Al-Qaida releases new Bin Laden tape just before U.S. election
 

Let's give this another try.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041029/D861BCR02.html


I would expect Al-Qaida would have a strategy to effect the U.S. elections. Whether those plans would be similar to what happened in Spain... I do not know. What do you all think about his statements regarding the motivation behind the 9-11 attacks (U.S.'s role in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict)? Personally, I don't think the real motivations are anywhere near that simple or contained within that scope. I wonder what the political shakout would be if another attack was attempted...?

I wonder if willravel will trade in his tinfoil hat with these new admissions? :lol: all in good fun will.

I think it is quite an important note that Bin Laden himself said the attacks where not because of our freedom, but rather our foreign policy. I know we're not supposed to negotiate with terrorists, but perhaps we should listen to what he said and take it into account.

Sounds a bit Hitlerish to me. "Hey, I'll stop if you do this for me," or "This is the last time, I swear!" Look, until a Muslim rules all of America, bin Laden just won't be satisfied. To me it's just a continuation of the conquering and invasions that all started with Muhammad, the steel of the scimitar is not something that is completely unknown to Islam. I really don't see bin Laden stopping terrorism against the United States if we pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan, so I see it as a bunch of b.s. from him, nothing unusual, more of the same hate-filled drivel. Question is whether or not it's got any code words laced in there that activate terror cells.

Well, our policy is to support Israel militarily/financially, and Israel's policy seems to be to shit on it's Arab population, but Arabs both within and outside of Israel's borders seem to hold the policy of driving the Jews into the sea. So, I'm content with American foreign policy towards Israel.

Couldn't have said it any better than archer2371.
His closing statement in particular I found pertinent.

If the US government would have listened a bit more carefully to foreigners, they would've told you that before. (though I've got a feeling that to Bush, the world is just a big game of Risk).
Osama Bin Laden and most of the likes of him do not want to conquer the US, kill americans or destroy religious freedom. (although that last part may be the next step). First and foremost they feel that the US is interfering with their local affairs, to such an extent that their daily lives are dominated by US influence. This of course has to do with the superpower status of the US. To stay that way the US needs to know and influence world affairs, just to keep on top of things. But in OBL's eyes "the US needs to retreat to their homeland, right now the US is bullying the world around".
Several big american companies are owned by Middle Eastern or Asian entities, how do you feel about that, especially if it seems that through those interests they are influencing your government to make certain descisions. (say to allow a Chinese fleet of warships to maintain a regular patrol route just outside US waters, or preferential economic deals with Russia, or build an oil pipeline from Alaska through several states (without local taps) through Mexico all the way down to venezuela).

Together with that is the reasonably strong economy of the US in the last century. Many visible products, trends and inventions were done in the US, that were gulped down by the public in Europe and elsewhere. To people who feel "traditional" the public has sold out to the US by wearing Jeans, listening to american music, and watching american movies. They feel that their country is slowly succumbing to american culture.
(It is however american freedom which allows the public in america to enjoy such non-traditional things. Americans are less strict in their religion (overall) than many middle eastern countries. The public in those countries in large quantities likes that, and thus OBL's frustration. So in some sense it is about the freedom US citizens have. He didn't attack Germany, France, Great Brittain, Australia, and other such countries that enjoy reasonable freedoms, even though chances of retaliation were far slimmer there.)

Their attack was in my opinion a response to the large influence the US has in the middle east. Large oil interests, and paranoia about certain parts of the world in the last century haven't helped matters much (as in a large military presence).

Just my $0.02

(it's all my opinion, I haven't done any research)

"It appeared to him (Bush) that a little girl's talk about her goat and its butting was more important than the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers. That gave us three times the required time to carry out the operations, thank God,"

This particular line must be just a slap in the face for George.

Quite a few American's have been saying essentially the same thing for years and years.

When all is said and done this tape basically comes down to one of the original tenets of humanity: If you kill 3000 innocent people, anything you say from that point forward is unimportant.

This is all about our support of Israel, if you look to what really went on with Israel you can't blame the Arabs. Don't take this the wrong way either I have nothing against Israel or our policy of supporting them. But how would you like it if you were told by the UN that you have to move or you now live in a different country. What you don;t hear on the news is that if you are palistine you don't have the right to vote in Israel unless you have so much land (I think). But if you are an Israeli citizen (jewish) you can live on the street and vote. And did I also mention that you are the only country that the US will grant dual citizenship to. That even holds true today, There are millions of Israelis that live her 360 days out of the year and just go back to Vote!

Both are quite true.

I know a few americans personally, and they're attitudes ranged to all sides. But the US government seems intent on one side of the issue... And as a reaction that is perfectly OK (hell, if they killed thousands of my countrymen I don't think I'd be anywhere near reasonable) And as such terrorism is no way of dealing with "undue influence".
But legitimate or not, it is a reason.

And anything he says, comes out of the mouth of a terrorist. And how some of us might think "hey, there honesty in there", he is still a terrorist, and therefore deserves no negotiation.
Btw, for all things I think the US should've done different* , I do not fault them for trying to capture OBL.

*I can't say I'm knowledgeable enough to judge foreign-policy objectively, but you get my drift.

Look the few Americans you know should of seen what I did. I had to see two buildings that I went into many times and have friends who died saving lives. My life changed, if you ask me we should of just Nuked all of them and saved our time and money....

THANK GOD FOR
GEORGE W. BUSH

MOD NOTE: FLAMES WILL NOT BE TOLERATED

Do you not understand that by your means of retaliation it would have depicted the VERY means of which happened to you? Revenge and vengence are what caused 911, and this is exactly what you want to impose on the middle east.

Edit: Sorry...won't happen again.

but the whole "freedom-hating" is a joke
if they really hated the concept of freedom, amsterdam would be rubble by now

he sounds a little more docile than usual. maybe because the military reportedly has a good idea as to his location right now, i dunno.

if he is being completely truthful, it was kind of counterproductive on his part to attack us. as if he didn't realize we would freak out? we're killing a lot of arabs these days. i don't know if we're going to stop anytime soon; we are in it DEEP.

Neither do I, and I am an American. The problems arose when the government deemphasized capturing Bin Laden in favor of using him as excuse to invade Iraq.

I realize that some in the administration thought that, by using the excuse of Bin Laden to take down a Middle Eastern dictatorship, they could directly to the source of terrorism in the Middle East by establishing a western-style democracy that would influence change in the remainder of middle eastern states, many of which sponsor or tolerate terrorists.

The problem is that the administration's plans were unrealistic in the extreme and, because they felt they had to lie to get the backing to carry them out, there could be no real debate on the issues. So these unrealistic men carried out their farfetched plans without examination from experts and people with more experience in the Middle East. And of course everything went wrong. And moreover, the people in power still refuse to admit any errors or the real reason for their actions.

Let me paraphrase somebody else: It is a poor and wretched truth that needs a bodyguard of lies for protection.

I did not intend to address 9/11 as a non-event. Far from that. I do however see the difference between trying to capture/kill/whatever those responsible, and re-paving the entire middle east.

To continue on my previous post:
The fact that George W. Bush ousted 2 governments in 4 years, and set up shaky democratic governments (at best), only adds to the fire that lives inside those who wish to see America gone. To them americans are ignorant in believing that theirs is the only way, and that americans think of themselves as superior. They too see the footage from Abu Ghraib (sp?), they too here the news of bombed weddings, they too see the way in which America is making the world "safer" by occupying souvereign countries.

America is keen on protecting national interests above the interests of other countries, or the world at large. Take the Kyoto protocol, the International Court, Nuclearweapons treaties, and the like. The general feeling is (and not only in the middle east): If the US cannot add a clause in the agreement that they reserve the right to do whatever they please, they won't sign it.

Go go National Sovereignity!

Here is a perfect example of a Bush supporter.

monitoring
 

REALLY?!!


So I guess anything the Americans and Bush Administration say is unimportant? Even they agree that at least this number of "innocent people" have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq by US military forces.

Or perhaps, just perhaps, things are never quite that simple. Of course you should listen and learn and investigate what is happening in the world. Failure to do so would be just prancing along with blinkers on...

Kinda like what BushCo is doing right now. :)


Mr Mephisto

Well, I was speaking rather specifically to the excuses that anyone who has killed 3000 innocent people use to justify their actions.

In that same regard, the Bush (or any gov't) excuse of "collateral damage" is equally invalid.

Unimportant was probably the wrong word.

And further, what Bin Laden thinks is important. Not to me, but to his prospects for seeking wellness in his mind, if he ever decided to seek that.

So yes, you're right - it's not as simple as I had stated.

I hope I didn't come across too sarcastic. :)

What I find interesting about this tape (and I haven't seen it all, but only the reports that refer to it) are people's reactions.

Is it really a surprise that Bin Laden admits he attacked America because of their foreign policy? I'm not trying to rattle any cages here, or be provocative. But for goodness sake, why do you think he did it?

I know Noam Chomsky is not universally popular here, but allow me to paraphrase one of his insightful remarks. One of the ways to fight terrorism is to stop practicing it. By this I mean, it's possible to remove the drivers, the "seeds" of terrorism.

I'm not suggesting dialogue with OBL or his ilk. But to me it's patently clear that progress requires a change in the way the US handles itself abroad.

The war on terrorism can never be won. I think everyone agrees that. It's unwinnable. Every time a US bomb falls on a wedding in Afghanistan, or a hospital in Iraq, or an innocent civilian's house in Faluja, another extremist is born. Of course this is simplification, but you know what I mean.

Therefore, militarily, you can't "win the war." It's self sustaining. It's a postive feedback loop.

Therefore you (we?) need an integrated approach. Fight the terrorists that are out there. But also address the reasons they act as they do. Try to understand the underlying motivation. Sometimes it will be pure hatred. But even that has a reason. Sometimes it will be religious fundamentalist beliefs that non-Muslims should be killed. In that case, foster tolerant muslim groups. Fundamentalists and fanatics are bred in times of stress and disadvantage. There are plenty of rich and tolerant muslim countries. It is only in areas like the middle east that "terrorism" seems endemic.

Finally, try to address the Palestinian Question. This is the one, single issue that does more to create terrorists than any other. If it is solved then we make a great advance.


Mr Mephisto

Hahaha. I was mentioned! Agreed that all of this is in good fun. In actuality, I don't expect anyone to agree with me over the previously mentioned 'tinfoul' (clever, eh?). I realize that a lot of what I posted on the 9/11 threads in paranoia is hard to believe. Don't think less of me because I don't rule out the possibility. I just want to get to the bottom of some pretty serious questions. (Anyone who wants to know what the freak we're talking about see the '9/11 is Bush's falit' thread and the 'what happened on 9/11' and 'mystery of the dissapearing 757' thread in paranoia).

As those questions pertain to the announcement by OBL, by the way he speaks, it sounds like he just got done watching F 9/11. In referring to Bush sitting in a classroom, I just get this picture of OBL watching F 9/11 on some bigscreen tv somewhere. For me, it's hard to forget how close the ties between OBL and the CIA are. Is it wise to rule out the possibility he's as much of a tool as Fox or CNN? Maybe all the apt anallogies of America being a global conglomerate have made my sense of trust run thin. It's hard for me to look at any news without a skeptical eye.

Of course, that's just me. I could be wrong.

"US Foreign Policy in Arab Lands", he whines...
If you had things your way, it'd be Arab Policy in Western Lands.

Welcome to 2004, you hairy bastard. Things have changed a bit since 1134. This isn't the world of Saladin and your ancient Arab heroes anymore. Those days are loooong gone.

* * * * * * * * *

John F. Kerry on Friday, in response to the latest Bin Laden tape:

He's learning fast.

Bush could learn something about actually fighting for your country (rather than dodging it) from him too.
:)

Mr Mephisto

not necessarily from people on this board, but i've spoken with a couple people who recommended that we withdraw support from israel to end al-qaida's war on the United States.

somewhere beyond the grave... Neville Chamberlain is frantically waving his arms and screaming "Don't fall for it!" :)

If only it were possible to predict the future would that actually stand.

But the entire appeasement argument is getting foolish here - given the state of Europe and the countries involved in 1939 compared to today, 2004, and how the countries in the world involved actually stacked up, the appeasement argument doesn't work when these other factors come in.

i'm unsure of what you mean. are you saying that appeasing al-qaida would be stupid? maybe you're saying it's the best course of action? are you saying conceding to bin laden is not analogous in meaningful ways to conceding to hitler? in what way is the geopolitical structure is different now from what it was then?

Sorry that was a bit ambiguous but I'm saying that its a mistake to believe changing course/choosing options is appeasement given the geopolitical situation of the world now.

Appeasement in 1938/1939 was a mistake because it was done from a position of weakness. Hitler by then already had immense power, had a superior land force, air force, economy, resources, etc. behind him. Britain/France then was in a poor position to oppose him. However, the mistake was appeasing him from that position of weakness - when you give the stronger guy concessions, you dig an even bigger hole for yourself.

The situation today is different - you are in a position of strength (or at least you would believe we are, wouldn't you?). To be hoenst, I don't know what to do (and neither do any of us or our politicians imo) with the situation in Israel but its pretty obvious that keepign the status quo is keeping the same issues attached to it.

But if you are in a position of strength, appeasemenet isn't a sign of weakness - you have to use it to your advantage. So if you get rid of supporting Israel, turn that advantage in strength elsewhere - get the favor of strong Arab nations that can a) listen to you and b) handle the problem of terrorists by aiding those who handle it as a domestic issue.

Anyways the point isn't I'm trying to make a solution for the issue, i'm pointing out that appeasement isn't so black/white as one would suggest looking straight at Chamberlain. When one delves deeper, one realizes that you cannot appease while you are weak, for you dig yourself into a deeper hole. However, when one is in a position of strength, you can use appeasement as a tool to manuever around a force and take em from another angle.

Because keeping the status quo sure as hell ain't going anywehre right now.

^^ Sun Tzu is alive and well in 2004. Good post, Zeld2.0

Indeed, Kerry served his country honorably, and he served it well and with great skill. No complaint from me whatsoever about Kerry's military record. He was an extraordinary soldier in Vietnam.

I completly agree with powerclown on Kerry's service for the country. Once we get past this political crap and really think about it both of these guys love this country jsut as much as the other one and want to do what is best with it. I do not think it is any easier or harder for GWB to send the U.S. to war than it is John Kerry.

This may sound like a stupid conspiracy to all but think about it. For the last two years we will hear every few months that the U.S. is closing down on the capture of OBL. How much is Saddam Hus helping us right now. Maybe a little. If we knwo where OBL is and we have the technology to basically monitor everything he is doing (people he is talking to, phone calls, training) is that not more helpful for America in a war against terrorism?

Your statement actually has more weight than you think D Rice. During World War II, we had operations that resulted in the capture of the Enigma encoding machines used by the Nazis and this was not known until after the war, so as to protect all that sensitive information and the troops who were assigned to get that information. From an operational security and intelligence gathering aspect, knowing what Osama is doing and knowing who he is talking to is something better than capturing or killing him. Killing him would only serve to make him a martyr, and he's a valuable source of information of us, why compromise those two points. If we have the chance to capture him without him killing himself, I think that we would take the opportunity, but only if we were absolutely sure that he's not wired to a suitcase bomb.

strange having to parallel threads on the same topic...

anyway--this tape, its timing, etc., started me wondering if osama bin laden actually exists.

he has always seemed to me more a structural necessity than actual person---the anchor of the "war on terror" narrative, the mythology, the face that enabled a personification to replace the hole created by 9/11, the signifier than enabled the transition from shock to action against someone, anyone.

the narrative needs bin laden as the narrative of jesus needed judas.

i have never been convinced that al qeada carried out the attacks on 9/11 entirely--i thought that if you were going to carry out such an attack, the entire organization would logically be on the planes.

but whatever, what is obvious is that in the period directly after 9/11 someone needed to be held to account so that a response could be undertaken. what mattered was the response in and of itself. i was skeptical from the start about how the narrative was created and maintained, but i understood how it could be compelling and why things that otherwise would be seens as problematic judgements would be undertaken once it was in place (e.g. the overwhleming support for the legal frame within which the "war on terror" has functioned, probably extending into the much more problematic vote to authorize the iraq war--without the bigger narrative, i doubt seriously that the iraq war would have been possible, given the shabbiness of the case for it)

if you go to bbc's website, you get a short video comparative analysis of bin laden;s varous appearances

www.bbc.co.uk

it does not have a seperate link so far as i can tell, so i do not know how long it will be up.

i dont adduce this as evidence for what i am saying, just as the thing that started me wondering about it.

Is there a link to an English translation of the video? I want to watch the thing, but I can't find it.

edit: found a transcript..for those who want to read it, here is a link:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...11-2002_pg7_28

In my opinion if the U.S. wasn't here to take the heat. Europe would be the "Great Satin".

BL is correct on this one, Bush should have jumped in the nearest phonebooth, changed clothes and stopped the attack. :rolleyes:

It amazes me that this absolutist line of reasoning, particularly on this issue, continues.

Is it honest to suggest that Bush had two options? Sit on his ass and do nothing or jump up immediately and cause a panic (or in this case, don Superman's clothes to save the day)?

Obviously not. There were many possible reactions to the information he received. One of them would obviously be politely interupting the teacher and addressing the children that he had to excuse himself for a moment. Such a response would be called rational.

Why is the seven minutes thing even an issue for Bush? There was absolutely nothing he could've done in those seven minutes that would've either saved lives or any difference at all, period. Furthermore, people did not judge FDR based on his reaction after he was notified about Pearl Harbor, so why rag on Bush for his reaction?

From http://moorewatch.com/index.php/gues...ose_7_minutes/