I share your hopes for bin Laden, Palestine and Israel, and I would be tickled pink to have my government concentrating on domestic issues.
If you don't mind going farther down this road, which nations are you referring to?
Originally posted by: Sultan
Originally posted by: sixone
Originally posted by: Sultan
Following is the full English transcript of Usama bin Ladin's speech in a videotape sent to Aljazeera. In the interests of authenticity, the content of the transcript, which appeared as subtitles at the foot of the screen, has been left unedited...
Link
Sultan, IF the Palestinians and the Israelis can come to an agreement for peaceful co-existence, where will UBL go from there? I know you don't speak for him, but what would you expect to see him do from that point forward?
Personally speaking, I hope Osama bin Laden is punished for his crime, the Palestinians and the Israelites DO achieve and the US foreign policy is geared towards non-interference in affairs of other regions.
I would suppose, and this is purely a conjecture that Osama bin Laden would move towards getting rid of leaders of nations with Muslim majority who have corrupted the nations in questions. And again, this is a personal opinion and you can criticize all you want - but I for one would be extremely happy that the leaders of some Muslim majority nations do meet death soon however and by whoever, as they have completely sucked the life of these nations for their own personal gains.
Originally posted by: sixone
I share your hopes for bin Laden, Palestine and Israel, and I would be tickled pink to have my government concentrating on domestic issues.
If you don't mind going farther down this road, which nations are you referring to?
Originally posted by: Sultan
Originally posted by: sixone
Originally posted by: Sultan
Following is the full English transcript of Usama bin Ladin's speech in a videotape sent to Aljazeera. In the interests of authenticity, the content of the transcript, which appeared as subtitles at the foot of the screen, has been left unedited...
Link
Sultan, IF the Palestinians and the Israelis can come to an agreement for peaceful co-existence, where will UBL go from there? I know you don't speak for him, but what would you expect to see him do from that point forward?
Personally speaking, I hope Osama bin Laden is punished for his crime, the Palestinians and the Israelites DO achieve and the US foreign policy is geared towards non-interference in affairs of other regions.
I would suppose, and this is purely a conjecture that Osama bin Laden would move towards getting rid of leaders of nations with Muslim majority who have corrupted the nations in questions. And again, this is a personal opinion and you can criticize all you want - but I for one would be extremely happy that the leaders of some Muslim majority nations do meet death soon however and by whoever, as they have completely sucked the life of these nations for their own personal gains.
Originally posted by: cwjerome
I can tell you what I think OBL would do:
Pull out any number of other reasons from his twisted bag of excuses. We've heard many so far, I'm sure he'd come up with a few dandy new ones.
Originally posted by: stratman
Eh, said in your last post, "Horrific that I have to agree with bin Laden on anything, but even I am amazed at you. "
But now you expect he will do good --- by your standards and anti-totalitarian standards --- getting rid of dictators.
I say this with a little irony, but here we go... are you for that terrorist or against him?
Originally posted by: sandorski
I can't help but be impressed by that statement. Doesn't sound like the rantings of a Madman at all, it is well reasoned and stated eloquently. I think everyone would be wise to at least consider whether what he states is the truth and not knee-jerk out of a sense of Revenge, Nationalist fervor, or some giddy "my dad can beat your dad up" nonsense. This statement strikes me as the gist of what George Washington would say to the King of England or what a President might say to Declare a War on another nation. It definitaley isn't a Rant or a Whine, it is a Warning with Justification.
Originally posted by: sandorski
I can't help but be impressed by that statement. Doesn't sound like the rantings of a Madman at all, it is well reasoned and stated eloquently. I think everyone would be wise to at least consider whether what he states is the truth and not knee-jerk out of a sense of Revenge, Nationalist fervor, or some giddy "my dad can beat your dad up" nonsense. This statement strikes me as the gist of what George Washington would say to the King of England or what a President might say to Declare a War on another nation. It definitaley isn't a Rant or a Whine, it is a Warning with Justification.
Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: sandorski
I can't help but be impressed by that statement. Doesn't sound like the rantings of a Madman at all, it is well reasoned and stated eloquently. I think everyone would be wise to at least consider whether what he states is the truth and not knee-jerk out of a sense of Revenge, Nationalist fervor, or some giddy "my dad can beat your dad up" nonsense. This statement strikes me as the gist of what George Washington would say to the King of England or what a President might say to Declare a War on another nation. It definitaley isn't a Rant or a Whine, it is a Warning with Justification.
How embarassing. Bin Laden sounds more coherent and rational than Bush. It is too bad our media would not play the whole thing. It is a much more important story than Lacey Peterson or Janet Jackson.
Originally posted by: Thump553
What really irritates me is that it has taken almost a month for this full transcript to come out, and that it came out more than two weeks after the election. I blame this failure completely upon the US media. The day the tape was released I was home sick watching TV. I immediately switched to CNN-nothing but two talking heads discussing the tape and how it may affect the US election. No reporting of the substance of the message. I switched to Fox-same thing (from a different angle). I watched the major network evening news programs that night-essentially the same thing, but by then they were reporting a few, very brief tidbits. The newspaper the next day, same thing. Even newsmagazines, like Time and Newsweek failed to carry any meaningful excerpt from the transcript.
I have long felt that the administration's description of OBL's motives ("he hates our freedom") is total BS. OBL has been remarkably successful in the Arab world because he is casting his actions as defensive measures against allegedly US aggression and incursions. I don't agree with him but have long felt that in order to defeat your enemy you must understand his motives. Deluding ourselves and wasting our armies and finances on misadventures like Iraq does nothing more than play right into OBL's hands.
Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
Bush won. Not to shocking. Most peoiple that voting for him did so because they are narrow minded.
If something did happen to oil fields in S.A., so what? We have reserves in the states to fall back on, and S.A. comprises how much of our total imported oil? Furthermore, this would only accelerate the R&D into alternative fuels like fuel cells/Hydrogen. In "1000 years", or even 100 I seriously doubt we will use oil for anything but old farm equipment. Your post is fearful, and consequently I think you have missed the point.Originally posted by: LunarRay
Ya gotta think like them (al-Qaida) to understand OBL's objective. I think.
They don't need oil nor the riches the Mid-East provide the West via that oil. They want rid of any 'outside' interference in 'their' countries. They have proven they mean to have it their way. They don't have an address where our planes can deliver the bombs folks in this thread suggest as the means to rid 'our' world of terrorism. They are organized and they are every one who is not Westernized.
What that means to me is called out in the transcript. It will take a change in attitude of the West regarding the Mid-East or like the terrorists they are they will create havoc for the 'Invaders' in the Invader's homeland. In our case I doubt the security needed to prevent this is possible.
I think the first strike will come (I have no doubt that OBL intends to 'punish' America and the West for re-electing The President) not on American soil but in the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. I don't know if he has access to 'nukes' but a dirty nuke there would place a 1000 year hold on that oil... or a whole lot of clean up work. Can you imagine what the loss of that much oil would do?... Economically... Then I wouldn't doubt he'd try to figure out how to mess with the North Sea Oil fields.. Then what? I don't know!
What can or should we do? I don't know that either. I am sorta struck to be in three minds with this issue. One wants to go find him and everyone of his band.. but that is not do-able they are everywhere and not dressed in uniforms. Another mind wants to abandon the Mid-East to what ever may occur and that isn't do-able either because of the economic harm to the West if our 'life blood' dried up at the whim of an OBL. Another wants to establish what I think Bush is trying to do and that is a strong presence in Iraq to aid Saudi and Pakistan and our other semi-friends but that does not thwart the actions of al-Qaida and may stimulate them more so to bring in line what ever 'puppet' is in power there. So this is perplexing and seems to not have an easy answer.... especially when US Troops are at stake and the much less important dollars. How long can the Administration keep support for this? I don't know but, see it akin to Vietnam... When folks are tasked with going the support will dry up... It must have a quick solution and I don't see one.
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any
country in which it is possible to do it
What are you talking about? My post was in response to a theoretical scenario about OBL blowing up all of the oil in Saudi Arabia in an attempt to cripple us through oil.Originally posted by: Sultan
^
Please stick to topic, this isnt about energy or oil. This is about OBL's speech.
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
If something did happen to oil fields in S.A., so what? We have reserves in the states to fall back on, and S.A. comprises how much of our total imported oil? Furthermore, this would only accelerate the R&D into alternative fuels like fuel cells/Hydrogen. In "1000 years", or even 100 I seriously doubt we will use oil for anything but old farm equipment. Your post is fearful, and consequently I think you have missed the point.
Good research, but your fearful mentality is unnecessary, nor is it necessary to spread to others. We don't NEED oil. To repeat, we don't NEED oil. IF OBL bombed all of the refineries in SA, so what? Do you think the US won't adapt? This is analogous to the absurdity of the "Population Bomb theory", where scientists predicted that once the world hit 3 billion people, the earth would not be able to sustain that many people. Well guess what? They forgot to account for the curve of this lovely littel thing called "technology".Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
If something did happen to oil fields in S.A., so what? We have reserves in the states to fall back on, and S.A. comprises how much of our total imported oil? Furthermore, this would only accelerate the R&D into alternative fuels like fuel cells/Hydrogen. In "1000 years", or even 100 I seriously doubt we will use oil for anything but old farm equipment. Your post is fearful, and consequently I think you have missed the point.
Err, do you know what the current situation of our oil production is? As a subject I have studied relatively in depth for the last few years, I can comment rather thoroughly on this.
In the 1970s, US lower 48 production peaked at 11.5 million barrels per day. Every since that year, the lower 48 have declining at ~2-3% a year. With the addition of Alaska's fields and the Gulf of Mexico, we still haven't been able to get up to the 1970s peak. Currently, the US produces about 8 million barrels of oil a day and imports 12.5 million a day. We have 600 million barrels worth of oil as the SPR, reserved for national emergencies, which is about a 3-4 month realistic use.
However, the loss of ~9.5 million barrels of oil from Saudi Arabia to the world market (assuming a worst case scenario of total production being lossed) would shoot oil up to the 500 dollar mark overnight. The loss of 2 million barrels of spare capacity in Iraq contributed to a 100% increase in oil this year. In the 70s, Iranian output fell by 2 million barrels when the Shah was overthrown; oil markets reacted with record high prices.
We wouldn't have the capital to invest in anything but survival. Most of us wouldn't survive a prolonged era of sudden oil depletion. Oil and natural gas are two indispensable elements of modern agribusiness. Most of your food is grown far away and relies on cheap transportation to reach you. Fertilizers and pesticides, along with harvest equipment, actually produce the food itself. Loss of food production + lack of food availability = death for millions.
We would not be fine if SA lost all her production. The world would be plunged in a decades long depression that would make the 30s look like a giant party. Currently, there is about 400-800,000 barrels of spare capacity. In the 90s, there was ~10 million barrels of spare capacity. And if the production was shut off in a "bad" way, production may not resume for several years and will probably have to climb for many years. Not to mention, most of SA's fields are very old and require constant maintence. The loss of production and subsequent neglect may permanently damage those fields forever.
OBL knows what he is talking about.