I shot Lennon; I shot the Pope. I shot the devil; now you got no hope. -- Suicidal Tendencies It's been an interesting month: I've been breakfasting with Osama bin Laden rather often lately. I can hardly open my morning paper nowadays without reading about al Qaeda. Apparently, there are al Qaeda cells all over London, al …
Nail on the head, nuff said.
I think you are a bit blind-sighted by Blair. Sure he made a variety of positive economic achievements, but has left a real legacy which has gone against peoples rights to privacy / personal liberties and other social costs. If economic achievements is all that matters to you fine, but doesn't change the fact that the Blair government, although not in the league of the Republicans, still has followed a very totalitarian leadership style.
Bin Laden has superior technology
I thought everyone knew that Bin Laden had superior technology. From a cave in Afghanistan, Bin Laden's super high tech flying kerosene bombs were able to cause the explosive pulverisation of 3, steel framed skyscrapers. Such is the high tech wizardry of Bin Laden, that WTC7, HQ of the DoD, The Secret Service, the SEC, etc etc, wasn't even hit by a plane and yet it too slid into its own footprint at freefall speed, atop hotspots of 1000K still visible two weeks later (Google AVIRIS / WTC hotspots).
Not only that, Al Q was able to cause NORAD to be grounded for the entire duration of this high-tech attack. Most amazing of all, Bin Laden was able to cause every singlt CCTV camera installed in the Pentagon, stop working for the duration of the 'attack' on it. Amazingly, his power even extended to making the FBI confiscate all other film footage of the "attack". Perhaps most amazing of all is the way Bin Laden caused all but 5 frames of all this CCTV to be held back from the public domain by the FBI on the grounds of .. errr ... well, I don't know.
Faced with such awersome power, exhibited by a guy in a cave on the other side of ther world, I can't see any reason for doubting a single word coming out of the BUsh administration. Really.
Osama bin Forgotten
The biggest failures of the Bush administration were these:
1.) Not being able to head off 9/11. We had clues. We had warnings. We could have done this. The Clinton/Gore administration thwarted the Y2K plots. Bush either failed miserably or sat back and let it happen ala FDR and Pearl Harbor.
2.) Not decapitating the al-Qaeda leadership at Tora Bora when we could have. Instead, we trusted a bunch of warlords who are experts at playing both ends against the middle and outsourced "gittin' the terr'ists" to them. The Umma is thicker than water. They followed their internal loyalties and said fsck all to our money and offers of aid in exchange for the hit.
The fact that we are still talking about Osama bin Laden is proof that Bush is a MISERABLE FAILURE.
The only people in this country who voted Blair in were the constituents of Sedgefield, as anyone with even a basic understanding of the UK electoral system would know. Other constituencies returned Labour MPs to parliament, they didn't vote for Blair.
Screw it all!
Just spark a fatty and get on with your life, I'm bored to death with all this terrorist nonsense.
What we should do is unleash the IRA on al-Qaeda, and see how well al-Qaeda deal with that, F%c&ing amatuers.
Blame bin Laden
Personally I'm a little disappointed that the government has missed the opportunity to blame the current flooding on al Qaeda.
In the good old days of John Reid or Mad Mullah Blinkett we would have had tanks (possibly amphibious ones) on the streets (or as I like to think of them - canals) of Gloucester by now.
Who elected Blair?
Well it certainly wasn't the British.
I think the "official" (well, real, not government-type official) stats were that something like 12-13% of the people in the country registered to vote voted for labour. Even when you only take into account the people who actually bothered to vote, if I remember correctly it was only around 40% of the votes were for labour.
Re: research is hard, m'kay?
research is hard, m'kay?
By Jared Earle
"Osama may well ask how it was possible for passengers to make mobile (cell) phone calls from flying aircraft. (Try it yourself, just for fun. You'll never get a connection over a couple of thousand feet and no serviceable connection under 2000)" - Patrick 'foil hat' Ernst
Sorry mate. Perhaps you'd better do your own research. The "phone calls" were not made made from Airfones and both the govt and media continued with the cell phone story until is was effectively pointed out that this was impossible. The following article makes it clear. Airfone cabling does not stretch to allow access to toilets. Calls have to be made in view. Would a hijacker allow this? Moreover, some flights eg regarding flight UA 93, "A reporter at the Moussaoui trial wrote:
In the back of the plane, 13 of the terrified passengers and crew members made 35 air phone calls and two cell phone calls to family members and airline dispatchers, a member of an FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force testified Tuesday."
35 Airfone calls without a hijacker noticing. Or perhaps they were really nice hijackers. Or they didn't exist.
"Do you really think Osama could ever be found guilty in an open court?" - Patrick 'foil hat' Ernst
You assume he'd plead not-guilty. Assumptions make an ass out of you and some guy named umption.
Yes I assume he'd plead not guilty. Even if he entered no plea, the onus is on the prosecution to mount a case to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, his guilt. My point is simple. If tried in an open court, what is the likelihood of him being found guilty. I rhetorically propose that it is very unlikely.
I'll leave the rest of the black-helicopter work to others.
Asinine. George W opined that he would hear nothing of "wild conspiracy theories". However, when evidence exists for an alternate view then we are not dealing with theories but testable ideas or pieces of evidence.
11/9 as we say in the UK
Violence is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Even if you're one of those evil terrorists, you don't *just* blow something up. You have to fight for a cause. So you give someone an ultimatum: Do X (where X benefits your cause) or I will blow something up. If they default, then you make good.
Bombings without associated demands are pretty pointless -- they tend to be wasteful of ammo and personnel, which are at a premium when you don't have the military budget of the USA.
I still suspect that the US government were given an ultimatum which, for whatever reason, they declined to reveal (and which now most probably will never be known), and to which the events of 11 Sept. 2001 were the response.
Thomas Greene's Rantings
are becoming as tiresome as the articles he claims to be tired of.
Most of us understand that politicians tend to be overly dramatic when attempting to make a point (as does Thomas, obviously). Linking the original al-qaeda to ideologically linked groups is supported by many documents and other evidence collected from both foiled and successful terrorist attacks. The original and its evil spawn seek to sow death, destruction and terror in furtherance of the goal of bringing their particular brand of Sharia to rule the world. They admit it freely. Democracy and Western culture are their stated enemies.
I too sometimes tire of the reminders of terrorism but it is the fault of terrorists, not the people who bring their acts and ambitions to our attention. The recent attempts by medical doctors in the UK to commit mass murder argue against relaxing vigilance as Thomas presumably craves. These doctors were completely under the radar of law enforcement for years, and while they only succeeded in harming themselves (fortunately) they left a trail of evidence that spanned from England to Australia to Pakistan and to India. It boggles the mind that people who took a solemn oath to preserve life and health, people whom others have entrusted their lives to, would so easily attempt to commit mass murder. This is the al-qaeda way.
Thomas Greene is certainly free to cover his own ears to avoid hearing bad news but trying to convince others to do the same is irresponsible. Shooting the messenger does not negate the message.
In the last paragraph Thomas says:
"Now, propaganda can be true some times; information is propaganda chiefly because it serves a government's interests, not because it's necessarily false. Next time, we'll look at just how serious this al Qaeda threat is, and just how scared we should be."
Thomas should take some credit where credit is due. Governments are not the only purveyors of propaganda. Propaganda can easily serve the interests of those "journalists" who follow the Neville Chamberlain strategy.
As for the second part of Thomas' tirade, here's a preview: al-qaeda is not a threat and we have nothing to fear. Move along now.
Bless the El Reg, I wonder if they might find someone who suckles a bit more to the right to balance those who sadly only have a left eye.
@ A J Stiles
"Bombings without associated demands are pretty pointless --"
I must strongly disagree. Bombings in market places make the unspoken point of "do not inhabit those places". Bombings of schools do the same. Government buildings. Power plants. Water plants.
Do you need a terrorist leaflet to tell you?
The demands of the terrorists are endless and ever-changing. The final goal is taleban-style rule over a world-wide ummah.
From an osama spew a few years ago:
"(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.
(a) The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad..."
"It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions. It is the religion of Unification of God, sincerity, the best of manners, righteousness, mercy, honour, purity, and piety. It is the religion of showing kindness to others, establishing justice between them, granting them their rights, and defending the oppressed and the persecuted. It is the religion of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil with the hand, tongue and heart. It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah's Word and religion reign Supreme. And it is the religion of unity and agreement on the obedience to Allah, and total equality between all people, without regarding their colour, sex, or language.
Translation: convert to my version of Islam or die. Simple, direct.
These are the associated demands and have been for years.
"they tend to be wasteful of ammo and personnel, ..."
Again, I would disagree. One suicide bomber with the right amount of "ammo" in the right place can not be said to be"wasteful" in terrorist definitions. And the Madrid bombings seem to have had some effect on the Spanish government's policies a few years back.
So OBL's raison d'etre is to convert people to Islam? Funny, but when the CIA trained and equipped him to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, Islam didn't come into it. Try to imagine Ian Paisely causing 3 Australian skyscrapers to slide into their own basements at freefallspeed, by way of him trying to force Catholicism on the Aborigines. The truth is, if OBL really did have the organisation to neuter NORAD while his trainee pilots flew military acrobatics in US airspace, if OBL really did have the power to explosively pulverise 3 steel framed skyscrapers AND punch a hole through 3 rings of the pentagon with a passenger plane that had no engines, then OBL already has the power to bring the US to it's knees, and a similar attack on 3 mile island would have finished the job.
Meanwhile, from the same minds that bought you the Northwoods Project ...
Bush and Al-Qaeda are one
The problem with a war on terrorism is that polititions like Bush, and Hitler just use the terorrists to push thier own selfish, greedy, violent, and deluded agenda. Bush needed a foe to start the WWIII that his handlers planned on making billions of dollars on, but all he had to work with was a small band of CIA created thugs with box cutters. Bush is guilty of the worse kind of treason because he has fought this war for Al-Qaeda up till now in order to push us into a WWIII that only rich war profiteers and Israel can really appriciate. Is Halliburton winning its war in Iraq?
- Review Is it an iPad? Is it a MacBook Air? No, it's a Surface Pro 3
- Game Theory The agony and ecstasy of SteamOS: WHERE ARE MY GAMES?
- Hello, police, El Reg here. Are we a bunch of terrorists now?
- Kate Bush: Don't make me HAVE CONTACT with your iPHONE
- Worstall on Wednesday Wall Street woes: Oh noes, tech titans aren't using bankers