Bin Laden to issue video as 9/11 anniversary approaches

[nevadamedic]

Story Highlights

Terrorist watch group: Video expected within 72 hours
The anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks is Tuesday
Source: Video could say a lot about bin Laden's situation and his health
Last bin Laden video was released in October 2004

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/06/binladen.video/index.html

We are in real trouble. We need to put resources into finding this guy. The CIA can't handle the job alone, President Bush needs to put more resources into taking this creep out. We now know he is still alive. We are pretty sure that he is in Pakistan or Iran and we need to go after him. These countries that are aiding him need to be held accountable just like Afganistan was.

[AnnEsthesia]

Yea but Bush said bin Laden was not a concern...

[Achilles]

Oh yes, NavadaMedic, lets go marching into Iran. Thats using your ol' noodle. Consequences, Medic, think of the consequences.

[nevadamedic]

Oh yes, NavadaMedic, lets go marching into Iran. Thats using your ol' noodle. Consequences, Medic, think of the consequences.


We don't need to march in there we just need to bow it sky high.

[AnnEsthesia]

I am sure Israel and the rest of the region would appreciate the nuclear fallout.

[nevadamedic]

I am sure Israel and the rest of the region would appreciate the nuclear fallout.


It wont be that bad, you Liberals over exagerate and over react.

[AnnEsthesia]

Right. Nuking an area never has an environmental impact.

[lily]

What more resources would you put in to find him?
We know he's still alive because there is a rumor that there is a tape out there somewhere?
I'm not sure where you get the idea that now his is in Iran?
What would you like to do in Pakistan? Musharif is holding on by a thread and if we go in there, there goes one of our biggest allies in the Middle East. Not only that, but Musharif has told Bush more than once, if he is in Pakistan, he would take care of it.

[Achilles]

I repeat, Medic. Consequences. You seemed obsessed with the short term. For once look at the long term. You'd bomb Iran to get to Bin Laden? How many innocent bystanders need go with him? So what does that accomplish in the long term? There will be another terrorist mastermind. Then you'd bomb him as well. How many need die before it OFFICIALLY becomes wrong? I'm not even counting those would suffer from the political, medical, and economical side-effects.

You do not have the whole picture, Medic, don't assume that you do.

[nevadamedic]

What more resources would you put in to find him?
We know he's still alive because there is a rumor that there is a tape out there somewhere?
I'm not sure where you get the idea that now his is in Iran?
What would you like to do in Pakistan? Musharif is holding on by a thread and if we go in there, there goes one of our biggest allies in the Middle East. Not only that, but Musharif has told Bush more than once, if he is in Pakistan, he would take care of it.


Iran is harboring a lot of people who commit crimes against the USA, we have no ability to go in there and look for him, it's a perfect senerio for him.
Pakistan an ally? They give it to us right up the rear all the tim and they done even lube it up. It's simple on how to get him, we aim a couple of nukes at Pakistan, let the Pakistan Government know we intend to light them up like a Christmas tree if they don't hanbd him over. We will have the Pakistani Military going all out to find him and the blood will be on their hands not ours.

[nevadamedic]

I repeat, Medic. Consequences. You seemed obsessed with the short term. For once look at the long term. You'd bomb Iran to get to Bin Laden? How many innocent bystanders need go with him? So what does that accomplish in the long term? There will be another terrorist mastermind. Then you'd bomb him as well. How many need die before it OFFICIALLY becomes wrong? I'm not even counting those would suffer from the political, medical, and economical side-effects.

You do not have the whole picture, Medic, don't assume that you do.


Casualties of War. How many innocent bystantanders were killed on 9/11?

[ViolaLee]

The time to get bin laden was soon after 9/11. Bush decided he'd rather invade Iraq. Now we are stuck in a needless war and Bin laden is becoming more powerful as time goes on. The Iraq war caused thousands of people to become terrorists as a reaction to our invasion and occupation of Iraq. Bush has fucked up the war on terror like no one could have imagined.

[Achilles]

I repeat, Medic. Consequences. You seemed obsessed with the short term. For once look at the long term. You'd bomb Iran to get to Bin Laden? How many innocent bystanders need go with him? So what does that accomplish in the long term? There will be another terrorist mastermind. Then you'd bomb him as well. How many need die before it OFFICIALLY becomes wrong? I'm not even counting those would suffer from the political, medical, and economical side-effects.

You do not have the whole picture, Medic, don't assume that you do.


Casualties of War. How many innocent bystantanders were killed on 9/11?


This is disgusting. You are no better than a terrorist. Instead of a plane, you'd use a bomb. Get out of my country, villain.
An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.
Your hatred and wrath would consume all of us.

[nevadamedic]

The time to get bin laden was soon after 9/11. Bush decided he'd rather invade Iraq. Now we are stuck in a needless war and Bin laden is becoming more powerful as time goes on. The Iraq war caused thousands of people to become terrorists as a reaction to our invasion and occupation of Iraq. Bush has fucked up the war on terror like no one could have imagined.


Yup because The President has complete control of a wartime situation, you honestly have no clue on how our Government works do you? :rolleyes:

You need to realize that Saddam did have components to build WMD's and was able to make them. Weather he did have any made or not thats irrelavant. If he has the parts then hes a threat. Tell me this, would you rather lose say 4,000 troops or lose millions when we got hit over here. Also let me remind you of the difference, every soldier that died in this way(may they rest in piece) who have died knew what they got into when they enlisted. If we got his over here, millions of men women and children would die, innoocent non-militant people would die. It's a terrible decision to make but any normal person would trade the 4,000 who volunteered for service over innocent mothers, fathers, children, grandparents. If you still don't understand let me make it simpler, would you rather fight them there or over here?

[nevadamedic]

I repeat, Medic. Consequences. You seemed obsessed with the short term. For once look at the long term. You'd bomb Iran to get to Bin Laden? How many innocent bystanders need go with him? So what does that accomplish in the long term? There will be another terrorist mastermind. Then you'd bomb him as well. How many need die before it OFFICIALLY becomes wrong? I'm not even counting those would suffer from the political, medical, and economical side-effects.

You do not have the whole picture, Medic, don't assume that you do.


Casualties of War. How many innocent bystantanders were killed on 9/11?


This is disgusting. You are no better than a terrorist. Instead of a plane, you'd use a bomb. Get out of my country, villain.
An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.
Your hatred and wrath would consume all of us.


You just ruined my night by saying I make you sick:rolleyes: Let me ask you this would you rather have innocent people from Iran die or another 3,000 innocent Americans die?

[ViolaLee]

Yup because The President has complete control of a wartime situation, you honestly have no clue on how our Government works do you? :rolleyes:

You need to realize that Saddam did have components to build WMD's and was able to make them. Weather he did have any made or not thats irrelavant. If he has the parts then hes a threat. Tell me this, would you rather lose say 4,000 troops or lose millions when we got hit over here. Also let me remind you of the difference, every soldier that died in this way(may they rest in piece) who have died knew what they got into when they enlisted. If we got his over here, millions of men women and children would die, innoocent non-militant people would die. It's a terrible decision to make but any normal person would trade the 4,000 who volunteered for service over innocent mothers, fathers, children, grandparents. If you still don't understand let me make it simpler, would you rather fight them there or over here?


The UN inspectors destroyed his weapons. The sanctions weakened him. Saddam was not a threat. Condi Rice said so in 2001 before 9/11. Bush/Cheney/Rummy/Wolfowitz et al wanted to invade Iraq for 20 years. 9/11 was their excuse. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. 80% of the hijackers were Saudi. Iraq was not a threat to us and they were not going to come over here and attack us.

After 9/11 we were supposed to fight terrorism.

Bush decided he wanted to take Iraq instead. And he did a shitty job of it.

[Elrathin]

Let me ask you this would you rather have innocent people from Iran die or another 3,000 innocent Americans die?


So you'll kill Millions of innocents? Wow, just wow. What makes a terrorist? The fact he doesn't care about human life.

[lily]

Iran is harboring a lot of people who commit crimes against the USA,

They are? I feel I keep up pretty well on the news and this sure is news to me....got a link?

we have no ability to go in there and look for him, it's a perfect senerio for him.

Ok......let me get this straight....we don't have the ability to to into Iran to look for him, so that means Iran is hiding him? I'd also ask for proof of this, but I think I'm begining to get the picture.

Pakistan an ally? They give it to us right up the rear all the tim and they done even lube it up.

Yes, Pakistan is an ally.


It's simple on how to get him, we aim a couple of nukes at Pakistan, let the Pakistan Government know we intend to light them up like a Christmas tree if they don't hanbd him over. .

That sounds doable........until you stop and remember that Pakistan is not Iran or Afghanistan.......they have nukes also.

We will have the Pakistani Military going all out to find him and the blood will be on their hands not ours.

I wasn't aware that Bush was CIC of the Pakistan army.

If you still don't understand let me make it simpler, would you rather fight them there or over here?

How are they all going to get here..........swim?

[Achilles]

I repeat, Medic. Consequences. You seemed obsessed with the short term. For once look at the long term. You'd bomb Iran to get to Bin Laden? How many innocent bystanders need go with him? So what does that accomplish in the long term? There will be another terrorist mastermind. Then you'd bomb him as well. How many need die before it OFFICIALLY becomes wrong? I'm not even counting those would suffer from the political, medical, and economical side-effects.

You do not have the whole picture, Medic, don't assume that you do.


Casualties of War. How many innocent bystantanders were killed on 9/11?


This is disgusting. You are no better than a terrorist. Instead of a plane, you'd use a bomb. Get out of my country, villain.
An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.
Your hatred and wrath would consume all of us.


You just ruined my night by saying I make you sick:rolleyes: Let me ask you this would you rather have innocent people from Iran die or another 3,000 innocent Americans die?


Are the innocent of Iran responsible for the deaths of 9/11? You would write off countless women and children as Casualties of War and then let them be forgotten so you may satisfy your lust for vengeance. Those who kill the innocent are murderers not soldiers.

To answer your question, I would let all of America die before I take one innocent life. Would you classify this statement as unpatriotic? Well, you could but history and all the world would remember use as heroes because we stood in defense of virtue, all of us.

And now let me ask you a question: You are given the chance to kill Bin Laden, however you must shoot 50 innocent bystanders ranging from old women to small babies at a distance of seven yards. The 51st person is Bin Laden himself. Would you do it?

And another question, would you kill 50 innocent Americans who are unwilling to die in order to Bin Laden?

How far does your blood lust go, Medic?

[jafar00]

Iran is harboring a lot of people who commit crimes against the USA, we have no ability to go in there and look for him, it's a perfect senerio for him.


You mean the people they are "harbouring" in prison from AL Qaeda? Al Qaeda is just as much an enemy of Iran as it is to the rest of us.


Pakistan an ally? They give it to us right up the rear all the tim and they done even lube it up. It's simple on how to get him, we aim a couple of nukes at Pakistan, let the Pakistan Government know we intend to light them up like a Christmas tree if they don't hanbd him over.


That's clever. You are forgetting Pakistan has nukes too, but by your logic, I suppose anywhere where Osama is hiding deserves to be bombed to smithereens. You are forgetting though, Bush doesn't consider Osama to be a priority.

[jafar00]

I repeat, Medic. Consequences. You seemed obsessed with the short term. For once look at the long term. You'd bomb Iran to get to Bin Laden? How many innocent bystanders need go with him? So what does that accomplish in the long term? There will be another terrorist mastermind. Then you'd bomb him as well. How many need die before it OFFICIALLY becomes wrong? I'm not even counting those would suffer from the political, medical, and economical side-effects.

You do not have the whole picture, Medic, don't assume that you do.


Casualties of War. How many innocent bystantanders were killed on 9/11?


Less than 1% of the amount of innocent bystanders killed by your reaction to it.


You need to realize that Saddam did have components to build WMD's and was able to make them.


Do you still believe that after it was proven to be a complete lie? And it was the tooth fairy that left the 1€ coin under my son's pillow last night. Gimme a break.


Weather he did have any made or not thats irrelavant. If he has the parts then hes a threat.


And if he doesn't have the parts, he's a what? ......


Tell me this, would you rather lose say 4,000 troops or lose millions when we got hit over here. Also let me remind you of the difference, every soldier that died in this way(may they rest in piece) who have died knew what they got into when they enlisted. If we got his over here, millions of men women and children would die, innoocent non-militant people would die. It's a terrible decision to make but any normal person would trade the 4,000 who volunteered for service over innocent mothers, fathers, children, grandparents. If you still don't understand let me make it simpler, would you rather fight them there or over here?


I'd prefer it if you would fight your fights in your own backyard and leave others out of it. That's what got you into trouble in the first place.

[nevadamedic]

Iran is harboring a lot of people who commit crimes against the USA,

They are? I feel I keep up pretty well on the news and this sure is news to me....got a link?

You keep up on the news do ya? Do you watch Dateline? Did you happen to catch the episode on the Nigerian scams and how they are moving to Iran because we cant touch them there and that the Government will protect them? Probably not otherwise you wouldn't have made this statement.

we have no ability to go in there and look for him, it's a perfect senerio for him.

Ok......let me get this straight....we don't have the ability to to into Iran to look for him, so that means Iran is hiding him? I'd also ask for proof of this, but I think I'm begining to get the picture.

Intelligance has pointed to Iran or Pakistan, more so the outlining areas of Pakistan.

Pakistan an ally? They give it to us right up the rear all the tim and they done even lube it up.

Yes, Pakistan is an ally.

They screw us every chance they get and we don't even get a reach around.

It's simple on how to get him, we aim a couple of nukes at Pakistan, let the Pakistan Government know we intend to light them up like a Christmas tree if they don't hanbd him over. .

That sounds doable........until you stop and remember that Pakistan is not Iran or Afghanistan.......they have nukes also.

They may have nukes but we will be able to light them off before we get one off and if they just happen to we have the best Air Force in the world, that Nuke would be taken out before it even got close.

We will have the Pakistani Military going all out to find him and the blood will be on their hands not ours.

I wasn't aware that Bush was CIC of the Pakistan army.

No but if they think that we will hit them with nukes they will do everything in their power to find him(im pretty sure they know where he is anyways) and hand him over.

If you still don't understand let me make it simpler, would you rather fight them there or over here?

How are they all going to get here..........swim?


Just like September 11th.

[nevadamedic]

Iran is harboring a lot of people who commit crimes against the USA, we have no ability to go in there and look for him, it's a perfect senerio for him.


You mean the people they are "harbouring" in prison from AL Qaeda? Al Qaeda is just as much an enemy of Iran as it is to the rest of us.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.


Pakistan an ally? They give it to us right up the rear all the tim and they done even lube it up. It's simple on how to get him, we aim a couple of nukes at Pakistan, let the Pakistan Government know we intend to light them up like a Christmas tree if they don't hanbd him over.


That's clever. You are forgetting Pakistan has nukes too, but by your logic, I suppose anywhere where Osama is hiding deserves to be bombed to smithereens. You are forgetting though, Bush doesn't consider Osama to be a priority.


The hell he isn't, President Bush signed an executive order to capture or kill Bin Laden. Basically a free pass for anyone who puts a bullet in him. A President hasn't done that in years(Except for Clinton who had people close to him wacked). Osama IS a priority, you have no clue whats going on in the background just what the media says, actually what the White House wants the media to know and say. President Bush also figures Osama is the most wanted man on the face of this Earth, we are not the only country looking for him and he will turn up I just wish I was the one to find him.

[jafar00]

You do realise there is no evidence linking Osama Bin Laden to 9/11 right?

Even the FBI doesn't mention it. He's wanted for other crimes. The lack of evidence against him for 9/11 is the reason, the Taliban didn't hand him over. They were willing IF the US could prove he was guilty. The US answered that by bombing the country flat.

[exigent]

Just like September 11th.


Then why not close/secure our borders? Why not secure our ports of entry? Do you think doing so would be less effective than causing more vengance causing violence?

[exigent]

The hell he isn't, President Bush signed an executive order to capture or kill Bin Laden. Basically a free pass for anyone who puts a bullet in him.


He did what, now? Link on that?

[Elrathin]

The hell he isn't, President Bush signed an executive order to capture or kill Bin Laden.

Link please to that specific executive order?


Basically a free pass for anyone who puts a bullet in him. A President hasn't done that in years(Except for Clinton who had people close to him wacked).

Still repeating this lie? LOL that is hilarious. Look out, Clinton is behind you.

Osama IS a priority, you have no clue whats going on in the background just what the media says, actually what the White House wants the media to know and say.

Then why did Bush himself say that Osama wasn't a priority?


President Bush also figures Osama is the most wanted man on the face of this Earth, we are not the only country looking for him and he will turn up I just wish I was the one to find him.


Yeah yeah yeah, so you basically just proved that Bush doesn't think Osama is a priority because he figures someone else will get him. You just debunked yourself LOL.

[lily]

Iran is harboring a lot of people who commit crimes against the USA,

They are? I feel I keep up pretty well on the news and this sure is news to me....got a link?

You keep up on the news do ya? Do you watch Dateline? Did you happen to catch the episode on the Nigerian scams and how they are moving to Iran because we cant touch them there and that the Government will protect them? Probably not otherwise you wouldn't have made this statement.

we have no ability to go in there and look for him, it's a perfect senerio for him.

Ok......let me get this straight....we don't have the ability to to into Iran to look for him, so that means Iran is hiding him? I'd also ask for proof of this, but I think I'm begining to get the picture.

Intelligance has pointed to Iran or Pakistan, more so the outlining areas of Pakistan.

Pakistan an ally? They give it to us right up the rear all the tim and they done even lube it up.

Yes, Pakistan is an ally.

They screw us every chance they get and we don't even get a reach around.

It's simple on how to get him, we aim a couple of nukes at Pakistan, let the Pakistan Government know we intend to light them up like a Christmas tree if they don't hanbd him over. .

That sounds doable........until you stop and remember that Pakistan is not Iran or Afghanistan.......they have nukes also.

They may have nukes but we will be able to light them off before we get one off and if they just happen to we have the best Air Force in the world, that Nuke would be taken out before it even got close.

We will have the Pakistani Military going all out to find him and the blood will be on their hands not ours.

I wasn't aware that Bush was CIC of the Pakistan army.

No but if they think that we will hit them with nukes they will do everything in their power to find him(im pretty sure they know where he is anyways) and hand him over.

If you still don't understand let me make it simpler, would you rather fight them there or over here?

How are they all going to get here..........swim?


Just like September 11th.



You quoted my whole post just to reply Just like September 11th? Man, I feel so cheated......I want answers to all the other things you claimed........but let's discuss your 4 word reply........don't you think that at the very least we should have our National Guard here patrolling? So you consider an attack like 9/11, that was a single terrorist attack to be fighting them over there, so we won't have to fight them over here? Hell, I thought you meant an all out invasion. A terrorist attack is going to happen, it's just a fact of life and the sad thing about it is, Bush has got the country convinced that not only is he the only one who can stop it, but it it does happen, it'll all be the Democrat's fault.

Osama IS a priority, you have no clue whats going on in the background just what the media says, actually what the White House wants the media to know and say.

I'm not sure what you are saying here.......are you saying as so many on the right say, that the media is biased or that Bush controls the media?