The Actual Words of Osama

This should be changed to:

It's the US's job because the US can. We police places that have strategic and financial value to US corporations saying we're doing it for the good of those people (edit). If vast oilfields were discovered in the Congo, I'm sure suddenly those people's plight would be paramount because the US would be right there conviscating it.

You seem to love to fight me, eh?

Well, look, when you drop a bomb in an urban area like, I dunno, THE CITY OF BAGHDAD, you will inevitably kill civilians b/c that's where civiliams live.

No I do not like to fight you. I just want to make sure that people get objective facts and not the Colonels skewered view on them.

Do you have any idea what kind of actual munitions that we are using there or the targets they go after? I did not think so. If you did you would kick yourself for being so stupid.

What makes you so sure that your friends are allowed to tell you anything?

Originally posted by MrJingles
What makes you so sure that your friends are allowed to tell you anything?

Because they would not have any reason to lie to me. Plus we are using our secured accounts to talk.

Originally posted by COOL HAND

No I do not like to fight you. I just want to make sure that people get objective facts and not the Colonels skewered view on them.

Do you have any idea what kind of actual munitions that we are using there or the targets they go after? I did not think so. If you did you would kick yourself for being so stupid.

Ok, Mr. Army Man why don't you tell us then instead of perppering me with questions like some papparazzi. You tell us how safe DU is AFTER it explodes and how it doesn't cause sickness in the environment years after its detonation.

Then, explain this, Mr. Army Man:

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

Because they would not have any reason to lie to me. Plus we are using our secured accounts to talk.

It's not a question of whether or not they would lie to you. Its a question of what they're allowed to say. If they had a choice of telling you the truth or being relieved from the military, there gonna choose not to tell you.

Your secured accounts can probably be traced because of the Patriot act.

humm, really colonel? Lets hear what Osama and his buddies have been thinking on doing all along, from his own lips from an interview of Bin Laden in 1995.

"To counter these atheist Russians, the Saudis chose me as their representative in Afghanistan... I did not fight against the communist threat while forgetting the peril from the West."
"For us, the idea was not to get involved more than necessary in the fight against the Russians, which was the business of the Americans, but rather to show our solidarity with our Islamist brothers. I discovered that it was not enough to fight in Afghanistan, but that we had to fight on all fronts against communist or Western oppression. The urgent thing was communism, but the next target was America... This is an open war up to the end, until victory."

www.pbs.org...

LINK

[Edited on 15/4/04 by COOL HAND]

It's not a question of whether or not they would lie to you. Its a question of what they're allowed to say. If they had a choice of telling you the truth or being relieved from the military, there gonna choose not to tell you.

Your secured accounts can probably be traced because of the Patriot act.

First of all, they are not prevented in any way from discussing these matters with me. I have a higher security clearence than they do. They will not be relieved, or punished, in any way for telling me anything.

Second, we use a secure military email account to exchange information. It is monitored by the DoD so if there was something that I was not supposed to read, I would not have even seen the email in the first place. The Patriot act does not apply to secured military accounts, the gov't already monitors them.

Originally posted by COOL HAND
First of all, I'm Navy. Calling me Mr Army is like me calling you Mr Man.

That was pretty good. Not comprable to one of my best but good.

DU is not supposed to be safe, it is to kill your enemy. We never said that it was a safe material. That is why you have to wear lead lined gloves just to load the shells.

Are you a fan of American troops using less lethal weapons simply becuase they are more enviromentally friendly?

What are you a tree hugging hippy?

No, what I am concerned about is when people say "We don't try not to harm civilians," THEY LIE. When our soldiers get there after the detonation, they're doomed because of the exposed radiation. But, I can see that you're concerned and care, "Mr. Navy man."

No, what I am concerned about is when people say "We don't try not to harm civilians," THEY LIE. When our soldiers get there after the detonation, they're doomed because of the exposed radiation. But, I can see that you're concerned and care, "Mr. Navy man."

It isn't like we go out and target civilians on purpose. That would be a waste of perfectly good ordnance. Why waste a bomb on a target that does not help you win the war?

Check out Cool Hand's link, Colonel. It's pretty comprehensive. I'm still reading it, I've not read anything that has said it's less dangerous then we have been lead to believe. I think, for me anyway, I'm going to have to do some research.

Also, DU isn't used in bombs, they're kinnetic weapons. It'd be like having a magnesium coated bullet instead of just plain lead.

Edit: My bad, they are used in missles, too.

[Edited on 4-15-2004 by junglejake]

First of all, they are not prevented in any way from discussing these matters with me. I have a higher security clearence than they do. They will not be relieved, or punished, in any way for telling me anything.

Sorry, didn't know you were with the military. Perhaps you should say that upfront so you don't sound like the neighbor of a fighter pilot who talks to you occasionally.

Now, you're being simple. Of course, youdon't kill civilians on purpose but I submit this:

1) If you have an illegal war, then everyone you kill is an innocent because the war is illegal in the first place.

2) DU not only kills the enemy who you target but kills the civiliain who you don't target and the friendly for years afterwards because of the exposed radiation of the DU after it explodes. Tell me I'm wrong.

Originally posted by Colonel
Now, you're being simple. Of course, youdon't kill civilians on purpose but I submit this:

1) If you have an illegal war, then everyone you kill is an innocent because the war is illegal in the first place.

2) DU not only kills the enemy who you target but kills the civiliain who you don't target and the friendly for years afterwards because of the exposed radiation of the DU after it explodes. Tell me I'm wrong.

Read the link I provided.

It should clear things up for you a little.

Even if it is an illegal war, which I am not saying that it is, you are still allowed to defend yourself when someone attacks you.

Originally posted by junglejake
Check out Cool Hand's link, Colonel. It's pretty comprehensive. I'm still reading it, I've not read anything that has said it's less dangerous then we have been lead to believe. I think, for me anyway, I'm going to have to do some research.

Also, DU isn't used in bombs, they're kinnetic weapons. It'd be like having a magnesium coated bullet instead of just plain lead.

I don't believe it. Outside of all the evidence of people that came back with sickness, I am reading a lie. If COOL HAND has to wear STAR TREK gloves just to load the weapon WHEN IT HASN'T EVEN EXPLODED then I am reading a lie.

[Edited on 15-4-2004 by Colonel]

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Even if it is an illegal war, which I am not saying that it is, you are still allowed to defend yourself when someone attacks you.

HUH? WHAT? Um, tell me, when were WE being attacked that WE needed defending? DId I sleep thru that part of the movie? I'm missing something here.

I don't believe it. Outside of all the evidence of people that came back with sickness, I am reading a lie. If COOL HAND has to wear STAR TREK gloves just to load the weapon WHEN IT HASN'T EVEN EXPLODED then I am reading a lie.

[Edited on 15-4-2004 by Colonel]

Here is so more for you to read:

www.who.int...

I have more if you are still not convinced.


BTW the lead lined gloves ensure that you will not get a cut and let anything toxic into your blood stream. Nothing Star Trek about that.


[Edited on 15/4/04 by COOL HAND]

Originally posted by Colonel
No, what I am concerned about is when people say "We don't try not to harm civilians," THEY LIE. When our soldiers get there after the detonation, they're doomed because of the exposed radiation. But, I can see that you're concerned and care, "Mr. Navy man."

They lie? Do you not think the terrorists lie? Osama must be the "truth" you wish to hear then. Talk about blind rage. You are so consumed you won't hear anything...

Kerry lobbied for Vietnam and pushed many issues about POWs aside. Then Vietnam announced it had granted Colliers International a contract worth billions to upgrade Vietnam's ports, railroads, highways, government buildings, etc. C.

Stewart Forbes, Chief Executive Officer of Colliers International, is Kerry's cousin. Gee, brokering shady deals the Kerry way, but yet doing all the fingerpointing to the Republican camp to get votes. Impressive.

Not near as impressive as chasing down a wounded, retreating enemy soldier and killing him. Yeah, Kerry did that too (look up how he got his Silver Star). It was even suggested that the event was a war crime, but the Dixiecrats squashed it.

So now, maybe with Kerry in office...we will make a truce and one of his relatives will get the contract to build a new and improved Camp Osama. Now wouldn't that be great? Personally, I think the pressure is making Osama's group crumble and he is grasping.

It's like one of Ali's boxing opponents saying truce and I'll stop beating you....as he lays on the canvas.

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Here is so more for you to read:

www.who.int...

I have more if you are still not convinced.


BTW the lead lined gloves ensure that you will not get a cut and let anything toxic into your blood stream. Nothing Star Trek about that.


[Edited on 15/4/04 by COOL HAND]

Just as we were having our fist civil conversation....anyway.....

I still think it lies. It makes no sense to me that a nuclear material which is naturally hazardous becomes safe after detonation with no health effects afterwards. Look at Chernobyl. Furthermore, this gov info is suspect....

CAMPAIGN TO BAN WEAPONS: SOLDIERS, DOCTORS TESTIFY ON EFFECTS OF DU

www.iacenter.org...