Al Qaeda Warns of Bush, Cheney Consequence

[Schweddy]

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU OCT 28, 2004 17:02:35 ET XXXXX

TERROR TAPE WARNS OF BUSH, CHENEY CONSEQUENCE

**Exclusive**

The CIA and FBI have authenticated a new al Qaeda videotape which warns of retribution for Americans electing Bush and Cheney.

"What took place on September 11 was but the opening salvo of the global war on America and that our Lord willing, the magnitude and ferocity of what is coming your way will make you forget all about September 11," the man, whose face is covered by a headdress, warns in the video.

"After decades of American tyranny, now it's your turn to die."

The alarming tape which warns the next terror attack will dwarf 9/11.

The CIA and FBI late Wednesday authenticated the tape, federal sources tell DRUDGE.

ABCNEWS obtained the tape from a source in Pakistan.

"You are guilty, guilty, guilty. You're as guilty as Bush and Cheney. You're as guilty as Rumsfeld and Ashcroft and Powell...," the man states.

He goes on to warn of an upcoming horror: "The streets will run with blood," and "America will mourn in silence" because they will be unable to count the number of the dead.

"People of America, that was the verdict now for the sentencing: as participants and partners in the crimes of the regime, you too shall pay the price for the blood that has been spilled."

===============================================================

Thank you, you just won another Bush election!

"America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country." -- George W. Bush, 1/20/04

"I will not forget the wound to our country and those who inflicted it. I will not yield, I will not rest, I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people." -- George W. Bush, 9/20/01

"These terrorists...we have seen their kind before. They're the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it ends in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies." -- George W. Bush, 9/20/01

 

[MSR]

I think these types of reports are so interesting... not because of what they say but because they never seem to try and understand. The call of the left that is so interested in "understanding" the terrorist never takes steps to do so.



When the speaker on the tape says:



"After decades of American tyranny, now it's your turn to die."



What tyranny is he referring to? Besides the fact that he sounds like he was raised in California, why are his statement not scrutinized? George Bush's every word is scrutinized. A famous actress asked in an anti-war advertisement "What did they ever do to us?" The broader and more inelegant question is; "What did we ever do to them?"



If the media would do its job and make a real effort to understand why they want to kill us they would discover that they want to kill us because they hate us. Not for what we have done to them... but for what we have accomplished for us. We are their dichotomy and because we do not line up with their belief system they hate us. They hate us not because of religion but because of our freedom of thought.

 

[LiberalFINGER]

MSR, your comment on their hatred seems to come into conflict with your previous statements regarding the terrorists' motives. I thought that they wanted to kill us in order to save our souls.

(either way, they can bite me. I'm not changing my vote.)

 

[MSR]

It is a matter of motivation and justification. They (extreme Islam) don’t want to convert us they want to kill us… just like they want to kill the Jews, not convert them.



They are motivated bye hatred of who we are, not what we have done. They justify their actions because they don’t want our ways to corrupt their religious ideals. I think my statements are cohesive.



The main point here is that our freedom is the inverse of how they define freedom.



One interesting point: It is important to point out that Islam has traditionally taught that Jews and Christians are to be respected as “the people of the book”. That is religions that have grown out of the same honored tradition as Islam. Jews and Christians had never been considered “infidels” until the 20th century and today this belief is only held primarily by the fascist wing of Islam. These are the ones who want to kill us.



It gets confusing because Sharea (law of God) is so integrated in the governmental systems of these extremists and it can seem that it is a religious battle but it truly is not. It all comes down to the definition of freedom.



It is similar to our present debate on marriage. Many are mistaken that this is a religious issue when in fact is a definition issue.

 

[LiberalFINGER]

No, I really do like the idea that they are trying to kill us out of some sick-twisted idea of love. But in all reality, it's allot like some sick bastard hanging out in front of your house while you sleep. Both situations really need to be dealt with.

MSR, don't take me seriously. I know full well what you are saying. It's just way too much fun to pass up.

 

[heyjoeo]

American Tyranny that he is referring to has to do with the "nation-building" techniques that the Bush Administration has been doing in Iraq. They see it as invasion, which it is, and an attempt to spread the Western Ideals and "Civilization" into their lands. That's mainly why they hate us so much.

 

[LiberalFINGER]

It is in our best interest to see stability in the middle east. Our chances of seeing a peace have significantly increased without the presence of President Hussein. Unfortunately, Iraq was the buffer zone between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Without a strong presence in Iraq, a vacuum of power would invite insurgence from Iran significantly upsetting the balance in the region.

Speaking frankly, our government needs to have a direct influence in the region in order to secure continued resources coming from the gulf. Although we can stand squarely on the fact that Sadam was a brutal dictator, we cannot ignore the fact that the Persian Gulf is of strategic importance.

 

[heyjoeo]

"President Hussein." Now that's funny. Why would you invade Iraq though, when you could have just invaded Iran or Saudi Arabia? We all know why. Iran has nuclear weapons (or at least has gotten caught with centerfuge information twice if i remember in the past couple months), and Saudi Arabia continuously funds American business ventures, even though they harbor terrorists (where is the Bush doctrine now?). Oh well.

 

[LiberalFINGER]

I'm glad you saw the twist of humor. Yes, it was an intentional jab at the old geez-bat.

 

[LiberalFINGER]

This is completely speculation on my part. If anyone has any better ideas, please share.

The easy answer for not invading Iran:

Iran was more stable than Iraq.
Iran is a theocratic Republic.
The UN and NATO would be more likely to engage in coalition building.

It is interesting to see that the mullahs exert a great influence over the government, but we're still looking at an elected official as the head of state. The mechanisms for a secular democracy are in place, if the people could break away from the clerics.

The United Press International claims that 70% of the population is opposed to clerical rule and is exerting pressure from within to create reform. (This in itself is interesting since the World Fact Book claims that 89% of the population of Iran is Shi`a muslim.) Although this seems to be off in the distance, I beleive it would be counter-productive to invade Iran when other means for change are available. This is a complete contrast to the political climate of pre-war Iraq.

As for Saudi, it would be foolish to attempt a regime change since the ruling party has been a strong ally for years now. Unfortunately, Saudi/American relations have deteriorated, but this is most likely by design from without rather than from within.

Saudi Arabia has been a platform from wich the United States has projected power and influence into the gulf region. Undermining the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia would be a key objective in a campaign designed to curtail American influence in the region. An invasion of Saudi Arabia would only play into those plans and therefore must be ruled out.

 

[MSR]

I need to catch up here.... hold-on!

American Tyranny that he is referring to has to do with the "nation-building" techniques that the Bush Administration has been doing in Iraq. They see it as invasion, which it is, and an attempt to spread the Western Ideals and "Civilization" into their lands. That's mainly why they hate us so much.

This is a very interesting statement. I would like to understand what you are saying here? Do you really believe that liberating an oppressed people is "nation- building"? What is your definition? How is what Bush is doing different than what the US has done historically? You seem to be pointing to Bush as unique in his actions.

The United States has been involved in liberating many countries throughout the 20th century and I am interested to see your historical reference as to "nation-building". It's a great term... but what does it mean?

 

[MSR]

"President Hussein." Now that's funny. Why would you invade Iraq though, when you could have just invaded Iran or Saudi Arabia? We all know why. Iran has nuclear weapons (or at least has gotten caught with centerfuge information twice if i remember in the past couple months), and Saudi Arabia continuously funds American business ventures, even though they harbor terrorists (where is the Bush doctrine now?). Oh well.

Iran and Saudi Arabia were not in violation of the 1992 Peace accord signed after the first Gulf War... Iraq was. Iran and Saudi Arabia were not in violation of 17 UN mandates... Iraq was. Iran and Saudi Arabia did not shoot at US aircraft over 200 times...Iraq did. And most importantly... Iran and Saudi Arabia have shown a willing ness in the resent-past to present themselves to the world community as a nation willing to work with other nations to solve problems... Iraq had not.


Tell me when you want me to stop.

 

[MSR]

Good thoughts LiberalFINGER.

Further I would add while many people would say, as you did, that, "The UN and NATO would be more likely to engage in coalition building." But truth is, there is no successful historical example of it. What heyjoeo labels as the "Bush doctrine" has really been the Doctrine of the United States for over 100 years, when Theodore Roosevelt went into Panama. and continued in France, Germany, Italy and Japan. Each of these nations are now independent from the US and I would suggest that each of these have been relatively successful operations for democracy. There are many examples of the success of the so call "Bush Doctrine" in world history. But the UN, after 60 years has failed to prove it's doctrines or philosophies to be viable historically.


The US doctrine has not been successful 100% of the time but there are no UN successes... not one. Do some research and look at Kosovo, the UN alternative. In five years the UN has been unable to define a government, have been unable to hold elections, and has failed to introduce democracy. Kosova is the very definition of "foreign occupation".


Now it must be noted that democracy and freedom are two different things. Under a democracy people can choose not to be free... or to limit their freedoms. Accient Rome is considered one of the most democratic societies that ever existed... but I don't think anyone would define them as "free".

 

[heyjoeo]

Nation-Building is the process where a major power goes out and shapes another countries' government the way they see fit.

 

[Schweddy]

Nation-Building is the process where a major power goes out and shapes another countries' government the way they see fit.

We are establishing a democracy - if they do not want it anymore ... then they will get rid of it. Wanna bet they keep it?

The Iraqi people wrote thier intirum constitution.
The Iraqi people will create the election and the UN will declare the first election process.
Not the US.

WE (with the help of the intirum government) will make sure it goes off successfully.

Ever hear of this small country called Germany and this short dictator called Hitler?

How would you rate how we "SHAPED" them?

 

[heyjoeo]

I never indited nation-building.

Watch Bush vs. Bush on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Oh boy it's hilarious.

www.comedycentral.com
You should be able to get it there, do a google search if you can't find it.

 

[MSR]

You say you never indicted it... however I think you are smart enough to know that the term is decidedly negative. It insinuates that it is being forced. I would like to see you take a stand on this because you chose to use the term. You can make it very hard for me to respond if you take a stand and then give historical examples. You need to take responsibility the statement and plow-through with facts. To use a negative term and then saying... "hey this is not an indictment..." That is like calling someone a Nazi Scum and then saying ... "hey I am not judging them." You have some great arguments but one of the things that hurt Kerry this year was his lack of a functional debate style.

So what is your historic example of the US being involved in nation-building as you define it? Are you saying that liberating a people and then helping them to form a government is nation-building? Examples; Japan, Germany, Italy...

Are you saying that helping a nation to develop democracy is a bad thing? What is your alternative? What would you like to see?

 

[heyjoeo]

Well, personally I'm for selective nation-building. We can't very well build the entire world up to a Democracy, we have to judge which is the best country to "improve." However, I do think that Iraq was not the place to start. Obviously it was a good idea to remove the ambitious Hitler. It's a completly different situation. While Hilter had armies and forced other nations under his control with armied force, Saddam sat in his palaces and oppressed his own people.

The bell at school just rung, I'll get back to this.

 

[LiberalFINGER]

Sadam only opressed his own people, but I would state that Hitler had his start right in Germany.

 

[heyjoeo]

Hitler also had a thriving economy and a growing working class he could appeal to. Saddam didn't.

 

[LiberalFINGER]

I was under the impression that it was the contrary. If it hadn't have been for the devestation visited upon Germany due to WWI Hitler would not have been able to enjoy a rise to power.

 

[heyjoeo]

Oops! You're right. He didn't have a thriving economy. Hitler was able to use the debt to gain support because he took the blame and put it on other countries. Sorry about that.

 

[bfeverish]

It is not natural to hate. Hate is not something that one is born with it is something learned and developed. Therefor it is absolutely necessary to understand where hate comes from.

Read it from the horses mouth. Read Bin Ladens latest transcript.
http://stayinformed.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=437



Selfish American interventionism and our blind support for Israel is the root of this hatred.

Ultimately though what is most frightening to me is the idea of two fundamentalist going head to head. Both believing that god is on their side.

 

[heyjoeo]

It is not natural to hate. Hate is not something that one is born with it is something learned and developed. Therefor it is absolutely necessary to understand where hate comes from.

Read it from the horses mouth. Read Bin Ladens latest transcript.
http://stayinformed.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=437



Selfish American interventionism and our blind support for Israel is the root of this hatred.

Ultimately though what is most frightening to me is the idea of two fundamentalist going head to head. Both believing that god is on their side.

Wow good point. That is kind of scary.