Which candidate do you think Osama would vote for?

[Zhukov]

Foiled alright.

 

[wade]

Foiled alright.

How many dead? Other than terrorists?

 

[NightTrain]

So, Wade, in your opinion, from this picture, was this a "foiled attempt" to bomb the WTC?

If yes, let me know and I'll post the dead and wounded as already was posted. I'll even throw in some extra pictures if you are still thinking that the first WTC bombing was 'foiled'.

Admit you were wrong, like a man.

Then reconsider your take on Who Was Responsible for this terrorist situation.

CSM owned you, the least you could do is acknowledge it instead of pretending it didn't happen with an invite to debate history. So far, your lack of ownership on your fucked up version of events after proven wrong has been lackluster... to be polite about it. Although you ignored it, many people here didn't, if you read the thread.

Own up to being owned. I hate to do it, but you didn't step up of your own accord so I have to bring it out like this.

"Let's talk history!"? You don't know history from the '90's, who the hell would like to debate with someone that thought the first WTC bombing was "Foiled"?

Lame.

 

[theim]

So please explain how Bush is doing just what OBL wants.

75% of Al Qaeda leadership has been neutralized in one way or another. Is OBL a masochist?

What should we have done? Turn the other cheek? Hold a summit?! BTW, by most estimates OBL is not in Afganistan, but western Pakistan.

 

[wade]

So, Wade, in your opinion, from this picture, was this a "foiled attempt" to bomb the WTC?

If yes, let me know and I'll post the dead and wounded as already was posted. I'll even throw in some extra pictures if you are still thinking that the first WTC bombing was 'foiled'.

Admit you were wrong, like a man.

Then reconsider your take on Who Was Responsible for this terrorist situation.

CSM owned you, the least you could do is acknowledge it instead of pretending it didn't happen with an invite to debate history. So far, your lack of ownership on your fucked up version of events after proven wrong has been lackluster... to be polite about it. Although you ignored it, many people here didn't, if you read the thread.

Own up to being owned. I hate to do it, but you didn't step up of your own accord so I have to bring it out like this.

"Let's talk history!"? You don't know history from the '90's, who the hell would like to debate with someone that thought the first WTC bombing was "Foiled"?

Lame.

Upon a little research, it appears the first WTC attack was more goofed than foiled. It is the FBI that claims it was foiled - I should have know better than to accept their spin on it.

As for not replying - ummm, I could not reply, as JimmyNY had banned me for 48 hours, and my time to read/reply on this board has been very limited since I got my posting privs back. I have generally not read back over posts that occured while I was banned from the board. If I didn't get a notification on a reply, I've probably not read it.

My point was, and remains, that the WTC destruction occured on Bush's watch, and he is responsible for this security failure. That's what being President means - being responsible for what happens during your time in office. The WTC attacks didn't happen immeadiately following Bush's taking office, they occured 8 months later. You can try and spin it any way you like, but this is a fact. Bush is the commander in chief, the buck stops with him.

 

[wade]

So please explain how Bush is doing just what OBL wants.

75% of Al Qaeda leadership has been neutralized in one way or another. Is OBL a masochist?

What should we have done? Turn the other cheek? Hold a summit?! BTW, by most estimates OBL is not in Afganistan, but western Pakistan.

OBL hopes the war in Iraq to escalates into a larger Arab vs. the West war. The whole point of the 911 attack was to get the USA and the West to engage in a war which would elicit a wider Islamic Jihad.

The 75% figure is questionable, since no solid data on how many members of Al-Queda there were prior to the war in Afghanistan, or what their structure was. One thing is clear, Al-Queda is larger today than it was pre-911.

What we should have done was to get OBL and destroy Al-Queda completely and quickly. We should have cornered and captured or killed him in Afghanistan. We should then have sought out Al-Queda whereever they might be and killed them too. Al-Queda should not exist today.

 

[Zhukov]

How many dead? Other than terrorists?

Six.

John DiGiovanni
Robert Kirkpatrick
Steve Knapp
Monica Smith
William Macko
Wilfredo Mercado

I doubt their families believe the attack was foiled.

 

[alien21010]

The first WTC attack was "foiled" only due to the bomber's incompetence.

I remember seeing a documentary on this attack, and they explained that if he had placed the car nearer the structural support column (the WTC had one main column running vertically from the center of the structure) that he might have well succeeded in toppling the first tower. The reason being, that if half of the supports had disappeared suddenly, the structure would not be able to support it's weight (cut out half the base of a tree in the forest and push it over).

However, the bomber had placed the van in a remote section of the underground parking lot, and the blast did little more than blow a nice section of concrete up, and kill a few people.

The bomb was big enough and powerful enough to cause serious if not fatal damage to WTC Tower 1, but was not placed right.

 

[freeandfun1]

I think OBL would vote for Bush and that was my selection.

Now let me explain why.

Clinton proved that a democratic president WILL treat terrorism as a law-enforcement issue. When it is treated as law enforcement, frankly, nothing happens as just in our legal system, those guilty eventually get out of jail or they hide in a country that will give them haven.

It is no secret that OBL wants a BIG war to exist between the West and Islam. He thinks Islam can win, the world will be converted and Mhd. will return.

Bush will continue to engage the Muslims as long as they attack. Kerry will back off and then the only people that will die are Americans and we won't go chasing after OBL so the war will not "grow" as OBL wants/needs it to grow.

Now, don't get me wrong. I do think Bush is doing the right thing. If we are EVER going to see the end of Islamic terrorism, it will ONLY be through the destruction of radical Islam and Bush will do his damnedest to see that done. However, I do think that OBL wants Bush as president because he knows that Bush will "bring it on" and that is what he needs if his (OBL's) vision is to come true.

 

[-Cp]

Here's more evidence that Osama wants Kerry:

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/33124.htm


November 1, 2004 -- WASHINGTON - Osama bin Laden warned in his October Surprise video that he will be closely monitoring the state-by-state election returns in tomorrow's presidential race — and will spare any state that votes against President Bush from being attacked, according to a new analysis of his statement.
The respected Middle East Media Research Institute, which monitors and translates Arabic media and Internet sites, said initial translations of a key portion of bin Laden's video rant to the American people Friday night missed an ostentatious bid by the Saudi-born terror master to divide American voters and tilt the election towards Democratic challenger John Kerry.

MEMRI said radical Islamist commentators monitored over the Internet this past weekend also interpreted the key passage of bin Laden's diatribe to mean that any U.S. state that votes to elect Bush on Tuesday will be considered an "enemy" and any state that votes for Kerry has "chosen to make peace with us."

The statement in question is when bin Laden said on the tape: "Your security is up to you, and any state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security."

That sentence followed a lengthy passage in the video in which bin Laden launches personal attacks on the president.

Yigal Carmon, president of MEMRI, said bin Laden used the Arabic term "ay-wilaya" to refer to a "state" in that sentence.

That term "specifically refers to an American state, like Tennessee," Carmon said, adding that if bin Laden were referring to a "country" he would have used the Arabic word "dawla."

MEMRI also translated an analysis of bin Laden's statement from the Islamist Web site al-Qal'a, well known for posting al-Qaeda messages, which agreed that bin Laden's use of the word "ay-wilaya" was meant as a "warning to every U.S state separately."

"It means that any U.S. state that will choose to vote for the white thug Bush as president, it means that it chose to fight us and we will consider it an enemy to us, and any state that will vote against Bush, it means that it chose to make peace with us and we will not characterize it as an enemy," the Web site said, according to MEMRI's translation.

 

[dilloduck]

Here's more evidence that Osama wants Kerry:

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/33124.htm


November 1, 2004 -- WASHINGTON - Osama bin Laden warned in his October Surprise video that he will be closely monitoring the state-by-state election returns in tomorrow's presidential race — and will spare any state that votes against President Bush from being attacked, according to a new analysis of his statement.
The respected Middle East Media Research Institute, which monitors and translates Arabic media and Internet sites, said initial translations of a key portion of bin Laden's video rant to the American people Friday night missed an ostentatious bid by the Saudi-born terror master to divide American voters and tilt the election towards Democratic challenger John Kerry.

MEMRI said radical Islamist commentators monitored over the Internet this past weekend also interpreted the key passage of bin Laden's diatribe to mean that any U.S. state that votes to elect Bush on Tuesday will be considered an "enemy" and any state that votes for Kerry has "chosen to make peace with us."

The statement in question is when bin Laden said on the tape: "Your security is up to you, and any state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security."

That sentence followed a lengthy passage in the video in which bin Laden launches personal attacks on the president.

Yigal Carmon, president of MEMRI, said bin Laden used the Arabic term "ay-wilaya" to refer to a "state" in that sentence.

That term "specifically refers to an American state, like Tennessee," Carmon said, adding that if bin Laden were referring to a "country" he would have used the Arabic word "dawla."

MEMRI also translated an analysis of bin Laden's statement from the Islamist Web site al-Qal'a, well known for posting al-Qaeda messages, which agreed that bin Laden's use of the word "ay-wilaya" was meant as a "warning to every U.S state separately."

"It means that any U.S. state that will choose to vote for the white thug Bush as president, it means that it chose to fight us and we will consider it an enemy to us, and any state that will vote against Bush, it means that it chose to make peace with us and we will not characterize it as an enemy," the Web site said, according to MEMRI's translation.

Guess that makes it pretty clear---do the states who go for Bush immediately recieve a larger potion of homeland security ?

 

[Isaac Brock]

Without a doubt, Osama and like terrorists want Bush in office. As freeandfun1 correctly states, terrorists would like nothing more than a holy war. They aren't afraid of current American policy because of their relgious fervor. As such, they are not afraid to die because they are brainwashed to believe they are operating under divine right. I believe Bush to be tougher on individual terrorists and wishing to eliminate the all. The tactical error is believing the terrorists fear elimination.

Whether one believes the Bush administration is right or wrong and its War on Terror and the seperate War in Iraq is immaterial. Rightly or wrongly, he has polarized the world and enraged much of the Muslim world. He has become a target, perhaps even a scapegoat, for everything the muslim world believes is evil or injust. The incited join OBL and the terrorists are elated. More wars with the Muslim war, more anger in the Muslim war and more terrorists. OBL dream of the a war between the west and Islam comes to life.

Kerry has managed an image as being a softer leader on foreign diplomacy and will most likely a garner better world image for whatever reasons, if for perhaps nothing more than being someone other than Bush. Assuming he's more isolationist, the terrorists are devoid of the fodder to improve their campaign.

 

[8236]

he's a troll... he hijacked my killing fields thread with stories of how the US slaughtered hundreds of thousands of iraqis in the first gulf war

I thought it was around one hundred thousand, not hundreds of thousands. Or is that the current war? Or both?

 

[8236]

MEMRI said radical Islamist commentators monitored over the Internet this past weekend also interpreted the key passage of bin Laden's diatribe to mean that any U.S. state that votes to elect Bush on Tuesday will be considered an "enemy" and any state that votes for Kerry has "chosen to make peace with us."
.

The translation I heard said:
States that do not support Bush will not be attacked.
Which, though implied, does not necessarily mean US states, but could refer to any 'state' or country in the world.

 

[Zhukov]

Well MEMRI has corrected the translation you heard.