[Spliff]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Sorry to rain on your Wiki parade, Spliff. But when one makes an analogy to Hitler and can substantiate that comparison (as opposed to just hurling the "H" bomb) what does Wikipedia say about that?

Comparisons to Hitler are unnecessary in arguments: it's a crutch that's not needed. We know that Saddam is a bad man. We don't require comparisons to Hitler to understand that point, and comparing him to Hitler adds nothing whatsoever to the debate.

People always invoke Hitler to try to prove the something or someone is bad. Comparisons to Hitler are not evidence of anything. They're just comparisons. Hitler also made the trains run on time. Does that mean that every transit authority that makes trains run on time is like Hitler? No.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Do you really want to start making Hitler comparisions?

I attributed the comparison to a nationally syndicated talk show host (I was listening to his show at the time). I saw the similarity between Hitler's tactic and OBL's tactic.

Sorry, but it's hard to deny.

IMO, referring to Hitler or drawing a comparison to Hitler shouldn't be verboten if the reference or comparison can withstand scrutiny.

OBL and Adolph have this in common: Hatred of Jews and a desire to exterminate them without interference.

The reference seems kosher to me.

[sideus]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
The reference seems kosher to me.

lol

[tie]

Originally posted by typoon:
How has he accelerated anti-U.S. sentiment? the didn't need Bush to have it accelerated. They've HATED US FOR MANY MANY YEARS. Bush Accelerated Nothing. They didn't need a bigger Axe to grind. They already saw us as weak after Somalia. Osama called the US a paper tiger. It was already unstable and it was only a matter of time.

How has he accelerated anti-US sentiment? By invading and occupying Iraq, of course. (And in the way he did so, so stupidly.) Did you seriously think somebody reading your argument wouldn't remember Iraq? How can anybody make an argument about anti-US sentiment in the Middle East without mentioning Iraq?! Generally, a theory is nonsense if it fails the common sense test.

We need to stop f*cking around and do ANYTHING it takes to eliminiate these terrorists. These animals ONLY understand violence and it IS the only way to take care of this with them.

Whee! Let's invade Iraq, why don't we? Osama who?

You talk tough, but you support a president who let Bin Laden get away, and sent our troops to fight the wrong war.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Spliff:
Comparisons to Hitler are unnecessary in arguments: it's a crutch that's not needed. We know that Saddam is a bad man. We don't require comparisons to Hitler to understand that point, and comparing him to Hitler adds nothing whatsoever to the debate.

People always invoke Hitler to try to prove the something or someone is bad. Comparisons to Hitler are not evidence of anything. They're just comparisons. Hitler also made the trains run on time. Does that mean that every transit authority that makes trains run on time is like Hitler? No.

Originally posted by Bluesky:

"I know this is difficult for the Bushies, but repeat after me:

Osama Bin Laden, NOT Saddam.

Repeat 100,000 times, rinse and repeat."

If you read my subsequent posts I hope you'll agree i was doing more than merely saying that OBL is a bad man. I was comparing their similar attitude toward Jews and their preference to be left unmolested while "dealing" with the Jews.

Benito Mussolini was satirically lauded for making the trains run on time. Maybe Hitler made the Nazi trains punctual as well.

Unfortunately the Jews in the cattle cars didn't have train schedules on them, but if you say he did, that's good enough for me.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by tie:
How has he accelerated anti-US sentiment? By invading and occupying Iraq, of course. (And in the way he did so, so stupidly.) Did you seriously think somebody reading your argument wouldn't remember Iraq? How can anybody make an argument about anti-US sentiment in the Middle East without mentioning Iraq?! Generally, a theory is nonsense if it fails the common sense test.

Whee! Let's invade Iraq, why don't we? Osama who?

You talk tough, but you support a president who let Bin Laden get away, and sent our troops to fight the wrong war.

Do you seriously think somebody reading your argument wouldn't finally challenge it with the truth of Kerry's flip flopping?
Generally, a Kerry position is nonsense because he can't even pass a common sense test without changing his mind. THIS is the guy you want to lead the US???

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?n...id=44551&rfi=6

"The Kerry campaign has been a chronicle of second-guessing on our military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq to root out and destroy hotbeds of terrorism. A favorite bit of Kerry Monday morning quaterbacking, for example, is his campaign spiel that the Bush administration botched the effort to capture Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan by "outsourcing" the assignment to Northern Alliance forces, enabling the terror kingpin to slip through his encirclement atTora Bora. Contrast this rhetoric with Kerry�s comments at the time (Dec. 14, 2001) in a televised interview on this very issue. "I think we have been smart," he said. "I think the administration�s leadership has done it well. We are on the right track." Kerry then added: "I think we have been doing this pretty effectively. We should continue to do it that way."

[Spliff]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
If you read my subsequent posts I hope you'll agree i was doing more than merely saying that OBL is a bad man. I was comparing their similar attitude toward Jews and their preference to be left unmolested while "dealing" with the Jews.

Who cares if they had a similar attitude. It's an "attitude" shared by many anti-Semites. The comparison adds nothing to the argument. It's that simple.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Spliff:
Who cares if they had a similar attitude. It's an "attitude" shared by many anti-Semites. The comparison adds nothing to the argument. It's that simple.

My ex-brother in law was born and raised in Germany and he said, when he was growing up there it was almost a SIN to even refer to Hitler. Your attitude reminds me of that which he described.

It may seem simple to you, but I have SEVERAL little problems with your post.

1. It sounds like you don't really understand the principle behind the "Godwin Law." If you really think I'm wrong, then please explain for me the PRINCIPLE of it and WHY it's important enough to be included in Wikipedia.

2. Next, I refute your contention that the comparison of OBL to Hitler adds nothing to the argument. It helps put OBL's actions and attitudes in their proper context. No other man I'm aware of has done more than OBL and Hitler to actively deal with their Jewish Problem in such a way and to also threaten the rest of the world to stand back while they did so. Some people may just think of OBL as a goofy bearded guy responsible for the deaths of 3,000 or so people and the billions of dollars in damage.

OBL is much more than that.

Only by using the Hitler comparison might some readers get an accurate picture of OBL's evil intent. A reader might think to herself, "oh, you mean, in addition to 9/11 he ALSO wants to kill all the Jews and he expects his threats to keep anyone from stopping him...just like Hitler. Oh, I get it now!"

3. The only people I know who rigidly and regularly 'police' other folks expression (PC police) are left wingers. R U 1?

4. You are attempting to argue a point you've already lost. Yes?
(Unless you'd rather continue to argue against the 1st Amendment. But, you're Canadian, right?)

5. Finally, freedom of speech is one of the things that Saddam, OBL, Hitler and apparently YOU would try to curtail.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

[Spliff]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
[B]My ex-brother in law was born and raised in Germany and he said, when he was growing up there it was almost a SIN to even refer to Hitler. Your attitude reminds me of that which he described.

What does that prove? That somehow I'm wrong? Fallacy of guilt by association.

Next, I refute your contention that the comparison of OBL to Hitler adds nothing to the argument. It helps put OBL's actions and attitudes in their proper context. No other man I'm aware of has done more than OBL and Hitler to actively deal with their Jewish Problem in such a way and to also threaten the rest of the world to stand back while they did so.

OBL isn't the leader of a nation. He hasn't instituted a elaborate mechanism to exterminate Jews. He has no death camps with ovens used to kill jews, gays, or gypsies. Hitler was more than a terrorist. OBL is a terrorist. He doesn't have a massive army that's capable of overthrowing several countries in a few months time. Your comparison is pointless.

Only by using the Hitler comparison might some readers get an accurate picture of OBL's evil intent.

Maybe you do, but that's your shortcoming. Most people "get it" without the comparison.

The only people I know who rigidly and regularly 'police' other folks expression (PC police) are left wingers. R U 1?

Smells like more fallacies. Guilt by association with a sprinkling of ad hominem.

Finally, freedom of speech is one of the things that Saddam, OBL, Hitler and apparently YOU would try to curtail.

More fallacies. Guilt by association and ad hominem.

You can't make an argument without using a crutch. You're a lazy, ineffectual thinker. Try arguing that OBL is evil without comparing him to Hitler or Stalin or whoever. Try to argue without resorting to insinuation and smears. You think you can do that?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by jojo gunne:


and good for everyone...maybe a large blast and a few hundred dead people in let's say your home town.

Big deal, already had thousands in my hometown.

Your turn next time.

[Judge_Fire]

Can one invoke Chewbacca to counter Godwin's Law?

J

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Hitler tried to turn the world against the Jews to excuse his aggression. Osama Bin Laden is doing the same thing.

Radical Muslims are attacking their neighbors in 14 other countries that have NOTHING to do with Israel.

He's Hitler in a headscarf.

So says, Michael Savage.

Pretty good stuff.

What did Hitler do, he identified an imagined enemy, while capitalising on deep-rooted anti-semitism among the european population, and convinced the german population that Germany is at war against that imagined enemy, that is even present within Germany and outside, and that that enemy consists of terrorists. Hitler declared a war against terror, and even managed to burn the german parliament down by his secret helpers and to claim that jews had done that, and limited citizen-rights..., everything in order to justify and prepare for the expansion-policy to turn Germany into the imperialistic superpower it deserves to be.

Bush and the neocons are the ones that use similar tactics with muslims as the scapegoats. The same deep-rooted anti-semitism that Hitler capitalised on, Bush instrumentalises in the US. Don't forget that arabs are also semites.

It's still not as bad as Hitler, but the similarities are striking.

Taliesin

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Spliff:
What does that prove? That somehow I'm wrong? Fallacy of guilt by association.

OBL isn't the leader of a nation. He hasn't instituted a elaborate mechanism to exterminate Jews. He has no death camps with ovens used to kill jews, gays, or gypsies. Hitler was more than a terrorist. OBL is a terrorist. He doesn't have a massive army that's capable of overthrowing several countries in a few months time. Your comparison is pointless.

Maybe you do, but that's your shortcoming. Most people "get it" without the comparison.

Smells like more fallacies. Guilt by association with a sprinkling of ad hominem.

More fallacies. Guilt by association and ad hominem.

You can't make an argument without using a crutch. You're a lazy, ineffectual thinker. Try arguing that OBL is evil without comparing him to Hitler or Stalin or whoever. Try to argue without resorting to insinuation and smears. You think you can do that?

Why it looks like I've got a new pen pal!

Hitler and bin Laden, sittin in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g,
first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes HITLER (HITLER, HITLER, HITLER) with a baby carriage!

Oh, and to celebrate the blessed event the proud Papa HITLER is passing out cute little doobies, otherwise known as...

(Come on and say it for Papa!)

Ahem...

Lazy, ineffectual thinker that I am could you please 'splain the PRINCIPLE of Godfrey's Law?

Can't do it and still argue the point, can ya?

So, really dude...what is your problem with HITLER?

(Other than the fact that he and OBL have this thing about the Chosen Ones?)

http://hitlerstalinsimilarities.blogspot.com/

Striking Similarities
Hitler�s family name was changed.
Stalin�s family name was changed.
Hitler�s father beat him.
Stalin�s father beat him.
Hitler�s mother gave birth to 3 children before Adolf, all died.
Stalin�s mother gave birth to 3 children before Josef, all died.
Hitler was a sickly child.
Stalin was a sickly child.
Hitler�s father virtually abandoned his family.
Stalin�s father virtually abandoned his family.
Hitler was raised and loved by his mother.
Stalin was raised and loved by his mother.
Hitler very much loved his mother.
Stalin very much loved his mother.
Hitler was a Catholic.
Stalin was an Eastern Orthodox.
Hitler�s mother wanted him to be a Catholic priest.
Stalin�s mother wanted him to be an Orthodox priest.

Nah! I don't think I can argue without insinuating or smearing.

Do you think you could be LESS like...like...like an out of control, control freak?

Hey, you know the butler in, The Addams Family?

Do you know if anyone ever hit lerch in the face with a pie?

Yeah, Spliff you told me all the differences between OBL and HITLER. Now, if you are to separate yourself from a lazy, ineffectual thinker who uses crutches, insinuation and smears (I'm flattered you've nailed my style!) why don't you show everyone how you can argue EITHER side of a point.

How are OBL and HITLER alike?

While you're at it, please tell me some more of my shortcomings!

Why don't I give you a hand, here...

I'm kinda,
Hairy...

You've already mentioned I'm an,
Ineffectual
Thinker

Not to mention,
Lazy

And when I compared OBL to der Fuhrer I was in,
Error..
Really!

Let's see...

Hairy
Ineffectual
Thinker
Lazy
Error
Really

Well, I'll let YOU finish my critique (lazy guy that I am).

[Mithras]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Contrast this rhetoric with Kerry�s comments at the time (Dec. 14, 2001) in a televised interview on this very issue. "I think we have been smart," he said. "I think the administration�s leadership has done it well. We are on the right track." Kerry then added: "I think we have been doing this pretty effectively. We should continue to do it that way." [/B]

That was in response to a specific question about whether the troops should be using flamethrowers instead of laser-guided bombs. Read the transript yourself instead of relying on the Bush campaign:

CALLER: Hello. Yes, I would like to ask the panel why they don't use napalm or flamethrowers on those tunnels and caves up there in Afghanistan?



KING: Senator Kerry?

CALLER: My golly, I think they could smoke him out.

KING: Senator Kerry?

KERRY: Well, I think it depends on where you are tactically. They may well be doing that at some point in time. But for the moment, what we are doing, I think, is having its impact and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will. I think we have been doing this pretty effectively and we should continue to do it that way.

KING: Congressman Cunningham, what do you think of that question?

CUNNINGHAM: I think Senator Kerry is right on the mark. To use a flamethrower, you've got to get right into the area close in. And plus, it doesn't penetrate that deep in those tunnels. You've got to go in there after him. So I think you have to neutralize that threat. And then you can get him out in a lot of different, various ways including what the gentleman spoke about.

KING: General Joulwan, what are your thoughts?

JOULWAN: Well, I think what you are seeing here are laser- designated bombs going in that are highly effective. In fact, I think much more effective than napalm will be given the extent of these tunnels. You may see some of this when the troops get in there, you have troops on the ground. But right now, I think the laser- designated bombs are doing a great job.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Judge_Fire:
Can one invoke Chewbacca to counter Godwin's Law?

J

I'd say so. But what do I know? Hell, I'm just a lazy, ineffectual insinuating, smeary thinker or somthin.

Oops, almost fergot...

Hitler + OBL = TLA

[Saad]

Originally posted by Spliff:


OBL isn't the leader of a nation. He hasn't instituted a elaborate mechanism to exterminate Jews. He has no death camps with ovens used to kill jews, gays, or gypsies. Hitler was more than a terrorist. OBL is a terrorist. He doesn't have a massive army that's capable of overthrowing several countries in a few months time. Your comparison is pointless.

I think we've already established that Hitler comparisons were not necessary or hopeful to ones cause. But while we're at it, Hitler accounted for deaths of tens of millions of people accross Europe. Hitler also had state allies.

[RAILhead]

When Al Qaeda wanted to influence the Spanish elections, and did so by bombing and mass murder. Now they want to influence our elections. They did so by releasing a tape.

They would have hit us if they could.

I'll have to agree with Jim Geraghty on this one.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Mithras:
That was in response to a specific question about whether the troops should be using flamethrowers instead of laser-guided bombs. Read the transript yourself instead of relying on the Bush campaign:

Hi Mithras!

I didn't get that from the Bush campaign, it was an editorial endorsement for the President from The Trentonian newspaper (although they might have accessed the campaign site) and they also said the following:

http://www.zwire.com/site/printerFri...ewsid=13249723

What disturbs us far more about Kerry than his reputed liberalism is that he has shown himself under the pressure of this presidential campaign to lack the courage of his previously stated convictions. When Howard Dean�s intemperate anti-war fulminations proved to be a hot-selling item in the early Democratic primaries, Kerry jettisoned his own more moderate views and adopted Dean�s. As a long-standing member of the Senate�s Select Committee on Intelligence, Kerry had been a loud voice warning repeatedly of the Saddam Hussein threat and calling repeatedly for strong-- and if necessary, unilateral -- military action to address that threat. But when those views turned out to be politically incorrect within his party, he in effect hit the delete key to erase his own previous speeches, op-eds and interviews. In those remarks he had warned of the serious threat the Saddam regime posed in the Middle East in light of international intelligence assessments that the volatile dictator possessed weapons of mass destruction. Kerry now opportunistically adds his voice to the chorus of partisan Bush-bashers charging that the president exaggerated or flat-out lied to "mislead" American into war. In this regard, the Kerry campaign and its news media cheering section also have hit the delete key to erase a salient passage of recent history: that the removal of the Saddam regime became an official U.S. policy goal under a measure signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

[moodymonster]

OBL doesn't care who is the next president of the US, its not important to him. The tape is a psychological weapon - whatever the outcome of the US elections is now, in the background will the question of whether OBL influenced the elections or not, like the Spanish elections. (It could be said that in the Spanish elections the voters voted against the gov't cause the gov't lied [over the origins of the Madrid bombers], but the 'doubt' is there.) Therefore OBL is powerful enough to influence the elections of the most powerful country in the world.

His aim is not to change US foreign policy, but the eradication of the US and what it represents. He (and his followers, [and bosses]) have a version of Islam and are convinced any variation from that is wrong. If someone is following Islam different to them, that person should die, let alone Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists etc.

He and his followers are fanatics, but they are not stupid (and have training and funding). They will realise that a country like the US (and its allies not that we matter, of course - we are insignificant, like the black watch), can't be brought down by violence alone. The violence is there so you take them seriously, but it is just one form of attack. The tape is another.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Saad:
I think we've already established that Hitler comparisons were not necessary or hopeful to ones cause. But while we're at it, Hitler accounted for deaths of tens of millions of people accross Europe. Hitler also had state allies.

We've established NO SUCH THING. I'll thank you for coming to your comrade's aid, but he needs to answer this, Saad.

You never see me telling someone what to say or not say.

I'll chide them. I'll do my best to have fun with em. I'll correct grammar or spelling or facts or stuff, but GARFUNKEL'S LAW???

And then to try and FORCE it down my throat?

Nooooooo.

Michael Savage said something on the air. I posted it and attributed it to him, then said I liked it.

Then some political-correctness-enforcement-cop-wanna-be drags out some BS law that I've never heard of (and which is 'VIOLATED' <snicker> on these boards every day and no one cares, least of all I) and tries to bust my chops?

Nah.

The comparison is valid.

Hitler and Osama bin Laden both hate Jews and want(ed) to kill them and use the threat of violence (intimidation) to keep anyone from coming to their aid.

HITLER + OBL = TLA

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by moodymonster:
OBL doesn't care who is the next president of the US, its not important to him. The tape is a psychological weapon - whatever the outcome of the US elections is now, in the background will the question of whether OBL influenced the elections or not, like the Spanish elections. (It could be said that in the Spanish elections the voters voted against the gov't cause the gov't lied [over the origins of the Madrid bombers], but the 'doubt' is there.) Therefore OBL is powerful enough to influence the elections of the most powerful country in the world.

His aim is not to change US foreign policy, but the eradication of the US and what it represents. He (and his followers, [and bosses]) have a version of Islam and are convinced any variation from that is wrong. If someone is following Islam different to them, that person should die, let alone Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists etc.

He and his followers are fanatics, but they are not stupid (and have training and funding). They will realise that a country like the US (and its allies not that we matter, of course - we are insignificant, like the black watch), can't be brought down by violence alone. The violence is there so you take them seriously, but it is just one form of attack. The tape is another.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
I didn't get that from the Bush campaign, it was an editorial endorsement for the President from The Trentonian

Well with sources like that who can argue...

As a long-standing member of the Senate�s Select Committee on Intelligence, Kerry had been a loud voice warning repeatedly of the Saddam Hussein threat and calling repeatedly for strong-- and if necessary, unilateral -- military action

I think unilateral is a key word here, what I think you fail to see, and I hope you aren't a writer IRL because you don't timeline anything, here Kerry has been saying this all along, Clinton agreed with this, he failed to go to war over it for whatever reason.

After 9/11 and the people responsible were identified Kerry realized we needed to focus on THE PEOPLE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE, he could have fostered a relationship with the Muslim world and set into motion a plan to destroy Al Quida. The main thing Bush did was get us involved in a war with Iraq and tie up most of our military and dump billions of dollars in to it because he is a prick and couldn't get a REAL coalition to do it with us. Well, lets not forget about Poland.

Kerry now opportunistically adds his voice to the chorus of partisan Bush-bashers charging that the president exaggerated or flat-out lied to "mislead" American into war.[/B]

Blah blah blah, The man realized Bush's mistakes LONG ago I remember reading speeches by him damn near two years ago where he said what he is saying now, He feels we shouldn't be in Iraq now, we have bigger fish to fry, that should be take care of and we shouldn't be at it alone. I happen to agree with him.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
What did Hitler do, he identified an imagined enemy, while capitalising on deep-rooted anti-semitism among the european population, and convinced the german population that Germany is at war against that imagined enemy, that is even present within Germany and outside, and that that enemy consists of terrorists. Hitler declared a war against terror, and even managed to burn the german parliament down by his secret helpers and to claim that jews had done that, and limited citizen-rights..., everything in order to justify and prepare for the expansion-policy to turn Germany into the imperialistic superpower it deserves to be.

Bush and the neocons are the ones that use similar tactics with muslims as the scapegoats. The same deep-rooted anti-semitism that Hitler capitalised on, Bush instrumentalises in the US. Don't forget that arabs are also semites.

It's still not as bad as Hitler, but the similarities are striking.

Taliesin

Uh oh, you're in trouble now, Taliesin!

Spliff is gonna cite you for violating GUGGENHEIM'S LAW!

Run while you can!

[SubGeniux]

Surpirse surprise, vmarks your pm box is full again, so I'll post this here

Look vmarks, I'm not even going to go into this with you. I tried to reply to your PM last time you did this about the Bush-Nazi connection, but your PM box was full for days, amd you seemed to not want to give me 5the chance to reply to you. I never got the chance to tackle you on every topic you raised with me. As to WRH, if you're smart enough, you'd see they actually linked to stories by mainstream papers such as the Guardian. Like I said in my post, I did a quick search for people on here on the fake Bin Laden tapes, they have universally been dismissed by virtually every examiner, outside the Bush admin. of course.

Now, if you want me to, I'll take some time and post links that you should deem credible. Simple fact is, 90% of the so-called Bin Laden confesion tapes have been universally dismissed by intelligence agencies, including the CIA, and MI5. The credibility in these tapes, and the very strange conicidence of them being posted now, and in their tone, combined with the wording, is just too funny to be even remotely true.

PS. I've met Bin Laden in the 90s for a British rag, we were one of the very few to ever meet him, and since I worked for the British Government then, I was ideal in examinnig the Al-Qaeeda network, as well as he person of Bin Laden.

These tapes are not him, I can assure you. Just wait a few weks once my fellow researchers are done. If Bush pulled this trick before of dragging up a fake Bin Laden, then it stands to reason that He's at it again. The evidence is there, your problem if you wish to not see it.

Bye.

[Spliffdaddy]

lol

"Just wait a few weks once my fellow researchers are done"

in 3 days it won't matter at all.

in a few weeks it will matter even less.

[chris v]

HELOO-OOO!

http://homepage.mac.com/njenson/movi...concerned.html

[greenamp]

I am sick of hearing people say that anti-american sentiments only began somehow after Bush took office. That statement is so shallow and and anyone who believes it needs to read up on their world history.

Meddling in the affairs of the mideast has been happening since the advent of the 1st world war, when the powers that were divided the place up into the sh*t hole mess it is now. "Hmm, lets re-draw the boundaries of what is now Iraq, to encompass three factions of Islam that hate each other. Brilliant!! And while we're at it, lets tell the Palestinians who have occupied Israel for centuries, that they must leave and give it back to the Jewish people. I'm sure they won't mind."

The problems we are now facing with islamic fundamentalism have been brewing for decades. And the short sided "die commie scum" foreign policies of the 80's under Reagan were simply the straws that broke the camels back (ie: training and funding Islamic militants to help fight Russia in the cold war).

9/11 was not just an attack on America, it was an attack on the world. Why do you think OBL chose to attack the world trade center,? not once, but twice?

America is in part to blame for the mess that is the middle east, but we are not solely to blame. The entire civilized world is to blame. And so far, there are only a handful of countries willing to take responsibility for cleaning up the mistakes of the past.

[Nicko]

Well that's great, that's just ****in' great man. Now what the **** are we supposed to do? We're in some real pretty **** now man... That's it man, game over man, game over! What the **** are we gonna do now? What are we gonna do?

[greenamp]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Well that's great, that's just ****in' great man. Now what the **** are we supposed to do? We're in some real pretty **** now man... That's it man, game over man, game over! What the **** are we gonna do now? What are we gonna do?

There are only two viable methods of action to take:

1) attempt to contain the fire
2) ignore the fire and let it burn

[Nicko]

Originally posted by greenamp:
There are only two viable methods of action to take:

1) attempt to contain the fire
2) ignore the fire and let it burn

3) make marshmellows?

[greenamp]

Originally posted by Nicko:
3) make marshmellows?

Wow, you're very brilliant. You have derailed my entire argument, and are a very valuable contributer here. Good job.

[pooka]

Originally posted by Nicko:
What the **** are we gonna do now? What are we gonna do?

Put her in charge?

[Spliffdaddy]

pooka!

long time no see

[vmarks]

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
There's quite a number of articles on the previous fake Bin Laden confession tapes, here's just one that I found after a quick search.

http://www.public-action.com/911/hvideo.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html
http://www.rense.com/general18/ez.htm
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osama_dead.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/truth.html

SubGeniux,

You didn't link to the Guardian. You linked to sites that support and buy into conspiracy theories. If you meant to link to the Guardian, link to them instead of the sites of completely disreputable miscreants who share the same worth as Holocaust deniers.
The Guardian is no shining darling either, whether it's their lies or just casually wishing someone would assassinate the American president, as they did in print last week.

You claim this isn't Bin Ladin and use no evidence to back it up, but instead rely on links to sites that cannot be considered trustworthy, and simply tell us to trust you on it.

Basically, you're taking a page from Richard Pryor who said upon being caught by his wife while in the arms of another woman, "Who you goin' to believe? Me or your lyin' eyes?"

[awaspaas]

"Derka derka, mohammad jihad."

[PacHead]

Originally posted by awaspaas:
"Derka derka, mohammad jihad."

Sherpa derka derka, mohammad jihad.

[Toutgood]

Originally posted by chris v:
HELOO-OOO!

http://homepage.mac.com/njenson/movi...concerned.html

You da man!

Um, spin away folks!

[jojo gunne]

the fact that bin laden is still walking on this planet is proof that bush is a failure.

in the days of the western frontier a posse and the sheriff would go after the bad guy and stay on his trail. the sheriff wouldn't say 'hey let's go after that crooked mayor over in shiteville'.

tryin' to make it easy for the kiddies to understand about what 'stayin' the course means'.

[SubGeniux]

This is just a joke. I've just read/translated the latest 'Bin Laden' tape, and what is being reported, and said by the Media IS NOTHING LIKE what is said on the tape. This explains why the transcripts so far seem to have major problems in terms of flow.

One quick point that the 'Bin laden' in this tape says, is that the US Government was behind 9/11, not him. I'll post more as I translate it, but I'm sure other media outlets will be saying this soon too, I hope.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by jojo gunne:
the fact that bin laden is still walking on this planet is proof that bush is a failure.

in the days of the western frontier a posse and the sheriff would go after the bad guy and stay on his trail. the sheriff wouldn't say 'hey let's go after that crooked mayor over in shiteville'.

tryin' to make it easy for the kiddies to understand about what 'stayin' the course means'.

Tora Bora: What Really Happened?
The truth here is a bit more complicated than what appears on the surface.

"...Indeed, in an audiotape released on al Jazeera television last year bin Laden himself recounted his own memories of the battle. "We were about three hundred holy warriors. We dug one hundred trenches over an area of one square mile, so as to avoid the huge human losses from the bombardment." In short, there is plenty of evidence that bin Laden was at Tora Bora, and no evidence indicating that he was anywhere else at the time.

[...]

According to Commander Muhammad Musa, who commanded six hundred Afghan soldiers on the Tora Bora frontline, while the American bombing campaign was very effective, US forces on the ground were small in number and ineffective: "There were six American soldiers with us. My personal view is if they had blocked the way out to Pakistan, al Qaeda would not have had a way to escape." And that's the key problem. There were only a relatively few American 'boots on the ground' at Tora Bora, enabling bin Laden and hundreds of other members of al Qaeda to melt away and fight another day.

Why did the United States military--the most powerful armed force in history-- not seal off the Tora Bora region, instead relying only on a handful of US Special Forces on the ground? Historians will no doubt be debating that question for many years, but part of the answer is that the US military was a victim of its own success. Scores of US Special Forces soldiers calling in air-strikes, in combination with thousands of Afghans on the ground, overthrew the Taliban in a few weeks of fighting; a textbook case of unconventional warfare. However, this approach was a failure at Tora Bora where large numbers of Americans on the ground were needed to throw up an effective cordon around al Qaeda's leaders.

Apologists for the US military failure at Tora Bora will no doubt provide several compelling reasons why this was the case, including a lack of airlift capabilities from the US base in neighboring Uzbekistan. However, such explanations are hard to square with the fact that hundreds of journalists managed to find their way to Tora Bora, a battle covered on live television by the world's leading news organizations. If Fox, CNN and NBC could arrange for their crews to cover Tora Bora it is puzzling that the US military could not put more boots on the ground to find the man who was the intellectual author of the 9/11 attacks.
------------------

The only President of the United States in the 20th Century that I'm aware of who dictated battlefield policy was LBJ in the Viet Nam war. It was not a good thing. However, I guess, if the President is Commander in Chief and he must accept the blame as well as the credit for battlefield results, then he'd have to take a small 'hit' for the failure of the operational commanders to have snagged OBL at Tora Bora.

However, the article points out the success the small Special Forces teams had enjoyed until then and they had no reason to believe their operational methods would fail them in this instance.

Mind you, there was NO hard evidence that OBL was even there. The debate still goes on among those within and outside of government as to the truths and facts concerning the battle.

The inability to increase troop strength in that one battle, (only one of many...any one of which might or might not be OBL) due to the lack of airlift capability in Uzbekistan is something I hope to research further.

As to the presence of news teams, CNN ain't armed! When they shoot something, it's not going to bleed. That, and the trust they are given not to disclose the combatant's secrets are why, I'd bet, they are tolerated by and often get access to combatants on both sides (although many are killed in the process).

Also, news crews don't come in great numbers (I would guess AT MOST a crew would be, correspondent, camera person, sound man, maybe a producer and an interpreter. I could well imagine it being only 2 or 3 people in a combat environment) and they don't stay long. So, the Muslims wouldn't fear/hate them as they would a military team or even civilian contractors.

Finally, and this all is just my opinion, most news teams in a combat zone may simply follow the news rather than venturing out on their own to search for it.

The difference is that by following a military unit, they get to know the soldiers, they get better insights into any story that might develop from that unit's combat action, they get protection and can share supplies. I don't know how many news crews were on hand at Tora Bora or how they got there.

Bush's decision to invade Iraq wouldn't have impacted that battle at all.

An excerpt from the Larry King show,

"KING: What about enhancing this war, Senator Kerry. What are your thoughts on going on further than Afghanistan, all terrorist places...

KERRY: Oh, I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge."

Once again, the Trentonian;

"A favorite bit of Kerry Monday morning quaterbacking, for example, is his campaign spiel that the Bush administration botched the effort to capture Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan by "outsourcing" the assignment to Northern Alliance forces, enabling the terror kingpin to slip through his encirclement atTora Bora. Contrast this rhetoric with Kerry�s comments at the time (Dec. 14, 2001) in a televised interview on this very issue. "I think we have been smart," he said. "I think the administration�s leadership has done it well. We are on the right track." Kerry then added: "I think we have been doing this pretty effectively. We should continue to do it that way."

Calling Bush a failure for Tora Bora is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

[BRussell]

Someone in the Bush campaign called bin Laden's video our little gift.

"We want people to think 'terrorism' for the last four days," said a Bush-Cheney campaign official. "And anything that raises the issue in people's minds is good for us."

A senior GOP strategist added, "anything that makes people nervous about their personal safety helps Bush."

He called it "a little gift," saying it helps the President but doesn't guarantee his reelection.

[Logic]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Someone in the Bush campaign called bin Laden's video our little gift.

Why do you think OBL chose this timing for the release? It's all too obvious but unfortunately for the Bushies they won't see it and will play straight into OBL's hands.



America, I congratulate you on another four years of **** ups, mistakes and playing into the enemies hands.

[vmarks]

an un-named campaign official? sure, that's verifiable.

Shouldn't it prompt self-examination that so many Democrat talking points coincide with Bin Ladin's speech? Shouldn't it prompt some reflection, some questioning, causing people to ask "how did I become so partisan that my own arguments are being echoed by a man who planned and enjoyed the mass murder of Americans?”

[aberdeenwriter]

On behalf of America, I thank you, Logic.

On a different subject, there's no specific point I'm making with this OBL quote from 1998, it's just for "fun."

"The Hunt for Bin Laden" PBS FRONTLINE

OBL:We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets, and this is what the fatwah says ... . The fatwah is general (comprehensive) and it includes all those who participate in, or help the Jewish occupiers in killing Muslims.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by vmarks:
an un-named campaign official? sure, that's verifiable.

Shouldn't it prompt self-examination that so many Democrat talking points coincide with Bin Ladin's speech? Shouldn't it prompt some reflection, some questioning, causing people to ask "how did I become so partisan that my own arguments are being echoed by a man who planned and enjoyed the mass murder of Americans?�?

Makes me wish I'd said that.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by vmarks:
an un-named campaign official? sure, that's verifiable.

Shouldn't it prompt self-examination that so many Democrat talking points coincide with Bin Ladin's speech? Shouldn't it prompt some reflection, some questioning, causing people to ask "how did I become so partisan that my own arguments are being echoed by a man who planned and enjoyed the mass murder of Americans?”

Indeed. It should prompt reflection onto why Osama is still free, breathing, and has access to the world media on a whim. Is it not disturbing to you that a guy hiding in a dusty cave half way around the world brandishing a mini-cam is influencing how the country with the most powerful military on earth is going to vote?


I guess the Americans should have stopped him when they had the chance eh?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Makes me wish I'd said that.

I don't think it's a laughing matter.

[jojo gunne]

Originally posted by vmarks:
an un-named campaign official? sure, that's verifiable.

there's a lot of unnamed sources flying around. i keep pulling my back out ducking the friggin' things. even the tape of bin laden is probably fake and who is this 'american taliban' and this and that...i'm dizzy too!!??



and thanx abwriter for the info.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by vmarks:
an un-named campaign official? sure, that's verifiable.

Shouldn't it prompt self-examination that so many Democrat talking points coincide with Bin Ladin's speech? Shouldn't it prompt some reflection, some questioning, causing people to ask "how did I become so partisan that my own arguments are being echoed by a man who planned and enjoyed the mass murder of Americans?�?

It does bother me. On the other hand, it bothers me even more that bin Laden only in his wildest happy dreams thought we would invade and occupy Iraq.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by BRussell:
It does bother me. On the other hand, it bothers me even more that bin Laden only in his wildest happy dreams thought we would invade and occupy Iraq.

For him and others alligned with him, I'm sure its fish in a barrel.