Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below Longhorn85
New member
...but I'm trying not to get my hopes up.
http://www.sundaytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,9353,8752173-28778,00.html
http://www.sundaytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,9353,8752173-28778,00.html
I hope this is true...
- Thread starter Longhorn85
- Start date
D
DcupSheepNipples
Guest
The sunday telegraph lol!
They shoot more out of the dark stories then anyone! But they might get
lucky on this one with Nov. near!
I trust the weekly world news over them!
http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/
They shoot more out of the dark stories then anyone! But they might get
lucky on this one with Nov. near!
I trust the weekly world news over them!
http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/
Longhorn85
New member
Well, how do you feel about the Sunday Express? That is who the Telegraph is listing as it's source.
sh4dowf4lcon
New member
they should save his capture for October 
sunday express.....hmm.....piece of shi newspaper, but may be right in this...
"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."
of course u have to wonder why they would give the game away before his capture...unless they already have him, want to flush him out/other terrorists or are going to 'lose him' narrowly but cash in on the PR
i just hope this shit doesnt get him re-elected
"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."
of course u have to wonder why they would give the game away before his capture...unless they already have him, want to flush him out/other terrorists or are going to 'lose him' narrowly but cash in on the PR
i just hope this shit doesnt get him re-elected
Lao Tzu
New member
danielson said:
its not entirely unrealistic, i thought a month ago or so that the Green Beret special forces had spotted Mohammed Omar and maybe Bin Ladin but weren't allowed to catch him themselves, they had to sit on their hands and wait for delta force to show up and by that time it was too late.
Longhorn85
New member
danielson said:
Would you rather he not be captured so that it doesn't help Bush?
Testosterone boy
New member
Eh.....he is sitting in a palace and sipping Mai Tai's waiting for the word on when to be captured. Then they will chopper him into a remote area of Afghanistan for "capture."
Could be soon though.....Kerry has been picking up all the news. Bush is prolly jealous.
Could be soon though.....Kerry has been picking up all the news. Bush is prolly jealous.
ttlpkg said:
of course not, i hope they get him, and secretly rough him up a little too during capture...being proffessionals i doubt this will be allowed
but the public, particularly America and to a lesser extent Britain have a tendency to get swept away by news like this...
for example look at the totaly irrational boycotting of french products, and re-namng of french fries...there will justafiably be joy if they capture him, but i suspect this will be reflected in the voters booths
when greater questions such as the methods of his trial or what laws he will be subject to will go unanswered
Longhorn85
New member
danielson said:
Swept away by news like this? Yes, I think capturing the individual responsible for 9-11 is justification for getting swept away if there ever was.
As far as the irrational boycott of things French. I see nothing wrong with demonstrating through our pocketbooks a disapproval of France's lack of support for us, especially given all the support we've provided for them.
FreeballinDC
Dumper Humper
ttlpkg said:
So much for having a French martini.
a Manhattan, anyone?
the nature boy
New member
I hope the satellites they're using to track bin ladden aren't the same one that supposedly were tracking WMD in Iraq. Because those ones sucked.
FreeballinDC
Dumper Humper
The Nature Boy said:
It doesn't look like satellites at all, but Pakistanis.
Here's the link: Paki's Military Looks for Bin Laden
ttlpkg said:
im not saying their shouldnt be joy at the man fingered as the individual responsible for 9-11 being captured....
but if that is reflected in people voting a Bush 2nd term because they think its 'the thing to do' then yes, i do think its unjustified
as for the boycott, Chirac sunk the UN side of things because of his fiscal links to Iraq. the same goes for germany and russia, Chirac was just the most vocal. The populace was fed anti-war on its merits. Its their democratic right to be
yet the US populace chose to boycott French produce...to the extent of renaming french fries 'freedom fries' (in the age of the 'patriot act' and 'homeland security'
).Not only does this hurt innocent French producers, some of who may just be hard working farmers with no care of world policy, but it also hurts US based importers of French based produce. And finally, it created the impotus for French and Europeans to boycott US Goods....KFC, McDonalds etc are Haemorraging $$$ due to boycotting in the middle east and over expansion, if it lost europe it would result in cuts in the US as well.
it was pointless...if you wanted the french to be hurt reflect it in diplomatic relations, not by hurting its populace. stopping some cheese maker feeding his kids won't make the war 'more right'
bluepeter
New member
danielson said:
im not saying their shouldnt be joy at the man fingered as the individual responsible for 9-11 being captured....
but if that is reflected in people voting a Bush 2nd term because they think its 'the thing to do' then yes, i do think its unjustified
as for the boycott, Chirac sunk the UN side of things because of his fiscal links to Iraq. the same goes for germany and russia, Chirac was just the most vocal. The populace was fed anti-war on its merits. Its their democratic right to be
yet the US populace chose to boycott French produce...to the extent of renaming french fries 'freedom fries' (in the age of the 'patriot act' and 'homeland security'
Not only does this hurt innocent French producers, some of who may just be hard working farmers with no care of world policy, but it also hurts US based importers of French based produce. And finally, it created the impotus for French and Europeans to boycott US Goods....KFC, McDonalds etc are Haemorraging $$$ due to boycotting in the middle east and over expansion, if it lost europe it would result in cuts in the US as well.
it was pointless...if you wanted the french to be hurt reflect it in diplomatic relations, not by hurting its populace. stopping some cheese maker feeding his kids won't make the war 'more right'
amen
Longhorn85
New member
danielson said:
I don't think the average American has the ability to affect "diplomatic relations" directly. They sure as hell can stop buying products from France if they choose to though, and it was effective.
You think it is unjustified to vote for Bush if someone credits him for fighting a successful war on terrorism? What do you consider justification? A nice haircut?
ttlpkg said:
the anti-war movement made bush realise how anti-war the parts of the world were when they demonstrated en-mass. most of them wrote to their democratic palimentary representatives (MP's, Congressmen/women etc)
why couldnt the average american do this, as opposed to a boycott where the anti-french sentiment is so strong anything with the name 'france' in it gets re-named. no offence, but when a non french product (fried diced potato) has to have the colloqial name removed from it in order to gain commercial viability you begin to wonder how much of the boycott was genuine disgruntlement and how much was the culture of peer pressure enforced on french produce...and the deafining silence on the issue by el presidente
as for a successful war....most MI6 and MI5 analysts conclude that the war i Iraq has painted an even bigger bullseye on the US and UK, inflated terrorist number exponentially and done more for AL-Queada than Osama's best PR man ever could have hoped for. plus Iraq has no proven link with Al-Queada, or any WMD found...
capturing Bin Laden is good....but remember all the faults with Bush and his 'big government' regulations...plus his choice in staff (Ashcroft)...and his foreign policy.
trouble is people won't, they'll be so proud Osama is gonna get his, they will either vote Bush or feel like they have to.
Longhorn85
New member
danielson said:
Um...I like Ashcroft and the rest of the Cabinet (Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, Paige).
You're right though. Bush has many faults.
PIGEON-RAT
New member
bin laden will be found hanging out in iraq with the WMD's
Longhorn85
New member
The fact that folks still like Colin Powell after he briefed the UN about WMD but want to get rid of Bush tells me that the dislike for Bush is strictly personal.
ttlpkg said:
for the reason that i feel he really didnt want to be in front of the UN....and was just following orders
maybe im wrong...if he knew what was up and still went through with it then no, i wouldnt like him as much
i do dislike bush in terms of his life personally so yes in all honesty there probably is some bias...but casting that aside i do have very real problems with his term in office. and anyone else that would act that way in office
remember....aside from stopping a lefty from keeping office, he had a clean slate when he stepped into his shoes....in terms of PR with the rest of the world it was swiftly downhill from there.
Longhorn85
New member
danielson said:
If that were the case he'd be a puppet and I can't see why you'd support him.
I appreciate your honesty about why you dislike Bush.
ttlpkg said:
anyone under Bush would have to follow his orders...
As far as i remember he id have oil links...however as far as a bad bunch goes he strikes me as the best option...he just sees to have this lement of respectability about him...it will never happen, but i would hve prefered him or McCain to get the presidency instead of this guy...he does worry me...
Similar threads
