Yahoo!: New film of Osama bin Laden is shown on Al-Jazeera TV

:mad:

When is the last time George W. Bush said the words Osama Bin Laden? Oh, that's right, Bin Laden is not the objective. See story titled \"Bush 'not worried' about Bin Laden\"

Wacth Mr Bush will now use this as proof that he was right in taking us to war...

He will use any reason he can find except for the obvious reason -- OIL.

I guess so...is Osama now in Iraq, or is Saddam in Afghanistan? Al Qaeda certainly has moved into the former, and the Taliban is trying to reclaim the latter.

And which one is W's pals the Saudis covertly assisting at the present time?

NEWS FLASH ... this just in ... Osama bin Laden is STILL dead ...

Chuck, I'm probably the only one who still believes he's dead, and has been for quite some time. His supporters and followers are doing just what they should be doing, playing games with the world to convince us Bin Laden's still a presence.

Why no verifiable proof that he is still alive? Why no current proof of his existence? I saw CNN today even explain that some experts believe the latest video shown indicates possible evidence that it was approx. 2 years old.

If you're a kidnapper who demands a ransom for release of your victim, the single factor maintaining your leverage over the authorities is the life of your victim. Without the victim alive, the ransom is moot and you're dead. With the victim alive, you still have this leverage.

If your victim dies, you must not let those pursuing you know this. What do you do if they demand evidence of the victim's safety? You of course will trump up all kinds of stuff--audio tapes, video tapes doctored to look current, etc. But the one thing you cannot do is show a live victim if same is dead.

I often believe this is what's happening with Bin Laden.

Interesting analogy, MIB. But according to reports by the US military and reputable journalists, the creep is still alive. So believe as you may that he's dead (it is comforting), but it may be wiser to concede that he's still alive, still plotting deadly attacks, and still worthy of being relieved of his (and our) misery.

In case you missed it:
Philadelphia Daily News: Why don't we have answers to these 9/11 questions?

Obviously, fantomas, I'm admittedly in a very small minority that believes Osama's dead. Sure, the odds seem to favor him still being alive. Nevertheless, call it a gut feeling, or some instinct, but I still believe he's dead.

Al Qaeda, the Taliban, et. al. would be far more effective and would be better able to frighten people if they could somehow show the world he's alive. However, they have not once done this. Why? What do they fear? What do they have to hide? There is absolutely no reason for them to be playing these games, except to try and convince a rather paranoid and frightened world. This is probably the primary reason I believe the evil bastard is now roasting in Hell.

Most folks believe he's alive and won't be convinced until and unless it's proven he's dead. Me? I believe he's dead and won't believe otherwise until someone proves he's alive. Again, it's just me in this belief and it's not a matter of me being right or wrong or someone else being right or wrong. Just a feeling.

[ September 12, 2003, 07:51 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

my sense is that there is a bit of a paradox at play here. as mib, points out, if osama is dead, it is in al qaeda's best interest to keep us (and especially the fringe arab world) thinking he is alive. a dead osama gets no recruits. a dead osama means a huge vacuum at the top.

conversely, if osama is alive, it is probably in qaeda's best interest if the world (in this case, especially his enemies) thinks he is dead. it buys him time. if we believe he is dead and aren't aggressively pursuing him, it buys him time to regroup, reman, rearm.

given what they have already pulled off, i can't overstate the dangers of underestimating qaeda. so i do believe they have the intellectual wherewithall to recognize that their best tactic might just be to keep the world guessing. which is exactly the position we are in now -- debating the veracity of tapes which seem to show osama alive and well, but that raise substantial doubt at the same time.

my gut feeling tells me that osama is alive, but not well; certainly not as well as is portrayed on the tapes....

"I'm admittedly in a very small minority that believes Osama's dead." (MIB)

I am in that minority as well. Yeah - I know that they have done voice analysis on those purported tapes of his. But like you - I think that he probably is dead.

What a better way to keep the West paranoid! Unless they find the body (alive or dead) he will always be 'out there'.

They still have ELVIS sightenings til this very day! :confused:

Osama's dead. There is literally no current "proof of life" in this video.

I believe Osama's dead too. I just think there would be irrefutable proof if he was alive, as opposed to these seemingly bogus tapes. But it doesn't give me comfort either, since Al Qaeda is apparently still active.

Whether he is alive or dead (and doesn't he suffer from kidney failure? I read somewhere that he had several dialysis machines - which only really slow the death from kidney failure from days to years - stashed over Afghanistan), it seems the most important thing for the existing Al Queda structure is for their followers to believe he is alive. He is a mythic figure to the Al Queda fighters, and they likely would not respond as fanatically to a deputy ordering suicide bombings.

God knows what this latest tape will reveal - for me it is not proof he is alive unless he is clearly speaking to the camera and in some way refers to events that he could not have forseen (e.g., general references to the US invasion of Iraq doesn't really cut it, but stating something about how Saddam's sons were killed would). I have no clue if he is alive or dead, but he myth is alive and well, and that scares me enough.

Looks to me as if OBL was wandering around in the Cascades or Teton National Park. Until he holds up today's newspaper, I have no way of knowing that I'm not looking at stock footage.

In a similar vein, the $cientologists stuff ads in with the _Washington Post_ from time to time. The ads are full of glowing remarks about L. Ron Hubbard, "the greatest mind of all time," blah, blah, blah, all of them uttered in the present tense. Nowhere do those ads mention that he has been dead for years and years and years.

[ September 12, 2003, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: twin58 ]

If I dont get his annual "Holiday" letter in December Ill know somethings up.
You know, the one where he goes on and on about what all his kids are wives are up to...

What I find very interesting is that early this year/late last year, when "Osama" released one of these tapes, our CIA very soon came out and said they believed it was him. Yet Sweden analyzed the 13 different recordings and emphatically stated that the voice on the video and audio tapes was NOT Osama's.

Why didn't this get much play? It was quickly and stupidly dismissed by the Bush Administration and ignored by the American press.

WARNING ... This post could be taken as questioning Bush administration policy ...

I've been suspicious of how quick the administration and Pentagon has been to announce that the various Osama-tapes, whether audio or video, are credible. I'm almost wonderin' if ... maybe ... just possibly ... they're saving definitive evidence of Osama's demise for sometime later in the future ... like maybe some time a little closer to November next year? I am suspicious.

Wouldn't surprise me if they throw in Sadaam (or someone we THINK is Hussein)as an added bonus on Election Eve.

Who cares about Osama been Forgotten? Iraq is gonna turn into a shooting gallery-slash-bombimg range for every malcontent Islamic extremist in greater Turbania. The f**kers don't have to hop on a plane, or get on a boat. All they have to do is ride their camel or 1976 hunk-o-crap Ford from their homeland to Iraq. There are Americans ripe for killing right in their backyard (relatively speaking).

Frankly, I'm surprised this horrific scenario was NOT considered by the Bush administration. More frightening is the concept bandied about that this was part of the Bush plan to deflect attention from US shores into the Arab backyard. I really hope this is not the case, as I'd have to change my opinion of Oil Inc from simply "greedy bastards" to "evil, greedy bastards."

Bin Laden is irrelevant. He was probably reduced to hair, teeth and eye-balls in the Tora Bora campaign. The Taliban doesn't have the guts to admit it, so they keep releasing stock footage. They'll never find his body. Not that there was a body to find. But the myth surrounding his life plays well on Al Jazeera. So we'll see more and more BS video tape of dead man for months and months to come.

Still, it doesn't matter. There are several thousand Turbanians happy to become the next Bin Laden. The US admin is better served in assasinating the next round of bastards while they try to take wing. Kill 'em young.

Can someone tell me why we can't just blow Al Jazeera off the air? They ARE headquartered and broadcast from an ally country, so it's not like we'd have to enter enemy territory.

You mean the Arab world would hate us for doing this? Gee, there's a shock.

CITT, that possibility had occurred to me as well.

Why is this scenario "moe frightening"? The battle is on. The Islamo-fascist terrorists tried to bomb the World Trade Center in '93. There's the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. The U.S. embassies in Dar-es-Salaam and Nairobi, the U.S.S. Cole and, finally, 9-11. The War is on, buddy. The question is: where do you want the battlefield to be?

You got two choices: Foreign soil. Against heavily armed and very well-trained professional soldiers. Or would you rather see them keep the battle here in the U.S., attacking innocent civlians going about their daily lives. I think the choice is easy. And that's why I strongly support the Bush Administration, which I believe had the foresight to take the fight to the belly of the beast.

There's no guarantee it was the right choice. It's like the old Clint Eastwood line: you want a guarantee ... buy a toaster. But I like the idea of fighting the Islamo-fascist-fanatic-loonies on Iraqi soil, and not in our airplanes or in the streets of New York. I don't think that's Big Oil being greedy. I think it's the U.S. government shouldering its primary responsbility to keep us safe.

He's the L. Ron Hubbard of Afghanistan. The videos keep the money rolling in and cheer up the faithful.

When are you leaving? I'll be standing in front of the Fox cameras, waving a big American flag (made in China) provided by Clear Channel, as you board the C-141 transport.

CITT - the better option is NOT placing American troops in their cross-hairs. It smells of a shooting gallery, with our boys as the ducks. We've already done this before...it was called Vietnam.

The $150 billion we will have spent on Iraq could've been better spent on locking up our borders, buying airport screening equipment that actually scans cargo (which we aren't doing), and hiring additional law enforcement to keep the freaks OUT of our country.

The war in Iraq is a waste of our tax dollars, and a waste of American blood in a worthless f**kin' desert.

I'm not saying we should let them bring the fight to us. What I'm saying is we should spend our money more efficiently to protect ourselves from them - keep them out. Practice racial profiling (i.e. the Saudi pilot issue or the Canadian flap with the clerics), and do so at every opportunity. If a Muslim foreign national makes you nervous, kick him/her out. Period.

couldnt have said it better myself AU. Thank you

As if the Pentagon would be better served with a (slightly) overweight 43 year old desk jockey (right now with a bad back) than the extraordinarily well-trained, well-equipped and relentless fighting machine we have there now.

And next time that you support some big government spending program, I'll know you're being a hypocrite when you refuse to pledge to fund the program with your entire life savings and future income stream over the next x number of years, before you demand that the rest of us taxpayers give deeply.

If only all that could be done. We can't lock down our borders, especially with our alleged "friends" to the North demanding that we keep the border extremely porous. This is a free society and your proposals have zero chance of passing. And I don't think additional law enforcement is the answer. We can't be a walled-off island. It's not an option that's on the table. (Your proposal on cargo screening is dead-on though).

The excellent conservative columnist Mark Steyn had a recent column about the stabbing death of the Swedish foreign minister Anna Lindh -- titled \"The Culture of Passivity\" - and it's linked here for your convenience -- comparing 9-11 with the recent public stabbing of Ms. Lindh in a department store in Sweden. The assailant got away, even though he murdered the future prime minister in broad daylight -- because the bystanders not only refused to do anything to stop the multiple stabbing, but they let him just walk out of the store into the street. He draws the analogy between the U.S. and the European approach to fighting terror.

Europe has opted to remain passive in fighting mounting terror and rising crime rates. The U.S. has been passive with neither. Our crime rates have been falling in the decade in which we've gotten tough with criminals. It's valid to think that the same thing will happen when fighting terrorists who are little more than criminal thugs.

It is a shame that some members of the armed forces would rather see us opt for the passive approach and just wait for our next turn as victim. Especially gay members, who tend to be the most courageous of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines.

[ September 14, 2003, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

CITT: This is the correct analysis with an incorrect conclusion.

I agree with CITT that the war should be fought on foreign soil. But all evidence suggests that this soil should be Saudi soil, not Afghani or Iraqi.

The terrorists were Saudi. OBL is Saudi. Why is this Administration (and the citizens that support it) unable to digest this hard pill?

So CITT your not in shape to be in the army, how about paying more taxes so those who are on the front lines do not get a pay cut next month, so is that too much to ask of you as well?
Again the right wingers want to start a war send send some else to do the fighting, but turn around a tell the rest of us why we are helping the bad guys

Case closed.