Yes he's back, Ossama's back

Frenzal · Post by **Frenzal** » 30 Oct 2004 14:52

As many predicted Bin Laden has produced an October surprise, but he's not in Bush administration hands.

crazydwarf · Post by **crazydwarf** » 30 Oct 2004 15:29

Wait sorry I must have missed something big, what are you talking about? Sorry if I'm just clueless...

ashleyd · Post by **ashleyd** » 30 Oct 2004 15:29

watch the news

skoxn · Post by **skoxn** » 30 Oct 2004 15:53

oh gosh, what a good possibility for warlord bush, to scare some more americans, to elect him, not to be attacked by terrorists.

the first idea i had, when i heard this was: "w00t? that looks so clear. bushy imprisoned bin laden. now bush can play his game..." but that were just random neuronal contacts.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 30 Oct 2004 16:34

is it me, or does osama only occur when it's politically convenient.

wag the dog, or actual person

carl winslow · Post by **carl winslow** » 30 Oct 2004 18:54

how does this tape help Bush

i would think it just shows people that Osama is still out there cause Bush couldnt catch him and he focused on Saddam instead

crazydwarf · Post by **crazydwarf** » 30 Oct 2004 21:00

OK, just read the article on it, and now I'm all clued in, sorry about that guys. I would say that it might help bush because it might scare people into focusing on the possibility of a terrosist attack when they are voting. Bush is apparantly the canadate who people think is more likely to protect our country from terrosists, so it might shift some votes.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 30 Oct 2004 21:10

I think the fact that he is threatening the US that another attack could occur soon will help Bush because people in the US have the perception that Bush is harder on terrorism than Kerry.

Frankly as someone who studies both history and politics I find it incredible that people can't see just how incompetent the current administration is. I have a few theories on why that is but I don't want to offend people so I'll keep them to myself.

I also find it interesting that despite all the demonizing of terrorists and Osama Bin Ladin that has occurred – He didn’t say that he wanted to destroy the US way of life or destroy democracy or freedom or any of the other things that we are told he is an enemy of. He made it pretty clear that there was one motivating factor in the attacks – The US support for Israel. He also made it clear what the cheap and easy way of “defeating” terrorism was – stop supporting Israel. Many people around the world from all sides of politics also recommend this.

The similarities between Bush and Osama should be pointed out. Both are heavily religious and believe that God is on their side and they are doing the work of God. Both believe that the use of violence for political reasons is an ok thing to do. Both are prepared to kill innocent civilians for their cause. The difference is that Bush has a huge amount more power in his hands. Osama has directed some of his attacks directly at civilians - while Bush claims that it's just by accident. Osama is has been partly responsible for up to 4000 civilian deaths. Bush has been responsible for up to 100,000 civilian deaths.

Frenzal · Post by **Frenzal** » 31 Oct 2004 00:55

100,000? I heard the british were doing an investigation into claims that civilian casualties in Iraq had been underestimated, but by that much?!?

sPinko-Mania · Post by **sPinko-Mania** » 31 Oct 2004 04:22

Yeah I have no doubt it's high, but the validity of the 100,000 is sketchy. That is if Jeremy is referring to the study done recently about how many civilians have been killed as a result of the war.

The study that came up with that figure (actually 98 thousand I think) reported that when they took into account their margin or error etc that the figure was somewhere between 8 thousand and like 190something thousand, and 98 was the middle point.

But really I can't be that critical of their methodology, it was a small study because it's not a great working environment obviously so getting a large enough sample size is tricky. Plus it's not like the US or the UN has even bothered committing resources to finding our how many civvies have been killed (actually I think the US gov. has estimates but it's not something you'd be sharing). It's something I think should be pretty important y'know...Since the focus for going over there has conveniently switched to the liberation of the people, you'd think how many of them they kill in the process would be pretty important.

But I mean even if we were to say 20, or 30 or 40 thousand....My god that is a lot of people dead.

Zerbalicious · Post by **Zerbalicious** » 31 Oct 2004 11:43

Why is it that I can't find a free video with an english translation of Osama on the web?
If anyone knows where I can watch the video, please post a link.
Thanks

Frenzal · Post by **Frenzal** » 31 Oct 2004 12:22

I think the reason might be, although i'm not certain, that Al Jazeera (sp?) the Arab TV network to which the tape was sent is not releasing the footage for other news networks. A BBC report i read went into a fit of jealousy over this and called Al Jazeera "Bin Ladens propaganda machine."

sPinko-Mania · Post by **sPinko-Mania** » 31 Oct 2004 14:19

^^^ Yup.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ ... 87F61F.htm

Has a transcript, but it's not full.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 31 Oct 2004 14:43

For those people that don't watch the news every night or read the paper...

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middle ... _in_study/

The Boston Globe wrote:WASHINGTON -- The first nationwide survey of Iraqi deaths since the US-led invasion concludes that about 100,000 people have died as a result of the war, including many women and children killed in coalition airstrikes.

The study last month by researchers at Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University, and Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, based on interviews with about 800 randomly selected Iraqi households, derived an estimated Iraqi death toll at least three times higher than previous estimates based on media reports. The study found that the risk of death in the 18 months since the war began was 1 to 2 times higher than in the 14-month period before the war, and the risk of a violent death was 58 times higher.

"Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more, have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq," the medical team concluded. "Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and airstrikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths . . . the majority being violent death among women and children relating to military activity."

The authors cautioned that the study had built-in limitations: It sampled only a relatively small number of households, and team members were prevented from visiting some areas of the country due to the continuing violence.

But the study went through formal academic reviews by peers, and represents the most ambitious attempt so far to chart Iraqi casualties, which the US military says it does not compile.

The report, to be published today in the British medical journal The Lancet, said that most of the deaths were the result of bombing or rocket attacks rather than caused by soldiers on the ground. The lead author was Les Roberts of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.

Roberts told the Associated Press he pushed to have the study published before the presidential election because he wanted voters to have the information before making their choice, and so that they would hold the candidates accountable for their Iraq policies.

"Civilian mortality since the war has risen due to the effects of aerial weaponry," said Dr. Richard Horton, editor of the journal and a forceful public opponent of the Iraq war. "Winning the peace now demands a thorough reappraisal of strategy and tactics to prevent further unnecessary human casualties."

News reports and several nongovernmental organizations have previously estimated that between 10,000 and 30,000 Iraqis have died.

The Pentagon yesterday did not respond to several requests to comment directly on the casualty study.

The researchers randomly selected 33 clusters of 30 households each for interviews by Iraqi researchers working with the Johns Hopkins team. Some houses were empty, and a few declined to talk. In the end, the researchers interviewed 808 households.

"We have shown that collection of public-health information is possible even during periods of extreme violence," the study said. "Our results need further verification and should lead to changes to reduce noncombatant deaths from air strikes."

According to the interviews, the main causes of death before the war were heart attacks, strokes, and other illnesses. After the outbreak of warfare, a far greater proportion of the deaths were caused by violence. The households reported 46 deaths in the 14 months before the war and 142 deaths in the last 18 months since the invasion. Excluding the results from the battle-scarred city of Fallujah, the total was 89 deaths in that period, a rate 1 times higher than before the war; including the Fallujah figures, the rate was 2 times higher.

Researchers who have done wartime casualty estimates agreed that the study is imprecise, but said they were impressed with the team's thoroughness under difficult working conditions.

For example, the team led by Johns Hopkins checked government records to confirm 78 of the deaths reported by those families.

"It's an incredibly important paper," said Dr. Roberta White, chairwoman of the environmental health department at Boston University School of Public Health. "They did a scientific study in a short period of time. They were careful and conservative in making their estimate . . . and they were able to do this when other people were saying we can't figure out how many people died."

Furthermore, the study acknowledged that the data the researchers gathered in the most violent of Iraqi cities -- Fallujah -- might skew the results, and the calculations exclude the Fallujah statistics in estimating 100,000 deaths in the last 18 months. The study adds that "this estimate would be much higher if Fallujah data are included."

Dr. Vincent Iacopino, the Nevada-based research director for Physicians for Human Rights, said wartime casualty estimates are always flawed, but they can reveal important truths. He led a team interviewing refugees from the war in Kosovo in the late 1990s that disproved Serbian claims that US bombing had caused most of the civilian casualties.

"Even though [the study] may be fraught with assumptions, as long as the assumptions are transparent, this is a very useful way to determine what has happened to these people," said Iacopino. "It raises the very real concern that more people have died than has been reported."

White, whose research centers on US soldiers who were victims of Gulf War syndrome in the 1991 conflict, said she was not concerned that the paper was published so quickly -- The Lancet printed the research less than a month after receiving it, lightning speed for an academic journal. White said the magazine has a fast-track review process for time-sensitive research, allowing independent scientists to review papers quickly.

The authors urged other scientists, public health specialists, and military officials in particular to continue analyzing the war's civilian death toll. "Our results need further verification and should lead to changes to reduce noncombatant deaths from airstrikes," said Roberts.

Bender reported from Washington and Allen from Boston.

Splint · Post by **Splint** » 31 Oct 2004 22:59

The Osama video didn't help Bush. Kerry's campaign used it as an argument (like someone said) to show that Osama is still out there and Bush failed to capture him.

In a related note, last week the US Terror warning was increased and it miraculously increased Bush's average poll by 2.7 points. Now that is suspicious.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 01 Nov 2004 05:05

Bush uses it as an argument to remind the american people that they should be pissing their pants in fear at the mere thought of going to wal mart without Bush in office.

Splint · Post by **Splint** » 01 Nov 2004 12:11

Tsiangkun wrote:Bush uses it as an argument to remind the american people that they should be pissing their pants in fear at the mere thought of going to wal mart without Bush in office.

Shit! I'm afraid to go into Wal-mart no matter who we put in office.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 01 Nov 2004 17:51

Jeremy wrote:
--------------------------------------
He (Bin Laden) made it pretty clear that there was one motivating factor in the attacks – The US support for Israel. He also made it clear what the cheap and easy way of “defeating” terrorism was – stop supporting Israel. Many people around the world from all sides of politics also recommend this.
--------------------------------------

Bin Laden seems so reasonable, doesn't he?

Israel is code word for "Jews".

While you may sound like a Nazi if you endlessly harp on Jews for all the troubles in the Middle East, Blaming Israel sounds more enlightened.

"Many people around the world from all sides of politics also recommend this."

Of course they do , cuz many people around the world secretly hate Jews, or do it openly.

-n

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 01 Nov 2004 18:00

Remember, if your state goes for Bush, then you are the enemy and will suffer .

But if your state votes Kerry, then you are not the enemy, and have nothing to fear.

So , if your state goes to Bush, then you should immediately move to a "blue" state, for your own safety.

-n

Frenzal · Post by **Frenzal** » 01 Nov 2004 18:09

While some people do hate jews, it is hardly fair to say, or to imply, that all those who criticise the actions of the IDF and Isreali government are anti-semitic.

Arafat is a swine. Thought i'd clear that up, because i wanted to go onto say (without being accused of being a NAZI) that the way Israel has acted and the way the US has defended them from the UN leaves a sour taste in the mouthes of most people.

When people criticise the US chances are they're not jealous.
When people criticise Israel chances are they're not anti-semitic.

Chances are it's because they disagree with the foreign policy of these two zionist entities. (Ok, maybe Bush and co are "new zionist" or "christian zionist.")