Osama speaks to the people of the US

Sprafa said:
Seinfeldrules, look at he video. Does he looks like he's on the run ?

It looks to me he has a nice place (executive table, clean clothes, wall looks well painted, good camera) to make his footage, with several educated supporters around him, since the tape was translated into English.

It took him 3 years to make another video tape. Im sure somewhere along the line he had it planned to be in X spot at X time, then ran away 30 mins after it was made.
 
seinfeldrules said:
It took him 3 years to make another video tape. Im sure somewhere along the line he had it planned to be in X spot at X time, then ran away 30 mins after it was made.

:|

He certainly thinks about making tapes a lot....
 
seinfeldrules said:
When it has a chance to effect the Presidential election he does.


Read Apos post. He doesn't cares who wins. He just wants to be remembered. Whoever wins, he can stand up and say he did it.
 
Read Apos post. He doesn't cares who wins. He just wants to be remembered. Whoever wins, he can stand up and say he did it.
I dont agree with that at all. The timing of the video should prove that.
 
seinfeldrules said:
I dont agree with that at all. The timing of the video should prove that.


Prove what ? It proves only that he wants America to know he's around and he's breathing. American policy won't change if Kerry or Bush win.
 
Prove what ? It proves only that he wants America to know he's around and he's breathing. American policy won't change if Kerry or Bush win.

If he just wanted America to know he was alive and breathing, why do it 5 days before the election? Dont tell me its just a coincidence.
 
seinfeldrules said:
If he just wanted America to know he was alive and breathing, why do it 5 days before the election? Dont tell me its just a coincidence.


:|

Of course it's not a coincidence, his whole point is to show the World he's important enough to influence this. Whoever wins he can say he did it!! Get it ?

Apos said:
Osama isn't commanding vast armies or nations. He's leading a tiny movement. What we have to do is root the guy and his people out, wherever they are: the Kerry strategy. Not go stumbling around destabilizing areas like Iraq that then become fodder for manpower and weapons. You can't beat terrorism as an idea, but you can destroy this particular terrorist network, which is one of the only ones in the world who will actually resort to terrorism.

What's really amusing is that all the right wing pundits had just gotten through a week of claiming that Al Qaeda's silence proves that they want Kerry to win:

MORRIS: You know, Al Qaeda is voting in this election with their silence. ... Do you hear a peep out of them? Do you hear a bin Laden tape? Do you hear a threatening gesture? Do you hear any kind of statement that any of them is making? And they know that if they attack, uh, the United States or in some major terrorist target that that's gonna raise the fear level and that it will help Bush. ... But Putin, who is opposed to it, said that a victory for Kerry would -- would not help the war on terror.

HANNITY: Yeah. ... I think your analysis is 100 percent right, and I think they know politically that an attack would help George W. Bush. I think they are that savvy and that aware of our political system.


But now that Osama and the weird American dude have surfaced.... well did you think this story was going to end with right wingers being consistent? Nah: now they claim that the NON-SILENCE of Al Qaeda proves that they want Kerry.

Hacks.
 
Of course it's not a coincidence, his whole point is to show the World he's important enough to influence this. Whoever wins he can say he did it!! Get it ?

I still dont agree with this. I think he wants one canidate to win, and that is why he has put out the video. Neither idea can be proven, so I'll hold mine and you can hold yours.
 
seinfeldrules said:
I still dont agree with this. I think he wants one canidate to win, and that is why he has put out the video. Neither idea can be proven, so I'll hold mine and you can hold yours.

Let me do a wild guess....Kerry because he's weak.

You Republicans have a big issue with hostile paranoia.
 
Let me do a wild guess....Kerry because he's weak.

You Republicans have a big issue with hostile paranoia.

I specifically left that out. Why would he want Bush? Bush provides him with a seemingly greater recruiting ability as he is pretty much hated in the Middle East. Why would he want Kerry? He seems to go more along the route of domestically fighting terrorism, not internationally. Osama could see this as an advantage for him. I honestly dont know which canidate it was meant to support, but I do know it was meant to effect the outcome of the election.

Now then, you mentioned Republican paranoia, when I didnt even mention who it would effect. Now that my position is known, it proves I am anything but just jumping on the conclusion it is Kerry. It seems you are the paranoid one willing to grasp at straws where there are none.
 
seinfeldrules said:
I specifically left that out. Why would he want Bush? Bush provides him with a seemingly greater recruiting ability as he is pretty much hated in the Middle East. Why would he want Kerry? He seems to go more along the route of domestically fighting terrorism, not internationally. Osama could see this as an advantage for him. I honestly dont know which canidate it was meant to support, but I do know it was meant to effect the outcome of the election.

Now then, you mentioned Republican paranoia, when I didnt even mention who it would effect. Now that my position is known, it proves I am anything but just jumping on the conclusion it is Kerry. It seems you are the paranoid one willing to grasp at straws where there are none.

And the bush/cheney 04' spill in your sig is to have us believe that?

That would be like me saying, "I hate one of these presidential candidates but i'm not going to say which one. And BTW kerry/edwards 04!" see what i'm saying? He came to the conclusion based on who you support.
 
Well, if Kerry proved to be less of an aggressor to the people in the Middle East, why wouldn't bin Laden want him into office? I mean, he said himself that if the US left them alone, they would leave the US alone. I think this was pretty evident from the start.

But, I agree with Sparfa when he says whoever wins, American policy won't change much.
 
I've replied to a few political topics in here, and I want to do it one last time.
seinfeldrules said:
See, we have this plan where we go over there and kill anyone who wants to kill us. It turns out its very hard for a dead person to fly an airplane into a building.
That pretty much sums it all up. What's inevitable will remain inevitable, until people start thinking on a higher level.
Albert Einstein said:
The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.
It holds true today.
 
pretty high, everyone in DC with any power is a member of skull and bones.

Yay.... NWO rocks *rolls eyes

[Hearsay]

It's not going to matter who wins, kerry or bush. The world is uniting and its the citizens of every country that will lose while the few with power control everything. Here in our country, the patriot act is the best example of a authoritarian power grab. Heard about patriot act II? It puts the east german staza (sp) to shame. Basically II strips americans of all our rights and lets the government do whatever it wants with no accountablity and complete immunity. That one hasn't passed yet and so far its been backed off because somebody in the government leaked it to the public. We hafta wait for the next government sponsered terrorist attack to get that (also tack on the victory act) ... these names they got are great and the irony makes me laugh. Also bush is just as guilty as any other REAL terrorists around the world (terrorists =! people who commit any crime as stated by the patriot act), due to the sanctions against iraq for years killing what 500,000 children? "By the seat of my pants" attack plan in iraq but not a thought out, rational plan to get out of iraq.

All the president has done is set the precident to invade sovereign nations all over the world in "defeating terrorism". Look in his eyes when he looks out with awe over the audience and the flag behind him, he has different plans for the american public and the world at large. And who's to say that kerry will be any different? He may be even worse than bush we just don't know.

[/Hearsay]

I have no evidence, i could assemble all of it. But i'm not going too because no matter what i provide some of you on this forum will try to completly discredit the facts (real news reports, articles, etc) and label me as some "ultra liberal babbling nonsense" or whatever fun buzzwords you can come up with. Although it is good that we discuss these issues because its nice to see what other people think about these things.
 
seinfeldrules said:
I still dont agree with this. I think he wants one canidate to win, and that is why he has put out the video. Neither idea can be proven, so I'll hold mine and you can hold yours.

But your idea makes no sense, and even you seem to admit it when you say you don't know which candidate it was meant to help. If it isn't obvious, how can it be intended to swing things one way or another.

Osama is a meglomaniac that likes to see himself at the center of events. His purpose is to threaten Americans and his reward is to see up jump at his words: any kind of jump will do. His real audience is fellow people in the Middle East: he wants to prove that he is powerful so that people will flock to his cause. He knows that no matter who wins the election, pundits will talk about him being the cause (even though it doesn't seem to have affected the polls much at all), and that serves this goal.

If you read up on Osama and the stated goals of his organization, you'll see this is precisely what he's after. Al Qaeda has a plan basically to destroy the West's control over the ME and create a ME-wide empire using a careful, longterm strategy that they figure could take 50 years or more to finish.

Step one is to weaken the US by delegitimating it among the people of the Middle East and demonstrating that people can strike blows against it. (i.e., 9/11)
Step two is that the West would retaliate by sending tons of troops into the ME. This would force the US to expose its soldiers to constant attack as well as make it even more unpopular among people in the ME. Iraq played right into Osama's hands on this: it was exactly what he predicted and said he wanted. Now he's doing just what he'd hoped: condemning the West for bombing people in the ME to try and gain more and more people to his cause. And it's working: anti-Western terrorism is rising fast and the ranks of the terrorists are flush with new recruits.

Kerry wants to stop playing this goofyass game: instead of playing into their plans, attack and root out the terrorists directly like Bush WAS doing before he got distracted: wipe out the head of the snake before offering the carrot and uniting the rest of the world like it was after 9/11, which Bush squandered.
 
Apos said:
Kerry wants to stop playing this goofyass game: instead of playing into their plans, attack and root out the terrorists directly like Bush WAS doing before he got distracted: wipe out the head of the snake before offering the carrot and uniting the rest of the world like it was after 9/11, which Bush squandered.

Care to explain how Kerry is going to do that? Does Kerry know something Bush or the rest of the world doesn't?
 
Sad thing is guys, both Kerry and Bush suck. That's America's, and the west's in general, dilemma -- no good leaders have risen to take the challenge!!!!
 
MadHatter said:
Sad thing is guys, both Kerry and Bush suck. That's America's, and the west's in general, dilemma -- no good leaders have risen to take the challenge!!!!

Vote McCain '08!
 
blahblahblah said:
Care to explain how Kerry is going to do that? Does Kerry know something Bush or the rest of the world doesn't?

Yes. First of all: when people give you bad advice over and over, and when their mistakes and incompetance cost American lives... you fire them. In Bush's world, all people have to do is tell you that you are a good President and everything is going great. Yay: you get promoted! As a Bush aide put it (and he seemed to LIKE the idea): the Bush administration is no longer "reality-based": it makes it's own reality and the rest of us just have to cope and follow along. But that's bad thing in a leader. We need a leader who will lead in THIS reality, not a fantasyland one.

Second of all, it's called diplomacy. There's absolutely no good reason for treating all our allies like dung to no advantage or purpose. Sure, they have their own greedy concerns. But working things out and winning their support takes more than a few seconds of effort. Great Presidents have done it, and done well with it, for years. Bush and his people have been just AWFUL at it: it isn't even just the greater policy disputes, it's just the level of day to day competance and diplomacy that's so poor. And it takes credibility: something Bush just does not have anymore with the world, having squandered it all on the lead-up to the Iraq war, his declarations that science must serve politics, and so on.
 
And the bush/cheney 04' spill in your sig is to have us believe that?

That would be like me saying, "I hate one of these presidential candidates but i'm not going to say which one. And BTW kerry/edwards 04!" see what i'm saying? He came to the conclusion based on who you support.
So what. Just because I support one person doesnt mean I am completely blinded.
 
But your idea makes no sense, and even you seem to admit it when you say you don't know which candidate it was meant to help. If it isn't obvious, how can it be intended to swing things one way or another.

We'll see come Nov. 2nd. Or once the most recent polling comes out.

Vote McCain '08!

Vote Ahhhnold '08.
 
seinfeldrules said:
We'll see come Nov. 2nd. Or once the most recent polling comes out.

Again, that makes no sense at all. You claimed that Osama is trying to influence the election for a _particular_ candidate. But if you can't even tell or predict who that is, then how can even Osama? It can't be a very well thought out attempt to influence the election if nobody can even tell how it wants to influence it!

In fact, you're doing the exact same thing as Osama: basically setting yourself up to say that Osama affected the election no matter WHAT happens. But even if it actually did, even that doesn't prove that it was intended to affect it in such a way.

The most recent polls, the ones that came after the release of the Osama tape, show no statistically meaningful movement: the most we can see is a slight constant trend for Kerry that's been happening all during the week as undecideds tend to break for the challenger.
 
seinfeldrules said:
I honestly think he would make a very good President. He has done a good job so far in Cali. I would rather have him than Bush.

But what has he actually accomplished, other than posturing?

Aside from repeating his movie catchphrases over and over, I honestly don't see much too the guy, even though I'd vote for him over many Democrats.
 
Apos said:
Again, that makes no sense at all. You claimed that Osama is trying to influence the election for a _particular_ candidate. But if you can't even tell or predict who that is, then how can even Osama? It can't be a very well thought out attempt to influence the election if nobody can even tell how it wants to influence it!

In fact, you're doing the exact same thing as Osama: basically setting yourself up to say that Osama affected the election no matter WHAT happens. But even if it actually did, even that doesn't prove that it was intended to affect it in such a way.

The most recent polls, the ones that came after the release of the Osama tape, show no statistically meaningful movement: the most we can see is a slight constant trend for Kerry that's been happening all during the week as undecideds tend to break for the challenger.

I was told that there were to be no more polls before the election (ie gallup, washington post, etc). Do you still maintain your polling staff at the democratic party? How accurate is your polling staff. To be more exact, do you trust your polls over the polls of CNN/Gallup and Washington Post (and others)?
 
Apos said:
But what has he actually accomplished, other than posturing?

Aside from repeating his movie catchphrases over and over, I honestly don't see much too the guy, even though I'd vote for him over many Democrats.

From what I have been hearing, he has really been turning the economy around. I dont have any sites or evidence of this, as it is just based off little tid bits I hear now and again.
 
seinfeldrules said:
I honestly think he would make a very good President. He has done a good job so far in Cali. I would rather have him than Bush.

1. That is so wrong.
2. It would be illegal. Arnie is Austrian originally. You can only become president if you're born in the US.

EDIT I like blahblahblah's suggestion: McCain. If there really has to be a Republican president, let it be him.
 
2. It would be illegal. Arnie is Austrian originally. You can only become president if you're born in the US.

I know that, but they are making a strong push in Congress right now to get that ammended, and I agree with that. Sadly, I highly doubt the Dems will let it pass solely because of how scared they are of Arnold. This wouldnt just affect Arnold, but other canidates, maybe Dems, 10 years down the road. This is one of the more stupid rules set down by the Founding Fathers.

I really feel Arnold is a uniter. Last poll numbers I saw had him at a 60+% approval rating, that is in Cali. too, one of the Democrat strongholds.
 
^Ben said:
I say

Arnold > World

Yeah, because if Ahhnold was president, we'd all be safe from dangerous aliens from another world. He would kill the entire army by himself and have enough time to make a thousand one-lined punch-lines.
 
seinfeldrules said:
I know that, but they are making a strong push in Congress right now to get that ammended, and I agree with that. Sadly, I highly doubt the Dems will let it pass solely because of how scared they are of Arnold. This wouldnt just affect Arnold, but other canidates, maybe Dems, 10 years down the road. This is one of the more stupid rules set down by the Founding Fathers.

I really feel Arnold is a uniter. Last poll numbers I saw had him at a 60+% approval rating, that is in Cali. too, one of the Democrat strongholds.

I'm sorry, there is no way I would vote for him for president. He needs atleats 15 more years in politics before I would even contemplate on trusting him. I would also prefer him to have more of an educational background and business experience as well.

He is just another pretty face. While he may be adequate to run a state, I don't think he has the skills to be president.
 
blahblahblah said:
I'm sorry, there is no way I would vote for him for president. He needs atleats 15 more years in politics before I would even contemplate on trusting him. I would also prefer him to have more of an educational background and business experience as well.

He is just another pretty face. While he may be adequate to run a state, I don't think he has the skills to be president.

People said the same thing about Reagan ;)
 
MadHatter said:
And Reagan put us deep into Debtville.

And he gave us the prosperity that Clinton lived through. He also ended the Cold War and was one of the most popular Presidents of all time.
 
Back
Top