have not yet provided any information supporting your claim that the 2004 tape is fake. However, I am confident that when or if you do, it'll be from some half-baked conspiracy website. Feel free to prove me wrong, if you can.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

Well duh. Why wouldn't he. With Bush doing such a great job of turning the Muslim world against America, of course Bin Laden wanted Bush to win the election. Why let Bush get replaced by somebody who Muslims didn't hate? Why let Bush get replaced by somebody who wants to build some kind of truce with the Muslim world? John Kerry winning the 2004 election would have been a big setback for what Bin Laden had been working for.

Ahem....point of order.....Iran wanted Bush to win...not Kerry. Iranians are not Arabs, but some have been known to be Muslims (Islamic).

http://www.japantoday.com/jp/news/316095

Back to the fight.....

Edited August 11, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[kimmy]

Ahem....point of order.....Iran wanted Bush to win...not Kerry. Iranians are not Arabs, but some have been known to be Muslims (Islamic).

uh, what's your point?

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

uh, what's your point?

-k

Okay...I'll spell it out for you....not all Muslims hated George Bush in 2004, nor did they all want John Kerry to win the election. So much for that Usama theory.

[kimmy]

Okay...I'll spell it out for you....not all Muslims hated George Bush in 2004, nor did they all want John Kerry to win the election. So much for that Usama theory.

I don't think I said that all Muslims wanted John Kerry to win.

Nonetheless, I think you'd have to be pretty dense to not recognize the widespread demonization and personal hatred directed toward Dubya in the Muslim world.

And you'd have to be pretty dense to not recognize that this widespread hatred of Bush is politically useful for those Muslims who make use of it for their own advantage.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't think I said that all Muslims wanted John Kerry to win.

Nonetheless, I think you'd have to be pretty dense to not recognize the widespread demonization and personal hatred directed toward Dubya in the Muslim world.

And you'd have to be pretty dense to not recognize that this widespread hatred of Bush is politically useful for those Muslims who make use of it for their own advantage.

I called you on a false assertion, the Muslim world, America, and President Bush. It's far more complicated than that and the "muslim world" doesn't stereotype so easily. GWB is a hero in Albania:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle1912989.ece

Getting back to useful idiots for Usama, there are Canadians who use Bush for their own political advantage too....so what?

[kimmy]

I called you on a false assertion, the Muslim world, America, and President Bush. It's far more complicated than that and the "muslim world" doesn't stereotype so easily. GWB is a hero in Albania:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle1912989.ece

Getting back to useful idiots for Usama, there are Canadians who use Bush for their own political advantage too....so what?

I was addressing the position that Truthies usually take:

"wasn't it convenient that the 2004 OBL tape showed up just 4 days before the 2004 US election?"

Of course it was no coincidence. The timing of it was intentional.

"LOL, it's almost as if OBL was helping Bush win the election, LOL!"

Of course he was.

"LOL, so why was OBL helping Bush win the election? The video is a fake made by Bush to help him get re-elected! Or if it's not a fake, then OBL is working for Bush!"

No. Wrong. The reasons OBL wanted Bush to win the 2004 election are obvious.

As for you, Mr Vice President... please use your head for a moment instead of reacting to criticism of Bush like Pavlov's dog reacted to bells.

Do you think OBL is a smart guy, or a dumb guy? Do you think OBL released a video 4 days before the 2004 election without having any idea of what effect it might have on American voters?

Once you've thought about that question for a bit, spend some time thinking about why OBL would want Bush to win.

Did OBL want Bush to win because Bush is beloved in Albania?

Did OBL want Bush to win because policy-analysts in Tehran are mistrustful of Democrats?

Or did OBL want Bush to win because the mere mention of Bush causes angry young men all over the Middle East to join groups like Al Qaeda?

Just think on that. Take as long as you need.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

Did OBL want Bush to win because Bush is beloved in Albania?

Did OBL want Bush to win because policy-analysts in Tehran are mistrustful of Democrats?

Or did OBL want Bush to win because the mere mention of Bush causes angry young men all over the Middle East to join groups like Al Qaeda?

Who cares...Usama was on the list long before Bush ever became president....indeed his major bitching about America stems from actions during Bush #41 and Clinton administrations. So the "muslim world" only got pissed off in January 2001? No successful AlQaeda recruiting before then? No attacks? Nonsense!

The whole premise is ridiculous given what transpired before President Bush ever took office, let alone the 2004 re-election. It's all rubbish....judging from this forum, far more Canadians were interested in Bush getting re-elected or not than the entire "Muslim world".

Edited August 11, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[kimmy]

Who cares...Usama was on the list long before Bush ever became president....indeed his major bitching about America stems from actions during Bush #41 and Clinton administrations. So the "muslim world" only got pissed off in January 2001? No successful AlQaeda recruiting before then? No attacks? Nonsense!

The whole premise is ridiculous given what transpired before President Bush ever took office, let alone the 2004 re-election. It's all rubbish....judging from this forum, far more Canadians were interested in Bush getting re-elected or not than the entire "Muslim world".

Did I say that Muslim terrorists only hate the US because of Dubya?

Did I say that Kerry winning would have smoothed over everything with the Muslim world?

Of course not.

I pose a simple question: which election result would be *better* for OBL?

If you can't recognize that Bush's policies since 9/11, and particularly the invasion of Iraq, have been of tremendous benefit to Bin Laden's cause, then you're beyond help, my friend.

Ron Suskind noted that the CIA analysis of the video led them to the consensus view that the tape was designed strategically to help President Bush win reelection in 2004. Deputy CIA director John E. McLaughlin noted at one meeting, "Bin Laden certainly did a nice favor today for the President." Suskind quoted Jami Miscik, CIA deputy associate director for intelligence, as saying "Certainly, he would want Bush to keep doing what he’s doing for a few more years."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Osama_bi...igence_response

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

If you can't recognize that Bush's policies since 9/11, and particularly the invasion of Iraq, have been of tremendous benefit to Bin Laden's cause, then you're beyond help, my friend.

Bin Laden's cause is not benefitting from thousands of dead recruits....so the word tremendous rings hollow. Did you think President Bush would just lob a few cruise missiles (like Clinton) and call it a day? Shall Bush fear the wrath of Usama Bin Hidin's followers? Your own nation is in Afghanistan killing the Taliban....won't this make Usama's cause even stronger?

Insults only reveal the desperation of your fault ridden construct, particularly with respect to the 2004 US presidential election.

[jbg]

If you can't recognize that Bush's policies since 9/11, and particularly the invasion of Iraq, have been of tremendous benefit to Bin Laden's cause, then you're beyond help, my friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Osama_bi...igence_response

-k

I respectfully disagree. The lesson that the Muslims have learned is that attacks against the US don't have very good results for them.

[B. Max]

I respectfully disagree. The lesson that the Muslims have learned is that attacks against the US don't have very good results for them.

Exactly. This time they didn't find an appeaser in the white house.

[kimmy]

Bin Laden's cause is not benefitting from thousands of dead recruits....so the word tremendous rings hollow. Did you think President Bush would just lob a few cruise missiles (like Clinton) and call it a day? Shall Bush fear the wrath of Usama Bin Hidin's followers? Your own nation is in Afghanistan killing the Taliban....won't this make Usama's cause even stronger?

Insults only reveal the desperation of your fault ridden construct, particularly with respect to the 2004 US presidential election.

Insults reveal my frustration at talking to somebody who keeps avoiding the fundamental question with dodges and red herrings.

My claim is that OBL wanted Bush to win the 2004 election, and made the 2004 video tape with the intention of provoking US voters to vote for Bush.

It's not a "fault ridden construct" unless you can make a credible case as to why OBL would want Kerry to win.

"Lol, Muslims were mad way before Dubya took office!" doesn't address the issue.

"Lol, lotsa dead Al Qaeda recruits!" doesn't address the issue.

"Lol, Bill Clinton woulda just fired some cruise missiles and call it a day!" doesn't address the issue.

Make your case, Mr Vice President. Address the claim that OBL wanted Bush to win the 2004 election, and made the video tape with the intent of provoking US voters to vote for Bush.

I've furnished a quote from a CIA director that they believe OBL wanted Bush to win the election and for "Bush to keep doing what he's been doing for a few more years.

You? All you've got is "Osama's Bin Hidin, Lol!"

-k

[jbg]

Insults reveal my frustration at talking to somebody who keeps avoiding the fundamental question with dodges and red herrings.

Can the two of you lay off the insults? I came to this thread to see if Osama died, not to watch bickering among two posters who agree on a lot usually.

[kimmy]

I respectfully disagree. The lesson that the Muslims have learned is that attacks against the US don't have very good results for them.

That lesson was given when the West went to Afghanistan to show Mullah Omar the folly of harboring terrorists and attempting to force a compromise on issues on which there can be no compromise. The lesson taught to the Muslims in October 2001 was crystal clear.

Sadly, that lesson has been thoroughly muddied since then. What have Muslims learned from, for instance, the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses? Or from the travesty of Abu Ghraib?

If you think back to the weeks following 2001, the entire world was united behind America. The entire world said "we support you in doing what you must to avenge this horrible act." Even the Taliban regime's few friends on the world stage shrugged their shoulders and said "just go." I am very proud that Canada supported and participated in the invasion of Afghanistan. I have never wavered from that position.

I consider it one of the great tragedies of my lifetime that all of this international goodwill and unity with America has been squandered foolishly. Dubya had the world lined up behind him to help fight for justice, reason, and all the good things that western civilization is supposed to stand for. 6 years later, all of that has gone up in smoke, and much of the world probably feels that America's actions have shown very little in the way of justice or reason and the other virtues we're supposed to hold high.

-k

[jbg]

Sadly, that lesson has been thoroughly muddied since then. What have Muslims learned from, for instance, the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses? Or from the travesty of Abu Ghraib?

The answer is plenty. Lest you forget, Saddam's actions and words were vitriolically anti-Western. No leader striding the world stage, except Iran's President, is tempting fate now that Saddam wound up being fished out of a rathole by US troops, and then executed. The handling of the Iraq invasion may not have been perfect, but fighting Radical Islam is a new art that is still a work in progress.

If you think back to the weeks following 2001, the entire world was united behind America. The entire world said "we support you in doing what you must to avenge this horrible act."

********

I consider it one of the great tragedies of my lifetime that all of this international goodwill and unity with America has been squandered foolishly. Dubya had the world lined up behind him to help fight for justice, reason, and all the good things that western civilization is supposed to stand for. 6 years later, all of that has gone up in smoke, and much of the world probably feels that America's actions have shown very little in the way of justice or reason and the other virtues we're supposed to hold high.

-k

The world's support was verbal. At best, the world was supporting invading a resourceless, broke failed state. It is easy to weep crocodile tears of compassion, much the way a Resident Advisor at a college might comfort an upset student. Few countries even matched Canada's efforts.

[bush_cheney2004]

Make your case, Mr Vice President. Address the claim that OBL wanted Bush to win the 2004 election, and made the video tape with the intent of provoking US voters to vote for Bush.

I've furnished a quote from a CIA director that they believe OBL wanted Bush to win the election and for "Bush to keep doing what he's been doing for a few more years.

You? All you've got is "Osama's Bin Hidin, Lol!"

Who cares what Usama wanted or stated in his "videos"? It had nothing to do with the American election results in 2004. You have made the common mistake of correlation vs. cause. Gay marriage had more to do with victory than gay Usama.

Spare us from drivel about squandering US goodwill from your vantage point. That kind of sanctimonious claptrap is best left to equally irrelevant historians. America is the same as it has ever been, and will be the same long after President Bush is gone. If you don't like that, tough noogies.

Usama is either dead or alive, and it doesn't make any frickin' difference.

[bush_cheney2004]

Can the two of you lay off the insults? I came to this thread to see if Osama died, not to watch bickering among two posters who agree on a lot usually.

Sorry, but nobody on this thread knows if Usama is dead or alive. Use the ignore feature if you can't stand "bickering"; I don't mind your past "bickering" in the least.

[bush_cheney2004]

Exactly. This time they didn't find an appeaser in the white house.

Yes sir....that is the fundemental difference. You will not hear President Bush whining about the big bad tewawists getting even more "upset" because the American infidels won't go home. President Bush keeps a bust of Winston Churchill in the Oval Office as inspiration for engaging Usama's and any like minded scourge as long as he has a say in the matter.

Infidels forever.

[kimmy]

Who cares what Usama wanted or stated in his "videos"?

The whole POINT that I was making relates to what OBL wanted to accomplish in his videos.

Truthies point to the 2004 video and say "it's a fake! the Bushies produced it as a boogieman to help Bush get re-elected!" or else they say "OBL is working for Bush!"

I was explaining that Bin Laden had strategic motives to release that video, and that one need not believe in wacky conspiracy theories to understand why he did it.

Which is to say: what Osama wanted to accomplish was THE WHOLE FRICKIN POINT of what I was writing about.

It had nothing to do with the American election results in 2004. You have made the common mistake of correlation vs. cause. Gay marriage had more to do with victory than gay Usama.

In polls taken prior to the video's release, polls showed a narrow lead for Bush or a statistical tie. The first poll after the video showed Bush with a 6 point lead, with just 3 days to go before voting. You can't discount that, especially when the final outcome of the election was very close.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../ixnewstop.html

Spare us from drivel about squandering US goodwill from your vantage point. That kind of sanctimonious claptrap is best left to equally irrelevant historians. America is the same as it has ever been, and will be the same long after President Bush is gone. If you don't like that, tough noogies.

It's not drivel. If Dubya possessed 1/10 of the wisdom of his father, all of this would have turned out far better.

Usama is either dead or alive, and it doesn't make any frickin' difference.

You're right about that much. Truthie and anti-war types talk about OBL as if he was the only reason the West went to war, when in fact he's only the figurehead of what we're fighting against. Whether OBL is still alive or not doesn't change anything.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

I was explaining that Bin Laden had strategic motives to release that video, and that one need not believe in wacky conspiracy theories to understand why he did it.

Which is to say: what Osama wanted to accomplish was THE WHOLE FRICKIN POINT of what I was writing about.

In polls taken prior to the video's release, polls showed a narrow lead for Bush or a statistical tie. The first poll after the video showed Bush with a 6 point lead, with just 3 days to go before voting. You can't discount that, especially when the final outcome of the election was very close.

You don't get to play with the motives of voters or results of an election just to match you theory about the impact of one Usama video. He was old news by then. To suggest that a strategically timed video from Usama tilted the election is folly, as there were other issues of far more relevance to Americans, which varied by state. Indeed, the electoral results were not much different than in 2000, before we even had an interest in "Usama videos". Had the Democrats not run a flawed peacenik candidate with fractures on other key domestic issues, President Bush would have lost the election, regardless of "Usama videos".

My reference to Iran's "endorsement" of Bush was not just an academic exercise to challenge your assertion about the "muslim world". It also had no impact on American voters, nor was it expected to. Usama Bin Hidin' could expect no more and no less.

[jbg]

It's not drivel. If Dubya possessed 1/10 of the wisdom of his father, all of this would have turned out far better.

Jr. is a two-termer. His father a one-termer and against not that strong a candidate. That shows something.

You're right about that much. Truthie and anti-war types talk about OBL as if he was the only reason the West went to war, when in fact he's only the figurehead of what we're fighting against. Whether OBL is still alive or not doesn't change anything.

-k

That's exactly why I say you and Bush-Cheney 2004 are on the same page. As am I.

[jazzer]

Jr. is a two-termer. His father a one-termer and against not that strong a candidate. That shows something.

Yep, sure does.

Sorry, had to return to address that comment. His ratings have been in the toilet consistently since his last election. Edited August 12, 2007 by jazzer