New Osama Bin Laden Video.

raid517 · Oct 29, 2004, 11:33 PM

If Bush has been a success, then why is this guy still running around on the loose after all this time?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/

(Click the watch video link and then the world headlines to view the video).

Edit: Another take on the video...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3966741.stm

He failed in all his stated objectives in Iraq and failed in his primary objective to bring this guy to justice....

Who really thinks he deseves any praise at all for this massive level of incompetance?

GJ

lenchmob · Oct 30, 2004, 12:19 AM

You make it sound all too easy. Finding "Bin Laden" is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Just for your information the "FBI's Most Wanted List" and "Interpols'" similar list have had people on their rosters for a number of years without any luck..All is not cut and dry...

raid517 · Oct 30, 2004, 12:40 AM

It may not be easy - but he has had a long time to do it. My question is one that I saw one of the widows of the 9/11 attacks ask last night on TV - and that is, why didn't the US commit enough resources initially to Afganistan in order to get the job done properly? Why did they have to end up relying on the resources of a bunch of Afgan War Lords and drug dealers?

Was he too concerned about the costs involved because he had his mind and his attention too much focused on Iraq and he knew that committing fully to a war in Afganistan would make any subsquent war in Iraq almost impossible to fight in the time frame he had planned for it? Committing fully to a war in Afganistan would almost certainly have delayed a war in Iraq until after these upcomming elections.

I have always been a supporter of the war in Afganistan - because this I think is where the majority of the terroists were (and possibly still are). Moreover he could have solved one of the biggest problems to confront Western society in modern times - which kills many thousands and thousand more people each year in America and accross the globe than the 9/11 attacks ever did - which is the production of Opium poppies and the flow of heroin out of Afganistan and into the West - instead of which in the time America has been in charge In Afganistan, heroin production has increased by a massive 70%. Why are people so afraid of a few small bombs - but they do not care that thousands of their own people die from what is simply another form of terrorism? What is the difference between a few pounds of plastic explosives and a few pounds of heroin?

In any case this does seem like a missed opportunity. You can't find someone if you are not looking - and you can't look for someone unless you commit the resources for the search.

Bush took his eye off the ball on the war on terror in his absolute deterimation to go after Iraq - and in the process he may well have let the single most significant figure in the so called international war on terror slip through his fingers.

Clearly Bin Laden is not cowering in a cave somewhere in fear of his life as some people would have you believe. If anything he looks in as good health and every bit as determined as he ever has.

GJ

ToshiroOC · Oct 30, 2004, 03:14 AM

http://www.aljazeera.com/feed/obl1.wmv

Full video. No subtitles/translation/voiceover, but its still interesting.

The_Neon_Cowboy · Oct 30, 2004, 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raid517

It may not be easy - but he has had a long time to do it. My question is one that I saw one of the widows of the 9/11 attacks ask last night on TV - and that is, why didn't the US commit enough resources initially to Afganistan in order to get the job done properly? Why did they have to end up relying on the resources of a bunch of Afgan War Lords and drug dealers?

[color=red]__________________________________________________[/color]
[color=lime]Don't foget John Forbes Kerry supported the idea @ the time![/color]
[color=#ff0000]=========================================[/color]
[color=#ff0000][/color]
[color=lime]For 1 the terrain there is so dence and ruff you could have a fire [/color]
[color=lime]fight just short distance away and not here or know whats going on in the next ridge [/color][color=#00ff00]and the afgans knew their own terrain better then anyone.[/color] [color=lime] It was such a great idea even "kerry" supported it. untill later he when began to critizise it and the adminsistation...[/color]

Was he too concerned about the costs involved because he had his mind and his attention too much focused on Iraq and he knew that committing fully to a war in Afganistan would make any subsquent war in Iraq almost impossible to fight in the time frame he had planned for it? Committing fully to a war in Afganistan would almost certainly have delayed a war in Iraq until after these upcomming elections.

I have always been a supporter of the war in Afganistan - because this I think is where the majority of the terroists were (and possibly still are).

[color=lime]Maybe alot of them but there are alot more anti-us / terroist / possable threat states/ heavens in that reagon such as sadi arabia, seria & iran[/color]

Moreover he could have solved one of the biggest problems to confront Western society in modern times - which kills many thousands and thousand more people each year in America and accross the globe than the 9/11 attacks ever did - which is the production of Opium poppies and the flow of heroin out of Afganistan and into the West - instead of which in the time America has been in charge In Afganistan, heroin production has increased by a massive 70%. Why are people so afraid of a few small bombs - but they do not care that thousands of their own people die from what is simply another form of terrorism? What is the difference between a few pounds of plastic explosives and a few pounds of heroin?

[color=lime]Wow, a good point... But thier economy is based on it so you can just cut them off it has to be done slowly and not by the usa! it has to be done by thier own elected government to be effective.... We can't go seting laws in other contries that are now moveing to thier own governments...[/color]

[color=lime]Also drugs are a totally diffrent thing all togeather, also your not foced to take drugs it's a choice [/color]

In any case this does seem like a missed opportunity. You can't find someone if you are not looking - and you can't look for someone unless you commit the resources for the search.

[color=lime]There is a task force of units dedicated to finding osoma, thats their only job....[/color]

Bush took his eye off the ball [color=lime]youv'e ben watching to much kerry[/color] on the war on terror in his absolute deterimation to go after Iraq -[color=lime] Iraq is part of that war and you can see it day to day by the figting with terrorists.[/color]
and in the process he may well have let the single most significant figure in the so called international war on terror slip through his fingers.[color=lime] Remember the media is reponceable for 1 time we had him and he got away. They were tracking his movements via a cell phone~! AND it eventally went out in the media. Osoma went this way, a body grad and the phone went another... they've missed him several times[/color]

Clearly Bin Laden is not cowering in a cave somewhere in fear of his life as some people would have you believe. If anything he looks in as good health and every bit as determined as he ever has. [color=lime]the guys on dialsis for crying out loud [/color]
[color=#00ff00][/color]
[color=#00ff00]We can't kill him, killing him will help his couse and make him a marter we must capture him alive[/color]

GJ

...

raid517 · Oct 30, 2004, 03:49 AM

Yes but the conventional forces could have done much to deal with the poppy issue - and in so doing helped also to choke off one of the biggest sources of funding for the terrorist cause. We are talking about fairly flat farm land here. Poppies don't take well to being grown on rocky mountainous ground. Moreover the mountains and craggy hills of the Tora Bora are not the natural homes for all terrorist forces in Afganistan - they are merely the places that the US forces managed to chase a few disperate tribes to. Afgans, just like us, have a distinct preference to living on nice flat even ground in small to medium sized communities - which is where the majority of them were and again still are located.

The best way to deal with heroin addiction is cold turkey - similarly the best way for the Afgan people to break their ecconomic dependence on heroin production is cold turkey too. A government can't claim to be acting in the name of moral good, when it tollerates such practices and allows them to continue.

Furthermore there were several divisions of special forces that could have been deployed in Afganistan - but that were mysteriously held back. Forces that incidentally are well suited to this form of mountain warfare. Why hold them back? Unless of course you realised that fighting two wars in such a short time period would require some degree of splitting resources. Far more resources were deployed against Iraq than were ever deployed against Afganistan. Again why would this be the case unless you had decided in advance that you intended to make Iraq your primary focus?

Iraq was a God send to Ossama Bin Laden - since this meant that he was given the opportunity to regroup and focus his attention on his real objectives - which are to fight the Americans in Afganistan - gain control in Saudia Arabia, perhaps even gain control over Pakistann's nuclear weapons and if America can be defeated in Iraq (given that he - or at least his followers have pretty much an infinite amount of time in which to achieve these objectives) then perhaps to gain control of Iraqi oil resources aswell. This certainly seems like a currently easier to achieve objective than it was prior to the American invasion.

Anyway if he is on dialisis it rather demonstrates that he isn't hiding in a cave somewhere cowering in fear of capture - since clearly he would need access to some fairly advanced medical facilitities (i.e. a modern hospital) in order to recieve it.

This video is nothing short of a two finger salute in the face of George W. Bush.

Perhaps we should have gone after Iraq - but all in good time. Certainly we could have delayed it until we dealt with what was the real war on terror - and with the problems that confronted us in Afganistan....

GJ

The_Neon_Cowboy · Oct 30, 2004, 06:08 PM

Big thing about this video, it mentions both canadates, then goes on to talk badly about bush and his family! It's seems osoma doesn't like bush, he'd rather have a john kerry....

before you jump on me on this a kerry person said the same thing that the video was anti bush, but then said maybe it becouse he wants bush ellected

again the timeing is meant to have a political impact on nov 2nd...

zerodamage · Oct 30, 2004, 08:31 PM

What I found ammusing is Osama's repeating of the propoganda by Michael Moore and other extreme leftists. Moore should be proud.

Sandok · Oct 30, 2004, 08:44 PM

LOL no comments for me

raid517 · Oct 30, 2004, 09:20 PM

Bull he clearly said it doesn't matter who you elect - that your security is in your hands, not in those of Bush OR Kerry.

GJ

The_Neon_Cowboy · Oct 31, 2004, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zerodamage

What I found ammusing is Osama's repeating of the propoganda by Michael Moore and other extreme leftists. Moore should be proud.

yep!

Quote:

Originally Posted by raid517

Bull he clearly said it doesn't matter who you elect - that your security is in your hands, not in those of Bush OR Kerry.

GJ

yes it's called a vote

, he spoke ill of bush and his family even a loon could see if he could vote for one who he'd prefer

not bush, not nader first starts with a "j" last a "k"

Dom · Oct 31, 2004, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Usama bin Laden

You American people, my speech to you is the best way to avoid another conflict about the war and its reasons and results. I am telling you security is an important pillar of human life. And free people don't let go of their security contrary to Bush's claims that we hate freedom. He should tell us why we didn't hit Sweden for instance. Its known that those who hate freedom don't have dignified souls.like the 19 who were blessed. But we fought you because we are free people, we don't sleep on our oppression. We want to regain the freedom of our Muslim nation as you spill our security, we spill your security.

am so surprised by you. Although we are in the fourth year after the events of sept 11, Bush is still practicing distortion and misleading on you, and obscuring the main reasons and therefore the reasons are still existing to repeat what happened before. I will tell you the reasons behind theses incidents.

I will be honest with you on the moment when the decision was taken to understand. We never thought of hitting the towers. But after we were so fed up, and we saw the oppression of the American Israeli coalition on our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind and the incidents that really touched me directly goes back to 1982 and the following incidents. When the US permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon with the assistance of the 6th fleet. In these hard moments, it occurred to me so many meanings I cant explain but it resulted in a general feeling of rejecting oppression and gave me a hard determination to punish the oppressors. While I was looking at the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it came to my mind to punish the oppressor the same way and destroy towers in the US to get a taste of what they tasted, and quit killing our children and women.

We didn't find difficulty dealing with Bush and his administration due to the similarity of his regime and the regims in our countries. Whish half of them are ruled by military and the other half by sons of kings and presidents and our experience with them is long. Both parties are arrogant and stubborn and the greediness and taking money without right and that similarity appeared during the visits of Bush to the region while people from our side were impressed by the US and hoped that these visits would influence our countries. Here he is being influenced by these regimes, Royal and military. And was feeling jealous they were staying for decades in power stealing the nations finances without anybody overseeing them. So he transferred the oppression of freedom and tyranny to his son and they call it th e Patriot Law to fight terrorism. He was bright in putting his sons as governors in states and he didn't forget to transfer his experience from the rulers of our region to Florida to falsify elections to benefit from it in critical times.

We agreed with Mohamed Atta, god bless him, to execute the whole operation in 20 minutes. Before Bush and his administration would pay attention and we never thought that the high commander of the US armies would leave 50 thousand of his citizens in both towers to face the horrors by themselves when they most needed him because it seemed to distract his attention from listening to the girl telling him about her goat butting was more important than paying attention to airplanes butting the towers which gave us three times the time to execute the operation thank god.

Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al Qaeda. Your security is in your hands. Each state that doenst mess with our security has automatically secured their security.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm

raid517 · Oct 31, 2004, 08:32 AM

@Neon

Well clearly you and ZD would make a good match, however I doubt very much if this is the case. Osama will attack American target's no matter who is president. Rather than argue about who Osama prefers - as if this really matters - why don't you guys just get out there and catch this SOB already? That is the real question. I know you think Bush is the cream on your cake and all, but why does this guy still feel free and able to make these kinds of statements at all?

The bottom line is that Osama Bin Laden says in the video that his gripe with America first started with the war in Lebanon - which takes in several republican AND democratic administrations. In other words it is American foreign policy as a whole that he has taken issue with - and not just of one specific party.

And as much as you might dislike Michael Moore, it is patently ridiculous to say he harbours any similar desire to Osama Bin Laden to slaughter thousands of innocent people. He is simply pissed that Bush didn't do more to prevent this. (Although I'm sure people like Neon and ZD would much rather believe anything that suggested the opposite). Anyway I'd rather spend my time debating more serious topics than the inane and idiotic fantasies that occupy these guys brains...

Debating who Osama would vote for is stupid. Of all the people unlikely to be voting in the US elections Osama Bin Laden is pretty much top of the list. Unless of course you guys plan on issuing him with an absentee balot...

GJ

TJ- · Nov 1, 2004, 03:52 PM

www.thememoryhole.org

raid517 · Nov 1, 2004, 03:57 PM

Interesting link, particularly this one: http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-rice-wmd.wmv

Some people here seem to have a very poor memory.

GJ

flaherrc · Nov 1, 2004, 04:47 PM

WTF?

Weekend Analysis

These guys are not peacemakers - they're war mongers. This is THE litmus test to see if we are cowards, or fighters. They are making this 'offer' because we've shaken them, and they are startled. They will ravage perceived cowards. How dumb will this nation be?

I guess we will see tomorrow.

bob

edit: Also, look at the Transcipt posted earlier. There is no reference to this being a holy war or jihad. Kerry is touting that the Bush admin. is calling this a holy war. In all prior speaches Osama has claimed this as a holy war. Sounds like the king of terror himself is trying to sway American elections as he did in Spain.

raid517 · Nov 1, 2004, 05:04 PM

Man that is the biggest dumbass thing I have ever read in all my time on here. I'm sorry the mods can jump on me if they want, but in case you really are that dumb by 'states' Bin Laden is clearly not referring simply to the United States - but to nation states - whole countries other than and including the USA. Unless of course you imagine that Spain, or Australia are states within the USA? No one else, including the usually incredibly diligent Arabic language experts at the BBC - or any other major news agency, has given it this interpretation. Or do you imagine that these organisations don't have their own language experts who pour over this stuff in minute detail looking for exactly this kind of hidden meaning?

I take it this is another one of these 'high brow' tabloid links you guys love so much?

Now my Arabic may not be 100% - but neither is any of yours. But I still know electioneering bullshit when I hear it.

I'll bet any of you a $1000 that someone who does understand Arabic will come up with a rebuttal within the next few days or so.

You can tell from the editorial tone of the story (as in 'red states') exactly what angle this rag is coming from.

GJ

raid517 · Nov 1, 2004, 06:01 PM

Ok so far reading from various transcripts of the speech I can't find any direct reference to the term 'states' at all. I did find a reference to the term 'nations' which is entirely different from 'states'.

In any case here is CNN's own arabic language expert with a full translation of the transcript. Like I said, all big news agencies have these guys - and none of them gave your tranlation.

Quote:

(CNN) -- Osama bin Laden delivered a new videotaped message which aired on the Arab language network Al-Jazeera Friday. This is a transcript of his remarks as translated by CNN senior editor for Arab affairs Octavia Nasr.

You, the American people, I talk to you today about the best way to avoid another catastrophe and about war, its reasons and its consequences.

And in that regard, I say to you that security is an important pillar of human life, and that free people do not compromise their security.

Contrary to what [President George W.] Bush says and claims -- that we hate freedom --let him tell us then, "Why did we not attack Sweden?" It is known that those who hate freedom don't have souls with integrity, like the souls of those 19. May the mercy of God be upon them.

We fought with you because we are free, and we don't put up with transgressions. We want to reclaim our nation. As you spoil our security, we will do so to you.

I wonder about you. Although we are ushering the fourth year after 9/11, Bush is still exercising confusion and misleading you and not telling you the true reason. Therefore, the motivations are still there for what happened to be repeated.

And I will talk to you about the reason for those events, and I will be honest with you about the moments the decision was made so that you can ponder. And I tell you, God only knows, that we never had the intentions to destroy the towers.

But after the injustice was so much and we saw transgressions and the coalition between Americans and the Israelis against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it occurred to my mind that we deal with the towers. And these special events that directly and personally affected me go back to 1982 and what happened when America gave permission for Israel to invade Lebanon. And assistance was given by the American sixth fleet.

During those crucial moments, my mind was thinking about many things that are hard to describe. But they produced a feeling to refuse and reject injustice, and I had determination to punish the transgressors.

And as I was looking at those towers that were destroyed in Lebanon, it occurred to me that we have to punish the transgressor with the same -- and that we had to destroy the towers in America so that they taste what we tasted, and they stop killing our women and children.

We found no difficulties in dealing with the Bush administration, because of the similarities of that administration and the regimes in our countries, half of which are run by the military and half of which are run by monarchs. And our experience is vast with them.

And those two kinds are full of arrogance and taking money illegally.

The resemblance started when [former President George H.W.] Bush, the father, visited the area, when some of our own were impressed by America and were hoping that the visits would affect and influence our countries.

Then, what happened was that he was impressed by the monarchies and the military regimes, and he was jealous of them staying in power for tens of years, embezzling the public money without any accountability. And he moved the tyranny and suppression of freedom to his own country, and they called it the Patriot Act, under the disguise of fighting terrorism. And Bush, the father, found it good to install his children as governors and leaders.

We agreed with the leader of the group, Mohammed Atta, to perform all attacks within 20 minutes before [President George W.] Bush and his administration were aware of what was going on. And we never knew that the commander-in-chief of the American armed forces would leave 50,000 of his people in the two towers to face those events by themselves when they were in the most urgent need of their leader.

He was more interested in listening to the child's story about the goat rather than worry about what was happening to the towers. So, we had three times the time necessary to accomplish the events.

Your security is not in the hands of [Democratic presidential nominee John] Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked.

It seems the bullshit is flowing thick and fast.

GJ

Dom · Nov 1, 2004, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raid517

Interesting link, particularly this one: http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-rice-wmd.wmv

Some people here seem to have a very poor memory.

GJ

What's funny is the Bush Admin. sounds a lot like the former Iraqi disinformation minister.

violat3 · Nov 1, 2004, 07:29 PM

Osama is the man

raid517 · Nov 1, 2004, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom

What's funny is the Bush Admin. sounds a lot like the former Iraqi disinformation minister.

These guys just suck it up man. It doesn't seem to matter where it came from. The more outragous, the more obscure, the more disreputable the source is, the harder they suck it in.

Anyway my offer stands. I personally will go with the language experts from the BBC, ABC, CNN and others. I would be willing to put up a $1000 bet against anyone who wants to give this report credence. It would only cost me about $200 to get a professional independant translation done anyway - so you can't go blaming the 'liberal media' (which is the usual retort when a story comes out that the right find inconvenient - no matter how true it might be).

That's the offer.

But why oh why do I wonder do I have the feeling that my money is pretty much more than 100% safe?

Could it be that stupid bullshit like this always crops up just before an election?

I guess credibility really is an alien concept to these people.

GJ

raid517 · Nov 1, 2004, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by violat3

Osama is the man

Well let's just hope he plants a bomb under your butt and see how much you like it.

GJ

violat3 · Nov 1, 2004, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raid517

Well let's just hope he plants a bomb under your butt and see how much you like it.

GJ

hemmin

i was being sarcastic

raid517 · Nov 1, 2004, 08:24 PM

It didn't work.

GJ

zerodamage · Nov 2, 2004, 03:03 AM

Yeah, you guys just eat up those leftist websites don't yeah? lol. Anything anti-america or Anti-Bush, no matter how stupid the conspiracy theories and you guys just eat it right up.

raid517 · Nov 2, 2004, 03:31 AM

Which 'leftist' sites is that then ZD? The bottom line is I have called this report out. It is a very obvious lie. Getting a job at CNN, ABC, the BBC or any of these other major news agencies as their resident Arabic language expert is no mean feat. You usually have to have gone to a top uiniverity and studied in your subject to post grad level and beyond before they will even consider you - and even then you generally have to be at the top few percent of your class if you have any chance of them offering you a job. No one else from any one of these top news sources that I could find was able to offer anything approaching the interpriptation listed above.

If you had any balls at all - or any faith in the crap these people are printing, you would take me up on my offer and put your money where your mouth is instead of jumping in on threads as you have done over the last few days, while showing little or no ability to add anything useful or interesting to the subjects being discussed. Indeed I would even be happy to double my stake in this - so confident am I in the absolute bullshit nature of what this report is interpriting as 'fact.'

I'd rather use large world respected news agencies as my source than I would some third rate, no mark, tabloid rag of a 'newspaper' aimed at people with little better than elementary reading skills - that most people would no doubt have to think twice about before using as toilet paper.

The fact that you in particular seem to relish in this kind of stuff is no more of a suprise to me now than it was when you were last visiting this forum.

I am sure I will find them as easy to discredit now as I did then.

Best regards,

GJ

ToshiroOC · Nov 2, 2004, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raid517

Man that is the biggest dumbass thing I have ever read in all my time on here. I'm sorry the mods can jump on me if they want, but in case you really are that dumb by 'states' Bin Laden is clearly not referring simply to the United States - but to nation states - whole countries other than and including the USA. Unless of course you imagine that Spain, or Australia are states within the USA? No one else, including the usually incredibly diligent Arabic language experts at the BBC - or any other major news agency, has given it this interpretation. Or do you imagine that these organisations don't have their own language experts who pour over this stuff in minute detail looking for exactly this kind of hidden meaning?

I take it this is another one of these 'high brow' tabloid links you guys love so much?

Now my Arabic may not be 100% - but neither is any of yours. But I still know electioneering bullshit when I hear it.

I'll bet any of you a $1000 that someone who does understand Arabic will come up with a rebuttal within the next few days or so.

You can tell from the editorial tone of the story (as in 'red states') exactly what angle this rag is coming from.

GJ

I've been discussing the translation with my United States History teacher (who immigrated here from Lebanon, I believe, and is fluent in Arabic). Our email interchange:

Quote:

The longest version I can find of OBL's speech in movie format (will
only run on a Windows machine):

http://www.aljazeera.com/feed/obl1.wmv

Article detailing differences between CNN and Aljazeera translations:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/10/31/111452/80

CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...en.transcript/

Aljazeera:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...C36E87F61F.htm

The big difference listed in the article?

The Aljazeera version reads:

But because it seemed to him that occupying himself by talking to
the little girl about the goat and its butting was more important than
occupying himself with the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers
we were given three times the period required to execute the
operations. All praise is due to Allah.

But the CNN version reads:

He was more interested in listening to the child's story about the
goat rather than worry about what was happening to the towers. So, we
had three times the time necessary to accomplish the events.

Your security is not in the hands of [Democratic presidential
nominee John] Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own
hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked.

Who is twisting the translation? If I recall correctly, you can
speak/read Arabic, so maybe you can weigh in on this?

Quote:

The Jazeera translation is verbatim, literal, and sounds awkward in
English. The CNN one transmits the same message but the anglicized text
takes away from the meaning in a way--Arabic is rich with allegories.
Here, what he is doing is not only telling us that the president was
busy talking to students in the Florida school even after he got news
of the planes' attacks, giving them the time to actually accomplish
more damages without being caught. But, in the Middle east, goats are
considered stupid/sheepish animals; so what Usama is also saying is
that the president did not care about the security of the American
people and while they were attacked he preferred to be busy with
something so stupid. That is why he then goes on to say that the
election is in your hands.

She went on to say that a later link I sent her (http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=312) was the most accurate translation so far in that it conveyed the most original meanings of OBL's speech.

This most accurate version ends in:

Quote:

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

Dom · Nov 2, 2004, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zerodamage

Yeah, you guys just eat up those leftist websites don't yeah? lol. Anything anti-america or Anti-Bush, no matter how stupid the conspiracy theories and you guys just eat it right up.

Yes, it's anti-American to have our own beliefs. People whom use the term "anti-American" without merit are the biggest anti-Americans of them all.

raid517 · Nov 2, 2004, 02:54 PM

I also have been speaking to a friend who speaks fluent Arabic - and he says that the interpritation listed above by these guys is a complete distortion. It is a distortion because it implies that there is always a direct translation between one Arabic phrase or word (or any other language for that matter) and an English equivalent. That is to say that there isn't always a direct equivalent translation between one word or concept or other - which therefore means that often "the meaning" as such is left open very much to the skill - or view point of the interpriter. There is as far as he told me, no direct equivallent term used to infer the use of the concept 'united' (as in the United States) - only 'States' or countries or regions or whatever. However because there is no direct English translation, the interpritation could take a number of forms. It could at a stretch be used to infer the (United) States - but it could just as easily be used to infer any states (such as the supposed alies) or a collection (as in simply the plural) of countries engaged in a concerted war against terror and Al Quada. It is in other words a fairly ambiguous term - just as we are akin to using in our own common forms of speech - that could - depending on the translator and their own individual perspective be translated in quite a large number of ways.

So in other words you could take it to mean pretty much whatever you wanted - although there is no real way to tell other than asking Bin Laden to clarify what exactly he meant. Nonetheless in the absence of any real emphasis either way, none of the bigger news agencies (nor my friend) was able to give it this much more agressive translation.

I find it unlikely that they are lying and that they would not pick up on a story where Bin Laden tries to intervene quite so directly in the US election.

Even then if there were any steam in it, what would it mean? Again ambiguity creeps in. I am no clearer from reading the above interpritation exactly what Osama would prefer you to do? Does he want you to vote for Bush or Kerry? He seems to spend much of the video pointing out that he doesn't care - that it is US foreign policy in general over the last 30 years that he objects to.

Given that the Bush Administration has provided a massive boost to international terrorism by his intervention in Iraq - thereby allowing Al Quada the ability to regroup while Bush's attention was focused elsewhere - so that now Bin Laden feels perfectly safe releasing videos of this nature - if I were him my vote would go for Bush.

Bush has succeeded in polarising the world - and during his term as President religeous extremism (both Christian and Muslim) has reached epedemic levels. This is exactly the objective that Osama set out to achieve when he first dreamt up his attacks on the World Trade Centre. Kerry has said he will put more boots on the ground in Iraq, that he would stop coseying up to the Saudies and their morally corrupt Royal family - and that he may even attack Iran. So how exactly that will help Bin Laden is anyone's guess.

In any case often it is so hard to tell the difference between the ambitions of Bin Laden and those of George W. Bush - it is very hard to see why they are not still the best of friends.

Bush wishes to dominate the world - as does Bin Laden, Bush believes that the best means of control for his people is to inpire them to comply through terror - as does Bin Laden, Bush believes it was America who won the war in Afganistan against the Russians - while Bin Laden believes it was the Arabs, Bush hates the idea of any foreign power intervening in US affairs - while Bin Laden despises the Idea of any foreign entity interfering in the affairs of Arabs. It seems unless you try very hard it is almost impossible to drive a razor blade between either of them on virtually all of the major issues.

So again, if I were Bin laden - I would almost certainly opt for Bush.

But who knows? More importantly who cares? As I said previously arguing what Bin Laden would or wouldn't do is particularly stupid. Of all the people likely to be able to paticipate - he is the least likely to be granted a vote in this election.

Whatever his views are, you should certainly not grace them with any kind of credibility by letting him affect your vote - whatever in the end that might be. Anyone who suggests that he should be allowed to influence your vote in any way at all, is almost as despicable as Bin Laden himself - because what essentially what they are doing is telling you that you should allow him to win.

GJ

Esaz666 · Nov 9, 2004, 01:51 PM

didnt George bush used to work with Osama bin ladens family?
how do we really know he doesent work with him?
giving him the excuses he needs. I myself take nothing at face value.
i think that bush and osama bin laden mutually re-inforce each other.I allways wondered why bush was allways grinning on tv as if he knows something we dont.

is it just coincidence that osama shows himself just before the election
just to remind people that ' look , im gonna get you if you dont elect bush ,he couldnt of timed it better, Osama hasent been caught because bush needs him on the loose!, Osama is bushes pet.'
they could be working together, never trust a politition.
politics has failed, left , right. who cares.they all suck.LoL.

Oct 29, 2004, 11:33 PM	#1
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	New Osama Bin Laden Video. If Bush has been a success, then why is this guy still running around on the loose after all this time? http://news.bbc.co.uk/ (Click the watch video link and then the world headlines to view the video). Edit: Another take on the video... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3966741.stm He failed in all his stated objectives in Iraq and failed in his primary objective to bring this guy to justice.... Who really thinks he deseves any praise at all for this massive level of incompetance? GJ Last edited by raid517; Oct 30, 2004 at 01:04 AM.

Oct 30, 2004, 12:19 AM	#2
lenchmob DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 99 Rep Power: 0	You make it sound all too easy. Finding "Bin Laden" is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Just for your information the "FBI's Most Wanted List" and "Interpols'" similar list have had people on their rosters for a number of years without any luck..All is not cut and dry... __________________ WinXp SP3 (32-bit) Asus M2N32 SLI Wi-Fi Mobo AMD Athlon 64 x2 FX-62 Socket Am2 4gig Corsair Dominator 8500C5D G (2) Geforce 8800GTS 512 1 Dell Ultra Sharp 2407FP X-Fi Fatality FPS

Oct 30, 2004, 12:40 AM	Thread Starter #3
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	It may not be easy - but he has had a long time to do it. My question is one that I saw one of the widows of the 9/11 attacks ask last night on TV - and that is, why didn't the US commit enough resources initially to Afganistan in order to get the job done properly? Why did they have to end up relying on the resources of a bunch of Afgan War Lords and drug dealers? Was he too concerned about the costs involved because he had his mind and his attention too much focused on Iraq and he knew that committing fully to a war in Afganistan would make any subsquent war in Iraq almost impossible to fight in the time frame he had planned for it? Committing fully to a war in Afganistan would almost certainly have delayed a war in Iraq until after these upcomming elections. I have always been a supporter of the war in Afganistan - because this I think is where the majority of the terroists were (and possibly still are). Moreover he could have solved one of the biggest problems to confront Western society in modern times - which kills many thousands and thousand more people each year in America and accross the globe than the 9/11 attacks ever did - which is the production of Opium poppies and the flow of heroin out of Afganistan and into the West - instead of which in the time America has been in charge In Afganistan, heroin production has increased by a massive 70%. Why are people so afraid of a few small bombs - but they do not care that thousands of their own people die from what is simply another form of terrorism? What is the difference between a few pounds of plastic explosives and a few pounds of heroin? In any case this does seem like a missed opportunity. You can't find someone if you are not looking - and you can't look for someone unless you commit the resources for the search. Bush took his eye off the ball on the war on terror in his absolute deterimation to go after Iraq - and in the process he may well have let the single most significant figure in the so called international war on terror slip through his fingers. Clearly Bin Laden is not cowering in a cave somewhere in fear of his life as some people would have you believe. If anything he looks in as good health and every bit as determined as he ever has. GJ Last edited by raid517; Oct 30, 2004 at 01:07 AM.

Oct 30, 2004, 03:14 AM	#4
ToshiroOC Unbiased. Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 4,812 Rep Power: 0	http://www.aljazeera.com/feed/obl1.wmv Full video. No subtitles/translation/voiceover, but its still interesting. __________________ [img][/img] [color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color] Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

Oct 30, 2004, 03:49 AM	Thread Starter #6
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	Yes but the conventional forces could have done much to deal with the poppy issue - and in so doing helped also to choke off one of the biggest sources of funding for the terrorist cause. We are talking about fairly flat farm land here. Poppies don't take well to being grown on rocky mountainous ground. Moreover the mountains and craggy hills of the Tora Bora are not the natural homes for all terrorist forces in Afganistan - they are merely the places that the US forces managed to chase a few disperate tribes to. Afgans, just like us, have a distinct preference to living on nice flat even ground in small to medium sized communities - which is where the majority of them were and again still are located. The best way to deal with heroin addiction is cold turkey - similarly the best way for the Afgan people to break their ecconomic dependence on heroin production is cold turkey too. A government can't claim to be acting in the name of moral good, when it tollerates such practices and allows them to continue. Furthermore there were several divisions of special forces that could have been deployed in Afganistan - but that were mysteriously held back. Forces that incidentally are well suited to this form of mountain warfare. Why hold them back? Unless of course you realised that fighting two wars in such a short time period would require some degree of splitting resources. Far more resources were deployed against Iraq than were ever deployed against Afganistan. Again why would this be the case unless you had decided in advance that you intended to make Iraq your primary focus? Iraq was a God send to Ossama Bin Laden - since this meant that he was given the opportunity to regroup and focus his attention on his real objectives - which are to fight the Americans in Afganistan - gain control in Saudia Arabia, perhaps even gain control over Pakistann's nuclear weapons and if America can be defeated in Iraq (given that he - or at least his followers have pretty much an infinite amount of time in which to achieve these objectives) then perhaps to gain control of Iraqi oil resources aswell. This certainly seems like a currently easier to achieve objective than it was prior to the American invasion. Anyway if he is on dialisis it rather demonstrates that he isn't hiding in a cave somewhere cowering in fear of capture - since clearly he would need access to some fairly advanced medical facilitities (i.e. a modern hospital) in order to recieve it. This video is nothing short of a two finger salute in the face of George W. Bush. Perhaps we should have gone after Iraq - but all in good time. Certainly we could have delayed it until we dealt with what was the real war on terror - and with the problems that confronted us in Afganistan.... GJ Last edited by raid517; Oct 30, 2004 at 01:47 PM.

Oct 30, 2004, 06:08 PM	#7
The_Neon_Cowboy HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 16,009 Rep Power: 90 System Specs	Big thing about this video, it mentions both canadates, then goes on to talk badly about bush and his family! It's seems osoma doesn't like bush, he'd rather have a john kerry.... before you jump on me on this a kerry person said the same thing that the video was anti bush, but then said maybe it becouse he wants bush ellected again the timeing is meant to have a political impact on nov 2nd... __________________

Oct 30, 2004, 08:31 PM	#8
zerodamage HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Virginia, USA Posts: 3,478 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	What I found ammusing is Osama's repeating of the propoganda by Michael Moore and other extreme leftists. Moore should be proud.

Oct 30, 2004, 08:44 PM	#9
Sandok DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 9,472 Rep Power: 66	LOL no comments for me

Oct 30, 2004, 09:20 PM	Thread Starter #10
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	Bull he clearly said it doesn't matter who you elect - that your security is in your hands, not in those of Bush OR Kerry. GJ

Oct 31, 2004, 08:32 AM	Thread Starter #13
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	@Neon Well clearly you and ZD would make a good match, however I doubt very much if this is the case. Osama will attack American target's no matter who is president. Rather than argue about who Osama prefers - as if this really matters - why don't you guys just get out there and catch this SOB already? That is the real question. I know you think Bush is the cream on your cake and all, but why does this guy still feel free and able to make these kinds of statements at all? The bottom line is that Osama Bin Laden says in the video that his gripe with America first started with the war in Lebanon - which takes in several republican AND democratic administrations. In other words it is American foreign policy as a whole that he has taken issue with - and not just of one specific party. And as much as you might dislike Michael Moore, it is patently ridiculous to say he harbours any similar desire to Osama Bin Laden to slaughter thousands of innocent people. He is simply pissed that Bush didn't do more to prevent this. (Although I'm sure people like Neon and ZD would much rather believe anything that suggested the opposite). Anyway I'd rather spend my time debating more serious topics than the inane and idiotic fantasies that occupy these guys brains... Debating who Osama would vote for is stupid. Of all the people unlikely to be voting in the US elections Osama Bin Laden is pretty much top of the list. Unless of course you guys plan on issuing him with an absentee balot... GJ Last edited by raid517; Nov 1, 2004 at 03:31 PM.

Nov 1, 2004, 03:52 PM	#14
TJ- DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Infinity Posts: 3,679 Rep Power: 0	www.thememoryhole.org

Nov 1, 2004, 03:57 PM	Thread Starter #15
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	Interesting link, particularly this one: http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-rice-wmd.wmv Some people here seem to have a very poor memory. GJ

Nov 1, 2004, 04:47 PM	#16
flaherrc DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Indiana Posts: 48 Rep Power: 0	Vote Bush and your "State" will pay WTF? Weekend Analysis These guys are not peacemakers - they're war mongers. This is THE litmus test to see if we are cowards, or fighters. They are making this 'offer' because we've shaken them, and they are startled. They will ravage perceived cowards. How dumb will this nation be? I guess we will see tomorrow. bob edit: Also, look at the Transcipt posted earlier. There is no reference to this being a holy war or jihad. Kerry is touting that the Bush admin. is calling this a holy war. In all prior speaches Osama has claimed this as a holy war. Sounds like the king of terror himself is trying to sway American elections as he did in Spain.

Nov 1, 2004, 05:04 PM	Thread Starter #17
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	Man that is the biggest dumbass thing I have ever read in all my time on here. I'm sorry the mods can jump on me if they want, but in case you really are that dumb by 'states' Bin Laden is clearly not referring simply to the United States - but to nation states - whole countries other than and including the USA. Unless of course you imagine that Spain, or Australia are states within the USA? No one else, including the usually incredibly diligent Arabic language experts at the BBC - or any other major news agency, has given it this interpretation. Or do you imagine that these organisations don't have their own language experts who pour over this stuff in minute detail looking for exactly this kind of hidden meaning? I take it this is another one of these 'high brow' tabloid links you guys love so much? Now my Arabic may not be 100% - but neither is any of yours. But I still know electioneering bullshit when I hear it. I'll bet any of you a $1000 that someone who does understand Arabic will come up with a rebuttal within the next few days or so. You can tell from the editorial tone of the story (as in 'red states') exactly what angle this rag is coming from. GJ

Nov 1, 2004, 07:29 PM	#20
violat3 DriverHeaven Addict Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Caledonia Posts: 348 Rep Power: 0	Osama is the man

Nov 1, 2004, 08:24 PM	Thread Starter #24
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	It didn't work. GJ

Nov 2, 2004, 03:03 AM	#25
zerodamage HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Virginia, USA Posts: 3,478 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	Yeah, you guys just eat up those leftist websites don't yeah? lol. Anything anti-america or Anti-Bush, no matter how stupid the conspiracy theories and you guys just eat it right up.

Nov 2, 2004, 03:31 AM	Thread Starter #26
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	Which 'leftist' sites is that then ZD? The bottom line is I have called this report out. It is a very obvious lie. Getting a job at CNN, ABC, the BBC or any of these other major news agencies as their resident Arabic language expert is no mean feat. You usually have to have gone to a top uiniverity and studied in your subject to post grad level and beyond before they will even consider you - and even then you generally have to be at the top few percent of your class if you have any chance of them offering you a job. No one else from any one of these top news sources that I could find was able to offer anything approaching the interpriptation listed above. If you had any balls at all - or any faith in the crap these people are printing, you would take me up on my offer and put your money where your mouth is instead of jumping in on threads as you have done over the last few days, while showing little or no ability to add anything useful or interesting to the subjects being discussed. Indeed I would even be happy to double my stake in this - so confident am I in the absolute bullshit nature of what this report is interpriting as 'fact.' I'd rather use large world respected news agencies as my source than I would some third rate, no mark, tabloid rag of a 'newspaper' aimed at people with little better than elementary reading skills - that most people would no doubt have to think twice about before using as toilet paper. The fact that you in particular seem to relish in this kind of stuff is no more of a suprise to me now than it was when you were last visiting this forum. I am sure I will find them as easy to discredit now as I did then. Best regards, GJ Last edited by raid517; Nov 2, 2004 at 06:24 AM.

Nov 2, 2004, 02:54 PM	Thread Starter #29
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	I also have been speaking to a friend who speaks fluent Arabic - and he says that the interpritation listed above by these guys is a complete distortion. It is a distortion because it implies that there is always a direct translation between one Arabic phrase or word (or any other language for that matter) and an English equivalent. That is to say that there isn't always a direct equivalent translation between one word or concept or other - which therefore means that often "the meaning" as such is left open very much to the skill - or view point of the interpriter. There is as far as he told me, no direct equivallent term used to infer the use of the concept 'united' (as in the United States) - only 'States' or countries or regions or whatever. However because there is no direct English translation, the interpritation could take a number of forms. It could at a stretch be used to infer the (United) States - but it could just as easily be used to infer any states (such as the supposed alies) or a collection (as in simply the plural) of countries engaged in a concerted war against terror and Al Quada. It is in other words a fairly ambiguous term - just as we are akin to using in our own common forms of speech - that could - depending on the translator and their own individual perspective be translated in quite a large number of ways. So in other words you could take it to mean pretty much whatever you wanted - although there is no real way to tell other than asking Bin Laden to clarify what exactly he meant. Nonetheless in the absence of any real emphasis either way, none of the bigger news agencies (nor my friend) was able to give it this much more agressive translation. I find it unlikely that they are lying and that they would not pick up on a story where Bin Laden tries to intervene quite so directly in the US election. Even then if there were any steam in it, what would it mean? Again ambiguity creeps in. I am no clearer from reading the above interpritation exactly what Osama would prefer you to do? Does he want you to vote for Bush or Kerry? He seems to spend much of the video pointing out that he doesn't care - that it is US foreign policy in general over the last 30 years that he objects to. Given that the Bush Administration has provided a massive boost to international terrorism by his intervention in Iraq - thereby allowing Al Quada the ability to regroup while Bush's attention was focused elsewhere - so that now Bin Laden feels perfectly safe releasing videos of this nature - if I were him my vote would go for Bush. Bush has succeeded in polarising the world - and during his term as President religeous extremism (both Christian and Muslim) has reached epedemic levels. This is exactly the objective that Osama set out to achieve when he first dreamt up his attacks on the World Trade Centre. Kerry has said he will put more boots on the ground in Iraq, that he would stop coseying up to the Saudies and their morally corrupt Royal family - and that he may even attack Iran. So how exactly that will help Bin Laden is anyone's guess. In any case often it is so hard to tell the difference between the ambitions of Bin Laden and those of George W. Bush - it is very hard to see why they are not still the best of friends. Bush wishes to dominate the world - as does Bin Laden, Bush believes that the best means of control for his people is to inpire them to comply through terror - as does Bin Laden, Bush believes it was America who won the war in Afganistan against the Russians - while Bin Laden believes it was the Arabs, Bush hates the idea of any foreign power intervening in US affairs - while Bin Laden despises the Idea of any foreign entity interfering in the affairs of Arabs. It seems unless you try very hard it is almost impossible to drive a razor blade between either of them on virtually all of the major issues. So again, if I were Bin laden - I would almost certainly opt for Bush. But who knows? More importantly who cares? As I said previously arguing what Bin Laden would or wouldn't do is particularly stupid. Of all the people likely to be able to paticipate - he is the least likely to be granted a vote in this election. Whatever his views are, you should certainly not grace them with any kind of credibility by letting him affect your vote - whatever in the end that might be. Anyone who suggests that he should be allowed to influence your vote in any way at all, is almost as despicable as Bin Laden himself - because what essentially what they are doing is telling you that you should allow him to win. GJ Last edited by raid517; Nov 9, 2004 at 11:13 PM.

Nov 9, 2004, 01:51 PM	#30
Esaz666 BeardHeaven Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Uk,Earth,Universe,3rd dimention Posts: 298 Rep Power: 58	didnt George bush used to work with Osama bin ladens family? how do we really know he doesent work with him? giving him the excuses he needs. I myself take nothing at face value. i think that bush and osama bin laden mutually re-inforce each other.I allways wondered why bush was allways grinning on tv as if he knows something we dont. is it just coincidence that osama shows himself just before the election just to remind people that ' look , im gonna get you if you dont elect bush ,he couldnt of timed it better, Osama hasent been caught because bush needs him on the loose!, Osama is bushes pet.' they could be working together, never trust a politition. politics has failed, left , right. who cares.they all suck.LoL.