Here's one more shinning example of liberal press. This is the first time I've heard more specifics on what Bin Laden said....


MONSTER'S DEADLY WARNING TO 'RED' STATES

By NILES LATHEM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email Archives
Print Reprint



November 1, 2004 -- WASHINGTON - Osama bin Laden warned in his October Surprise video that he will be closely monitoring the state-by-state election returns in tomorrow's presidential race — and will spare any state that votes against President Bush from being attacked, according to a new analysis of his statement.
The respected Middle East Media Research Institute, which monitors and translates Arabic media and Internet sites, said initial translations of a key portion of bin Laden's video rant to the American people Friday night missed an ostentatious bid by the Saudi-born terror master to divide American voters and tilt the election towards Democratic challenger John Kerry.

MEMRI said radical Islamist commentators monitored over the Internet this past weekend also interpreted the key passage of bin Laden's diatribe to mean that any U.S. state that votes to elect Bush on Tuesday will be considered an "enemy" and any state that votes for Kerry has "chosen to make peace with us."

The statement in question is when bin Laden said on the tape: "Your security is up to you, and any state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security."

That sentence followed a lengthy passage in the video in which bin Laden launches personal attacks on the president.

Yigal Carmon, president of MEMRI, said bin Laden used the Arabic term "ay-wilaya" to refer to a "state" in that sentence.

That term "specifically refers to an American state, like Tennessee," Carmon said, adding that if bin Laden were referring to a "country" he would have used the Arabic word "dawla."

MEMRI also translated an analysis of bin Laden's statement from the Islamist Web site al-Qal'a, well known for posting al-Qaeda messages, which agreed that bin Laden's use of the word "ay-wilaya" was meant as a "warning to every U.S state separately."

"It means that any U.S. state that will choose to vote for the white thug Bush as president, it means that it chose to fight us and we will consider it an enemy to us, and any state that will vote against Bush, it means that it chose to make peace with us and we will not characterize it as an enemy," the Web site said, according to MEMRI's translation.

This is bullshit.

Unless anyone here speaks Arabic, has seen the entire tape and translated it, I don't want to hear some crap like this from some unknown internet "journalist".

--PunkDavid

Is this real? Where is this source?

Sorry to break it to you but it's from the new york post:

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/33124.htm

Yes, it's real. Source is New York Post.

This type of stuff is very typical of liberal news. We haven't heard any of this in America. Instead they snip out what sounds good for their candidate. Makes me sick.

Just so you're forewarned, some people are going to equally scoff at that.

wouldnt this actually help Bush?... Americans dont want to be told shit from the foreign man.. therefore, Americans will rise up and vote for Bush to let binFuck know where they/we stand... Bush could/will spin this in his favor, no doubt... if he even feels like addressing it...

I thought it was the NY Times that was the Liberal paper?

Is the post not supposedly more conservative?

I'm not scoffing it's just a general question.

I don't think it really matters who wins the election, Bin Laden is going to do all he can to kill everyone or scare anyone in to submission who don't not agree with his viewpoint.

It really dosen't matter who gets elected in that sense.

However, getting sanctions levied that kill hundreds of thousands civilians while having no effect on terrorists or dictators or getting bombed relentlessly actually having some effect on operations might be an indicator of why he'd want Kerry.

I don't think some of you understand.

When I was speaking about the liberal press, I was referring to the fact that this was found in the NY Post, NOT on CNN, New York Times, or any other liberal media. Instead it's hidden and not mentioned in these slanted forms of media.

Why is it hidden? Precisely because of what you mentioned. This coming out would help Bush. Ask yourself ... is this the first time you heard this?

Why do you think that is?

This will only help Bush with the ignorant.

Anyone would realize, he's still alive, still able to harm us. Going into Iraq only diverting troops and resources from Afghanistan and the hunt for al-Qaeda. Anyone who thinks we are safer under this Administration is naieve.

There are a few people who think that individuals who can't spell naive correctly are naive.

Typical. How about addressing the post instead of the spelling.

First, I believe "intelligent" people would realize that the war on terrorism will not be won simply by killing Bin Laden. However, it would be a great step to kill or capture him. But most importantly we need to kill or capture all the terrorists. Which we have tried to do effectively.

Second, understanding that the war is more difficult than simply destroying an army is important. Thus, the middle east needs to become less of a breeding ground for terrorists. There needs to be a plan here. Bush's plan is democratize the middle east slowly. Iraq and Afghanistan were two steps in that battle. Kerry's plan (for this specific issue) has not really been mentioned. Bush thinks about staying offensive. While Kerry wants to beef up allies and law enforcement on the homefront>>> defensive.

Lastly, anyone who believes terrorists only live in Afghanistan are extremly naive. Further, anyone who believes having our special forces (including my brother in law) with the help of the Northern Alliance go after Osama in Tora Bora was a mistake is "naive". We did not know the area. They did. We had our best troops there searching. However, there were all sorts of political problems. The real problem was the Pakistani army that said they would seal their border... which they didn't. Thus, unfortunately some al Qaeda militants fled successfully.

But... back to the fact that Bin Laden supports "anybody but Bush".

The New York Post.

Once I see this story elsewhere--even if it's Fox News--I may believe. Right now, it's just in a "news"paper no more reliable than the Enquirer.

If it's legit, it'll come out all over TV this evening.

funny, i thought the liberal media, including Faux Op/Ed reported him as saying "neither Bush nor Kerry can keep you safe. Any country that does not attack us will not be attacked"

ahahaha Fox News just said it is not what bin Laden said but what some website said is between the lines of what he's saying! you're so full of shit!

also state is used to refer to countries as well...as in 'violating anotehr state's sovereignty' and Organization of American States (north, central and south america)

The definition of naive is someone who buys into the whole "Middle East is a breeding ground for terrorists" line of crap. What the hell does that actually mean? It's a great line and seems to have worked really well on many people but doesn't mean a damn thing.

Bush wants you to think that the reason that there's terrorism is because these countries hate freedom and aren't democratic. Well that simply isn't true. There really weren't any terrorists in Iraq before we invaded. What does the government of the country have to do with terrorists? The Terrorists are hell bent on fighting us, not their governments.The plain truth of it is, if we have true democracy in many of these countries, most likely they'll support a fundamental islamic religious government. There's absolutely no evidence to support the notion that a democractic Iraq or Afghanistan will be any less receptive towards producing terrorists.

It's moronic to keep believing that killing terrorists will solve the problem completely. By continuing to do what we've done for 30 years won't solve the problem. these guys recruite based on exactly what Bush is promoting. Don't fool yourself into believing democracy solves terrorism. As long as their continues to be a huge discrepency between what the US says it's for and what we actually do in terms of Mid East policy and Israel, they will always have a beef with us.

Is anyone stupid enough to care what bin Laden said?

Obviously nobody with the CIA and FBI to start.