Osama Transcript (partial)
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...



Excerpts from bin Laden tape
Fri 29 October, 2004 22:59

"We had no difficulty in dealing with Bush and his administration
because they resemble the regimes in our countries, half of which are
ruled by the military and the other half by the sons of kings ... They
have a lot of pride, arrogance, greed and thievery.



So bin Laden doesn't like Bush, eh? GOOD! **** him.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...



Excerpts from bin Laden tape
Fri 29 October, 2004 22:59

"We had no difficulty in dealing with Bush and his administration
because they resemble the regimes in our countries, half of which are
ruled by the military and the other half by the sons of kings ... They
have a lot of pride, arrogance, greed and thievery.



So bin Laden doesn't like Bush, eh? GOOD! **** him.


Ahh. You've been played by Osama. Just the reaction he wanted. Osama
prefers Bush in the White House.

Sure he does. When Democrats were in the White House, bin Laden was free to
roam about Afghanistan, and travel between countries. With Bush in the
White House, he's been reduced to hiding in a cave in Northwestern
Pakistan...and sending out a videotape once every 2 1/2 years. I'm sure he
much prefers the cave, right?

I just can't imagine why anyone would vote for a genuine deserter for
our commander in chief, that being bush. I sure wouldn't be able to
salute the son of a bitch, and can't imagine how any real veteran could
either.

Capt, Jeff

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...



Excerpts from bin Laden tape
Fri 29 October, 2004 22:59

"We had no difficulty in dealing with Bush and his administration
because they resemble the regimes in our countries, half of which are
ruled by the military and the other half by the sons of kings ... They
have a lot of pride, arrogance, greed and thievery.



So bin Laden doesn't like Bush, eh? GOOD! **** him.


Ahh. You've been played by Osama. Just the reaction he wanted. Osama
prefers Bush in the White House.

Sure he does. When Democrats were in the White House, bin Laden was free
to roam about Afghanistan, and travel between countries. With Bush in the
White House, he's been reduced to hiding in a cave in Northwestern
Pakistan...and sending out a videotape once every 2 1/2 years. I'm sure
he much prefers the cave, right?



Truth is, this was Osama's best shot at us before the election....a video.
No bombs, no planes flying into buildings, no terrorists strapped with bombs
blowing themselves up at large venues..... but a video.

Looks like Bush's plan is working just fine. That is why he wants Bush
out.

NOYB wrote:

Sure he does. When Democrats were in the White House, bin Laden was free
to
roam about Afghanistan, and travel between countries. With Bush in the
White House, he's been reduced to hiding in a cave in Northwestern
Pakistan...and sending out a videotape once every 2 1/2 years. I'm sure
he much prefers the cave, right?

You know what I saw on TV.
Osama seemed to be well groomed, fresh shower, beard well kept, looked
healthy enough, clothing not all crumpled.
Bush and bin Laden's family have known each other for years.
He probibly likes being a house guest in Crawford, Tx.
How's his dental hygiene?
--
_______m___õ¿~___m_________________________
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office
of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability,
preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
- oath of office -
We need a president that understands, this is a promise.

Bin Laden saw Moore's F-911 I see...... sigh

-W



"It never occurred to us that the commander in chief of the American
forces (Bush) would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face
those horrors alone at a time when they most needed him because he
thought listening to a child discussing her goat and its ramming was
more important than the planes and their ramming of the skyscrapers.
This had given us three times the time needed to carry out the
operations, thanks be to God...

"Your security is not in the hands of (Democratic presidential candidate
John) Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands and
each state which does not harm our security will remain safe.


--
Today George W. Bush made a very compelling and thoughtful argument
for why he should not be reelected. In his own words, he told the
American people that "...a political candidate who jumps to conclusions
without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your
Commander-in-Chief."

"Clams Canino" wrote in message
link.net...
Bin Laden saw Moore's F-911 I see...... sigh


There are terrorists, terrorist sympathizers, and Democrats. Lately, they
all sound remarkably alike.

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:58:01 -0400, NOYB wrote:


There are terrorists, terrorist sympathizers, and Democrats. Lately, they
all sound remarkably alike.


Just curious, after 9/11, did you think bin Laden would still be running
loose three years later? I sure as hell didn't. I figured six months, a
year at the outside, and he would be brought to justice. The most
powerful country on this planet, and he is still rubbing our nose in it.
I blame Bush for that, who the hell do you blame?

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:58:01 -0400, NOYB wrote:


There are terrorists, terrorist sympathizers, and Democrats. Lately,
they
all sound remarkably alike.


Just curious, after 9/11, did you think bin Laden would still be running
loose three years later? I sure as hell didn't. I figured six months, a
year at the outside, and he would be brought to justice. The most
powerful country on this planet, and he is still rubbing our nose in it.
I blame Bush for that, who the hell do you blame?

I blame the Pakistani people who are willing to overthrow Musharraf if he
allows US troops into Northwestern Pakistan with the intent to permanently
entomb bin Laden's ass in the cave he's hiding in.

Pakistan is an Arabic nuclear power, but with a level-headed US-friendly guy
in charge (at least "somewhat" in charge). There have been several attempts
already on Musharraf's life...two of them coming when Pakistani forces
pushed the furthest into Waziristan. Because of the nukes, our hands are
tied...which is precisely why we must move the war on terror into Iran
before they're a nuclear power. Do you think we would have invaded
Afghanistan if the Taliban had nukes?

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:58:01 -0400, NOYB wrote:


There are terrorists, terrorist sympathizers, and Democrats. Lately,
they
all sound remarkably alike.


Just curious, after 9/11, did you think bin Laden would still be running
loose three years later? I sure as hell didn't. I figured six months,
a
year at the outside, and he would be brought to justice. The most
powerful country on this planet, and he is still rubbing our nose in it.
I blame Bush for that, who the hell do you blame?

I blame the Pakistani people who are willing to overthrow Musharraf if he
allows US troops into Northwestern Pakistan with the intent to permanently
entomb bin Laden's ass in the cave he's hiding in.

Pakistan is an Arabic nuclear power, but with a level-headed US-friendly
guy
in charge (at least "somewhat" in charge). There have been several
attempts
already on Musharraf's life...two of them coming when Pakistani forces
pushed the furthest into Waziristan. Because of the nukes, our hands are
tied...which is precisely why we must move the war on terror into Iran
before they're a nuclear power. Do you think we would have invaded
Afghanistan if the Taliban had nukes?

I think that Bush, AFTER THE ELECTION, must say: The fact that a terrorist
supporting country has nuclear weapons does not mean that they are immune
from attack, it just means that nuclear weapons are now authorized to be
used on them. Up the ante by upping the threat if they have nuclear
weapons.

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:58:01 -0400, NOYB wrote:


There are terrorists, terrorist sympathizers, and Democrats. Lately,
they
all sound remarkably alike.


Just curious, after 9/11, did you think bin Laden would still be
running
loose three years later? I sure as hell didn't. I figured six months,
a
year at the outside, and he would be brought to justice. The most
powerful country on this planet, and he is still rubbing our nose in
it.
I blame Bush for that, who the hell do you blame?

I blame the Pakistani people who are willing to overthrow Musharraf if he
allows US troops into Northwestern Pakistan with the intent to
permanently
entomb bin Laden's ass in the cave he's hiding in.

Pakistan is an Arabic nuclear power, but with a level-headed US-friendly
guy
in charge (at least "somewhat" in charge). There have been several
attempts
already on Musharraf's life...two of them coming when Pakistani forces
pushed the furthest into Waziristan. Because of the nukes, our hands are
tied...which is precisely why we must move the war on terror into Iran
before they're a nuclear power. Do you think we would have invaded
Afghanistan if the Taliban had nukes?

I think that Bush, AFTER THE ELECTION, must say: The fact that a
terrorist
supporting country has nuclear weapons does not mean that they are immune
from attack, it just means that nuclear weapons are now authorized to be
used on them. Up the ante by upping the threat if they have nuclear
weapons.


That doctrine is already in place. However, the terrorist-sponsoring
countries like Iran continue to wage an atypical clandestine war against the
US by outsourcing the murder of Westerners to radical Islamic groups like
Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and al Qaeda. The only way to stop this practice
is to move the war to their backyards...but that means doing so before these
countries get nukes that they can use on our troops.

Pakistan is a perfect example. We know bin Laden is there, but we're afraid
that sending troops into the Northwestern portion of the country would lead
to a coup against Musharraf, and put the radical Islamic elements of their
intel agency in charge of the nuke button.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:


That doctrine is already in place. However, the terrorist-sponsoring
countries like Iran continue to wage an atypical clandestine war against
the
US by outsourcing the murder of Westerners to radical Islamic groups like
Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and al Qaeda. The only way to stop this
practice
is to move the war to their backyards...but that means doing so before
these
countries get nukes that they can use on our troops.

Pakistan is a perfect example. We know bin Laden is there, but we're
afraid
that sending troops into the Northwestern portion of the country would
lead
to a coup against Musharraf, and put the radical Islamic elements of
their
intel agency in charge of the nuke button.

If we drop a nuke on anyone, we'll get one in return. If it comes, I
hope it lands in your neighborhood, not mine. Chicken-fried dentist has
a humorous ring to it.


You seem to missing the point. I want to remove the terrorist-sponsoring
leaders *before* they get nukes...so that we aren't forced into using them
later on.

"NOYB" wrote in message ...
"Harry Krause" piedtypecase@a href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=1&k=yahoo%20com" onmouseover="window.status='yahoo.com'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"yahoo.com/a wrote in message
...



Excerpts from bin Laden tape
Fri 29 October, 2004 22:59

"We had no difficulty in dealing with Bush and his administration
because they resemble the regimes in our countries, half of which are
ruled by the military and the other half by the sons of kings ... They
have a lot of pride, arrogance, greed and thievery.



So bin Laden doesn't like Bush, eh? GOOD! **** him.

That's the only thing you can glean from the above statements? Pretty
shallow of you, or ignorant.

"NOYB" wrote in message ...
"Clams Canino" wrote in message
link.net...
Bin Laden saw Moore's F-911 I see...... sigh


There are terrorists, terrorist sympathizers, and Democrats. Lately, they
all sound remarkably alike.

You all gone over the deep end with this ****. If you honestly believe
that because someone isn't a goose stepping republican, that they are
automatically terrorist sympathetic, then you are indeed more ignorant
than one could imagine. Do you just memorize Hannity and Rush's
non-factual rantings, then repeat verbatim, without any thought?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:


That doctrine is already in place. However, the terrorist-sponsoring
countries like Iran continue to wage an atypical clandestine war
against
the
US by outsourcing the murder of Westerners to radical Islamic groups
like
Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and al Qaeda. The only way to stop this
practice
is to move the war to their backyards...but that means doing so before
these
countries get nukes that they can use on our troops.

Pakistan is a perfect example. We know bin Laden is there, but we're
afraid
that sending troops into the Northwestern portion of the country would
lead
to a coup against Musharraf, and put the radical Islamic elements of
their
intel agency in charge of the nuke button.

If we drop a nuke on anyone, we'll get one in return. If it comes, I
hope it lands in your neighborhood, not mine. Chicken-fried dentist has
a humorous ring to it.


You seem to missing the point. I want to remove the terrorist-sponsoring
leaders *before* they get nukes...so that we aren't forced into using
them
later on.



The nuclear cat is out of the bag. Too late for that.

BTW,your computer clock is about a day off.

I was in New Zealand checking out property in case Kerry wins.