OCCOM BILL wrote:dlowan wrote:sozobe wrote:Thomas wrote:So I would agree that Osama Bin Laden is trying to bat against George Bush, that wasn't the question O'Bill had asked. He had asked "why" -- not whether -- OBL is batting for John Kerry. And to that my response remains "wrong premise -- he doesn't".
Precisely.
Threecisely.
Denial through word play. At least 50% of the Pro-Kerry argument is via slams on Bush (99% in Frank's case). Outside of political convenience, what justifies this distinction?
As I explained in the beginning of the post the core of this quote was cited from: The distinction lies in the fact that the person George Bush wears many hats -- including, but not limited to, the "President of the United States" hat and the "Republican candidate hat". In my opinion, Osama bin Laden has hit George Bush on his "President of the United States" hat. If Al Gore had worn this hat instead, OBL would have hit on the same hat, worn by a different person. No doubt some of the Democrats in this thread would wonder why OBL is supporting the Republican challenger, and they would be just as wrong as O'Bill and Sophia are right now.
Your allegation that in this context, hitting George Bush means hitting for John Kerry, as opposed to Al Quaeda, is wishful thinking on your part. I can understand this wishful thinking given tomorrow's election, but I nevertheless find it misguided.
On a tangent, I have looked through this thread, and does appear as if I was the first to link to Osama bin Laden's actual text --
on page 20!. This seems to me as if people here aren't really interested in the facts and the relevance of what OBL actually said. You guys are simply nervous as hell about tomorrow, and you need a place -- any place -- to let off steam.
Correct?
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Why would Bin Ladin slam Bush in the same way <snip irrelevant bit>?
Possible answers:
<snip>
B. He's pretending A. is what he wants, hoping that it will get Bush re-elected for purposes like Nimh described.
<snip>
The academics/international politicos who study the middle east have been saying ^^^ since at least March of this year.
Quote:
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2004 12:36 pm Post: 610031 -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was just listening to a fascinating interview with an academic whose studies are particularly focussed on Al Quaeda. He said that they are particularly hoping Bush will be re-elected, as he will continue to put Americans 'out there'. He said that Bush's infamous 'bring it on' has been their approach for years, and they appreciate him meeting them in this way. Makes things easier.
Oh, why did I post this here? because regime change was a question in the interview and he pointed out that Al Quaeda is not terribly attached to any one regime, so 'the war on terrorism' cannot be won by regime change.
He suggested regime change effected by another country was related to 'something' the other country wanted from the country. Apparently, North Korea doesn't have anything in particular that the U.S. wants.
[URL=http://]link [/URL]
Earlier in fact, but I recalled I'd posted it here a while ago. It's not like this idea just came out of the blue.
Dookie, you are so not a factor in my concerns about who believes what about me or what I writeÂ… but thanks for the chuckle.
Nimh. I just re-read it and thought it was well written but pretty slanted. Frankly I thought your own work showed less bias. I hadn't intended, and still don't intend to get in an argument about right or wrong (like you did with Lash) because we know each others positions already. Suffice to say I want the entire world to know that the majority of Americans are okay with Bush's decisions. I believe any threat that terrorists, and those who would intentionally harbor them, now feel will be magnified by a Bush victory on account of a feeling of mandate that was lacking before. We can't truly judge the effectiveness of the intimidation factor until our enemies understand that our President is acting on the will of the most powerful Nation on earth. Until then, at least to some extent, they may be biding their time. That article, along with most of the opinions here seem to presume that Bush's actions are unjustified. Though I don't wish to debate it more at this time, it is certainly a possibility that the majority of Americans disagree. We'll know more tomorrow.
I'm behind now. Soz's is the last post I saw. I'll be back to catch up in a few.
Thomas--
Tsk. I just disagree--but you have clearly fleshed out your opinion. (Hate to disagree with people I respect.)
But, as you proferred--if Gore were Pres., and OBL gave him the treatment he'd given Bush, I'd be quietly gritting my teeth, realizing that OBL clearly wanted Gore out--meaning to me, Gore had made life so difficult for him, that he'd rather take his chances with somebody else.
Of course, I'd be measuring whether or not MY man could make him pine for Gore. I do think we're all in our corners mentally and emotionally, and our will will unconsciously translate OBL's statement to fit in our invested landscapes.
Anyhoo-- I have thoroughly enjoyed most all comers here. It has been invigorating and revealing. I know we all want the best leadership we can get in the current climate. I think more than a few of us have really wrung ourselves dry over this, and the larger issue... There are quite a few people checking and re-checking their gut tonight. I'm thankful we have one another to bounce things off of.
Once again, happy to be in this company. OBill--good thread.
Going to read nimh's 3/4 solution....
Lash wrote:Tsk. I just disagree
Because .... ?
Anyway, it turns out O'Bill was just kidding. He didn't really mean to say that Bin Laden was batting for Kerry. It seems you are lonelier in your opinion than you think.
Thomas wrote: As I explained in the beginning of the post the core of this quote was cited from: The distinction lies in the fact that the person George Bush wears many hats -- including, but not limited to, the "President of the United States" hat and the "Republican candidate hat". In my opinion, Osama bin Laden has hit George Bush on his "President of the United States" hat. If Al Gore had worn this hat instead, OBL would have hit on the same hat, worn by a different person. No doubt some of the Democrats in this thread would wonder why OBL is supporting the Republican challenger, and they would be just as wrong as O'Bill and Sophia are right now.
Thomas, first let me say I hope I haven't offended you, too, since I seem to offending everyone lately.
Next, I cannot look past the FACT that Bin Ladin waited till the eleventh hour before the elections to release a tape that is hypercritical of the incumbent. What his actual purpose is, I don't know, but his surface insults are pretty clear.
Thomas wrote: Your allegation that in this context, hitting George Bush means hitting for John Kerry, as opposed to Al Quaeda, is wishful thinking on your part. I can understand this wishful thinking given tomorrow's election, but I nevertheless find it misguided.
I don't speak for any other poster but it isn't wishful thinking on my part. I suspect that Bush's relentless, stubbornly wrong (choose your own) attitude may very well have Bin Ladin thinking he should have been careful what he wished for. I was interested in hearing other takes; hence the "why?"
Thomas wrote: On a tangent, I have looked through this thread, and does appear as if I was the first to link to Osama bin Laden's actual text -- on page 20!. This seems to me as if people here aren't really interested in the facts and the relevance of what OBL actually said.
When I opened your link I saw the same text I already had open on another screen. By then I assumed most had read it. But I'm sorry I didn't say thank you for supplying it. I didn't realize myself that it hadn't been posted.
Thomas wrote:You guys are simply nervous as hell about tomorrow, and you need a place -- any place -- to let off steam.
Correct?
I definitely think there's some truth in this statement. Last ditch net freaking has to go somewhere I suppose. Why not here?
I for one will be glad when it's over.
ehBeth wrote:Earlier in fact, but I recalled I'd posted it here a while ago. It's not like this idea just came out of the blue.
Yes that basic theory has been floating for quite some time in various forms and I so far don't buy it. I thought Nimh's version read the best, but considering the timing of Bin Ladin's tape, and the serious Bush-body-blows it contained, I thought it was a reach for explaining this release.
Thanks Lash, and thanks for coming. You've helped make it an interesting thread.
Re the link to nimh's article--the 3/4 explanation,as he put it--
Just a bit of surface analysis, followed by further possible analysis, underlined by deeper historical analysis--- In other words, could be right, could be wrong.
Do we take OBL at face value--or expect a little duplicity, or expect some intricate duplicity...?
Casting off on Bush to have the double opposite negative effect...?
The article sort of gave the liberals' opinion more depth or explanation. No real answer.
Anyway, MO.
Thomas wrote:Lash wrote:Tsk. I just disagree
Because .... ?
Anyway, it turns out O'Bill was just kidding. He didn't really mean to say that Bin Laden was batting for Kerry. It seems you are lonlier in your opinion than you think.
That's taking me out of context. The fact that I think Kerry and Bin Ladin may have a common goal, does not mean that I think they are in cahoots. Are you
really still having trouble understanding me? Or is that just your way of being snotty back?
So Bin Ladin being "hypercritical" of Bush is supposed to help Kerry? That's absurd.
In case you hadn't notice, Bill, Bin Ladin isn't a popular guy in this country. The way it works is, politicians trot out popular names to support them: Schwarzenegger for Bush, Clinton for Kerry.
Bin Ladin is perceived differently...
Underestimating OBL has not served anyone well. I'd almost suspect he must have been educated by Jesuits. (one of my favourite back-handed compliments)
D'artagnan wrote:So Bin Ladin being "hypercritical" of Bush is supposed to help Kerry? That's absurd.
In case you hadn't notice, Bill, Bin Ladin isn't a popular guy in this country. The way it works is, politicians trot out popular names to support them: Schwarzenegger for Bush, Clinton for Kerry.
Bin Ladin is perceived differently...
At no point did I suggest anyone "trotted him out" D'art.
If the reincarnation of Hitler, or the Devil himself pointed out Bush's 7 minute stammer or the fact that he's an oil guy, it would be just as damning. The truth doesn't require a popular messenger.
Could be reverse psychology or double reverse as Lash suggested. Or it could just be an over inflated sense of self on Bin Ladin's part. Can any of us know for sure?
OCCOM BILL wrote: Are you really still having trouble understanding me? Or is that just your way of being snotty back?
Honestly, I have no idea whatsoever at this point what you
really think. And I have a funny feeling I am not alone in this respect.
As D'Artagnan points out, Osama Bin Laden is the least popular person there is in America's public opinion. If he had sent in a video message that openly said: "Americans, vote for Kerry! I am Osama bin Laden, and I approve this message", is there any doubt in your mind that this would
discourage, not encourage, Americans from voting for Kerry? Is there any doubt in your mind that Osama bin Laden is smart enough to know this? I am asking because only such doubts would explain to me how you get from 'Bin Laden says hypercritical things about Bush on TV' to 'Bin Laden is trying to help Kerry win the election.'
Good Lord! Did someone think because I thought OBL preferred to get Bush out of office--that I thought Kerry and OBL were in cahoots!!?? Perish the thought! That is as low a conspiracy theory as any forwarded by the DNC. Too nutty.
I would imagine Kerry and camp were horrified that OBL seemed to be preferring a Kerry Presidency to a Bush Presidency.
Its possible that:
OBL calculated his comments to try to make Bush lose--for personal reasons, or for political. (Face value--and what I believe.)
OBL carefully crafted his comments to SEEM to prefer a Kerry Presidency to bring about the opposite effect. (Duplicitous--the liberals' favored interpretation.)
OBL just went off on Bush for no real reason, but those were the words that popped in his head... (Nah)
But, lonely in my position...? Maybe here.
I think I pre-empted that post in my response to D'art, Thomas. :wink:
Lash, I'm as dumbfounded as you at the suggestion. I don't know what to think anymore. I'm thinking about joining Panz on the sidelines because the attempts to cartoonify (yes dems, I got that word from Bush :wink:) my positions is getting a little aggravating.
What seems most plausible to me -- it was stated in nimh's article, I've seen it elsewhere as well -- is that OBL wants to stake a claim to having an effect on the election. I suspect he personally would prefer Bush, as Bush has played the nemesis so very productively, but what he most wants is power and legitimacy in the Middle East -- and if he can somehow spin this as "my videotape caused the Americans to vote ___" (with the blank being filled by the eventual victor), that helps his quest.
What bin Laden seems to obviously be doing is this:
He probably realizes that if he further terrorizes the Middle East and rails against those governments he INITIALLY was fighting against, i.e., Saudi Arabia and their tyrannical royalty and rule against their own people, that he will lose his populous uprising. And so he appears neatly dressed and without his signature firearms and granite backdrop to show that his underground insurgency against Middle Eastern governments and the West is exactly that, and not against the average Ali in the region. He is also, in a rather subtle way, railing more against governments in general rather than the governed.
He also is capitalizing on the hatred of the world towards Bush by criticizing him, and probably hoping to bring in more allies to his cause, particularly in THIS country.
He is highly manipulative, and he is still out there in the hopes of manipulating the American election, which (IMO) he has already effectively done. To what extent we don't even know.
If Kerry continues many of the global policies Bush instigated, and even those policies during the Clinton years, bin Laden will STILL have allies to his cause in the hopes of terrorizing our country yet again.
But, if Kerry can bring our allies back in the fold, it's ALSO quite possible that a lessened hatred towards us will most assuredly work against bin Laden.
It is also crucial that when Kerry wins, his first order of business would be to make peace with our allies in the hopes of stimulating the global economies, hopefully bring down the U.S. trade deficit, and create a better business climate for America. As it is, the hatred of the world towards us (and especially Bush) has only hurt us in this regard.
At least this is the way I see it. In any event, the fact that Bush attacked Iraq rather than concentrate on strengthening our borders and increasing the inspections of goods flowing into the country, has only made us more vulnerable to a terrorist attack. The fact that Bush caters to the pharmaceutical industry, allowing for the monopolies which have taken place, has only endangered Americans even more when it comes to fighting bioterrorism. As has been reported, we are on the cusp of another potential pandemic, and there isn't enough competition now within the U.S. pharmaceutical community to keep prices down and assure adequate supplies of serums and flu shots. Which is why our senior citizens are standing in lines for hours and wondering why we cannot import drugs from Canada already to offset this shortage of supplies.
Corporate America is currently running our terrorism policies. At least when we went to war in against Germany and Japan, the massive American military complex, and the incredible efforts of Americans across the country to give their all for the cause, empowered America to rise to the challenge in fighting the evil that was Hitler.
That kind of mobilization just isn't happening today regarding terrorism, despite all Bush says about this being a "war," which it is not. But that fact alone, it is impossible to label our fight against terrorism as a war, as the nation is more polarized than ever, and certainly as divided as we were back in 1968.
And, to point out the ultimate in American hypocrisy, the station which aired bin Laden is based in Qatar, and the company I work for is currently doing billions of dollars worth of business over there.
So, as I've said, it is the American corporations creating these policies, not our elected (or "un-elected") leaders.
OH, so very sad indeed...
I have little doubt he'll try to play that roll Soz, what does he have to lose? But considering the Country was so evenly split before his tape's release, I don't see anyone but the choir buying it. I personally don't believe his tape will have or is having any effect whatsoever. His presence reinforces both sides biggest reason for picking their guy, IMO.
Quote:I have little doubt he'll try to play that roll Soz, what does he have to lose? But considering the Country was so evenly split before his tape's release, I don't see anyone but the choir buying it. I personally don't believe his tape will have or is having any effect whatsoever. His presence reinforces both sides biggest reason for picking their guy, IMO.
Now THAT'S a sensible argument.
Interesting Dookie. I was just thinking your last submission was uncharacteristically relevant as well.
Keep posting like that and I'll stop harassing you. :wink:
Edit= added I'll stop
whew
We should all go to bed.
<giggles>
