PanAmOldDC8 From Barbados, joined Dec 2006, 960 posts, RR: 1 Posted (7 years 2 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2131 times:
Usama Bin Laden wants the oil facilities of Mexico, Venezuela and Canada targeted and destroyed. He also wants wants videos taken of the destruction so he can show the world. This was published on the Voice of the JIhad. The statement said that we need to kill the economy of the evil Americans before they get the new technology, then they won't need Middle Eastern oil.
This was publish on a Fox/CNN news headline
Zippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5398 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1981 times:
Quoting PanAmOldDC8 (Thread starter): Usama Bin Laden wants the oil facilities of Mexico, Venezuela and Canada targeted and destroyed. He also wants wants videos taken of the destruction so he can show the world. This was published on the Voice of the JIhad
The nerve of him! Tell you what? Let's target that miscreant and the rest of his extended $$$ family.
Cairo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1888 times:
It should be noted, I think, that the proximate source of this threat is a
Saudi Arabian terrorist group
...'making the statements as part of OBL's declared policy.' *
The hypocrisy in not addressing the Saudis' role in terrorism and the Iraqi insurgency is part of the failure of US policy in the ME.
Cozying up to the Saudis, just because they temporarily offer some semblence of alliance to the US, has of course backfired, and will only cause ever-more-serious consequences...as it always does when the US supports repressive regimes. (see how US support of the Shah & Saddam ended up backfiring on the US)
174thfwff From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1877 times:
Osama is now the Uncle Sam for terrorists... people have to see that "terrorists" are bad people that want to cause harm, and we have to go to them before they come to us. I sadly see that people and countries will still cry for peace until they get bombed and their oil factories get blown up before they will take any action.
Blank threats or not, people who even think about taking part in something like this should be hunted down and killed. I am not a man of god, so there are reasons why I think killing these people are justified. Good > Evil
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1856 times:
He seems a bit confused so that probably makes it difficult to prevent whatever it is he wants to do, because it rather looks as if he has no clear idea either! Attacking oil targets might not be as easy as it seems. Saddam was the last to have a go and fairly amazingly, the wells were all shut in within about 9 months IIRC. Tankers might be more difficult to protect, although all or almost all are now double hulled.
I have a feeling Osama feels a need to make these speeches in order to live up to the reputation that he has been given. I have a suspicion that he takes credit for far more "operations" than he actually plans and puts into operation.
AirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 25
Reply 18, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1848 times:
Why is the media allowing OBL to even get free press? Cut off OBL and then maybe he'll just fade away and become a imfamous memory. Thats a pipedream, I know. But the media is continuing to add fuel to the fire that needs to be put out. In other words, OBL's #1 ally is the world's media.
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
Arrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2675 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1828 times:
Quoting PanAmOldDC8 (Reply 19): Of course, bad news sells papers and keeps the TV people happy, why would you think they show the crap they do otherwise
The story was grossly over-played. It looks to me like they put so much time and effort into justifying their news judgment with comments from all and sundry, that they didn't notice that most of those comments actually downplayed the importance of the threat. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story ...
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Padraighaz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1815 times:
Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 18): Why is the media allowing OBL to even get free press? Cut off OBL and then maybe he'll just fade away and become a imfamous memory. Thats a pipedream, I know. But the media is continuing to add fuel to the fire that needs to be put out. In other words, OBL's #1 ally is the world's media.
OBL's #1 ally is GWB. There has always been terrorism and it is likely there will be for quite a while into the future. The only thing different about 9-11 was it was a terrorist attack from an external enemy - let's not forget Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist. Other countries had learned to live with terrorists and rebels without destroying their economies and had realized that terrorists tend to be somewhat generational and can come and go. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, a radical message fueled by a perceived outrage is not so compelling to a later generation more distant from the outrage. Second, as time passes, tempers can calm down, judicial and political systems can evolve, and so the basic context of the rage can shift and dissipate. European nations have learned this, as have others. In addition, there is the reality check that need to be done in the sense one has to measure what you might gain against what you might lose with whatever strategy you adopt to confront terror. We can always trade freedom for safety, but is this what we really want?
GWB didn't listen to any ally or consider any lessons from history when he decided to wage a war on terror. He did not choose to adopt a strategy of managing and containing terrorism, but instead blundered into creating a scenario where not only he could he not win (what constitues victory in a War on Terror?) but the terrorists could, merely by being seen to exist and operate in spite of being opposed by a superpower. He could have adopted a strategy where he bluntly told americans that because we live in a free society, he wasn't going to give terrorists a victory by turning us into a police state; he could have said that in a free democracy, we will suffer some casualties at the hands of terrorists, but that he would hunt down like dogs any that did attack us and kill them when he could. Such positions would be much more effective in fighting terrorism, deny terrorists any sense of significant victory, and create a better sense of perspective of the problem among americans.
This would have demonstrated level headed and reflective leadership and maturity in the face of a problem that has no easy solution. Unfortunately, his actions are totally at odds with what we need from senior statesmen.
AndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1788 times:
Quoting Padraighaz (Reply 21): Other countries had learned to live with terrorists and rebels without destroying their economies and had realized that terrorists tend to be somewhat generational and can come and go