Now US.gov are just lying. (or today's War thread)

1) With the public ambivalent about war, the administration heightens the fears of the masses by upping the "terror alert" (Orange!) and on pefect cue during the week of the UN Sec Council vote, produces a tape that neatly ties Al-Queda to Iraq & Saddam (despite Osama's hatred of Saddam and labeling of his as an "infidel Socialist.")

2) Someone in Saudi Arabia or the Middle East produced a tape rallying the cry for jihad, despite the fact that there has not been any formal connection between Al-Quaeda & Iraq, as of yet.

3) Osama loves VIDEO

A war will obviously increase hatred of the west across the Muslim world and increase support for Al-Quaeda.

No James, you misunderstood me, I agree with you. I was just trying to find a reasoning for why the Bushies would make this IF they did, not that I think so one way or the other (I don't know), Al Jazeera could be bought off, it is Saudi after all innit?)

The use of audio tapes serves a dual purpose, no-one is actually 100% sure that it's real, whether he's alive or dead. But it still has the same effect if it's real or not.

Secondly, if Bin Laden is still alive, there's absolutely no chance of a video appearance cos

1) it would prove once and for all that he's still alive.
2) it would reveal his current 'look'... do you really think the world's most wanted is still gonna have the same beard and headgear?

And I have two older editions of RYP's World's Most Dangerous Places, and the word Al-Quaeda is not in either one, but all major and many, at best, loosely-organized terrorist networks are even mentioned. A new edition is coming out in April. I'm buying mine the first day it comes out.

What? The U.S. government lies!!!

I know that future war is everything but inevitable at this point. When the U.S. goes to war, all I hope is that our troops stay alive. Some will come back in bodybags. Some will not come back period. The least the American people can do is support them whenever they are involved in a war. One can disagree with policymakers and the brass in high spaces, but they should not take out their anger on the troops that are putting their lives on the line.

Civ3 sucked. Get Civ2. You can find it on Kaazaa, I do not think its even sold anymore.

on an unrealed topic i think it's really weird how powel talked about the tape before anyone else did, before even al jazeera reported having it. ¿what's up with that?

yes it feels good, that and the recommendation from Mr. Ridge to stock up on duct tape and poly rolls to block out chem and bio agents...wait aren't they both petroleum based products?...i see revenue...

Oh, please.

Chris V. I don't see mass panic. Hell, most Americans have no grasp of the state of the world.

Thank fucking god other people bought this thing. A piece of utter genius anyone who wants to mouth off about foriegn policy needs. They did get mentioned in the last one I got (1997) in the Afghanistan section, but they were neither listed in the "Players" or "Dangerous Things" sections. They were mentioned along with Osama Bin Laden (who was put down as a major player in Afghani politics at the time). When is the due date for the new one? I'll be out looking for it.

I have no idea how it was distributed, but there was an excellent show on Chicago public TV last night about the diamond trade in Sierra Leone (mentioning the place reminded me of it). Brings to life some of the many problems I've read about in that nation (one which few journos ever enter).

-
Alan

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/foreign/anarcf.htm

Published in 1994, many of the predictions are coming true. Basically, West Africa is hopelessly fucked, but it is a preview of what can happen in the rest of the world.

"His organization, called "the base" or Al-Qaida, is unique in there is no government behind it. Essentially, terrorism meets entrepreneurialism. In 1997, bin Laden's new Terrorists'R'Us concept was blown apart when moneyman Sidi al-Madani al-Ghazi Mustafa al-Tayyib was busted and squealed. The CIA has been bragging that they have been tracking his satphone calls as well."

Philosophically, it comes down this: what rights, if any, do people of the future have? This is a questions that has largely been ignored. If you do something that benefits yourself, but hurts someone in the present day, that is usually considered wrong. But what if the effect of what you do is delayed, and the vicitm exists far in the future, when you are dead? Is it any less wrong?

I am not accusing you personally of being evil and hurting future-people, its more of a problem of what society as a whole is doing.

If you do not have children, I could see your apathy as valid. If you do plan on having children, then I would reconsider it.

Or it may be for reasons like Morrissey's, detraction for from the music etc. (though M ended up relenting).

I am now resigned to the US and UK governments talking crap, but I am trying to separate this in my head from the real issue.

Also consider that if Powell and Friends were behind Al Jazeera on this one they'd be getting lambasted for being incompetents. Make up your mind - are they too slow to catch the bad guys or so ahead of the game that they have time to make shit up?

Personally I think this message is redundant and "OBL's" viewpoint on the Iraq situation is moot at best. Probably closer to blowing hot air and trying to ride the coattails of whatever nastiness Islamic Fundamentalism tries next - anything that goes on in the next month or so has been in planning for at least a year if not more.

*befuddled* You make it sound like a business.

"Islamic Fundamentalism welcomes you. We encourage new ways of helping your productivity and connectivity."

My ignorant bible belt upbringing has made me incapable of distinguishing betwixt dogmatic organized religious sects and pyramid schemes

what was I thinking?

While it is a mean trick, sadly it's not that difficult. This whole administration is functioning on our fear. As long as we have selective, sensationalist "news" as our primary source of information, we're going to be easily swayed by fearmongering.

What rhymes with Code Orange?

Bush never gives concrete information, just warnings of dreadful (if implausible, nee impossible) attacks (did anyone see the article about Iraqi drones attacking the American Heartland?)... even Powell's presentation rested primarily on inuendo.

Why stoop to the truth when fearmongering is so much more effective?

Like a bunch of wackos hijacking airplanes with boxcutters and then flying them kamikaze style into some of our biggest buildings- did you hear that one? What contrived BS.

Why stoop to the truth when fearmongering is so much more effective?

I assume you're saying this because you are in a position to actually know the truth, unlike the rest of the American populace, which is comprised of dumb sheep obv

Well, sadly, you assumed wrong. I did not mean to suggest that the American populace is comprised of dump sheep -- rather, I feel that we are misled and misinformed by an administration (and I'm not saying it began with the current one) that feels its agenda will be better served if it doesn't let us in on its plans and by a generally complicit mass media that engages in to much press release reformatting and too often fails to investigate critical issues and fails to ask critical questions.

Having said that, I suspect that I am better informed than many of the folks I interact with on a daily basis. I am a mid-level news junkie, just as I am a mid-level music obsessive. There are many folks who are far more obsessive, who dedicate far more of their lives and brains to these topics than I do, but I still do more so than most of the folks I meet.

But just because I have a broader perspective on many issues and can play around with "facts" more readily, doesn't mean that I am necessarily any closer to the truth. Hardly. But it does help me criticaly analize the information that I am presented with and makes me more inclined to do so than simply take it at face value.

As for:
Like a bunch of wackos hijacking airplanes with boxcutters and then flying them kamikaze style into some of our biggest buildings- did you hear that one? What contrived BS.
C'mon... that's a bogus shot. That's hardly what I was referring to and I think you're aware of that. More to the point is where did he go from there? What were the lines drawn from that incident to the current drive for violent regime change in Iraq? To limiting our constitutional rights in the name of ensuring "freedom"? To invigorate the reinstitution of Cointelpro-like programs?

If Bush wants to draw a line from the crime against humanity perpetrated on September 11th (2001) to the need to invade Iraq--fine, he may, but I expect real reasons. The burden of proof is upon him if he wishes to declare war--if he wishes to send Americans (and others) over there to kill and be killed. I don't believe he has done so on a level that rises above innuendo and fear-mongering as well as occasional outright lying.

I should of course retreat from the use of the word "never" as I'm sure such an absolute is easily refuted. I will go with "rarely" or "grudgingly".