This is
an open letter written by Noman Benotman, a former commander in the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and a former associate of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. In al Qaeda strategy meetings in Kandahar in 2000, Benotman warned the al-Qaeda leadership of ‘total failure' to realise their aims and called on bin Laden and al-Zawahiri to abandon violence. Soon after the 9/11 attacks, he distanced himself from al-Qaeda and later resigned from his own jihadist organisation. He has more recently been instrumental in negotiations with Libya's government to free former LIFG leaders, and in persuading these leaders to formally renounce terrorism. He also recently joined the London-based Quilliam Foundation as a Senior Analyst.
posted by bardophile
on Sep 13, 2010 -
22 comments
That afternoon, American signals operators picked up bin Laden speaking to his followers. Fury kept a careful log of these communications in his notebook, which he would type up at the end of every day and pass up his chain of command. “The time is now,” bin Laden said. “Arm your women and children against the infidel!” Following several hours of high-intensity bombing, the Al Qaeda leader spoke again. Fury paraphrases: “Our prayers have not been answered. Times are dire. We didn’t receive support from the apostate nations who call themselves our Muslim brothers.” Bin Laden apologized to his men for having involved them in the fight and gave them permission to surrender.
posted by jason's_planet
on Jan 29, 2010 -
26 comments
Mike Hawash pleads guilty to conspiring to provide services to the Taliban and will testify against his friends that attempted to travel to Afghanistan after September 11, 2001. After the previous MeFi threads about Mike
here and
here, this ought to be quite a suprise for some. No update yet on the
Free Mike Hawash site.
posted by schlyer
on Aug 6, 2003 -
30 comments
Bin Laden Unmasked? Robert Fisk
[ducks] reviews a '215 page treasure trove' written by an Al Jazeera journalist and published in Beirut. It contains a 'wealth of information' about the elusive billionaire and his followers. He communicates over the Internet - no surprise there - but the book gives some clues as to the site used:
al-Nidaa, 'The Calling'. Can you find it? The words of Mullah Omar are apparently distributed on site called the 'Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan',
wild goose chase? You decide.
posted by grahamwell
on Oct 23, 2002 -
5 comments
An excellent piece of media analysis by Michael Wolff in New York Magazine looking at the current summer-movie-plot version of Al Qaeda being artfully constructed by the NY Times ...
Then, perhaps most disconcertingly, the overall narrative itself is patently a dumbed-down rehash. It's Cold War stuff. There is the ubiquitous and yet unknown and unknowable enemy. There's the international jihad, which, with only minor adjustments, replaces the international communist conspiracy. There's the sudden purported hegemony of the Muslim world -- a new Soviet-bloc-style ideological monolith. There is the otherworldly dedication of operatives bent on overthrowing the West. There are the cells. There is the myth of superhuman discipline. There is now, even, the developing Kremlinology of the next tier of men who replace Osama. And at the center of the story, of course, is the bomb. Whether in massive retaliatory form or as a dirty-bomb package, it serves the same effect.
(link cribbed from
Altercation)
posted by mantid
on Jul 1, 2002 -
8 comments
"Peaceful Tomorrows" launches tomorrow (Feb 14th). "Peaceful Tomorrows continues the work of family members who took part in the Walk for Healing and Peace from the Pentagon to the World Trade Center (winter 2001) as well as those who met with Afghan families affected by the subsequent bombing campaign (January 2002).
Our goal is to facilitate dialogues on alternatives to war that utilize all of America's collective wisdom, skills and talents. "
Good luck Peaceful Tomorrows!
posted by crasspastor
on Feb 13, 2002 -
1 comment
From a piece in the NYTimes today,
Home Front Is Minefield for President:
"The lesson we're learning," one administration official said today, "is that you can bomb the wrong place in Afghanistan and not take much heat for it. But don't mess up at the post office."Leave it to the White House to come away with exactly the wrong interpretation. But the facts are there, too -- most Americans are more concerned about the (relatively slight) risk of getting Anthrax than the rather significant risk that, if we screw up in Afghanistan, we might lose the current coalition against terrorism, Bin Laden, and any hope for "homeland security" for a long time to come....
posted by mattpfeff
on Oct 25, 2001 -
12 comments
Chomsky on MSNBC talks about recent events! That would be news all by itself. I know that a lot of people on the right disagree with him, but who can argue with what he says here? Also from left field an incisive
Q&A about Afghanistan history and the current situation by Tariq Ali.
posted by talos
on Oct 8, 2001 -
25 comments
On the O'Reilly Factor, Phil Donahue leads a compelling argument for why bombing Afghanistan may NOT be the best course of action. It's obvious how the conservative O'Reilly feels about this and although the transcript hardly does the interview justice, Bill O'Reilly finally gets out-interrupted and is verbally handled by his own guest. (more)
posted by edwardko
on Sep 26, 2001 -
9 comments
'
AMERICA and Britain are producing secret plans to launch a ten-year “war on terrorism”..' declares
this (otherwise fairly generic) article without citing its sources. Be prepared for the possible oxymoron of a line that is '
the whole focus of the long-term American approach was being driven by Richard Cheney..'
Oh yeah -- hate to promote Murdoch media but also noteworthy in this mornings edition of the London Times are the revelations that whilst 200 British '
are certain to have perished', a further
800 are missing following the disaster and a piece warning of a '
nightmare scenario' in which Pakistan could
lose control of its nuclear weapons to none other than THE TALIBAN.
posted by Kino
on Sep 20, 2001 -
8 comments
Well, here we go. Macau authorities have arrested five Pakistanis of (officially) overstaying their visas. They also may be (again, speaking officially here) robbery suspects. But about halfway down the page, we find this little three-liner:
''According to preliminary investigations, the documents seized [in the arrest] appear to contain instructions to attack American targets in the SAR and Macau in the case of an American attack on Afghanistan,'' the [government] source said.
posted by Bixby23
on Sep 17, 2001 -
7 comments
Pakistan faces strategic decision Pakistan has assumed a lot of importance once again, ironicaly, when the US of A needs its help. The geographic nature of the country along with love hate relationship with Bin Laden, and Taleban, also past
very close ties between Pakistan Intelligence
ISI and CIA has suddenly brought Pakistan to the verge of another very important decision.
How much should Pakistan help USA ? Is the US of A trustable after what happened when they left it alienated when their mission of breaking up of the Soviet Union was achieved ? What is to make sure that USA will not use it and dispose of, just like it has done before ? Should Pakistan allow its air and land resources to be used for a possible attack on Afghanistan ?
These are decisons - for a keen observer of Pak-US ties - that can change how historians will write about a Fundamentalist America's reply to an attack on its fundamentals.
posted by adnanbwp
on Sep 12, 2001 -
5 comments
