Crazy Man Laden.... Surrounded? And Just in Time for Elections!

[JohnCrichton]

Dunno if this is true or not, but it would prove the prediction my friends have had that bin Laden would be caught just in time for the Presidential Election. No coincidence here..... :p

http://www.sundaytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,9353,8752173-28778,00.html

[Obi]

There's a thing called "coincidence", you know.

[Lord Dalek]

Notice the British found him. You Go UK!

[Delthayre]

Well, this is a hopeful sign, bringing in bin Laden will be a considerable morale victory for the United States and may disrupt al-Qaeda operations for a time. Although I think this shouldn't be hailed too highly from a security perspective, al-Qaeda is probably perfectly capable of operating without bin-Laden. I imagine his importance within the organization has been exagerrated.

There's a thing called "coincidence", you know.
I certainly acknowledge that likely factor, but as long as Karl Rove is in the White House, I reserve the right to be suspicious.

[James]

I don't think this is some conspiracy. I think it's likely the hunt was intensified in the hope they would locate and be in a position to capture the man when it was politically suitable.

It would be a pity if this was used as a political crutch. Capturing him to boost popularity? The fact he's been at large for the last 2 and half years - with the West failing to capture him - seems to me to be a little more embarassing than victorious..

[Stewie]

The link isn't working, or they took the story down. What exactly was it?

If Bin Laden had actually been captured, it would have been bigger news. Was it just a story about how we're getting closer every day? Or do they know (with certainty) where he is?

If he is caught less than a month before the election, then that will convince me that it was planned that way. Otherwise, just coincidence.

[Tienshin]

If Bin Laden had actually been captured, it would have been bigger news. Was it just a story about how we're getting closer every day? Or do they know (with certainty) where he is?
Yeah, the article indicated Bin Laden was surrounded and that the military felt his capture was imminent.

As for the "OMG Bush Election Conspiracy!" crap. I'll file that under "Now that Nader might run, Dem's have bigger issues to worry about"

[JohnCrichton]

Link still works for me. It says....


Bin Laden 'surrounded'

February 22, 2004


A BRITISH Sunday newspaper is claiming Osama bin Laden has been found and is surrounded by US special forces in an area of land bordering north-west Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The Sunday Express, known for its sometimes colourful scoops, claims the al-Qaeda leader has been "sighted" for the first time since 2001 and is being monitored by satellite.

The paper claims he is in a mountainous area to the north of the Pakistani city of Quetta. The region is said to be peopled with bin Laden supporters and the terrorist leader is estimated to also have 50 of his fanatical bodyguards with him.

The claim is attributed to "a well-placed intelligence source" in Washington, who is quoted as saying: "He (bin Laden) is boxed in."

The paper says the hostile terrain makes an all-out conventional military assault impossible. The plan to capture him would depend on a "grab-him-and-go" style operation.

"US helicopters already sited on the Afghanistan border will swoop in to extricate him," the newspaper says. It claims bin Laden and his men "sleep in caves or out in the open. The area is swept by fierce snow storms howling down from the 10,000ft-high mountain peaks. Donkeys are the only transport."

The special forces are "absolutely confident" there is no escape for bin Laden, and are awaiting the order to go in and get him.

"The timing of that order will ultimately depend on President Bush," the paper says. "Capturing bin Laden will certainly be a huge help for him as he gets ready for the election."

The article says bin Laden's movements are monitored by a National Security Agency satellite.

On Thursday last week, General Richard Myers, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, said America had been engaged in "intense" efforts to capture bin Laden, who was believed to be hiding in the border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

But he insisted that the focus of the search had not narrowed for months.

The Sunday Telegraph

[Delthayre]

As for the "OMG Bush Election Conspiracy!" crap. I'll file that under "Now that Nader might run, Dem's have bigger issues to worry about"
Nah, he'll be an independent without the resources of the Green Party, limited as they may be, and without the backing of prominent celebrities and public figures. And if Roy Moore takes the Constitution Party nomination or runs independent himself, he should balance the scales.

[Lucky Bob]

The fact he's been at large for the last 2 and half years - with the West failing to capture him - seems to me to be a little more embarassing than victorious..
I think he's been operating a lot longer than that...

Anyway, it would be cool if he was caught. Maybe that will put an end to Michael "Miserable Failure (http://www.michaelmoore.com/)" Moore's lunatic rants. But then, we're talking about Michael Moore, here, so...

(Googlebombing is da bomb.)

[Delthayre]

Anyway, it would be cool if he was caught. Maybe that will put an end to Michael "Miserable Failure (http://www.michaelmoore.com/)" Moore's lunatic rants. But then, we're talking about Michael Moore, here, so...
I think most people wish Michael Moore would shut up. I'm sure the right finds him annoying, if innefectual, whilst the left finds him, and I speak from experience, embarassing.

But get your accredations right, while I can imagine Moore has taken to using it, the phrase, "a miserable failure," was chiefly coined by Dick "hah-HAH I dropped out after Iowa" Gephardt.

And believe me, I groaned when I heard it.

[Lucky Bob]

I think most people wish Michael Moore would shut up. I'm sure the right finds him annoying, if innefectual, whilst the left finds him, and I speak from experience, embarassing.

But get your accredations right, while I can imagine Moore has taken to using it, the phrase, "a miserable failure," was chiefly coined by Dick "hah-HAH I dropped out after Iowa" Gephardt.

And believe me, I groaned when I heard it.Actually, I was trying to Googlebomb Michael Moore by associating his name with "miserable failure". This was too good an opportunity to pass up. :D

(If you don't know what I mean, search for "miserable failure (http://www.michaelmoore.com)" on Google. Notice the top two results returned. We're getting closer!)

I love the Web.

[guinaevere]

Lucky Bob, you're a beautiful person!

I remember a guy did a search on the Clintons and "sad & unfortunate" or something like that... what they've said over and over at the death of someone near to them... he got about 110,000 results back.

[Delthayre]

Actually, I was trying to Googlebomb Michael Moore by associating his name with "miserable failure". This was too good an opportunity to pass up. :D

(If you don't know what I mean, search for "miserable failure" on Google. Notice the top two results returned. We're getting closer!)

I love the Web.
Yeah, I know, but I can't pass up the chance to take a jab at Gephardt.

The association with Moore is an apt one though, whatever it is he's trying to do, he's awful at it.

[SSJPabs]

Yeah, I know, but I can't pass up the chance to take a jab at Gephardt.

The association with Moore is an apt one though, whatever it is he's trying to do, he's awful at it.I don't see what the problem with Michael Moore is... he's our version of Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity. But I'll just say this:

I HATE that I am at odds with the administration so much that I'd even CONSIDER that this was saved for a political machination. I hate that I have to be so suspicious of my own government, I hate that I don't trust the government to do its best to protect me from mad-cow disease, I hate that I don't trust the government to do its best to protect me from SARS. I view government as a positive force for change but I hate that can't trust them now.

[Delthayre]

I don't see what the problem with Michael Moore is... he's our version of Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity. But I'll just say this:Hrrmmmm, that's precisely why I hate him. He contributes nothing to the public discussion of policy, he just presses the partisan divide. Like Hannity and Coulter, he talks more about people being conservatives than what their policy choices from that perspective will be.

And I'm loathe to admit this, but I see it as a violation of liberal principle, my idea of liberal principle, to accept someone like that. He's a plague upon public discourse and I am dismayed that he has not been, and please understand the next clause as metaphorical, exiled from the left.

I HATE that I am at odds with the administration so much that I'd even CONSIDER that this was saved for a political machination. I hate that I have to be so suspicious of my own government, I hate that I don't trust the government to do its best to protect me from mad-cow disease, I hate that I don't trust the government to do its best to protect me from SARS. I view government as a positive force for change but I hate that can't trust them now.In general, I have to agree. I don't register my suspicious gleefully, but with a grimace on my face. Damn I wish I could experience simply guarded pleasure that this awful man may soon be captured, but I simply can't give the government, the presiden, my implicit trust any longer. Of course, I'm not sure I have the right to expect much better from any democrat, and certainly not the egotistical and oppurtunistic thing called John Kerry, but I know I can't expect better from Bush. But in all fairness, it's not Bush himself that I distrust, but Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and perhaps above all, Karl Rove.

[Tienshin]

http://img28.photobucket.com/albums/v85/Tienshin/rumsfeld.jpg

He's so cute when he's dismissive!

[SlyBoy]

http://img28.photobucket.com/albums/v85/Tienshin/rumsfeld.jpg





He's so cute when he's dismissive!
XD I gotta make that my next avatar!

[SSJPabs]

He looks so... Untidy there. Ah yes, I'll gladly hang out in his backyard and barbecue with him, but let him near any kind of governmental power? No.

What I meant by Moore = Coulter is that yeah, I don't see the big problem. I mean sure they both bring down media to a new level but let them cancel each other out. It just levels the playing field for more rational discourse.

[James]

Those who oppose both social and political issues are often slammed. Politics and the media have a wonderful relationship. They accuse each other of the same crimes and yet both protect each other from external acussations. I think people like Michael Moore are useful - they open up the media and poltics to speculation and whether you agree or not, incite intelligent opinion.

You may not like his points - or his methods - but I've seen a lot of what he said that is relevant. People do love to deride him - mainly those support those who he currently talks against. I recall he did the same the previous government as well though. I know many would say he just does it for sales - but thats always a lovely argument. You can't say anything relevant unless you do it without getting paid - if you make money you are bound to be making it up. Always a good way to deride or ignore someones comments. I recall how he was scoffed at last year at the awards for his "anti American" comments about Iraq. In the light of recent evidence (or lack of evidence) he doesn't seem quite as laughable as he once did.

My point? I'm not a "supporter" of Moore but I do like people challenge want politics and the media would like everyone to take for granted. What he says is credible in my eyes - especially in terms of his philosophy. He is easy to laugh off, but I think his points and social commentary is a little more accurate - or at least, worth considering - than people would like to give him credit for.

Anyway, where was that topic..? :p

[Delthayre]

Those who oppose both social and political issues are often slammed. Politics and the media have a wonderful relationship. They accuse each other of the same crimes and yet both protect each other from external acussations. I think people like Michael Moore are useful - they open up the media and poltics to speculation and whether you agree or not, incite intelligent opinion.

You may not like his points - or his methods - but I've seen a lot of what he said that is relevant. People do love to deride him - mainly those support those who he currently talks against. I recall he did the same the previous government as well though. I know many would say he just does it for sales - but thats always a lovely argument. You can't say anything relevant unless you do it without getting paid - if you make money you are bound to be making it up. Always a good way to deride or ignore someones comments. I recall how he was scoffed at last year at the awards for his "anti American" comments about Iraq. In the light of recent evidence (or lack of evidence) he doesn't seem quite as laughable as he once did.

My point? I'm not a "supporter" of Moore but I do like people challenge want politics and the media would like everyone to take for granted. What he says is credible in my eyes - especially in terms of his philosophy. He is easy to laugh off, but I think his points and social commentary is a little more accurate - or at least, worth considering - than people would like to give him credit for.

Anyway, where was that topic..? :pMoore is a propagandist crank. A third of what he says is wrong, another is a distortion of the truth, the rest is right, but said by wiser and more honest voices.

And I refuse to listen to him until he stops being indulgently inflammatory, skewing the truth, and acting like a fool. The same goes to all pundits. As far as I'm concerned, the American public should just start telling these people to **** off.

They won't of course, they're too exciting and easy to follow. **** policy details, that guy just said all conservatives are whores to the rich and that emaciated-looking lady said all liberals are whiners.

Friggin-A that's some good public discourse.

Errmmm....topic, topice.

How about this:
I propose that following the essentially predestined Guilty Verdict of his trial, Osama bin Laden be forced to live in a house with Miichael Moore and Ann Coulter.

Oh, and sorry if that seems insenstively glib, but I'm in a bad mood tonight and I'm taking you down with me!

[Anyone00]

http://img28.photobucket.com/albums/v85/Tienshin/rumsfeld.jpg

He's so cute when he's dismissive!

It seems R.J. Fletcher is doing well after losing his broadcasting license.
Bet he even has a Rolex.

[vegetable]

I think people like Michael Moore are useful - they open up the media and poltics to speculation and whether you agree or not, incite intelligent opinion.

its amusing how Michael Moore acts like he has such compassion for people, but if you talk to people who work for him, they can't stand the guy.

[Lucky Bob]

I think his points and social commentary is a little more accurate - or at least, worth considering - than people would like to give him credit for.
Why am I not surprised? :rolleyes:

[randomguy]

I propose that following the essentially predestined Guilty Verdict of his trial, Osama bin Laden be forced to live in a house with Miichael Moore and Ann Coulter.
I think FOX has found itself a new sitcom.

[James]

Moore is a propagandist crank. A third of what he says is wrong, another is a distortion of the truth, the rest is right, but said by wiser and more honest voices.

Oh, and sorry if that seems insenstively glib, but I'm in a bad mood tonight and I'm taking you down with me!
The only person you take down is yourself. As I said, I don't think Moore is a crank at all. Take "Bowling For Columbine" - there is a progressive social logic that is evident throughout. It may be a social logic you disagree with - you may not agree with some of the evidence he submits, but there is a logic there nevertheless. He said nothing I hadn't considered - aside from throwing some examples I hadn't heard of - but that's my point. There is a logic there which does make sense in what he says. With all political commentators you should never except all that is said, but see things that are said as a starting point for your own self discovery. I think he offers precisely what the media and political machines would rather not have spoken. I don't revere the man in any way, but I think he gets slammed mainly because it's easy to slam, sneer and laugh at people who oppose than it is to answer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SJJ
I think his points and social commentary is a little more accurate - or at least, worth considering - than people would like to give him credit for.

Why am I not surprised? :rolleyes:
I rest my case.


its amusing how Michael Moore acts like he has such compassion for people, but if you talk to people who work for him, they can't stand the guy.
Not only do people who speak politics and social commentary have not to earn (otherwise their points are clearly for self gain), they have to be nice and great people to work with. People can be gits and still be bright and intelligent. Ridley Scott is a nightmare to work with - as many will atest - but a great film maker.

He never struck me as someone who was particularly compassionate. He always seemed uncomfortable to me in situations where he needed to show personal compassion. Doesn't mean he doesn't believe what he does.

All of which is speculation on the man rather than listening to what he says. I would always say in regards to whoever you read or listen to - judge by the content, and not by the man.

[shogunthethird]

I think FOX has found itself a new sitcom.
yeah, throw in Al Franken and Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O' Reilly and his liberal equivalent

[Tienshin]

All of which is speculation on the man rather than listening to what he says. I would always say in regards to whoever you read or listen to - judge by the content, and not by the man.
The man is the source of the content, so if he himself is of questionable character how can his words not be viewed with suspicion?

[James]

The man is the source of the content, so if he himself is of questionable character how can his words not be viewed with suspicion?
Because you should your evaluation on what is said and how that compares to evidence you find. The source of the content is the "intelligence" he has gathered. The fact that his workers don't like him, or he gets paid for his books shouldn't really equate that strongly when assessing his comments. In politics too often the man becomes more of a target than his remarks. I think with Moore this is very much the case.

[randomguy]

Any good points Moore might have are all but destroyed by his own willingness to distort the truth. Bowling For Columbine is plenty insightful if you take it at face value, but even a small amount of research will reveal just how much spinning Moore did throughout its production. He's a liar, and the few valid things he does say have been articulated by far smarter and less sensational voices. They might be harder to find, but they're out there. Moore might be more extreme than most pundits, but he's still essentially the same in that he serves as an impediment to genuine political discourse. I certainly don't think he offers anything the media is striving to contain; in fact, his brand of vitrolic ranting is exactly the stuff the media has been embracing so passionately recently. He's no different from Coulter, though his views are different. He's not challenging people to think outside the box, he's encouraging them to become further polarized.

The man is the source of the content, so if he himself is of questionable character how can his words not be viewed with suspicion?
It's a fine line between genuine charges of hypocrisy and poisoning the well. I agree with you, but I'm saying we have to be careful when focusing on character. Too much of today's discussion hinges on individuals and not policy.

yeah, throw in Al Franken and Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O' Reilly and his liberal equivalent
Here's my ideal lineup:

-Ann Coulter
-Michael Moore
-Al Franken
-Bill O'Reilly
-Paul Begalla
-Rush Limbaugh
-Sean Hannity
-Green Arrow

With Bush, Blair, Laden, and Hussein as the neighbors. And maybe John Ashcroft, just for fun.

[Tienshin]

Because you should your evaluation on what is said and how that compares to evidence you find. The source of the content is the "intelligence" he has gathered. The fact that his workers don't like him, or he gets paid for his books shouldn't really equate that strongly when assessing his comments. In politics too often the man becomes more of a target than his remarks. I think with Moore this is very much the case.
I wasn't so much referring to previous posts, as to questions surrounding his integrity. randomguy illustrated this by the many questions surrounding Bowling for Columbine. Of course focusing on the indivdual as a reason to automatically discredit them is hogwash. But when that individual has shown shown themselves to be less then credible...I think that's a different story.

I find it hard to take any political extremist at face value, right or left of the the political center.

EDIT: Just realized this is way off topic. I blame Bin Laden =(

[Delthayre]

The great thing about Randomguy is that he says a lot of things I want to say but am not a clear enough thinker to articulate.


Here's my ideal lineup:

-Ann Coulter
-Michael Moore
-Al Franken
-Bill O'Reilly
-Paul Begalla
-Rush Limbaugh
-Sean Hannity
-Green Arrow

With Bush, Blair, Laden, and Hussein as the neighbors. And maybe John Ashcroft, just for fun.
I'd throw in Michael Savage (Weiner) and Alan Colmes for good measure. Maybe Jacques Chirac too.

[SSJPabs]

The great thing about Randomguy is that he says a lot of things I want to say but am not a clear enough thinker to articulate.


I'd throw in Michael Savage (Weiner) and Alan Colmes for good measure. Maybe Jacques Chirac too.C'mon you gotta have Dole and Clinton as the wacky next-door neighbors where they show up each time with a different girl! Clinton charms then into hanging out with them, and Dole and his little blue pills seal the deal.

Anyhow, all this just proves my point how Moore is like a lefty Ann Coulter. For post-rehab Rush's counterpart I'd have to nominate Ed Schultz...

[Delthayre]

C'mon you gotta have Dole and Clinton as the wacky next-door neighbors where they show up each time with a different girl! Clinton charms then into hanging out with them, and Dole and his little blue pills seal the deal.

Anyhow, all this just proves my point how Moore is like a lefty Ann Coulter. For post-rehab Rush's counterpart I'd have to nominate Ed Schultz...And let's have the oh-so-craaaazy mayor be Jesse Ventura.

....ummm...cause....being presided over by Jesse Ventura will be an effective and stinging punishment for bin Laden?

Oh, and note that this story was first broken by what is by and large a tabloid, so while I don't want to be a killjoy, I do advise cautiousness in enthusiasm.

[Lucky Bob]

The only person you take down is yourself. As I said, I don't think Moore is a crank at all. Take "Bowling For Columbine" - there is a progressive social logic that is evident throughout.And, of course, that does cover a multitude of sins. :rolleyes:

Come on, let's not get all pseudo-objective about it. You're a liberal who likes what he says. I'm a conservative who likes what people like Limbaugh say. Of course, that's by no means a stereotype. Other libs don't like Moore, much in the same way I don't like Overkill, while some conservatives do. And I and others reserve the right to think anybody isn't worth listening to for whatever reasons we want, thankee kindly. It's called being an "individual".

My opinions on Moore echo, but are not based on, this fabulous quote by Dennis Miller:

"He's going to wake up every day for the rest of his life, and he's going to tell us how he hates everything about this country except his right to hate it. And then we say that we love it and he's going to tell us what naive sheep we are and that he's the true patriot because he hates it and he sees all the problems in it. Yeah, right, Mike. You know something, if my yawn got any bigger they'd have to assign it a hurricane name, okay? Michael Moore simultaneously represents everything I detest in a human being and everything I feel obligated to defend in an American. Quite simply, it is that stupid moron's right to be that utterly, completely wrong."
(BTW, before you ask, I don't agree with Miller on everything, either. But we do share a bit of common ground. Especially here.)

Anyway, let's get back to the reality show.

Let's do put all of these guys together, and throw in Ross Perot and Ralph Nader for good measure. Sure, all the other guys might form alliances to kill them first, but it'd make for some great ratings.

And on the other side of the street, we host a Simpsons vs. Family Guy contest, which will end with both parties holding hands, skipping through the fields, and singing LALALALALALALALALALA!

[SSJPabs]

How can Miller be the same person who stood up on the Tonight Show and gave the best defense of Clinton at the height of the impeachment proceedings that I ever heard? The turnaround is pretty surprising to me. Ah well, I just won't watch him anymore no big deal. Still I wish I had the text of that Clinton speech even to this day...

[Liger Zero]

If this was intended to be timed coincidentally around elections, it seems a bit early, doesn't it?

I'm expecting bin Laden to be captured around late-September, early-October. That's when it'll matter the most, for Bush anyways.