Some of us have been saying for quite some time that the Bush administration's approach to combatting terror is, at the very best, misguided and counter-productive. The tape broadcast by al Jazeera today (which, curiously, Colin Powell somehow heard in advance), purporting to be a message from Osama bin Laden, demonstrates that we were exactly right.

Because of the White House's precipitate war-mongering, bin Laden (or whoever is claiming to be bin Laden) instead of condemning Saddam Hussein's al-Baath party as "infidels" - as most Islamic fundamentalists (including al-Qaeda) had been doing - is now claiming to share a common goal with Iraq: the destruction of the US.

Due to their destructive approach to terrorism, the Executive is creating terrorist links where there were none, fostering terrorists among people who had not previously been engaged in a struggle against the US, and forging alliances among people who previously had no "common goals". U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the recording shows that Iraq and al-Qaeda "are bound by a common hatred". Yeah - absolutely. He forgot to add that it is a hatred which we are consciously inspiring and a bond that our leadership has willfully created.

The Bush admin's previously unfounded hysteria about links between Iraq and al-Qaeda is becoming a self-fulfilling prophesy. One must wonder if, for thoroughly cynical reasons, this is actually the intent. Why else would any government actively incite their enemies against them as this administration has been doing for months now?

al-jazeera denies powell's claim of new OBL tape:
http://www.wpmi.com/Global/story.asp?s=1124622 - http://www.breakingnews.ie/story.asp?j=620...8686&n=62008740 - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/a...article1348.htm

Yes, I saw that in early reports this morning (even in the mainstream press), but subsequent reporting has said "which al Jazeera at first denied having". This seems to have since been amended. I suspect it arose from confusion over something being lost in the translation of "audio" and "video" tape.

Yes, I'm now confused,


Al-Jazeera has broadcast the tape today.

Thank God for small favors huh?

I don't see how inciting international terrorism can be seen as a "favor" by anyone. And I doubt very much that God had anything to do with it...

It's just too convenient, and therefore suspicious.

It's also illogical, as has been pointed out.

But I guess none of this matters. War will be done no matter what anyone else thinks.

It is for our own good. Swallow it!

And buy up a bunch of duct tape and plastic sheeting, you know, just in case

911 happened without all the war-mongering didn't it? Clinton "loathed" the military...he certainly wasn't a war monger.

And I want to see a link where OBL/ al-Qaeda calls Iraq infidels.

OBL has made his grievences with the US clear, despite what you all might think. I've posted it at least a couple times. Do a search. Or, run a search on google for 1998 fatwa jihad. im sure something will popup.

Clinton did little. Actually, during the CLinton administration, we did nothing....when the terrorists blew up our embassies, navy vessels and barracks', we did nothing.

We did nothing when they attacked the WTC the first time. We slapped them on the wrist and sent them on their way.

Face it, OBL doesn' t like us because we support the jews, and have a military base in Saudi Arabia. Our base is there with the consent and permission of that gov't (Is OBL king of S.A?), and no one tells us who we can and can't ally with. (Isreal)

They declared war on us a long time ago, and have been fighting all this time. It isn't going to go away on it's own, and we certainly aren't going to change our foreign policy to accomodate OBL and his diciples.

So it's best to fight it out. Get it over with. 911 happened with no war mongering. the bee stings they once were, are now dog bites....or worse. Time to bring out the big stick.

Let me say this again just for clarification:

911 happened with no war mongering
911 happened with no war mongering
911 happened with no war mongering
911 happened with no war mongering

--cheers

--Edited to include link--
1998 fatwah, fulltext
http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm

People have been asking for proof for a long time now. Now that it's here, you doubt it. No suprise.

Didn't really think any amount of proof was going to change anyones mind?

--cheers

DP

Don't worry, we have idiots not that don't think the holocaust even happened because they don't have any hard evidence...or haven't seen it for themselves. I imagine one day there will be more idiots bred by these idiots that think the employees were *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** at working and blew up the WTC.

Darcaine

DP and Darcaine,

I'll let the idiot thing slip. However, don't you think that this proof has to be taken on faith that our government is being perfectly candid with us? Modern technology can produce fake proof, as both of you know. So the basic difference between you two and me is that you take whatever the government tells you about the war with Iraq on faith, and I do not.

I am still not convinced that war is the only option. I am still of the opinion that Bush & Co. want this war with much too much zeal. This is enough cause for suspicion.

Back in my mind, there is the Gulf of Tonkin incident that lead to a zealous SE Asian war. Many years later, the truth of that incident came out in a book by Jim and Sybil Stockdale, In Love and War, that proved there was no Gulf of Tonkin incident. Jim knows--he was there.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

9/11 happened, no doubt. OBL was hunted, Afghanistan reengineered, and now we go after Iraq. Both of you have faith that the government has nothing but our best interests in mind. I actually hope you are right.

I, however, have no such faith.

So let me get this right:

Some people actually believe that the Bush administration has fabricated the Bin Laden tape to incite the American public?

Point made. No comment necessary...

Now let's go bomb some asprin factories!!!

Mike

Do you have a point?

Iraq had nothing to do with the September 11 attack
Iraq had nothing to do with the September 11 attack
Iraq had nothing to do with the September 11 attack
Iraq had nothing to do with the September 11 attack

That was fun. How about this one:

Without the Bush admin's aggression toward Hussein, al-Qaeda would not now consider him an ally
Without the Bush admin's aggression toward Hussein, al-Qaeda would not now consider him an ally
Without the Bush admin's aggression toward Hussein, al-Qaeda would not now consider him an ally
Without the Bush admin's aggression toward Hussein, al-Qaeda would not now consider him an ally


Mike: I don't believe that the most recent audio tape was fabricated - though I'd be way less likely to completely dismiss the possibility of fabrication than you are. In fact, this is the most convincing thing I've heard from "bin Laden" since September 28, 2001. The point I was making here was that the military aggression of the Executive against Iraq is fostering terror and creating "common goals" where previously there had been none. I believe that this is self-evident - even without the most recent tape. Bush and Co. are inciting terrorism, engendering networks among our previously rather dormant enemies, and putting the people of this country at greater risk with their every utterance.

I'll believe he's alive when i see his face on a video tape

But no matter if the tape is real or not, it won't boost morale of his radical friends. Some of them are starting to shun him because of his twisting of the Muslim faith & using it as his justification to kill innocents

Osama has "lost his path"

We would be fools to fabricate video tapes and audio tapes of Bin Laden.

Don't you think that the intellegence organizations from other countries, particularly France, Germany, and Belgium, would be analyzing and exposing a false video?

How is it that so many people doubt the administration's ability to run the country (an intangible), and at the same time give them credit for being able to falsify video (a tangible)?



There have always been common goals. To say that two people who hate America don't have common goals confuses me.

Remember, this is not a preemptive strike. It is a resumptive strike.

Cease fire reached, cease fire broken, cease fire halted. Simple contract law.

Mike

I'd like to believe that bin Laden's popularity among certain fundamentalist muslims is waning, but the article you cite isn't very encouraging. One guy on trial for incitement in the UK disowning bin Laden isn't exactly what I'd call a groundswell.


Mike: Frankly, I still don't think they have a common goal - but bin Laden (or whoever) does now have a much better case for rousing anti-American sentiment within Iraq to anti-American action anywhere in the world. Granted, Hussein has good reason to hate us lately and bin Laden has always thought he had good reason to hate us, but they have never been united behind a common goal. Each White House pronouncement brings us one step closer to such a coalition becoming a reality.

Oh - and speaking of those tapes, just about everyone outside the US government who has examined and assessed the previous tapes has found them dubious. I'm not necessarily suggesting that anyone within the US government is fabricating tapes, but they have very good reasons to accept them as authentic without very rigorous examination.

Links or proof please indicating the previous tapes are fabricated(if not fabricated,then their claim of dubious).

It has been suggested that Iraq is producing and preparing to sell chemical and biological weapons to interested parties which would clearly include bin laden and company.

Are you saying that Iraq is not a participant in the chemical and biological weapon brigade? Or that Iraq is involved in manufacturing these weapons but will not be supplying OBL?

Or are you suggesting that those involved in the 9/11 attack were not associated with Iraq? If this is your suggestion - then I imagine - you are assuming that Irag's uninvolvement in 9/11 ensures that Iraq would not be involved in any future terrorist attack.

Why wouldn't they? We are an enemy of Iraq. Iraq watched OBL's "successful" attack. Don't you think that Iraq would start looking to OBL for support?

jjirout

"Earlier, German security sources said they believed the voice on an audio tape broadcast by a Qatar television channel which exhorted Muslims to fight the "allies of the devil" was Osama bin Laden. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...en_germany_dc_4



Germany seems to think the tapes are actually OBL.

Flippin 'eck - some huge leaps of logic here

I always wondered how osama got those chemicals from this article:

Osama ticks off PETA

Silly me. I thought this was called the war on Terrorism. Have I been mistaken?

Is it the war on Osama?
Is it the war on Afg?
Is it the war on al-Queda?

no, no and no. It's the war on terrorism. Bush has never said, nor ever implied, that the brunt of our attacks would be directed at Osama or the purpatrators of 911. There is more to terrorism than OBL/al-Queda

--cheers

That's a good one, "resumptive" strike.

Okay, whatever, it still comes down to a matter of faith, and I am still not convinced that war is the only alternative.

The Bush administration is convinced, however.

Now I question why this was not part of the initial campaign for the office. The 9/11 tragedy did not change Iraq's positions, its WMD efforts, or the facts from the first round of inspections. The drawing of lines between terrorists and Iraq has been a fairly recent effort.

Listen: I am no fan of Saddam. I'm sorry that he takes comfort in worldwide peace demonstrations. I wish the world could figure out a way to get rid of him without war.

But Bush took this upon himself early on and wanted to act without the UN. He wanted to act before the 2002 elections. These two facts should be raising many eyebrows . . .

And they are. Many of my contemporaries, Vietnam vets, feel the same way. We were fooled once. We won't be fooled again.

Other folks have been gung-ho about this from the beginning.

Like I have said: non-faith versus faith. That's that. Let's hope that, when we go to war, the faithful are right. It would be a shame if this is just another tawdry manipulation.

Eh, whatever, war is coming. Just like the early 1960s, people are all gung-ho--and probably just as naive now as then.

Now that we are about to employ the doctrine of preemptive war towards anybody that might be a threat to us down the road, I wonder if the BA and some of the posters here have thought about the reciprocal principle being applied in our direction. Make you feel safer?

Bush's policies are a terrorists dream. He is now their biggest recruiter while he's wrecking the alliance with Nato and encouraging nuclear proliferation and other WMDs to counter our preemptive policies and hostility to international standards. I guess a lot of Americans like that chauvinistic Texas macho. Looks like hari kari to me.

Say your prayers.

Sorry: I thought I'd already posted that here. A few such links are, in fact, included in the opening posting to this thread on bin Laden.



I have no idea. To my knowledge, the US has no treaties with Iraq relating to the manufacture of such weapons. Therefore, it is none of our business unless and until such weapons may be used against us or our allies. We are not the hall monitors for the international trade in weapons - indeed, we are the biggest unregulated retailer.


Yes. That is exactly what I am suggesting. No one has even attempted to manufacture evidence that Iraq had anything whatsoever to do with the September 11 attack. The very idea is ridiculous. Until Bush and Co. started actively trying to foster widespread terrorist attacks against the US, Iraq and al-Qaeda would've been just about the least likely allies imaginable. Whether Iraq might be involved infuture terrorist attacks is totally speculative and irrelevant (though, thanks to the White House, increasingly likely with every passing day). What - are you advocating punishment for potential future crimes? No wonder you adapt so readily to the Bush autocracy. There are over four hundred active terrorist groups in the world right now - and many sovereign countries which support some of them. To carry The Bush Doctrine to its logical conclusion, we should really be declaring "preemptive" war on everyone - ourselves included. Then again, the utter destruction of all humanity does appear to be the course that the Bush admin is charting - so maybe they are being consistent...

As you seem to need a reminder, though, "those involved in the 9/11 attack" were primarily associated with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Looks like we choose our "allies" as wisely as we do our presidents, huh?


Apart from the mutual goal which the Bush administration is providing to Iraq and al-Qaeda, the two have little in common. Ideologically, they are diametrically opposed. Until recently, bin Laden would've placed Saddam Hussein in roughly the same class as George W Bush (though, in fact, as violent, fascist-leaning fundamentalists, bin Laden and Bush have much more in common than Hussein and either of them). If Iraq does start looking to al-Qaeda for support, it will be solely and exclusively because the Executive of United States created the motive for it to do so.



I'll second that, Brunie! "Logic" has never been the forte of the Bush administration - or its supporters. It couldn't be.



I'm inclined to agree. I think this most recent audio tape is, as I've already mentioned, the most credible message from bin Laden since September 28, 2001. But I was referring to the previous tapes - the video tapes - of bin Laden. This is what I meant by "the previous tapes".



Yes, you have. So has the occupant of the Oval Office. This is not a "war" on anything. Wars are declared by Congress, not an autocratic despot with absolutely no mandate whatsoever.


You're right. It is not up to the "compassionate" man who promised "a humble foreign policy" to set any kind of agenda regarding "our attacks". Force - as a last resort - has been authorized only in relation to Iraq - and only in relation to enforcement of UN Resolutions.


Yes, there certainly is: like the United States of America to name but one.



Thank God - someone who gets it. Thanks, Dingo.

Are you joking or just illiterate?

A lives near B. A and B do not live near C. Both A and B do like C.

If either A or B want to attack C, would it be an advantage or disadvantage for A to seek support from B or for B to seek support from A...

keeping in mind the close proximity between A and B, and the motivations involved...

Brunie writes that this is a "leap of logic".

I'm freaking out. Either logic has two entirely different definitions or this accusation is a total reversal, a paradox. A paradox within a conundrum - the conundrum being - that Brunie's point is a complete mystery.

jjirout



Or maybe it is just a bad dream.

jjirout

yes, let's forget saddam hates bin laden for being a fundamentalist, and let's also forget bin laden hates saddam for being an infidel, pig dog socialist. bin laden and saddam working together would be like stalin and the pope working together. they would not likely get past idealogical differences to work together, if they would even speak in the first place.

I find it funny that the US insists iraq is helping AQ, when all the supposed AQ bases in iraq are in areas not in saddams control, but under control of the people we support, the kurds. (not saying that they help AQ)

here is an early screen capture from the MSNBC story on the tape, scrubbed and replaced with a better version of the story. does that seem like something you would say about an ally? (don't bother trying the website, it is now Bush rallies the troops

No - not Stalin and the Pope but maybe Stalin and Hitler -

Communism - Nazism - like AQ's Fundamentalism - are political and religious. The Pope's rhetoric - is unlike Stalin, Hitler, bin laden, and suddam because the Catholic Church does not presently take the political initiatives that the former do. The Pope gives speeches - but infrastructures are designed to employ the separation of church and state.

Anyway, Stalin and Hitler did work together to some degree.

But the question is: does saddam hate bin laden more that he hates us?

Hitler did not believe in "communism" nor did Stalin believe in "nazism"; for political advantage, they set aside their ideologies and prejudices. How happily did Hitler embrace the jewish influence in the Soviet Union? Wouldn't Hitler have considered Stalin an Infidel for this?

But, we all know the end to WWII and I have not yet decided on whether or not this impending war will increase or decrease our chances of being attacked again.

jjirout

A Declaration of War would have to be against a specific COUNTRY

The War on Terrorism is against a specific GROUP of individuals, not a country




That's not nice. The United States is not a terrorist state. We don't kill innocents. We try not to kill innocents.

Well, you're clearly not joking...

Your initial posting did indeed make some astonishing leaps: "It has been suggested that Iraq [A] is producing and preparing to sell chemical and biological weapons [B] to interested parties [C] which would clearly include bin laden and company[D]." In other words, A = B, therefore C = D.

That was pretty bad, but your next syllogism was even worse: because Iraq did not participate in the September 11 attack, they will participate in future acts of terror. Huh? Talk about conundrums, JJ!

Now you come up with a justification for a "logical" sequence which runs something like this: We are an enemy of Iraq; Iraq saw bin Laden's attack on the US; therefore, Iraq will form a coalition with bin Laden. That justification for that convoluted series of leaps? "Proximity". I guess this is why Iran and Iraq are such close allies. They are both enemies of the US (according to Dubya, anyway) and - hey - they are about as proximate as two countries can get. Speaking of the latter-day "axis", I understand that South Korea is not much interested in an American presence within her borders any more. I guess she'll be teaming up with the "proximate" North Korea any day now.

Logic apparently does have two entirely different definitions: what it means to you and what it means to the rest of the world.



The penny drops! Excellent. I am delighted to see you agreeing that to wage war against Iraq or North Korea or Iran is pointless, illegal, and unconstitutional. Please write the President and share your feelings. Or, better yet, write your members of Congress and demand the impeachment of Bush.


Actually we do kill innocents, but that is not what I meant. I was referring more to our sponsorship of terrorist states and despots who routinely employ terror, to the fact that we support and finance terror - indeed are one of the major sponsors of terrorism in human history. We have a long, rich tradition of promoting terror - and please don't plead ignorance of that much US history. The fact that our leadership knows so much about terrorism is one of the reasons that they are finding it so easy to goad people to acts of terror even as we type these postings...

Do you have any real proof of this.

I got on google and did many searches for "US sponsored terrorism". Although there were many sites which claimed of instances of US sponsored terrorism, none of them had any references to their claim.
Hell I could register a .com or .org domain and post my own site spewing anything I wanted to about any subject, and I am sure some where somebody would use my so called information as fact.

And to the argument at hand will action on Iraq incite more terrorists acts? Yes it will. Then again I am not a pacifist, and refuse to sit and wait to be attacked again.

Sleeper

What's more terrifying, Bush going after SAddam Hussein [Which may incite terror], or the US not doing anything and running the risk of SH giving nukes to terroists?

CP

i've argued that fact many times. Blogs shouldn't be considered fact.

But alas, my efforts were futile.

--cheers

Let's give Wertz a chance to provide his sources before tearing them apart.

If you want to discuss what makes for an appropriate source, we have a thread going here: Backing up your statements

I find this persistent argument to be frustrating. Why would Saddam Hussein work for decades to obtain nuclear weapons and them give them away? Why would he jealously guard his power and commit acts of atrocities along the way yet commit political suicide by giving a nuclear weapon to a terrorist. . . And in the case of Al Qaeda, a terrorist organization whose Islamic fundamentalist principles he waged a decade long war against?

So Hussein's nuclear program is designed to give his state clout and be used for political blackmail. He would not give this stuff away to terrorists just because the prospect of it frightens the bejesus out of us.

The U.S. doesn't support terrorist acts of government? They sold arms that were used in the genocide of East Timor for decades and didn't even try to raise the issue. That is a well documented situation. Try reading "East Timor: Genocide in Paradise." I suppose that book is just full of lies too though.

Yes they sold arms, but they did not scheme to commit acts of terrorism.

Sleeper

The U.S. sold arms specifically for the military action in East Timor. No they didn't plan the genocide, but they surely participated. France, Germany, GB and Canada also participated in what some people like to call the Silent Holocaust, and the fact that nobody seems to care is a great mystery to me.

I will do so gladly - but this is not the appropriate thread. If someone wants to start a new one to address our history of sponsoring terrorist states, let me know. Sadly, most of my sources on this are print. I have no idea what's online regarding our sordid history in this regard, though I can check it out should someone seriously doubt this. (I really did think this was a matter of common knowledge. Therefore it was an offhand remark agreeing with the comment that there's more to terrorism than al-Qaeda.)

Meanwhile, to answer ConservPat's on-topic question: Hussein has no nuclear capability. It would therefore be difficult for him to give away something which he does not possess. Paranoid fantasy aside, your question then boils down to "What's more terrifying: inciting terror or not inciting terror?" I should think the answer to that was obvious.


Okay, I started a new thread to discuss US-sponsored terror. I'd appreciate it if Eeyore, Ultimatejoe, and Sleeper could reiterate their posts there. Thanks.

Edited to add link to new thread.

you can't prove that Wertz, nor can you say that with any amount of certainity. And defecting Iraqi nuke scientists would disagree with you.



Hmm, you make a compelling arugument Eeyore. In fact, it might have just changed my mind (don't let that go to your head!!)

However, "give" might not be the most appropriate word to use. how about "sell" instead? Saddam is pretty selfish and arrogant, I don't think he woudl do anything that wouldn't benefit him personally.

I think he could sell his nukes (when/if he gets them) but there will be something in it for him.

--cheers

I don't even think you got the point of my post

I was telling you want a declaration of war was

Besides, did anyone ever yell for Clinton's impeachment when he dragged us into Kosovo or did someone suggest impeachment when Truman dragged us into North Korea in the 50's??

I can say whatever I like with as much certainty as pleases me. In this case I can say that Hussein has no nukes with absolute certainty. You are partially right about proof, though - it's very difficult to prove a negative. I could claim that Agnes Berlinger of Pocatela, Idaho, has nuclear weapons and defy you to disprove it. You, too, would have a very difficult time. The best you could do is argue that there is no evidence - no proof - that Ms. Berlinger has such weapons and never has been. And that's the best I (or anyone else) can do regarding your claim. As the good woman from Idaho is living in a country which is known to have nuclear capability, however, it's somewhat more likely that she's got her hands on a few nukes than it is that Hussein has.



Uh, yeah - I kinda got that. I was just observaing that you'd proved my point: that an invasion of and military action against Iraq (which happens to be "a COUNTRY" rather than a "GROUP of individuals") would, without a Congressional declaration of war, be illegal and unconstitutional. Thanks again.


Yes to both. Did you imagine that Kosovo and Korea had unanimous support from every citizen in the country?? The same, by the way, was true of Vietnam (under presidents of both major parties) - in case that was your next question.

Did anyone ever yell for Clinton's impeachment when he dragged us into Kosovo or did someone suggest impeachment when Truman dragged us into North Korea in the 50's??[/QUOTE]
Yes to both. Did you imagine that Kosovo and Korea had unanimous support from every citizen in the country?? The same, by the way, was true of Vietnam (under presidents of both major parties) - in case that was your next question.

Are we missing something here???

Who the hell cares what 'smooth talking' razzmatazz head we elect.
Choose one.........try Madonna, Britny Spears........go for it!!!!

All of them are simply a shirt to wash and dry according to the REAL power.

I ask you this.

Who impeaches who?........the majority of the people or those put there originally?.
Is it an American People vote?.
Or is it dependant on those you voted for.

Who calls the shots? Americans or ?????.

Regards..........Alan

Um...hate to break the ice but the American people don't have a vote in the impeachment proceedings

Only if they participate in the wild CNN polls on CNN.com

Um...hate to break the ice but the American people don't have a vote in the impeachment proceedings.

We don't have a vote in war, impeachment, abortion, or anything else come to think of it. It's debatable if we even have a true vote when it comes to choosing a President.

We are not going to debate the idea of a Representative Democracy (which we have) vs. a Democracy (which is what appears some of you want) in this thread. Wertz will be mad at us.

If anyone is interested, start a new thread, please.

see comparison between Saddam and Bin to Hitler and Stalin.

[QUOTE]Iraq did not participate in the September 11 attack, they will participate in future acts of terror. [i]Huh?[/

You likely had a point here, but your insults have not exactly opened the door for further discussion.

jjirout

He would give them away to a terroist so the terroist can blow it up in one of our cities. Technically he wouldn't be the one who actually used the nuke, he could just blame it one the terrorist.

CP

I don't get mad, I just get bitchy.

Baseless speculation on your part...but since that's what is being fed to you day and night I'm not surprised that you believe it even if the rest of the world doesn't.