Latest Bin Laden Transcript...

[Schism]

* Nevermind *

[JIMINATOR]

yes, i heard a little sound blurb on the tv today about winning the war on terrorism. and I have to wonder yet again what we are doing to accomplish that goal. this is not a war against people and money, it is a war of idealism. And we are losing. We are winning the battles in iraq but losing the war because we are polarizing the region. If anyone is undecided where they stand in the middle east, we are helping them decide by our continued occupation and support of puppet governments. once our military is gone, the governments will be gone. instead you have bin laden with his message. he is capturing the hearts, mind and imagination of his people. eh, what the hell does it all matter anyway. i guess nobody here understands that although we may consider this a war on terrorism, the people in the middle east consider this a war on islam. you can never win religious wars, only do temporary stalemates until the opposing force withdraws, like what has happened in what used to be parts of russia...

[Slice]

Man, reading this caused a chill to go down my spine. This dude knows what he's doing. Does anyone else see the truth in this and feel that we are being pulled around by the nose? It has the ring of prophecy to me. :(

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/index.html
That dude could have been dead right now if our current president did his job correctly.

[ME BIGGD01]

That dude could have been dead right now if our current president did his job correctly.

oh yeah, how is that?

[Thundarr]

oh yeah, how is that?
Bush should have finished securing Afghanistan FIRST if he planned to invade Iraq... Now he has two places that are not secure in the least... No MISSION ACCOMPLISHED in either country... :down:

[ME BIGGD01]

how do you know? you have military experience? do you think we stopped looking while we are in iraq? where do you get your info? you have no clue so don't comment on either of the countries. you are bias and refuse to see the truth.

[Thundarr]

Afghanistan was as secured as it will ever be long before we invaeded Irag. Bin Laden fled into Pakistan and we could not go there for political reasons (like..they are our allies, sorta).

I don't really see how we screwed up with Bin Laden. He is a shadow and no one really ever knows for sure where he is. We are still looking in earnest. But we did take away his training grounds and and severely stunted his recruitment abilities. Instead of being concentrated they are scattered now and must keep a very low profile. It makes things a lot more difficult for them to function and a lot more likely that we will intercept their communications, but they are still very dangerous and can still do a helluva lot of damage. I understand that, I am saying that we should have completely secured one place before moving on to another...See this (http://paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=82357)

and this (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-border1nov01,0,1349041.story?coll=la-home-headlines)

[solid snake295]

how do you know? you have military experience? do you think we stopped looking while we are in iraq? where do you get your info? you have no clue so don't comment on either of the countries. you are bias and refuse to see the truth.
what makes you right???

[OUTLAWS Tip]

That dude could have been dead right now if our current president did his job correctly.

Or at least in Jail.
Link (http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm)


:hmmm:
:P

[JIMINATOR]

how do you know? you have military experience? do you think we stopped looking while we are in iraq? where do you get your info? you have no clue so don't comment on either of the countries. you are bias and refuse to see the truth.

lol, i play serious sam, and that makes me and the others here just as qualified and equipped to comment as you are. your last two statements fully apply to you.

hmmmmm how things have changed in a couple of months... you used to be much more open minded. well, at least for you anyway...


listen, as far as tax breaks go, i didnt see anything extra this past year and still the state taxes have gone up including county taxes. who the hell cares anymore. get it threw your skulls, they all suck and are corrupt stealing our money. americans work the hardest out of the world. we middle class put more hours per day, per week, per month, per year and still don't make enough to make ends meet. it's all bs. all the other countries look at us as if we are spoiled but i beg to differ. we work alot more then them. i am not talking about these third world countries that run slave camps either. i am referring to civilized countries. now americans pays top dollar for crap product imported from china and americans jobs are being shipped over seas yet, everything is going up in price from food to housing. to talk about tax breaks, i see nothing amazing and if anything, if they gave me 400 bucks extra for my child, i say big freaking deal. i have aready spent double on fuel costs that will never be recovered for the next few years. this country needs to say go f yourself to both parties because they both suck. it amazes me some of you praise kerry when that guy is just as much of a moron then bush. bush lost my vote months ago but i refuse to give it to kerry because it would defeat the point. there is no candidate worthy of my vote and thats how i feel about who will be running this country the next 4 years.

as for the war, give me a freaking break. we can not win this with our own country having a gov't so corrupt. from the president, congress, all the way to your county mayor, they are corrupt. yet people are blind to it. if we are at war, than we should fight the war instead of wasting billions a day on not fixing the problem and kill the enemy.

i hope bush loses but if kerry wins, i hope he dies or gets shot in the skull so his running mate who i think is not as bad becomes president. all in all, they all suck.

now if any people think the democrats are going to save america, i suggest really looking into. you think taxes will go down? you think they will win the war? no way. minorities will get more benifits and my wife and i a hard working white middle class family will still be paying and paying more and more while non american citizens will get more welfare, free medical, grants for college, etc etc.

i could careless at this point and seprate myself from that america. i will die paying more and paying my way while blacks, spic's, indians who want equal rights get more rights and benifits then white middle class families who actually work for everything they have. yeah, this is a great country ran by morons.

now i am sure some will attack me for my feelings but if you do, please relate it to these...

equal rights---explain your definition

democrats---how they will save america and help fix the problems

bush--how he is not an idiot

rascism--i am sure you will think i am being rascist so if you do, explain where and what i said that is rascist and prove anything i said wrong with your proof.

thanks, yours trully

[Pure_Evil]

"Spic's"?

It amazes me how certain people can get away with posting some of the garbage that they post on these forums without any apparent consequences. :down:

I also feel people need to have thicker skins too. feel free to call me cracker or white trash, I'll just laugh at the ignorance :D

*or I'll be laughing in denile of the truth :P "

[Pure_Evil]

It is true that this shows that al Qaeda has gained, but on the other hand it shows that the Bush administration has also gained, something that anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Halliburton and its kind, will be convinced.

"And it all shows that the real loser is you," he said. "It is the American people and their economy."

:banghead: :banghead:

and for Tip, here ya go.

JULIAN BORGER

August 5, 2002

The Bush administration sat on a Clinton-era plan to attack al-Qaida in Afghanistan for eight months because of political hostility to the outgoing president and competing priorities, it was reported yesterday.

The plan, under which special forces troops would have been sent after Osama bin Laden, was drawn up in the last days of the Clinton administration but a decision was left to the incoming Bush team.

However, a top-level discussion of the proposals took place only on September 4, a week before the al-Qaida attacks on New York and Washington. In the months in between, the plan was shuffled through the bureaucracy by an administration distrustful of anything to do with Bill Clinton and which appeared fixated on national missile defence and the war on drugs, rather than the struggle against terrorism.

The news emerged as the political truce that followed the terrorist attacks evaporates in the heat of the looming congressional elections in November. It represents the strongest indictment so far of the Bush team's preparedness for an attack.

The plan to take the counter-terrorist battle to al-Qaida was drafted after the attack on the warship the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000. Mr Clinton's terrorism expert, Richard Clarke, presented it to senior officials in December, but it was decided that the decision should be taken by the new administration.

According to today's Time magazine, Mr Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger and Mr Clarke outlined the threat in briefings they provided for Condoleezza Rice, George Bush's national security adviser, in January 2001, a few weeks before she and her team took up their posts.

At the key briefing, Mr Clarke presented proposals to "roll back" al-Qaida which closely resemble the measures taken after September 11. Its financial network would be broken up and its assets frozen. Vulnerable countries like Uzbekistan, Yemen and the Philippines would be given aid to help them stamp out terrorist cells.

Crucially, the US would go after Bin Laden in his Afghan lair. Plans would be drawn up for combined air and special forces operations, while support would be channelled to the Northern Alliance in its fight against the Taliban and its al-Qaida allies.

Mr Clarke, who stayed on in his job as White House counter-terrorism tsar, repeated his briefing for vice president Dick Cheney in February. However, the proposals got lost in the clumsy transition process, turf wars between departments and the separate agendas of senior members of the Bush administration.

It was, the Time article argues, "a systematic collapse in the ability of Washington's national security apparatus to handle the terrorist threat".

Bush administration officials have played down the significance of the January briefings, describing them as simply advocating "a more active approach". Ms Rice issued a statement saying she did not even recall a briefing at which Mr Berger was present.

But the Time report quotes Bush officials as well as Clinton aides as confirming the seriousness of the Clarke plan. The sources said it was treated the same way as all policies inherited from the Clinton era, and subjected to a lengthy "policy review process".

The proposals were not re-examined by senior administration officials until April, and were not earmarked for consideration by the national security heads of department until September 4.

"If we hadn't had a transition," a senior Clinton administration official is quoted as saying, "probably in late October or early November 2000, we would have had [the plan to go on the offensive] as a presidential directive."

However, Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, was more interested in the national missile defence plan, and the new attorney general, John Ashcroft, was more interested in using the FBI to fight the "war on drugs" and clamping down on pornography. In August, he turned down FBI requests for $50m for the agency's counter-terrorist programme.

Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, appeals from the Northern Alliance's leader, Ahmed Shah Massoud, for more US aid fell on deaf ears. He was assassinated on September 9. :down:

[ME BIGGD01]

"Spic's"?

It amazes me how certain people can get away with posting some of the garbage that they post on these forums without any apparent consequences. :down:
again full of ignorance


do you know what spic stands for? it is not an insult or racist comment. it's not like the n word toward the blacks.

spic stands for spanish, pr's, islanders, caribs

research is not so hard to do but i guess ignorance is easier.

[ME BIGGD01]

lol, i play serious sam, and that makes me and the others here just as qualified and equipped to comment as you are. your last two statements fully apply to you.

hmmmmm how things have changed in a couple of months... you used to be much more open minded. well, at least for you anyway...
jim, you do not see me spreading false information on a game forum. i am part of other forums also that are just fo political crap. the difference between me is i know the goods and bads from both candidates. you do not.

i should explain this so you understand---duh, uhggg duhhh ugh duhh. there you go.

[ME BIGGD01]

Well I guess that is the Grand Illusion. That we can completely secure any of those countries. We can't. And we shouldn't have had to have even tried.

It all comes down to our reliance on foriegn oil. Period.

We need to become self-sufficient as a country. For God's sake we have the resources to do that. I've said it before. Our true enemy lies within our own borders.

I'm sick of the Middle East. Screw them. I'm sick of the corruption in our own government. I'm sick of the US policing the world and expending so many of our tax dollars and human lives on military and humanitarian crap. Yeah I know that last one sounds horrible, but enough is enough. Yes, I know there are atrocities being commited in African nations. But we've tried to intervene before and it was a catastrophy. Has anyone seen Blackhawk Down?

We need to get our sh!t together before BIGG's wish comes true and we get hit by another 9-11 type attack.

This all makes me feel so angry and frustrated. And there are so many who think like BIGG that would perpetuate this mess until we self-fulfill Bin Ladin's prophecy. :(
nice to know you base your facts on movies. although black hawk down was true, there is alot more to the story. and to think i wish another 9/11 is just a moronic statement. i was there you werent so wha the hell do you know. your own comments confict with your past comments. give up with your ignorance already. i think barney is on so watch that.

[Die Hard]

:watchmovi

[ME BIGGD01]

it is not meant to be a derogatory comment if you look into the history of the word. it stands for what it was meant for as i explained.

if people lool at it as slang, good for them.:thumbs:

[Thundarr]

again full of ignorance


do you know what spic stands for? it is not an insult or racist comment. it's not like the n word toward the blacks.

spic stands for spanish, pr's, islanders, caribs

research is not so hard to do but i guess ignorance is easier.

Are you serious??? I know plenty of Hispanic folks that would kick your a$$ for calling them a spic! It most certainly is comparable to the "n" word, at least it is where I live! :down: I know for a fact that they could care less where the word comes from or whether it's meant as derogatory or not, it has a derogatory tone to the people here and is highly offensive! :down:

[Die Hard]

Unbelievable!

[ME BIGGD01]

Are you serious??? I know plenty of Hispanic folks that would kick your a$$ for calling them a spic! It most certainly is comparable to the "n" word, at least it is when I live! :down:ok, regardless of how they feel it was not meant as a insult but none the less i don't care. kick my ass, i am in the mood send them over. i would love to work out this anger. you people know how to get my blood pumping.


also, if it's so offensive, why did it take a month before people were insulted. i know you few are slow and stuff (takes ya 2 hours to watch 60 minute:D ) but really, is this all you have?

[ME BIGGD01]

you know i am done with these topics. i disagree with the 7-10 people here on many things and i am sick and tired of it. my personal opinion on you people as yours on me makes no difference. i really could care less as i have said. i am done so fill this thread and the otherslike it with your dumb comments and such but first lean over, pucker and kiss my ---:P

[Pure_Evil]

:watchmovi :drink:

I guess it's time to check my e-mail to see how many complaints I've gotten from this thread :rolleyes:

At least no one has called me cracker :P

[Thundarr]

ok, regardless of how they feel it was not meant as a insult but none the less i don't care. kick my ass, i am in the mood send them over. i would love to work out this anger. you people know how to get my blood pumping.


also, if it's so offensive, why did it take a month before people were insulted. i know you few are slow and stuff (takes ya 2 hours to watch 60 minute:D ) but really, is this all you have?

I just said that Hispanics here in my city would be offended and that the term is certainly derogatory... I guess I need to be more specific when I say here. I meant here in Michigan not here on this forum... Did I say I was offended? No. Since it was in this thread I saw it and commented.

[Pure_Evil]

:thumbs: no complaints! :woohoo:

But I'm still hungry :watchmovi

[JIMINATOR]

it is not meant to be a derogatory comment if you look into the history of the word. it stands for what it was meant for as i explained.

if people lool at it as slang, good for them.:thumbs:

means n****r is fine too, after all they use it themselves.... why use it with just your white buddies?

[JIMINATOR]

jim, duh, uhggg duhhh ugh duhh. duh, uhggg duhhh ugh duhh. duh, uhggg duhhh ugh duhh. duh, uhggg duhhh ugh duhh. duh, uhggg duhhh ugh duhh. duh, uhggg duhhh ugh duhh. duh, uhggg duhhh ugh duhh. duh, uhggg duhhh ugh duhh. duh, uhggg duhhh ugh duhh. duh, uhggg duhhh ugh duhh. duh, uhggg duhhh ugh duhh. duh, uhggg duhhh ugh duhh.

duh, uhggg duhhh ugh duhh.duh, uhggg duhhh ugh duhh.---duh, uhggg duhhh ugh duhh. duh, uhggg duhhh ugh duhh..


finally, one of your posts that actually makes sense.... :thumbs:

[EXEcution]

finally, one of your posts that actually makes sense.... :thumbs:
:eek: :D :bawling: :rofl:

[OUTLAWS Tip]

To Pure,

But if Clinton had done the job, not one American service man would have traveled to the Middle East. That would have probably saved us from the War in Afganistan and Iraq.

:hmmm:

[Pure_Evil]

To Pure,

But if Clinton had done the job, not one American service man would have traveled to the Middle East. That would have probably saved us from the War in Afganistan and Iraq.

:hmmm:
And the same goes for Sr and Bush Jr. Only Sr and Clinton aren't up for re-election, only junior is. Hopefully, he'll be gone soon

[Pure_Evil]

To Pure,

But if Clinton had done the job, not one American service man would have traveled to the Middle East. That would have probably saved us from the War in Afganistan and Iraq.

:hmmm:
read this..if you dare (http://www.rememberjohn.com/clintongore.html)

[Thundarr]

Or this for that matter... :eek:

Conservative Lies #4: Clinton Let Osama Go
Conservatives love to rattle on about how Clinton was offered Osama bin Laden in 1996 (and possibly in 2000), but let him go. Quite frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of this old overcooked falsehood repeated again and again. The idea is that Clinton was given a viable chance to get bin Laden and somehow decided, "nah, we could take him and put him in prison but let's intentionally let him go free." This is unadulterated Drudge-style garbage.

The oft-repeated right-wing version of the story originates from one Mansoor Ijaz, an investment banker now based in New York, a former "lobbyist for Pakistan" who is now a regular Clinton hit-man on conservative FOX News and the National Review. The story seems to have many variations, that Osama was offered up once, twice, even three times. However, Ijaz has no evidence that he was integral, and the Clinton White House denied he ever was. They saw him as self-serving, having business ties with Sudan, which was then under embargo for their terrorist ties, wanting the embargo lifted so he could position himself profitably when Sudan opened its oil fields for export as planned in 1997. Clinton's people had worked with Ijaz before in dealing with Pakistan, but this time disregarded him because of the conflicts inherent in his Sudan business connections, not to mention Ijaz's later tendencies to present himself inaccurately to several foreign nations as "agent" of the U.S. government. The Clinton administration underwent negotiations with Sudan without Ijaz, but Ijaz's self-important story gets repeated ad nauseam--by Ijaz himself--with right-wing platforms eager to give him air time and column space. Ijaz later made even more fantastic claims that he could get Osama extradited in 2000, again unsupported. Apparently, Ijaz would have us believe that he had Osama in a bottle and pleaded with Clinton to take him, but Clinton maliciously unleashed him to wreak havoc upon the world.

Here is the story (http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/Web%20Pages/HERALD%20TRIBUNE_Sudan%20Offered%20to%20Arrest%20B in%20Laden%20in%20'96.htm) as it happened:


The government of Sudan, using a back channel direct from its president to the Central Intelligence Agency in the United States, offered in the early spring of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in custody in Saudi Arabia, according to officials and former officials in all three countries.

The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at hotel in Arlington, Virginia, on March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later.

Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept Mr. bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture. ...

Resigned to Mr. bin Laden's departure from Sudan, some officials raised the possibility of shooting down his chartered aircraft, but the idea was never seriously pursued because Mr. bin Laden had not been linked to a dead American, and it was inconceivable that Mr. Clinton would sign the "lethal finding" necessary under the circumstances.


In short, Sudan claimed that it would arrest Osama and extradite him to another country, though the veracity of that offer has never been confirmed, and was doubted by many. But the Clinton administration tried to achieve this. However, the U.S. itself could not take him because at that time (and this is what the right-wing hatchet stories usually leave out), bin Laden had not been connected with any U.S. deaths, and the U.S. did not have any jurisdiction to try him. So they tried to convince the Saudis to take him, but the Saudis refused. To suggest that Clinton had the ability to nab bin Laden but decided not to goes contrary to Clinton's 10-week effort to get bin Laden put in a Saudi jail and possibly executed there. The deal was simply unworkable, pure and simple.

[Dangerous Dan]

the bottem (pesimistic) line is: "we're all gonna die"