1
   

Adios, Osama!

 
 
Heywood
 
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2004 08:23 pm
Holy crap, there's now a "renewed sense of urgency" in the hunt for Osama Bin Laden!

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AFGHANISTAN?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

ITS ABOUT GODDDAMN TIME.
(I'm sure the fact we're in an election year has absolutely nothing to do with this...)


I don't even care if it gets Bush re-elected. I just want them to catch the f*cker already. Only thing is my prayers that the populace won't suddenly fall back to "blind Bush worship" and give him a win are probably falling on deaf ears.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,938 • Replies: 25
No top replies

 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2004 01:28 am
I'd rather have Osama loose for another year than have Bush get re-elected.
0 Replies
 
caprice
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2004 01:53 am
Even if Osama bin Laden is caught, it will not end terrorism. He would likely end up being some sort of martyr to his followers.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2004 05:58 am
IronLionZion wrote:
I'd rather have Osama loose for another year than have Bush get re-elected.


Shocked
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2004 07:20 am
Brand X wrote:
IronLionZion wrote:
I'd rather have Osama loose for another year than have Bush get re-elected.


Shocked


Confused That shocks you Brand X?
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2004 07:24 am
Not that much, he's pretty unrealistic on most subjects.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2004 08:45 am
I would rather see Bush captured and put back in his bottle. Where all evil genies belong.
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2004 09:54 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Brand X wrote:
IronLionZion wrote:
I'd rather have Osama loose for another year than have Bush get re-elected.


Shocked


Confused That shocks you Brand X?


An argument could be made, providing that I was talking to people who demonstrate considerably better critical thinking skills than you, that George Bush's policies have been so overwhelmingly counter-productive that they will, in effect, increase the threat of terrorism in the long run. Further, an argument could be mounted that Osama Bin Ladens influence and power has been drastically over-estimated by most Americans, largely due to the nature of political rhetoric and the media. Hence the conclusion that allowing George Bush to push ahead with his moronic policies would pose more of a threat than Osama Bin Laden being free for another year.
0 Replies
 
Heywood
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2004 10:33 pm
You've raised a good point. Seriously, Osama and the taliban have been so crippled since the 9-11 attacks that it poses an interesting question:

Can Osama be considered a real threat anymore?

The guy is (most likely) hiding in a cave somewhere, separated from his connections due to the military action taken in Afghanistan (and I'll give credit where it's due...its because of Bush's actions which I supported in that country against him) has destroyed his organization, or at least removed "the head from the body" enough to make him a reasonable non-threat. He's basically been beaten down to the point where all he is is a figurehead for an organization that cannot really do anything of significance to us anymore.

Thus, the real question comes to light: "What is a bigger threat to this country, Osama in his current condition or the effects (present and future) of this current administration and its policies?".

I would like to think Osama, but in all reality, the long term effects of this administration could give a reasonably thinking person rational to think otherwise.

All I know is that I was 2 blocks away from watching the towers fall, and no matter what, I wan't the man responsible to pay for it. Years have gone by, and Bush refuses to even say "Osama" in public anymore. It pisses me the f*ck off more than anything else, I gotta tell ya...
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2004 10:49 pm
Reality
Osama probably has around $20 Million and could afford to have migrated to Asia. If he is still in Afghanistan I would have to believe that he is stupid, which I do not believe. Does anyone here believe that he is stupid?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 10:18 am
Heywood wrote:
You've raised a good point. Seriously, Osama and the taliban have been so crippled since the 9-11 attacks that it poses an interesting question:

Can Osama be considered a real threat anymore?

The guy is (most likely) hiding in a cave somewhere, separated from his connections due to the military action taken in Afghanistan (and I'll give credit where it's due...its because of Bush's actions which I supported in that country against him) has destroyed his organization, or at least removed "the head from the body" enough to make him a reasonable non-threat. He's basically been beaten down to the point where all he is is a figurehead for an organization that cannot really do anything of significance to us anymore.

Thus, the real question comes to light: "What is a bigger threat to this country, Osama in his current condition or the current administration and its policies?".

I would like to think Osama, but in all reality, the long term effects of this administration could give a reasonably thinking person rational to think otherwise.

All I know is that I was 2 blocks away from watching the towers fall, and no matter what, I wan't the man responsible to pay for it. Years have gone by, and Bush refuses to even say "Osama" in public anymore. It pisses me the f*ck off more than anything else, I gotta tell ya...


This is the kind of thinking that can get people killed.
0 Replies
 
Heywood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 03:13 pm
McGentrix wrote:
This is the kind of thinking that can get people killed.


I agree... if you were talking about Bush's "Shoot first, ask questions later" foreign policy.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 03:14 pm
Where has he done that? I don't recall that actually being part of our foriegn policy.
0 Replies
 
Heywood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 03:19 pm
Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 03:22 pm
well, c'mon now, you brought it up. Whare has Bush "shot first"? Iraq? Is that what you are alluding too? Afghanistan maybe? Tell me what you mean.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 05:26 pm
McGentrix
Where have you been hiding? Have you never heard of Bush's preemptive invasion of you know where?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2004 10:15 am
But was it a "shoot first, ask questions later" invasion? I know I wouldn't characterize it as such.
0 Replies
 
Heywood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2004 12:53 pm
McGentrix wrote:
But was it a "shoot first, ask questions later" invasion? I know I wouldn't characterize it as such.


What a surprise. Whatever, dude.
**fyi, I know you don't agree with what I said. Take note that I don't give a sh*t and have no further interest in any (regrettably inevitable) retorts you may have from this point on...***


Back to the topic.

If Bush is lucky, he'll catch Osama this year and ride the wave to another re-election...

"renewed urgency".... I swear this stuff makes me want to puke. The "urgency" should have never abated in the first place. Evil or Very Mad
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2004 01:10 pm
Hmmmmm......
Methinks they doth protest too much....
Quote:
U.S. Denies Report of Bin Laden's Capture
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Pentagon and Pakistani officials on Saturday denied an Iranian state radio report that Osama bin Laden was captured in Pakistan's border region with Afghanistan ``a long time ago.''

The claim came at a time when Pakistan's army was hunting al-Qaida suspects in a remote tribal region along the border with Afghanistan, believed to be a possible hiding place for the al-Qaida leader. The report was carried by Iran radio's external Pushtun service, which is designed for listeners in Afghanistan and Pakistan where the language is widely spoken.

Iran state radio's main news channel - the Farsi-language service for Iranian listeners - did not carry the bin Laden report. Iran state television also did not carry the report.

The director of Iran radio's Pushtun service, Asheq Hossein, said he had two sources for the report. The radio quoted its reporter as saying bin Laden had been in custody for a period of time, but a U.S. announcement of the capture was being withheld by President Bush until closer to the November election.

``Osama bin Laden has been arrested a long time ago, but Bush is intending to use it for propaganda maneuvering in the presidential election,'' he said.

There have been reports that military forces believed they had identified bin Laden's general location and had him encircled, but Pakistani officials have denied any specific knowledge of bin Laden's whereabouts.

The state radio report, quoting an unnamed source, said U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's visit to the region this week was in connection with the arrest.

Larry Di Rita, the chief Pentagon spokesman who traveled with Rumsfeld this week to Afghanistan, denied the report. ``I don't have any reason to think it's true,'' he said Saturday.

Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, also said he had no information to suggest bin Laden had been caught.

``Things are going well, and we believe we will eventually catch all the leaders of al-Qaida, but I know nothing of that report,'' he said.

Pakistani Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed denied the reported capture, saying it was ``baseless news.''

``We have neither arrested Osama nor we have any information about him,'' Ahmed told The Associated Press.

Pakistani Army spokesman Gen. Shaukat Sultan also told The Associated Press that the report was not true. ``That information is wrong,'' he said.

A Pakistani official said previously that members of al-Qaida are being sought in the border region, although bin laden was not a specific target.

Separately, Pakistani forces killed 11 people in an exchange of fire Saturday after a minibus failed to stop at a roadblock in a tribal region where the ongoing anti-terrorism operations have been taking place, an army spokesman told the AP. The shooting occurred a day after armed men and soldiers exchanged fire at a military compound in the region.

Speaking to the AP in Tehran, Hossein identified one of the sources for the bin Laden report as Shamim Shahed, editor of the English-language Pakistani newspaper The Nation in Peshawar. Hossein said Shahed told him Friday night that bin Laden was arrested ``a long time ago.''

But Shahed, who is The Nation's Peshawar bureau chief and not its editor, denied telling Iranian radio that bin Laden had been captured.

``I never said this,'' Shahed said in a telephone interview with the AP's Islamabad bureau. ``But I have for the last year been saying that he is not far away. He is within their (the Americans') reach, and they can declare him arrested any time.''

Hossein said he had a second source for his report that bin Laden had been captured, but he declined to identify him except to say he was ``a man with close links to intelligence services and Afghan tribal leaders.''

The Iranian news agency IRNA was first to report the capture of ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. IRNA also carried the state radio report about bin Laden's capture and said it had contacted a radio announcer at the Pushtun service who confirmed the news.

Does anyone doubt that this is exactly the sort of thing this lot would do?
0 Replies
 
Heywood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2004 02:12 pm
I would think they are capable of doing this, but there is NO WAY they actually would.

Can you imagine the level of outrage that would result if it was ever proven that they would withold the news of Osama's capture until closer to the election? The sh*t would hit the fan in a major way.

Then again, I'm already imagining the reasons conservatives would come up with to defend such actions "Well, we were on the trail of other terrorists, and to release news of Osamas capture would risks us losing certain leads...it makes perfect sense. Only liberals would insist on doing otherwise"... Laughing

Bottome line is... no way is that true. Just too damn risky.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Adios, Osama!
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/05/2024 at 07:24:13