Bin Laden warning to 'Red' states.. vote for Bush and you're the enemy

So, instead of trying to come to an understanding and build peace, you would rather us just go around and blow half the planet up. Please tell me you're not a registered voter.

FAIR-L
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
Media analysis, critiques and activism

http://www.fair.org/activism/murdoch...-binladen.html

ACTION ALERT:
Murdoch Exploits 9/11 for Kerry Smear

November 1, 2004

In a naked attempt to exploit the September 11 attacks for partisan
political gain, Rupert Murdoch's New York Post ran a deceptive front-page
headline on its October 30 edition that declared that Al Qaeda chief Osama
bin Laden "Urges Bush Defeat."

Of course, the taped message from bin Laden played on Al-Jazeera
(10/29/04) did not call for George W. Bush's defeat. Indeed, toward the
end of the message, bin Laden declares, "Your security is not in the hands
of Kerry or Bush."

Still, Murdoch's media empire seems dedicated to convincing voters that
Kerry is the candidate of Al Qaeda. On Fox News Channel (10/29/04), when
one guest objected to another's characterization of bin Laden's statement
as "an endorsement" of Kerry, saying, "I don't think he's going to have a
Kerry-Edwards sticker in the cave," host Neil Cavuto retorted: "He's all
but doing that. I thought I saw a button."

The same night, Fox's Bill O'Reilly referenced a new anti-Bush video from
rapper Eminem: "And Eminem joins Osama and comes out against Bush as
well."


ACTION: Please contact the New York Post and Fox News Channel and let them
know what you think about making inaccurate and inflammatory claims just
days before an election.

CONTACT:
Col Allan, New York Post
Editor-in-Chief
mailto:[email protected]
Phone: 212-930-8000

Heres an interesting quote I saw on a football forum

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. "
-John Stuart Mill

Then, according to John Stuart Mill, Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. were "miserable creatures that had no chance of being free." Yep, the non-violent coup against british rule and the civil rights movement didn't work at all. India is still a vassal of the UK and blacks are still not allowed to sit at the front of the bus.

Wow. 3,000+ dead civilians and you want to give Bin Laden a chance eh?

Your argument is what most would call idiotic

This whole thing is playing out like a movie scripted right out of Hollywood by fuckn FOXes reality series screen writers.

Fuck Bush and his Nazi fuck tards playing games. Wouldnt surprise me in the least if Osama and CIA are working together with team Bush.

This shit is to staged.

Get rid of Bush and watch that bastard end up in prison with the rest of his thugs and thieves.

Bush is a Traitor.
There is far to much Coincidence in all the bullshit since he took the office being the first American President appointed by the Supreme court.

Get out and Vote people.

Obviously your idea of a solution hasn't brought peace to the world, it's brough an extra 100,000 dead people to the world. You cannot build peace by killing people. Your solution is what most would call idiotic.

Thanks for playing.

Take off the tin foil hat, relax, throw away your copy of Farenheit 9/11 and take your happy pills.

indeed,

BUT if you join the army, you want to make sure your goverment does not send you to a bullshit war.. with no reason to start this war..

its called trust to the goverment..

Only an idiot thinks you will ever achieve world peace, thankfully not everyone in the United States would like to roll over and give into terrorism unlike yourself.

He called Bush a thug lol

Take yours off first with the rose colored glasses.

Put your arms down to your sides and put the keyboard down.

Then it's better to not try at all and to instead blow up half the world?

BTW, I've noticed you've resorted to insults on several occasions. Argumentum Ad Hominem is the refuge of those who don't have any ground to stand on.

You're the extremist who is suggesting that Bush, the CIA and Bin Laden are in league with each other with absolutely no evidence of said collusion.

Put nothing past Karl Rove, he would do anything to get Bush re-elected.

Mailings in the bible belt saying that Kerry would ban the bible if elected might help understand Rove.

You're very observant.

So let's make sure we have this all correct, you're willing to:
Have the monarchy of Saudia Arabia removed/destroyed and replaced with a theocracy?
Allow the destruction of israel?
have all of the United States military and civilian population removed from the Arabian Peninsul, or allow them to perish?

In order for yourself to feel safer? because all of these things Bin Laden has called for in the past, if you think your voting preference will protect you from his war against the west, not only are you deluded, but you deserve no safety.

If you doubt me

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/24/po...rint&position=

Republicans Admit Mailing Campaign Literature Saying Liberals Will Ban the Bible
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK





he Republican Party acknowledged yesterday sending mass mailings to residents of two states warning that "liberals" seek to ban the Bible. It said the mailings were part of its effort to mobilize religious voters for President Bush.


The mailings include images of the Bible labeled "banned" and of a gay marriage proposal labeled "allowed." A mailing to Arkansas residents warns: "This will be Arkansas if you don't vote." A similar mailing was sent to West Virginians.


A liberal religious group, the Interfaith Alliance, circulated a copy of the Arkansas mailing to reporters yesterday to publicize it. "What they are doing is despicable,'' said Don Parker, a spokesman for the alliance. "They are playing on people's fears and emotions."


In an e-mail message, Christine Iverson, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, confirmed that the party had sent the mailings.


"When the Massachusetts Supreme Court sanctioned same-sex marriage and people in other states realized they could be compelled to recognize those laws, same-sex marriage became an issue,'' Ms. Iverson said. "These same activist judges also want to remove the words 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance."


The mailing is the latest evidence of the emphasis Republicans are putting on motivating conservative Christian voters to vote this fall. But as the appeals become public, they also risk alienating moderate and swing voters.


An editorial on Sept. 22 in The Charleston Gazette in West Virginia, for example, asked, "Holy Moley! Who concocts this gibberish?"


"Most Americans see morality more complexly," the editorial said. "Many think a higher morality is found in Christ's command to help the needy, prevent war and pursue other humanitarian goals. Churchgoers of this sort aren't likely to believe childish allegations that Democrats want to ban the Bible."


In statement, Senator John Edwards, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, said President Bush "should condemn the practice immediately and tell everyone associated with the campaign to never use tactics like this again."


Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, called the mailings an ugly contrast to Mr. Bush's public statements. Although the president has called for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, he often emphasizes the need for tolerance as well.


"The president takes more or less the high road and his henchman and allies on the right have been let loose to conduct these ugly, divisive smear campaigns," Mr. Foreman said. "It is wedge politics at its worst."


In any event, the Bush campaign appears confident about its religious appeal.


The mailing seeks to appeal to conservative evangelical Protestant pastors and political leaders who say they worry that legal rights for same-sex couples could lead to hate-crimes laws that could be applied against sermons of Bible passages criticizing homosexuality.


Conservative Christian political commentators often cite the case of Ake Green, a minister in Sweden who was jailed in June for a month for a sermon denouncing gays as sinful.


Mr. Parker, of the Interfaith Alliance, said, "I think it is laughable to think that someone could be arrested for reading out loud from the Bible.''


But Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, argued, "We have the First Amendment in this country which should protect churches, but there is no question that this is where some people want to go, that reading from the Bible could be hate speech."


Still, Mr. Land questioned the assertion that Democrats might ban the whole Bible. "I wouldn't say it," he said. "I would think that is probably stretching it a bit far."

Congratulations on presenting yet another straw man argument! Is it possible for you to discuss a matter with out committing logical fallacies? Honestly, all you've done so far is misrepresent my position and attack that misrepresentation.

I don't give a shit about Saudi Arabia, so long as they leave us alone.
I don't give a shit about Israel, they have their problems and I just assume they not make their problems ours.
The military doesn't belong anywhere except inside the US to defend the country.

Pay attention to why there is a jihad against the west, it's because we're fucking around in affairs that are none of our business. America was generally liked by the world when we minded our own business and allowed free trade be our foreign policy. America became generally disliked by the world when we started getting into matters that weren't our business. The Korean Conflict started it, and Vietnam kept that ball rolling along.

I read about that a couple of months ago. I found it dispicable then and I find it dispicable now. Good thing they GOP didn't try to make this an issue, because it's obviously bullshit. I also find it ironic that the GOP's back bone, the religious right, is the only group of people that have tried banning books they don't like. Can you say "projection"?

So answer the question? You wish to forget 3,000 dead people and give Bin Laden a chance? whilst jumping through every hoop he puts up?

You are the one whom suggested it, this time don't put any phrases in you read from a wikki, I barely care.
Straight answer: I want to know if you want to do everything Bin Laden wants, and forget all the people he's killed?

Cut the bullshit, answer the question.

What a BS article. They interpret one word differently and all of a sudden they come to the conclusion that Bin Laden is warning red states not to vote for Bush? I mean come on. While at it, maybe we shall reinterpret his whole speech because he's obviously talking in codes

You're asserting that by not doing what you want to do that I want to forget aobut 3,000 dead people and give Bin Laden a chance, but I never said that. Nor did I say I wanted to jump through any hoops. Stop misrepresenting my arguments, your straw men are getting old.

Another straw man argument. Further, you're intentionally ignorant by not reading the links I am providing for your benefit. I am trying to get you to stop using faulty logic, but you keep doing it and are refusing to learn anything new. There's a phrase for positions like yours and it's called "close minded". If you are unwilling to learn or even reasonably consider anything from your opposition, then you are close minded.

I answered the question a long time ago. If you didn't see it, then you weren't paying attention, because what you want is for me to say things like "9/11 doesn't matter", "we should forgive Bin Laden and do whatever he says" in order for you to feel better about your position, which you have yet to defend without misrepresenting my position.

Tell you what, I'll quote myself to make it easy for you to see and consider my position:

Summary: Keep America's military in America to defend American soil. If the arabs want to blow up the jews or vice versa, that's their problem. By making it our problem, we're going to be taking on a lot of trouble. It's not our duty to get into the middle of disputes.

"straw man", "logical falicy" "look at me I read a wikki", "straw man", blah, blah.

Gay Marriage is a Spin doctor issue that digress from the real issues. It definatly stir's up the stupid people make no mistake about that...

But...

Never mind the fact American's have less freedom now. See the Patriot Act.

Never mind the fact that Bush Bankrupted the USa and has technically spent over the legal amount of cash with this excursion into Iraq.
Nevermind the fact there are no WMD in Iraq.
Never mind the fact that Osama is still running around out there making video's.
Nevermind the fact that Iraq is Haliburton's cash cow at our expense with the no bid contracts.
Nevermind the fact that the Mercenaries in Iraq are better equiped than our own troops!

C-mon Bush is incompetant...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by CET
You're asserting that by not doing what you want to do that I want to forget aobut 3,000 dead people and give Bin Laden a chance, but I never said that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by CET
... If we leave them alone and he keeps fucking with us, then it's on. However, we haven't given that a chance, we're still doing what's pissing him off, only more so.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You have no argument, so you resort to logical fallacies and name calling. You've also proven that you are close minded and willfully ignorant. Congratulations!

Evidently you cannot argue with your own quotes, not to worry throw in a few words from the thesauraus, and a few arguments from google and I'm sure we'll all think you're superior.

I'll reitterate:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by CET
You have no argument, so you resort to logical fallacies and name calling. You've also proven that you are close minded and willfully ignorant. Congratulations!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you don't make a logical argument, I'm going to call you on it. If I call you on it and you refuse to learn anything, then I'm going to point out that you're willfully ignorant. If you're going to stop arguing and resort to character assassination, I'm going to call you on it.

When you have the facts, pound the facts. When you have logic, pound logic. When you have neither the facts nor logic, pound the table.

Keep pounding the table, I'll stop pointing it out when you start making coherent arguments.

I don't mind disagreement, as a matter of fact I have learned a great deal from discussing disagreements. That's the key, learn from those you disagree with. When you refuse to learn, you are willfully ignorant and belong in a trailer park with the rest of the willfully ignorant white trash.

So show me, where I am incorrect in my original reply which I made from your above quote:

Wow. 3,000+ dead civilians and you want to give Bin Laden a chance eh?

Your own words favor gaining 'peace' by giving in to terrorism?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by CET
You're asserting that by not doing what you want to do that I want to forget aobut 3,000 dead people and give Bin Laden a chance, but I never said that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by CET
... If we leave them alone and he keeps fucking with us, then it's on. However, we haven't given that a chance, we're still doing what's pissing him off, only more so.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're still misrepresenting my position. I don't want to give into terrorism, I think Bin Laden needs to be captured and held accountable. However, I do agree with his point that we have no business being in the middle east and creating all the trouble that we are. We're just making things worse by becoming more involved in the middle east, creating more trouble and pissing off more arab muslims.

I simply fail to see how we can bring peace to the world by blowing up half of it. You can go in and fight a specific government, but you can't literally fight an idea, that's what we're trying to do and it's not working.

I posted earlier about the RNC mailer sent to me saying Kerry would enforce gay marriage. Nobody responded positive or negative how they felt about that lie being mailed to sheep country. I thought it was pretty pathetic, but my neighbors think he is da bomb. Da bomb, get it? Boom!

He's right.

read the entire transcript, and decide which makes sense in context for yourself..

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...C36E87F61F.htm

"In conclusion, I tell you in truth, that your security is not in the hands of Kerry, nor Bush, nor al-Qaida. No.

Your security is in your own hands. And every state that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security."

thats the quote they are talking about in NYP, seems very clear to me what they mean given the context.

The kurdish training camp was thanks to the UN imposed (mainly because the US wanted) No Fly zone out of the control of Saddam. Otherwise he would have crushed all those terrorists