http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20030211/ts_nm/attack_binladen_dc_6 Jazeera: Bin Laden Urges Muslims to Defend Iraq 23 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo! By Samia Nakhoul DUBAI (Reuters) - An audio message said to be from fugitive militant Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) urged Muslims Tuesday to fight the United States and Israel and repel any "war of infidels" against Iraq. The audio tape, broadcast on the al-Jazeera television network, said suicide attacks were important in fighting for the Muslim cause, and warned Arab leaders against giving any support to a war against Iraq. "We are following with great concern the preparations of the crusaders to launch war on the former capital of Muslims...and to install a puppet government," the statement said. "Fight these despots. I remind you that victory comes only from God." U.S. intelligence analysts believed it was bin Laden's voice on the tape, a U.S. official said. The statement did not express support for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) -- it said Muslims should support the Iraqi people rather than the country's government. "The fighting should be in the name of God only, not in the name of national ideologies, nor to seek victory for the ignorant governments that rule all Arab states, including Iraq," the statement said. Earlier this month, Saddam said he had no links with al Qaeda. Bin Laden has often criticized Saddam in the past. U.S. SAYS BIN LADEN IN LEAGUE WITH SADDAM The United States said the tape was evidence of a partnership between Iraq and bin Laden's al Qaeda network, blamed for the September 11 attacks on U.S. cities. Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) told the U.S. Senate Budget Committee earlier Tuesday that he had read a transcript of the tape. Powell told lawmakers they would "be seeing this as the day unfolds, where once again he speaks to the people of Iraq and talks about their struggle and how he is in partnership with Iraq." Powell cited this as a reason the United States could not rely on just containing Iraq with more weapons inspectors and a greater United Nations (news - web sites) presence. "This nexus between terrorists and states that are developing weapons of mass destruction can no longer be looked away from and ignored," Powell said. Statements from bin Laden have often been issued shortly before or after attacks blamed on his al Qaeda network. Commenting on the authenticity of the latest tape, the U.S. official said: "Those who are familiar with his voice say 'it sounds a lot like him.' But they have not done technical analysis yet to know with absolute certainty, but it seems to be." The United States raised its national threat alert level last week to orange -- the second highest -- citing intelligence reports of a threat from groups linked to al Qaeda. The United States says it does not know where bin Laden is, or whether he is alive or dead, after he evaded capture in Afghanistan (news - web sites) in 2001. But U.S. officials said last year an audio recording broadcast on al-Jazeera in November and purported to be from bin Laden was almost certainly genuine. The tape was considered the strongest evidence so far that bin Laden survived the war in Afghanistan. Al-Jazeera has often received audio tapes and statements said to come from bin Laden, blamed for the September 11 attacks on U.S. cities. The United States has accused the Arab TV channel of being a mouthpiece for al Qaeda propaganda. ----------------- If the world reads closely, and that's a big IF, it seems that Bin Laden did not say what Powell said he would. "The fighting should be in the name of God only, not in the name of national ideologies, nor to seek victory for the ignorant governments that rule all Arab states, including Iraq," the statement said.
If the world reads closely, and that's a big IF, it seems that Bin Laden did not say what Powell said he would. "The fighting should be in the name of God only, not in the name of national ideologies, nor to seek victory for the ignorant governments that rule all Arab states, including Iraq," the statement said. Bingo. He wants to make this a holy war - Islam vs. the West. If he can frame an American attack on Iraq as an attack on Islam, he's going to convert an army of new people to at least sympathize with him if not suddenly join Al Queda. If he can rile the Arab World up to be more pro-active against this attack, that's just another perk for him. He's trying to win over the people of the Arab world - the exact key audience we are ignoring in our tough talk strategy.
Treeman: I guess you are trying to support the attack on Iraq. Understand this: those who are willing and able to join Al Qaeda already have. You have no evidence for this assertion. In addition as the CIA, (I know Treeman probably like Rumsfeld doesn't like them now) has predicted that the invasion of Iraq will lead to more terrorism against Americans. Does it really matter to those American effected if those terrorist acts are by AlQaeda or by other perhaps newer groups? Yes, the Arabs will whine and b**** and scream bloody murder while the bombs are falling, but just as in Afghanistan they will promptly shut the hell up when they realize that 22 million of their neighbors, whom they profess to care about, are freed This type of practically racist dismissal of non Americans, in this case Arabs, can lead to over confidence and grave errors in judgment. You're too young Treeman and have just read revisionist right wing versions, I assume, but this happened in Viet Nam. Also why are we still fighting in Afghanistan? Have we brought democracy there? Where is bin Laden? Has it all been the big instant success you predicted? Incidentally, the terror threat is not going to increase for much the same reason: ... They are already working as hard as they can to kill us Again an unprovable assumption, but irrelevant if invading Iraq creates many new new terrorists and new groups form. It does not take a rocket scientist, or even a janitor named Bobby Ray, to see that these arguments have no merit. Maybe not but you certainly have not proven able to the task.
Powell said that the speech would further the case that Saddam's government has ties to Bin Laden. From this statement, Bin Laden despises Iraq, and one would suspect that the feeling is mutual between the two (Al-Qaeda and Saddam's regime). However, if Saddam gets desperate enough, who knows whether or not he would assist (WMD) one of his enemies (Iraq) to bring harm to a greater enemy (US). "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." The situation over there is way more complicated than what Bush would like to admit publicly. Easier to dismiss the complex mess over there, simplify it, and lump your enemies together into one nice, neat, evil package (make for an easier target?).
The Bin Laden thing has gone totally wierd. Now anti war dot com has links which show that the promised statement by bin Laden essentially denounces Sadam and calls for his overthrow along with other secular governments . Anti war dot com makes statments implying that msnbc has edited this remark out of the statment to make it look like Sadam and bin Laden are somehow together. The earlier Powell statment is looking questionable. For what it is worth. (Be sure to follow the reuters and ap links in the story.) Bin Laden & Sadam?
al Queda. Some other terrorist group. Whatever. Create resentment by appearing to be the Bane of Islam, and you're gonna get a backlash. Terror is the natural response to institutionalized oppression (or the perception of it). Doesn't mean you have to tip toe around Islam... but there isn't any doubt that an invasion of Iraq will fuel grass routes resentment. Most of them don't like us anyway... but everyone has a threshold point before active resistance. And then once you push them past it... the Israelis have learned this to their regret. Now they're caught in a situation where they cannot win, but where they have invested too much to back down. And Treeman calling an idea ridiculous amuses me more than a little.
Now anti war dot com has links which show that the promised statement by bin Laden essentially denounces Sadam and calls for his overthrow along with other secular governments . Anti war dot com makes statments implying that msnbc has edited this remark out of the statment to make it look like Sadam and bin Laden are somehow together. Bin Laden's #1 mission is an Islam revolution is in the Islam world. He hates secular governments and believes they are all corrupted and wants them to be overthrown by religious fanatics. His focus on the U.S. is entirely secondary - he couldn't win the war in the Islam world so he creates an enemy that represents "all that is evil in the world" and tries to unite Islam behind a mission to fight that enemy. The ultimate goal of all of this is a victory for Islam and the overthrow of the secular / corrupt regimes throughout that portion of the world. Here's some fun reading if anyone is interested: http://www.stetson.edu/departments/polsci/Civil_War.pdf
Oh my goodness. We've been talking about invading Iraq for months and now because Bin Laden is intelligently using this as an opportunity to gravy train on this fight that proves he's allied with Iraq and we must attack? There is no Muslim country on Earth that Bin Laden wouldn't try to join with if the US were planning an attack. It's like the little rascals are running this presidency.
Anyone catch the Al Jazeera anchorwoman they showed briefly on Nightline just now? She is hot! Last year, they interviewed another Al Jazeera anchorwoman, and she was just as hot, if not more so! Anyone have any info on these fine Arab females?
Amusing... Duh? I can say with a certain degree of certainty that the vast majority of dissenters on any given issue rarely turn to violent ends to progress their agenda. Do you concur? I hope so, because this has been your logic regarding the controversial activities of the peace movement over the past year... Incidentally, you have absolutely no evidence to contradict this assertion. Where are the mobs that were suppose to flock to Osama after we invaded Afghanistan? Absent. As they will be in the next phase. Show me the money? How can they surpass 100% effort - which they are currently at? Please - when considering the answer, remember that this is not a soccer game prep talk, and that you cannot exceed 100% effort... Overconfidence is always the bane of the strong, and as such one who is in a position of strength should always be careful not to underestimate the enemy. That does not, however, mean that past patterns of behavior should be ignored. Rather, prepare for the worst case scenario, but expect the pattern to repeat itself. We are prepared for the worst case. First thing we did. What, exactly, is happening here that happened during the Vietnam war? We underestimated our enemy? Saddam will lose, no question. The Arab street might erupt? OK, so what? They will calm down when they realize that A) the US cannot be defeated in this particular theater, and B) we are liberating them - and not just the Iraqis. The Cold War world that the Vietnam experience took place in no longer exists. That particular scenario will not happen again, no matter your desire to see such chaos and strife reign once more. The current situation is by no means orderly, but it is different in a manageable way. Meaning, the Arabs' reactions are far more predictable given past phistory, patterns of behavior, and US military and political experience in the region. We will not see a Vietnam situation again - at least, not at this time, and not in this scenario. To hunt down the remnants of Al Qaeda and your Taliban buddies that are still hiding out in caves there and over the border in Pakistan's tribal areas. Is that not obvious? It will take a while to eradicate them totally. Maybe 20 years. But so what? We support 7,000 troops there for 20 years - big friggen deal. Far more cost-effective than the tens of thousands of troops that we still station in Germany, and probably with fewer casualties (fewer DWI-related traffic accidents and STD casualties, to name a few)... It has a big payoff for a relatively small commitment. Not yet. Did you expect us to turn over a thousand years of tradition within the span of one year? Hell, the Taliban rolled that country back 800 years culturally, and in the span of one year we've managed to bring them back to the brink of the 18th century... Give it some time. It will happen. In Pakistan. You mean, has the Taliban been expelled from power quickly as I predicted? Uh, yeah. Did we do it with minimal casualties as I predicted? Uh, yeah. Are the Afghani people more free now than they were under the Taliban - as I predicted? Uh, yeah. Have we taken the initiative globally against Al Qaeda as I predicted? Apparently, yeah. Did I say a year ago that this would be a long war, and that there would be more strikes? Uh, yeah. Did I predict that Saddam would be next on the list after Afghan? Yep. Did I make it clear that that was a certainty? I sure thought I did... Has it all been the big instant failure that youpredicted? Hell no, not in any single respect. You have been wrong on every single count so far, glynch. Let the readers decide. Provable? So... You think that Al Qaeda et. al. have just been on haitus the past year or so? Perhaps we have actually been successful in significantly disrupting their operations, hence the attacks on the periphery of Western civilization (Bali, Africa, etc)? They are still trying their damnest to kill us, they just aren't as good at it as they were a year and a half ago. Only because we are actively opposing them. You are still weak, glynch. And you have yet to be right on anything. I still enjoy debating you... Everyone loves a good turkey shoot.
How does that jive with this statement by OBL: "And it doesn't harm in these conditions the interest of Muslims to agree with those of the socialists in fighting against the crusaders, even though we believe the socialists are infidels. For the socialists and the rulers have lost their legitimacy a long time ago, and the socialists are infidels regardless of where they are, whether in Baghdad or in Aden. And this fighting about to take place resembles the fight with the Romans earlier and the collusion of interest doesn't harm, for the Muslims' fight against the Romans was due to the collusion of the interests with the Persians." He's obviously willing to temporarily put aside his hatred of the M.E. regimes, especially the Baathists, to fight the West.
Or... he's willing to say whatever needs to be said to get the US to attack Iraq quickly. He's not stupid, however barbaric and sociopathic.
He's obviously willing to temporarily put aside his hatred of the M.E. regimes, especially the Baathists, to fight the West. Agreed - because he has made America the generic enemy. The idea is to unite the Islam world together and eventually make it a radical Islam world. He simultaneously states his hatred for the Iraqi government: <I>"The fighting should be in the name of God only, not in the name of national ideologies, nor to seek victory for the ignorant governments that rule all Arab states, including Iraq," the statement said. </I> He's using Iraq (and the Palestinian cause) to latch onto causes that he can make into America vs. Islam. He may very well be working with Hussein, but he would likely be doing so in the hopes that it will get us to attack Iraq. That link I provided -- the "Somebody Else's Civil War" is a great read (a bit long) about his history and motives and stuff and fits his behavior patterns perfectly.
Sing to the tune of "If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands" If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq. If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq. If the terrorists are frisky, Pakistan is looking shifty, North Korea is too risky, Bomb Iraq. If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq. If we think someone has dissed us, bomb Iraq. So to hell with the inspections, Let's look tough for the elections, Close your mind and take directions, Bomb Iraq. It's "pre-emptive non-aggression", bomb Iraq. Let's prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq. They've got weapons we can't see, And that's good enough for me 'Cos it's all the proof I need Bomb Iraq. If you never were elected, bomb Iraq. If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq. If you think Saddam's gone mad, With the weapons that he had, (And he tried to kill your dad), Bomb Iraq. If your corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq. If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq. If your politics are sleazy, And hiding that ain't easy, And your manhood's getting queasy, Bomb Iraq. Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq. For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq. Disagree? We'll call it treason, Let's make war not love this season, Even if we have no reason, Bomb Iraq.
