This chat board is for comments on models, mag features, events, and all model-related stuff

Monday, November 01, 2004

Americans are ready once again to vote for their next President - like they do every four years, on "Election Tuesday".
The question is - go for Dubya or Kerry? The real question is - what do you really get when you vote for one or the other? (full story here)


At 11/01/2004 3:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Bin Laden truly wants W to win this election, he would NEVER have made an appearance five days before the election. This election is important to him,too. Because W was ahead in the polls, Bin Laden would have just kept quiet, not risking to upset the applecart. What he would really like is for a President John Kerry to pull our troops out of the mideast. Then, when Musharraf is finally assassinated in Pakistan, Bin Laden would have time to get his hands on some of those nukes while their guards are trying to figure out how to save their own hides. Now Bin Laden might well sit on those for a few years, perhaps helping Iran build up its nuclear arsenal or he might use one immediately. If either scenario comes to fruition, everything we know and do on a daily basis will be at risk. Bush knows this. He has decimated Bin Laden's ranks and kept him so far underground that Bin Laden's own mother probably misses the regular beatings.

Bush stays, and the pressure on Iran, Syria and N. Korea becomes so great, they give up their nuclear programs, or in North Korea's case (a regime propped up by aid and plutonium from Clinton), Kim Jong Il's regime collapses and is taken over by South Korea (a real possibility).

You have two choices in the age of nuclear terrorism: Preemption before muslim extremists get nukes, or reaction afterward. Negotiating with lying mass murderers is not an option (look how well it worked with Kim Jong Il in 1996). Give Iran nuclear capabiltiy, which Kerry may well do to avoid real confrontation (aka Clinton's refusal to deal with Bin Laden), and we will pay for it in spades years down the road, like we did on 9-11 after eight years of Bill Clinton)

At 11/01/2004 4:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

By the way, within days of 9-11, the Bush administration had convinced Musharraf to become a U.S. ally in the war against the Taliban and Bin Laden. and some people think W was asleep at the wheel.

After four years of Bush, the press just misses a president who you can't trust - someone to get them ratings. John Kerry told all Americans in debate 2 that he had met with ALL the members of the UN Security Council, something we now know is not true. He told Tom Brokaw last week in an interview that his military records are sealed, a direct contradiction of earlier, repeated statements made by him and his campaign to the effect that all his records were available and on his website.

At 11/02/2004 6:02 AM, Blogger FV said...

Gee, how times change - the Iranians were useful when the US Air Force was escorting the Iranian C130s delivering weapons to Craotia and Bosnia in the mid 90s, knowingly in violation of a UN arms embargo.

I wonder what they did with the money they made from that opeartion - maybe bought some nuclear technology?

btw Bin Laden is hiding in some deep cave financed by the CIA and the US Congress while he was fighting the Russians and the democratic Afghan goverment which followed the Russian retreat (who didn't want to let Unocal built its oil pipeline, which is why the US/Saudi goverments installed the Taliban in power)- I guess these caves were so good, the people who paid for his hideouts now can't track him down !!!!

Bin Laden was sitting in Sudan doing pretty much nothing until the US-engineered Taliban takeover allowed him to go to Afghanistan and use it as his base for operations - even at that point, the US/UK/Saudis supported him, coz his fanatics were destabilizing nationalist secular regimes in Algeria, Libya etc - and of course helping the Chechens against Russia.

Let's see - if the USA didn't prop up Bin Laden, the Taliban and Saddam (the "freedom lovers" gave him billions to help him fight Iran in the 80s) would there be a "nuclear terror" threat these days?

Pakistan developed nuclear weapons only because the USA allowed them to do it.

As for North Korea - if the USA didn't want them to export nuclear technology, they could do a sea blockade, Cuba-style, and nothing could get out of the country. But Cheney and Co are only interested in the Middle East, so NK is left on its own...

At 11/02/2004 9:44 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I won't deny that some members of our government do things for their own greed, or that they've just plain made mistakes. For example, Bill Clinton allowing Loral to sell satellite (and apparently missile) technology to Red China above the objections of the DOD and then accepting a small fortune in campaign contributions from the CEO of Loral and the DNC taking about $1 million from Red China for which they were fined $700,000 by the Federal Election Commission.

And Bin Laden was definitely in Sudan when Bill Clinton decided to turn down that Governments offer to turn him over to the US. At least Bin Laden didn't murder 3,000 innocent Americans under Bill's watch (it was only 500 or so under Bill's watch). But I don't think Bin Laden was in the employ of the US govt when his minions rammed those planes into the WTC.

Clinton also managed to buy a few more years of "peace" with North Korea by giving them nuclear reactors, the fuel for which is now being enriched to use against us. But Bill got his piece.

Don't know where you get your Pakistan assertion, but I don't believe for a minute the US let them develop nukes.

If John Kerry is elected today, his dovish nature and reliance on the UN will set in motion events (namely the assassination of Musharraf, the dissappearance of a quantity of nukes from Pakistan, Iran's continuing snub of the UN and reprosessing of uranium, and unleashing Israel's and Iran's paranoia)where was I, events that will in the next five years result in a nuclear exchange in the mideast. If it goes no further than that, the US will indeed be lucky. But Kerry won't do anything about the "next Bin Laden" until he has used one of those nukes on us. Maybe then, the democrats will say "enough is enough." But the nuclear cat will be out of the bag at that point.

With Bush, there is/was hope that those 3,000 Americans did not die in vain. But every individual who votes for Kerry has forgotten the lesson of 9-11, has forsaken those victims, may well be dooming thousands more to die at the hands of Muslim extremists, and like Bill Clinton, is willing to make a pact with the the devil. Too many Americans have been brainwashed into believing in the ultimate goodness of man. Look at all of those who heard a mass murderer, Bin Laden echoing John Kerry's every word about Bush, and will now turn around and vote Kerry.

At 11/02/2004 3:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's a visual. You vote for John Kerry. He wins and you have to tell your children why the same people who were dancing in the steet when the WTC fell danced in the street when Kerry was elected!

At 11/02/2004 10:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

i've got a better visual: you voted for george w. in 2000, then one year later the worst terrorist attack in u.s. history killed 3,000 people under his watch. why don't you sit on that fact and spin instead of trying to put the truth on its head.

black is black and white is white, contrary to what you've been brainwashed to believe.


At 11/03/2004 7:54 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You may want to believe that Bush was somehow responsible for 9-11, but he didn't turn down Sudan's offer. He cut off North Korea's free ride and he will not let Iran or Syria develop nuclear weapons. He got Pakistan on our side and made sure their nukes are in safe hands and he got rid of Saddam and 75% of Bin Laden's lieutenants. Excuse me if everything hasn't gone right in Iraq. Its a war we're in, not a police action. He revived a devastated economy and all this in four years.

Finally, the latest translation of Bin Laden's recent speech shows him threatening "Red" states which vote for Bush. So who do you think that mass murderer and others like him wanted to win the election? John Kerry. Why? Was Kerry somehow going to negotiate a peace with Bin Laden? I don't think so. Bin Laden wanted Kerry for only one reason, because he knew he could finagle a little more breathing room for his terrorism and goal of destroying Israel. Given another chance, Bin Laden won't be using airliners. He might well be willing to wait through a Kerry presidency so that, like last time, he could attack during a Republican administration (he didn't attack on 9-11 because of George Bush, he was attacking us for years during Clinton's reign of error).

Fortunately, this is all conjecture, because at this point, the American people have shown Kerry the door. He had at least two big lies during the campaign (meeting with "all" of the security council and "all" my military records have been released), but won't get his chance to pull a Bill Clinton. Good Job, America!

At 11/03/2004 3:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"conjecture" is right - not to mention you're just making things up as you go along that have no basis in fact, as is typical of the ignorant and uninformed people who voted for bush yesterday.

here are two links to the complete translation of bin laden's speech on al-jazeera and in the washington post (lest you don't trust one or the other for accuracy):

how about you show me the specific section where he "threatens red states" and then explain to me how exactly that would even benefit john kerry. i tend to think that it could only benefit bush, if it were even accurate, which it's not.

you have zero credibility, and honestly, i pity you. try using facts for a change, especially when you vote.


At 11/03/2004 5:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

At the end it says "And every state that doesn't play with our security, has automatically guaranteed its own security."

When he said "state" he didn't mean "nation" he meant state. It was a veiled threat. In the US election, each state could either vote to challenge their security or not. Now which candidate would challenge their security, Bush or Kerry?

Bin Laden knew he couldn't come out and say, "Anybody but Bush". Figure it out. Here's proof!

At 11/03/2004 6:06 PM, Blogger FV said...

I don't think you need to read any translation (btw they only showed 1 min out of the 5 min video - is the translation complete?) coz bin Laden said that "voting for either Bush or Kerry isn't going to help you with the security situation"

If he wanted to prop up Kerry, he could have done it outright and speak out against Bush.

"Your security is not in the hands of Kerry, Bush or al-Qaida. Your security is in your own hands," bin Laden said, referring to the president and his Democratic opponent. "Any state that does not mess with our security has naturally guaranteed its own security."

What he said in the video could not really influence the election results - Kerry lost because many people (inc those who would normally wouldn't bother voting) decided to vote against his liberal domestic policy plan, not because they thought he wouldn't be as effective fighting "terrorism" as Bush.

bin Laden is an important "asset" - even if he dies or gets captured, it makes sense for various factions to make people believe that he is still around, so that they can blame him for future terrorist actions.
The videos are intended to prove that he is still alive and free, although you can't really be 100% certain about anything.

btw - on the subject of Pakistan , there are two questions from people investigating 9/11

a. Why did Mahmood Ahmed, Director of Pakistan's secret service, (ISI) order Saeed Sheikh to wire $100,000 to hijacker Mohamed Atta?

b. On September 11th 2001 , Mahmood Ahmed had a breakfast meeting in Washington, D.C., with House and Senate Intelligence Committee chairmen, Rep. Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham. What were they discussing?

Saeed Sheikh is a central figure in 9/11 events and the Pearl murder

As the London Times has put it, Saeed Sheikh "is no ordinary terrorist but a man who has connections that reach high into Pakistan's military and intelligence elite and into the innermost circles of Osama Bin Laden and the al-Qaeda organization."


It has been claimed that in 1999, British intelligence secretly offered Saeed an amnesty and the ability to "live in London a free man" if he would reveal his links to al-Qaeda. He apparently refused. [Daily Mail, 7/16/02, London Times, 7/16/02]
Even more curiously, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review suggested in March 2002, "There are many in Musharraf's government who believe that Saeed Sheikh's power comes not from the ISI, but from his connections with our own CIA. The theory is that ... Saeed Sheikh was bought and paid for." [Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 3/3/02]


In his roughly two years of freedom before 9/11, Saeed was a very busy terrorist. According to Newsweek, once in Pakistan, Saeed "lived openly - and opulently - in a wealthy Lahore neighborhood. US sources say he did little to hide his connections to terrorist organizations, and even attended swanky parties attended by senior Pakistani government officials." The US government inferred that he was a "protected asset" of the ISI.


Even more remarkably, the media reported that Saeed was freely able to return to Britain [Press Trust of India, 1/3/00], just as if he had accepted Britain's secret amnesty offer. He visited his parents in Britain in 2000 and again in early 2001. [Vanity Fair, 8/02, BBC, 7/16/02, Telegraph, 7/16/02]

The British citizens kidnapped by Saeed in 1994 called the government's decision not to try him a "disgrace" and "scandalous." [Press Trust of India, 1/3/00]


It as been reported that Saeed helped train the hijackers. [Telegraph, 9/30/01]
Presumably this happened in Afghanistan, where he trained others and where he traveled regularly. [New York Times, 2/25/02, National Post, 2/26/02, Guardian, 7/16/02, India Today, 2/25/02]
He also reportedly helped devise a secure, encrypted Web-based communications system for al-Qaeda. "His future in the network seemed limitless; there was even talk of one day succeeding bin Laden." [Vanity Fair, 8/02, Telegraph, 7/16/02]

But at the same time, much of his time was spent working with the ISI. He worked with Ijaz Shah, a former ISI official in charge of handling two terrorist groups, Lieutenant-General Mohammad Aziz Khan, also a former deputy chief of the ISI in charge of relations with Jaish-e-Mohammad, and Brigadier Abdullah, a former ISI officer. He was well known to other senior ISI officers. [National Post, 2/26/02, Guardian, 7/16/02, India Today, 2/25/02]


By now, the al-Qaeda 9/11 plot was in motion. Someone in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), using an alias, periodically wired money to and from hijackers Mohamed Atta and Marwan Alshehhi between June 2000 and the day before 9/11. [MSNBC, 12/11/01]
The identity of this person has been a highly disputed subject. On September 23, 2001, it was first reported that authorities were now (finally) looking for Saeed Sheikh, though it wasn't explained why. [London Times, 9/23/01]
The next day, it was reported that the 9/11 "paymaster" had been found, using the alias "Mustafa Ahmed." [Newsweek, 9/24/01]


On October 7, 2001, Pakistani President Musharraf fired Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed, the head of the ISI. The next day, some newspapers, mostly in India but also in Pakistan, shockingly said he was fired for his role in the 9/11 attacks. [Press Trust of India, 10/8/01]
For instance, a Pakistani newspaper stated, "Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed has been replaced after the FBI investigators established credible links between him and Umar Sheikh, one of the three militants released in exchange for passengers of the hijacked Indian Airlines plane in 1999... Informed sources said there were enough indications with the US intelligence agencies that it was at Gen. Mahmood's instruction that Sheikh had transferred 100,000 US dollars into the account of Mohammed Atta..." [Dawn, 10/9/01]


On July 2, 2001, an Indian newspaper reported that "bin Laden, who suffers from renal deficiency, has been periodically undergoing dialysis in a Peshawar military hospital with the knowledge and approval of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), if not of [Pakistani President] Musharraf himself." [SARPA, 7/2/01]
The highly respected intelligence newsletter, Jane's Intelligence Digest, later reported the same story, and came close to confirming it: "None of [these details] will be unfamiliar to US intelligence operatives who have been compiling extensive reports on these alleged activities...The Jane's article added, "It is becoming clear that both the Taliban and al-Qaeda would have found it difficult to have continued functioning - including the latter group's terrorist activities - without substantial aid and support from [Pakistan]." [Jane's Intelligence Digest, 9/20/01]


on the morning of September 11, Lt. Gen. Mahmood was at a breakfast meeting at the Capitol with the chairmen of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, Senator Bob Graham (D) and Representative Porter Goss (R). The meeting was said to have lasted at least until the second plane hit the World Trade Center.
Goss is a self-admitted 10-year veteran of the CIA's clandestine operations wing. [Washington Post, 5/18/02]
Goss and Graham were later the heads of the joint House-Senate investigation into the September 11 attacks, and Goss in particular made headlines for saying there was no "smoking gun".
Also present at the meeting were Senator John Kyl (R) and the Pakistani ambassador to the US, Maleeha Lodhi (note that all or virtually all of the people in this meeting also met Lt. Gen. Mahmood in Pakistan a few weeks earlier [Salon, 9/14/01]).
Senator Graham later said of the meeting: "We were talking about terrorism, specifically terrorism generated from Afghanistan," and the New York Times mentioned that bin Laden was specifically being discussed. [Vero Beach Press Journal, 9/12/01, Salon, 9/14/01, New York Times, 6/3/02]
The fact that these people were meeting at the time of the attacks is a strange coincidence at the very least, not to mention the topic of their conversation!

On September 12 and 13, Lt. Gen. Mahmood met with Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Senator Joseph Biden, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Secretary of State Colin Powell. An agreement on Pakistan's collaboration in the new "war on terror" was negotiated between Mahmood and Armitage.


The ever-busy Saeed meanwhile was taking part in another kidnapping. The target was Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. Pearl had become fascinated in a number of stories involving the ISI. On December 24, 2001, he reported about ties between the ISI and a Pakistani organization that was working on giving bin Laden nuclear secrets before 9/11. A few days later, he reported that Jaish-e-Mohammad still had its office running and bank accounts working, even after President Musharraf claimed to have banned the group. [Vanity Fair, 8/02, Guardian, 7/16/02]
He began investigating links between shoe bomber Richard Reid and Pakistani militants connected to the ISI [Washington Post, 2/23/02], investigating Dawood Ibrahim, a powerful terrorist and gangster protected by the ISI [Newsweek, 2/4/02, Vanity Fair, 8/02], and may also have been investigating the US training and backing of the ISI. [Gulf News, 3/25/02]
Former CIA agent Robert Baer later claimed he was working with Pearl on investigating 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. [UPI, 9/30/02]
It is later suggested that Mohammed masterminded Reid's shoe bomb attempt and has connections to both Pakistani gangsters and the ISI, so some of these explanations could fit together. [UPI, 9/30/02, Asia Times, 10/30/02, CNN, 1/30/03]
Kidnapper Saeed later said of Pearl, "because of his hyperactivity he caught our interest."


Daniel Pearl was murdered by his kidnappers. Police investigators say "there were at least eight to 10 people present on the scene," and at least 15 who participated in his kidnapping and murder. "Despite issuing a series of political demands shortly after Pearl's abduction four weeks ago, it now seems clear that the kidnappers planned to kill Pearl all along." [Washington Post, 2/23/02]
Musharraf even brazenly stated, "Perhaps Daniel Pearl was over-intrusive. A mediaperson should be aware of the dangers of getting into dangerous areas. Unfortunately, he got over-involved''


To capture Saeed, it appears the police simply rounded up all of his family members and likely threatened to kill or harm them unless Saeed gave himself up. [AP, 2/9/02, Karachi News, 2/13/02]
On February 5, Saeed turned himself in, not to the police, but to his ISI boss Ijaz Shah


On March 3, US Secretary of State Colin Powell ruled out any links between "elements of the ISI" and the murderers of reporter Daniel Pearl. [Dawn, 3/3/02]

The Guardian was a rare voice in calling Powell on this obvious lie. They called Powell's comment "shocking," given the overwhelming evidence that the main suspect, Saeed Sheikh, worked for the ISI: "If he was extradited to Washington and decided to talk, the entire story would unravel. His family are fearful. They think he might be tried by a summary court and executed to prevent the identity of his confederates being revealed." [Guardian, 4/5/02]


The mainstream media slipped further into amnesia regarding Saeed's connections. The conviction story made headlines, and there was room for lengthy background information and even special background articles on Saeed. However no story in the US mentioned his al-Qaeda or ISI connections, much less his 9/11 connections...

By comparison, in Britain, articles connected Saeed to the ISI [Guardian, 7/16/02, Guardian, 7/16/02, Daily Mail, 7/16/02], al-Qaeda [Independent, 7/16/02], the 9/11 attacks [Scotsman, 7/16/02], or some combination of the three [London Times, 7/16/02, Daily Mail, 7/16/02, Telegraph, 7/16/02]


A month after the verdict, a remarkable story in Vanity Fair explored all of Saeed's connections, but the article seemed to make no impact at all. [Vanity Fair, 8/02]


not only was Graham meeting with Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed when the 9/11 attacks began, his office has also acknowledged Graham was given a warning before 9/11 by a US government informant that an ISI agent named R. G. Abbas, in New York City to illegally trade heroin for Stinger missiles, pointed to the World Trade Center and said, "Those towers are coming down."

This agent made other references to an attack on the World Trade Center. The informant passed these warnings on, but he claims, "The complaints were ordered sanitized by the highest levels of government."


At the very least, the ISI may know very embarrassing facts about the US. For instance, they may know a thing or two about CIA involvement in drug smuggling and/or support of bin Laden in the 1980s. [Star Tribune, 9/30/01, Atlantic Monthly, 5/96, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/23/01, UPI, 6/14/01] Unfortunately, Daniel Pearl was killed before he could investigate the connections between the US and the ISI, and no journalist seems willing to explore such dangerous subjects since his death.


isn't that great? The characters who were meeting with the 9/11 financier's boss on 9/11, were in charge of the Congressional 9/11 investigation !!!!!
And some people talk about coverups...

At 11/03/2004 6:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

are you joking? you consider a doctored image on proof? is this where i'm supposed to continue with "george bush, ralph nader, and bill clinton walk into a bar...?"

i have been looking into the origin of this so-called "new translation" and i've found the likely source here:

at the end it says "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al-Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands, and any (US) state that does not belittle our security automatically guarantees its own security."

i'm not going to pretend to speak arabic. however, isn't it clear from the context of the entire statement (the "gist" of it all) that bin laden is saying that whether bush or kerry is elected is inconsequential?

here's a quote from juan cole, university of michigan professor of history ( - scroll down to 11/2/04 7 p.m. for the complete entry):

"MEMRI is claiming that the word used for "state" in this sentence means state as in Rhode Island and New Jersey.

But while they are right to draw attention to the oddness of the diction, their conclusion is impossible.

Bin Laden says that such a "state" should not trifle with Muslims' security. He cannot possibly mean that he thinks Rhode Island is in a position to do so. Nor can he be referring to which way a state votes, since he begins by saying that the security of Americans is not in the hands of Bush or Kerry. He has already dismissed them as equivalent and irrelevant, in and of themselves."

i personally find it very hard to believe that bin laden would first say that our security is not in the hands of "bush, kerry, or al qaeda," but in our own hands, and then simultaneously try to argue the contradictory point that it matters which states vote for kerry or bush. it seems a lot more consistent with his overall message that he would be referring to nation states, with israel being just one prime example of this.

domestic issues aside, from a foreign policy perspective through 9/11/2001 (of course, all that has changed now that the conflict has escalated), was there really much of a difference between democratic and republican presidents from bin laden's point of view? i think not.

At 11/03/2004 7:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

and continuing with the thought...

bin laden and al-qaeda are not a "nation-state" themselves: they are a movement; an organization; a group that acts virtually at the individual level.

in all likelihood, and based on what i would assume is his worldview, bin laden believes that there is no difference between the actions of palestinian suicide bombers who blow up israeli children in cold blood, and IDF soldiers who gun down palestinian children in cold blood.

it's just a theory of mine, but i think his message about our security being "in our own hands" is a literal one: that whether it's a nation-state or an ideology that one pledges allegiance to, the choice to pull the trigger by he who holds the gun is always personal.

to think that the the invasion of iraq may have claimed up to 100,000 iraqi lives, and in afghanistan tens of thousands, none of whom had even the slightest connection to 9-11....

At 11/03/2004 7:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

and continuing with the thought...

bin laden and al-qaeda are not a "nation-state" themselves: they are a movement; an organization; a group that acts virtually at the individual level.

in all likelihood, and based on what i would assume is his worldview, bin laden believes that there is no difference between the actions of palestinian suicide bombers who blow up israeli children in cold blood, and IDF soldiers who gun down palestinian children in cold blood.

it's just a theory of mine, but i think his message about our security being "in our own hands" is a literal one: that whether it's a nation-state or an ideology that one pledges allegiance to, the choice to pull the trigger by he who holds the gun is always personal.

to think that the the invasion of iraq may have claimed up to 100,000 iraqi lives, and in afghanistan tens of thousands, none of whom had even the slightest connection to 9-11....

At 11/04/2004 5:15 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's me, the Bush supporter. First of all, I wouldn't be at all surprised if in reality members of Pakistan's government were involved with Bin Laden. It's definitely a scary thought, but as I understand it the country is 80% or 90% muslim (or worse). So if you are the US and you discover this, do you?
1. Declare war on a country with a nuclear arsenal and send the entire world into a frenzy, or
2. Go to Musharrif and say: You may not know this, but you've got some real problems in your organization. Either you join us against al-Qaeda or you, and everyone in the vicinity of you will wake up dead one night. No warning, stealth bombers, we explain our actions later, but mainly, you're dead. By the way, we nuke your arsenal. By the way, one provision of our acquiescence is that you tell us where you're nukes are, (we already know) and you let us help you guard them.

If everything you said was true, seems to me #2 was the most agreeable solution to this problem for both countries. Do you have a third solution.

Secondly, re Bin Laden's tape. Somebody can't see the forest for the trees. Why did bin laden come out with a tape four days before the election, with Bush in the lead? What motivation could there possibly be for doing this? There is only one answer: Bin Laden had to take the chance that he could change the direction of the polls. Obviously he couldn't come out and say "don't elect Bush." The only way his ploy might work is if he specifically states "I don't care who wins." He had to say that. To say nothing would be point strongly to the fact that he wanted Bush to lose, which would, of course, help Bush. His real brainstorm was threatening individual states, but that didn't work, because we know you cannot negotiate with terrorists. We might think we're safe for five years, but at some point, they will play the nuclear card, because they are basically suicidal. The wrong president might legitimize Bin Laden (or his surrogate), at some future date and let them enrich uranium. It is a road we cannot afford to go down. We need to cut the cancer out now, or someday we will find ourselves negotiating with people who have hundreds of nukes. This problem can be solved, by the way. But there is only one answer - only one. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Iran must become moderate governments like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait. Better yet, they should become strong democracies. We have jacked around with people like Arafat long enough. Everything I have just said seems consistent with Bush's policies. Is our world perfect? Far from it. Do governments still deal under the table? Sometimes it's necessary. Must we continue to support Israel? I think the answer has to be "Yes." (although there are times I think we should just let Israel have the Middle East. It would be a bloody affair indeed, but Israel would win.) So this is the fine line down which we must walk. Israel is a powerful ally who can help us maintain stability in a world which runs on oil.

At 11/04/2004 5:49 AM, Blogger carol said...

You know, let's say Bush really thought there were WMD in Iraq. Let's say Bush did not get any warnings of a possible Al Qaeda attack in August 2001. Let's say the whole Bush family really cares more for the American people than the money and the oil. The thing is Dubya cannot even speak properly, that should've been enough to get him out of the White House. But the American people "spoke" (actually he didn't win by THAT much, if you look at the popular vote).. and so now if they get another attack, they should be prepared for that. And I'm not wishing for terrorist attacks where innocent people die anywhere in the world (terrorist attacks should target the real enemy: the government), but 9/11 was a lesson, and if they didn't learn from it that's too bad. And I'm not saying Kerry was the USA's saviour, cuz his views on Cuba and Israel/Palestine were mostly the same as every other president before him, but he was the better guy. Maybe I shouldn't be blaming the Americans, maybe Bush rigged the election again. There comes a time when you pay for what you've done, so I'll be waiting for that.


At 11/04/2004 7:05 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Plenty of Bush supporters are frustrated by his inability to articulate. Bill Clinton was smooth, but a bad leader. He gutted the CIA, ignorred Bin Laden and believed Kim Jong Il.

Many people have come to believe that Bush is a shrewd politician. Dick Cheney said on Russert that Bush was the smartest politician he'd ever met. Sometimes having others underestimate you is a powerful weapon. Both Bin Laden and Kim Jong Il are horse traders (I heard the Koran says lying to infidels is perfectly acceptable behavior). They both ate Bill Clinton's lunch. Bush knows how to deal with horse traders. For starters you don't trust them and you don't trust them to change.

If Bin Laden could have he would have delivered a lot more than a video tape to the US before the election. But having an army on the ground in Iraq keeps him pinned down.

Many politicians would have been tempted to have the press show Americans all the things we are doing to protect our borders. Bush & Co have been happy to let our enemies find out the hard way that we are on top of it. We're all over these guys coming in. We stopped a North Korean shipment to the mideast early in the war. We kept a cargo barge sequestered well away from NY harbor for long enough to determine it was safe. We captured some Arab chick trying to cross the Rio Grande. There's just alot of stuff going on. This country's military and intelligence community has been mobilized as never before and I truly believe Bush is doing everything humanly possible to kill everyone of these piles of crap.

But Bush's most important asset is his ability to get past the trees and see the forest. As I mentioned above, there is only one way to truly defeat terrorism in the middle east and that is through democracy. Everything Bush is doing is the right thing. Saddam needed to go. You can't convince Iran, Syria & North Korea to stop enriching plutonium thru UN resolutions. You have to show them that even the biggest baddest ass in the mideast can be taken down by us in a matter of weeks, even days. Now they will listen, and with an army on the ground, Pakistan, Saudi, Kuwait and THE WORLD'S oil supply is more secure. It doesn't actually matter whether Saddam had WMD. The message that keeps the Mullahs tossing in their sleep is that we thought he had WMD, and we knew he was encouraging terrorism, and now he's in a cell and will soon be dead. Don't believe for a second those bastards aren't afraid of dying. They have martyrs to die for them. It must be this way to stop future Bin Ladens.

Two more things. Unlike Clinton, the odds are good Bush isn't getting blowjobs and chasing skirts when he has a country to run. I don't believe he will give our enemies weapons to kill us with.

Finally, having more Arabs mad at us does not mean that they are any more capable of delivering a nuclear weapon. As long as we can keep control of the plutonium in this world, America is safe. We may not know where it all is, but you can bet we are trying to find out. Plutonium may be the worst thing man has ever created, but it wasn't Bush's fault. He's playing the had dealt him, and playing it nearly perfectly. On O'Reilly, Bush said Iran would not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. I don't recall hearing that from Kerry.

At 11/04/2004 7:42 PM, Blogger FV said...

There's just alot of stuff going on. This country's military and intelligence community has been mobilized as never before and I truly believe Bush is doing everything humanly possible to kill everyone of these piles of crap.

Yep, like denying entry to some moderate Moslem folk singer with a UK passport and harassing the publishing work of an anti-regime Nobel winner from Iran

any news from the FBI informer who spend over a year living with two of the alleged 9/11 highjackers?

The NYT and LAT both give stand-alone pieces to the report's finding that two of the 9/11 highjackers lived openly in San Diego a year before the attack. They were actually friends with an FBI informant, though the informant says he never knew of the plan. Also, citing the report, the two papers say the CIA knew the men were linked to al-Qaida but, as the LAT puts it, "failed to notify the local FBI." What neither paper mentions is that not only is none of this new but also the CIA insisted last summer that it warned the FBI about the two men in early 2000.

I love the reasoning: FBI Informant knew them ---> CIA knew they were Al Qaida ---> CIA did not notify local FBI they were Al Qaida --> shit happened

so what? if the FBI was notified, they would tell their informant to pay more attention and ask them if they were card-carrying members???
Why was the informant staying with them in the first place?

and THE WORLD'S oil supply is more secure.

at 50+ dollar a barrel, maybe nobody will be able to afford that "secure" oil soon

Finally, having more Arabs mad at us does not mean that they are any more capable of delivering a nuclear weapon.

no, unless they steal it or buy one from the international arms merchants the CIA is doing business with

If the muslim fanatics (Saddam was an anti-muslim nationalist secular politician btw, his victims were Iranian fundamentalist agents and all sorts of muslim fanatics, only the most ignorant Cheney fans keep confusing him with bin Laden and the wahabbis) and their beliefs were so unkosher, why did Rumsfeld, Cheney and the Bushes supported them up to 9/11, in Bosnia, Kossovo, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Algeria, Libya, etc?

Maybe Dubya's people are not as ethical as they claim?
Not very nice for faithful "Christians"

any news about "anthrax terrorism"?

Looks like the US media forgot all about that when the evidence trail lead to a US Army biowarfare center.

What a coincidence!!!"Freedom-loving" journalism seems to be suffering from too many blackouts

Bad news for Dubya about Iran --- the Brits won't have anything to do with it

Straw: war on Iran 'inconceivable'

Tom Happold and agencies
Thursday November 4, 2004

The foreign secretary, Jack Straw, today sought to calm fears that the US president, George Bush, would use his second term to further reshape the Middle East by launching military strikes against Iran, describing the prospect as "inconceivable".

The US believes that Iran, despite its denials, is on course to gain the capability of producing a nuclear weapon within the next three years, making it the Middle East's second nuclear power along with Israel.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme this morning, Mr Straw made clear Britain's opposition to military strikes. The foreign secretary has been working closely with his French and German counterparts over recent months to secure a diplomatic solution to the issue.

Asked if he thought that the world would back a strike on Iran, either by US or Israeli forces, Mr Straw said: "Not only is that inconceivable, but I think the prospect of it happening is inconceivable."

At 11/06/2004 6:35 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is an interesting analysis of Bin Laden's pre-election videofrom the Middle East Media Research Institute. It confirms Bin Laden was threatening individual states. More interesting is that is the final paragraph which says that Bin Laden sends a regressive and defeatest message which the Arab world will understand.

First the analysis: IThe tape of Osama bin Laden that was aired on Al-Jazeera [1] on Friday, October 29th included a specific threat to "each U.S. state," designed to influence the outcome of the upcoming election against George W. Bush. The U.S. media in general mistranslated the words "ay wilaya" (which means "each U.S. state") [2] to mean a "country" or "nation" other than the U.S., while in fact the threat was directed specifically at each individual U.S. state. This suggests some knowledge by bin Laden of the U.S. electoral college system. In a section of his speech in which he harshly criticized George W. Bush, bin Laden stated: "Any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security."

The Islamist website Al-Qal'a explained what this sentence meant: "This message was a warning to every U.S. state separately. When he [Osama Bin Laden] said, 'Every state will be determining its own security, and will be responsible for its choice,' it means that any U.S. state that will choose to vote for the white thug Bush as president has chosen to fight us, and we will consider it our enemy, and any state that will vote against Bush has chosen to make peace with us, and we will not characterize it as an enemy. By this characterization, Sheikh Osama wants to drive a wedge in the American body, to weaken it, and he wants to divide the American people itself between enemies of Islam and the Muslims, and those who fight for us, so that he doesn't treat all American people as if they're the same. This letter will have great implications inside the American society, part of which are connected to the American elections, and part of which are connected to what will come after the elections."

Now the final paragraph:

Another conspicuous aspect of the tape is the absence of common Islamist themes that are relevant to the month of Ramadan, which for fundamentalists like bin Laden is the month of Jihad and martyrdom. Noticeably absent from the Al-Jazeera tape was his usual appearance with a weapon, and more importantly the absence of references to Jihad, martyrdom, the Koran, the Hadith (Islamic tradition), Crusaders, Jews, and the legacy of the Prophet Muhammad on the duty to wage Jihad against the infidels. For the followers of the Al-Qa'ida ideology, this speech sends a regressive and defeatist message of surrender, as seen in the move from solely using Jihad warfare to a mixed strategy of threats combined with truce offers and election deals.

Of course it is just one interpretation, but again, if Bin Laden could have blown something up, he would have.

William Kristol nailed it.

Bin Laden and his brother in arms Michael Moore helped Bush if you ask me.

At 11/06/2004 11:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

to the person who posted the last comment: i don't know if you're the "bush supporter" who posted earlier, but if you scroll above and read my post from "6:18 PM" you will see that i have already traced this particular translation/interpretation to MEMRI, or the "middle east media research institute."

i would never suggest for a moment that any source in print or on the internet "confirms" anything - how can you say that just because MEMRI, who you probably know little to nothing about, states something, that it is then "confirmed" ? how about doing some analysis of your own instead of believing the counter-propaganda?

think about any terrorist attack: the event takes place and has an immediate effect, however, anyone in the world can then take responsibility and try to twist the event to fit an agenda that may have nothing to do with that of the perpetrators. the same can be said of the bin laden video: politically savvy operatives are going to take the video and twist its message to their own ends.

i stated my theory about the video's meaning above (based on the obviously abridged version of it, i have not seen the complete video) and i have not seen any convincing argument for it addressing individual u.s. states.

isn't it more likely that political operatives within the u.s. are jumping on this video for their own ends, and you're falling for it, hook, line, and sinker? it's called SPIN.

i don't think bin laden draws much of a distinction between republicans and democrats, "red states" and "blue states". he is addressing the u.s. foreign policy of decades, not a few short years. he could care less whether it's skull and bones member bush, or skull and bones member kerry in the oval office...

read what i wrote and quoted above, and think for yourself instead of letting the "middle east media research institute" think for you.


At 11/06/2004 4:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So your position is that Bin Laden wasn't trying to influence the election? That his video four days before it was just a coincidence?

Bush was ahead in all the polls when that video came out. I think it is an interesting question, but one that no longer matters. I could be wrong, but I think he feels the noose tightening. I hope he's right, because he and what's left of his ilk need to pay. We cannot indulge terrorists in a nuclear world.

At 11/06/2004 9:58 PM, Blogger FV said...


The MEMRI is a complete joke - nobody in Europe even bothers to mention it, their "reporting" is intended strictly for certain US audiences, who are willing to believe anything, however bizarre.

It was allegedly formed by the two Wurmsers, well-known neocons, but in reality is a front for Israeli Intelligence black propaganda.

The person who runs it is Colonel Yigal Carmon, "who spent 22 years as a member of the Israeli military intelligence service and later served as a counter-terrorism adviser to two Israeli prime ministers, Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin" and other retired Israeli military and intelligence officers

The Guardian of London found that MEMRI's translations are skewed by being highly selective. Although it inevitably translates and circulates the most extreme of Arab statements, it ignores moderate Arab commentary and extremist Hebrew statements.

Brian Whitaker observed in an article in the Aug. 12, 2002 Guardian:
"The stories selected by Memri for translation follow a familiar pattern: Either they reflect badly on the character of Arabs or they in some way further the political agenda of Israel...All it takes is a small but active group of Israelis to exploit the (language) barrier for its own ends and start changing Western perceptions of Arabs for the worse"

These are the small fish - William Kristol, co-founder of PNAC, is a major neocon figure, the son of the communist trotskyite Irving Kristol, considered to be the "father" of neoconservatism.
Kristol is another big Leo Strauss fan - Strauss believed that it is a necessity for elites to deceive their citizens, a policy that Dubya and his string pullers are actively following.

"As early as 1963 Richard Hofstadter commented on the progression of many ex-Communists from the paranoid left to the paranoid right, clinging all the while to the fundamentally Manichean psychology that underlies both. Four decades later the dominant strain of neoconservatism is declared to be a mixture of geopolitical militarism and inverted socialist internationalism."

The fact that Kristol likes Kerry and "liberal hawks" better than Buchanan and "paleoconservatives" tells the whole story - as long as Kristol's neocon vision in the Middle East is fullfilled, he doesn't mind working with liberals - it's the anti-Iraq war conservatives that don't suit his plans

Maybe this is too complicated for the "faith-based crowd" but anyway

Kristol told the Times that John Kerry had the real answer to the problems there: we need to send more troops.
Kristol explained that this agreement between the neocons and the Democrats should surprise no one:

"I will take Bush over Kerry, but Kerry over Buchanan or any of the lesser Buchananites on the right. If you read the last few issues of The Weekly Standard, it has as much or more in common with the liberal hawks than with traditional conservatives."

Kristol continued, "If we have to make common cause with the more hawkish liberals and fight the conservatives, that is fine with me, too."

so the liberals can carry on with their agenda as long as they are hawks on the "war on terror" - conservative values are of secondary importance for the neocon crowd.

Kristol advised McCain to blast the Christian right in 2000 - back then, the neocons liked McCain better than Bushy


Post a Comment

<< Home