West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Trauma-san on November 01, 2004, 07:19:09 PM
-
Get this, in his video from Friday, Bin Ladin said something to the effect that any state that attacks the security of his state, will become an enemy of him.
The word for 'state' that he used, specifically referred to AMERICAN states, not states as in countries.
This is being initially interpreted as meaning that "red" states of those that support Bush in the election tommorow will become targets of Bin Ladin.
-
The word for 'state' that he used, specifically referred to AMERICAN states, not states as in countries.
Are you sure? Source?
-
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/33124.htm
-
LOL, that's crazy...
-
I guess there's some confusion over the translation into english...
Bin Laden used 'wilayet' instead of 'dawla' to refer to state, and I guess wilayet means "sub-unit"
Kinda thin IMO.
-
Yeah, it's not very clear... I would have never expected him to specifically target U.S. states... from the "aired" portion of the video, he made it seem like he was referring to countries because at 1 point he said "Countries that have withdrawn have guaranteed their safety"...
-
poor Florida guys if that's true. Im not being sarcastic here cause this aint fun. If Bush cheats Florida and they get attacked because of that, then it's really, really messed up. :-X
one weird thing though... if that's the case, why havent demos promoted it like that? I mean ... that's like the surest way to gain swing states ever ???
-
one weird thing though... if that's the case, why havent demos promoted it like that? I mean ... that's like the surest way to gain swing states ever ???
Because I hope that Democrats realize that appeasement isn't the way to deal with terrorists.
-
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/33124.htm
LOL now your citing the New York Post. Man you are really too much.
-
one technical question.. is the New York Post read in every part of the US, or only in parts like New York and Philadelphia and such?
-
one technical question.. is the New York Post read in every part of the US, or only in parts like New York and Philadelphia and such?
Only in NY, NJ area.
-
john kerry has more positions then jenna jameson
-
one weird thing though... if that's the case, why havent demos promoted it like that? I mean ... that's like the surest way to gain swing states ever ???
Because I hope that Democrats realize that appeasement isn't the way to deal with terrorists.
Life is that simple to you?
-
the ny post is one of the bigget joke papers in the country. There noutorious for making stories up also lol.
-
Life is that simple to you?
First and foremost, you're ignorant to think that terrorism would just dry up if we did what bin laden said. There was Jihad before 9/11, There was Jihad before our support for Israel, There was Jihad even before the united states. If Osama didn't have the grievances he uses today, he'd come up with with others. I'm suprised you can't see that they nothing but pretexts.
On another issue, do you speak arabic? If so, could you clarify what I wrote here, and tell me if it's correct or mistaken.
Bin Laden used 'wilayet' instead of 'dawla' to refer to state, and I guess wilayet means "sub-unit"
-
You just quoted the political equivalent of the national enquirer. Lol thank someone else for pointing it out. do you even realize how bad your sources are? lol
-
You just quoted the political equivalent of the national enquirer. Lol thank someone else for pointing it out. do you even realize how bad your sources are? lol
How are you gonna accuse me of having "Bad Sources" when you quote sources that are even more biased?
moveon.org?
-
Take it for what it is: the opinions of biased people who obviously have their own interpretation for things... it's up to you to decide what you want to believe and what you should look into a bit more... there's no reason for you guys to go around saying "that's biased"... almost all sources are... you just have to be smart enough to know the difference between fact/biased objective opinion
-
You just quoted the political equivalent of the national enquirer. Lol thank someone else for pointing it out. do you even realize how bad your sources are? lol
How are you gonna accuse me of having "Bad Sources" when you quote sources that are even more biased?
moveon.org?
you still haven't answered my question. Are you retarded? lol please i'd like a response.
I posted a video clip from moveon.org because it was entertaing. lol i never said vote kerry cuz moveon.org said so. I said vote kerry for the reasons outlined in my previous posts. I'm not going to repeat them.
First you quoted Rush Limbaugh and even prominently wrote "by Rush Limbaugh" in your post title lol like that was something impressive lol lol lol... then you quote the NYPost.... lol then you just totally disgregard what ive said countless times and make up an alternate reality. did you catch my post about Bush supporters being divorced from reality... here let me remind you: see below.
-
Three in Four Say If Iraq Did Not Have WMD or Support al Qaeda,
US Should Not Have Gone to War
Saddam's Intent to Build WMD Not Seen as Sufficient Reason
Majority Believes Iraq Situation Getting Worse,
But Only 1 in 5 Want to Withdraw
Majority Opposes Permanent Bases in Iraq,
But Perceives US Planning Them
A new PIPA/Knowledge Networks poll finds a consensus among the American public that if Iraq did not have WMD and was not providing substantial support to al Qaeda, the US should not have gone to war with Iraq. Seventy-four percent overall have this view, including 58% of Bush supporters, 92% of Kerry supporters and 77% of the uncommitted-those who have not made a definite commitment to vote for one or the other candidate.
A majority also rejects the argument that the US should have gone to war with Iraq because Saddam Hussein had the intention to acquire WMD. Presented two arguments, only 35% endorsed the one that said, "Even if Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, the US still should have gone to war with Iraq, because Saddam Hussein had the intention to acquire such weapons at some point in the future." Rather, 60% said that if Saddam only had a desire for such weapons, "instead of invading Iraq, the US should have made sure he did not get the capability to make them."
Overall, support for the decision to go to war has eroded slightly, so that a bare majority of 51% now says that it was the wrong decision, and 46% say it was the right decision (as compared to August when 49% said it was the wrong decision and 46% the right decision).
Steven Kull comments, "It may seem contradictory that three quarters of Americans say that the US should not have gone to war if Iraq did not have WMD or was not providing support to al Qaeda, while nearly half still say the war was the right decision. However, support for the decision is sustained by persisting beliefs among half of Americans that Iraq provided substantial support to al Qaeda, and had WMD, or at least a major WMD program."
Despite the widely-publicized conclusions of the Duelfer report, 49% of Americans continue to believe Iraq had actual WMD (27%) or a major WMD program (22%), and 52% believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.
Views about the decision to go to war are highly correlated with beliefs about prewar Iraq. Among those who say that going to war was the right decision, 73% believe that Iraq had WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (26%), and 75% believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. Among those who say it was the wrong decision, only 29% believe that Iraq had WMD (10%) or a major program for developing them (19%), and 33% believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda..
Views of the current situation in Iraq lean to the negative. Fifty-four percent believe the situation in Iraq is getting worse (46% better). Fifty-one percent say that "the US military presence in Iraq is currently provoking more conflict than it is preventing" while 46% say it is "a stabilizing force." Though large majorities of Kerry supporters express such negative views, Bush supporters say the opposite. Among the uncommitted, a 60% majority says the situation is worsening, and 60% say US military presence is provoking more conflict rather than being a stabilizing force (36%).
The public is divided about whether the operation will ultimately succeed. Forty percent express high confidence in ultimate success, 45% express low confidence, and 16% are neutral.
<< RESUME READING >>
At the same time, only one in five think the US should completely withdraw from Iraq. When asked whether the number of US troops in Iraq should be increased, maintained, decreased or withdrawn completely, only 19% want to withdraw-down from 24% in August. Another 20% want to decrease troop strength, 29% to keep it steady, and 28% to increase it.
Two out of three say the US should not "have a permanent military presence in Iraq." This is a consensus position, including clear majorities of both Bush and Kerry supporters (56% and 78% respectively) and the uncommitted (64%). An overwhelming 76% think the Iraqi people oppose such a permanent presence; only 21% think they favor it.
Nonetheless, asked whether they think "the US government is presently planning to have permanent military bases in Iraq, or to remove all of its military forces once Iraq is stabilized," a modest majority-52%--think the US is planning permanent bases, while 42% think the US is planning to remove all of its forces after stabilizing the country.
These perceptions are polarized according to presidential preference, with 72% of Kerry supporters thinking the US is planning a permanent presence and 61% of Bush supporters thinking the US is planning an eventual full removal. Among the uncommitted, 52% think the US is planning a permanent presence and 40% think it is not.
More broadly, 77% assume that most people in the Middle East want the US to reduce its military presence there, and a growing majority-now 62% (up from 51% in September, 2003)--says that if this is the case the US should reduce its presence.
There are some indications that the Duelfer report may have made a modest impact on Americans' beliefs about pre-war Iraq. As compared to 54% in August, 49% now believe that Iraq had actual WMD (27%) or a major WMD program (22%). Two out of three now think that the Bush administration should have taken more time to find out whether Iraq had WMD.
The poll was conducted October 12-18 with nationwide sample of 968 American adults. The margin of error was 3.2 to 4%. The poll was fielded by Knowledge Networks using its nationwide panel, which is randomly selected from the entire adult population and subsequently provided internet access. For more information about this methodology, go to www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp.
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/more_10_28_04.htm#1
-
how bout media sources itself are mostly dumb asses......"we interpret this as he will attack states that support bush in the election"....ok cmon now...really....first off if he means it that way, tlak about good use of propaganda, but considring MOST news sources are democratic, it makes sense, they'd love to take it out of context to get rid of bush, which im all for as my opinion towards election. but this one is funny.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/index.html
-
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/index.html
^ Seems to be working with Bush in office.
VOTE FOR JOHN KERRY!
-
All I could hear was "Derka Derka Derka"
-
It's too bad Bin Ladin doesn't release more videotapes, it's kind of comical to look at his ass. I guess he's too busy giving handjobs with his one good arm to be bothered to instruct his dumbass followers on what the fuck they're supposed to do next.
A kindergarten class could do a better job at terrorism than this fuck. He gets lucky one time and now people shake when they see him. He's a retarded cripple living in a cave, wiping his ass with his hand... but yet he expects me to fear him? LOL
-
It's too bad Bin Ladin doesn't release more videotapes, it's kind of comical to look at his ass. I guess he's too busy giving handjobs with his one good arm to be bothered to instruct his dumbass followers on what the fuck they're supposed to do next.
A kindergarten class could do a better job at terrorism than this fuck. He gets lucky one time and now people shake when they see him. He's a retarded cripple living in a cave, wiping his ass with his hand... but yet he expects me to fear him? LOL
Then why is our government making such a big deal about there being a great chance of another possible attack like every couple of months? Maybe it's because the government just wants to scare its citizens, so it can come out with some bullshit Patriot Act.
"he gets lucky one time"? Do some research... I'll give you one... Spain
-
Life is that simple to you?
First and foremost, you're ignorant to think that terrorism would just dry up if we did what bin laden said. There was Jihad before 9/11, There was Jihad before our support for Israel, There was Jihad even before the united states. If Osama didn't have the grievances he uses today, he'd come up with with others. I'm suprised you can't see that they nothing but pretexts.
On another issue, do you speak arabic? If so, could you clarify what I wrote here, and tell me if it's correct or mistaken.
Bin Laden used 'wilayet' instead of 'dawla' to refer to state, and I guess wilayet means "sub-unit"
1. Terrorism would dry up substantially the day the Palestinians get a viable state, and the day Americans stop interfering in the Muslim world, Im guaranteeing that. There was jihad before America, but dont confuse historical Islamic jihad and modern day political based terrorism. Also, how come Ive never seen you discuss the legitimacy of those grievances? You just dismiss it as, another Bin Laden excuse.
2. I do speak a little Arabic. Dawla does refer to a state in the modern sense, a nation state. Walayat refers to automous regions, provinces, colonies, states etc. Technically youre right, whether Bin Laden meant it like that is another story, I dont know about that for sure.
-
this is a bad thing to say, but i hope he North Carolina
-
thats retarted, if thats the case then why did bin laden attack 3 democratic states on 9/11?