I say, go for it. If you can’t trust a guy who has murdered more than three thousand innocent people, who can you trust?
I think if and when we capture him we need to keep him alive until the world finally starts seeing him as an impotent insane old man.
Right now he’s a powerful symbol to a lot of people and we need those people to get bored of him and his silly rants.
Maybe you should tell President Bush:
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. There’s no doubt that Iraq became a front in the war on terror, and that al-Qaida is fighting that battle. The point is that they are losing. Badly. The U.S. military has killed thousands of them, and because the military is too hard a target the response from al-Qaida has been bombings which have killed far more muslim citizens of Iraq than Americans, and this has really hurt them.
The people of Iraq have increasingly come to loathe al-Qaida, and as of the last couple of months the home-grown insurgency has turned on the al-Qaida types. The Iraq war has been a big setback for them. If you don’t believe me, go look at middle eastern opinion polls on al-Qaida over the past two years.
I don’t believe you, but I’ll be damned if I will do your legwork for you. If you think you can support it, then cite it. You know the dance.
The difference in meaning there is, well, what? If the more-commonly-quoted shorter version distorts its sense, perhaps you can show where.
Bush is NOT going after the mastermind of 9/11, had a chance to get him at Tora Bora but passed it up, and more than 4 years later still isn’t doing anything about it. His actions as well as his words indicate that he doesn’t give an actual damn about apprehending the culprit. So why do you defend him?
If you’d care to expound upon how this is “bad news for the Democrats” but does not serve as a reminder to all of Bush’s dereliction of duty, then out with it, chum.
Sounds like he’s just tired of hiding from a technologically advanced nation hell-bent on finding him. His quality of life has suffered tremendously in order to keep himself hidden. He knows we are going to get him eventually. This seems like an effort to stop being the hunted fox. At the end of the day, he’s pretty much all alone in the world. I think it’s a good sign that we are doing our job. We’ll get him.
No truce for you!
Sure it would be nice if everyone went home and played nice, but for all we know “truce” can be the trigger word for sleeper cells in the U.S. to go on the move.
My thoughts are to keep huntin’ this biatch til he resembles his good buddy, Shish Abu Khabab.
-LC
And we all know how important quality of life is to Osama… :rolleyes:
It seems to me that the proper response would be from either Sec. Rice or President Bush, “We do not negotiate through civilian intermediaries such as television networks because (a) it puts them the network in too risky a position with regard to its own objectivity and (b) it is too difficult for us to authenticate the supposed offers. Therefore, if Osama et al approach our forces or representatives directly, while unarmed and under an honest white flag of truce, then we would of course listen to them and to what they had to say. Until that point we will continue to take action that we deem necessary and proper.”
It’s all about perspective. You see him in old video clips in his ‘comfort zone’ from your suburban home and you make comparisons between his lifestyle and your own. You then make the assumption that this is a low quality lifestyle for him. Those clips of him among his kind in the desert (admittedly looks as if he’s roughing it) is a far cry from what his necessary accommodations must currently be in order to keep him from being captured. Remember, we found Saddam in a spider hole.
Make no mistake, just because the media isn’t reporting every day that, “We’re still looking for Osama”, doesn’t mean we aren’t looking for him. We are. Sounds to me like he’s really beginning to feel the heat.
My God that is a dishonest response!! The “shorter version” is MADE UP. It isn’t true. I don’t have any comment about something that is made up. And it is only “commonly quoted” by people who read the left-wing blogger(s) who made it up in the first place. And since you may not realize that knowingly posting false information is against the board rules, you might want to be careful about posting that quote again.
Bush et al may talk big about this being a “war” with Al Queda, but don’t be fooled into thinking it’s a real war that actually follows the traditional rules of warfare.
What European capitols are he referring to? Did I miss something? I remember the bombings in London and the thwarted attacks in Paris, but what else has happened to inspire Kookama to claim attacks in major cities?
Poll: Jordanians turn against al-Qaida
Support for al-Qaida Declining
Pew Global Attitudes Project - Support for Suicide Bombing Declines
Scroll down to that bottom of that page, and look at the table titled, “Confidence in Osama Bin Laden”. You’ll note that the only two countries where it rose were Pakistan and Jordan. Since this poll was taken, opinion of Bin Laden has collapsed in Jordan, due to Zarqawi’s ill-advised bombing of a muslim wedding there (see my first link).
Look at the chart labeled ‘Support for suicide bombing declines’. Pretty much across the board, the people of the region have turned against suicide bombing. Because it’s one thing to support it when the only people being killed by suicide bombers are Westerners and Jews, but it’s quite another when the suicide bombers are blowing up Iraqis, Jordanians, Pakistanis, Afghans, and other people in the region.
This has not been a good two years for al-Qaida. Their leadership is being killed, their support base is collapsing, their rank-and-file is being slaughtered in Iraq, and despite their best efforts Iraq is turning into a democracy.
No wonder Bin Laden wants a truce. He doesn’t want to fight the U.S. on ‘home soil’. That’s a losing game for him, since the only weapon he has is terror, and that’s counterproductive when the terror has to be applied to the very people he’s trying to win over. Which is exactly why the Bush administration chose to take the fight there.
So you don’t wish to support any of your earlier nonsense but won’t accept enough responsibility to say so outright, John? That’s your idea of “honesty”?
March 13, 2002. Link to video clip of him saying it here. Sheesh. :rolleyes:
When come back …
The Madrid subway bombings.
Interesting. We recieve a communique from the man who killed three thousand of our citizens and your first reaction is to try and figure out how to use it against your fellow Americans. Party before country.
He might, if he (or whoever is assembling audio clips from The Best Of Binny into “new” messages) thinks that it would help gain support.
Other than that, I agree with your analysis.
The absolute best Osama could offer us would be a cessation of hostilities with al-Qaeda. From what I’ve seen that wouldn’t be that big of a deal to the United States, it certainly wouldn’t be a big enough deal to justify giving up the fight against such a dangerous organization. A-Q is only a minor player in Iraq, the Iraq problem is a problem with home grown insurgency, born out of a few things that cause certain Iraqis to be discontent (1) feelings of dishonor at being occupied, 2) sunni worries of losing power, and 3) some former baathist groups wanting to get back into the power game) A-Q couldn’t really help us there. He couldn’t even promise he can control Zarqawi, given the nature of A-Q if OBL told Zarqawi it was time to stop operations in Iraq I don’t think Zarqawi would be compelled to do so. And even if they did, that wouldn’t even eliminate all of the foreign fighters, many of whom don’t work with A-Q.