Support NeoGAF

[Dan]

What the fuck?!

 

[Dilbert]

Why the hell would bin Laden admit that his forces have been hurt by US efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan? That makes no sense.

Do you feel like answering his question, Makura? Or are you just going to be a fucking tool like usual?

 

[xsarien]

People at GAF agreeing with Bin Laden? Color me NOT SHOCKED IN THE LEAST.

You people make me nauseous.

If bin Laden said the sky is blue, would you disagree with him just on principle?

 

[Ripclawe]

http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SA1404

Osama Bin Laden Tape Threatens U.S. States Not to Vote for Bush
By: Yigal Carmon*


The tape of Osama bin Laden that was aired on Al-Jazeera(1) on Friday, October 29th included a specific threat to "each U.S. state," designed to influence the outcome of the upcoming election against George W. Bush. The U.S. media in general mistranslated the words "ay wilaya" (which means "each U.S. state")(2) to mean a "country" or "nation" other than the U.S., while in fact the threat was directed specifically at each individual U.S. state. This suggests some knowledge by bin Laden of the U.S. electoral college system. In a section of his speech in which he harshly criticized George W. Bush, bin Laden stated: "Any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security."

The Islamist website Al-Qal'a explained what this sentence meant: "This message was a warning to every U.S. state separately. When he [Osama Bin Laden] said, 'Every state will be determining its own security, and will be responsible for its choice,' it means that any U.S. state that will choose to vote for the white thug Bush as president has chosen to fight us, and we will consider it our enemy, and any state that will vote against Bush has chosen to make peace with us, and we will not characterize it as an enemy. By this characterization, Sheikh Osama wants to drive a wedge in the American body, to weaken it, and he wants to divide the American people itself between enemies of Islam and the Muslims, and those who fight for us, so that he doesn't treat all American people as if they're the same. This letter will have great implications inside the American society, part of which are connected to the American elections, and part of which are connected to what will come after the elections."(3)

Memri also picked up on how strange the tape was as others in this thread have noticed.

Another conspicuous aspect of the tape is the absence of common Islamist themes that are relevant to the month of Ramadan, which for fundamentalists like bin Laden is the month of Jihad and martyrdom. Noticeably absent from the Al-Jazeera tape was his usual appearance with a weapon, and more importantly the absence of references to Jihad, martyrdom, the Koran, the Hadith (Islamic tradition), Crusaders, Jews, and the legacy of the Prophet Muhammad on the duty to wage Jihad against the infidels. For the followers of the Al-Qa'ida ideology, this speech sends a regressive and defeatist message of surrender, as seen in the move from solely using Jihad warfare to a mixed strategy of threats combined with truce offers and election deals.

 

[Triumph]

People at GAF agreeing with Bin Laden? Color me NOT SHOCKED IN THE LEAST.

You people make me nauseous.

Is the following statement true or false: United States foreign policy has shaped how the Middle East views our country.

Just because Osama bin Laden says something doesn't automatically make it a lie. Douche.

 

[Guileless]

Every country in the world can take issue with 200+ years of American/Western foreign policy. However, all of the people who flew the planes into buildings came from the Middle East. You can lament any perceived injustice you want to, but the fact is the people willing to kill themselves by flying planes into buildings are responsible for their own actions. Nobody from China has flown a plane into a building while shouting out Confucian mottos and ranting about the Opium Wars.

And I'm getting confused about something here. Osama says we're evil for supporting the corrupt Arab governments, we were evil for sanctioning and isolating the worst of them, and we were also evil for removing that same regime. So what are we supposed to do? Doesn't that cover all of the options?

 

[PS2 KID]

The Mid East is fucked up.

As Spartan would say, "Don't go into the Desert."

 

[Chrono]

I think it's important here to remember that Osama’s definition of a virtuous, Islamic government is one like the Taliban. So by "evil Arab regimes" he means ones runs by kings instead of imams and ones that allow western/non-Muslim culture (everything from half-naked models in magazine ads to mixing between the sexes in public to blue jeans). So it’s not like he’s blaming the U.S. from standing in his way to a western-style democracy.

Honestly the U.S. will support whatever country if it’s in the U.S.’s interest just like every country in the world—if any people want to change anything they have to do it themselves. For example, American support helped saddam a lot. However, 99.999% of the ba’thists are Iraqis themselves. So were the republican guard, the police, the intelligence services, the cheering fellow Arabs in neighboring states like Palestine and Kuwait slapping saddam’s picture all over their newspapers when he invaded Iran, etc…

I doubt anyone here cares though. It seems that the majority of the posters that lean right support the view that American has done nothing—or maybe just a little—wrong and the majority of the left leaning posters go the other way and any blame directed to anything not American is racism or something. Who really to blame here is just another right/bush/bigotry vs. left/Kerry/blind tolerance war…


NOTE: I don't mean any offense to anybody here by this post. I just felt like posting this.

 

[gofreak]

The motivation for the invasion of Iraq was not to kill as many people as possible as revenge for something that happened in 1982 which involved none of them. I don't see the comparison.

Al Qaeda would claim that the attacks were motivated by the need to change US foreign policy in the middle east. The killing of innocents was a (horrible, unjustifiable) means to an end. Bin Laden cited 1982 as a primary catalyst in his thinking, but not the only one. And the US was involved in the 1982 attacks on the Lebanon (or so he claims, I haven't the checked the history myself).

The Bush Administration would claim the attacks on Iraq were motivated by the threat of WMD and cited 9/11 on numerous occasions in that context. Some might even suggest that it was revenge for what Daddy didn't finish in the early 90s, given that Bush was apparently harping on about invading Iraq from day one (if you really want a revenge spin on it). The US claims that the killing of Iraqi innocents, and the deaths of 1000+ US soldiers, was a means to an end.

Both sides have their interests. Both are killing innocents. Who is right? I'm sorry, but I'm just not comfortable enough to claim that the US has a moral high ground here.

 

[Spainkiller]

Hahaha seems like i pissed someone off. Sorry, next time I'll make sure my opinions agree with yours.

Or you could just listen to the FACTS.

FACTS. THINGS THAT ARE TRUE, YES?

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeee *crash* Look! More screaming, burning, crying, drying people! Who have NOTHING TO DO WITH OBL.

'You' (America) haven't gotten rid of Al-Queda, and by invading Iraq you never will. Would you get rid of Christianity by bombing America? Or the UK? NO. BECAUSE IT'S AN IDEAL.

*bangs head against wall*
*dies*
*thankfully, not from uranium-tipped hot copper-spewing tank shells like a lot of innocent people in this world*

 

[Makura]

Do you feel like answering his question, Makura? Or are you just going to be a fucking tool like usual?

What the? Answering what question?

 

[Makura]

If bin Laden said the sky is blue, would you disagree with him just on principle?

Is the following statement true or false: United States foreign policy has shaped how the Middle East views our country.

Just because Osama bin Laden says something doesn't automatically make it a lie. Douche.

I'm turning into the conservative version of fart. I don't feel like bothering anymore. You people are just so beyond any hope IMO.

 

[Guileless]

gofreak, if you went to Iraq or Afghanistan to build a power plant or aid in the organization of elections, you would find out real quick who has the moral high ground. Hint: it's not the medieval religious fascists who would relish the opportunity to kidnap you and videotape themselves sawing off your vertebrae.

 

[Spainkiller]

gofreak, if you went to Iraq or Afghanistan to build a power plant or aid in the organization of elections, you would find out real quick who has the moral high ground. Hint: it's not the medieval religious fascists who would relish the opportunity to kidnap you and videotape themselves sawing off your vertebrae.

No, you're right. It's the people who set up certain trade laws and sancitons that are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people over the last 2 decades... and they make money from it. LOTS of money. But that makes it okay, right? Because money makes the world go round...

I'm not defending anybody who does something like that [sawing heads off, kidnapping, organising the deaths of 3,000 people], before people jump on me. They're all pathetic snivelling little children who were sodomised by their parents and want to take it out on the world. The trouble with people is that they're always looking for something to fight, and unfortunatly for us, our system enables them to have lots of money and power. Both the US and whoever they want to pick on next need to grow the fuck up.

 

[brooklyngooner]

I'm turning into the conservative version of fart. I don't feel like bothering anymore. You people are just so beyond any hope IMO.

I used to think you were just a twat. Imagine my surprise when I found out you were also a pussy.

 

[xsarien]

I'm turning into the conservative version of fart. I don't feel like bothering anymore. You people are just so beyond any hope IMO.

On the contrary, I have standing orders with friends that should I ever adopt such a sad, drastic, black and white view of the world, that they have full permission to institutionalize me.

 

[gofreak]

gofreak, if you went to Iraq or Afghanistan to build a power plant or aid in the organization of elections, you would find out real quick who has the moral high ground. Hint: it's not the medieval religious fascists who would relish the opportunity to kidnap you and videotape themselves sawing off your vertebrae.

No, they don't have a moral high ground. No one has in this sorry situation, I'm afraid. The US government does not. They are taking lives too. They're not sawing people's heads off, but is it really much better to die due to an explosive or a bullet? In the end, at this level of morality, the distinction is blurry. Effectively, they are all doing the same thing: killing people.

edit - my point is, the US administration or US foreign policy, however you want to term it, is effectively no more "good" than Al Qaeda and vice versa. I'm not saying Al Qaeda is "good" or has a moral argument or anything of the sort.

 

[Triumph]

I'm turning into the conservative version of fart. I don't feel like bothering anymore. You people are just so beyond any hope IMO.

Funny. You failed to respond to my post in any meaningful way what so ever. That's so unlike you!

 

[Keio]

Although I don't believe that you can use the number of dead innocents to determine moral high ground, it is something that affects the "hearts and minds" on the ground, for example in the Arab nations.

Compared to the relatively few beheadings, the more than 100 000 (according to The Lancet) dead civilians in Iraq just may be enough tilt the attitudes against the invaders.

I believe the change in OBL's rhetoric is due to his desire to appear as a reasonable individual, who is able to argue his position - not just "an ideology of hate" but a struggele against imperialism. Now, the merits of that claim can be argued, but it is an effective way of reducing the "enemies of freedom"-rhetoric to empty babble.

 

[Guileless]

Compared to the relatively few beheadings, the more than 100 000 (according to The Lancet) dead civilians in Iraq just may be enough tilt the attitudes against the invaders.

Relatively few beheadings? Are you actually saying that without any irony? Perhaps you forgot about the endless car bombings, the cold-blooded execution of the 50-odd Iraqi police trainees last week, the massive bombs that killed Shiite pilgrims in an effort to start a religious war, the attack on the convoy in Fallujah (replete with wild celebration as animals hit an incinerated body with sticks and hung it from a bridge), and my personal favorite: the murder of a 16 year old girl and her mother, who were doing the laundry for a group that was building a sewage treatement plant paid for by the American taxpayer.

These are the medieval religious fascists you honor with your moral equivalency.

 

[gofreak]

So Guileless - the deaths of innocents at the hands of US soldiers or bombs is OK? Or morally "purer" than when a terrorist kills a civilian? Please explain.

No one is honouring anyone with this moral equivalency..it's an equivalency I would never want to be associated with myself.

 

[Spainkiller]

Relatively few beheadings? Are you actually saying that without any irony? Perhaps you forgot about the endless car bombings, the cold-blooded execution of the 50-odd Iraqi police trainees last week, the massive bombs that killed Shiite pilgrims in an effort to start a religious war, the attack on the convoy in Fallujah (replete with wild celebration as animals hit an incinerated body with sticks and hung it from a bridge), and my personal favorite: the murder of a 16 year old girl and her mother, who were doing the laundry for a group that was building a sewage treatement plant paid for by the American taxpayer.

These are the medieval religious fascists you honor with your moral equivalency.

I like the way you've attributed 'moral points', to be handed out depending on how people are killed.

 

[Phoenix]

So Guileless - the deaths of innocents at the hands of US soldiers or bombs is OK? Or morally "purer" than when a terrorist kills a civilian? Please explain.

No one is honouring anyone with this moral equivalency..it's an equivalency I would never want to be associated with myself.

When a terrorist blows up a car bomb or similar their intent is to kill a whole lot of people. Are you saying that US soldiers and stray bombs have the same intent?

 

[Spainkiller]

When a soldier points a gun at somebody, or somebody gives the go-ahead to drop a bomb, or the gunner in a tank locks-on to a target, they're not trying to kill people?

Terrorists aren't in the same bracket as soldiers, he wasn't arguing that point.

 

[gofreak]

When a terrorist blows up a car bomb or similar their intent is to kill a whole lot of people. Are you saying that US soldiers and stray bombs have the same intent?

I believe the intent of a bomb is to kill a whole lot of people...? Of course, what else is a bomb intended to do?

The US administration went into Iraq knowing that thousands of innocent people were going to die if they did, be it intentional or not. "Shock and awe" was done to make a point, and you can be sure innocents died. The terrorists kidnap and kill innocent people to make a point. Then there is the question - people working in facilities etc. in Iraq that were targetted at the start of the war - are they innocent? A terrorist views people working for the US as targettable in the same way the US saw people working for Saddam as targettable in the initial campaign. They bombed palaces, civil infrastructure, ministeries etc. How many ordinary workers do you think were killed?

On an effective level, innocent lives are being taken by both sides. Try telling the family of a kid who was killed by a stray bullet that it was unintentional.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

People at GAF agreeing with Bin Laden? Color me NOT SHOCKED IN THE LEAST.

You people make me nauseous.

What the hell? Didn't you just get through saying you wished they'd air the portion of the Bin Laden tape that you agree with?

 

[Guileless]

gofreak, do you think Iraq would be a better place if the US military/interim Iraqi government wins, or if the insurgents win (meaning the government falls apart and the US military pulls out completely)?

Which side do you think takes more care to not injure civilians?

Based on your answers to those questions, who do you think has the moral high ground? If you still think it's the insurgents, is there anything they could do in your mind to lose the moral high ground beyond what they have already done?

 

[Phoenix]

The a soldier shoots someone, they aren't intending to kill an innocent (unless they are commiting war crimes). When a terrorists blows up a car bomb, the explicit intent is to kill innocents.

Not sure how anyone could compare these two scenarios and see parity in any way.

 

[mrmyth]

It'd be really fucking funny if this tape is Karl Rove's brainchild, and the media are fucking up his game by editing it and not airing the whole propaganda spiel.

 

[ErasureAcer]

I don't see how it can be a rove trick. Bin Laden alive = bad for bush. He did promise to capture him dead or alive. After he loses tomorrow...he'll only have 2 more months to do it.

 

[gofreak]

gofreak, do you think Iraq would be a better place if the US military/interim Iraqi government wins, or if the insurgents win (meaning the government falls apart and the US military pulls out completely)?

Which side do you think takes more care to not injure civilians?

Based on your answers to those questions, who do you think has the moral high ground? If you still think it's the insurgents, is there anything they could do in your mind to lose the moral high ground beyond what they have already done?

Now that the US is in Iraq, it is of course better to see the nation building process succeed. My question is whether the US should have been there in the first place. However that is taking things off on a tangent.

The US may not intend to kill civilians, but they knew it would happen, and could have prevented it by not going into Iraq, but didn't. Is it morally sound to kill thousands of innocents as long as you get some "baddies" in the process? I'm not so sure. Also, these terrorists in Iraq seem to be targetting specific people - people they see as helping America, who are their enemy. People they don't deem as innocent even if we do. Did we not kill people who helped the Iraqi regime in the war? They have their enemies, we have ours - don't tell me it's morally better for us to kill ours than for them to kill theirs. When they do kill innocent people, they can as easily claim that it was unintentional or that it was "collatoral damage" as we can.

Also, you're completely missing my point. I do not see these people has having the moral high ground. My point is that no one does. As far as they are concerned, and as far as we seem to be concerned, this is war. In war, moral right is a very difficult thing to assign to any party. That usually happens afterwards - by the victor - and is accepted by most people.

Also, I'd like to point out that you haven't answered my questions. You've just given me more questions. I'm doing my best to answer yours.

 

[nathkenn]

The a soldier shoots someone, they aren't intending to kill an innocent (unless they are commiting war crimes). When a terrorists blows up a car bomb, the explicit intent is to kill innocents.

Not sure how anyone could compare these two scenarios and see parity in any way.

intended or not, dead is dead

 

[Dan]

intended or not, dead is dead

Yeah well, according to UN law and most other international law, intentions mean a hell of a lot when it comes to military action.

 

[nathkenn]

at this point we've pretty much abandoned international law and the UN

 

[Phoenix]

intended or not, dead is dead

I thought I'd heard it all... and then I remembered that I'm on GAF.

 

[nathkenn]

thats why people get put in jail for manslaughter, woops i didnt mean to doesnt fly

the point it doesnt really matter what the intent is to the victims and there families for the most part, if your entire family is killed by accident or intentionally it pretty much sucks either way and most likely your going to want some kind of justice. given the way the military is run i dont believe soldiers should be held directly accountable but we should definetly look higher in the chain of command

 

[Spainkiller]

The a soldier shoots someone, they aren't intending to kill an innocent (unless they are commiting war crimes). When a terrorists blows up a car bomb, the explicit intent is to kill innocents.

Not sure how anyone could compare these two scenarios and see parity in any way.

You're looking at it at an operational level. Look at it from a tactical one - one country sends people over to kill people, and another country does the same. Why is one more moral than the other? How can you score points - put value on the lives in question?

 

[Makura]

Funny. You failed to respond to my post in any meaningful way what so ever. That's so unlike you!

Make a rational post and I'll respond to it.

 

[Makura]

On the contrary, I have standing orders with friends that should I ever adopt such a sad, drastic, black and white view of the world, that they have full permission to institutionalize me.

That's great xsarien.

 

[Makura]

What the hell? Didn't you just get through saying you wished they'd air the portion of the Bin Laden tape that you agree with?

Three people miss the point. Wow.

 

[Phoenix]

You're looking at it at an operational level. Look at it from a tactical one - one country sends people over to kill people, and another country does the same. Why is one more moral than the other? How can you score points - put value on the lives in question?

This is just getting worse each time I reply - I feel like I'm debating in high school again

Okay lets look at it from a "tactical level" (whatever that is supposed to mean).

Country A sends people over to secure a country B. Army A( from country A) kills Army B. Conflict between Army A and Army B ends as Army B is no longer an army. Remnants of Army B and other parties become Force C. Army A and Force C engage in combat with each other. People of Army B are purposefully killed by Force C and accidentally killed by Army A while the two are engaged in conflict.

You still don't see the difference?

Suppose a police officer arrives at a crime scene and finds a lady being held by a gunman. The gunman fires on the officer and the officer returns fire on the hostage taker and the hostage is killed in the exchange. Are both at the same level of fault for the hostages death?

 

[nathkenn]

I dunno but thats pretty poor judgement on the officers part, heh, but I guess you could be following Keanu logic

 

[Phoenix]

thats why people get put in jail for manslaughter, woops i didnt mean to doesnt fly

No sorry. Your knowledge of the criminal justice system is terrible. You go to jail in manslaughter not if you 'didn't mean to', but if you caused the situation that resulted in the death. Accidental deaths happen all the time and no one goes to jail for them.

the point it doesnt really matter what the intent is to the victims and there families for the most part, if your entire family is killed by accident or intentionally it pretty much sucks either way and most likely your going to want some kind of justice. given the way the military is run i dont believe soldiers should be held directly accountable but we should definetly look higher in the chain of command

Okay there is a lapse of logic in parts of this. Yes it sucks when innocent people get killed, no question of that. Sucks when people die in car accidents too - that doesn't mean that someone goes to jail for either murder or manslaughter. And please stop using the word justice when what you really mean is revenge. People are often killed trying to bring about justice - and those innocent victims are unfortunate and in many cases are unavoidable for a variety of reasons. When they are avoidable, all care must be given to avoid them and when it isn't - the party that caused the death is responsible (i.e. air strike last month into civillian population center was avoidable).

"Given the way the military is run," soldiers are held accountable for their actions because they are the ones who actually pull the triggers. No soldier can ever be tried for refusing to carry out an unethical order or one that would violate the accepted rules or conduct on the battlefield. Any soldier that goes along with these sorts of orders is just as guilty as the person who ordered them in the eyes of the military courts.

 

[nathkenn]

car accidents are generally referred to officially as collisions because it's pretty rare that someone isnt at fault to some degree, I'd have to say the same thing about the military there are no just flat out accidents people made to choices to drop bombs or fire guns an accident would be more like my gun went off because of an equipment malfunction

anyway i'm not trying to drag this on, you have a very valid point thats why we have judges for these sorts of things, its a very complex situation. but when innocent people are being killed i think we should be a helluva lot more serious and concise about what we're doing than we are

 

[Dilbert]

Make a rational post and I'll respond to it.

Is the following statement true or false: United States foreign policy has shaped how the Middle East views our country.

That's a perfectly rational question, and you're ducking it. I'm sick to death of your fucking trolling, and the only reason you're not banned at this second is that I'd LOVE to hear your answer. You have a nasty habit of only stopping into threads long enough to provoke a shitstorm, and then running away with comments like "I don't feel like bothering anymore. You people are just so beyond any hope IMO."

No more. NO MORE. Either you start substantiating the crap that comes out of your mouth, or you're gone.

So pony up an answer, big guy. We're all waiting.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Three people miss the point. Wow.

You could perhaps clarify what I missed, then?

Country A sends people over to secure a country B. Army A( from country A) kills Army B. Conflict between Army A and Army B ends as Army B is no longer an army. Remnants of Army B and other parties become Force C. Army A and Force C engage in combat with each other. People of Army B are purposefully killed by Force C and accidentally killed by Army A while the two are engaged in conflict.

You still don't see the difference?

Well, I see that Country A started it and has done a lot more damage. There's plenty of bad being earned by A and C.

Suppose a police officer arrives at a crime scene and finds a lady being held by a gunman. The gunman fires on the officer and the officer returns fire on the hostage taker and the hostage is killed in the exchange. Are both at the same level of fault for the hostages death?

Suppose the officer is using grenades and accidentally kills the neighbors.

 

[Iceman]

Suppose the officer is using grenades and accidentally kills the neighbors.

The way you characterize what have been in all actuality planned, surgical and strategic strikes by the US miliatry is pretty disingenuous.

To say they've done everything right in the last two years is going way too far of course, but to equate their tactics to that of barbarians and terrorists is insulting.

 

[xsarien]

To say they've done everything right in the last two years is going way too far of course, but to equate their tactics to that of barbarians and terrorists is insulting.

Just a bit of a reality check here: We're often characterized as terrorists in the Middle East, and groups such as Al-Qaeda are painted as freedom fighters.

 

[Keio]

The way you characterize what have been in all actuality planned, surgical and strategic strikes by the US miliatry is pretty disingenuous.

The death toll of Iraqi civilians is over 100 000, according to research by Lancet, an international journal of medical professionals. Planned, surgical and strategic?

I am not arguing that you can draw a moral equality - from our viewpoint - between people killed by a suicide bomber in a market and a family killed by a U.S. bomb, but for an Iraqi losing his/her family it probably will not make a big difference. To restate the original point of my argument: the US is creating prime material for Bin Laden to recruit. The Iraq war has really provided lots of that (+a few hundred tons of explosives on the side).

And regarding the police example: If policemen would kill, let's say ten innocents for every one innocent killed by crime, I would question the effectiveness of such police.

 

[gofreak]

The death toll of Iraqi civilians is over 100 000, according to research by Lancet, an international journal of medical professionals. Planned, surgical and strategic?

To clarify, this figure is not the number killed accidently or otherwise by US troops. I believe it includes all civilian deaths regardless of who was responsible, i.e. includes victims of attacks by insurgents etc. I'm sure the number directly attributable to the US presence runs very high though.