What most of us here in the US saw of this speech was a chopped up version that contained mostly just the last paragraph. Here it is in full. Read it with an open mind and it might provide clue's as to whats driving them (Al-Qaida). Thought some of you would like to know what's on the mind of America's most wanted man. Our media never showed the full translation and what the full message was that he was addressing to us.

Full transcript of bin Ladin's speech

Monday 01 November 2004, 16:01 Makka Time, 13:01 GMT

Following is the full English transcript of
Usama bin Ladin's speech in a videotape
sent to Aljazeera. In the interests of
authenticity, the content of the transcript,
which appeared as subtitles at the foot
of the screen, has been left unedited.

Praise be to Allah who created the creation
for his worship and commanded them to
be just and permitted the wronged one to
retaliate against the oppressor in kind. To
proceed:

Peace be upon he who follows the
guidance: People of America this talk of
mine is for you and concerns the ideal way
to prevent another Manhattan, and deals
with the war and its causes and results.

Before I begin, I say to you that security is
an indispensable pillar of human life and
that free men do not forfeit their security,
contrary to Bush's claim that we hate
freedom.

If so, then let him explain to us why we
don't strike for example - Sweden? And
we know that freedom-haters don't
possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 -
may Allah have mercy on them.

No, we fight because we are free men who
don't sleep under oppression. We want to
restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our
nation. So shall
we lay waste to yours.

No one except a dumb thief plays with the security of
others and then makes
himself believe he will be secure. Whereas thinking people,
when disaster
strikes, make it their priority to look for its causes, in
order to prevent it
happening again.

But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth
year after the
events of September 11th, Bush is still engaged in
distortion, deception and
hiding from you the real causes. And thus, the reasons are
still there for a
repeat of what occurred.

So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events
and shall tell you
truthfully about the moments in which the decision was
taken, for you to
consider.

I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us
to strike the
towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the
oppression
and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our
people in Palestine
and Lebanon, it came to my mind.

The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in
1982 when
America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the
American Sixth
Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many
were killed
and injured and others were terrorised and displaced.

I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed
limbs, women and
children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with
their occupants
and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets
raining down on our
home without mercy.

The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless
child, powerless except
for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a
conversation that doesn't
include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but it
didn't
respond.

In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas
bubbled in my soul,
but in the end they produced an intense feeling of
rejection of tyranny, and
gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.

And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it
entered my mind
that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we
should destroy
towers in America in order that they taste some of what we
tasted and so
that they be deterred from killing our women and children.

And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and
the intentional
killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate
American policy.
Destruction is freedom and democracy, while resistance is
terrorism and
intolerance.

This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of
millions as Bush Sr
did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children
mankind has ever
known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of
bombs and
explosives at millions of children - also in Iraq - as Bush
Jr did, in order to
remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to
assist in the
pilfering of Iraq's oil and other outrages.

So with these images and their like as their background,
the events of
September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs,
should a man be
blamed for defending his sanctuary?

Is defending oneself and punishing the aggressor in kind,
objectionable
terrorism? If it is such, then it is unavoidable for us.

This is the message which I sought to communicate to you in
word and
deed, repeatedly, for years before September 11th.

And you can read this, if you wish, in my interview with
Scott in Time
Magazine in 1996, or with Peter Arnett on CNN in 1997, or
my meeting
with John Weiner in 1998.

You can observe it practically, if you wish, in Kenya and
Tanzania and in
Aden. And you can read it in my interview with Abdul Bari
Atwan, as well
as my interviews with Robert Fisk.

The latter is one of your compatriots and co-religionists
and I consider him
to be neutral. So are the pretenders of freedom at the
White House and the
channels controlled by them able to run an interview with
him? So that he
may relay to the American people what he has understood
from us to be the
reasons for our fight against you?

If you were to avoid these reasons, you will have taken the
correct path that
will lead America to the security that it was in before
September 11th. This
concerned the causes of the war.

As for it's results, they have been, by the grace of Allah,
positive and
enormous, and have, by all standards, exceeded all
expectations. This is due
to many factors, chief among them, that we have found it
difficult to deal with
the Bush administration in light of the resemblance it
bears to the regimes in
our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and
the other half which
are ruled by the sons of kings and presidents.

Our experience with them is lengthy, and both types are
replete with those
who are characterised by pride, arrogance, greed and
misappropriation of
wealth. This resemblance began after the visits of Bush Sr
to the region.

At a time when some of our compatriots were dazzled by
America and
hoping that these visits would have an effect on our
countries, all of a sudden
he was affected by those monarchies and military regimes,
and became
envious of their remaining decades in their positions, to
embezzle the public
wealth of the nation without supervision or accounting.

So he took dictatorship and suppression of freedoms to his
son and they
named it the Patriot Act, under the pretence of fighting
terrorism. In addition,
Bush sanctioned the installing of sons as state governors,
and didn't forget to
import expertise in election fraud from the region's
presidents to Florida to
be made use of in moments of difficulty.

All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to
provoke and bait this
administration. All that we have to do is to send two
mujahidin to the furthest
point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written
al-Qaida, in order to
make the generals race there to cause America to suffer
human, economic,
and political losses without their achieving for it
anything of note other than
some benefits for their private companies.

This is in addition to our having experience in using
guerrilla warfare and the
war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we,
alongside the
mujahidin, bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt
and was forced to
withdraw in defeat.

All Praise is due to Allah.

So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the
point of
bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah.

That being said, those who say that al-Qaida has won
against the
administration in the White House or that the
administration has lost in this
war have not been precise, because when one scrutinises the
results, one
cannot say that al-Qaida is the sole factor in achieving
those spectacular
gains.

Rather, the policy of the White House that demands the
opening of war
fronts to keep busy their various corporations - whether
they be working in
the field of arms or oil or reconstruction - has helped
al-Qaida to achieve
these enormous results.

And so it has appeared to some analysts and diplomats that
the White
House and us are playing as one team towards the economic
goals of the
United States, even if the intentions differ.

And it was to these sorts of notions and their like that
the British diplomat
and others were referring in their lectures at the Royal
Institute of
International Affairs. [When they pointed out that] for
example, al-Qaida
spent $500,000 on the event, while America, in the incident
and its
aftermath, lost - according to the lowest estimate - more
than $500 billion.

Meaning that every dollar of al-Qaida defeated a million
dollars by the
permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of
jobs.

As for the size of the economic deficit, it has reached
record astronomical
numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars.

And even more dangerous and bitter for America is that the
mujahidin
recently forced Bush to resort to emergency funds to
continue the fight in
Afghanistan and Iraq, which is evidence of the success of the
bleed-until-bankruptcy plan - with Allah's permission.

It is true that this shows that al-Qaida has gained, but on
the other hand, it
shows that the Bush administration has also gained,
something of which
anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by
the shady Bush
administration-linked mega-corporations, like Halliburton
and its kind, will
be convinced. And it all shows that the real loser is ... you.

It is the American people and their economy. And for the
record, we had
agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Ataa, Allah have
mercy
on him, that all the operations should be carried out
within 20 minutes,
before Bush and his administration notice.

It never occurred to us that the commander-in-chief of the
American armed
forces would abandon 50,000 of his citizens in the twin
towers to face those
great horrors alone, the time when they most needed him.

But because it seemed to him that occupying himself by
talking to the little
girl about the goat and its butting was more important than
occupying himself
with the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers, we
were given three
times the period required to execute the operations - all
praise is due to
Allah.

And it's no secret to you that the thinkers and perceptive
ones from among
the Americans warned Bush before the war and told him: "All
that you want
for securing America and removing the weapons of mass
destruction -
assuming they exist - is available to you, and the nations
of the world are
with you in the inspections, and it is in the interest of
America that it not be
thrust into an unjustified war with an unknown outcome."

But the darkness of the black gold blurred his vision and
insight, and he gave
priority to private interests over the public interests of
America.

So the war went ahead, the death toll rose, the American
economy bled,
and Bush became embroiled in the swamps of Iraq that
threaten his future.
He fits the saying "like the naughty she-goat who used her
hoof to dig up a
knife from under the earth".

So I say to you, over 15,000 of our people have been killed
and tens of
thousands injured, while more than a thousand of you have
been killed and
more than 10,000 injured. And Bush's hands are stained with
the blood of
all those killed from both sides, all for the sake of oil
and keeping their
private companies in business.

Be aware that it is the nation who punishes the weak man
when he causes
the killing of one of its citizens for money, while letting
the powerful one get
off, when he causes the killing of more than 1000 of its
sons, also for money.

And the same goes for your allies in Palestine. They
terrorise the women and
children, and kill and capture the men as they lie sleeping
with their families
on the mattresses, that you may recall that for every
action, there is a
reaction.

Finally, it behoves you to reflect on the last wills and
testaments of the
thousands who left you on the 11th as they gestured in
despair. They are
important testaments, which should be studied and researched.

Among the most important of what I read in them was some
prose in their
gestures before the collapse, where they say: "How mistaken
we were to
have allowed the White House to implement its aggressive
foreign policies
against the weak without supervision."

It is as if they were telling you, the people of America:
"Hold to account
those who have caused us to be killed, and happy is he who
learns from
others' mistakes."

And among that which I read in their gestures is a verse of
poetry. "Injustice
chases its people, and how unhealthy the bed of tyranny."

As has been said: "An ounce of prevention is better than a
pound of cure."

And know that: "It is better to return to the truth than
persist in error." And
that the wise man doesn't squander his security, wealth and
children for the
sake of the liar in the White House.

In conclusion, I tell you in truth, that your security is
not in the hands of
Kerry, nor Bush, nor al-Qaida. No.

Your security is in your own hands. And every state that
doesn't play with
our security has automatically guaranteed its own security.

And Allah is our Guardian and Helper, while you have no
Guardian or
Helper. All peace be upon he who follows the Guidance.

JLH..All one has to do is review some of you posts to conclude 2 things:

1.) You like to cut and paste

2.) You blame America first

The text of OBL's speech only shows him to be an insane mass murderer and should not move any American to sympathize with him or his followers. I guess it worked on you. Too bad.

------------------------------------------------------------


Come to think of it, the media never showed us the full translation and message of Adolf Hitlers speeches either.....maybe we mis-judged him.

Makes me wonder if he would even still be alive if the same level of attention was givin to him as Sadam...

"...and is running around making videos..."

Running around? If you mean running around in a dark cave, I guess I'd agree to that. How long ago was his previous video tape released anyway?

Talk about a one sided view of the Israeli vs Palestinian situation. Oh, and it's interesting how he specifically calls out Bush as a source of his aggressions, kind of forgetting about all the terror attacks during Clinton's 8yrs and back farther...

I don't care if the guy does really feel he has an issue with American foreign policies and historical involvement with Israel and the Middle East. Targeting America's (and Spain's, and Australia's, etc etc) innocent women and children isn't exactly the best way to persuade us that you are just a 'freedom fighter' that we should respect in some way.

You are absolutely correct, and I don't believe anyone here would honestly try to defend bin Laden's actions. Matter of fact, many of us here are just wondering why we aren't putting a little more effort into catching a guy that everyone agrees is terribly heinous.

Anyone see 60 minutes last night? I happened to catch it as the recently resigned CIA expert on OBL described the "nearly inevitable" likelihood that Al Qaida will discharge a WMD in the U.S. in the foreseeable future. Pretty grim idea to think about.

Bush may not be worried about OBL, but I think a strong American ethic requires placing a priority on bringing him to justice, regardless of his reasons for attacking the U.S. He may just be hanging out in an Afghan cave, but he is not in a U.S. prison, and that is a very significant difference for a nation of laws, like the U.S.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo\GH - can either of you tell me what we are vs are not doing in our effort to catch OBL? What do you think we should do differently?

Spare me the "he took his eye off the ball" rhetoric and give me specifics. More troops on the ground? How many do we have now vs how many more do you think we need?

PP, maybe President Bush was tired and mispoke, but it was widely reported that Bush said that "he didn't know where Osama was and that he didn't think about it much."

Hopefully, the guys on the ground have a different view.

PS, the kind of detail that you are asking for should be classified.

"Spare me the "he took his eye off the ball" rhetoric ..."

And therein lies the problem. The radical Bush zealots don't care to face the root cause of an issue, just divert their attention to something oozing machismo or someone else's morality.

But I digress...

You know those 140-some-odd-thousand troops getting shot at in Iraq? Well, here's a thought - what if we had them all a couple countrys to the East looking for ol' binny? I'll bet we'd even have an extra 1100 of them to help out if we hadn't messed around playing cowboy.

However, other than a nice sense of schadenfreude, I don't think killing bin Laden is going to make much of a difference. Capturing him vs killing him would be preferential, since being killed by the US elevates him to martyrdom. But either way, the Bush-folly has recruited more than enough to take his place regardless.

But from where I stand (literally) there isn't much of anything we can do until we clean up the mess we're currently in. Which takes us back to "why did we create the mess we're currently in before capturing bin Laden, and who's responsible?"


This is where Krusty starts whining "Blame America first, yadda yadda yadda..."

Harley you just proved there is a reason you where a low ranking noncom

Only a low ranker would suggest putting 140k troops into an area to look for a guy that has free access to border hop and the 140k troops do not. It's kinda like the janitor telling the president of the company how he would run it

If we are to nail ol binny we will have to violate someones airspace or catch him making a mistake.

There's the understatement of the year.

You're absolutely right, Aunty. If we'd devoted the manpower to the Afgan and Pakistan area that we have to Iraq we'd be much further along in the "whore on terra'."

TK just likes to hear him self talk, he doesn't care if his argument makes any sense.

PP,

Pretty much what Harley has said. Unfortunately, Bush made finishing the OBL job an impossibility by tying us up indefinitely in Iraq. If capturing OBL and bringing him to justice had been, and remained, our highest military priority, the U.S. could have, and would have, done so with the support of the entire world.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Lets play tag then. I can travel the whole state you cannot leave King county. You can have as many team members as you want to try and tag me. I will bet every one of you everything you own you will never tag me.

For some reason you underestimate your opponent.

TK,

Although it wouldn't be like you, you could present your point in a way that earns respect instead of disdain. Are you saying the U.S. cannot go wherever it believes OBL is hanging out? Not being as well read as you, (because no one is, as I recall from an earlier thread), I don't remember if we have an agreement not to enter Pakistan in pursuit of OBL. We didn't ask Afghanistan for its permission to chase down OBL, and Bush said any who harbor him is similarly our enemy. It seems logical that Pakistan would, even if reluctantly, agree to let us chase OBL in the mountain border region. Has Pakistan indicated they would fight the U.S. in such a circumstance?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Thats an interesting question Salmo. I don't think that Pakistan has outwardly said that they don't want US troops conducting operations on Pakistani soil. To this point haven't the visible operations in Pakistan been conducted by Pakistani troops? I would assume that there have been operations that haven't been visble.

P. S. I am not trying to get wrapped up in this pissin match, just interested.

Salmo,

I think you read too much into the intent of my post's. Regardless of my intent it's not subject to your approval.


To answer your question . I consider the rules of sovereignty as elementary and forgone to the invasion of Afghanistan.
We cannot take our military into any surrounding state without permission. Musharef would face civil war if he allowed it. We declared war on Afghanistan so we of course did not need permission.

I find it interesting that you would condem the presidents actions and strategy in his quest for OBL with out basic understanding the issues faced in the region.

Vic,

Our militaries activities where discussed prior to the invasion with every Islamic state and the Turk's. We could only use bases in some state's but where not allowed to operate hostilities directly in any state. That being said we have had teams inside every state bordering Afghanistan assuming we operated like we have in every conflict prior.

TK,

I try not to read intent in your posts. You frequently, although not always, come off sounding like a pompous a$$. I know you’re not seeking my approval, nor anyone else’s, but most sane and rational people prefer to be perceived as socially acceptable, at least among their peers. Since you behave as though you have no peers, then I can see why social acceptability wouldn’t concern you. Just thought I’d mention it on the off chance you weren’t aware and actually gave a dam_n. Except for your pompousity and occasionally really weird positions, you could be an interesting person, worth establishing a dialog with. But really, that ain’t essential.

As presidents go, this one’s the most condemnable since Nixon. And since he’s a cowboy who doesn’t give a sh!t what the rest of the world thinks, I’d be surprised if he cared whether Musharef faced a civil war or not, so long as cowboy Bush gets his outlaw OBL. That such a civil war might precipitate a nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India or something, again would be of no concern to our cowboy, cuz the opinions of other nations are irrelevant to U.S. interests.

Musharef faces enough domestic problems as it is, cooperating as much as he has with the U.S. I didn’t think the additional increment of U.S. troops pursuing OBL in Pakistan’s mountainous hinterlands would add an additional increment of protest beyond that which already exists. As it is, that region of Pakistan is essentially ungoverned and lawless, according to news reports.

Pushing this analysis tho, I think the U.S. needs to capture OBL and let him rot in prison, with all the world knowing it. Executing him would make him a martyr among his followers and would be followers, and likely aid terrorist recruiting more than imprisonment would.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

SG,

" you could be an interesting person"

I am damn interesting. Just because we disagree politically does not change that.

Your personal feelings about the president do not change the facts. Those facts are that we could have 500k troops in Afghanistan chasing OBL and it will not make a diff. if Iran and Pak allow him to border hop.

Musharef is doing it for cash and aid the country needs . If he gave it full effort we would have Binny in a week and Mushref would get overthrown.

------------------------------------------------------------

In the famous words of another PP board member, "Pot meet the kettle".

Sincerely,

Rory b.

Don't be using that line unless it applies, RB.
You'll ruin the effect.

Of course your mileage may vary, but I find Salmo one of the least pretentious and pompous contributors of this board.

*The views and opinions stated above are those of the contributor and the contributor alone. There is no affiliation with Salmo or Salmo products. This was a non-paid post and does not necessarily reflect an endorsement of any kind. Caution, contents are hot. Avoid contact with skin. Pregnant women should have sex often. Keep out of reach of children and crusaders.

Oh, and by the way, if King George of Teflon® was truly serious about his "If'n you ain't wit us youse again' us" speech, and that part about harboring of terrorists, then he'd have maintained his focus on bin Laden and put troops in both the Afghan and Pakistan area effectively sealing the borders. If Pakistan didn't cooperate, then they would be guilty of harboring a terrorist, ergo, "... again' us."

But that wasn't really the crusader's agenda, now, was it?

Maybe we should do that with Canada as well GH since a few have come from there.

TK,

Exactly. It would be slightly refreshing if the prez would say what he means and mean what he says.

TK interesting? Yeah, maybe. Damn interesting? Not yet. You need to try harder. Sorry to deflate. And it has nothing to do with any political disagreement we might have. It's about how you present yourself here.

Is there any chance of returning to JLH's post initiating this thread? I thought OBL's taped speech was interesting in that he repeated what most Arabs who oppose or hate the U.S. have been saying for years. We unilaterally support Israel with money and weapons. We don't condemn Israel's state-sponsored terrorism against Palestinians. We do condemn Palestinian terrorism against Israelis. How could anyone not understand that many, if not most, Arabs world-wide would hate the U.S. for that, and be dancing in the streets to see the WTC towers burning and collapsing?

That doesn't make OBL's terrorist act right, since terrorism isn't about rightness. But don't most of you see that Arabs would see the WTC attack as a just retribution for U.S. support of Israel, who commits terrorism against Arabs with U.S. money and weapons?

So little attentions seems paid to identifying and understanding the root cause of Arab intent to commit terrorist acts against the U.S. It seems to me that the likelihood of simply rooting out terrorists and killing them is futile, because there will simply be more terrorists to take their place as long as the U.S. commits acts which motivate and create incentives for others to terrorize us.

Shouldn't we be having that discussion?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo,

I see you as a very verboes pseudo intellectual. Your present positions based on very thin if any research and even less fact. You then try to make it personal. Nothing anyone else here does not try from time to time. It's just that for some reason you think no one sees that in you. A fool fool's himself first. I think in your circle you are allowed to get away with what you spew unchallenged and when someone challenges the great Salmo it shocks your delicate sensibilities.

Examples:

I have challenged your knowledge on Isreal and Palestine and all you could hang your hat on was a lame challenge about the volume of my reading. Why because you had very little understanding of the history of the region.

I just challenged you on your thoughts on capturing OBL. You did not even know the position of the PAks that was published before we even went in to Afghanistan. It appears you are just parroting the party line.

I have asked you 3 times to back up your posts that GW has made Christian doctrine into laws or heavily influenced laws. Nothing yet.

------------------------------------------------------------

Blame America First blah..blah..blah


If your wife was brutely raped would you ask what SHE did to deserve being raped? "motivate and create incentives for others to"

Salmo,

Lets have that discussion.

"U.S. support of Israel, who commits terrorism against Arabs with U.S. money and weapons?"

Do you know the history of the creation of Palestine, how it came to be how it's funded? Once you demonstrate that you do we can address the above overstatement of the situation.

Never take responsiblity ... ever ... blah .. blah .. blah

I don't know how credible we could be at facilitating a peace summit given the war going on in Iraq, but now that Arafat is gone, we should be viewing this as a fresh opportunity to exert leadership and deal with these age old issues / problems in the middle east. Unfortunately, the best guy to make that happen was Colin Powell. It may just be my perception, but I think Condi Rice has damaged her credibility with her unyielding and stonch defense of every Bush administration decision and she has some work to do to establish herself as Secretary of State.

Bin Laden Said Unble to Run Operations

15 minutes ago

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON - Pakistan's military has been so effective in pressuring al-Qaida leaders hiding in the tribal region of western Pakistan that Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) and his top deputies no longer are able to direct terrorist operations, a senior American commander said Thursday.



"They are living in the remotest areas of the world without any communications — other than courier — with the outside world or their people and unable to orchestrate or provide command and control over a terrorist network," said Lt. Gen. Lance Smith, deputy commander of Central Command.


"They are basically on the run and unable to really conduct operations except, in the very long term, provide vision and guidance as Osama bin Laden does when he provides one of those tapes," he added, alluding to a bin Laden video tape released three weeks ago.


Bin Laden has been on the run since U.S. forces invaded Afghanistan (news - web sites) in October 2001.


In a question-and-answer session at the Foreign Press Center, Smith said that for the first time since Pakistan was enlisted as a U.S. ally against al-Qaida, the Pakistani military forces hunting for al-Qaida figures will remain in the western tribal region through the winter.


"It is essential that Pakistan military continue their operations," he said, adding that over the past three to six months they have made "very, very positive moves" against al-Qaida.


South Waziristan, a semiautonomous tribal region along the border with Afghanistan, long has been regarded as one of the most likely hiding places for bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, although there has been no solid intelligence to confirm that.


Between 7,000 and 8,000 Pakistani forces have been deployed in a three-pronged offensive in the eastern reaches of the rugged region this month. U.S. military forces remain largely on the Afghanistan side in hopes of capturing or killing any al-Qaida operatives who cross the border.


"We will continue to search them out. We will find them," Smith said.


The three-star general likened the military effort against bin Laden to the work being done in Iraq (news - web sites) to keep terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other insurgents on the run so "they cannot stay any place for any length of time," thereby reducing their effectiveness.


Smith suggested Central Command may increase the size of the U.S. force in Iraq prior to national elections scheduled for late January.


"As we move closer to elections we will make adjustments to our troop strength to ensure that we will have forces to be able to back up the Iraqi security force in sufficient numbers," he said.


Smith did not say explicitly that more U.S. troops would be sent to Iraq. At one point he said there was no need for "a huge increase" in troops, seemingly suggesting that a smaller increase was possible.


There now are between 135,000 and 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, he said.


Addressing an issue that has received little public attention in the United States recently, Smith said the United States is sharing intelligence with Turkey on a Kurdish rebel group that operates in northern Iraq. The group, known as the PKK, is considered a terrorist organization by the United States and Turkey.


"We will continue to work with the interim Iraqi government to expel them from the country," Smith said.


"It's a difficult task," he said. "To dig them out and engage that fight I think will take a considerable amount of forces, and we need to do that at the right time."

TK,

I figure you and others see me here however you decide. I’ve never considered myself an intellectual, let alone a verbose pseudo one, but, whatever. I don’t know where you get the great Salmo stuff, unless you make it up for yourself. And my sensibilities are anything but delicate! Further, in my circle, I’m challenged daily. One of the beauties of this BB is that I don’t have to compose 50 page best available science proofs of my point, when I only want to express my opinion.

I’m not particularly interested in BB challenges. It’s not why I’m here. But I’m nearly always interested in an opportunity to learn, which you at times almost offer, which is why I bother to hassle you about the incredibly poor way you present yourself here.

I have no doubt you’re better read on Israel/Palestine than I, but that part of your argument that goes to 4,000 years ago and Abel and Cain lacks credence for me because the history is inseparable from the myth and the faith. When you go there, you substitute opinion or faith, or both, for fact. That’s not to say I couldn’t learn anything about the area and history from you. But I do have sources I consider more reliable. They have PhDs, have studied the history and politics of the region, and have been there several times, one of them has met with some of Arafat’s people a couple times, one of them is Jewish, one is an Episcopalian Priest, and neither of them has the anti-Arab racism that you occasionally display (at least I interpret that from things you’ve written.).

You may conclude that I don’t have enough of the history under my belt to have that discussion. I have some background on the history, but it consists of scattered reading over many years, with my most recent information coming from the friends I mentioned above. Nevertheless, I’ve held the opinion for at least 30 years that our pro-Israel, anti-Palestinian policy was not in our best long term interests, and I think contemporary events are bearing that out.

Regarding OBL, again I’m not interested in your challenges. And I don’t even know or care what the party line is. My line is that we ought to capture him. That Pakistan and Musharef have a problem with our crossing their sovereign border seems absolutely silly, given Bush’s statements about being with us or against us, and no middle ground. Although, yes, I certainly do understand the concept and principles of sovereignty, but I see that the official U.S. policy is that we no longer give a rat’s a$$ about it when it comes to terrorism, or perceptions of linkage to potentially imminent terrorism. Given Bush’s position, I don’t see Pakistan’s objection to our crossing their border as an issue to Bush. Do you? If so, why, given Bush’s statements?

Regarding your last post, that’s positive and interesting news. I note that the General said it will take a “considerable amount of forces,” which aren’t available when they are in Iraq, and that “we need to do it at the right time.” I guess there hasn’t been a “right time” in the past three years, huh?

Bush hasn’t made Christian doctrine into law. However, he has indicated his support for doing so via Constitutional amendments prohibiting gay marriage and abortion. And there was the example Aunty M posted about Bush’s faith based initiative. So while the prez hasn’t done it, he has expressed his intent or support. Perhaps that doesn’t qualify for you, but it does for me.

RB,

Yes, I mostly ignore you because of the lack of worthwhile content in your posts. It ain’t personal, man; you just don’t say anything worth responding to most of the time.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

keep up the good posts Salmo. You do raise the level of these discussions.

Having said that, you never respond to my posts------------not worth responding to?

Salmo: So nice to see your posts. You try to use logic, and consistent reasoning rather than name-calling and silly personal attacks. Good on ya! I know I am much more milky to be swayed by a post such as your than I am by some of the flame throwers who seem to think that the more personal the attack the better their "arguments" will be accepted.

Jeff'ed,

Sorry. No, not at all. Maybe you didn't ask me anything or comment on one of my posts?

I was picking on RB because his posts are often cut & paste jobs, and his responses to mine are often littered with blah, blah, blah. Man, that's insipid, not to mention totally lacking in original thought.

Dave,

I assume that those investing in name calling and attacks don't have anything intelligent to contribute and are just engaging in mindless entertainment. That's their perogative, of course, but it's a distraction to those who would make constructive use of the BB.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

"Christian doctrine ... prohibiting gay marriage and abortion."

While many (not all) Christian groups are not in favor of gay marriage and abortion, these issues are not 'owned' by Christians. There are other religious and secular groups who also take a similar stand on such social\cultural\moral\ethical\political issues.

PP
While what you stated about these issues not being owned by the Christians is true, the major push for these agendas is by the Christian groups.

Salmo,

"They have PhDs, have studied the history and politics of the region, and have been there several times, one of them has met with some of Arafat’s people a couple times, one of them is Jewish, one is an Episcopalian Priest, and neither of them has the anti-Arab racism that you occasionally display (at least I interpret that from things you’ve written.)."

Thenyou need to listen to them better or not at all because your comments on the topic are full of hole's and lack of knowledge of the region ,the history and the conflict. The dogma excuse does not fly either its noted in all forms of history in the region not just biblical.