Things about Bin Ladden - :P

PaganToris · 2002-12-06 17:14:53

I thank that bin ladden is dead but we have no further reason to belive he is i wouldnt minda kicking his head around as a soccer ball post anything as u wish as this is a post abut the dead Arab OSSAMA BIN LADDEN

Auqakah · 2002-12-08 16:32:04

I think its rather interesting that Mr. Colin Powell had a meeting with Mr. Bin Laden in Dubai, six months prior to September 11th. I also find it interesting that the US fighter jets that are stationed in/or near (I can't remember which it is) the UAE did not force down Bin Laden's personal jet, despite the fact that he was wanted at that time for the bombing of the USS Cole. Verrrry interesting indeed.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-08 22:29:02

Where in God's name do you people get these news stories? I never hear about any of these things... or Bush quotes... I guess I'm pretty confined to The Daily Show.

AltToWar · 2002-12-09 06:37:14

It was not Colin Powel, but a member of the CIA.

This story was broke by a french newspaper as I recall.

It only takes a few days of comparing American journalism with foreign journalism to realize that there is a LOT of news out there that never sees the light of day in america.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-09 15:05:13

Yes, I understand that the foreign media does a better job, but I don't speak French. So how do I get access to the foreign media's stories?

I like the BBC for a bit of my world news.

Auqakah · 2002-12-14 13:38:04

I got the information from an American site, which had gathered a series of news stories together which had relevance to the whole thing. However, I upgraded my computer since I went there - and this computer doesn't like my old hard drive, due to compatibility issues. Therefore, I'm afraid I can't give a link or anything like that. Sorry.

And being British, I can say for certain that America gets very little in the way of news (especially global news), as I get most of the US news channels. And of course I get the British ones. But the US ones tend to have a) less detail and b) are less accurate. And slower, too. I watched the coverage on 9/11 on CNN, and Fox News, but it wasn't as comprehensive as the BBC. In fact, I spent that day online, giving out information to Americans online who couldn't get onto the BBC website and couldn't get enough information via American news networks.

soph · 2002-12-14 13:40:16

thats because american media only wants to sell a story. accuracy, morality, and relevance are minor details.

Palomar · 2002-12-14 14:31:39

And being British, I can say for certain that America gets very little in the way of news (especially global news),

*And being an American, I can second this.

NBC Nightly News is a joke -- it should be renamed "NBC Geriatric Update," as it mostly caters to the elderly, i.e. the latest Medicare/Social Security scare and prescription drug prices.

CBS & ABC aren't much better. Generally speaking, there is maybe, on average, 5 minutes of "global coverage" and the rest is about old people, the latest prancing poodle contest, etc., etc.

CNN is about the best.

I look to other sources for news. Thank goodness for the internet.

--Cindy

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-14 18:01:14

NBC Nightly News is a joke -- it should be renamed "NBC Geriatric Update," as it mostly caters to the elderly, i.e. the latest Medicare/Social Security scare and prescription drug prices.
CBS & ABC aren't much better. Generally speaking, there is maybe, on average, 5 minutes of "global coverage" and the rest is about old people, the latest prancing poodle contest, etc., etc.

I can second that! I turn on the TV to get news, and I'm plastered against my couch with special interest stories. How do Nightline and 20/20 stay on the air? They're the most worthless programming on TV. It's not like I don't have enough problems with my own miserable life; then I have watch the story of a woman who's arms were cut off my this guy so he could rape her. THAT'S TERRIBLE! I mean, the point was that there is a flaw in California law regarding mutilation sentencing, but I really didn't need to know that.

soph · 2002-12-14 22:26:37

60 minutes does a decent job of covering global issues. CNN is decent, but i could never respect the media nowadays for various reasons.

1) Reporters don't care about anything but their story. I don't see why our reporters have to be spies for the world, divulging our battle plans. Yes, I know, there's little chance to lose, but maybe I want to be a little surprised if we come in from Kuwait instead of Saudi Arabia.

2) I just saw a report today about Cardinal Law. The poor guy has been disgraced, and the reporter is saying on national television that he wants a quiet withdrawal from public service. That means he doesn't want you outside his house talking about the Catholic Church's scandal!!!. Not that I'm Catholic, or I condone the scandal, but give the guy a break.

3) How many times does the media use a terrible event for profit? I did not have to see the tape of the dog gassings by al Qaeda a hundred thousand times. And I didn't have to see the 9/11 videos still being played 6 months later. it's so transparent. I don't need them to tell me how to "commemorate" (for lack of a better word) the incident.

4) Twisting stories to make stories. I know people who have experienced this personally, and it's disgusting.

I could keep going, but I'd rather not.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-16 20:18:34

I don't see why our reporters have to be spies for the world, divulging our battle plans. Yes, I know, there's little chance to lose, but maybe I want to be a little surprised if we come in from Kuwait instead of Saudi Arabia.

AMEN BROTHER! If we're going to go to war, why not give our troops the element of surprise? As a matter of fact, you, or me, or any American really doesn't need to know the technicalities of how we're going to fight this war. We really only need to know the "whys".

AltToWar · 2002-12-17 11:18:06

I don't see why our reporters have to be spies for the world, divulging our battle plans. Yes, I know, there's little chance to lose, but maybe I want to be a little surprised if we come in from Kuwait instead of Saudi Arabia.
AMEN BROTHER! If we're going to go to war, why not give our troops the element of surprise? As a matter of fact, you, or me, or any American really doesn't need to know the technicalities of how we're going to fight this war. We really only need to know the "whys".

the media reports exactly what the pentagon feeds them.

During the gulf war, the Pentagon used CNN to explain an attack plan that involved a major marine landing of the southern coast of Iraq.

That attack never happened, but it did cause the iraqi forces to split in two, sending half it's army to stave off an attack that wasn't there.

I wouldn't worry about the american media revealing too much about american military plans. a decade ago CNN was used by the pentagon as a munition.

dickbill · 2002-12-17 13:34:16

Hi all,

a copy of the original article, in french is at:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111A.html
It says that BLaden had a kidney surgery at Dubai in July 2001 and had met with a CIA agent at this occasion. Of course the hospital as well as the US sources deny.

The Monde, a very serious french journal, says it doesn't trust much these informations from the Figaro journal and thus The Monde doesn't give much credit to this article. The monde expresses doubt about the serious of the information.
So, be warned, it might be just a big crapy scoop.

My feeling is that any further investigations will face a "no confirmation" answer from the hospital or the CIA, but not confirming is not proving. As usual, we have to trust without seing.

And by the way, I also find the US news channels poorly informative. Once, I watched Larry King Live about the snipper story and the expert pschychologist saying that the snipper was a middle age white man, sexually deprived, like PaganToris, and probably a member of the Mars Society. Just kidding (because as you know, all men are sexually deprived). Anyway, one spectator asked by phone to larry King if he knew about a putative french marksman desertor lost in the US. That information has been on internet for at least one week before the LK show and all europeans knew about that desertor. Larry King said he never heard about it.

If you are interested about Bin Laden, here is a copy of the beginning if the article.

" La CIA aurait rencontr? Ben Laden en juillet
Alexandra Richard

Le Figaro, le 31 octobre 2001 Publi? sur globalresearch.ca le 2 novembre 2001

Duba?, l'un des sept ?mirats de la f?d?ration des Emirats arabes unis, au nord-est d'Abu Dhabi. Cette ville de 350 000 habitants a ?t? le th??tre discret d'une rencontre secr?te entre Oussama ben Laden et le repr?sentant de la CIA sur place, en juillet. Un homme, partenaire professionnel de la direction administrative de l'h?pital am?ricain de Duba?, affirme que l'ennemi public num?ro un a s?journ? dans cet ?tablissement hospitalier du 4 au 14 juillet.

En provenance de l'a?roport de Quetta au Pakistan, Oussama ben Laden a ?t? transf?r? d?s son arriv?e ? Duba? Airport. Accompagn? de son m?decin personnel et fid?le lieutenant, qui pourrait ?tre l'?gyptien Ayman al-Zawahari - sur ce point les t?moignages ne sont pas formels -, de quatre gardes du corps,
ainsi que d'un infirmier alg?rien, Ben Laden a ?t? admis ? l'h?pital am?ricain, un b?timent de verre et de marbre situ? entre Al-Garhoud Bridge et Al-Maktoum Bridge.

Chaque ?tage comporte deux suites ?VIP? et une quinzaine de chambres. Le milliardaire saoudien a ?t? admis dans le tr?s r?put? d?partement d'urologie du docteur Terry Callaway, sp?cialiste des calculs r?naux et de l'infertilit? masculine. Joint par t?l?phone ? de multiples reprises, le docteur Callaway n'a pas souhait? r?pondre ? nos questions......"

etc

Cobra Commander · 2002-12-17 16:26:13

Uh oh, here goes Cobra Commander on a rant again...

There's been a lot of talk about about what al Quaeda would do IF they had access to nuclear weapons. This seems to be a bit optimistic. There is no if, but when. Russia cannot account for as many as 100 nuclear weapons. These are complete, functional atomic bombs, not just nuclear materials, though that situation is just as alarming. The US measures weapons grade plutonium in milligrams. The Russians have inventoried theirs by the barrel for the past decade. A few of those oil-drum size barrels have been "misplaced" over the years.
Whether or not Osama bin Laden is alive, (I'm inclined to think he is) al Quaeda is still out there, and they have access to chemical, biological, and almost certainly nuclear weapons. Maybe America is thowing its weight around on the world stage, but that's not why we have enemies. If we suddenly started "being nice" to everyone, they wouldn't stop wanting to kill us.
People are going to die on both sides, this can't be avoided. After it's over there will be plenty of time for historical analysis, criticism, and outright whining; but when in a struggle with an enemy determined to destroy you, you don't have the luxury of beating yourself down for a few past lapses of your ideals. Restaint will be measured in lost American lives. When the first nuke detonates in an American city, then we'll see.

The rant concludes now.

Echus_Chasma · 2002-12-17 16:44:00

Read some of this:
http://forums.utopiatemple.com/showthre … adid=14664

Its a thread called "Whats wrong with the US." It is a very long argument, 90 pages last time I checked. ???

Auqakah · 2002-12-18 14:49:03

There's been a lot of talk about about what al Quaeda would do IF they had access to nuclear weapons. This seems to be a bit optimistic. There is no if, but when. Russia cannot account for as many as 100 nuclear weapons. These are complete, functional atomic bombs, not just nuclear materials, though that situation is just as alarming. The US measures weapons grade plutonium in milligrams. The Russians have inventoried theirs by the barrel for the past decade. A few of those oil-drum size barrels have been "misplaced" over the years.
Whether or not Osama bin Laden is alive, (I'm inclined to think he is) al Quaeda is still out there, and they have access to chemical, biological, and almost certainly nuclear weapons. Maybe America is thowing its weight around on the world stage, but that's not why we have enemies. If we suddenly started "being nice" to everyone, they wouldn't stop wanting to kill us.
People are going to die on both sides, this can't be avoided. After it's over there will be plenty of time for historical analysis, criticism, and outright whining; but when in a struggle with an enemy determined to destroy you, you don't have the luxury of beating yourself down for a few past lapses of your ideals. Restaint will be measured in lost American lives. When the first nuke detonates in an American city, then we'll see.
The rant concludes now.

<Note: There was an erroneous comment in here; I misread the quote slightly. Sorry about that. >

What makes you think that they would use nuclear weapons if they had them? There is no definitive proof that they do have them; therefore, its definitley still if. And if they do... why would they use them? Terrorists aim to promote terror. The usage of a nuclear weapon(s?) wouldn't promote terror on a large scale; just anger. There would be lots of angry, angry people - but not all that many terrified ones (except in whichever city(s?) that were hit by said nuclear weapon or weapons - and the areas nearby, naturally).

And that would kind of remove the future of that kind of terrorism, too. In todays fast paced world, people adapt quickly to atrocity. After all, its common. Pol Pot in the Eighties. The Kurds being massacred in the early Nineties; the Tibetans throughout the Eighties, Nineties, up to now; Kosovo in '99 (I think...)... Thats a helluva lot to happen in twenty years. And yet... are we all terrified because of those incidents? No, of course not. Those were all waaaaaaaay away from the majority of the 'world' as the West accepts it.

But a few Arabs that might have nuclear weapons? Gosh! Run for the hills!

America has nuclear weapons. And frankly, that frightens me so much more than any terrorist group with them. The US, after all, has deployed them against a civilian population. Al Quaeda has not. And - to be ultra-contraversial (and radical, too) if Al Quaeda did... wouldn't that be just the same as Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

But!

As I said before; wouldn't it remove the terror, somewhat, if they were to use nuclear arms (the terrorists, that is)? After all, the majority of the Japanese simply howled for American blood after Hiroshima. They didn't break down; or cry for mercy; it was the leaders who did that, as they knew they had no choice. In fact - Japan had already sued for peace when both bombs were dropped, but thats a different subject.

The threat of the usage of nuclear weapons is far more potent (for the purpose of terrorism) than the usage of them. And after all - Al Quaeda surely has purposes, and goals, and aims. And if they use nuclear weapons - they wouldn't be safe anywhere. No, it would be far easier for them to simply threaten. After all - Iraq is supposed to have them. And ol' Saddam is in a bit of a tighter spot than Al Quaeda - he hasn't used them. And if he doesn't - he knows the threat is enough - then I doubt they will.

Cobra Commander · 2002-12-20 16:47:20

The threat of the usage of nuclear weapons is far more potent (for the purpose of terrorism) than the usage of them. And after all - Al Quaeda surely has purposes, and goals, and aims. And if they use nuclear weapons - they wouldn't be safe anywhere. No, it would be far easier for them to simply threaten. After all - Iraq is supposed to have them. And ol' Saddam is in a bit of a tighter spot than Al Quaeda - he hasn't used them. And if he doesn't - he knows the threat is enough - then I doubt they will.

As this is the only reasonable point made in the post, It should be addressed. The threat of nuclear weapons is one thing. The reality of their use is quite another. Osama and crew can threaten to nuke cities all they want, it is meaningless unless a nuke actually wipes out a city, thereby lending credibility to the threat. A weapon unused is a useless weapon, one might say. LA or New York in smoldering radioactive ruins will inspire terror, I guarantee it. Yes, people will be angry and will be out for blood, but they will be afraid.
This is why Saddam won't use them. He has a country. We know where he is. Al Quaeda is not burdened by the baggage of residing in a nation-state. That makes a world of difference.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-20 17:34:37

Ahah, Cobra, you actually said something I can agree with.

Now, my question to you is, do you think Iraq would supply terrorist with nukes, as is suggested by people on this forum, etc?

Cobra Commander · 2002-12-20 19:13:30

Ahah, Cobra, you actually said something I can agree with.
Now, my question to you is, do you think Iraq would supply terrorist with nukes, as is suggested by people on this forum, etc?

I don't think Saddam would intentionaly give al Quaeda a nuke. Saddam is a brutal dictator, but he's no fool. I'm inclined to think he wouldn't use nuclear weapons unless pushed into a corner, such as if faced with an American invasion, for example.
On the other hand, A nuclear armed Iraq could destabalise the entire region, and while I wouldn't expect Saddam to go off and nuke Israel or something, I wouldn't bet anything of value on his restraint. So, I would argue that if we are going to go after Iraq, we should do it before Saddam can field a nuclear weapon. If he has one and we attack, he'll probably use it.

Auqakah · 2002-12-22 11:46:06

Hm. I'll ignore the 'only reasonable' jab, and move on.

Al-Quaeda has no need to use nuclear weapons. Why should they? Our own governments do a good enough job of terrorizing their people with 'alerts' and 'warnings', anyway. Don't you think?

Or am I making an unreasonable point, again?

soph · 2002-12-22 11:47:48

What color is our alert level now? I bet if i picked out an M&M from a bag, id have a good chance of picking out the color!

AltToWar · 2002-12-22 13:00:46

Hm. I'll ignore the 'only reasonable' jab, and move on.
Al-Quaeda has no need to use nuclear weapons. Why should they? Our own governments do a good enough job of terrorizing their people with 'alerts' and 'warnings', anyway. Don't you think?
Or am I making an unreasonable point, again?

and our government is doing quite a bit to take away our freedoms.

and our government is doing quite a bit to start a war between america and Islam.

If osama is still alive, I bet he's thinking about retiring. Our government will take care of the rest.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-23 13:41:48

What color is our alert level now? I bet if i picked out an M&M from a bag, id have a good chance of picking out the color!

Smart ass...

If osama is still alive, I bet he's thinking about retiring. Our government will take care of the rest.

I can't think of many golf communities that would host a wanted terrorist. Maybe some golf resort down in Pheonix would give him a safe haven. I suppose his hatred of western ways won't let him sip a pina colada on the beaches of Jamaica, either!

Cobra Commander · 2002-12-26 17:12:55

Al-Quaeda has no need to use nuclear weapons. Why should they? Our own governments do a good enough job of terrorizing their people with 'alerts' and 'warnings', anyway. Don't you think?

And when is the last time anyone paid attention to one of those warnings? The attention span of the average American is so short that one terrorist attack isn't going to create a pervasive atmosphere of fear. Terrorists threaten to attack, no one cares. They need to actually DO something, and on a regular basis. The terror is heightened if they up the ante with each attack as well, hence the attraction of biological and nuclear weapons.

Auqakah · 2002-12-26 18:24:46

I don't think thats so. Sure, the quiet majority are ignoring the warnings, but its the vocal minority that counts.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-12-06 17:14:53

Re: Things about Bin Ladden - :P

#2 2002-12-08 16:32:04

Re: Things about Bin Ladden - :P

#3 2002-12-08 22:29:02

Re: Things about Bin Ladden - :P

#4 2002-12-09 06:37:14

Re: Things about Bin Ladden - :P

#5 2002-12-09 15:05:13

Re: Things about Bin Ladden - :P

#6 2002-12-14 13:38:04

Re: Things about Bin Ladden - :P

#7 2002-12-14 13:40:16

Re: Things about Bin Ladden - :P

#8 2002-12-14 14:31:39

Re: Things about Bin Ladden - :P

#9 2002-12-14 18:01:14

Re: Things about Bin Ladden - :P

#10 2002-12-14 22:26:37

Re: Things about Bin Ladden - :P

#11 2002-12-16 20:18:34

Re: Things about Bin Ladden - :P

#12 2002-12-17 11:18:06

Re: Things about Bin Ladden - :P

#13 2002-12-17 13:34:16

Re: Things about Bin Ladden - :P

#14 2002-12-17 16:26:13

Re: Things about Bin Ladden - :P

#15 2002-12-17 16:44:00

Re: Things about Bin Ladden - :P

#16 2002-12-18 14:49:03

Re: Things about Bin Ladden - :P

#17 2002-12-20 16:47:20

Re: Things about Bin Ladden - :P

#18 2002-12-20 17:34:37

Re: Things about Bin Ladden - :P

#19 2002-12-20 19:13:30

Re: Things about Bin Ladden - :P

#20 2002-12-22 11:46:06

Re: Things about Bin Ladden - :P

#21 2002-12-22 11:47:48

Re: Things about Bin Ladden - :P

#22 2002-12-22 13:00:46

Re: Things about Bin Ladden - :P

#23 2002-12-23 13:41:48

Re: Things about Bin Ladden - :P

#24 2002-12-26 17:12:55

Re: Things about Bin Ladden - :P

#25 2002-12-26 18:24:46

Re: Things about Bin Ladden - :P

Board footer