NationStates Jolt Archive

Are you taking Osama threat of another terrorist attack seriously?

poll to come.

No.

Didn't he say the blue states were excused for voting against Bush? ;)

I think there'll probably be attacks in the near future, but I'm not losing sleep over it.

Wow, Jason Lewis was right. Maybe we do need another attack to wake people up. I think we should take this threat seriously. I mean this man is very dangerous and we all know what he is capable of. All I know is that I'm going to keep a closer eye on the airports I fly to.

Depends...are you taking his offer on peace negotiations seriously?

I've yet to feel fear due to his purported actions.

Depends...are you taking his offer on peace negotiations seriously?

Nah, he hates us, he always had hated us and always will hate us. Any attempt at peace negotations will be pointless. The only way we can get rid of this guy is to blow his ass to kingdom come.

I voted Dont care. I take him serious and believe america will be bombed but Dont care! Im not afraid and no one in america should show this stupit wacko that you are afraid!:cool:

Really couldn't care...

I mean, besides, he's been saying that we'll suffer from terrible attacks for how long now anyway?

Been living in NYC before, during, and after the attack. If I worried every time one of these jackasses opened his mouth I'd've died of a heart attack already.

I voted Dont care. I take him serious and believe america will be bombed but Dont care! Im not afraid and no one in america should show this stupit wacko that you are afraid!:cool:

Just because you take his threat seriously doesn't mean you are afraid. It just means you know what he is capable of and you are preparing for it.

Nah, he hates us, he always had hated us and always will hate us. Any attempt at peace negotations will be pointless. The only way we can get rid of this guy is to blow his ass to kingdom come.
gee, i wonder why? we (Western nations) put Israel in the middle of what was Muslim land, then we started exploiting them, meddling in all their politics merely for their oil. And I've only begun to scratch the surface.

This is the problem with Bush's mentality he's making everyone use. "They hate us for our freedom" is complete and utter bullshit and i don't feel like getting into the rest of it.

gee, i wonder why? we (Western nations) put Israel in the middle of what was Muslim land, then we started exploiting them, meddling in all their politics merely for their oil. And I've only begun to scratch the surface.

This is the problem with Bush's mentality he's making everyone use. "They hate us for our freedom" is complete and utter bullshit and i don't feel like getting into the rest of it.

You DO realize he hated us before Bush right?

You DO realize he hated us before Bush right?
exactly...even though the CIA helped him and the Ba'th party rise to power and slaughter members of the Iraqi Communist Party.

I'm not. I live in a bunker.

exactly...even though the CIA helped him and the Ba'th party rise to power and slaughter members of the Iraqi Communist Party.

*sigh* I love it when people re-write history.

First off, the CIA only helped Saddam by giving him Spy Saliette photos of Iran, and weapons. He rose to power by the help of the Ba'ath Party itself. The CIA never had any help in that.

During the Afghanistan War (the USSR's Vietnam), we did help Osama and Al Queida by giving them weapons and training them to use them. However, that's it.

We never helped Saddam slaughter members of the Iraqi Communist Party.

Nah, he hates us, he always had hated us and always will hate us. Any attempt at peace negotations will be pointless. The only way we can get rid of this guy is to blow his ass to kingdom come.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17887177-38201,00.html

Oversimplification is your greatest enemy in a case like this. He doesn't hate you, neither has he always done so (he took your money and weapons gladly in Afghanistan).

From what I could gather he hates the way you conduct yourself in the Muslim World, the way Middle Eastern Government oppress their own people to please the US (or so he sees it) and probably the way people live in the US in immoral ways.

But he has in the past made pretty precise statements regarding what he doesn't like about the US policy in the Middle East in particular. I think it could be worth trying to negotiate, and see whether we can gather what this whole idea really is about. Doesn't mean we have to agree to anything, but at least establishing contact oughta be a good idea.

*sigh* I love it when people re-write history.

First off, the CIA only helped Saddam by giving him Spy Saliette photos of Iran, and weapons. He rose to power by the help of the Ba'ath Party itself. The CIA never had any help in that.

During the Afghanistan War (the USSR's Vietnam), we did help Osama and Al Queida by giving them weapons and training them to use them. However, that's it.

We never helped Saddam slaughter members of the Iraqi Communist Party.
We gave them lists of Communist Party members, which were then slaughtered.
[During Hearings of Congressional Select Committee on Intelligence headed by Otis Pike] ...The young Saddam Hussein was 'among party members colluding with the CIA in 1962 and 1963.' The United States thereafter actively supported the Ba'th Party's successful coup of 1963, which led to a slaughter of Iraqi Communist Party members using lists produced by American intelligence sources.

We gave them lists of Communist Party members, which were then slaughtered.

Source?

Source?
Rashid Khalidi, Resurrecting Empire

what's your source?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17887177-38201,00.html

Oversimplification is your greatest enemy in a case like this. He doesn't hate you, neither has he always done so (he took your money and weapons gladly in Afghanistan).

From what I could gather he hates the way you conduct yourself in the Muslim World, the way Middle Eastern Government oppress their own people to please the US (or so he sees it) and probably the way people live in the US in immoral ways.

But he has in the past made pretty precise statements regarding what he doesn't like about the US policy in the Middle East in particular. I think it could be worth trying to negotiate, and see whether we can gather what this whole idea really is about. Doesn't mean we have to agree to anything, but at least establishing contact oughta be a good idea.

You do realize appeasement rarely work right? I mean France, and Britian appeased Hitler during negotiation, and look how that turn out. Osama is responsible for thousands of death world wide through his terrorist attacks. He need to be killed. The best way to kill him is with carpet bombing from a B-52. If we negotiate with him, he'll sound sincere, but he'll have his fingers cross.

Rashid Khalidi, Resurrecting Empire

what's your source?

I forgot the author but the book is A look at Modern Revolution It discussed the rise and fall of the USSR in there, and it did talk about Saddam and Osama in the book. It also talked about US involvement in both.

You do realize appeasement rarely work right? I mean France, and Britian appeased Hitler during negotiation, and look how that turn out. Osama is responsible for thousands of death world wide through his terrorist attacks. He need to be killed. The best way to kill him is with carpet bombing from a B-52. If we negotiate with him, he'll sound sincere, but he'll have his fingers cross.
Bush is also responsible for ordering the deaths of thousands of people, so why not go after him? Oh yeah, he's on a mission from God.

Bush is also responsible for ordering the deaths of thousands of people, so why not go after him? Oh yeah, he's on a mission from God.

You know, making random statement like that just makes you look ignorant of current events. Either mention specific details or just stop posting.

You know, making random statement like that just makes you look ignorant of current events. Either mention specific details or just stop posting.
I guess you don't recall Bush ordering the use of several hundred Tomahawk cruise missiles to attack the sovereign nation of Iraq before Rumsfeld could even say "go," which led to the death of thousands of innocent Iraqis...and not the death of one Saddam Hussein.

And I guess you don't remember back during the summer when it was reported all over the newspapers in Britain that Bush said God told him to invade Iraq, and his repeated reference to God justifying his actions:

"Like generations before us, we have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom. "
-- Eerie... Republican National Convention, New York, New York, Sep. 2, 2004

"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job."
-- Statement made during campaign visit to Amish community, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Jul. 9, 2004

shall I go on?

Usually I wouldn't take this sort of thing seriously, but the wording he used seemed too serious and directed towards us.

I guess you don't recall Bush ordering the use of several hundred Tomahawk cruise missiles to attack the sovereign nation of Iraq before Rumsfeld could even say "go," which led to the death of thousands of innocent Iraqis...and not the death of one Saddam Hussein.

Umm, that's called WAR! Of course we were trying to kill Saddam, because he is THE ENEMY! Innocent people do die, but that is the nature of War. How come you complain about Bush and his actions, but so far I haven't seen you complain of Saddam and him gassing the Kurds? Or how about the Taliban stranglehold on Afghanistan? I think you are on the wrong side of the isle.

Usually I wouldn't take this sort of thing seriously, but the wording he used seemed too serious and directed towards us.

Oh no, HOW DARE a President is serious and direct! I want a President that is a goof off and indirect man! :rolleyes:

i guess it depends on what you mean by taking it seriously

im not worried about being harmed personally. i find it quite unlikely that anyone is going to do a terrorist strike on a tiny town in new mexico.

but these kinds of tapes do tend to be followed by an attack within a month so i want my government to take the threat seriously. same as i expect them to be taking care of things when there arent new tapes from bin laden

And I guess you don't remember back during the summer when it was reported all over the newspapers in Britain that Bush said God told him to invade Iraq, and his repeated reference to God justifying his actions:

"Like generations before us, we have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom. "
-- Eerie... Republican National Convention, New York, New York, Sep. 2, 2004

"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job."
-- Statement made during campaign visit to Amish community, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Jul. 9, 2004

shall I go on?

What does this have to do with Osama or the current situation? I'm not seeing the revelance here.

What does this have to do with Osama or the current situation? I'm not seeing the revelance here.
use your head; think. I know you can figure it out.

it's past 11, and i must get up and go to work tomarrow. OMG A LIBERAL!!! WORKING? IMPOSSIBLE :rolleyes: so im sorry i can't stay and chat

use your head; think. I know you can figure it out.

it's past 11, and i must get up and go to work tomarrow. OMG A LIBERAL!!! WORKING? IMPOSSIBLE :rolleyes: so im sorry i can't stay and chat

There's no revelance. On 9/11 Osama attacked us, and an attack is a decelration of War. So Osama deserves to get his ass blown by a Tomahawk Missile.

Personally, I'm not too worried about Osama. His inaction is losing him followers, and the government is doing a pretty good job stopping any terrorist attacks so far. Zarqawi might be worth watching though, him and Osama seem a bit less friendly lately and Zarqawi's where all of Osama's followers are headed.

You do realize appeasement rarely work right?
You realise that appealing to Hitler is a fallacy in and by itself these days, right?

I never said anything about "Appeasement". I did however talk about trying to "understand" why the other side does the things it does.
I guess that's enough heresy already these days.

Osama is responsible for thousands of death world wide through his terrorist attacks. He need to be killed.
Why? Revenge? Aren't we as a society big enough to not go down that road?

How about capture and a prison sentence?

The best way to kill him is with carpet bombing from a B-52.
How many innocent people would you slaughter in order to get one guy, who has ordered the death of fewer people than most US Presidents, and a lot fewer than died last year in car accidents?

If we negotiate with him, he'll sound sincere, but he'll have his fingers cross.
Probably. But then, so will we.

Returning to the original thread topic...


I'm really unconcerned about terrorist attacks. Not only is al-Qaida probably too diminished to do a whole lot of serious assaulting these days, I'm just not generally worried about getting killed by terrorists.


I mean, let's face it. Terrorists have killed, what, about 3,000 American citizens in the past 6 years? Not to belittle the victims of 9/11 or anything, but that's not a whole lot. My home state loses more people to car accidents in a single year than the entire nation has lost to terrorism in a decade. I am far more likely to be killed by some drunk running a red than I am to be killed by Osama. Not to say that we shouldn't focus serious resources on capturing him (more effective, from a standpoint of demoralizing the enemy, than killing him), but it just aggravates me when people freak out about terrorism, or when politicians play on the "vote for me or Osama will kill your children." Seriously, you're more likely to be killed by a household appliance. Hell, you're more likely to die from not having health insurance (18,000 Americans per year)! So why isn't there a War on Uninsurance? It'd save more lives, statistically speaking...

You realise that appealing to Hitler is a fallacy in and by itself these days, right?

I never said anything about "Appeasement". I did however talk about trying to "understand" why the other side does the things it does.
I guess that's enough heresy already these days.

Oh so we're just suspose to go to Osama and ask him what's bothering him? Comon, he'll just lie to us and the liberals will be asking the United States to bend over backwards for him because afterall we're the evil American Empire who opressed Bin Laden. Comon, Bin Laden is not a victim here. He comes from a RICH family! He's far from a victim! He deserves only the worst death possible.


Why? Revenge? Aren't we as a society big enough to not go down that road?

How about capture and a prison sentence?


Too light, only death will do.


How many innocent people would you slaughter in order to get one guy, who has ordered the death of fewer people than most US Presidents, and a lot fewer than died last year in car accidents?

Hmmm, since when did we stopped caring that he took a life period, and started caring how many lives he took? What, are we going to say "Oh he just killed 3,000 people, we'll just let him off with a warning." Forget that. Death.


Probably. But then, so will we.

That why we need to kill him.

Try not to be so emotional about this. We're likely to have very different views here, the more emotion gets in, the more likely we are to get upset.

Oh so we're just suspose to go to Osama and ask him what's bothering him?
No. But you know as well as I do that killing him solves nothing. And killing his second doesn't either. And killing every last person affiliated with AQ won't either.
As long as the root problems aren't addressed in some way, there will always be new ones. And besides, since when is it a bad idea to find out what makes your enemy tick?

Comon, he'll just lie to us and the liberals will be asking the United States to bend over backwards for him because afterall we're the evil American Empire who opressed Bin Laden.
To you too, my pet hate is people using the word "liberal" to describe leftists, when it is a total misuse of the word. Just say "leftists".
Bin Laden aside, someone is being oppressed. The US has its hands in there quite consistently. It is no wonder that the people at the receiving end of all that oppression can get upset.
Not that the US Government has ever been known to listen to people from the Left. McCarthy and all that.

Comon, Bin Laden is not a victim here. He comes from a RICH family! He's far from a victim!
He's a symptom. He's not insane, he is, as you pointed out, a rich, well educated man. Yet something has angered him so much that he has thrown all that away for this Islamist idea. Don't you want to know more about how that could happen?

He deserves only the worst death possible.
...
Too light, only death will do.
...
Forget that. Death.
...
That why we need to kill him.
And that will solve what exactly?
One more dead person. And not only that, but a martyr as well. His death would not bring anyone back. It would not hurt his movement.
The only thing it could hurt is the moral high ground the US has found itself on after September 11 and which it has continously worked on eroding.

Hmmm, since when did we stopped caring that he took a life period, and started caring how many lives he took? What, are we going to say "Oh he just killed 3,000 people, we'll just let him off with a warning."
No. There are processes we have to deal with criminals. This is no different from a serial killer who happened to kill 3000 people.
Would you advocate a carpet bombing on some town in Arkansas to get that serial killer?

Try not to be so emotional about this. We're likely to have very different views here, the more emotion gets in, the more likely we are to get upset.

You maybe, but I don't get angry over internet discussion.


No. But you know as well as I do that killing him solves nothing. And killing his second doesn't either. And killing every last person affiliated with AQ won't either.
As long as the root problems aren't addressed in some way, there will always be new ones. And besides, since when is it a bad idea to find out what makes your enemy tick?

It would let the other terrorist know what will happen if they mess with us. I remember back to the beginning of the Afghanistan War. I was dissapointed with the way it was started. I was expecting the gates of Hell to be unleashed onto Afghanistan. It didn't happen. It just started with a wimper. We need to unleash the gates of Hell onto these terrorist and would be terrorist.


To you too, my pet hate is people using the word "liberal" to describe leftists, when it is a total misuse of the word. Just say "leftists".


Fair enough I'll call you leftist from now on.


Bin Laden aside, someone is being oppressed. The US has its hands in there quite consistently. It is no wonder that the people at the receiving end of all that oppression can get upset.


You know, Osama DIDN'T have to take our help to get rid of the Soviets from his country. But since he did, he doesn't have much room for the opression thing.


Not that the US Government has ever been known to listen to people from the Left. McCarthy and all that.


McCarthy was crazy, he blamed people for being communist when they wern't communist.


He's a symptom. He's not insane, he is, as you pointed out, a rich, well educated man. Yet something has angered him so much that he has thrown all that away for this Islamist idea. Don't you want to know more about how that could happen?

Nope, all I'm intrested in is righting a wrong. He wronged America by killing our citizens, and we must right that.


And that will solve what exactly?
One more dead person. And not only that, but a martyr as well. His death would not bring anyone back. It would not hurt his movement.
The only thing it could hurt is the moral high ground the US has found itself on after September 11 and which it has continously worked on eroding.


Once agian, I say it would strike a blow to the terrorist movement. It would send out a message to other terrorist and would be terrorist that if you hurt Americans, you will be hunted and brought to justice. However, in order for that to work we need to unleash the gates of Hell onto these terrorist, which we haven't done yet.


No. There are processes we have to deal with criminals. This is no different from a serial killer who happened to kill 3000 people.
Would you advocate a carpet bombing on some town in Arkansas to get that serial killer?

Clinton tried the criminals process, it didn't work. So we need to try another approach. And if that serial killer killed 3,000 people, then yea, I would advocate a carpet bombing over the area.

It would let the other terrorist know what will happen if they mess with us.
They get martyred and go to heaven?

I remember back to the beginning of the Afghanistan War. I was dissapointed with the way it was started. I was expecting the gates of Hell to be unleashed onto Afghanistan. It didn't happen. It just started with a wimper. We need to unleash the gates of Hell onto these terrorist and would be terrorist.
AFAIK, the US Military does not have the "Gates of Hell" in its arsenal. All it has is bombs and guns - which when used kill people. The bigger bombs and guns you use, the more innocent people you kill for some political purpose. Sorta like killing 3000 innocent people by making a statement through crashing planes into buildings.

Fair enough I'll call you leftist from now on.
Good. As long as you use the right terms, you can say about me whatever you please.

You know, Osama DIDN'T have to take our help to get rid of the Soviets from his country. But since he did, he doesn't have much room for the opression thing.
He's primarily talking about Saudi Arabia - say what you will, but that place is oppressive, and the US is best buddies with the House of Al Saud.

McCarthy was crazy, he blamed people for being communist when they wern't communist.
He also made the Cold War into a living room issue, meaning that anything vaguely from the Left is already to a degree discredited in the States.

Nope, all I'm intrested in is righting a wrong. He wronged America by killing our citizens, and we must right that.
By killing neutral citizens?
Many more people were killed by the Allied Invasion of Afghanistan already.

Clinton tried the criminals process, it didn't work. So we need to try another approach. And if that serial killer killed 3,000 people, then yea, I would advocate a carpet bombing over the area.
Clinton tried nothing. You can actively try to destroy Islamist terrorism without bombing the snot out of places. Clinton did neither in any serious fashion, although still more seriously than Bush before September 2001.
What about if that Serial Killer was your neighbour?

There's no point in worrying about terrorist attacks. You won't know how, where, or when, and there's little extra that can be done that isn't already being done.. If you want to worry about something, worry about getting run over crossing the street. It's much more likely to kill you than a terrorist attack.

Are you taking Osama threat of another terrorist attack seriously?

Depends on what you call "seriously".
Do I believe that there will be more terrorist attacks ? Yes - definately.
Do I think that lots of resources should be invested to prevent them ? No. Much, much more lives can be saved and improved if that money is invested elsewhere; like in healthcare, traffic safety, solving world hunger, making bars of soap less slippery etc.

So: I recognise the existence of the problem, but give it a lower priority than many other things.

I don't care.
I agree with some of his policies even, namely spiking the US' and the worlds Drug supplies only snag was the colombians didn't want to lose customers.

I simply refuse to live in fear of anything, or anyone.

I will not live under a false belief that a middle-east boogey man, may pull off something like 9/11.

This is yet another attempt to divert attention away from a war, wich has no justification.

This is a blatant attempt to re-inforce the fear, to keep us from questioning our leaders when they use war, to further thier own agendas.

Besides the WTC and 9/11....how many cases of terrorism has the US experienced?

One other?
Oklahoma City?
That was perpetrated by a white man, an American in fact.

Your odds of getting struck dead by lightning are FAR greater, than your chances of getting killed in a terrorist attack.
However, the Bush administration will keep reminding you that we could be attacked at ANY MOMENT, to keep us in a state of fear.
Why?

Because if we are afraid, we wont pay as much attention, as they continue thier Nazi-like (yes, I said it...Oh noes!) agendas.

Are you taking Osama threat of another terrorist attack seriously?

poll to come.
i dont take Osama terrorist strikes at my head, becouse he dosent care about Finland

i dont take Osama terrorist strikes at my head, becouse he dosent care about Finland
You must not have freedoms. Because, you know, that's what he hates. Freedom...

Not scared because he's not going to go and clow up Kettlewell, is he.

I'd be scared if i lived in the Us though. I don't think he'll target NYC though.

Are you taking Osama threat of another terrorist attack seriously?

poll to come.

Not as seriously as I'm taking the trampling of civil liberties by my own government.

Don't Care