Very interesting. I wonder if this plays more in Bush's favor or in Kerry's. My own perception is that this is a Kerry advantage, as it illustrates Bush's three year failure to get the man who is now admittedly responsible for terrorism in America. On the other hand, I can hear the pro-Bush crowd spinning it that this means we need to keep Bush in power to finish the job, etc. I bet this is effectively Osama's "October Surprise" for the American elections, deliberately held until today for maximum effect, but I wonder which candidate it is he feels this is going to help. He slams Bush in the message, but perhaps this thing is a calculated misfire, a "how dare he say that about the President?!" voter backlash to get Bush re-elected, since Bush has clusterfucked the WAR ON TERROR so much in al'Qaeda's favor to this point. Probably reading too much into that, though, as al'Qaeda don't seem that politically sophisticated.
Of course, this is likely meaningless anyway. I think most Americans have already decided to believe what they want to anyway, and neither this nor any other news will greatly sway their opinions before next Tuesday. I wish Osama had made a point to separate himself from Iraq, that would have been useful. Actually, I need to read the text of his message; at a cursory glance, Osama actually makes some pretty good points. That's the more interesting discussion to me, but it's a dialogue that likely can't happen without causing a riot (the "Hitler-made-the-trains-run-on-time" debate predicament.)
For the past three years, the Bush administration has labeled the threats in the middle east as "terrorist" and "evil doers". That never sat well with me. Attacks are carried out for a reason. You never know who is right or wrong, good or bad...until one side is destroyed. I wish I could read through the old Iraq War thread. I know members such as Slammin posted some great info about the possible role of America doing injustice to the middle east long before the 9/11 attacks. I've stated before my dislike of constantly hearing the phrase "terrorist". The attacks on Sept. 11 could be revenge on America for the damage we've done in the past. Include that with recent events since 9/11, and our government's not-so-secret interest in oil, mixed with a bible thumping political business man. BOOM!
Who is the real terrorist? I sense truth in Bin Laden's message. It's odd, and the timing couldn't be better. When I hear "terrorist", I hear "lies". For the past 3 years, I have felt safe. I do not feel threatened. When I hear Bin Laden's statement "leave us alone, we'll leave you alone", I hear a fair deal. Even with that, I believe the damage in Iraq is already more than we can repair. America has dug itself quite a large hole in the side of the Earth.
My concern from the start has been "what will the history books say". Somehow, I expected this message to come. Just, not so soon.
[ QUOTE ]
"Despite the fact that we are into the fourth year after September 11, Bush is still misleading you and hiding the real reason from you, which means that the reasons to repeat what happened remain," said bin Laden.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds about right. And funny how the pro-Bush side of the media are considering this message a warning of more attacks. FEAR!!! FEAR FEAR!!! vote bush FEAR!!!!
Well here's something to piss you off further, Elysium: Latest report has the Iraq CIVILIAN death count at 100,000. I wonder how many of them would still be alive if we had left Saddam alone? Hell, did Saddam even kill that many of his own people during his reign? That is one thing I disagree with Kerry on - whether or not the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein. At least when Saddam was in power we were dealing with a known threat instead of the chaos that we are dealing with now in the region.
Exactly, Grind. That's the real interesting thing here to me. As an American, I'll never accept terrorism against my fellow citizens, but Osama's got a real point. While America didn't choose this form of antagonist, we certainly set the table for it's creation. The comment about Sweden is right on - Bush paints this as a war of freedom, but Osama's telling it how it is, a war against effective imperialism. I refuse to take the ultra-liberal guilt complex position, but at the same time I recognize that more war and greater imposition of western authority isn't what's going to fix things either. Frankly, I don't know that there's anything wrong with the middle east that can't be fixed by building a big fucking wall right down the middle of Israel. You bastards want Old Teastament style fundamentalism? No problem, I had out my justice King Solomon style: You each get half. Deal with it.
the injustices to the middle east has been going on long before bush, and will go on after kerry, its like israel is our pet country and we keep backing them why they stomp around and terrorize anyone they want, i'm not backing up binlladden. Dude needs a bullet in him pretty bad in my eyes, so does huessein. why i don't think we should pull all suport from israel, we really should look into how much we back them. i read a article about a year ago stating that more foreign aid goes to israel than all other countries combined.
Take what i say with a grain of salt if you like, i have no fackt to back it, just what i have heard here and there and a large chunk of opinion
I wish death on no man. He is one bad motha @#$ker but how cool it would be if he were to some how turn to good. Reject the dark side and we all live in harmony. Fuck that shit. The dude deserves to die infinity fold. But, how generous of him to offer us freedom of choice for our own lives.
So far Bush's and Kerry's response has been less than encouraging.
Bin Laden - 18 minutes of who, what, where, and why...directed to the American people, including reasons and facts of past conflicts.
Bush and Kerry - Short sentence: "we're going to hunt and kill the terrorist". Terror Alert raised.
It's not my intention to jump out and preach "Bin Laden is the good guy". Only that the most wanted man in the world has offered a treaty. He has the same dislike of the American government that most American people share. Something is fishy here.
I've watched news reports (from the pro-Bush media) on the situation, where they bring in the experts to analyze. I've listened carefully, but they just sound like rambling idiots. They're trying so hard to translate this into an evil message. One man tried a tactic of speaking really fast and scrambling all the facts.
As an example. Many sources seem as if they want to translate "Bush cannot protect you", as a message of "I'm still going to kill you no matter who's in charge". I see it as "Bush can only encourage more terrorism".
[ QUOTE ]
So far Bush's and Kerry's response has been less than encouraging.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, but they can't be seen to respond any way else. America is not a particularly enlightened nation, and getting past our collective national pride and tough guy attitude because the bad guy actually has a point isn't going to happen. The Greeks call it hubris, and it is so often pride that comes before the fall.
Bin Laden, the man US Americans are so afraid of they signed away their freedom, is offering to end this nonsense, he's proposing a nonagression treaty. Seeing Bush respond with an insult (and giggling like a child) strikes me as horribly incompetent. Or revealing. Bin Laden offers peace at the expense of control over the middle east, Bush replies "fuck you, we'd rather die than give up the middle east". So, is oil really more valuable than human lives?
The problem is, Bin Laden committed a terrorist act, killing thousands of innocent people. Giving in to his wishes at this point is sending the message that committing acts such as this will get you your way. That is the conundrum that the U.S as a whole is facing. It's not about "pride" as much as some would like you to think. Giving in to Bin Laden now, would be inviting a total shitstorm of violence against Americans.
Now in all honesty, I do agree that we need to start thinking about our support of Isreal. Obviously this is something that is a difficult problem, and no doubt influenced the the enormous Jewish American population, who wield alot of power and influence.
he's not offering a treaty, jesus he's tellin us who we can give aid to and who we can't, when he said if we don't attack they don't, he does not mean US attack, he means any country that we back. if we gave money to....argentina and some reason argentina had a beef with them, then that would be an excuse for him to blow up some american schools if he wants, the september 11 attacks were not brought on by anything WE did, it was a retaliation for soemthign someone else did. and while i don't agree with the oodles of aid we are giving to his enemies, if do DO lower it it Can't be because of a threat from this lunitic, or it will never stop. whats going on over there is not about to stop its been going on for oodles and oodles of years its far past the presidency to control. its not aobut oil its aobut wealthy jewish buisness men here padding pockets to keep the holy land well funded. Bush nor kerry nor hussein, nor binladden have anything to do withthe big picture of whats wrong. binladden has been doing attacks on the US and other countrys well before bush was in charge.. and even he said in his tape, its not the presidency its the policy
Offering 'peace' indeed. The debate doesn't need exaggeration, KDR. Concessions gained against a threat aren't peace, that's called extortion. I'm not an advocate of the war, but "I'll give you what you want, just please don't hurt me" is something I'll never accept, either. Speaking as a German, why don't you tell me how well PM Chamberlain's appeasement policy went over with your führer? Capitulation is an invitation to further violence; it was ever thus. The solution to conflict in the middle east is the redressing of old wounds and some sort of enforcable détente between the peoples who live there, but *also* the eradication of the culture of terroism and those who responsible for it. The so-called mujahidin that are beheading civilian aid workers in Iraq are not to be offered an olive branch - they have earned the sword, and so it will be given to them.
I completely understand your point of view Irritant. My concern is, look how easily the facts can be flipped.
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is, American troops have now committed a terrorist act, killing thousands of innocent Iraqi people... Continuing to occupy the middle east now, would be inviting a total shitstorm of violence against Americans.
[/ QUOTE ]
This form of retaliation does not offer a path towards a resolution. Even tho Kerry must follow the "kill terrorist" bandwagon in order to be elected, he does add that we must have a plan towards peace. Bush often surrounds himself with the families of innocent victims of 9/11. What about the families of innocent victims in Iraq? How much time is spent feeling their pain?
Mojo makes an excellent point. The presidential campaign, the media, all the buzzwords...are all based on recent events. This conflict was been churning for decades. To honestly find a resolution, we need to concentrate on the war as a whole. I'm very disappointed in both pres. candidates for their unwillingness to focus on historical facts. Instead it's a contant media frenzy of "breaking news" and "alerts". I wanna know who pushed who first. I was born in 82, so I'm not well educated of the events during that time.
Retailiation might end a war between countries but it never ended a guerilla war. Killing millions of VCs didn't win Vietnam, killing palestinians didn't bring peace to Israel. As was often said, terror is an amorphous threat and cannot be completely wiped out. It's a school of thought, not a country or something and it was born from violence. Even if you wipe out Al Qaeda (I don't see how that could be done save for a global nuclear strike since terrorists can be everywhere, even on your own soil) the idea of terrorism still exists and new terrorists will exist. Violence breeds terrorism.
Wars never end with total annihilation, at some point someone always gives in. You'd probably say someone as big as the US cannot give in to something as small as terrorists. Yes, something as large as the US cannot give in to a group of Vietcongs, either!
[ QUOTE ]
This conflict was been churning for decades. I wanna know who pushed who first.
[/ QUOTE ]
It goes way, way, way back, depending on how you look at it. Thousands of years, for the Israelis and Palestinians, and this is all pretty much about the rest of the Middle East's dislike for Israel. It first involved us when we decided to back Israel, but the Middle East 'conflict' will only ever be settled by making the entire region uninhabitable, IMHO. It's a lost cause. They've been fighting for so long they can't stop.
people keep mistaking whats going on in iraq as being one of the things bin is talking about, but it has nothign to do with that, i'm sure if we never bombed afganastan, or went to iraq we would have goten this tape, and probably almost exactly what it says now.. this has nothing to do with iraq its 2 seperate incidents, it is purely about us giving suport to israel, if we pulled all suport from israel, and then killed every last person in iraq, ladden would be happy as could be.
people keep reading this tape as a "get your soldiers out of iraq or else" which is stupid it has 0 to do with the attack on iraq,
Iraq was the third most powerful military presence in the middle east, now dissolved. If America up-and-shipped out of the middle east now as per Osmama's commands there would be a huge power vacuum. This would only change the participants of bloodshed.
There is no peace for the middle east in sight. The problems are age-old, and after WW2 the west figured they'd slice up the cradle of civilization with UN Resolution 181, hoping this might solve....something. The Jews accepted the plan; the Arab nations rejected it. The problem starts there.
Osama might be a brutal murderer, but he's a motivated by opression not madness. He understands the problem, I don't see that problem illustrated by CNN, Fox, ABCNews or any of the others.
It's a shame that powerful men like Bush and Osama can't swallow their pride and lead those that they command to peace.
The interesting thing about Osama's place in the world is that he can speak and everyone will indeed listen.
I think he made it quiet clear that it's the policy of the west that he battles, not the face-of-the-minute that propagates it.
Grind I really impressed with your critical thinking and descernment in this thread.
From what I saw on the news, and it is no phucting Fox or CNN, the Quoran thumpers have to admit to Osamas direct admission to 911. Whereas before this stupid theory was populating among the Moslems that the US and Israel setup 911 so they would have an excuse to invade Arab nations. Which is totally stupid because when has the US or Israel or U.K. ever needed an excuse to invade anyone?
A huge fundamental difference and gulf exists between Osama and say Bush or Kerry. While Bush or Kerry have the ability to use nuclear weapons they do not. Osama on the other hand would needless to say, use them in a New York heartbeat.
Ely your totally and flawlessly correct, no Carter, Reagan, Bush, Gore or Kerry is going to admit to previous mistakes by other Administrations because the politics have changed too much over the years and we would look to hypocritcal. Foreign policy is dynamic cos it needs to change to fit the current American situation, not a previous or future this is basically bad politics and bad in a world view, but prolly serves in the best interest of the US and its Allies. I am not advocating it, just realizing each President and congress in charge at the time is going to seek to justify their actions and decisions. This justification is not all a bad thing, because it also allows for questions and accountability.
As far as Israel is concerned, you have to look back again, for years they were our, or one of our best Allied nations. I think now Saudi is a pretty good Allied nations and Egypt is also to a degree. Pulling out all support would just trip a switch that might start WW3, because the Arab nations could mass invade Israel if they felt they would have no American protection. The Israel occupation conflict has been around for centuries. And the wall idea is really not that impractical. Although many would argue this is segregation at its finest. Another joke is how well Arafat is treated, he is just as much a world crime Boss as they get and is allowed free run to get medical treatment in France.
Also not only is Israel under the cloat of rich Jewish Americans, many bible belt Christians think the fate and destiny of Israel is directly linked in a spiritual plain with the new Church. In otherwords supporting Israel is not all that bad in many Christian Fundamentalists politics. I am not saying this is good or bad. Another piece of the huge mosaic network of why we, the US remains and will remain an active military force in the middle east.
personaly i think pulling out all support from middle east would be a great idea, the whole area would implode in a matter of 50 years, or less. and don't get me wrong i'm not saying that they should be wiped out.. i'm just saying that if they really want to wipe each other out.. then fine.. i mean israel thinks that since we are backing them they can go an push around who they want, it seems fair that they get paybacks if we pulled out.
actualy it would not be so bad if we gave them humanitarian support, like food for hungry kids... but half of the support we give them is military and weapons, thats jsut freaking retarded..
the only major drawback i see in that would be letting osama think he intimidated us into doing so. that would oen up to a floodgate of terror anytime osama wanted something *ring ring* "hello american president, i would like a cheeseburger, bring me a cheese burger.. or ELSE!!"
cleanest way out of this i see is track him down.. Kill him.. and on the same day go "woot hey guys its been fun we are going home! work this out on your OWN!
would have to be allied with one another with 1 common plan to bring their people to peace. We've seen this before, and it can happen again. It's what I pray for. Visionaries.
[ QUOTE ]
Grind I really impressed with your critical thinking and descernment in this thread.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's important to me. The future is my biggest concern in life, considering I'd like to have one. I attempt to see the big picture. What is really happening? I don't care for lies and twisted truths anymore. In America, our homes were built on lies. It's time to change. I'm simply staying calm until I vote soon...or after the results come in.
[ QUOTE ]
the only major drawback i see in that would be letting osama think he intimidated us into doing so. that would oen up to a floodgate of terror anytime osama wanted something *ring ring* "hello american president, i would like a cheeseburger, bring me a cheese burger.. or ELSE!!"
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that theoreticly leaving them also would be the best idea, but practically Isreal has way too many nukes to just say: "Ok lets see what happens"
"Whether long range weapon
or suicide bomb
a wicked mind is a weapon of mass destruction.
... We need to find courage, overcome
inaction is a weapon of mass destruction."
Somebody needs to stand up and tell the truth: that the only way to elevate ourselves out of conflict is to examine, unflichingly, the reasons behind the conflict, and find something that will put these reasons to rest.
No vengeance, no vindictiveness, just openness. Call me a hippie if you want. I call it 'maturity'.
Replies
Of course, this is likely meaningless anyway. I think most Americans have already decided to believe what they want to anyway, and neither this nor any other news will greatly sway their opinions before next Tuesday. I wish Osama had made a point to separate himself from Iraq, that would have been useful. Actually, I need to read the text of his message; at a cursory glance, Osama actually makes some pretty good points. That's the more interesting discussion to me, but it's a dialogue that likely can't happen without causing a riot (the "Hitler-made-the-trains-run-on-time" debate predicament.)
For the past three years, the Bush administration has labeled the threats in the middle east as "terrorist" and "evil doers". That never sat well with me. Attacks are carried out for a reason. You never know who is right or wrong, good or bad...until one side is destroyed. I wish I could read through the old Iraq War thread. I know members such as Slammin posted some great info about the possible role of America doing injustice to the middle east long before the 9/11 attacks. I've stated before my dislike of constantly hearing the phrase "terrorist". The attacks on Sept. 11 could be revenge on America for the damage we've done in the past. Include that with recent events since 9/11, and our government's not-so-secret interest in oil, mixed with a bible thumping political business man. BOOM!
Who is the real terrorist? I sense truth in Bin Laden's message. It's odd, and the timing couldn't be better. When I hear "terrorist", I hear "lies". For the past 3 years, I have felt safe. I do not feel threatened. When I hear Bin Laden's statement "leave us alone, we'll leave you alone", I hear a fair deal. Even with that, I believe the damage in Iraq is already more than we can repair. America has dug itself quite a large hole in the side of the Earth.
My concern from the start has been "what will the history books say". Somehow, I expected this message to come. Just, not so soon.
[ QUOTE ]
"Despite the fact that we are into the fourth year after September 11, Bush is still misleading you and hiding the real reason from you, which means that the reasons to repeat what happened remain," said bin Laden.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds about right. And funny how the pro-Bush side of the media are considering this message a warning of more attacks. FEAR!!! FEAR FEAR!!! vote bush FEAR!!!!
I sense truth in Bin Laden's message.
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly, Grind. That's the real interesting thing here to me. As an American, I'll never accept terrorism against my fellow citizens, but Osama's got a real point. While America didn't choose this form of antagonist, we certainly set the table for it's creation. The comment about Sweden is right on - Bush paints this as a war of freedom, but Osama's telling it how it is, a war against effective imperialism. I refuse to take the ultra-liberal guilt complex position, but at the same time I recognize that more war and greater imposition of western authority isn't what's going to fix things either. Frankly, I don't know that there's anything wrong with the middle east that can't be fixed by building a big fucking wall right down the middle of Israel. You bastards want Old Teastament style fundamentalism? No problem, I had out my justice King Solomon style: You each get half. Deal with it.
Bush has also released a message to the American people.
http://static.vidvote.com/movies/bushuncensored.mov
Take what i say with a grain of salt if you like, i have no fackt to back it, just what i have heard here and there and a large chunk of opinion
The divisiveness in the U.S scares and affects me more than any terrorist does. Maybe that's what they wanted all along.
Bin Laden - 18 minutes of who, what, where, and why...directed to the American people, including reasons and facts of past conflicts.
Bush and Kerry - Short sentence: "we're going to hunt and kill the terrorist". Terror Alert raised.
It's not my intention to jump out and preach "Bin Laden is the good guy". Only that the most wanted man in the world has offered a treaty. He has the same dislike of the American government that most American people share. Something is fishy here.
I've watched news reports (from the pro-Bush media) on the situation, where they bring in the experts to analyze. I've listened carefully, but they just sound like rambling idiots. They're trying so hard to translate this into an evil message. One man tried a tactic of speaking really fast and scrambling all the facts.
As an example. Many sources seem as if they want to translate "Bush cannot protect you", as a message of "I'm still going to kill you no matter who's in charge". I see it as "Bush can only encourage more terrorism".
So far Bush's and Kerry's response has been less than encouraging.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, but they can't be seen to respond any way else. America is not a particularly enlightened nation, and getting past our collective national pride and tough guy attitude because the bad guy actually has a point isn't going to happen. The Greeks call it hubris, and it is so often pride that comes before the fall.
Now in all honesty, I do agree that we need to start thinking about our support of Isreal. Obviously this is something that is a difficult problem, and no doubt influenced the the enormous Jewish American population, who wield alot of power and influence.
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is, American troops have now committed a terrorist act, killing thousands of innocent Iraqi people... Continuing to occupy the middle east now, would be inviting a total shitstorm of violence against Americans.
[/ QUOTE ]
This form of retaliation does not offer a path towards a resolution. Even tho Kerry must follow the "kill terrorist" bandwagon in order to be elected, he does add that we must have a plan towards peace. Bush often surrounds himself with the families of innocent victims of 9/11. What about the families of innocent victims in Iraq? How much time is spent feeling their pain?
Mojo makes an excellent point. The presidential campaign, the media, all the buzzwords...are all based on recent events. This conflict was been churning for decades. To honestly find a resolution, we need to concentrate on the war as a whole. I'm very disappointed in both pres. candidates for their unwillingness to focus on historical facts. Instead it's a contant media frenzy of "breaking news" and "alerts". I wanna know who pushed who first. I was born in 82, so I'm not well educated of the events during that time.
Wars never end with total annihilation, at some point someone always gives in. You'd probably say someone as big as the US cannot give in to something as small as terrorists. Yes, something as large as the US cannot give in to a group of Vietcongs, either!
This conflict was been churning for decades. I wanna know who pushed who first.
[/ QUOTE ]
It goes way, way, way back, depending on how you look at it. Thousands of years, for the Israelis and Palestinians, and this is all pretty much about the rest of the Middle East's dislike for Israel. It first involved us when we decided to back Israel, but the Middle East 'conflict' will only ever be settled by making the entire region uninhabitable, IMHO. It's a lost cause. They've been fighting for so long they can't stop.
Frank the Avenger
people keep reading this tape as a "get your soldiers out of iraq or else" which is stupid it has 0 to do with the attack on iraq,
There is no peace for the middle east in sight. The problems are age-old, and after WW2 the west figured they'd slice up the cradle of civilization with UN Resolution 181, hoping this might solve....something. The Jews accepted the plan; the Arab nations rejected it. The problem starts there.
Osama might be a brutal murderer, but he's a motivated by opression not madness. He understands the problem, I don't see that problem illustrated by CNN, Fox, ABCNews or any of the others.
It's a shame that powerful men like Bush and Osama can't swallow their pride and lead those that they command to peace.
The interesting thing about Osama's place in the world is that he can speak and everyone will indeed listen.
I think he made it quiet clear that it's the policy of the west that he battles, not the face-of-the-minute that propagates it.
Grind I really impressed with your critical thinking and descernment in this thread.
-R
A huge fundamental difference and gulf exists between Osama and say Bush or Kerry. While Bush or Kerry have the ability to use nuclear weapons they do not. Osama on the other hand would needless to say, use them in a New York heartbeat.
As far as Israel is concerned, you have to look back again, for years they were our, or one of our best Allied nations. I think now Saudi is a pretty good Allied nations and Egypt is also to a degree. Pulling out all support would just trip a switch that might start WW3, because the Arab nations could mass invade Israel if they felt they would have no American protection. The Israel occupation conflict has been around for centuries. And the wall idea is really not that impractical. Although many would argue this is segregation at its finest. Another joke is how well Arafat is treated, he is just as much a world crime Boss as they get and is allowed free run to get medical treatment in France.
Also not only is Israel under the cloat of rich Jewish Americans, many bible belt Christians think the fate and destiny of Israel is directly linked in a spiritual plain with the new Church. In otherwords supporting Israel is not all that bad in many Christian Fundamentalists politics. I am not saying this is good or bad. Another piece of the huge mosaic network of why we, the US remains and will remain an active military force in the middle east.
I think now Saudi is a pretty good Allied nations and Egypt is also to a degree
[/ QUOTE ]
Except for that whole "funding suicide bombers" thing, I'm sure.
actualy it would not be so bad if we gave them humanitarian support, like food for hungry kids... but half of the support we give them is military and weapons, thats jsut freaking retarded..
the only major drawback i see in that would be letting osama think he intimidated us into doing so. that would oen up to a floodgate of terror anytime osama wanted something *ring ring* "hello american president, i would like a cheeseburger, bring me a cheese burger.. or ELSE!!"
cleanest way out of this i see is track him down.. Kill him.. and on the same day go "woot hey guys its been fun we are going home! work this out on your OWN!
holocaust.
Osama Bin Laden isn't using The West bas a scapegoat, the problems are 'real' so losing Bin Bin would just result in another leader filling the gap.
The only way to solve this kind of conflict is to have visionaries on both sides allied and brng their people together.
Unfortunately there are more than 3 sides to these conflicts, and the key players are religious fundamentalists.
Fundamentalists have caused bloodshed for years, it's what they are best at.
To extinguish this feud I think:
-muslim fundamnetalists leaders
-Orthodox jewish leaders
-Christian fundamentalist leaders
would have to be allied with one another with 1 common plan to bring their people to peace. We've seen this before, and it can happen again. It's what I pray for. Visionaries.
-R
Grind I really impressed with your critical thinking and descernment in this thread.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's important to me. The future is my biggest concern in life, considering I'd like to have one. I attempt to see the big picture. What is really happening? I don't care for lies and twisted truths anymore. In America, our homes were built on lies. It's time to change. I'm simply staying calm until I vote soon...or after the results come in.
the only major drawback i see in that would be letting osama think he intimidated us into doing so. that would oen up to a floodgate of terror anytime osama wanted something *ring ring* "hello american president, i would like a cheeseburger, bring me a cheese burger.. or ELSE!!"
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that theoreticly leaving them also would be the best idea, but practically Isreal has way too many nukes to just say: "Ok lets see what happens"
"Whether long range weapon
or suicide bomb
a wicked mind is a weapon of mass destruction.
... We need to find courage, overcome
inaction is a weapon of mass destruction."
Somebody needs to stand up and tell the truth: that the only way to elevate ourselves out of conflict is to examine, unflichingly, the reasons behind the conflict, and find something that will put these reasons to rest.
No vengeance, no vindictiveness, just openness. Call me a hippie if you want. I call it 'maturity'.
/jzero
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm
I read the whole thing. Very interesting. Many of the big name news corporations have alternate translations of many portions of this.
Another version just for kicks:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6387378/
I'd say his plan of wiping out our economy was a success.
http://www.planetquake.com/polycount/reviews/ut2003/osama/osama.shtml
-R