Osama bin Laden: A weapon of mass Convenience

[align=left]just roll out the boogey man to remind us how scared of freedom hating terrorists we are, while our own government has been destroying the constitution for nearly a century...slowly but surely...[/align]


[align=left]http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/os...laden_wmc.html[/align]


[align=left]The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary - H. L. Mencken[/align]
[align=left]US editor (1880 - 1956)[/align]
[align=left]Osama bin Laden:[/align]
[align=left]A Weapon of Mass Convenience[/align]
[align=left]March 14, 2002[/align]


[align=left]Bush says bin Laden no Threat[/align]


[align=left]"We haven't heard from him in a long time," Bush told reporters at the White House. "I truly am not that concerned about him."[/align]

[align=left]C-Span Video of Comment(466kB WMV)[/align]


[align=left]Bush's attitude to ex-CIA asset bin Laden proves he is a nemesis wheeled out of his casket whenever the 9/11 terror factor is required. [/align]

[align=left]http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...ush_solemn.jpg[/align]
[align=left]"The elevation of the threat level in New York, and New Jersey, and Washington DC is a serious reminder, a solemn reminder, of the threat we continue to face." [8/2/2004] WMV video download (372kB)[/align]

[align=left]The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says. [/align]

[align=left]Ridge, who resigned Feb. 1, said Tuesday that he often disagreed with administration officials who wanted to elevate the threat level to orange, or "high" risk of terrorist attack, but was overruled. [USA Today 5/10/2005][/align]

[align=left]The following graph shows how Bush's approval ratings benefited from terror alerts:[/align]

[align=left]Osama bin Laden is, quite literally, a weapon of mass convenience.[/align]

[align=left]See also: [/align]

[align=left]Outright Deception: bin Laden's Hi Tech Mountain Fortress[/align]
[align=left]Cronkite: Osama bin Laden c/o Karl Rove?[/align]
[align=left]Is 'Al Qaeda' the Modern Incarnation of 'Emmanuel Goldstein'?[/align]

They could use mr goldsteins right about now..

If bin laden is so unimportant, then why do you keep putting posts up about him? Personally, I think his days are numbered - and his illustrious criminal career of financing terrorism is long over. He's not doing anything now, but justice has to be served.

I can assure you that if he ever shows his ugly face anywhere in the U.S., particularly in or around New York City, heâ??ll be dead in about 30 seconds. And, whoever is responsible for offing him will be a hero. Here is somebody that's so hated that you could kill him, legally, and get a huge reward - but I, and most of the people that I know, would gladly do it for free. I'd give up everything I own to get him, as would just about anybody that was in downtown NYC on 9/11. We don't talk about it, and don't have to - it's just accepted. He didnâ??t win: the New York financial district is still there, the Pentagon survived, and the plane that was headed for the White House didnâ??t make it.

Rest assured, he's going to it, one way or another; it would be best if one of his own people killed him.

BTW, there's a new movie coming out soon about Chicken Little. That story kind of reminds me of some of the postings here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

If bin laden is so unimportant, then why do you keep putting posts up about him? Personally, I think his days are numbered - and his illustrious criminal career of financing terrorism is long over. He's not doing anything now, but justice has to be served.

I can assure you that if he ever shows his ugly face anywhere in the U.S., particularly in or around New York City, heâ??ll be dead in about 30 seconds. And, whoever is responsible for offing him will be a hero. Here is somebody that's so hated that you could kill him, legally, and get a huge reward - but I, and most of the people that I know, would gladly do it for free. I'd give up everything I own to get him, as would just about anybody that was in downtown NYC on 9/11. We don't talk about it, and don't have to - it's just accepted. He didnâ??t win: the New York financial district is still there, the Pentagon survived, and the plane that was headed for the White House didnâ??t make it.

Rest assured, he's going to it, one way or another; it would be best if one of his own people killed him.

BTW, there's a new movie coming out soon about Chicken Little. That story kind of reminds me of some of the postings here.

---

because pissy has no real information on anything, a real victim of propaganda. all he does is spin a story into something it's not and exaggerate. Good comics though.

But you need to forget the people who attacked us are still out there, otherwise you might wonder why we are trapped in a QUAGMIRE (where did I hear that word?) in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andruejaysin

But you need to forget the people who attacked us are still out there, otherwise you might wonder why we are trapped in a QUAGMIRE (where did I hear that word?) in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11

---

http://disney.go.com/disneypictures/chickenlittle/

The actual "people" who attacked us are dead. Many of their sponsors and confederates are still in hiding, some are in jail, and many have been killed. The best thing is that there have been no more attacks on U.S. soil.

Iraq is a different issue. I do not want to start another thread about it, but if Bush were as dishonest, or smart, as people are making him out to be, he would have PLANTED nukes, or other evidence of wrongdoing, in Iraq to justify the war.

We should have started pattern-bombing Afghanistan immediately following 9/11, and killed off more taliban and al queada. I would have sent them a few nukes, business-end first as well, and then denied that we had anything to do with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

http://disney.go.com/disneypictures/chickenlittle/

The actual "people" who attacked us are dead. Many of their sponsors and confederates are still in hiding, some are in jail, and many have been killed. The best thing is that there have been no more attacks on U.S. soil.

Iraq is a different issue. I do not want to start another thread about it, but if Bush were as dishonest, or smart, as people are making him out to be, he would have PLANTED nukes, or other evidence of wrongdoing, in Iraq to justify the war.

We should have started pattern-bombing Afghanistan immediately following 9/11, and killed off more taliban and al queada. I would have sent them a few nukes, business-end first as well, and then denied that we had anything to do with it.

---

Really you truely think that this is the solution.... yeah that truely makes alot of sense.For starters do you think that it's really worth all those innocent lives that the figure is way more than 2000 people yes it was a tradegdy for those people to lose there lives but I think people shoud start looking at the government and not being hood winked by pathiatic media outlets. :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andruejaysin

we are trapped in a QUAGMIRE (where did I hear that word?)

---

You supported Kerry didn't ya. So whats your plan, I'm sure it's a fine plan, ya know, the plan! :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Green

Really you truely think that this is the solution.... yeah that truely makes alot of sense.For starters do you think that it's really worth all those innocent lives that the figure is way more than 2000 people yes it was a tradegdy for those people to lose there lives but I think people shoud start looking at the government and not being hood winked by pathiatic media outlets. :o

---

I cannot decipher much of what you are saying, so excuse me if I am not addressing your questions and comments as you intended them to be understood.


I did not have to be â??hoodwinkedâ?� about 9/11. I was in lower NYC on the day of the attack and saw it myself.

I was even closer, as in right across the street, when the WTC was bombed in 1993.

The attacks on 9/11 were not some TV show or movie that you watch while stoned â?? it was real, and three (NOT two) thousand innocent thousand lives were taken by psychotic religious zealots whose headquarters, and leaders, were in Afghanistan â?? who we gave MILLIONS to each year in foreign aid, not to mention the military supplies and support that enabled them to kick out the Soviet Union and establish their own government.

I knew, at the time of the rebellion, that we should have let the Soviets have that horrible place â?? but the Reagan/Bush Sr. administration helped the underdogs â?? who bit the hand that fed them. You know what our ancestors (yours and mine) did with dogs that did this? That's exactly what has to be done with these animals.

Tell em' how it is dude!!! But do me a favor...a little less on the psychotic thing. j/k:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

http://disney.go.com/disneypictures/chickenlittle/

The actual "people" who attacked us are dead. Many of their sponsors and confederates are still in hiding, some are in jail, and many have been killed. The best thing is that there have been no more attacks on U.S. soil.

Iraq is a different issue. I do not want to start another thread about it, but if Bush were as dishonest, or smart, as people are making him out to be, he would have PLANTED nukes, or other evidence of wrongdoing, in Iraq to justify the war.

We should have started pattern-bombing Afghanistan immediately following 9/11, and killed off more taliban and al queada. I would have sent them a few nukes, business-end first as well, and then denied that we had anything to do with it.

---

That's the thing about suicide attacks, they end up dead. The key is that more don't decide to do the same. The war in Iraq leads to just the opposite. I am by no means a pacifist, the afghan war was comepletely justified. I support any war which is in America's interest, this one is not. I am surprised they didn't plant WMD in Iraq, but I quess they surmised (quite rightly) that the risks if they got caught were unacceptable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andruejaysin

That's the thing about suicide attacks, they end up dead. The key is that more don't decide to do the same. The war in Iraq leads to just the opposite. I am by no means a pacifist, the afghan war was comepletely justified. I support any war which is in America's interest, this one is not. I am surprised they didn't plant WMD in Iraq, but I quess they surmised (quite rightly) that the risks if they got caught were unacceptable.

---

I am in agreement with some of what you said. I do not really know if the Iraq war is "in America's interest" or not. None of us know, yet - but Sadaam was a ruthless dictator, and I'm not crying any crocodile tears about his departure â?? and neither are most of his victims and other citizens of Iraq (and neighboring nations). The main thing is that we should learn from our past mistakes, so that we can move forward to see the day that a better government is in place there and in nations in similar, or worse, states of dictatorship and oppression.

Your last sentence gives the impression that that the Bush administration, if they reckoned they could get away with it, would have planted evidence of WMD in Iraq. Again, I do not know if GWB would have done this had the odds of success been in his favor - although in any circle of politicians there will always be some that, given the opportunity, would operate in this fashion. Even if they HAD found actual substantial evidence, some people would have accused them of wrongdoing. This leads me to think that Bush was quite positve that WMD were there.

I would be surprised if no WMD existed in Iraq, given the character of Sadaam. He either hid them, destroyed them, or hadn't been sucessful in getting them. One thing for sure is: he wanted them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

I knew, at the time of the rebellion, that we should have let the Soviets have that horrible place â?? but the Reagan/Bush Sr. administration helped the underdogs â?? who bit the hand that fed them. You know what our ancestors (yours and mine) did with dogs that did this? That's exactly what has to be done with these animals.

---

reading the history of the afghan war, it seems that it was less a case of the US giving help to the underdogs after the soviets invaded, and more a case of the soviets invading because of the activity of the US intel services already going on.
it can be argued that our actions in afghanistan and pakistan put the soviets on edge (after all, it was right next door to them geographically), thus goading them into invading.

you're gonna' spank the dog that bit you when you're the one who got him all worked up in the first place?
you don't have any pets, do you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phareye

reading the history of the afghan war, it seems that it was less a case of the US giving help to the underdogs after the soviets invaded, and more a case of the soviets invading because of the activity of the US intel services already going on.it can be argued that our actions in afghanistan and pakistan put the soviets on edge (after all, it was right next door to them geographically), thus goading them into invading. you're gonna' spank the dog that bit you when you're the one who got him all worked up in the first place? you don't have any pets, do you?

---

I am not making excuses for the U.S. getting involved in Afghanistan, before the Soviet invasion, but I do not think that the Russians were "goaded" into invading. They would have gotten around to it, eventually. So your accusation that the U.S. got Afghanistan "worked up" does not hold. Bin laden and his cohorts were very pissed off that the U.S. didn't provide actual soldiers to repel the Soviet invaders. I believe that Reagan did the right thing by not going to war with the Soviet Army, regardless of what the future taliban and al quida wanted at the time. His biggest mistake was helping them, training them in military maneuvers, allowing them to establish a theocratic dictatorship, and giving them economic aid. T

BTW, the method of dealing with dogs that bite the hands that feed them, in the traditions of my ancestors, was to shoot, not "spank", them â?? not too long ago these animals served purposes other than being a lapdog: they â??workedâ?�, and were cared for, Iâ??m sure, very humanly â?? but in a kennel, or doghouses, rather than in the house â?? and sometimes they could not be domesticated enough to be trusted around children, or adults. One of my great grandfathers raised collies, or border collies, which are very good with sheep, as well as other jobs. Another ancestor had full sized dachshunds (used to hunt badgers), and (probably) other breeds. And no, I do not currently own a dog, or any other pet, but hope to in the future. I donâ??t expect Iâ??ll have ever need to take any drastic measures with it for itâ??s conduct, lol. I actually wish that more humans were as trustworthy, and useful, as most dogs are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

They would have gotten around to it, eventually. So your accusation that the U.S. got Afghanistan "worked up" does not hold. Bin laden and his cohorts were very pissed off that the U.S. didn't provide actual soldiers to repel the Soviet invaders. .

---

Correction:
I meant, .......that the U.S. got the Soviet Union (NOT Afghanistan) "worked up" does not hold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

You supported Kerry didn't ya. So whats your plan, I'm sure it's a fine plan, ya know, the plan! :thumbsup:

---

Actually, no, I didn't. I believe the country would have been better served had he won, but I vote for no one unless I believe they have earned it. Last time none of the candidates met that criteria. Kerry voted for a war he knew to be a mistake, because it was polling above 50%. That says more about his character than I ever could. Bush actually thought the war was a good idea, that says more about his judgement than I ever could. I will not vote for someone unless I have confidence in both their character and their judgement, which often leaves me without a candidate to vote for. You would no dought be shocked to know who I voted for, (as a write in, obviously).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

Bin laden and his cohorts were very pissed off that the U.S. didn't provide actual soldiers to repel the Soviet invaders. I believe that Reagan did the right thing by not going to war with the Soviet Army, regardless of what the future taliban and al quida wanted at the time. His biggest mistake was helping them, training them in military maneuvers, allowing them to establish a theocratic dictatorship, and giving them economic aid.

---

my reading doesn't indicate that bin laden or any other anti-soviet agents wanted american troops on the ground to repel the soviets. like the american revolutionaries didn't want french soldiers on the ground; they just wanted the equipment.
reagan DID in effect go to war w/ the soviets. we supplied arms, money, and intel. the US wasn't directly engaged w/ the soviets, but we did everything short of putting troops on the ground.
i see "helping them, training them in military maneuvers, allowing them to establish a theocratic dictatorship, and giving them economic aid", to quote you, as tantamount to goading them on then getting pissed when they bite back. this is another example of the mentality that has gotten the US into so much hot water over the years: let's do what helps us the most now, regardless of how it will affect the next administration, much less future generations".

[QUOTE=phareye]my reading doesn't indicate that bin laden or any other anti-soviet agents wanted american troops on the ground to repel the soviets. like the american revolutionaries didn't want french soldiers on the ground; they just wanted the equipment.
reagan DID in effect go to war w/ the soviets. we supplied arms, money, and intel. the US wasn't directly engaged w/ the soviets, but we did everything short of putting troops on the ground.i see "helping them, training them in military maneuvers, allowing them to establish a theocratic dictatorship, and giving them economic aid", to quote you, as tantamount to goading them on then getting pissed when they bite back. this is another example of the mentality that has gotten the US into so much hot water over the years: let's do what helps us the most now, regardless of how it will affect the next administration, much less future generations".[/QUOTE]

Please do not compare these lowlife idiots to the Patriots of the American Revolution. Not only are they in another league, they are not even in the same universe!

OK, so we made a mistake, but the taliban and al quedas' sending of crazed suicidal religious zealots to NY and Washington accomplished nothing for these idiots. There was absolutely nothing we did that warranted the attacks on 9/11, and nobody in their right mind, in my opinion, would think otherwise.

We should have nuked them, and then denied it - in the same manner that the taliban denied that al quada was responsible for 9/11.

The absolute best way to respond to violent people that use craziness against you is to surprise them by out-crazing them. To a certain degree, we DID surprise them with our counterstrike responses and resolve to win - hence the cessation of attacks on American soil.

You don't seem to understand that bin laden and his kind are out to destroy everything that is not Moslem - and think that if it results in the whole world being destroyed, then that is Allah's will - and he will start over. They think that they are on a "mission" for Allah and radical Islamic government.

Any movement that has these homicidal, irrational impulses must be stopped dead in their tracks, before they are able to carry out more destructive actions against everything, and everybody, that they hate - which is most of the world. This is the best thing we can do for "future generations", lest there not be any.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

OK, so we made a mistake, but the taliban and al quedas' sending of crazed suicidal religious zealots to NY and Washington accomplished nothing for these idiots. There was absolutely nothing we did that warranted the attacks on 9/11, and nobody in their right mind, in my opinion, would think otherwise.

---

when i finally made it home on 9/11, after having to cut across NJ and work my way up thru Penn. to get back into NY state, the first observation i made was this: knowing that they couldn't launch a full scale attack on the continental US, and knowing what cowboys we tend to be, what better way to kill lots of americans than to have them come to the terrorists turf?

accomplish nothing?
al queda has gotten thousands of americans on their turf, on their terms, and are killing the hell out of 'em.
they have been able to use the war to recruit more members than ever; i mean, just look at how many men they have in the #2 position alone! we keep capturing the "number 2" man in al queda.
can you imagine haw many guys they have filling the #3 slot? it boggles the mind.

you really think bin laden planned the attacks and didn't think, "hmmm... the americans are prob gonna head over here soon, 'cause this is really gonna piss them off"?
bin laden's attacks on the US went as planned, and our response was part of his plan.
he just got the added bonus of the occupation in iraq to use as a recruitment point and training ground for his fu@kin' terrorists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phareye

accomplish nothing?
al queda has gotten thousands of americans on their turf......you really think bin laden planned the attacks and didn't think, "hmmm... the americans are prob gonna head over here soon, 'cause this is really gonna piss them off"?
bin laden's attacks on the US went as planned, and our response was part of his plan. he just got the added bonus of the occupation in iraq to use as a recruitment point and training ground for his fu@kin' terrorists.

---

When an enemy attacks, and you do nothing, they will continue the attacks. If we had responded to the Japs' sneak attack on Pearl Harbor by not going after them they, and their allies, might have won WW II. I disagree with some of the policies, tactics, and strategies of the Bush administration, but least he's doing something. Had we not, there probably would have been more attacks on American soil by now. I know that Clinton would have responded militarily to 9/11, but I wonder how effective his administration would have been, in the subsequent war on terror (that is, if he even declared one), as compared to Bush's efforts.

P.S. I voted for Clinton for his first term, didn't vote in the next election, and G.W. Bush in both of his. I didn't like Gore, and I now refuse to vote for people that are in favor of, or refuse to admit disagreement with, government and private affirmative action job polices based on race. Clinton and Kerry are examples of politicians I would not vote for based on, among other things, this unjust and unfair system. Iâ??m sorry I voted for Clinton. Anybody stupid enough to get caught messing with that Monica pig should not be president. He also did not do enough about terrorist, and military, attacks against U.S. interests, which may have helped set the stage for 9/11.

[/QUOTE=Breukelen advocaat]He also did not do enough about terrorist, and military, attacks against U.S. interests, which may have helped set the stage for 9/11.[/QUOTE]

i personally was suprised to learn just how much was going on within the clinton whitehouse regarding bin laden specifically and terrorism in general. if you pick up a book like "ghost wars" (can't remember the author), or any other non-partisan look at the recent history of terrorism, i think you too would find out just how active clinton's staff was tracking and trying to kill bin laden.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

I didn't like Gore, and I now refuse to vote for people that are in favor of, or refuse to admit disagreement with, government and private affirmative action job polices based on race.

---

this is a whole other issue.
and what's worse: affirmative action or croney-ism?
gore and others support affirmative action. aside from anecdotal(sp) evidence, i haven't seen any proof that the anglos of this country are being disenfranchised. hell, man, where do you work? we had "the black guy" at the office, but he quit weeks ago. nothing but lily-white faces far as the eye can see...

besides, i'd rather have aff. action than this hiring of hacks we've been seeing in the bush admin.
political appointments are nothing new, but they get appointments slightly relevant to their exper., typically.
i'll refrain from listing the obvious and not-so-obvious political hacks in this admin...
unless, of course, someone wants to deny that this is what happens in the bush admin.
(heckuva job, brownie)
(miers will withdrawing because her lack of experience is becoming a distraction)
(those are the two most obvious ones... there are more examples avail.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

I disagree with some of the policies, tactics, and strategies of the Bush administration, but least he's doing something. Had we not, there probably would have been more attacks on American soil by now.

---

this is what bugs me out:
i don't neccessarily agree, but at least it's something.

that's a lazy attitude. this isn't a personal attack on you, BA, but please see where i'm coming from.

accepting something because it's the only course of action presented is selling yourself and your country short.

and the war isn't what's preventing attacks in the US. it's law enforcement, here, with minimal and questionable info coming from overseas, that's keeping us safe.

[QUOTE=phareye]this is a whole other issue.
and what's worse: affirmative action or croney-ism?
gore and others support affirmative action. aside from anecdotal(sp) evidence, i haven't seen any proof that the anglos of this country are being disenfranchised. hell, man, where do you work? we had "the black guy" at the office, but he quit weeks ago. nothing but lily-white faces far as the eye can see...QUOTE]

Affirmative action in the workplace (and in contracts, schools, etc.) , based on race, does a disservice to minorities - as well as being very unfair to the people that are excluded. Kerry knew this, but refused to talk about it because it's not politically correct and would have hurt his chances of getting the minority vote. There are also many unfair advantages given to women, parents, etc.

I really don't care much anymore about my own situation as far as this goes, since I plan to retire in a couple of years. I hope that future generations are not subjected to a lot of the crap that I, and others, had to put up with.

I will not support, or vote for, politicians that are pushing these destructive programs and laws. These policies are what get white people, especially men, pissed off ("Angry White Males") - and we end up voting for guys like Bush and Reagan. When it hits home, as it did in my life many times, you get fed up with the "liberals" (which they are really not) and Democrats. Why should I vote against my own best interests by supporting candidates that are pro-affirmative action?

If affirmative action was based on class, and not race, I would be much more open to it.

Affirmative action still exists because there are places and people that will not hire minorities without coercion. I live in the South and have to deal with this on a daily basis. The things that come out of the mouths of some of the people I know are just horrendous and there is no excuse for it.

I agree with you though, AA does everyone a huge disservice. I just don't see how something that is "policy" is supposed to change minds or make any difference in the long run. Obviously though, there is a need for some kind of dialogue in this area.

Your last paragraph really hit home with me. I personally know how tough it is to be a white man in America. I'm waiting for the day they ask me to use another water fountain. Oh, what dark times we live in. I'm just thankful for the war. Every day buses filled with poor, colored faces are carted down to the air-strip for deployment. I don't mind 'em fighting my war, I just don't want them takin' my job.

But, seriously. If you're a white man in America with a job that is about to retire it doesn't sound like you have much to be angry about. Casting votes for guys who would rather see them all hanging from trees on the lawn of the White House doesn't sound like much of a solution. Well, I guess it depends on who you ask.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lemonboy

, But, seriously. If you're a white man in America with a job that is about to retire it doesn't sound like you have much to be angry about. Casting votes for guys who would rather see them all hanging from trees on the lawn of the White House doesn't sound like much of a solution. Well, I guess it depends on who you ask.

---

Try asking the Democrats who are in bed with Al Sharpton (hint: the last couple of Presidential candidates) if they think that murdering Jews, which is what Sharpton indirectly does, is the better solution. I'm not Jewish, but seeing ANY innocent people getting lynched by a mob make me angry. I'll always vote against Democrats and others that kiss Sharpton's ass for endorsements, until they relinquish ties to that type of scum - and start trying to put an end to race-based affirmative action, and other ideas that do not work.