Six and a half Years after 9/11 And OBL Still Making Threats

[LoungeMachine]

Bin Laden Warns Europeans Over Cartoon



By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: March 20, 2008

Osama bin Laden denounced the publication of drawings insulting to the Prophet Muhammad in a new audio message and warned Europeans of a strong reaction to come. In the message, which appeared on a militant Web site that had carried statements from Al Qaeda in the past, a voice believed to be Mr. bin Laden’s did not specify what action would be taken but said, “Let our mothers bereave us if we do not make victorious our messenger of God.” The message was posted after Danish newspapers on Feb. 13 republished a cartoon showing Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban to show their commitment to freedom of speech after the police said they had uncovered a plot to kill the artist. The drawing was one of 12 cartoons first published in a Danish newspaper that set off major protests in Muslim countries in 2006. “Publishing these insulting drawings,” Mr. bin Laden said in the recording, “is the greatest misfortune and the most dangerous.” The five-minute message, which featured English subtitles, is Mr. bin Laden’s first for 2008. It came as the Muslim world celebrated the holiday that marks the birthday of the Prophet Muhammad.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/world/europe/20briefs-laden.html?ref=europe

[LoungeMachine]

5 years bogged down in Iraq

3 trillion dollars wasted.

Thousands of American men and women sacrificed.

Hundred of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed.

Afghanistan being run by puppets

Taliban returning in numbers.

Our Constitution being shredded.

Our own Government warrantlessly spying on us.

Our own ports and borders still unsecure.


BUT THE GUY CHIMPY CLAIMED HE'D GO AFTER, AND BRING BACK DEAD OR ALIVE is still out there making threats against Europe.



This is a great "War on Terror" you Republican Clowns have waged.

Mission Accomplished !!!

[hideyoursheep]

You worry too much.




Once the Chinese own the US outright, Bin Laden and Co. can concentrate on the new kid, attacking Bejing instead of NY.



We're almost there.

What a strategery!!

[Deklon]

Lounge...you forgot a few things.

NO ATTACKS ON THE US BY PEOPLE WHO WOULD DO SO IN A SECOND IF THEY COULD.

10's of thousands of Al Qaeda and other terrorists killed and captured.

The removal and execution of one of the worst WMD's of all time- S. Hussein.

The removal of same who had used and could produce more WMD's. And if given the chance would have tried to have them used against the US.

The capture of most of the people resonsible for 9/11.

Prevention of perhaps many terrorist attacks here and abroad.

Now I know you don't possess the ability to understand the President's enormous responsibility nor can you allow yourself to give him any credit for anything. And I'm fairly confident you aren't in the oval office every morning during the security briefings. In other words, you hve about 20% of the knowledge you need right now to judge if the President's strategies and tactics will someday prove to be right or wrong.

I leave you with the following question. If we had never gone to Iraq, and then yesterday a WMD of some sort killed hundreds of thousands in LA, and we later found out that WMD originated in Iraq, you would have been the first to scream about "Chimpy" not taking out Saddam back in 2002 when their was ample evidence to suggest he COULD have WMD's. You would have sited the brilliant Democrats like John Kerry and both Clintons who all stated in the past that Saddam had to be taken out AND that he posesses WMD's and that "Chimpy" failed to act. But it is far easier for you Monday morning quarterbacks to spout on message boards nothing but vitriol for the man who is nearly solely responsible for the safety of America and it's citizens.

[Seshmeister]

Jeez...

[LoungeMachine]

I know.

Sheep 'til the bitter end.

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by Deklon
Now I know you don't possess the ability to understand the President's enormous ....

Lack of focus?

Incompetence?

[Deklon]

LOL, you're name calling is priceless. Sheep, Chimpy etc.

However, can you formulate a response to my points or to my to my scenario?

Again, I can see how you've reached your conclusions. But what baffles me is your sides inability to recognize that the President has had successes or give credit in any way. Secondly, can you at least admit that the scenario I presented was at least possible, and if so, going to Iraq MAY prove to have been worth it?

Respecfully, with no name calling,

Deklon

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by Deklon
Again, I can see how you've reached your conclusions. But what baffles me is your sides inability to recognize that the President has had successes

Name


One.

[Deklon]

I named 6 in the first post I made in this thread.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Deklon
Lounge...you forgot a few things.

NO ATTACKS ON THE US BY PEOPLE WHO WOULD DO SO IN A SECOND IF THEY COULD.

And you keep kicking up a subterfuge myth claiming that the Iraq War has somehow protected us when actually the evidence is that many terror attacks in Europe are a direct reaction to the anger that it has stirred in Islamic lunatics...

The truth is is that there has been NO SUBSTANSIVE plot discovered, and no follow attacks occurred, which means that actual would-be terrorists in the US are either incompetent amateurs, or don't exist to any real extent...

10's of thousands of Al Qaeda and other terrorists killed and captured.

Mostly by mid-2002...

The removal and execution of one of the worst WMD's of all time- S. Hussein.

Why was he the worst? We supported him until he invaded our oil state of Kuwait in 1990. Until then he was thought of as a secular bulwark against fundamentalism, the kind that attacked us on 9/11...

The removal of same who had used and could produce more WMD's. And if given the chance would have tried to have them used against the US.

But he didn't have any!

The capture of most of the people resonsible for 9/11.

But not their supposed leaders...

Prevention of perhaps many terrorist attacks here and abroad.

There has been no real prevention of a REAL terror plot in the US. No significant stores of weapons have been recovered, no detailed finished plans have ever been hatched, and no clear people with ties to al Qaeda being picked up have ever been reported...

Now I know you don't possess the ability to understand the President's enormous responsibility

Well, neither does the pResident.

nor can you allow yourself to give him any credit for anything.

What does he deserve credit for?

And I'm fairly confident you aren't in the oval office every morning during the security briefings. In other words, you hve about 20% of the knowledge you need right now to judge if the President's strategies and tactics will someday prove to be right or wrong.

"Tactics?" He fucking bungled Iraq with no post-war plan and idiotic fanciful notions of ideological fantasists...

I leave you with the following question. If we had never gone to Iraq, and then yesterday a WMD of some sort killed hundreds of thousands in LA, and we later found out that WMD originated in Iraq,

LMFAO!!

Your now giving bullshit "what-ifs" hypothetical that have no basis in truth as evidence to rationalize why "fearless leader" is great?

How about providing evidence that an event ever could have happened? Saddam never, EVER came anywhere near doing such a thing!

Nobody, not even the dewy-eyed Bush clowns ever contend that...

...you would have been the first to scream about "Chimpy" not taking out Saddam back in 2002 when their was ample evidence to suggest he COULD have WMD's. You would have sited the brilliant Democrats like John Kerry and both Clintons who all stated in the past that Saddam had to be taken out AND that he posesses WMD's and that "Chimpy" failed to act. But it is far easier for you Monday morning quarterbacks to spout on message boards nothing but vitriol for the man who is nearly solely responsible for the safety of America and it's citizens.

LMFAO!! He's solely responsible?!

Then he should be tried for criminal incompetence regarding 9/11 then!!

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by Deklon
However, can you formulate a response to my points or to my to my scenario?

The only "scenario" that is relevant is the one this so-called
president cooked up against Iraq in the first place.

You remember, right?

The aluminum tubes probably used for fucking monkey bars and NOT
making nukes?

The WMD's that he already used against his own people and probably against us in '91 that the US SOLD TO HIM, and now seem to be gone?
(probably used them all)

This jackass LIED! He and his droogs concocted a "scenario" that would hopefully benefit his "base" and has taken the focus off of the real threat and used our military as a security firm for long-term oil contracts that aren't going to happen anyway, while THE REAL THREAT
occupies a sliver of a country that actually HAS WMD's-
Pakistan. He has us too busy trying to clean up that monumental
"oopsie" -no time or resources for the ACTUAL threat.

There's no defending that.

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by Deklon
I named 6 in the first post I made in this thread.

Now name some real ones.

Those are all absolute bullshit.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Deklon
Lounge...you forgot a few things.

NO ATTACKS ON THE US BY PEOPLE WHO WOULD DO SO IN A SECOND IF THEY COULD.

remains to be seen whether that was a result of our actions, or the fact that the terrorists just don't attack us that much. as evidenced: we clearly had a terrorist attack on the WTC in 1993. the next attack was a full 5 years later (the african embassies); 2 years after we had the cole. but it was a full 8 years since we had attacks on the continental U.S. soil. (1993 to 9/11/2001). was this clinton doing a great job for 5 or 8 years? or where the terrorists simply not that organized as to make yearly assaults?

10's of thousands of Al Qaeda and other terrorists killed and captured.

but were every one of these a threat to the U.S. prior to our invasion of iraq? i'm not saying any of those guys are good. and if you blow up an iraqi market, you're a terrorist. but were those people threats to the U.S. prior to our invasion? or did we give cause for people who otherwise wouldn't have attacked us to get involved?

The removal and execution of one of the worst WMD's of all time- S. Hussein.

eh...maybe. but not really to the U.S. but is he so much worse for WMDing the kurds than pol pot was for killing the cambodians conventionally? or kim jong for starving his people to death? or idi amin? or mugambe? or?...

The removal of same who had used and could produce more WMD's. And if given the chance would have tried to have them used against the US.

nah, he wouldn't have. saddam wanted the power to keep us, but primarily the israelis and iranians at bay. you want to attack iraq? just know, you might get bloodied really badily. he was foolishly arrogant, but he wasn't THAT stupid to pre-emptively attack the U.S.

The capture of most of the people resonsible for 9/11.

Prevention of perhaps many terrorist attacks here and abroad.

perhaps. i might give you that. though, the question remains, are we also preventing attacks that are precipitated by our actions (however noble) in the middle east? i'm not necessarily going to laud the administration's accomplishments if we prevented a terrorist attack by some asshole who decided to attack us after we invaded iraq.

Now I know you don't possess the ability to understand the President's enormous responsibility nor can you allow yourself to give him any credit for anything. And I'm fairly confident you aren't in the oval office every morning during the security briefings. In other words, you hve about 20% of the knowledge you need right now to judge if the President's strategies and tactics will someday prove to be right or wrong.

true, but that's an argument for never criticizing a sitting president. instead, we do so with that info that we have.

I leave you with the following question. If we had never gone to Iraq, and then yesterday a WMD of some sort killed hundreds of thousands in LA, and we later found out that WMD originated in Iraq, you would have been the first to scream about "Chimpy" not taking out Saddam back in 2002 when their was ample evidence to suggest he COULD have WMD's. You would have sited the brilliant Democrats like John Kerry and both Clintons who all stated in the past that Saddam had to be taken out AND that he posesses WMD's and that "Chimpy" failed to act. But it is far easier for you Monday morning quarterbacks to spout on message boards nothing but vitriol for the man who is nearly solely responsible for the safety of America and it's citizens.

yep, would be horrible. but the question is, at what point does a non-descript threat rise to the level of needing a pre-emptive attack? cuba? north korea? venezula? france? saudi arabia?


personally, i was never convinced iraq posed such an imminent threat. i don't criticize us as oppressors or murderers or oil thieves, but i also don't have to like the operation in general. which i don't.

[kwame k]

Originally posted by Deklon
Lounge...you forgot a few things.
The capture of most of the people resonsible for 9/11.

Other than the fact the hi-jackers were killed so the people responsibile for the attack are dead. Let's follow the money shall we...

"Of the 9-11 hijackers themselves, 15 of 19 came from Saudi Arabia. Some American intelligence officials say the Saudis have been less than fully cooperative in the war on terror. Some wealthy Saudis have long been known to fund charities that are used as fronts to support terrorists." http://www.msnbc.com/avantgo/839269.htm

Hmmm........Riddle me this Batman!

What family has close business ties to Saudi Arabia, two of the members of said family became President, members of said family were in bed with Salem bin Laden who invested heavily in Arbusto Energy, a company run by “A current President“, through his friend James R. Bath. Several members of the “Can you guess which” family are investors in the Carlyle Group, a defense contractor and investment fund with numerous interests in the Saudi Arabia and the Middle East and connections to the Saudi Bin laden Group.

So we captured most of the people responsible for 9/11? Why was the investigation against the Saudi's stopped? Why were most of the people who funded the terrorist, directly or indirectly, never charged?

We had more of a reason to invade Saudi Arabia than we ever had for Iraq.