Article: Bin Laden now has religious right to bomb us

[Birdsnest]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/12/60minutes/main655407.shtml

[Niflheimian]

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/110030binladen.jpg

[Claverhouse]

If one nuke went off in America, the whole Middle East would become a radioactive desert.

This would be enough to deter him.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Sam172]

Meh, fair enough.

I want to move to New Zealand anyway...

[Ckyzxr]

If one nuke went off in America, the whole Middle East would become a radioactive desert.

This would be enough to deter him.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

This is one of the reasons Bush was re-elected. The Democrats did a poor job of picking a candidate.

[Utopmk]

If one nuke went off in America, the whole Middle East would become a radioactive desert.

This would be enough to deter him.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

This is one of the reasons Bush was re-elected. The Democrats did a poor job of picking a candidate.

Agreed. A moderate would have been a more realistic canidate for these times. I voted for Kerry, but alot of America is too scared to let a "flag pissing liberal" cower in the face of such things as this. This year, you voted either for security or freedom. Too bad there wasn't a canidate strong enough to offer both.

[booyalab]

This year, you voted either for security or freedom. Too bad there wasn't a canidate strong enough to offer both.

Strong isn't the right word. More like 'verbally persuasive' or 'linguistically strategic' (linguistical strategery? :D ) Kerry tried to reconcile freedom with security, but that can't easily be done without looking like a 'flip flopper'. If he had greater strength ,or confidence in a single position, he would have chosen one side and relied on it being self-evidently true. For someone to convince the American public, or any public during a time of war, that they can have both security and freedom in equal amounts, that would take an EXTREMELY cunning and articulate politician- the likes of which we've never seen. Determination doesn't factor in, because it couldn't be done.

[mgb]

Jeez, and I thought Kerry was a moderate. I thought Howard Dean would have been a great candidate.

As for the article...

Memo to Bush, you won the election. No need to keep scaring everyone for no reason.

[booyalab]

As for the article...

Memo to Bush, you won the election. No need to keep scaring everyone for no reason.

what does that have to do with the article? You think Bush made it up? Osama's actually a bingo-playing grandma in Toledo?

[mgb]

No I don't think its made up. But telling the American public about it isn't going to create a hightened sense of awareness its going to create a distraction, from say all the dead soldiers in in the post-election attack of Falluja.

The odds of bin-Laden being able to secure/use are nuclear bomb are pretty slim. If he can it means that American security forces aren't doing their job abroad. Telling everyone in the world that he could use them is only going to drive bin-Laden and his potential bomb further underground making him even harder to find, making the job of the security forces even harder.

[booyalab]

No I don't think its made up. But telling the American public about it isn't going to create a hightened sense of awareness its going to create a distraction, from say all the dead soldiers in in the post-election attack of Falluja.

The odds of bin-Laden being able to secure/use are nuclear bomb are pretty slim. If he can it means that American security forces aren't doing their job abroad. Telling everyone in the world that he could use them is only going to drive bin-Laden and his potential bomb further underground making him even harder to find, making the job of the security forces even harder.

Have you heard of freedom of the press? Part of the president's job description isn't deciding what every article will be about. Actually the message of the article works against the war on terrorism because it's saying that Osama's got some religious justification now for any additional attacks on us. It could turn the American muslim community's favor against our presence in the middle east.

[Claverhouse]

It wouldn't matter who was in the White House.

You've never had a genuine leftie as pressie, not even FDR ( even were he a communist, being a stalinist communist is not left* ), but suppose the libertarian chap had got in, or some elderly hippy loon: no matter what the incumbent thought, the establishment would order retaliation immediately and the incumbent would find he agreed either posthaste or posthumously.



Claverhouse :ph34r:




[ * The same applies to the Clinton Twins ].

[mgb]

Have you heard of freedom of the press? Part of the president's job description isn't deciding what every article will be about. Actually the message of the article works against the war on terrorism because it's saying that Osama's got some religious justification now for any additional attacks on us.

Have you heard of suppression of freedom of the press through cohersion? The current White House is notorious for banning certain press corps from the White House for not reporting stories with Bush-tinted glasses.

The article works for the war on terrorism because it furthers the idea that bin-Laden is less restricted in carrying out destructive attacks on the US. According to the article bin Laden is more of a threat now, not less of one.

It boils down to this, did bin Laden have "religious permission" to attack the World Trade Center? Did he and al Queda have permission to attack Saudi targets? Do you think he had those two things? If not then do you really think it matters to him if he nukes the US permission or not? Bin Laden creates religious justification for attacks himself, he doesn't need it from anywhere, that is why he is such a threat.



It could turn the American muslim community's favor against our presence in the middle east.

Oh, you mean the pro-Israel muslim community? There might have been a few Iraqis that were pro-Bush at the start of the gulf war, but I think the consensus among them during the election was against Bush.


Arab and Muslim Americans are pondering the impact of President George Bush's re-election after their communities voted overwhelmingly in favour of Democratic Senator John Kerry.

from: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/26E638CA-34FA-4BE2-B9EA-D7F71EFC5769.htm

[booyalab]

Have you heard of suppression of freedom of the press through cohersion?

Oh really? Then why are people saying
that those they know in Iraq are complaining that the American press is disproportionately covering the bad things that are going on in Iraq instead of the good? Why are there any Bush-haters at all if the administration has such control over what's published and considered 'news'?

The rest of what you wrote didn't really have much to do with what I said. I didn't say whether the muslim communities supported Bush or Kerry, I did say they might be more inclined to support Osama if they believe he has religious justification for his actions. I specified that it works against the war on terrorism , not Bush himself. I already know that most minorities don't like Bush. If Kerry was in office now, the fact that Osama has 'religious justification' might still deter muslims from the war on terror.

[booyalab]

Btw, since there was a lot of inherent anti-American ...or anti-anticommunist..bias in the press during the vietnam war, there were multiple war crimes that were wrongly attributed to American soldiers (though granted, not all). This administration probably just wants to prevent that from happening again.
That's likely what you construe as coercion of the press

[mgb]

Btw, since there was a lot of inherent anti-American ...or anti-anticommunist..bias in the press during the vietnam war, there were multiple war crimes that were wrongly attributed to American soldiers (though granted, not all). This administration probably just wants to prevent that from happening again.
That's likely what you construe as coercion of the press


I was talking more about the President and his administration using his "political capital" from 9/11 to call any media outlet with a dissenting opinion unpatriotic. A great example of this would be the White House insistance that pictures of soldiers coffins not be shown so that a human side to the war in Iraq is missing.

I wouldn't call the press wanting to report that as being anti-anticommunist, or communist for that matter. I would call that a press interested in reporting issues that affect the population and the White House stopping them from doing that because it makes them look bad.

This really brings us round trip to how the administration uses misleading stories to steer the American public and the media away from stories like the battle of Falluja which may be somewhat damning to them because they might be victories, but there is a cost.

[mgb]

Oh really? Then why are people saying
that those they know in Iraq are complaining that the American press is disproportionately covering the bad things that are going on in Iraq instead of the good?

Which people are those?

Maybe its hard to cover the good things in Iraq without driving over a land mine or worrying about going outside because you might get beheaded? Maybe when it "bleeds it leads" is taking up the whole news hour and there isn't time for positive human interest stories? Maybe there is a war going on? Maybe, I don't know.


The rest of what you wrote didn't really have much to do with what I said. I didn't say whether the muslim communities supported Bush or Kerry, I did say they might be more inclined to support Osama if they believe he has religious justification for his actions. I specified that it works against the war on terrorism , not Bush himself. I already know that most minorities don't like Bush. If Kerry was in office now, the fact that Osama has 'religious justification' might still deter muslims from the war on terror.

But Osama bin Laden already had religious authority to do what he did, he gave it to himself. 90% of Muslims in America probably don't think that bin Laden is right to be doing what he is doing. The religious authority the article claims bin Laden got for his future attacks came from Saudi Arabia, a terrorist breeding ground because of its extreme religious views. If they didn't have oil there they would be no friend of the US. Most Muslim-Americans aren't going to start going against the US war on terror just because some nut in Saudi Arabia gave some other nut in Pakistan/Afghanistan/Iran/? to bomb the hell out of the US. I really don't think you are giving the the Muslim population enough credit.

My point on the other post was that the killing of Arabs is probably going to have a greater impact on the anti-war and anti-war on terror sentiment than an article about some lunatic religious nut will. To solve that you take the focus away from the war in Iraq and put it on bin Laden.

The point of the al-Jazeera article was to show that the American Muslim population voted for Kerry and I believe they did it not because they don't support the war on terror (as you claim they may not) but because they don't support the war in Iraq.

And that is the Bush smoke screen in a nutshell. Confuse the war in Iraq for the War on Terrorism. I guess it works on some people, not the Muslim Americans.

[Groty]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/12/60minutes/main655407.shtmlOkay, I'm convinced. Bush can declare marshall law and FEMA can take over. I won't mind driving through check points on my way to work everyday.

BLAH!

Phuck fear, live your life.

[Groty]

If one nuke went off in America, the whole Middle East would become a radioactive desert.

This would be enough to deter him.



Claverhouse :ph34r:Here's the problem. If one does go off in the US, the knee-jerk reaction would be to Moonscape the middle east. What if it's really not a middle eastern terrorist? Someone independent and intelligent, with hookups and a secret agenda, could start a global war.

[Groty]

Oh really? Then why are people saying
that those they know in Iraq are complaining that the American press is disproportionately covering the bad things that are going on in Iraq instead of the good?
Well, people watch Auto Racing for the car wrecks. Football for the hard hits...etc...

Besides, the good news won't come until they are eating KFC and making Nike's for us.

[Claverhouse]

Someone independent and intelligent, with hookups and a secret agenda, could start a global war.

Since a number on this forum have a devout belief in their own supremacy in these two attributes, it may have been a mistake to reveal this...


Claverhouse

[mgb]

I think the "hookups" part might be an INTPs undoing. Plus we would probably get bored of trying to pull it off :)